Please recommend some questions to ask

[Dari]

Next year I will attend Y:sneaky: AD: L E Law reunion. In attendance will be three of the most conservative judges on the SCOTUS. But I have no idea what to ask of them. I hear that, in these settings, they are usually candid about what they say. Any suggestions?

 

[uclabachelor]

Next year I will attend Y:sneaky: AD: L E Law reunion. In attendance will be three of the most conservative judges on the SCOTUS. But I have no idea what to ask of them. I hear that, in these settings, they are usually candid about what they say. Any suggestions?

How much of an effect on citizens has the Constitution and Bill of Rights changed since over the last centuries, especially over the last few decades?

From my perspective: It feels like they exist to protect those who are good citizens, erodes for those who are accused, and is nonexistent for the convicted.

 

[Fern]

Next year I will attend Y:sneaky: AD: L E Law reunion. In attendance will be three of the most conservative judges on the SCOTUS. But I have no idea what to ask of them. I hear that, in these settings, they are usually candid about what they say. Any suggestions?

Re: The ACA or Obamacare. Chief Justice Roberts opined that the penalty was actually a tax, and then said it's not a direct tax. (I'm assuming you know the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax). Well, it's clearly not an indirect tax either. So, if it's not a direct tax, nor indirect tax, what (new) kind of tax is it?

Link re: indirect tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_tax

I would also think there is a lot that can asked about recent NSA disclosures. E.g., how is capturing and storing the content of someone's communication (email, phone call etc) without probable cause not a violation of the 4th?

Fern

 

[IronWing]

Ask how far they intend to go making corporations into persons.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How about something addressing the disparity of sentencing between the wealthy and poor in this country? There's the very public case of the rich young kid who drove drunk and killed several people and got probation and a rehab vacation while poor people who commit the same crime get a decade in prison. There's also the discrepancy in sentencing for white collar crimes versus petty theft; steal $20 at gunpoint, get 20 years in prison; steal $20 billion through corporate fraud, get 10 years in a minimum security "prison" and you don't even have to return the money. Where's the incentive to play fair if gaming the system has no real penalty?

Actually, that's not very good conversation for a cocktail reception. Ask them how often they randomly interrupt conversations by yelling "OVERRULED." If nothing else, it will give them a good party trick to use on the next person who wants to talk business during prime drinking time. I hear Scalia's a real party animal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ask them if they are proud they destroyed the nation and killed hundreds of thousand in the Middle East by personally electing George Bush. Ask them if they are happy they destroyed any chance for the people to elect their representatives by of having them bought instead, by the rich.

 

[boomerang]

Ask them their thoughts on an amendment to the Constitution that would impose term limits on them.

 

[raildogg]

Ask them why do they believe what they say matters much more than anyone else.

 

[Kadarin]

Ask them how they feel about the constitutionality of the NSA phone and internet data collection, and what implications it has for the present and future of the American political process.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ask them how We, the People can possibly mitigate the corrupting influence of money on our government, given the legal fictions that money is protected speech, and amoral organizations with overwhelming financial resources are granted the same Constitutional rights as human citizens.

 

[theeedude]

My question would be:
If you think money is speech, can we pay you in speeches?

 

[Dari]

Most of y'all have serious questions but I am not a lawyer so I will already be the dumbest guy in the room. I don't speak the vernacular so I do not want to get an answer I will not understand. So, please, construct your questions in a manner that is easy for anyone to understand but not loaded enough for them to have to wonder who they're talking to or too basic for them to see me as a simpleton. The reunion is in October so I will pin this thread to the date in my calendar so I can come back to it.

Fern, wouldn't your answer be found in the minority/dissenting opinion? These guys (Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) are the most conservative judges on the court so that opinion would be their own.

 

[Fern]

Most of y'all have serious questions but I am not a lawyer so I will already be the dumbest guy in the room. I don't speak the vernacular so I do not want to get an answer I will not understand. So, please, construct your questions in a manner that is easy for anyone to understand but not loaded enough for them to have to wonder who they're talking to or too basic for them to see me as a simpleton. The reunion is in October so I will pin this thread to the date in my calendar so I can come back to it.

Fern, wouldn't your answer be found in the minority/dissenting opinion? These guys (Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) are the most conservative judges on the court so that opinion would be their own.

IIRC, Robertson intentionally blindsided them by reversing/revising his original opinion and dumping it on them at the last minute. I.e., those judges had no time to respond in their opinions. And the liberal judges dumped their arguments and glommed on the Robert's opinion so Obamacare would pass. (IMO, the latter was particularly shameful as well as intellectually dishonest.)

