quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sure the NSA could immediately issue cards for every single American. They wouldn't even need us to submit a new passport sized photo for them.
They might need help spelling the names though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
We're already celebrating Hilary's win in 2016?
I'd like that too, but don't you think it might be a little premature?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hooray! Racism is over guys!
The willful stupidity of men as sharp as Roberts and Scalia and the little stooges (Alito and Thomas) just beggars the imagination when it comes to this issue and Doma. It's just insane.
Having taught for ten years in urban communities, it's just patently disingenuous for them to make the arguments they so willfully do. It's well past time the justices simply admit they vote their political prejudice 19 times out 20, and out of political expediency for their lone exceptions (Roberts wanting to keep the courts long since departed reputation as an unbiased, politics free establishment, by stemming the non-stop conservative judgments in case after case since the atrocity that was Citizens United) and Bush V Gore a decade earlier).
Yeah, it's like — Scalia's froth and awe over this 'jurisdictionally overreaching' ruling is completely inconsistent with anything but the realization that he uses it as a thin veil to protect himself from allegations of things like bigotry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You don't think Obama's justices are partisan?
It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Dems get to replace one of the conservative Court members in the next 7 years (if they win again in 2016). Republicans let Kagan and Sotomayor get past mostly because they aren't flaming liberal activists and because they weren't replacing staunch conservatives. But if they have to put someone like Sotomayor in the place of Alito or Thomas? Forget about it.
Sure they're partisan, but they don't dress up their partisan views as a judicial philosophy based on a supposed true reading of the constitution and it's writers intentions, whether its Scalia's bogus contextualism, or strict constructionism.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the liberal-bubble bloggers I read because I agree with themview them very highly
There, fixed that for ya.
I do not believe you have evidence for this; nor why even if we supposed they *were* liberal that should matter anymore than say, assuming because Thomas is black he would support the VRA; it seems rather fallacious.
Also whats "bubble blogger" and why is it relevant to whether the liberal justices are consistent with legal practice and mores, and why suppose you just mean "blogger" why its more or less credible; I for one am not within walking distance of any constitutional scholars are you?
At best I know one Theologian in real life and that's about it.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because they don't kowtow at the altar of strict constructionism and say the sacred Framers Prayer three times before issuing a ruling doesn't mean the liberal justices aren't just as partisan. Maybe they do their PR better, but they are.
And for that matter, Scalia and Roberts are excellent justices. Scalia is brilliant, and he writes excellent opinions. I happen to disagree with him on just about everything, but he's not a hack by any stretch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes a stridently partisan outlook to label him as such, in fact-so partisan that opposing views become partisan by default.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, what cases support this argument? Citizens United? School Bussing? Affirmative Action? Doma? The absurd ideas about the VRA that Scalia has spouted off?
The sense I get with these guys is they have less than zero idea of what actually goes on in the lives of 99% of the people in this country, and while that might not be relevant if they were making their decisions explicitly based upon their judicial philosophy, backed by facts or evidence, they clearly and fundamentally ARE NOT. Their shifting their justifications for their decisions on a case by case basis, twisting their philosophy into knots, and breaking it as need be to vote their political interests.
That's reality.
If one wishes to argue that the 4 liberal justices do the same, I would quibble to some degree as the liberal justices haven't been part and parcel of a movement whose supposed objective was fealty to the true, originalist meaning of the constitution (which is of course, utter bollocks), or to any other philosophy. They come from a variety of backgrounds, supporting a variety of interpretations of the constitution whose one commonality is difference from originalists and contextualists like Roberts and Scalia.
Both groups just need to own that they vote their political and philosophical bias, period, because its patently obvious that they do so. There are certainly rare exceptions, but there aren't all that many of them.
I do believe Roberts and Scalia are very, very smart men, and talented justices, but far too often they try to pull the wool over peoples eyes, as perfectly exemplified by Roberts farcical argument that he viewed a SCOTUS judge as a baseball umpire back during his confirmation hearings. Something that isn't born out by any stretch based on his voting record since being confirmed.
