Roberts nominated for Chief

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm not at all convinced yet that he can take an open-minded look at things. That would be an important consideration to me. People who automatically take one side, and then have to be convinced that it's wrong, are not as good a choice for judge as those who have to be convinced to take a side in the first place.

I don't want my judges to be open minded. I want them to support the constitution as written and keep the lower courts from abusing the law by 'reinterpreting' it based on anyone's definition of 'open minded'. It's their job - they should be bulldogs about it.

If the law is not clear, then instead of rewriting/reinterpreting it, they should send it back to congress for rewrite. That would be congress' job. When most liberals (and far right religious types) say "open minded" they are specifically asking for activism in the courts - dead wrong.

You are writing about someone who would take a 'personal' view in conflict with the law. I don't think this guy is wired that way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If the law is not clear, then instead of rewriting/reinterpreting it, they should send it back to congress for rewrite. That would be congress' job. When most liberals (and far right religious types) say "open minded" they are specifically asking for activism in the courts - dead wrong.

You are aware that it is the Judicial Branch's job to interpret the law, right? It is not judicial activism; it is what they are supposed to do. It is not wrong, regardless of whether or not the President likes it. It is an important part of the "checks and balances" system.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

O fuck. That was good. You credibility just flew out the window. LMAO. Whatever you are smoking I want some

yeah, flew out along with your spelling, grammar, and proofreading abilities.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You are aware that it is the Judicial Branch's job to interpret the law, right? It is not judicial activism; it is what they are supposed to do.

It's the supreme courts job to make sure lower courts don't abuse that duty, also that Congress does not write laws that violate the constitution. Activism is NOT interpretation, it's taking a law completely out of it's intent to satisfy some special need. As such, "open mindedness" is not a good quality for a judge. You want knowledge of law; a grounding in the original intent; a (here's the important one) an ability to uphold the law without letting personal politics affect the execution of the job, stuff like that. Creativity is a crappy thing for a judge (regardless of his or her politics). Their job is to protect the line and make sure the written law is not abused.

You are aware that interpret does not = rewrite based on feelings. No matter how much the left and far right would like to bypass that whole nasty Congress in doing their jobs in writing the laws clearly in the first place and adapting to changing times.

But that would mean Congress would actually have to work and take positions instead of just grandstand all the time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Activism is NOT interpretation

That is what I said, interpretation is not the same as activism. Unfortunately, GW would like you to believe otherwise.

Notice he can 't provide specific examples of judges rewriting laws, either.

[lawrocket 3]

You know, in light of this I think it's appropriate to reflect on Rehnquist and his legacy. After all, it was Rehnquist who provided the true startpoint for Roberts when Roberts was Rehnquist's clerk.

Rehnquist, of course, was a fairly loose cannon when he started on the court. He was one of only two dissenters in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Still, back in 1992, he voted to preserve Roe v. Wade in the Casey case in 1992.

It simply became too difficult to pigeonhole Rehnquist into either left wing or right wing. Sure, the court began limiting federal powers under the commerce clause, especially in the 1990's, and his opinions shaped neoconservative ideas (though not in practice by elected neocons) of federalism.

Still, his votes were usually to uphold liberal protections. While he was viewed as a "Strict Constructionist" in many other issues he was the pragmatist. Back in 2000, he opined that the Miranda Decision should remain undisturbed because the decision has become such a part of the culture that he canno overturn it. He openly questioned the propriety of the decision but refused to reverse it on pragmatic grounds.

If Roberts is anything like his mentor, I think Roberts will be a fantastic justice with whom I will not always agree, but I certainly will respect him as I respected Rehnquist.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Activism is NOT interpretation

That is what I said, interpretation is not the same as activism. Unfortunately, GW would like you to believe otherwise.

Notice he can 't provide specific examples of judges rewriting laws, either.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about judges and you are trying to imply something about GWB. Can you guys ever stay on topic?

Edit: If we agree, then why the discourteous "are you aware" comment? Just being contentious?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Notice he can 't provide specific examples of judges rewriting laws, either

I can. Florida, 2000. The Florida Supreme Court rewrites the Florida statute to try to favor Gore. The SCOTUS vacated what the Florida Supreme Court did - unanimously, I might add....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I can. Florida, 2000. The Florida Supreme Court rewrites the Florida statute to try to favor Gore. The SCOTUS vacated what the Florida Supreme Court did - unanimously, I might add....

What statute would that be?

The US Supreme Court decision I remember happened along party lines, not unanimously.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about judges and you are trying to imply something about GWB. Can you guys ever stay on topic?

Evading the question?

Give a specific example of this "judicial activism" which you and a certain current president seem to believe happens all the time.

[lawrocket 3]

The statutes were part of the Florida Election Code, Florida Statutes sections 102.111 and 102.112.
They set the recount deadline as Nov. 12. The Florida Supreme Court reset the deadline as November 26.

