Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 12:38pm PT
|
The reason why some judges become more liberal after appointment is that they are now appointed for life, so they aren't beholded to anyone for reelection and also, I believe [busllshit bullshit bullshit]
Your "reason" is provably false in the case of the most famous turncoat of recent times, the lamentable (miscarriage-of)-"Justice" Souter.
He was appointed to the Supreme Court from the First Circuit, and, as a federal judge, had lifetime tenure, and before that, he was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and also had lifetime tenure (with a mandatory retirement age).
While you couched your (mis)-statement with the weasely "some," one may question the legal intelligence of someone who puts forth a theory that is clearly inapplicable in explaining the most notorious instance of a justice "going rogue."
A more likely explanation is that it's simply about power: a conservative justice is restrained in his rulings, and only interferes with the acts of other branches of government in cases of clear violations of the Constitution (as in the noted case of King v. Burwell, but sadly the conservative justices were outnumbered by the hardcore liberals and the opportunistic villains Roberts and Kennedy). A "liberal" justice, on the other hand, is free to do whatever he pleases, without any fidelity to the Constitution or any other body of law. As but one of many egregious examples, consider that libs would find the death penalty to be unconstitutional, when its existence is acknowledged in the very Bill of Rights!
It is human nature, especially among weak minded sycophants such as Souter, to seize upon whatever power they can. Hence, justices are far more likely to move to the left than to the right.
The only remedy for this is to support strong-willed, disciplined, intellectuals such a the late, great, Justice Scalia, who will resist the "siren song" of the libs to seize power, and exercise judicial restraint (which does not mean, as has been noted, that they will stand by while the President or Congress clearly violate the Constitution, as Obama has done so many times--and I predict his illegal behavior will only increase now that Scalia's gone and the threat of impeachment recedes).
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 12:44pm PT
|
Thanks, JEleazarian. Nicely put.
EDIT:
Blahblah, Hope you are all healed from your accident a year or so ago.
Re the death penalty.
Yes, entirely constitutional:
The 5th Amendment says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law."
The 14th Amendment says: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law."
Both imply capital punishment is OK.
But the 8th Amendment proscribes "cruel and unusual punishment." And the 14th requires "the equal protection of the laws".
It could be, and has been argued that in some states blacks and poor people are executed with more frequency than whites and wealthy people, for equivalent crimes, therefore contravening the 14th amendment. Also, there have been cases of injections and electrocutions where things have not gone smoothly and, allegedly, great suffering has been caused, i.e. cruelty, i.e. contravening the 8th Amendment.
What is in question is not capital punishment per se but flawed implementation, by the states, of capital punishment.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 01:43pm PT
|
blahblah, it's a good thing you believe the drivel you spew since no one else does.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 02:17pm PT
|
What is in question is not capital punishment per se but flawed implementation, by the states, of capital punishment.
Would that were the case.
In fact, at least several Supreme Court Justices voted to find the death penalty unconstitutional in all cases, to wit, the late Justices Brennan and Marshall. I'm unsure if any current justices find the death penalty to be unconstitutional per se (I don't think any admit to it at least), but inasmuch as several liberal justices have so found, it's entirely reasonable to consider that future liberal justices will as well.
It may be worthwhile taking a movement to consider how outlandish that is--for judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution to "find" that actions countenanced by the Constitution are unconstitutional!
Thanks for the good wishes on my recovery--amazingly (and thanks to good medical care), I'm climbing away more-or-less as I used to, with nothing but a sore back and wonky shoulder as a reminder of my accident.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 23, 2016 - 02:38pm PT
|
"The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have officially declared they will not hold a hearing on anyone President Obama nominates for the Supreme Court.
