Obama, 2012-2016, and retiring Supreme Court Justices

[rockyct]

Are you kidding me? Scalia is the definition of a judge who upholds and protects The Constitution. Seriously, listening to him speak makes me proud to be an American. He is the best judge the SC has seen in recent memory. He protects all our liberties and rules accordingly. He sees through the bullshit and use The Constitution to guide his decisions, the entire SC needs to be like him. They are the defenders, the final check on the legislative/executive, they are not supposed to be the enablers.

I highly doubt that Obama is going to win in 2012 so this is all a waste of time.

Unemployment in fall of 2012 should still be above 7% and that will be the end of Obama. Nothing he can probably do about it either.

Ah yes, now I remember why I come here for the laughs.

 

[CanOWorms]

3. For sheer crazies, we cannot beat our current mainly GOP appointed crazies. This is new new new in American history for SCOTUS nutcases to assert money is free speech and the right of eminent domain should extend past public entities as only a few wealthy individuals can have co-equal public domain rights. And given the fact that all these highly
dubious rulings passed with a 5-4 majority, simply means, the real fight will start when one of the gang of five end their court tenure. With the gang of five being defined as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and somewhat Kennedy.

Are you talking about Kelo v. New London? If so, the conservatives were in the minority there. Kennedy is the only one on your list who was in the majority.

 

[Craig234]

Are you talking about Kelo v. New London? If so, the conservatives were in the minority there. Kennedy is the only one on your list who was in the majority.

You're right, but that's pretty much the only arguable exception to saying the many radical rulings had the same 4 on the wrong side, whether with or without Kennedy too.

 

[umbrella39]

I highly doubt that Obama is going to win in 2012...

Well now you've gone and done it! Damn you.

 

[Atreus21]

I can absolutely point you to specific, stated opinions by both Scalia and Thomas that I directly think makes them horribly, ridiculously wrong. This is easy due to both the sheer volume of opinions they have authored and the fact that they have been involved in a number of controversial ones.

So no, I call bullshit. Even though we aren't talking about them, I can absolutely back up my opinion on Scalia and Thomas, and he is unwilling or unable to back his up, despite how 'clear' it was to him that they are nuts.

Okay, gimme one on Scalia.

 

[classy]

That's a good for his opponent.

"If Obama wins the presidency he could appoint folks like these two clowns he did. Think about that and the impact it will have on our once, before Obama, great Nation was for generations.

Think about your vote, and choose wisely. And if you're not voting or registered, the future of our country rests in your hands."

Hey I'll agree whole heartily with many of his other faults and mistakes, but his appointments are fine. He did a decent job there. One is highly intelligent and the other was a federal judge backed by both parties throughout the years. He may have f'ed a lot stuff, but he has done some things right too.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, gimme one on Scalia.

He thinks that torture isn't covered by the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment because it's not 'punishment'. Under that view of the Constitution you have greater Constitutional protections from being abused AFTER being convicted of a crime than BEFORE it.

I find that reprehensible.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290_page4.shtml

 

[CanOWorms]

He thinks that torture isn't covered by the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment because it's not 'punishment'. Under that view of the Constitution you have greater Constitutional protections from being abused AFTER being convicted of a crime than BEFORE it.

I find that reprehensible.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290_page4.shtml

The Constitution consists of more than the 8th amendment. Maybe he thinks it's included somewhere else. He's only asked about the 8th amendment in your link.

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution consists of more than the 8th amendment. Maybe he thinks it's included somewhere else. He's only asked about the 8th amendment in your link.

He gives no indication that he believes it to be constitutionally prohibited elsewhere, and I've never seen or read him make such a claim. I have seen him say that it can be prohibited through statute however, which certainly implies he believes that to be the solution.

Where else do you think it would happen?

 

[chucky2]

Torture isn't punishment unless it's being used as punishment, so he's right...or, at least half right...

 

[fskimospy]

Torture isn't punishment unless it's being used as punishment, so he's right...or, at least half right...

Well there is certainly a debate possible on that. (standing precedent disagrees with Scalia on that, but then again he's a justice so he isn't bound by it) Regardless, the point is that I can absolutely clearly articulate why I dislike the job he does as a justice. If someone dislikes Kagan or Sotomayor, they should be able to do so too.

 

[chucky2]

How much more of a reason does one need than someone believing they can rule on legal matters better because they're a hispanic woman? "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"

The fact that she even believes that, outright, should disqualify her.

Disgusting....

Chuck

 

[CanOWorms]

He gives no indication that he believes it to be constitutionally prohibited elsewhere, and I've never seen or read him make such a claim. I have seen him say that it can be prohibited through statute however, which certainly implies he believes that to be the solution.

Where else do you think it would happen?

Due process

 

[CanOWorms]

How much more of a reason does one need than someone believing they can rule on legal matters better because they're a hispanic woman? "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"

The fact that she even believes that, outright, should disqualify her.

Disgusting....

Chuck

Perhaps she had a poor choice of wording. But diversity is very important in the judicial system.

 

[chucky2]

She believes she reaches better conclusions than white men because she's a mexican woman.

If a white male candidate had said the equivalent, you think that the Dem's would have backed him? You think that'd have flown?

No. x 2.

Again: Disgusting.

Chuck

 

[CanOWorms]

She believes she reaches better conclusions than white men because she's a mexican woman.

If a white male candidate had said the equivalent, you think that the Dem's would have backed him? You think that'd have flown?

No. x 2.

Again: Disgusting.

