Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

[Parkbandit]

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact he is in the younger half of the court's age range with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Factors in his decision no doubt include the election of President Obama, who would be more likely to appoint a successor attuned to the principles Souter has followed as a moderate-to-liberal member of the court's more liberal bloc over the past two decades.

In addition, Souter was apparently satisfied than neither the court's oldest member, 89-year-old John Paul Stevens, nor its lone woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery over the winter, wanted to retire at the end of this term. Not wanting to cause a second vacancy, Souter apparently had waited to learn his colleague's plans before deciding his own.

Given his first appointment to the high court, most observers expect Obama will appoint a woman, since the court currently only has one woman justice, and obama was elected with strong support from women. But an Obama pick would not likely change the ideological make-up of the court.

Souter was a Republican appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, largely on the recommendation of New Hampshire's former governor John Sununu, who had become the first President Bush's chief of staff.

But Souter surprised Bush and other Republicans by joining the court's more liberal wing.

He generally votes with Stevens and the two justices who were appointed by President Bill Clinton — making up the bloc of four more liberal members of the court, a group that has usually been in the minority throughout Souter's tenure.

Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomaor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future president Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.

President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.

By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is expected to have a 60th Democrat, as the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to approve the recount that elected Democrat Al Franken over incumbent Repubican Norm Coleman in that state.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

[Jorddyn]

I think the big news here is that PB read npr.org.

[Parkbandit]

I think...

I read this much of your post, then knew it was bullshit.

[radamanthys]

Sometimes the message itself is more important than who delivered it.

Just sayin'.

[Back]

Free weed for everyone!

[Jorddyn]

I read this much of your post, then knew it was bullshit.

Lighten up. It was funny.

[Warriorbird]

Sometimes the message itself is more important than who delivered it.

Just sayin'.

Not acknowledging bias leads to all sorts of problems... or so the Republicans are fond of saying. Some folks also seem to only be able to take jokes when they're doing the telling.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Not acknowledging bias leads to all sorts of problems... or so the Republicans are fond of saying. Some folks also seem to only be able to take jokes when they're doing the telling.

That's why I always try to remember you are a moderate or a libertarian or something when you constantly make generalizations about Republicans, and never have anything negative to say about Democrats.

[radamanthys]

...just like how I try to remember that my very existence on a message board offends your sensibilities?

"Hmm, let me ignore political topics for months! Oh snap, Warriorbird posted and for some reason it rose to the level of enraging my blackened little heart! I better get my hate on! Parkbandit needs my help!"

Glass houses.

:D

Besides... I rather doubt you could pull the opposite game to my Federalist society membership and votes for the other party.

Democratic failures in my book in recent times? No accelerated pullout from Iraq, the bullshit telecommunications bill, and bailing out both the financial institutions and the auto industry.

I doubt some of the more conservative types could even accept the idea of Republicans being wrong on anything.

Got any yourself? Got any input on Souter's replacement? I personally think the suggestion of Deval Patrick would make Obama look politically bankrupt.

I like Stephen Bright for the court pick even though I disagree with the issue he cares about the most.

...but no, wait, you just wanted to get at me rather than discuss. I'll leave you be. It's not like you're regular at it, PB style, or something.

Hahahahaha. Saved for posterity.

You're about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox news. It's not a bad thing, life would be boring if everyone agreed. But the idea that you're a champion of Moderate thought is laughable at best. I'd say you've reached Ilvane level bias, but I think that quote's taken.

Start attacking the sources of Democrats/Liberals who post articles on these boards. Maybe then you'll earn some credibility toward your aforementioned.

[Warriorbird]

Who posts any?

Case closed.

Not that you have any bias yourself... what with 'rational explanations' about immigration and the defense of the tea parties.

Actually had that immigration example cited in a lecture recently. It appears real rational until you consider that most third world countries send no immigrants towards America... and Mexico's birth rate is much lower.

[Gan]

...just like how I try to remember that my very existence on a message board offends your sensibilities?

"Hmm, let me ignore political topics for months! Oh snap, Warriorbird posted and for some reason it rose to the level of enraging my blackened little heart! I better get my hate on! Parkbandit needs my help!"

Glass houses.

:D

Besides... I rather doubt you could pull the opposite game to my Federalist society membership and votes for the other party.

Democratic failures in my book in recent times? No accelerated pullout from Iraq, the bullshit telecommunications bill, and bailing out both the financial institutions and the auto industry.

I doubt some of the more conservative types could even accept the idea of Republicans being wrong on anything.

Got any yourself? Got any input on Souter's replacement? I personally think the suggestion of Deval Patrick would make Obama look politically bankrupt.

I like Stephen Bright for the court pick even though I disagree with the issue he cares about the most.

...but no, wait, you just wanted to get at me rather than discuss. I'll leave you be. It's not like you're regular at it, PB style, or something.

LOL
(at you sir, not with you)

PS.

My money is on Diane Wood.

[Parkbandit]

...just like how I try to remember that my very existence on a message board offends your sensibilities?

"Hmm, let me ignore political topics for months! Oh snap, Warriorbird posted and for some reason it rose to the level of enraging my blackened little heart! I better get my hate on! Parkbandit needs my help!"

Glass houses.

:D

Besides... I rather doubt you could pull the opposite game to my Federalist society membership and votes for the other party.

Democratic failures in my book in recent times? No accelerated pullout from Iraq, the bullshit telecommunications bill, and bailing out both the financial institutions and the auto industry.

I doubt some of the more conservative types could even accept the idea of Republicans being wrong on anything.

Got any yourself? Got any input on Souter's replacement? I personally think the suggestion of Deval Patrick would make Obama look politically bankrupt.

I like Stephen Bright for the court pick even though I disagree with the issue he cares about the most.

...but no, wait, you just wanted to get at me rather than discuss. I'll leave you be. It's not like you're regular at it, PB style, or something.

1) LOL @ you for thinking I need assistance. That's never, ever been the case.. and certainly not against you. TEH STREAK CONTINUES!!

2) LOL @ you for bringing up glass houses. T&S pointed it out and you confirmed it beautifully. You really should put up some curtains.

3) LOL @ you for your "OMG, I can bring up bad things about Democrats when I am pressed for it".

4) LOL @ you for "Why don't you talk about the topic instead of attacking me" defense.. it only took you 3 posts in this topic to actually contribute and only so you could say you did.

In conclusion.. you are a fucking tool who is more wrong more often than anyone I know.

[Warriorbird]

It is nice when you band together and pick up the pom poms.

:)

[Parkbandit]

Lighten up. It was funny.