Recall that in the first case, Gore sued the Sec. of State on Nov. 17 to enjoin her from certifying the election. The SCOTUS remanded back to the FSC for clarification on what law the FSC used to make its ruling.

In the SCOTUS case, there were two issues: 1) Were the recounts as they were being conducted as ordered by the FSC constitutional?; and 2) if so, what was the remedy?

The SCOTUS held 7-2 (you are right - it wasn't unanimous) on the first issue that the recount was Unconstitutional. 7 agreed with Bush that the FSC's system violated equal protection. Only 3 agreed with him that the FSC violated Article II of the Constitution. Point is that the first issue was decided 7-2 in favor of Bush. (Ginsberg and Stevens dissented)

The second issue - the remedy - was decided more closely on a 5-4 basis. The majority held that the recounts needed to stop because federal law held that electors must be selected no later than December 12. The case was argued on Dec. 11. By federal law, there was no way t get the recounts done.

Quote

The US Supreme Court decision I remember happened along party lines, not unanimously.

As I stated above, you are correct that it was not unanimous. Only the remedy was by party lines. Whether the FSC violated the equal protection clause was decided pretty clearly as 7-2

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tso-d_chris 0]

I'm not buying your example.

The margin of victory was merely a sliver of the margin of error.

There were numerous indications of voting fraud.

There was a limited time to find a solution to the problem of no clear winner.

A recount extension is hardly the same as being rewriting laws. If they saw fit to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, in a situation not anticipated by the law, they are fully within their power to do so.

If the US Supreme Court disagrees, theye are fully within their rights to use their authority to interpret the law differently than the lower court.

That is why we have an appeals process.

It is not judicial activism.

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

My only hope is that whomever becomes chief upholds the constitution - period, and keep his religious beliefs and personal opinions to himself .

Second that.

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[lawrocket 3]

So, what you're saying is this: 1) The margin of error was nonexistent. 2) Florida had about the cleanest election ever in 2000; and 3) There was a pretty clear winner, but the problem was that they had to find a way to discredit the Bush's victory forever, and they're still working on it.

Here I thought we were disagreeing. I'm glad you clarified that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Evading the question?

Give a specific example of this "judicial activism" which you and a certain current president seem to believe happens all the time.

Florida court in 2000, emminent domain conclusion, anyting in the 9th circuit, go do a search, you could find nutty extrapolations both left and right leaning.

Stop tying me to GWB. I'm not being partisan here, you have it in spades - your only issue isn't your eyes aren't both closed, just your left eye. I'm talking about qualifications for a judge, you seem stuck on partisan politics.

My whole point is a judge can have personal opinions and still be a good judge if he doesn't let those opinions affect his job. You seem to think that a judge must be installed based on those opinions and how effective he is at pushing an agenda - in spite of law. I gotta say I think you are dead wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

My only hope is that whomever becomes chief upholds the constitution - period, and keep his religious beliefs and personal opinions to himself .

Second that.

exactly - but "religious beliefs" are held by both liberal and conservative judges. Political correctness IS a religion to some. So although the original comment was a veiled attempt to pick at the right wing (they could have simply said "keep his personal opinions out of his decisions" and it would have meant the same), I think it applies BOTH ways and agree with that sentiment 100%

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Just for the record, you wrote:

Quote

The margin of victory was merely a sliver of the margin of error.

There were numerous indications of voting fraud.

There was a limited time to find a solution to the problem of no clear winner.

A recount extension is hardly the same as being rewriting laws. If they saw fit to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, in a situation not anticipated by the law, they are fully within their power to do so.

Of course, my personal interpretation of the spirit of your post was pasted as quoted below:

Quote

So, what you're saying is this: 1) The margin of error was nonexistent. 2) Florida had about the cleanest election ever in 2000; and 3) There was a pretty clear winner, but the problem was that they had to find a way to discredit the Bush's victory forever, and they're still working on it.

My reply above was merely my interpretation of your post "in a manner consistent with the spirit of the" post. Of course, my interpretation may be in direct contravention to the words that you wrote, but you agree that it is allowable for a judge, person, etc., to "interpret" words, sentences and ideas "in a manner consistent with the spirit of the" words.

Of course, the spirit of the words requires interpretation. So, you got my interpretation of your spirit . Here's my interpretation - I personally think that your post was done in sarcasm and jest. I thus interpreted the spirit of this to give your words the entire opposite meaning of what you wrote.

So, considering that I am the sole authority in determining the meaning of what was said, that's my statement. Sorry if you're on the losing end pf this interpretation, bub, but numerous law-abiding citizens can be victimized by a judge deciding that a law doesn't mean what it says. My personal opinion that you were being sarcastic is not subject to reveiw, either, as I don't believe anybody can actually mean that.

Trust me, I'm only advocating your stance. I hope you enjoy this spirit of twisting words and seeking out what I think you meant. of course utilizing my own value judgments to find this meaning. According to you, you think that's fair. (I chose not to view that statement as sarcastic - my personal choice as arbiter of your writing).

Let anyone decide what is intended and not intended, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.