This is quite a gamble. I don't think it will play well outside of conservative circles when Obama nominates a Justice and the republicans completely stonewall him. If Trump is the nominee, which now seems sort of likely, and large numbers of republicans stay home on Election Day, which is kind of the prevailing thought (although who the hell knows), then this move could really backfire.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 02:55pm PT
|
The Republicans plan on stealing the election, so they must hold off Obama's pick until they have another fascist in as President
that can pick another fascist like Scalia
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 02:59pm PT
|
Scalia’s Fascist Roots Run Deep
http://vegasjessie.com/2012/06/30/scalias-fascist-roots-run-deep/
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1986. He has spent twenty-five years on the bench thus far, ruling always in the direction of the Right. His views are considered almost fascist. In fact, he almost fits the definition of fascism. He is a strict Constitutionalist believing in strong Executive Branch powers. He’s against the Civil Rights Act and has said he would’ve sided with the dissenters in the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson where legalized segregation was upheld. We are talking about a guy who just might have sided with the Confederate States in the Civil War as he firmly believes in states’ rights.
Scalia: Always Conservative
How did Antonin become the curmudgeon he has evolved into? Perhaps we need simply to look at his dad, Eugene Scalia. He had enormous influence on Justice Scalia. He sent his son to military school where they had to pledge allegiance to Mussolini, Alan Dershowitz has asserted. Scalia Sr. founded the American Fascist Party in 1934 only two years before Antonin was born. Apparently a 60 Minutes interview included extensive biographical information on Justice Scalia and his family, where they identify his father as “a professor of romance languages at Brooklyn College” and failed to disclose that he was a member of the American-Italian Fascist Party during Mussolini’s regime in the 1930s. He’s a man who is well in the tradition of Franco and Mussolini.
Mr. Scalia went on an infamous hunting trip with Dick Cheney in 2004 to his vacation spot in Southern Louisiana. It seems Mr. Cheney’s trip raised growing questions about the propriety of a Supreme Court justice going on a hunt the same time Scalia was hearing a case involving the vice president. The case, which has to do with whether Cheney must reveal who serves on his energy task force. Further complicating the question: The host of the hunting trip is a prominent member of the energy industry. Of course, he did not recuse himself from the case and The Court ruled in Cheney’s favor.
In that same 60 Minutes interview, he told Leslie Stahl and the American people to “get over it” with regards to the legitimacy of the Bush v Gore decision. A puppet of the Bush administration and a staunch enemy of most democratic principles, it’s easy to see why. His father’s allegiances lie with people who were sympathetic with the ways of the Nazis, who basically believe that every function of government should be run by private corporations, that government should be strictly authoritarian, and that there should be no freedom for people within a country. They supported the Nazis in the lead up to World War II. In a notable case, Senator Prescott Bush, an erstwhile member of the American Fascist party, was sanctioned for doing business dealings with the Nazis even after World War II started. It’s no wonder Scalia is the way he is. A corporatist, a segregationist and a big advocate of state’s rights, he may as well be a plantation owner in the Antebellum South. I don’t think his interpretation of the Constitution is what it’s supposed to be. He has a conservative agenda and will always rule for the wealthy corporations. If Willard Romney had been elected, he would have only appointed more like him on the bench.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 03:49pm PT
|
He is a strict Constitutionalist believing in strong Executive Branch powers. He’s against the Civil Rights Act and has said he would’ve sided with the dissenters in the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson where legalized segregation was upheld.
Craig Fry here is an example of the appalling ignorance in your cut-and-paste job:
If Scalia said he would have sided with the dissenters, that means he would have voted against upholding segregation. In judicial opinions (as with the English language generally), to "dissent" is to "disagree"--a "dissenting opinion" by a judge on a multi-judge panel (such as the Supreme Court) means that the judge would have voted against the majority opinion for whatever reason the judge expresses in the dissent.
Your cut-and-paste job did not contain a mere typo, as I see from quick Internet searching that Scalia did in fact say he would have dissented in Plessy. Whoever wrote that article lacks even the most basic knowledge of legal concepts, unless the point of the article was somehow to note that Scalia was opposed to discrimination.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 06:39pm PT
|
lacks even the most basic knowledge of legal concepts
hahahahahahahaha!
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 08:30pm PT
|
Craig are you sure...
The Republicans plan on stealing the election, so they must hold off Obama's pick until they have another fascist in as President
that can pick another fascist like Scalia
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 08:39pm PT
|
"The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have officially declared they will not hold a hearing on anyone President Obama nominates for the Supreme Court."