It was an attempt at being funny.... just not a very good one.

[Parkbandit]

It is nice when you band together and pick up the pom poms.

:)

One thing that really brings people together is a moron.

You sir, are King of all Morons. Hey.. contact this website and copy this thread... I'm certain they will want to use your story to increase sales.

http://www.moronregistry.com

http://www.moronregistry.com/files/king_moron_pack_small.jpg

[Warriorbird]

So what you're after is some Republican slanted news story gets posted... and then you all agree with each other.

It's like the Bush Administration. I mean... alternately there's always http://www.redstate.com/.

EDIT:

Alternately you could just read the Drudge Report. You all already do anyways. You can go there and check the links.

[Parkbandit]

So what you're after is some Republican slanted news story gets posted... and then you all agree with each other.

It's like the Bush Administration. I mean... alternately there's always http://www.redstate.com/.

TEH STREAK CONTINUES!!

I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Here, I will attempt to dumb it down to your level:

http://ownedirl.com/misc/You-Are-Fucking_Retard.gif

[Warriorbird]

Hmm. Anybody have a link to that guide to being Parkbandit?

[Parkbandit]

try:

http://somethingwarriorbirdwillneverbebecauseheisfartoomu chofaretard.com

[Warriorbird]

The thing you don't seem to grasp is your innate amateurism at this whole concept.

Repetition leads to unfunny.

I do like your band though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCxDZRJKkqY

[Keller]

So who will the nominee be?

I think that it is sure to be a female. And, in that case, I'm strongly favoring Elena Kagan. If not Kagan, than Diane Wood.

If male -- it's a crap shoot. One popular name is Harold Koh. But if Obama is going to go with a brilliant academic and former Harvard Dean -- he'll pick Kagan over Koh because of the vahjayjay.

[g++]

This thread is a perfect example of why a free thinking supreme court judge would rather hide under his bed then try to fairly interpret the law. Everything no matter how mundane turns into a party driven argument.

[Warriorbird]

The irony is this. To be a free thinking Supreme Court Justice you need not to make yourself appear not to be to begin with.

[Parkbandit]

So who will the nominee be?

I think that it is sure to be a female. And, in that case, I'm strongly favoring Elena Kagan. If not Kagan, than Diane Wood.

If male -- it's a crap shoot. One popular name is Harold Koh. But if Obama is going to go with a brilliant academic and former Harvard Dean -- he'll pick Kagan over Koh because of the vahjayjay.
Who is the Hispanic chick that dismissed that Firefighter case where the results of a test didn't have any blacks that scored high enough? She has to be a top contender since she is female and Hispanic and judges extremely liberally. Sounds like a nobrainer for Obama.

[Keller]

Who is the Hispanic chick that dismissed that Firefighter case where the results of a test didn't have any blacks that scored high enough? She has to be a top contender since she is female and Hispanic and judges extremely liberally. Sounds like a nobrainer for Obama.


I think you forgot the italics.

Either that or you might want to wipe the foam from the corner of your lips and avoid biting others.

[ClydeR]

I think that it is sure to be a female. And, in that case, I'm strongly favoring Elena Kagan. If not Kagan, than Diane Wood.

Yes, probably a woman. It will be either a white or hispanic woman but definitely not a black woman. In addition, it will be somebody who isn't too old and is in good health. That means it won't be a fat woman.

So says Clyde.

Edit: I didn't want to point any fingers with my fat comment, but we all know who I was talking about.

[ClydeR]

Who is the Hispanic chick that dismissed that Firefighter case where the results of a test didn't have any blacks that scored high enough?

You probably mean Sonia Sotomayor. She is definitely a top contender.

[Gan]

Dear WB,

Do you have your.Federalist Society ID card with you at all times?

You know, just in case your integrity is ever questioned...

And does it get you a discount at the local wal-mart?

:rofl:


PS. Do you guys also have a secret handshake?

[Parkbandit]

I think you forgot the italics.

Either that or you might want to wipe the foam from the corner of your lips and avoid biting others.

There was no sarcasm there at all. Obama is all about election repayment. Look what he gave the UAW already... 55% of Chrysler and he got that like a couple of days BEFORE they went Chapter 11. Now it's time to repay women AND Hispanics, all while keeping his ability to legislate directly from the court.

[Keller]

There was no sarcasm there at all. Obama is all about election repayment. Look what he gave the UAW already... 55% of Chrysler and he got that like a couple of days BEFORE they went Chapter 11. Now it's time to repay women AND Hispanics, all while keeping his ability to legislate directly from the court.

How does she "judge liberally"?

[Parkbandit]

How does she "judge liberally"?

We've already discussed the case:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=42287&highlight=FIREFIGHTERS

Couple that with this:

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/blog_archive/2008_12_01_archive.html

and in particular:


affirmed the dismissal, in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both. … The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters' appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case.”

[Keller]

Anything else besides this one case?

[Parkbandit]

Anything else besides this one case?

PB: She's a liberal judge
Keller: How does she judge liberally?
PB: Example
Keller: Any other examples?


Dude.. you and I will never, ever agree on politics. If you want to find out more Sotomayor, you have the capability to do so. There are far more educated opinions on her liberal bias available for your perusal.

[Keller]

PB: She's a liberal judge
Keller: How does she judge liberally?
PB: Example
Keller: Any other examples?


Dude.. you and I will never, ever agree on politics. If you want to find out more Sotomayor, you have the capability to do so. There are far more educated opinions on her liberal bias available for your perusal.

PB: She judges extremely liberally.
Keller: How does she judge liberally?
PB: Example
Keller: Is that it?

If I said, Mike is an extremely shoddy contractor -- would you be ok with me just pointing to one example or substandard worksmanship?

There is no doubt she is liberal. There is a reason people think Obama will choose her. But you, again, can't engage in civil political discourse without whipping out hyperbole to try and make a point.

Usually, when one claims EXTREME anything, I think, "bullshit, make them prove it."

[Keller]

A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been re­garded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Reared by her widowed mother after the death of her father, a tool-and-die worker, she has an attractive life narrative and an even more attractive resumé.
She was an editor of the Yale Law Review, did heavy lifting as a prosecutor under legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and worked in private practice as an intellectual property litigator.
She was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, then to the appeals court by President Clinton. In 1995, she won the gratitude of baseball fans by issuing an injunction against team owners, setting the stage for the end of the eight-month strike that led to the cancellation of the 1994 World Series.


Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been regarded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Reared by her widowed mother after the death of her father, a tool-and-die worker, she has an attractive life narrative and an even more attractive resumé. She was an editor of the Yale Law Review, did heavy lifting as a prosecutor under legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and worked in private practice as an intellectual property litigator. She was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, then to the appeals court by President Clinton.



