Improve the Supreme Court??

[Craig234]

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

Your lies and idiocy get old. Yuo can't discuss the issues so instead you make insulting attacks out of your ignorance.

 

[Craig234]

Its no surprise the lefties here think upholding the constitution is 'radical'.

It's no surprise they don't, and you make another straw man.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just to clarify...
To say the court is not partisan ignores reality. Just review Bush v Gore (which ever side you empathize)

Wrong. Partisan is party based thinking - not an ideological position perse. The courts are supposed to be non-partisan and for the most part are. Bush v Gore was not a partisan decision by the court - anyone who thinks such ignores reality.

 

[Craig234]

LOL - FDR threatened to stack this, got away with it, and bullied the court. It resulted in the last 70 years of failed social policies that have bankrupted the country and allowed the federal government to grab power from the states and micromanage our lives.

The only reason FDR was able to get away with it was because it happened in a day/age when there was little to no television and there was not questioning of the government.

If Obama even hinted at a program to 'improve the courts' it would be game over - for him.

Not surprisingly, you get the history wrong. FDR did not 'get away with it' - it was rejected and hurt him badly politically that he tried.

The fact the court did shift after that somewhat in his favor wass a great benefit to the country, ending the normal pattern of major financial crashes for several decades until undone starting with Reagan.

Your tv argument is ridiculous - the failure of his plan and his big political price for his attempt prove you wrong.

 

[lothar]

First, I'm not that familiar with her legal qualifiication, so I can't confirm for sure that she's as bad on them as pretty much everyone says.

But here's what seems likely to me and the background:

She was the worst sort of presidential 'insider' personal connection appointment. It's a long sordid story.

Remember how Bush liked Vietnam - for other people to go, and got his father's connections to skip him ahead of 500 people to join the nice safe champagne unit of the national guard?

It's connected, really.

Well, the way trading favors work, the guy who helped get Bush that spot, then-Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, was later a representative of GTech, a company contracted as Texas' lottery company. Now, it was a widespread belief that the company had gotten the contract with bribes and it was a corrupt situation. Bush had run for governor on a position of cleaning that up. Miers had met Bush soe years before and become his private lawyer and friend. Bush appointed her to chair the Texas lottery commission.

The commision hired an investigator who was looking into the GTech corruption - but months in, turns out, it seems Barnes stood to make millions by GTech keeping that contract - and things changed. It seems Bush called in a favor from Miers, and she halted the investigation and got rid of the investigator, and GTech kept the contract. Favor repaid.

Bush knew who did favors for him - and his personal attorneys did just fine. Gonzales, who had helped him cover up his drunk driving arrest in the presidential campaign, was made White House Attorney and later Attorney General, and Harriet Miers was hired as an assistant to the President and replaced Gonzales as White House Counsel.

To her credit, she joined a law firm - and became its president; she became the president of the Texas Bar Association. So despite the personal connections, she may not have been as terrible as some say.

I just don't know. The far right who opposed her may have had their own motivations that were political somehow - or they may have thoght she was terribly unqualified. Why they would care about her but not Thomas... tends to support there was something where she wasn't enough of a right-wing radical. To her credit, when the Bush administration replaced the ABA for evauating nominees withthe Federalist Society, Miers opposed it favoring the ABA. Perhaps that was a 'problem' for the radical right.

Harriet Myers wasn't anti-abortion enough, not to mention if nominated, she would have been the "Bush" of the Supreme Court.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Maybe they need to replace the 4 left wing radicals also.

If they do not agree with your view point; they must be bad!

Your lies and idiocy get old. Yuo can't discuss the issues so instead you make insulting attacks out of your ignorance.

You are the one that stated the 4 right wing radicalsl

And you complain that they do not see things you way.

Maybe your way is not always the proper way.

Pack the court and then the value of the court is reduced

 

[Craig234]

Wrong. Partisan is party based thinking - not an ideological position perse. The courts are supposed to be non-partisan and for the most part are. Bush v Gore was not a partisan decision by the court - anyone who thinks such ignores reality.

Partisan is preference for a faction. It might be party, or ideology, or nation, or any other faction.

In a traditional definition, it simply means supporting one faction - he's a partisan for democracy over the aqlternatives.

In the modern and relevant use, it means he supports a faction past the point of a fair opinion - he puts them ahead of a fair basis.

