The nuance doesn't exist. As I suspected, you are showing that you only see liberal bogeymen.
Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
It's amazing how working/retired lawyers here are ridiculed by lawyer wannabes.
I didn't miss it. You are contriving a nuance that doesn't exist.
There is a Supreme Court opinion on the books about not having the 10 commandments be made mandatory in schools. So, in direct disregard to the legitimacy of the prior court opinion and specifically calling out the court that issued that opinion, the Louisiana legislature stuck up its middle finger and said "eat shit". Banking on the Supreme Court to overturn another precedent and find that the Decalogue that says "you shall have no other Gods before me"; "you shall not make craven idols" and "Don't use MY name in vain", are totally secular just good rules of thumbs.
Fine. You are right. You are always right. You have never been wrong. You will never be wrong.
“The court is illegitimate” Is EXACTLY the same “I disagree that substantive due process supports abortion.” There is no difference. There has never been a difference. There will never be a difference.
Every issue is nothing but a political slugfest and each side is properly claiming the court is illegitimate with every decision. Democracy is destroyed every time any SCOTUS decision is issued. Always. Throughout all time.
You win.
There is no nuance.
Waller on.
Your words - “in direct disregard to the legitimacy of the prior court opinion”
Not the same as “the Supreme Court as an institution is illegitimate and is the pawn of the political parties.”
Check out CSPAN2 - American History TV - “Lincoln and Civil War Warning Signs.” It discusses Lincoln’s thoughts on the SCOTUS after Dred Scott, and the proper ways to change that interpretation of the Constitution. NOT ONCE did he try and claim the Court was just a political puppet. He talked about CHANGING the LAW, not the COURT. (Wish I could link it, but I lack the skill to defeat CSPAN.)
You are setting up straw men, which is usually a good sign that you know you're wrong.
Nope.
I was talking about two things. You could only see one. You misunderstood. Not me.
You’ve been the same now for years Goat. As soon as you see I have made a post, you start with “how can I point out that he is somehow wrong about something.“ That’s as far as we ever get.
At least it’s an improvement over “how can I point out he is a racist.“
Merrick Garland was not a "political hack" when he was nominated by Obama.
All I did was ask you if you had the same problem with conservatives engaging in similar bad behavior. Your response was to deny that bad behavior and eventually to change my question into something else entirely. You're now criticizing me for things I never said.
He's nothing, if not predictable.
When he's cornered, he always resorts to 'you didn't understand what I posted' or 'google it yourself'.
Thomas says that he did seek advice and was told it was not required:
Clarence Thomas defends himself after undisclosed gifts revelation
Conservative justice says he was told ‘personal hospitality’ from mega-donor did not have to be reported, as impeachment calls grow
"Thomas said: “Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable.”
He added: “It is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.”"
If you look at Garland's experience, qualifications, and opinions at the time Obama nominated him and think that that justifies the label "political hack," you are going to have to say the same thing for nearly every justice on the SCt right now and most throughout our history.
If you do so, that's a consistent position. But I think it is a wrong position.
first of all, I responded to Zeke s specific comment about deferring to states and not deferring to states.
But you are correct about unenumerated rights and by observing that enumerated rights are not absolute. No quarrel with any of that.
The constitutional right to abortions as Blackmun described has always been weak sauce. Especially when you consider the right changed after the first trimester. (The court later fixed that). Leaving it to state legislatures or state constitutions makes more sense.
Biden and the democrats are fond of saying they would codify Roe v Wade at the federal level. I’m curious about by what authority that can do that unless they tie it to other federal health funds which is also weak sauce.
You either read my responses wrong, did not understand them, or were blinded by "how can I say he is wrong."
I acknowledged the GOP had objected to social issue opinions on their merits, but not by attacking the LEGITIMACY of the court itself. NOT by claiming "democracy is at an end."
I was even more clear with my comment that complaints about “judicial activism” are not the same thing as complaining “the court is illegitimate and should be ignored.”
It is a very plain, uncomplicated distinction.
I will try again:
"I disagree with your decision in Roe v. Wade - substantive due process does not support expanding the right to privacy to cover abortion because history does NOT show protection of abortion establishing it as a fundamental right, to the contrary abortion has been nearly universally outlawed" is different than "Roe v. Wade proves you hate democracy."
<COH >Thomas says that he did seek advice and was told it was not required:
Clarence Thomas defends himself after undisclosed gifts revelation
Conservative justice says he was told ‘personal hospitality’ from mega-donor did not have to be reported, as impeachment calls growwww.theguardian.com
"Thomas said: “Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable.”
He added: “It is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.”"
The mere fact that he asked makes him conflicted.
</COH >
I stand by my point that conflicts are 100% subjective and no independent body can speak to the issue. That said, an independent body can and should comment about whether objective criteria would require recusal. Interestingly, this does not require proof of actual subjective bias. If the objective criteria are met, the judge must recuse. But this doesn’t address the problem I believe Merchan had.
Of course politics abounds in court. But the politics revolves around philosophy and ideas. Some judges are more anti-cop than others. Some are more anti-cpgovernment. Some are more likely to be pro-plaintiff. Etc.
But when the political issue involves a particular party before the court, everything changes. The politics in the Trump prosecutions are specifically about Trump, not about general biases about issues.
Bragg made Trump politics crystal clear. I think Merchan was more subtle, but there is little doubt where he stood about Trump too.