Democratic lawyers who follow nomination politics say that U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 50, of New York, would be a top contender for a Kerry appointment. Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is known as a moderate jurist and could represent a bipartisan choice: She was tapped for a U.S. trial court seat by the first President Bush, then elevated to the appeals court by Clinton.

She sounds EXTREME to me.

[EasternBrand]

Although Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa are often credited with this, in fact it was Sonia Sotomayor who saved baseball (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/01/us/baseball-woman-in-the-news-strike-zone-arbitrator-sonia-sotomayor.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Sotomayor,%20Sonia). Therefore I suspect that her nomination, if it happens, will fall apart over allegations of steroid use.

[Keller]

Although Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa are often credited with this, in fact it was Sonia Sotomayor who saved baseball (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/01/us/baseball-woman-in-the-news-strike-zone-arbitrator-sonia-sotomayor.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Sotomayor,%20Sonia). Therefore I suspect that her nomination, if it happens, will fall apart over allegations of steroid use.

Wrong. Because she's an EXTREME LIBERAL COMMUNIST JUDGE, she was actually trying to bring down America by destroying baseball.

She also precided over the landmark case Oscar Meyer v. The City of New York in which she ruled that the City of New York (aka New Stalingrad) could outlaw hot dogs, american pie, and anything else that was remotely American.

/endsarcasm

[EasternBrand]

Wrong. Because she's an EXTREME LIBERAL COMMUNIST JUDGE, she was actually trying to bring down America by destroying baseball.

She also precided over the landmark case Oscar Meyer v. The City of New York in which she ruled that the City of New York (aka New Stalingrad) could outlaw hot dogs, american pie, and anything else that was remotely American.

/endsarcasm

I'm not saying one way or the other whether she's liberal or conservative, only that her extensive muscle growth later in life is extremely suspicious. And there was the one time she broke a gavel over her leg.

Actually, she was my first thought when I heard the news about Souter. Another woman on the Court might incentivize Ginsburg to consider retiring earlier to attend to her health, and I suspect THAT seat will be wide open. I don't think Kagan will be getting the nod this time around (but look for her as a replacement to Ginsburg or Stevens), and I don't know enough about Diane Wood to make any kind of educated guess. But I do agree that Souter's replacement is almost certainly going to be a woman.

[Parkbandit]

When do "the gays" get repayment? Equal marriage rights, maybe? DOMA being repealed? Don't ask, don't tell being repealed? Still waiting!

Why do you suddenly believe that Obama is for gay marriage? His stand has been pretty consistantly against it.

[Keller]

Why do you suddenly believe that Obama is for gay marriage? His stand has been pretty consistantly against it.

That might be It's point.

Your "repayment" theory to Obama policies doesn't hold water when it comes to gay marriage.

[Warriorbird]

Dear WB,

Do you have your.Federalist Society ID card with you at all times?

You know, just in case your integrity is ever questioned...

And does it get you a discount at the local wal-mart?

:rofl:


PS. Do you guys also have a secret handshake?

The conservative girls tend to be really hot... and real repressed. Heavy Catholicism down here. I might even get elected officer next year.

[Parkbandit]

PB: She judges extremely liberally.
Keller: How does she judge liberally?
PB: Example
Keller: Is that it?

If I said, Mike is an extremely shoddy contractor -- would you be ok with me just pointing to one example or substandard worksmanship?

There is no doubt she is liberal. There is a reason people think Obama will choose her. But you, again, can't engage in civil political discourse without whipping out hyperbole to try and make a point.

Usually, when one claims EXTREME anything, I think, "bullshit, make them prove it."


Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.



Sotomayor is considered "one of the more liberal" judges on the Court of Appeals


Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”


During her first year on the appeals bench, she received high ratings from liberal public-interest groups.


Sonia Sotomayor is probably top of the list for an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court. Why? There is one major group that has never had representation on the SCOTUS, and that is Hispanics. She is probably the most prominent Hispanic judge in the country, and she is a women. There have only been two women, and currently only one on the court, who is likely to retire soon. Also, she is a liberal of course.


Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.


In fact, Sotomayor is by almost all accounts the very most liberal judge on the Second Circuit, with an ominous enthusiasm for racial preferences.


She is described as being a very liberal, adamantly pro-choice judge and as a “realist.”


Dustin (Yea.. I know you know my real name.. is it really necessary since we are far from a first name basis? You remind me of Ashliana {Earl} or Celtar {Jim}.. pretending there is some familiarity or relationship.. where clearly there is none. I don't get it.. but whatever...)

I realize this still won't be enough for you... But you, again, can't engage in civil political discourse without trying to prove me or any other conservative wrong by using retarded, ClydeR like sarcasm and using terms like "OMG U R USING HYPERBOLE!!! to try and prove your point.

[Parkbandit]

That might be It's point.

Your "repayment" theory to Obama policies doesn't hold water when it comes to gay marriage.

Obama never courted the gay vote.. Obama did court the woman vote, the hispanic vote and the union vote.

My theory holds plenty of water.. it might be your understanding of it that needs work.

[Keller]

I'm fairly certain you started the trend between the two of us of using first names, do you really want to make that point?

[Parkbandit]

I'm fairly certain you started the trend between the two of us of using first names, do you really want to make that point?

Usually, when one claims "I'm fairly certain", I think, "bullshit, make them prove it."

Prove it.

[Ravenstorm]

Obama never courted the gay vote..

He most certainly did.

[Back]

http://www.zendada.com/images/obamapalm.jpg

[Parkbandit]

He most certainly did.

Yes, he sure did. I bet you were just elated when he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman on national TV.

Hillary Clinton courted the gay vote (probably because she's a lesbian...) but Obama didn't.

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, he sure did. I bet you were just elated when he defined marriage as being between a man and a woman on national TV.

Hillary Clinton courted the gay vote (probably because she's a lesbian...) but Obama didn't.

Simply put, you're wrong. Just google 'logo visible vote 08'. Obama was right there with all the other Democratic candidates courting our vote. He's promised full civil unions on a federal level that are the equal to marriage (and yes, I don't agree with him that they should be separate but equal), the repeal of DADT, no federal marriage amendment, passage of ENDA.... The list goes on.

[Methais]

Not acknowledging bias leads to all sorts of problems... or so the Republicans are fond of saying. Some folks also seem to only be able to take jokes when they're doing the telling.

Are you trying to say that you're not biased?