So you hear the term as in 'when Republican did X, he praised it, but when a Democrat did X, he criticized it.' 'Oh, he's partisan'.

It's often seen when one has a pretermined faction - and they stick to it even when the facts don't back them up. It's seen with double standards.

Bush v. Gore was partisan, IMO, since the measure is opinion. Many if not most legal scholars have said the same. It wasn't a roll of the dice the right-wing members voted for the Republican candidate's position.

I'd ask you to think about it and use common sense, but I'm not sure you are like to do so.

In every election, in every state, there are 'inconsistent standard' for counting votes. It varies county by county if not precinct by precinct.

If the 'equal protection' clause were applied consistently, not one election in one state would be valid. The court has never applied this standard.

But in Bush v. Gore, looking for an excuse to block the recount other than "Gore might win it and we want Bush", the lawyers came up with the equal protection argument.

And the right-wing justices and only them agreed.

But the Supreme Court decisions set precedent. So didn't they just make every election illegal?

No, that's a smoking gun to their partisanship: they added a note saying 'this equal protection argument is ruled to count ONLY for this one election in this one state and can't be used anywhere else'.

If you weren't partisan that would give you information on the partisanship.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Just to clarify...
To say the court is not partisan ignores reality. Just review Bush v Gore (which ever side you empathize)

Wrong. Partisan is party based thinking - not an ideological position perse. The courts are supposed to be non-partisan and for the most part are. Bush v Gore was not a partisan decision by the court - anyone who thinks such ignores reality.

The lefties will ignore reality when it does not fit their perception.

The USSC decided based on the legal issues - not the political issues.
One may not like the decisions and sometimes they may be reversed at a later date.

 

[HomerJS]

Wrong. Partisan is party based thinking - not an ideological position perse. The courts are supposed to be non-partisan and for the most part are. Bush v Gore was not a partisan decision by the court - anyone who thinks such ignores reality.

For years Republican appointees to the court have struck down equal protection arguments in civil rights cases when upholding "states rights" In Bush v Gore equal protection was the exact argument the majority used to justify their decision to put a Republican president in office. Sounds like a group of people looking out for "party" to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL - FDR threatened to stack this, got away with it, and bullied the court.

What exactly did he get away with. To what does that 'it' refer?

 

[Patranus]

Not surprisingly, you get the history wrong. FDR did not 'get away with it' - it was rejected and hurt him badly politically that he tried.

The fact the court did shift after that somewhat in his favor wass a great benefit to the country, ending the normal pattern of major financial crashes for several decades until undone starting with Reagan.

Your tv argument is ridiculous - the failure of his plan and his big political price for his attempt prove you wrong.

Craig234.
You should really pick up a history book for once in your life before posting.

 

[Craig234]

The lefties will ignore reality when it does not fit their perception.

The USSC decided based on the legal issues - not the political issues.
One may not like the decisions and sometimes they may be reversed at a later date.

You clearly have nothing but fluff to post.

You just make up childish attacks and post them as if they were legitimate opinions.

You're that bankrupt?

Why don't you try for answering a substantive question:

Does the equal protection clause of the US constitution require consistent standards for voting/counting/recounting statewide, so that every election in every state is unconstotutional today?

And if they're NOT unconstitutional, why was the same standard held ONLY to apply to one state in one election?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

IMO, the court is a very serious problem with the four right-wing radicals. This isn't really a solution though. We need to not put right-wing radicals on the court, not split the parties evenly permanently.

Yeah, because it is OK if left-wing radicals are installed on the court in your world, I'm sure.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234.
You should really pick up a history book for once in your life before posting.

Make your hand into a fist, and punch yourself in the face.

 

[Craig234]

For years Republican appointees to the court have struck down equal protection arguments in civil rights cases when upholding "states rights" In Bush v Gore equal protection was the exact argument the majority used to justify their decision to put a Republican president in office. Sounds like a group of people looking out for "party" to me.

Sandra Day O'Connor, considered the least partisan of the five Republicans who voted for Bush, yelling out 'Oh no this is terrible!' at a party when the network projected Gore the winner was a hint.

 

[Lemon law]

If nothing else, its impossible to blame the democrats for the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination.

The snit over Miers was and remains radical right right generated when GWB failed to consult them on whom he should nominate. All the democrats did and had to do is sit down, shut up, and try very hard not to laugh their heads off.