Chuck

She said wise woman. A wise person would hopefully reach a better decision.

I think that it would fly if someone said that they were a wise Polish man or wise Irish woman, too. Ultimately she's talking about the need for diversity and how your personal experiences are influential.

 

[chucky2]

But she's clearly inflating the wiseness of the said hispanic woman and comparing it to the average white male: An average white male isn't considered for that position, de facto it'd be a wise white male.

So the wise is cancelled.

So what she said is racist.

Diversity is fine. She did not say diversity, she made a racist comment, with racist logic. And the Dem's - including Obama - pushed that candidate regardless.

Chuck

 

[hal2kilo]

Well now you've gone and done it! Damn you.

I guess I'll just give up now that you've predicted Obama's loss, considering the Prof's record of predictions.

 

[CanOWorms]

But she's clearly inflating the wiseness of the said hispanic woman and comparing it to the average white male: An average white male isn't considered for that position, de facto it'd be a wise white male.

So the wise is cancelled.

She made the comment several times before being nominated for the Supreme Court. So, it's not a wise white male. In addition, I have to wonder what the context is.

So what she said is racist.

Not necessarily.

 

[HendrixFan]

Okay, gimme one on Scalia.

Scalia:

It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

Stevens dissent:

It is clear, however, that a stay should not be granted unless an applicant makes a substantial showing of a likelihood of irreparable harm. In this case, petitioners have failed to carry that heavy burden. Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm. On the other hand, there is a danger that a stay may cause irreparable harm to respondents–and, more importantly, the public at large–because of the risk that "the entry of the stay would be tantamount to a decision on the merits in favor of the applicants." Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.

...

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Perhaps she had a poor choice of wording. But diversity is very important in the judicial system.

Diversity is a good and useful thing. BIGOTRY, which is what many use diversity as a code word for, is disgusting.

She's a racist who makes major decisions for our nation, she should be removed from her position.


Mexican culture, from back in the early 1900s, started a Nazi like propaganda campaign that said that the mestizo was the master race. They did this because of how poorly the mestizo was being treated by the white Spaniard.

This bullshit continues still today, even among some fourth generation Mexican-American families. The racial superiority of the Mestizo is something that is deeply ingrained in the culture of many families.


I'm not surprised that she is a bigot; I'm just surprised that she didn't know how to better cover up her bigotry in the cloud of diversity.

In whatever context she said her quote, she said it regarding two people of the same basic character. We know this because she specified: a Latina woman has rich salsa like experiences, while white people have bland cracker like experiences.

I would hope that a wise white man with his depth of knowledge, control over his hormones and education would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black woman who hasn’t lived that life.

Yep, doesn't sound racist at all.


Except that, just like Soda, the above statement implies that the comparison group lacks the qualities given to the primary group. This kind of generalization is refereed to as bias and it leads to a great deal of bigotry.

This line of thinking is worse than thinking that the earth is 10k years old; but often goes along with a similar demographic of people.

 

[CanOWorms]

Diversity is a good and useful thing. BIGOTRY, which is what many use diversity as a code word for, is disgusting.

She's a racist who makes major decisions for our nation, she should be removed from her position.

I think that a lot of racists are just making up the scenario.

Mexican culture, from back in the early 1900s, started a Nazi like propaganda campaign that said that the mestizo was the master race. They did this because of how poorly the mestizo was being treated by the white Spaniard.

This bullshit continues still today, even among some fourth generation Mexican-American families. The racial superiority of the Mestizo is something that is deeply ingrained in the culture of many families.

I don't understand the relevance of this. She's not even of Mexican descent. She's of Puerto Rican descent.

It probably says a lot about you.

I'm not surprised that she is a bigot; I'm just surprised that she didn't know how to better cover up her bigotry in the cloud of diversity.

In whatever context she said her quote, she said it regarding two people of the same basic character. We know this because she specified: a Latina woman has rich salsa like experiences, while white people have bland cracker like experiences.

She said that white people have bland cracker like experiences?

I would hope that a wise white man with his depth of knowledge, control over his hormones and education would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black woman who hasn’t lived that life.

Yep, doesn't sound racist at all.


Except that, just like Soda, the above statement implies that the comparison group lacks the qualities given to the primary group. This kind of generalization is refereed to as bias and it leads to a great deal of bigotry.

This line of thinking is worse than thinking that the earth is 10k years old; but often goes along with a similar demographic of people.

Your example is nothing remotely similar to what she said.

Also, what she states is based on experiences rather than something innate in her because of race.

 

[Atreus21]

Well there is certainly a debate possible on that. (standing precedent disagrees with Scalia on that, but then again he's a justice so he isn't bound by it) Regardless, the point is that I can absolutely clearly articulate why I dislike the job he does as a justice. If someone dislikes Kagan or Sotomayor, they should be able to do so too.

Well, regarding Kagan, from what I've heard there's little evidence to go on, certainly not as large a body of evidence as there might be against sitting SCJ's.

Personally, I think the wise latina comment from Sotomayor is enough to give me a bad taste in my mouth.

You might find this humorous.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/asked-to-name-supreme-court-justice-he.html

Also, a counter argument to the Scalia torture thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M

I'd articulate it myself, but my unemployed ass is sitting in a library where I can't listen to the video. When I find a job, I'll articulate it.

 

[airdata]

Sarah Palin is going to be president in 2012. There will then be a mass exodus from the united states as people see her election as a true sign of the apocalypse.

 

[chucky2]

If Palin is elected as POTUS in 2012, God (whichever one(s) there is/are) help us....

Chuck