Justice Breyer to retire

[Phil1111 1,149]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It’s concerning you think the rule of law is concerning.  

 

7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Then how do you feel about her rulings against the democratic side on immigration?

 

 

The fundamental reason why SC justices have lifetime appointments is the issue of separating justice from partizan politics.

"“That was put into the Constitution to preserve the total independence of the judiciary,” said Meltsner, the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law. “Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody.”

As such they can rule in accordance of what is fair, just and equitable for the society as a whole. So when the flavor of the day is attacking some group or issue. They can dissuade the state from such political heavy handiness.

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

“Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody.”

As such they can rule in accordance of what is fair, just and equitable for the society as a whole. So when the flavor of the day is attacking some group or issue. They can dissuade the state from such political heavy handiness.

That was my point, Phil. The opinion media is playing it the way they want to pander to their base, when if one actually reads her rulings, they don't sum for any one side. It's more then just MTRNY.

[Phil1111 1,149]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://babylonbee.com/news/do-you-know-more-about-basic-human-biology-than-bidens-scotus-nominee-take-the-simple-one-question-quiz
 

Quiz time!

Are you sure that you don't have some sort of deep sexual crush on her? You have a whole other thread on the go. Where her every breath is examined in detail.

I thought you're happily married?

[BIGUN 1,314]

Nevermind

Edited March 24, 2022 by BIGUN

[Phil1111 1,149]

Just now, BIGUN said:

That was my point, Phil. The opinion media is playing it the way they want to pander to their base, when if one actually reads her rulings, they don't sum for any one side. It's more then just MTRNY.

Yes trump's appointments haven't completely turned out the way he intended either. The dog and pony show currently underway is more to show to the respective bases. That they did their best for their supporters but were overruled by democracy.

[kallend 2,027]

53 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

The fundamental reason why SC justices have lifetime appointments is the issue of separating justice from partizan politics.

"“That was put into the Constitution to preserve the total independence of the judiciary,” said Meltsner, the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law. “Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody.”

As such they can rule in accordance of what is fair, just and equitable for the society as a whole. So when the flavor of the day is attacking some group or issue. They can dissuade the state from such political heavy handiness.

Doesn't seem to have worked for Clarence T.

In fact when you can predict the vote of the majority of justices by which party the president who appointed them belongs to, it's a serious indictment of the system.

[Stumpy 284]

22 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Marsha Blackburn and others (such as all three Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General) have spoken out clearly that they think Griswold vs Connecticut (the Supreme Court case that legalized birth control for married couples) was wrongly decided.

Republican Senator Mike Braun of Indiana thinks that the Supreme Court was wrong on contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage.

Ted Cruz and most Republican politicians are totally on board about censoring any expression regarding racial history or race relations.

The great majority of Republican politicians are in favor of restricting elections so that only Republicans can win.  They are also about throwing out the 2020 election and installing the loser in office.

These ones in particular are the ones that make me fear for the US. There is a big chunk of the country (a minority, but a decent sized, and increasingly powerful one) that would be totally OK with all of this. Sadly, that seems to include some posters here.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

IMO What McConnel did was legal but wrong.

Not only was it wrong to do, it further delegitimized the Court in the public eye. Plainly, at this point, even the most committed ostriches see that the current bench is a political institution; worse, on the day Gorsuch was sworn in the Court became a farce borne of a farce. With Garland on the bench the swing vote would have been Roberts.  Most Americans would have settled in with that, I'm sure.

It was humorous to hear the concern during the hearings from Republicans fearful of a delegitimized expanded court. A shrunken Court wasn't a trouble if it screwed the sitting President and led to a hard right Court, however.  

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

“Once a justice is confirmed and takes a seat on the court, they’re not beholden to anybody.”

I honestly don't understand this logic and in practice you can see this not being the case either.

[billeisele 130]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Then how do you feel about her rulings against the democratic side on immigration?

Not sure what you are referring to. For me, this isn't about politics. It's about judges following the law.

If a judge didn't follow the law and made a ruling against a Democrat, Democrat ideal, or whatever - that is a concern. If they did follow the law and the ruling was against a certain political party then fine. Judges are supposed to be impartial.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Always a good read first thing in the morning. Luv the entertaining language - "freakin' cultist nutter" and "crunchy pickle." I thought pickles were supposed to be a little crunchy.?.

IMO What McConnel did was legal but wrong. It only served to increase the animosity between political parties. Both parties have idiots.

On Jackson. Are you concerned about her willingness (at least in one case, and this may be the only one) to ignore the law and rule in a way that she believes is correct? That's what occurred in the Make the Road NY vs. McElween (sp?), case on expedited removal. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals firmly struck down her ruling. They wrote, "There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent ...." The issue being discussed is activism from the bench. I want judges to follow the law. In this case she choose to ignore the law. That's concerning.

 

 

Hi Bill,

Re:  Both parties have idiots.

I agree.  However, IMO the GOP has more of them and they are further along the road called Stupid Street.

Re:  to ignore the law and rule in a way that she believes is correct?

I am of the belief that judges should judge. The sole purpose of a judge is to judge.  To me, that means to consider all sides & come to a decision.

Is that not what we want them to do?

Here in Oregon, we have Measure 15 which imposed minimum mandatory sentences.  It was wrong when it was passed & it is wrong now.  It will always be wrong.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Doesn't seem to have worked for Clarence T.

In fact when you can predict the vote of the majority of justices by which party the president who appointed them belongs to, it's a serious indictment of the system.

Hi John,

When Eisenhower left office, he was asked what he thought was his biggest mistake as POTUS.  He said appointing Earl Warren to the SCOTUS.

A lot of us think that was his best decision.

Things do not always go as planned.