But the revisionist history folks are all over this thread. I remind them, they are untitled to their own opinions but not their own version of historical facts.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You clearly have nothing but fluff to post.

You just make up childish attacks and post them as if they were legitimate opinions.

You're that bankrupt?

Why don't you try for answering a substantive question:

Does the equal protection clause of the US constitution require consistent standards for voting/counting/recounting statewide, so that every election in every state is unconstotutional today?

And if they're NOT unconstitutional, why was the same standard held ONLY to apply to one state in one election?

Did other states generate legal challenges to their count?

The USSC ruled on the legal challenge by Gore w/ respect to Florida.
Where else did Gore challenge the results?

 

[theeedude]

I think the court needs to be publicly shamed like Obama did in state of the union more often. They need to realize they may be the current last word on a subject, but history will be the final judge.

 

[Craig234]

Did other states generate legal challenges to their count?

The USSC ruled on the legal challenge by Gore w/ respect to Florida.
Where else did Gore challenge the results?

You ignore the legitimate question. IF the court upheld this standard, why did the court, unlike all its other rulings that are precedents for the nation, say 'don't apply our logic consistently' for this one case?

If this is a legitimate constitutional issue, since it affects every state, why did they add the language to bar applying it elsewhere?

The fact they heard it for Florida is why it was decided there, but if it's a legitimate constitutional principle, it applies to all states.

For example, when the Court said the constitution protected gay sex in a Texas case, or inter-racial marriage case, or birth control pills in a COnnecticut case, those applied to all states. That's how it works.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You ignore the legitimate question. IF the court upheld this standard, why did the court, unlike all its other rulings that are precedents for the nation, say 'don't apply our logic consistently' for this one case?

If this is a legitimate constitutional issue, since it affects every state, why did they add the language to bar applying it elsewhere?

The fact they heard it for Florida is why it was decided there, but if it's a legitimate constitutional principle, it applies to all states.

For example, when the Court said the constitution protected gay sex in a Texas case, or inter-racial marriage case, or birth control pills in a COnnecticut case, those applied to all states. That's how it works.

I believe the intent of the ruling was that the Fla court approval for the recount required a standard.


Should other recount cases come forward, they should be held to the same. There have been no other recount cases.

In Minn, they (state) set their standard and followed it. The Dems won that round. The Repubs chose to not appeal to the USSC.

 

[MotF Bane]

If you are against Craig's worldview, you are a radical. If you hold the same twisted perceptions, you become a progressive. Everyone knows this. :awe:

 

[Craig234]

I believe the intent of the ruling was that the Fla court approval for the recount required a standard.


Should other recount cases come forward, they should be held to the same. There have been no other recount cases.

In Minn, they (state) set their standard and followed it. The Dems won that round. The Repubs chose to not appeal to the USSC.

You aren't getting it. Read the info I'm posting.

If 'other recount cases come forward', they WON'T be held to the same because of this decision, because the decision added an instruction for it not to be used a precedent for any other case.

As far as the Florida election 'requireing a standard', that was up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide, which they had - the US Supreme Court overruled them on the basis of this one-time argument based on the federal constitution. The Florida Supreme Court required that the recount count votes to the best determination of the voter's intent, but like every state, did not have detailed instructions on excactly how to do every little bit of 'hanging chands' and such, leaving the recount to the local authorities. The Supreme Court said that in thisand only this election, that wasn't good enough, but in every other election it's ok.

 

[nick1985]

You just make up childish attacks

Dude you crack me up. About 2/3 of your posts you call someone an idiot, yet you have the balls to get pissed about someones "childish attacks"

You are a fucking joke

 

[nageov3t]

A Republican political calculation and moral sellout to find any right-wing black justice to replace the nation's first black Justice. "Vote against a black, Democrats, I dare ya!"

isn't how Obama got elected?

joking aside, it's a terrible idea and a moot point either way. Obama doesn't have the political capital to get health care passed with huge majorities in both houses of congress. he's not going to be able to add more seats to the court.

 

[PokerGuy]

I think the court needs to be publicly shamed like Obama did in state of the union more often. They need to realize they may be the current last word on a subject, but history will be the final judge.

hahahaha Publicly shamed for a legal verdict? Just because some moron doesn't agree with it? Good one, idiot.