I can handle the b.s. a lot better if these guys were intellectually honest, rather than disingenuous frauds.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knocking down DOMA and the VRA should have been 9-0 decisions. They both used the same Federalism argument, but the liberals likes the VRA and hate DOMA, and the conservatives are the opposite. So they both used the same rationale on their pet partisan issues and switched sides for the other issue. So we got two 5-4 decisions using the same philosophy, but everyone switched sides.
Both sides are ideologically driven, and most SCOTUS historians would probably agree that's the case. Roberts hews a bit to the center sometimes because he feels the weight of being Chief Justice, and knows that it's often his job to protect the integrity of the Court, which is the only reason he voted to uphold Obamacare.
Again, the liberals aren't part of the propaganda stuff the way the conservatives are, but that all messaging, which is less interesting to me. I try to read the judicial opinions when I can, and when you look at it that way, both sides regularly flip flop to support their partisan views.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Knocking down DOMA and the VRA should have been 9-0 decisions. They both used the same Federalism argument, but the liberals likes the VRA and hate DOMA, and the conservatives are the opposite. So they both used the same rationale on their pet partisan issues and switched sides for the other issue. So we got two 5-4 decisions using the same philosophy, but everyone switched sides.
Both sides are ideologically driven, and most SCOTUS historians would probably agree that's the case. Roberts hews a bit to the center sometimes because he feels the weight of being Chief Justice, and knows that it's often his job to protect the integrity of the Court, which is the only reason he voted to uphold Obamacare.
Again, the liberals aren't part of the propaganda stuff the way the conservatives are, but that all messaging, which is less interesting to me. I try to read the judicial opinions when I can, and when you look at it that way, both sides regularly flip flop to support their partisan views.
*blink* Why should the VRA been a 9-0 decision? The constitution specifically gives Congress the power to enforce and implement it.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Republicans in politically irrelevant glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I'm a Republican now? Huh. Okay.
I mean, I vote for 'em sometimes, but still, that's news to me.
I don't seem to recall you accepting the scientific data regarding environmentalism if we're talking about 'information bubbles'.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Most of the liberal-bubble bloggers I read because I agree with them view them very highly
There, fixed that for ya.
I do not believe you have evidence for this;
Ok, I'm always open to having my theories falsified; which right-wing-ish bloggers do you read?
You realize that's something of a non-sequitor, your assuming that those whose legal opinions I've read are "liberal bubble bloggers"; first lets assume that Dan is right and you meant "liberal bubble" to mean people who are liberal and thus ignore information or arguments that contradict that; and second lets be generous and assume by "blogger" you mean anyone who posts something on the internet.
I am saying that it is impossible for you to know that the people who, based on second hand information from me, are in such a bubble, because you've never met them.
Me reading say, right wing forums or blogs would only go to prove that I'm not in a bubble; but it wouldn't prove whether the people I am referring to are in such a bubble.
quote:Me reading say, right wing forums or blogs would only go to prove that I'm not in a bubble; but it wouldn't prove whether the people I am referring to are in such a bubble.
I see what you mean; my sentence was clumsy. However, I did actually intend to accuse you, not the blogs you read, of being in a liberal bubble. You can still disprove that point.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to note, or ignore, that the second the ruling came down, numerous states impacted by the overturned decision immediately set about passing new laws specifically designed to harass minorities, and limit their vote. I'll feign surprise (and will cede that the despicable strategy is a national one, not just regional, in design).
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s not surprised that Southern states have pushed ahead with tough voter identification laws and other measures since the Supreme Court freed them from strict federal oversight of their elections.
Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas’ decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.
The Justice Department said Thursday it would try to bring Texas and other places back under the advance approval requirement through a part of the law that was not challenged.
“The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said in a wide-ranging interview late Wednesday in her office at the court. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen.”
The 80-year-old justice dissented from the 5-4 decision on the voting law. Ginsburg said in her dissent that discarding the law was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Just a month removed from the decision, she said, “I didn’t want to be right, but sadly I am.”