EDIT: Damn I'm pretty late to this thread :(

[Methais]

If I said, Mike is an extremely shoddy contractor -- would you be ok with me just pointing to one example or substandard worksmanship?

It worked with Michael Richards.

[Keller]

Usually, when one claims "I'm fairly certain", I think, "bullshit, make them prove it."

Prove it.

June 6, 2008 was the first time for me. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=742925&highlight=mike#post742925)

And May 15, 2008 for you (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=730426&highlight=dustin#post730426)

[Parkbandit]

Simply put, you're wrong. Just google 'logo visible vote 08'. Obama was right there with all the other Democratic candidates courting our vote. He's promised full civil unions on a federal level that are the equal to marriage (and yes, I don't agree with him that they should be separate but equal), the repeal of DADT, no federal marriage amendment, passage of ENDA.... The list goes on.

Hey.. if that is what you call courting the gay vote.. by telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to be married and that we will come up with something else for you.. sub-citizen. Enjoy that support!!

Having a lesbian couple working for me for the past 3 years.. they completely disagree with you. They felt betrayed that the nominee of their party told them that they were not on equal terms as heterosexual couples.

[Parkbandit]

June 6, 2008 was the first time for me. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=742925&highlight=mike#post742925)

And May 15, 2008 for you (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=730426&highlight=dustin#post730426)

Awesome.

I suppose you missed this post by you:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=730949&postcount=186

Which was also dated 5/15/08.

But your point still stands... I started it first and you are merely a victim.

[Ravenstorm]

Hey.. if that is what you call courting the gay vote.. by telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to be married and that we will come up with something else for you.. sub-citizen. Enjoy that support!!

Having a lesbian couple working for me for the past 3 years.. they completely disagree with you. They felt betrayed that the nominee of their party told them that they were not on equal terms as heterosexual couples.

And I agree with them that he's wrong. That doesn't mean though that he didn't court the gay vote. Marriage is just one issue out of many.

[Parkbandit]

And I agree with them that he's wrong. That doesn't mean though that he didn't court the gay vote. Marriage is just one issue out of many.

I won't argue with gay issues.. since you are by far the expert. I'm only going on perception. Hillary stated that she was for gay marriage, Obama said he was against it. To many gays, that's a huge deal. In your case, it sounds like it isn't.

:shrug:

[Ravenstorm]

I won't argue with gay issues.. since you are by far the expert. I'm only going on perception. Hillary stated that she was for gay marriage, Obama said he was against it. To many gays, that's a huge deal. In your case, it sounds like it isn't.

Actually, it is. But it's only one issue. DADT, ENDA, DOMA are all very important and issues he's come out on in favor of the gay community. If he believes in 'traditional marriage' (and he's on record ten years ago in supporting full marriage rights so I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying for political expediency in supporting only civil unions though I'm not counting on it) that's still a step in the right direction.

By no means do I think he's 'our man' but he did make the effort to court us and ask for our vote. But which Democratic candidate doesn't? Pat us on the head and get the gay vote. They're better than the Republicans, right? Someday, that argument is goign to stop working unless they follow through.

[Clove]

It was an attempt at being funny.... just not a very good one.I disagree, it was at least as funny as WB's "I'm more moderate than all of you, you bastard trolls" post (but Jorddyn was deliberately entertaining).

[Methais]

Actually, it is. But it's only one issue. DADT, ENDA, DOMA are all very important and issues he's come out on in favor of the gay community. If he believes in 'traditional marriage' (and he's on record ten years ago in supporting full marriage rights so I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying for political expediency in supporting only civil unions though I'm not counting on it) that's still a step in the right direction.

By no means do I think he's 'our man' but he did make the effort to court us and ask for our vote. But which Democratic candidate doesn't? Pat us on the head and get the gay vote. They're better than the Republicans, right? Someday, that argument is goign to stop working unless they follow through.

Perez 4 Prez '12?

[Ravenstorm]

Perez 4 Prez '12?

He's an idiot.

[Tea & Strumpets]

All I know that is if Keller or PB give me any lip or backtalk, I'm busting out their first names to put them in their place.

You've been warned you two.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, it is. But it's only one issue. DADT, ENDA, DOMA are all very important and issues he's come out on in favor of the gay community. If he believes in 'traditional marriage' (and he's on record ten years ago in supporting full marriage rights so I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying for political expediency in supporting only civil unions though I'm not counting on it) that's still a step in the right direction.

By no means do I think he's 'our man' but he did make the effort to court us and ask for our vote. But which Democratic candidate doesn't? Pat us on the head and get the gay vote. They're better than the Republicans, right? Someday, that argument is goign to stop working unless they follow through.


That argument will always work... it's worked for 50 years for the poor, hasn't it? It's worked for 40 years for blacks, hasn't it? They feed people a line and tell them things are going to get better and people fall for it every time.

People are generally stupid and ignorant.

[Parkbandit]

All I know that is if Keller or PB give me any lip or backtalk, I'm busting out their first names to put them in their place.

You've been warned you two.

Who are you again? Do I even know you?

[Parkbandit]

I disagree, it was at least as funny as WB's "I'm more moderate than all of you, you bastard trolls" post (but Jorddyn was deliberately entertaining).

You have to take context into every bit of humor. Jorddyn was trying to be funny.. and she fell flat. WB was trying to be serious and his humor was unintentional.. which made it absolutely hilarious. Then the fumbling around when people called him out was priceless.

[Warriorbird]

So... right up there with you saying that nothing's changed for black people in 40 years, y'know, what with Obama being inaugurated and all?

[Ravenstorm]

That argument will always work... it's worked for 50 years for the poor, hasn't it? It's worked for 40 years for blacks, hasn't it? They feed people a line and tell them things are going to get better and people fall for it every time.

Except it's also true. They are better than the Republicans when it comes to equal rights and don't actively demonize us. They just don't move fast enough or do enough since we're a low priority for them. But Obama's made more direct promises to us than any prior president/candidate. If he doesn't come through on at least a good portion of them, that's going to piss off a lot of people.

Of course, there's no other acceptable party to vote for in our wonderful two party system that's so polarized. I hope all the Republicans being pushed out of the GOP by the radical right form their own party to exist somewhere in the middle.

[Parkbandit]

So... right up there with you saying that nothing's changed for black people in 40 years, y'know, what with Obama being inaugurated and all?

Nothing has changed for blacks and the poor that the Democrats are solely responsible for.

[Keller]

But your point still stands... I started it first and you are merely a victim.

My point was actually that you are basically just like It. (which was actually your point first, but I just flipped it on you.)

PWNT.