Damnnnnn what’s going on in this thread?!!!!! Looks like a full class at Coh U. I love it!!! No loan forgiveness here!!! That’s money well spent!! 💪💪
This whole idea of GOP appointments, Dem appointments, liberal or conservative is pretty much nonsense when figuring out court ideology. A strong case in point is the Kelo eminent domain case, where the court held taking and just compensation for economic benefit does not offend the constitution. The conservatives went ape shit over that opinion and still do. Yet the opinion is a very conservative one. It stood for federalism. SCOTUS did not involve itself with local eminent domain standards. Of course if conservatives don’t like eminent domain for that purpose, change local law or vote for different people.
The main issue there was whether what they did counted as a "public use."
I think it was wrongly decided.
I have no idea of his background. I'm judging him based on what he's done since he's been AG.
I know, at the time, 'some' had reservations about him, which is why I posted that.
All i'll say is, based on what he's done as AG, I'm damn glad he wasn't approved for SC Justice.
And a sad epilogue. Nearly twenty years after the residents were forced to leave and their homes demolished, the land remains vacant.
Now do all the following:
1. abortion cases;
2. civil rights;
3. Voting rights/gerrymandering
4. Environmental protections;
If you don't think you can spot the conservative or liberal in 95% of all supreme court cases, then I have a wall to sell to you that I promise will have been paid for by Mexico.
Kelo ain't a case in point. Brad pointed out what was at stake in that opinion and it involved compensation. Eminent Domain is not like comparing any of the 4 above referenced issues that are ideology driven to a T. It is like saying "well, when judge libby liberal handled commerical litigation on the bench in the western district of katmando, she was conversative in her opinions". Sure--absolutely--because ideology doesn't really come into play in such cases. But let's do it your way. If trump is victorious, let's have 10 well qualified federal judges --5 from that identify for each party, drop their names into a hat and let your guy pick out that hat.
Duped again, speaking of dense. Why is it that those who consistently call others stupid are generally the ones who need to take a long look in the mirror themselves? Think I read three posts in a row from you where you are calling people name.
I think your % of spotting the ideologies is exaggerated.
Unanimity in decisions is much more common. Even now, in the nadir of unanimity, the Court is still at about 30-40%:
As unanimity declines, conservative majority’s power runs deeper than the blockbuster cases - SCOTUSblog
One year ago, the Supreme Court had just ended a term of transition. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority. Yet the court issued more unanimous decisions than in the three preceding terms, and some major rulings showed compromise or
www.scotusblog.com
Lmao. Prove that Joe Biden has done anything wrong. Then let’s talk about Ivanka, Jared etc.
Why? It received an A rating as opposed to the Trump Foundation that was forced to dissolve. Nice try though. Want to talk about fake colleges next?
So of those 4 topics I referenced, can you identify one case that has been a 9-0 decision?I think your % of spotting the ideologies is exaggerated.
Unanimity in decisions is much more common. Even now, in the nadir of unanimity, the Court is still at about 30-40%:
As unanimity declines, conservative majority’s power runs deeper than the blockbuster cases - SCOTUSblog
One year ago, the Supreme Court had just ended a term of transition. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority. Yet the court issued more unanimous decisions than in the three preceding terms, and some major rulings showed compromise or
Off the top of my head? No. I agree in some of those areas, a judge's ideology is going to predict the decision.
But I was responding to this claim:
If you don't think you can spot the conservative or liberal in 95% of all supreme court cases, then I have a wall to sell to you that I promise will have been paid for by Mexico.
Sorry, I left out the word "95% of all "THESE" supreme court cases.
Fair. Not sure on civil rights. Some of those cases break strangely (and it probably depends on what you're defining as civil rights).
Very true. For example, Gorsuch isn't the first justice you'd think of when it comes to civil rights, but that all flips around if you also happen to be Native American. Then he's your goto.
Wow. A lot to chew on here.
Civil rights? Gorsuch wrote the opinion about Title VII protecting gays. The opinion is brilliant and I challenge you to identify an ideology in his analysis.
Voting rights gerrymandering? Not sure what you are driving at here. The court resists finding constitutional protection in being a Republican or Democrat, which I agree with. I don’t think there are such rights. The racial business is settled law. Yeah the court acknowledged progress, and there has been. Those laws are remedial and they should expire when the purpose is moot.
Environmental protections? Decisions turn on EPA and other regulatory authority. The waters of the United States laws is now law after the court required a do-over.
You didn’t mention gun control so I will. The immunity laws are a liberal approach because they destroy access to courts and deny right to jury trial. Yet conservatives support immunity. The recent bump stock opinion was not about bump stocks but about ATF authority. I think bump stocks should be banned, but I agree with the decision. If we don’t insist the feds follow the rules, we got nuthin.
I’ll give you abortion. That is ideological.
Finally Kelo. The decision was mostly about who makes the call, not whether eminent domain for private benefit is okay. Urban renewal laws are all about benefiting private interests using ED. They are all okay. Local governments promise public improvements all the time to attract private development. Some of that will include ED authority. I think the issues of public benefit are singularly inappropriate for the court room and are best resolved in the city council chambers.
Last edited:
Speaking of being duped again..... another myth you bought into has been debunked. By your Bible, Snopes.
Left wing fact checker admits Trump never called Charlottesville neo-Nazis ‘very fine people’
“While Trump did say that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white supremacists and said they should be ‘…
nypost.com
Sure, as soon as you prove Thomas did anything wrong.
Oh, what the hell.......
Bidens’ $5M interest-free China loan part of ‘pay-to-play’ scheme: Sen. Grassley
Sen. Grassley questioned whether the FBI is fully investigating Hunter Biden and demanded a “full and unredacted FBI summary” of Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski’s October 2020 FBI interview…
nypost.com
And the Clinton Foundation?
The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't
While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes,... Read More
www.investors.com