This is quite a gamble. I don't think it will play well outside of conservative circles when Obama nominates a Justice and the republicans completely stonewall him. If Trump is the nominee, which now seems sort of likely, and large numbers of republicans stay home on Election Day, which is kind of the prevailing thought (although who the hell knows), then this move could really backfire.
I'm up for the gamble. It will be a double disaster for the republican'ts. They'll loose the Senate and the Whitehouse. No matter what, they don't gain from anything here. They lost already.
Public opinion for the DinosauR Party is crumbling. It's sad, really. Some were good people.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 08:58pm PT
|
It's sort of the seminal if not crowning finale of an eight year run of blatant obstruction. It highlights and casts in cement the reality that the right has no interest in or ability to govern. It won't play well outside of their now much-to-the-right base which is both saturated in and addicted to hysterium. But everywhere else it won't be well-regarded by the public and - when combined with the wholesale alienation of women, blacks and latinos - the result will suck the air out of them come election day.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2016 - 09:18pm PT
|
healyje! Re your post:
It's sort of the seminal if not crowning finale of an eight year run of blatant obstruction. It highlights and casts in cement the reality that the right has no interest in or ability to govern. It won't play well outside of their now much-to-the-right base which is both saturated in and addicted to hysterium. But everywhere else it won't be well-regarded by the public and - when combined with the wholesale alienation of women, blacks and latinos - the result will suck the air out of them come election day.
I do hope you are correct, and that the sane voters outnumber the racist, & the stupid, & their puppet-masters among the ultra-wealthy.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2016 - 12:26am PT
|
It'll be the biggest intelligence test ever conducted - delusional morons vs the appalled.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
It is truly amazing. Republicans have long hated Obama enough that they abandoned what's best for the country for what's best for their party. This is something new and different though. Republicans now hate Obama so much that they will even do what is not in the interest of their own party to oppose him. Interesting times...
Curt
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 24, 2016 - 08:15am PT
|
I have a feeling at some point--maybe in a few months as primaries wind down--they'll back off a little and at least hold hearings, although probably not confirm anyone. The optics of a black president, potentially nominating a person of color, and being ignored by a white Senate, would look really bad to the general electorate.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2016 - 08:31am PT
|
The Right Wing hypocrisy is frightening.
How do they think they can get away with it other than assuming all America right wingers are just plain stupid and gullible.
Oh, ya I remember now, just feed them fearful lies about tyranny and commies
PROOF Republicans Claiming Obama Shouldn’t Pick Supreme Court Justice Are Hypocrites (QUOTES)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/14/proof-republicans-claiming-obama-shouldnt-pick-supreme-court-justice-are-hypocrites-quotes/
Here’s the thing about history, though — it will come back to bite you when you least expect it, and prove that you may, in fact, be a huge hypocrite. Here are some quotes from back when former President George W. Bush was trying to get a vote on his nominees. And you may recognize a couple of the names:
“Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up -or -down vote.” – Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (5/19/05)
“I hope that by the end of this session of Congress, my colleagues will give the President’s qualified nominees what they, and all current and future nominees deserve: the opportunity to have a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on their nomination. For the sake of the Senate, the nation, and our independent judiciary, I hope that these partisans will not launch more filibusters, but from what I’ve heard today, I won’t hold my breath.” – Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (3/26/04)
“The bottom line has to be that the president has the right to get a vote, an up-or-down vote, on his nominees.” – Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (11/10/04)
“Let’s debate the nominees and give our advice and consent. It is a simple ‘yea’ or ‘nay,’ when called to the altar to vote. Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage influence in the Senate. Threatening to grind legislative activity to a standstill if they do not get their way is like being a bully on the school yard playground. Let’s do our jobs. Nothing is nuclear about asking the full Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. It is the way the Senate has operated for 214 years.” – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (5/23/05)
“But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution.” – Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) (4/20/05)
“Every nominee deserves a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.” – Dick Cheney (5/10/04)
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2016 - 10:02am PT
|
I'm always so confident in the overwhelming rightness and obvious popularity of my partisan information bubble until I look up and notice a Republican controlled Senate or Trump presidency.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!