[Parkbandit]

Except it's also true. They are better than the Republicans when it comes to equal rights and don't actively demonize us. They just don't move fast enough or do enough since we're a low priority for them. But Obama's made more direct promises to us than any prior president/candidate. If he doesn't come through on at least a good portion of them, that's going to piss off a lot of people.

Of course, there's no other acceptable party to vote for in our wonderful two party system that's so polarized. I hope all the Republicans being pushed out of the GOP by the radical right form their own party to exist somewhere in the middle.

I agree with you on a 2 party system.. where you view radical rights as a problem (and I agree) I view radical lefts as a problem as well.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Who are you again? Do I even know you?

What did you say, DUSTIN!?

[Parkbandit]

What did you say, DUSTIN!?

If I didn't give my GS account to Some Rogue, I would get on Falgrin right now.. JUST to leg/steal/laugh at you.

[Drew]

I think the nomination will most likely go to Learned Hand.

[Warriorbird]

Always got to keep the Learned Hand strong.

http://www.investorinformationclearinghouse.org/images/LearnedHandArt.jpg

The rest are mad because he's stylin' on them too.

[Clove]

I think the nomination will most likely go to Learned Hand.Yeah but I'm sure the confirmation committee would dig something up on him...

[Warriorbird]

He'd subject them to the Hand test. They couldn't cope.

B < PL.

[Ravenstorm]

I don't know a lot about her (or any of the candidates) but I'd love to see Kathleen Sullivan get it, if only to give a bunch of Republicans heart attacks.

[EasternBrand]

I don't know a lot about her (or any of the candidates) but I'd love to see Kathleen Sullivan get it, if only to give a bunch of Republicans heart attacks.

I don't think Kathleen Sullivan is high on the list if only because of her current private sector associations. Even though her firm is mostly institutional plaintiff side and has been active in pursuing claims against banks (which may have a more palatable populist edge than, say, defending those same banks), my feeling is that this nomination is going to someone with strong public sector connections.

My own sense is that Obama would feel more comfortable choosing from the public sector ranks. Whatever you think of his reasons for doing so, it's a fact that he turned down private sector positions that would have proven immediately lucrative for less glorious (at least initially) and less remunerative public service work. I'm not sure that his recent talk of wanting a justice with "empathy" squares with the intention of hiring a partner who left academia for a firm that specializes in financial services/entertainment litigation and averaged over $3M in partner profits last year.

[ClydeR]

When do "the gays" get repayment? Equal marriage rights, maybe? DOMA being repealed? Don't ask, don't tell being repealed? Still waiting!

That's interesting. I had never thought about it until just now. Obama is the most supportive of teh homosexuals of any president in history. Bill Clinton was second most supportive. George W. Bush was definitely the most strongly opposed to homosexuals in history, and Eisenhower was probably the second most opposed.

That shows the trend is for both supporters and opponents of homosexuals both to feel more strongly about their positions.

[radamanthys]

Obama really should choose someone based upon merit- not political influence, race, gender, color or creed.

But I guess that's asking too much from today's politicians.

[Clove]

Obama really should choose someone based upon merit- not political influence, race, gender, color or creed.

But I guess that's asking too much from today's politicians.Well since Souter was a white male, Obama ought to replace him with a white male...

[Gan]

But I guess that's asking too much from today's politicians.

...or the voting public...

[Warriorbird]

Roe pemanently broke the illusion of the non political court.

[Keller]

...or the voting public...

If Obama was white, would he have won the election?

[Mabus]

The whole Obama "empathy" angle, and bringing up the Lilly Ledbetter case as an example for empathy, is where my basic disagreement with this administration rests.

A SCOTUS Justice is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not have "empathy". That the court ruled against Ledbetter is not a fault of the court, but a fault of how the law was written. The law has been changed since.

Leave the empathy to the low-level judges, and let SCOTUS decide the constitutionality of the issues involved.

</my opinion>

[Warriorbird]

s where my basic disagreement with this administration rests.
-Mabus

I dunno... you were on a steady stream of Obama hate way before he was even at the point of thinking about Supreme Court justices.

You also can't tell me that there haven't been a large number of political decisions, post Roe, from any idealogical side of the court.

[Methais]

If Obama was white, would he have won the election?

Of course he would have, and you're un-American for even questioning it!

[Keller]

Of course he would have, and you're un-American for even questioning it!

I'm asking a simple fucking question, Methais. Could you not try to prove how hard your life has been with the black man always preventing you from opening a hot dog stand?

I suspect you bring up race more than anyone else on this board. Why is that?

[Stanley Burrell]

If Obama was white, would he have won the election?

The truth of the matter is that Republicans would have voted in more traditional numbers for McCain and the Democratic candidate wouldn't be a greater reflection of the previous administration's fuck-ups.


I suspect you bring up race more than anyone else on this board. Why is that?

Because Methais is a negro.

[Gan]

If Obama was white, would he have won the election?

He's half white, so draw your own conclusion...

[Keller]

He's half white, so draw your own conclusion...

JUKED!

[Stanley Burrell]

He's half white, so draw your own conclusion...


JUKED!

http://sendmedeadflowers.com/uploaded_images/jukebox-722780.jpg'd.

Edited to Include: Obama so did the half-black thing to cater to minorities like Tiger Woods did the half Asian thing to get extra endorsements from Benihana's.

[Parkbandit]

If Obama was white, would he have won the election?

I think there were many people who voted for Obama, simply because he was black... just like I believe there were many people who didn't vote for him because he was black.

No way to tell... and really, who cares? He's our President now... deal with it.

[Keller]

I think there were many people who voted for Obama, simply because he was black... just like I believe there were many people who didn't vote for him because he was black.

No way to tell... and really, who cares? He's our President now... deal with it.

Agreed.

[Mabus]

I dunno... you were on a steady stream of Obama hate way before he was even at the point of thinking about Supreme Court justices.
So disagreement is automatically hate? That I strongly disagree with Obama on a number of issues is no secret, but I do not "hate" him. I will leave that emotion to the ignorant.

Let's look at his Saddleback answers on SCOTUS:

WARREN: OK. The courts. Let me ask it this way. Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?

OBAMA: That’s a good one. That’s a good one. I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. [ applause ] I don’t think that he - I don’t think that he was as strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree. He taught at the University of Chicago, as did I in the law school.

WARREN: How about John Roberts?

OBAMA: John Roberts, I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in conversation individually. He’s clearly smart, very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I’ve seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him, and I’ll give you one very specific instance and this is not a stump speech.

WARREN: All right.

