NewGuy2005 53 #26 April 4, 2012 Quote Quote Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. their job is absolutely to ignore their personal and subjective ideologies and just focus on constitutionality (unless their personal ideology actually is "constitution" = "top priority") I don't think the constitution is a Ouija board, YMMV, but NOT if you are a SC Justice. That's the whole point. I absolutely admire any judge that can admit he has a personal objection to a ruling, but still does it because that's what the law says. (props for knowing how to spell weegee board too, BTW) Point taken, but one will have an "ideology" regarding the Constitution and its interpretation. I don't think it can be avoided. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #27 April 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote You make them sound like party hacks. Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. We can count on you to respond in a consistent manner to "almost any issue with political implications." Does that make you a party hack? No, I don't make a living at it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 April 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You make them sound like party hacks. Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are. Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial. Funny, don't you think, that in so many cases 5 of the most prominent legal minds in the country can think the Constitution means "X" and another 4 of them can think it means "not X". If it isn't the SC's politicization that's the problem, it must be the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 April 4, 2012 QuoteIf it isn't the SC's politicization that's the problem, it must be the law. I like it. 5 vs 4 in either direction should be a vote of no confidence in the law. If the supreme court can't achieve at least a 6 to 3 vote or even a 7 to 2 vote, then the law should be overturned as a subjective pile of crap and sent back to the Legislation to write it better. Make the Legislature do its job right and draft clear laws that are in line with the Constitution. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 April 4, 2012 Now to add a new opinion to this: Despite all the things being said politically, I think that this justice was out of line with this. I suspect that therJ was nothing on file challenging the Justices' authority to strike down the law. I also feel bad for the poor attorney who ended up on the receiving end of this. That lady did nothing wrong and didn't deserve it (though every attorney who has ever worked for someone else has been rolled for something a senior attorney has done or said. I think it will be an interesting thing that the President's own Justice Department will have to file something that is going to say that the courts have a long history of throwing out popularly passed laws (Take a look at Prop 8 in Cali). But the Justice is human. I take it he viewed this as an opportunity to say "How's this for unelected, Mr. President?" And needless to say, Judges will scathe attorneys for the actions and/or statements of their clients. But this Justice was a bit out of line. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #31 April 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You make them sound like party hacks. Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are. Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial. Funny, don't you think, that in so many cases 5 of the most prominent legal minds in the country can think the Constitution means "X" and another 4 of them can think it means "not X". If it isn't the SC's politicization that's the problem, it must be the law. Or is it that the 4 are not using the constitution to rule on the law Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 April 4, 2012 Reasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. It's why there are nine justices. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #33 April 4, 2012 Quote But the Justice is human. I take it he viewed this as an opportunity to say "How's this for unelected, Mr. President?" And needless to say, Judges will scathe attorneys for the actions and/or statements of their clients. But this Justice was a bit out of line. I think this is exactly what happened. Of course I think Obama's comments were out of line, too."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 April 4, 2012 Absolutely. I don't excuse either. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 April 4, 2012 QuoteAbsolutely. I don't excuse either. It has happened before, though: From an appellate lawyer: QuoteIt is not common for appeals courts to introduce party statements from outside the courtroom and demand explanations, but that’s only because most litigants aren’t dumb enough to make statements outside the courtroom likely to impact their cases. The notable exception to that general rule is the government-as-litigant, which, because it is led by politicians and ever-shifting public policy, is more likely than most litigants to have to explain statements or policies that may run against its best legal interests. I’ll give you just two recent examples, where appellate courts have done like the Fifth Circuit did here. First, when the Obama Administration announced its decision to not defend DOMA even while it continues to enforce DOMA, several judges in DOMA-related cases (and a few in barely-related cases) demanded that DOJ explain. Those demands for explanation came from both Republican- and Democrat-appointed judges. Second, after months of the Administration attempting to push its “prosecutorial discretion” policy with respect to aliens in removal proceedings, the Ninth Circuit finally fed up with the apparent collision of the Administration’s announced discretion policy and the actual prosecutorial decisions of DHS, demanded in five test cases that DOJ explain what the discretion policy actually entailed and what that means for the Ninth Circuit’s cases. So this happens and it’s not the first time for Obama’s Administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #36 April 5, 2012 QuoteReasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. It's why there are nine justices. How does it apply to someone who "reasonably believes" their life to be at risk? Can reasonable minds disagree about that? We have 12 people on a jury (typically). Using your logic, why can't a 7-5 decision be acceptable? After all, reasonable minds can differ. It's that simple.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteReasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. It's why there are nine justices. How does it apply to someone who "reasonably believes" their life to be at risk? Can reasonable minds disagree about that? We have 12 people on a jury (typically). Using your logic, why can't a 7-5 decision be acceptable? After all, reasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. Because deciding guilt or innocence is an entirely different matter than deciding the constitutionality of a law.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 April 5, 2012 Because there are different policies. They decided that a jury consists of 12. Why? I don't know. Why does a majority win elections, John? Why set up a quorum? I'm a JD. My wife is a DO. You're a Ph.D. Why not just call all of us "Doctor?" Why do people regard you and my wife "doctor" but I'm just an asshole? (Well, I AM an asshole. I've got a doctorate in it). Different policies. Perhaps a change could be made causing a jury of 7. Better in some ways and worse in others. Reasonable minds can differ. Note: I've tried a lot more cases before a judge without a jury. Can be done. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #39 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. It's why there are nine justices. How does it apply to someone who "reasonably believes" their life to be at risk? Can reasonable minds disagree about that? We have 12 people on a jury (typically). Using your logic, why can't a 7-5 decision be acceptable? After all, reasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. Because deciding guilt or innocence is an entirely different matter than deciding the constitutionality of a law. That's not an explanation, Capt. Obvious.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. It's why there are nine justices. How does it apply to someone who "reasonably believes" their life to be at risk? Can reasonable minds disagree about that? We have 12 people on a jury (typically). Using your logic, why can't a 7-5 decision be acceptable? After all, reasonable minds can differ. It's that simple. Because deciding guilt or innocence is an entirely different matter than deciding the constitutionality of a law. That's not an explanation, Capt. Obvious. Sure it is. Your refusal to see the difference is YOUR problem, not mine.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #41 April 6, 2012 "...the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand." A laugh a minute out of these peoplehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 April 6, 2012 Yep, we are all just to stupid to realize how brilliant he is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #43 April 6, 2012 http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2012/04/us/doj.letter.pdf"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #44 April 6, 2012 QuoteYep, we are all just too stupid to realize how brilliant he is. Fixed it for you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #45 April 6, 2012 Thanks, my DroidX seems to have a problem with it's automatic spell check from time to time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 April 6, 2012 Quotehttp://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2012/04/us/doj.letter.pdf Hand it to Holder. He signed HIS name to that brief. Despite what my other thoughts are about Holder, he did the right thing in this one. But the closest he could get is that the President's remarks were consistent with precedent. (Of course, "unprecedented" is not consistent with precedent.) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