Jerry Baumchen

[billeisele 130]

3 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  Both parties have idiots.

I agree.  However, IMO the GOP has more of them and they are further along the road called Stupid Street.

Re:  to ignore the law and rule in a way that she believes is correct?

I am of the belief that judges should judge. The sole purpose of a judge is to judge.  To me, that means to consider all sides & come to a decision.

Is that not what we want them to do?

Here in Oregon, we have Measure 15 which imposed minimum mandatory sentences.  It was wrong when it was passed & it is wrong now.  It will always be wrong.

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry - I've not done a party tally of politicians on Stupid Street, let's just agree that there are too many. I'd hope you would admit that Nancy is part of the parade.

Regardless of what a law says, it is a law, and it should be followed. As for bad laws the citizenry should fight to have them changed. A quick check shows M15 being voted on in 1908. Things change over time and many of the old laws should be examined. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

20 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Not sure what you are referring to. For me, this isn't about politics. It's about judges following the law.

If laws were clear, we really wouldn't need judges. Judges exist to interpret laws and how those laws relate to a specific issue at hand.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If laws were clear, we really wouldn't need judges. Judges exist to interpret laws and how those laws relate to a specific issue at hand.

Hi Sky,

PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - I've not done a party tally of politicians on Stupid Street, let's just agree that there are too many. I'd hope you would admit that Nancy is part of the parade.

Regardless of what a law says, it is a law, and it should be followed. As for bad laws the citizenry should fight to have them changed. A quick check shows M15 being voted on in 1908. Things change over time and many of the old laws should be examined. 

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument in this specific instance, would you say that Judge Jackson has exhibited a pattern of not following the law as you understand it or was this a one off as far as you know? Going further, and regardless if two other Judges disagreed with her decision, can you see any daylight between the decision and the written statute? I think it's also worth remembering, and I probably don't remember correctly, but one judge agreed with her making the score 2 to 2. It wasn't particularly egregious if that's so.

[billeisele 130]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument in this specific instance, would you say that Judge Jackson has exhibited a pattern of not following the law as you understand it or was this a one off as far as you know? Going further, and regardless if two other Judges disagreed with her decision, can you see any daylight between the decision and the written statute? I think it's also worth remembering, and I probably don't remember correctly, but one judge agreed with her making the score 2 to 2. It wasn't particularly egregious if that's so.

Joe - thought I covered that in my post 119 by saying, "this may be the only one." It's the only one I'm aware of and highly suspect that if there were others they would have been brought out. You and I know that plenty of digging was done into her history. Thus, no pattern, and this one item shouldn't be deemed sufficient to disqualify her. My language was, "that's concerning."

Wendy stated it was a 2-1 vote by the appeals court. I didn't check that, just read the written opinion. The opinion was unusually strong in stating why the ruling was overturned.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

15 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - thought I covered that in my post 119 by saying, "this may be the only one." It's the only one I'm aware of and highly suspect that if there were others they would have been brought out. You and I know that plenty of digging was done into her history. Thus, no pattern, and this one item shouldn't be deemed sufficient to disqualify her. My language was, "that's concerning."

Wendy stated it was a 2-1 vote by the appeals court. I didn't check that, just read the written opinion. The opinion was unusually strong in stating why the ruling was overturned.

Thanks. To my way of thinking that it was written in an "unusually strong" way when one of three judges was in disagreement is meaningless and speaks more to animus than the law. But that's just me.

[wmw999 2,447]

I did check it; judges are supposed to interpret the law -- that's why we have appeal courts, and why we have the Supreme Court. If she had never, ever, been appealed (which has happened to our SC justices who have minimal or no judicial experience), that might also be concerning -- if she's a liberal and you're conservative, or vice-versa. I'm sure there'd be a reason. Just look at the wide range of opinions of judges on the cases on whether abortion-limiting laws are valid or not. Pick your belief to decide if they're right or wrong, or if the law is right or wrong (after all, Jim Crow was law)

That said, it's clear that she has a ton of relevant experience (as did, of course, Merrick Garland, and, equally of course, as Barrett didn't have, but in some ways neither did Kagan). While lots of people decried his judicial philosophy, few said that Gorsuch was unqualified. Of course some did -- there are people who say that Jackson is unqualified as well.

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,027]

23 hours ago, billeisele said:

Not sure what you are referring to. For me, this isn't about politics. It's about judges following the law.

If a judge didn't follow the law and made a ruling against a Democrat, Democrat ideal, or whatever - that is a concern. If they did follow the law and the ruling was against a certain political party then fine. Judges are supposed to be impartial.

It would be nice if politicians followed the law too, especially those from the party claiming to champion "law and order".:

Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

Recent administrations with the FEWEST criminal indictments:

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2

Notice a pattern?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

It would be nice if politicians followed the law too, especially those from the party claiming to champion "law and order".:

Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

Recent administrations with the FEWEST criminal indictments:

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2

Notice a pattern?

Sure, maybe, I guess so, but is it concerning?

[BIGUN 1,314]

22 minutes ago, kallend said:

Notice a pattern?

Yup. Democrats don't know how to copy/paste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Yup. Democrats don't know how to copy/paste.

Probably goes back to college days. Republicans would be all copy/paste of their papers. While the democrats would write their own.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Phil1111

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/joe-biden-botches-declaration-of-independence-quote-during-texas-rally
 

“you know the thing”

[billeisele 130]

18 hours ago, kallend said:

It would be nice if politicians followed the law too, especially those from the party claiming to champion "law and order".:

Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

Recent administrations with the FEWEST criminal indictments:

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2

Notice a pattern?

lol    The key word being "indictments." If only all politicians were pursued as vehemently as others.