OBAMA: I think one of the -

WARREN: I think –

OBAMA: Right, exactly. I’m getting the cues. I’m getting the cues. One of the most important jobs of, I believe the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the other, the power of the other branches.

WARREN: OK.

OBAMA: And I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it’s mine or George Bush’s, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.
Now Justice Thomas I have pondered myself, but certainly not to the point of ridicule.

Scalia is brilliant, and while I do not always agree with his decisions or opinions there is absolutely no reason he is not qualified.

But Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts seems the height of intellectual and administrative competence. He even ruled against GW's administration, belying Obama's contention if "Executive branch above all".

If I truly believed Obama was for a true interpretation of the founders on SCOTUS appointments I would have voted for him. He is not, obviously from his comments on Scalia.

But to get back to my point:

The SCOTUS is not about "empathy", it is about deciding constitutionality of law. And that is a fundamental disagreement between myself and Obama.

[Warriorbird]

We've moved past the illusion of the non political court.

You're surely able to see that.

[Parkbandit]

The SCOTUS is not about "empathy", it is about deciding constitutionality of law. And that is a fundamental disagreement between myself and Obama.

Lies! From Obama's mouth on 7/17/2007:


And we need somebody who's got the heart to recogni-- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

[Mabus]

Lies! From Obama's mouth on 7/17/2007:
Exactly why I said we have a fundamental disagreement with him on choices for the court.

"Empathy" could say that freedom of an individual's political speech was indeed hurtful to another, and so should be suppressed.

"Empathy" could state that longer driving times because of a protest march were harmful to the driver, so protests must be stopped.

In both of those cases the Constitution does not allow for "empathy". Instead it clearly states they must be allowed.

[Mabus]

A nice read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

A new justice who cares about the Constitution? Probably not -- Kevin O'Brien (http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/05/a_new_justice_who_cares_about.html)

What conservatives feared most during the presidential campaign is now coming to pass: Barack Obama is about to put his stamp on the United States Supreme Court.

That's probably no longer what conservatives fear most, although they're properly disheartened by it -- and for excellent reasons. Conservatives now understand that there is so much more to worry about with this presidency that the prospect of Obama's replacing one activist justice with another ranks much farther than expected down the list of current concerns.

The executive branch is spending Americans into the poorhouse for generations to come, putting itself in charge of the U.S. economy's financial sector, issuing tax threats that look to U.S. businesses like deportation orders, and ripping up bankruptcy laws so it can declare the winners and losers among auto companies' creditors by presidential fiat. Or would that be Fiat?

During the campaign, conservatives warned that Obama would appoint justices who view the Constitution just as he views his own speeches -- a "living document" that means whatever he needs it to mean, and whose meaning can be different five minutes from now if a political need should arise.

And the conservatives who issued those warnings weren't guessing. They were quoting Obama.

Obama's watchword for a Supreme Court pick appears to be "empathy." He's been using it for years.

Way back in 2007, he told a Planned Parenthood gathering, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young, teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

He tossed it out again last week, when he announced that he was looking for a successor to retiring Justice David Souter: "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes."

I have scoured my pocket copy of the Constitution. Couldn't find a single reference to "empathy," though. I tried searching an online version, too, but when I typed "empathy" in the search window, the only answer I got back was, "Did you misspell something?"

I looked up the oath of office that Souter's successor will take. I don't see "empathy" there, either, but you're welcome to look for yourself:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

It's true that Obama also said he would look for someone who "is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." He didn't define any of those terms, though, so no one can possibly know what as practiced a twister of words as Obama really means -- if anything -- by any of them.

"Empathy" is the only thing Obama has defined: "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions."

The trouble is, that definition cannot co-exist with the principle of equal protection under the law, which is a bedrock of American jurisprudence, explicitly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Empathy assumes partiality. Empathy demands a respect to persons. Basing judgments on empathy necessitates putting some individual's circumstances above a law that is supposed to apply to everyone. He's "poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old," and therefore deserving of an interpretation of the law that no one else gets.

It will be something of a novelty to see this oh-so-busy president do something the Constitution actually empowers him to do: nominate someone for the Supreme Court.

But the person he chooses will face a choice: to judge according to his or her oath and the Constitution, or to ignore both whenever they prove politically inconvenient, as Souter and four other members of the current court so often do.

Obama is telling us he prefers an appointee who views that oath as a quaint formality. This is one of those rare circumstances when I believe him.

[Warriorbird]

Couldn't it be, y'know, identifying with everybody's struggle?

Couldn't, y'know, every justice post Roe be regarded as having made at least one political decision?

Couldn't... yeah.

[Parkbandit]

Couldn't it be, y'know, identifying with everybody's struggle?

Couldn't, y'know, every justice post Roe be regarded as having made at least one political decision?

Couldn't... yeah.

Huh? Judges need not be able to identify with anyone... since Justice is supposed to be blind and judges should be impartial.

[Warriorbird]

Supposed to != pragmatic reality for either side in this regard.

[Parkbandit]

Supposed to != pragmatic reality for either side in this regard.

What? Did you really just use the excuse that Republicans do it as well? Name one Republican President that has stated that he is looking for someone with empathy to sit on SCOTUS.

There is a GIGANTIC difference between saying a judge has empathy and stating that empathy is a main qualification for the job.

Also.. Biden opened up his mouth yet again and said something about not specifically looking for a judge to replace Souter.. That maybe a Senator or businessman would work. Don't you have to be a judge to sit on SCOTUS?

[Keller]

Don't you have to be a judge to sit on SCOTUS?

No.

[Parkbandit]

No.

So what are the actual qualifications to sit on SCOTUS? Not sure I would ever be comfortable with someone who has never been a judge sitting on the bench.

[Keller]

So what are the actual qualifications to sit on SCOTUS? Not sure I would ever be comfortable with someone who has never been a judge sitting on the bench.

There are none. The only qualifications are being appointed and subsequently confirmed.

I think all SCOTUS judges have been lawyers, but I know not all have been judges.

Earl Warren is the most notable to me, but I'm sure there've been others.

[Warriorbird]

There's not even any requirement of impartiality, PB. Litmus tests regarding abortion and torture were the Bush equivalent.

Sure... it SHOULDN'T be that way. Doesn't mean that in the post Roe world it isn't.

I also found Scalia suggesting recommendations for Obama hilarious. He's a prime example of the non legal rationale for decisions by the court.

[Keller]

There's not even any requirement of impartiality, PB. The Republicans did it.

Sure... it SHOULDN'T be that way. Doesn't mean that the Republicans don't do it.

I also found Scalia suggesting recommendations for Obama hilarious. He's a prime example of the non legal rationale for decisions by the court.

