A thread for discussing the Supreme Court issue in the presedential election

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

No, it happens sometimes in law when the outcome of is very fact-driven.

Yes, it does.

Now, why don't you explain how a decision that a state not having a statewide standard for recounting votes, which Florida like apparently every other state lacked, is a violation of the equal protection amendment of the federal constitution, is "very fact-driven" such that the conflict only applies to the state of Florida in the year 2000?

Why, exactly, isn't the lack of such a standard a conflict in the other 49 states in 2000, and in all 50 states every other year, too? Does the equal protection amendment change somehow?

I practice under a federal court which issues 100's of decisions a year as memorandum decisions - that is, decisions which may not be cited for precedential value, and are not published in legal reporters. And your understanding of federal election law and the state administration thereof is weak at best.

You're projecting again. Of course there are situations that ARE 'very fact-driven' justifying such rulings. You haven't shown a whit of evidence why the one we're discussing was.

Question for you: can you recount the other Supreme Court decisions, not lower level courts, in which the ruling was 'limited to present circumstances'?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

I'd enjoy a 'discussion', but you don't seem too interested in one yourself. Note my other post in this thread discussing your loaded language. You throw around terms like 'radical' as if they're fact, when they're merely opinion. You simply assume everyone shares your point of view, and if they do not, they're "part of the problem". It's difficult to have a discussion with someone so clearly partisan from the start.

Hardly. If I say 'radical', it's my opinion, even if I think it can be proven to a reasonable person. It's my opinion that gravity exists, or that purple is a pretty color.

You're creating an issue that doesn't exist, for whatever reason.

And I have never said someone is 'part of the problem' simply if they disagree with me - how absurd a claim that is, reflecting something from you.

Whether it's poor reading comprehension, your own temper, or something else, who knows.

And the last thing I do is 'throw around' words like radical. I use them very carefully. Again, you're apparently projecting when you invent such insinuations.

I strongly disagree with some of Clinton's policies, e.g., the 1996 Telecommunications Act; I don't call him or it 'radical'. I strongly disagree with President Bush's administration trying to install, at one point, Chalabi over Iraq; I don't call that radical. I don't call most Republican presidents, who I largey disagree with, radical; I do call George W. Bush radical.

Since we're discussing the Bush v. Gore decision, I'll mention that one of the five who put Bush in the office, O'Connor, seems to agree with me, quoted by his second term that he's:

"arrogant, lawless, incompetent, and extreme."

Note how she had expressed concern when it appeared Gore won that she would be unable to retire, as she wanted to, having to wait four years; but she waited those years anyway, when she saw what she had wrought (and as the reversal on big money in campaign cases you brough up showed, she was right to be concerned that her relatively moderate vote would be replaced by one with the Federalist agenda).

And I do say that some presidents I do agree with were 'radical', as I've noted, FDR was 'radical' for his time; JFK, at or near the top of my list, was 'radical' in major (good) ways.

No, your shot is just that, a cheap shot, not based in any facts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
You equate 'political free speech' to unlimited use of 'big money' for campaigning, it appears; people who support political free speech often view that 'big money' as *harming* political free speech in this nation, and oppose it for that reason, despite your begging the question by assuming the opposite. The view that it harms political free speech is why the bill these cases are about was able to pass Congress and become law in these very polarized times.

So when you are ready for an honest discussion and not the sort of disingenuous baiting you attempted, try again.

Of course political free speech correlates to the unlimited use of funds. Speech takes money. TV stations won't run your ads for free. Speech can be muzzled not just be restricting content, but by restricting delivery as well. It's just silly to think you can separate the two.

Why, thank you for the profound commentary, that the entire issue of the dominant role of money in politics, the concept of the smothering of 'free speech' by excessively limiting it to requiring big money, can be completely addressed by the word 'silly'. It's interesting that the majority of both houses of Congress saw fit to pass the law the decisions you raised challenged - I guess they didn't think it was 'silly'.

It can't be that you're so partisan than you fail to understand the other side of the issue, now can it, resulting in your replacing argument with words like 'silly'?

You are not concerned, obviously, with the effect on our democracy of the efforts by the very wealthy to gain control of our system by increasing the importance - the increasing necessity - of large sums to get elected. However correct or foolish you are to hold that view, not everyone does. Others think that the efforts are trying to thwart democracy, to substitute for issues and reason the large advertising budgets, in order to guarantee themselves more control, and that democracy is well-served by limiting that.

I'm afraid that I can't see much merit to your argument that the point of view is 'silly'. Rather, it suggests to me a high level of ignorance, ideology, and/or partisanship.

 

[nageov3t]

I was thinking about this today... I'm surprised the democrats don't try and run a national campaign on the idea of shifting the supreme court back to the center if you help elect democratic congressmen, senators, and Obama.

there's really nothing stopping congress from creating more supreme court seats for the president to fill.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I was thinking about this today... I'm surprised the democrats don't try and run a national campaign on the idea of shifting the supreme court back to the center if you help elect democratic congressmen, senators, and Obama.

there's really nothing stopping congress from creating more supreme court seats for the president to fill.

It may take an ammedment to do so rather than an act of Congress.

 

[nageov3t]

wouldn't they just have to pass something to override http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Judges_Act ?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: loki8481
I was thinking about this today... I'm surprised the democrats don't try and run a national campaign on the idea of shifting the supreme court back to the center if you help elect democratic congressmen, senators, and Obama.

there's really nothing stopping congress from creating more supreme court seats for the president to fill.

It may take an ammedment to do so rather than an act of Congress.

It hasn't in the past. It was originally 6 members under the judiciary act passed by congress, and later it was increased to 9 through an act of congress.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I was thinking about this today... I'm surprised the democrats don't try and run a national campaign on the idea of shifting the supreme court back to the center if you help elect democratic congressmen, senators, and Obama.

there's really nothing stopping congress from creating more supreme court seats for the president to fill.

There's no role the House plays in the approval of Justices.

I think one reason they don't do this is worry about appearing to 'politicize the judiciary'.

However, I would like to see the democrats make the radical agenda of the Republican-allied Federalist Society an issue they educate the public on.

The Republicans, as usual, have been able to effectively politicize the issue, with the usual jingoistic slogans, and the democrats should point out the problem. It's a key issue.