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Eighty years old? Ugh. There're a couple liberals on the court that need to step down before the President's term is up.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you were demanding Burger and Renquist's retirements when they were back to back chief justices as late as their 79th and 80th birthday's respectively, right?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you misunderstand. He's saying that she's on the cusp of being too old for the job, and should retire now while there's a chance of getting a decent justice instead of holding on and possibly winding up with someone like Thomas.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of you have ever had any formal education in the law? Probably not a lot.
Part of the reason that so many people view SCOTUS as being extremely political is that the mass media only covers the really political cases! And, believe it or not, politics have a large part to play in justiciability. A lot of what the court did this last term was punt the ball politically, which is the norm not the exception.
Law is not "deductive" in its application. Pertinent empircal information on policy can and has been used to change the way that the courts address particular issues. I believe a lot of Americans forget that we live in a common law system of government and it is in our legal tradition to make and change law based on policy.
Just to point something out, just because a justice votes with the majority does not mean that they are necessarily in complete agreement on the logic used in an opinion. In the end we created a final level of appellate review for constitutional matters that is decided by a majority vote of justices, who are selected by a nationally elected executive figure, and confirmed by a majority vote of statewide elected legislators; it is inherently political.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i view the scotus as extremely political because it is extremely political. anybody who wants to argue otherwise has to argue through having their brains claw-hammered in by the conveniently laser-targeted exterior product of "originalism" — so, godspeed on that one
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's political-just not in the usual way. It's political in that its members must navigate an *incredibly* politicized process (confirmation) managed by professional politicians, to say nothing of their careers up to that point. So they're politicized (the justices), but as time passes that becomes less current-but I don't think anyone would argue they abruptly shed the politics that enabled them to get through a career of appointments and even elections, culminating in confirmation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
it can actually be argued that to actually be apolitical as a judge would, by now, ice your chances for nomination to the SCOTUS. Game theory broke the court in this way — if your opponents are going to, in the times they hold the presidency, elect partisans, you must elect partisans. And you will see this with a stronger and stronger bent over time.
That and current attempts to measure the 'bias' of judges is usually dorked out with subjective compromise analysis, where 'unbiased' is taken to mean 'directly inbetween the current overall positions of modern-day conservatives and modern-day liberals'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When MALDEF’s Perales asked Dyer at her May 15, 2014, deposition about the emails, the state researcher said that Opiela appeared to be asking for “metrics,” which Interiano later sought from her office. Her interpretation of Opiela’s meaning in his emails: “[H]e’s trying to shore up — well, he says that — shore up districts so he can get — have them appear to be high Hispanic, but low Spanish surname registered voters. … You could give the appearance of having a Hispanic majority district, but it wouldn’t have the capability to elect — for the Hispanics in the district– to elect the person of their choice.”
David R. Richards, who also represents Perez plaintiffs and shares a notion or two about Texas politics as the ex-husband of the late former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards, said about Opiela’s emails: “I think everyone sees them as a smoking gun.” The emails show a clear attempt “to switch out Hispanic precincts with high voter turnout and substitute them with low voter turnout” — knowing that the Hispanic populations traditionally vote Democratic — but, at the same time, wanting to meet then obligations of the Voting Rights Act, which, at the time, still were in effect, Richards said. “You look like you preserve the vitality of a Hispanic district because of the raw numbers but the reality is you have — because of substituting out the high turnout with low turnout — hollowed out the core of the district and weakened the Democratic component of the district,” Richards said.
MALDEF’s Perales believes the Opiela emails “reveal a strategy that was very much similar to the redistricting strategy of Texas struck down by the Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry in 2006, an attempt to create sham Latino districts to prop up incumbents not preferred by Latino voters.”
posted
I say we just hire a Canadian firm to redistrict the entire United States by what makes sense from a geographic and political (legal boundaries) perspective, with no consideration for demographics.
It would throw campaigning into chaos, and news networks would have to throw out all their data and maps they use to predict how elections would go, but it would also stop this useless crap from happening.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