What Scalia opinions are you referring to?

[Mabus]

There's not even any requirement of impartiality, PB.
The oath a justice must take, from the article:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
(bold my own)

So the judge should swear a false oath, in your opinion?

[Parkbandit]

The oath a justice must take, from the article:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


Isn't "without respect to persons" the exact opposite of empathy in this regard?

Maybe Obama will simply change the oath (It does say "So help me God!!!!) to fit his vision.

[Parkbandit]

Scalia regularly appalls me with his thinly veiled, partisan "reasoning." One of his worst is probably his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Likewise, do you know how many times in history he's sided with a criminal defendant? I'm pretty sure it's in the single digits, compared to several dozen for every other justice (excluding Alito and Roberts whom haven't been there long enough).

A judge is now supposed to side with a criminal at the same amount of times he sides with the law?

Be specific.. what opinion of Scalia given that were "non-legal rationale" I realize you don't agree with him.. since he's a a self described Constitutionalist and Originalist.. but give an example of how he used an emotion like empathy instead of the law to form an opinion.

[Warriorbird]

From Scalia's Lawrence dissent:

Selected quote:


What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails. Not so the overruling of Roe, which would simply have restored the regime that existed for centuries before 1973, in which the permissibility of and restrictions upon abortion were determined legislatively State-by-State.

Legal? Not so much.

For the non law students.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional.

[ClydeR]

Scalia regularly appalls me with his thinly veiled, partisan "reasoning." One of his worst is probably his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

How exactly do you believe Scalia is partisan? His dissent in that criminal sodomy case is one of the great pieces of legal writing. We made copies of the whole thing and read it at my church. I'm going to quote the best parts of it below.


State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

More... (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/ScaliaLawrenceDissent.shtml)


Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.


One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress....

[Keller]

I've always found Scalia's opinions to be well reasoned and thoughtful.

I can disagree with them and recognize his jurisprudential brilliance.

For example, in Lawrence -- how is his opinion "not so much legal"? If the man doesn't want to read into the Constitution that which does not already exist in the Constitution, do you have a legal argument why he should?

I find comfort in knowing that a majority of the justices over the last few decades had to "empathy" to recognize the federal government's role in protecting a woman's dominion over her own body, but I also recognize that there is a valid argument that protecting the same is not a role of the federal government.

Scalia is a jerk. A nincompoop. A turd-waffle. Etc. But I've still not seen anyone point to an opinion in which his conclusions are not based on legal principles.

[Warriorbird]

I think 'Clyde' cited many of the more problematic sections.

[Mabus]

Legal? Not so much.
Entirely legal.

I do not agree with banning private sexual actions between consenting adults, and I do believe in a "Right of Privacy" implied by the 14th Amendment, but it is a matter of legal debate whether that right actually exists. Some people point toward the 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th (as well as the 14th) as a basis for a "Right of Privacy".

Justice Scalia (along with many other legal scholars) does not find it in the Constitution. As a pure formalist, and Constitutional Originalist, he could look to the founders, and the foundation of our legal system, and find that Blackstone was against sodomy.

If you believe that a "pure right of privacy" exists when it comes to "private sexual matters" would you be in favor of rescinding all civic obscenity, and even child pornography, laws?

I doubt you would.

Therein lies the limitations of any sexual "Right to Privacy"; when it conflicts with the interests of society or causes harm to others.

[Warriorbird]

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.


One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress....

Sounds more like a Freeper rant than a proper opinion.

"Taken sides in the culture war?"

Really?

Don't crystallize to a legal point and this looks like something written by a blog writer.

[ClydeR]

I've always found Scalia's opinions to be well reasoned and thoughtful.

I can disagree with them and recognize his jurisprudential brilliance.



Sounds more like a Freeper rant than a proper opinion.

That's because you're not a lawyer like Keller is. I quoted Scalia's decision. Keller can tell you that it is exactly the sort of masterpiece that all judges aspire to write.

[Keller]

Word on the street (ok, well, the nerdy e-mails I get from former classmates) is that a US Marshall security detail has been assigned to Diane Wood.

It seems Obama has ordered up his first SCOTUS, with a side of empathy.

[ClydeR]

Word on the street (ok, well, the nerdy e-mails I get from former classmates) is that a US Marshall security detail has been assigned to Diane Wood.

It seems Obama has ordered up his first SCOTUS, with a side of empathy.

Thanks for that tip! It could be that she has been given security just because of all the publicity. Conservatives really don't want her to be the one. There are already ads against her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgTKPTApZPE). If it's her, then at least it will be exciting.


Wood in particular has already drawn attention from conservatives, who have wasted no time attacking her as someone they would least like to see on the court. The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, in an advertisement, accused Wood of supporting fewer protections for religious students and abortion opponents than Nazis enjoy in Skokie, Ill., a reference to a famous freedom of assembly ruling.

More... (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFN2zAcMhC4HiXLA_QNojLble5GAD98BDLDO1)

[Parkbandit]

Who is the Hispanic chick that dismissed that Firefighter case where the results of a test didn't have any blacks that scored high enough? She has to be a top contender since she is female and Hispanic and judges extremely liberally. Sounds like a nobrainer for Obama.

Damn PB, you are amazing. You hit the nail right on the head.

Official announcement later today.

[Parkbandit]

Word on the street (ok, well, the nerdy e-mails I get from former classmates) is that a US Marshall security detail has been assigned to Diane Wood.

It seems Obama has ordered up his first SCOTUS, with a side of empathy.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/images/wrong-way-sign-higher-res.jpg

[Kembal]

Hrm, I thought it would be Wood, but PB got it right.

She'll get confirmed. Snowe and Collins will flip to vote with the Dems on her nomination.

[Fallen]

Why is it a lock that they will flip? Snowe and/or Collins Hispanic?

[Parkbandit]

Obama could nominate anyone but Osama BL and get the nomination through. Congress will rubberstamp because the Democrats have the votes and the Republicans are a bunch of pussies.

[Keller]

Republicans are a bunch of pussies.

Sig anyone?

[Keller]

http://www.responsiblelending.org/images/wrong-way-sign-higher-res.jpg

Yup. I was wrong.

[Keller]

Can't wait for tomorrow's NYT headline: Obama Nominates Sonya from the Block.

[Back]

Yup. I was wrong.

That is sig worthy. For people who care about that shit.

[Keller]

That is sig worthy. For people who care about that shit.

It's not nearly the first time I've said it.

I regularly admit when I'm wrong. It's just that I'm not regularly wrong. :)

[Back]

It's not nearly the first time I've said it.