I.e., my recollection is that the question I posed was never answered/addressed. But if you're think of posing it I'll go back to check their opinion(s) to make sure.

Edit: If you're going to the Yale law reunion how is it you're not a lawyer?

Fern

 

[Dari]

IIRC, Robertson intentionally blindsided them by reversing/revising his original opinion and dumping it on them at the last minute. I.e., those judges had no time to respond in their opinions. And the liberal judges dumped their arguments and glommed on the Robert's opinion so Obamacare would pass. (IMO, the latter was particularly shameful as well as intellectually dishonest.)

I.e., my recollection is that the question I posed was never answered/addressed. But if you're think of posing it I'll go back to check their opinion(s) to make sure.

Edit: If you're going to the Yale law reunion how is it you're not a lawyer?

Fern

He really did that? That's fucking brutal. He probably wanted it to pass or was conflicted. Either way, what he did was disingenuous. Not that it matters but was this before or after his heart attack? That could've been a factor...

But, yeah, check it over because it does sound like something they would've wanted to address had they been given more time.

As for the school, it's where everyone in my family goes for undergrad. I went elsewhere.

 

[LunarRay]

I've argued in a moot court scenario that.... phrased differently... (I'm not an attorney either - I'd rather a telescope named after me than a landmark case - but did stumble about once upon a time amongst the :hmm:.)

Shouldn't the Ninth Amendment be construed to mean that any Right sought by a person ought to be recognized as being Fundamental and limited only by a Strict Scrutiny analysis by the Court... As in; the voting Rights based on Sex taking from its introduction in 1878 until 1920 when it was ratified as the 19th versus being implied by the Ninth.

 

[Dari]

Ok. Just an update. The reunion is coming up soon.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If they could get a "do over" would they rule differently on Citizens United?
And the follow up question is why?

 

[Newell Steamer]

In attendance will be three of the most conservative judges on the SCOTUS.

1) When will rape laws be thrown out the window? There are far too many men who were lured into sex with an unconscious woman (by said unconscious woman) and are having their lives ruined. This is not fair.

2) Paternity tests - can they be immediately dismissed in divorces and claims for child support? I mean, the baby DID come out of lady parts,.. I am not sure how a man should be held responsible for what happens to that kid,...

3) On that last note (on how ladies should be responsible for their lady parts,..), when will abortion be banned? I mean, how dare these very women, who we expect to be responsible for their own bodies, actually be responsible for their own bodies?!

4) Can we make big government illegal?

5) Muslim prayer curtains,.. when can we ban them?

 

[Cozarkian]

I'd ask them if there are any situations where the 10th Amendment would need to be analyzed to determine the constitutionality of a law. Keep in mind, while they will likely be candid with answers, they will likely only talk about past cases and the process of their decisions, they won't answer questions about pending cases or current events that might result in pending cases.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd ask them if there are any situations where the 10th Amendment would need to be analyzed to determine the constitutionality of a law. Keep in mind, while they will likely be candid with answers, they will likely only talk about past cases and the process of their decisions, they won't answer questions about pending cases or current events that might result in pending cases.

Hasn't that already been repeatedly ruled on by SCOTUS? The answer is no.

 

[werepossum]

I've argued in a moot court scenario that.... phrased differently... (I'm not an attorney either - I'd rather a telescope named after me than a landmark case - but did stumble about once upon a time amongst the :hmm:.)

Shouldn't the Ninth Amendment be construed to mean that any Right sought by a person ought to be recognized as being Fundamental and limited only by a Strict Scrutiny analysis by the Court... As in; the voting Rights based on Sex taking from its introduction in 1878 until 1920 when it was ratified as the 19th versus being implied by the Ninth.

Ooh, I like that. It also has implications for gay marriage.

That's a lot better than mine, which was to ask them if Darth Bader Ginsberg ever attempts to strangle them using only the dark side of the Force.

 

[Greenman]

Ask them out for dinner after the event, spend a pleasant evening getting to know them, and pick up the tab.

 

[MongGrel]

Ask them if they are proud they destroyed the nation and killed hundreds of thousand in the Middle East by personally electing George Bush. Ask them if they are happy they destroyed any chance for the people to elect their representatives by of having them bought instead, by the rich.

+1

 

[Bowfinger]

How about this, something a lay person could ask? Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview:

"If there was one decision I would overrule, it would be Citizens United. I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be."
​

What are their thoughts? How is this legalized bribery consistent with the fundamental principles of democracy, e.g., one man, one vote?

 

[z1ggy]

Will there be free bags handed out so you can all fart into them and enjoy the pompous, yet delightful scent together?