I regularly admit when I'm wrong. It's just that I'm not regularly wrong. :)

Aren’t we all? <-- my favorite cliché resonse

If you were wrongly irregular I would worry.

[Parkbandit]

Sig anyone?

Feel free, because it's the truth. Anyone who questions this nominee will be branded a sexist or a racist and effectively end any opposition. Republicans somehow think that if they give an easy confirmation, they will somehow gain some Hispanic votes.

[Parkbandit]

If Court of Appeals is "where policy is made", imagine what you can do on the US Supreme Court!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

[Keller]

If Court of Appeals is "where policy is made", imagine what you can do on the US Supreme Court!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism), that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#cite_note-11) In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (soemtimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).

One example of the gradual change that typifies the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. For example, the traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligence unless the two were in privity of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract). Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. Winterbottom v. Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright), 10 M&W 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402, 1842 WL 5519 (Exchequer of pleas 1842). In Winterbottom, the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches.

Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The Winterbottom court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, and knew it had to draw a line somewhere, a limit on the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury. The court looked to the contractual relationships, and held that liability would only flow as far as the person in immediate contract ("privity") with the negligent party.

A first exception to this rule arose in Thomas v. Winchester (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/thomas_winchester.htm), 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852) which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger." Thomas used this as a reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 480 (N.Y. 1909) held that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed."
Yet the privity rule survived. In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, 221 F. 801 (2nd Cir. 1915) (decided by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner only had a contract with the automobile dealer, not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘dozy‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes."

Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/macpherson_buick.htm), 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Judge Benjamin Cardozo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo) pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to Cadillac a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held:
We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. Note that Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but is inferable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger." MacPherson takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure. Note that Judge Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of Winterbottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright), that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that some boundary is necessary, MacPherson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co.) overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather, the most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing.

This illustrates two crucial principles that are often not well understood by non-lawyers. (a) The law evolves, this evolution is in the hands of judges, and judges have "made law" for hundreds of years. (b) The reasons given for a decision are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. This is the reason that judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes.

[Parkbandit]

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism), that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#cite_note-11) In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (soemtimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).

One example of the gradual change that typifies the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. For example, the traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligence unless the two were in privity of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract). Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. Winterbottom v. Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright), 10 M&W 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402, 1842 WL 5519 (Exchequer of pleas 1842). In Winterbottom, the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches.

Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The Winterbottom court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, and knew it had to draw a line somewhere, a limit on the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury. The court looked to the contractual relationships, and held that liability would only flow as far as the person in immediate contract ("privity") with the negligent party.

A first exception to this rule arose in Thomas v. Winchester (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/thomas_winchester.htm), 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852) which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger." Thomas used this as a reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 480 (N.Y. 1909) held that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed."
Yet the privity rule survived. In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, 221 F. 801 (2nd Cir. 1915) (decided by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner only had a contract with the automobile dealer, not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘dozy‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes."

Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/macpherson_buick.htm), 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Judge Benjamin Cardozo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo) pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to Cadillac a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held:
We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. Note that Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but is inferable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger." MacPherson takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure. Note that Judge Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of Winterbottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright), that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that some boundary is necessary, MacPherson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co.) overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather, the most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing.

This illustrates two crucial principles that are often not well understood by non-lawyers. (a) The law evolves, this evolution is in the hands of judges, and judges have "made law" for hundreds of years. (b) The reasons given for a decision are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. This is the reason that judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes.

Did you just come up with all of that in 12 minutes, or did you just plagerize someone else's work?

I got "your" jist though.. only lawyers are qualified to discuss these types of matters and the rest of the people questioning it should just STFU.

[Keller]

Did you just come up with all of that in 12 minutes, or did you just plagerize someone else's work?

I got "your" jist though.. only lawyers are qualified to discuss these types of matters and the rest of the people questioning it should just STFU.

Stop being a whiney little bitch. It's clear it was hastily cut and paste from wikipedia.

Wasn't it you who was bitching to high heaven about 3 weeks ago because I made an inference about the point you were expressly making? Yet, here, when I cut and paste from an online encyclopedia trying to aid your understanding of how common law evolves (SHOCK!), you try to plainly infer a whacky meaning?

Maybe I should have just bolded the part about how judges have made law for hundreds of years and you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a bunch. I don't know, but if you'd like to make a reasonable and articulate point, please do. Otherwise, you don't need to be an ass for the sake of being an ass.

[Parkbandit]

Stop being a whiney little bitch. It's clear it was hastily cut and paste from wikipedia.

Wasn't it you who was bitching to high heaven about 3 weeks ago because I made an inference about the point you were expressly making? Yet, here, when I cut and paste from an online encyclopedia trying to aid your understanding of how common law evolves (SHOCK!), you try to plainly infer a whacky meaning?

Maybe I should have just bolded the part about how judges have made law for hundreds of years and you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a bunch. I don't know, but if you'd like to make a reasonable and articulate point, please do. Otherwise, you don't need to be an ass for the sake of being an ass.

First and foremost.. cutting and pasting something without a source/link has never been appropriote on these forums.

Second, I've never bitched to high heaven.. since I'm an atheist.

Third, I didn't infer a wacky meaning, especially when you bolded the part where (and I quote) "This illustrates two crucial principles that are often not well understood by non-lawyers."

[Keller]

First and foremost.. cutting and pasting something without a source/link has never been appropriote on these forums.

Second, I've never bitched to high heaven.. since I'm an atheist.

Third, I didn't infer a wacky meaning, especially when you bolded the part where (and I quote) "This illustrates two crucial principles that are often not well understood by non-lawyers."

Except there was no period. It went on to explicate those points. That's why I said I should have just bolded one part, but I was hastily posting it and didn't give it a lot of thought.

And if you seriously couldn't deduce I had cut and paste from wikipedia, then I don't know what to say. How does your saying go, next time I'll draw a picture with crayons to help you understand?

[Parkbandit]

and didn't give it a lot of thought.


That is obvious when you are cutting and pasting someone else's work.. and passing it along as your own.

For shame councilor....

[Keller]

That is obvious when you are cutting and pasting someone else's work.. and passing it along as your own.

For shame councilor....

Even if I were rushed, at the very least I'd paste special, unformatted and remove the FN marker. I'd likely hyperlink to findlaw and not wikipedia on the cases, too.

PS: We're just counselors, unless we're part of a council of lawyers.

[Mikalmas]

Not to mention there's a variety of hyperlinks within the body of the pasting (not just the case references) that directs to wikipedia articles.