Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 12 13 14 15

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#195 : July 24, 2013, 12:58:59 PM

Look at the two Princesses comparing Butthurt stories about Big Bad Biggs3535.  Heartwarming. 

The support group meets every third Thursday at 6:00 pm.  You both are welcome.

I kid you with the Scarecrow stuff but that comment proves you really are as dumb as your posts make you seem. Dolo just summed you up perfectly and you're not actually able to formulate a response beyond your usual nonsense.

Wow, small wonder you haven't been suspended more Meat.

Buggsy, this was the comment right above yours that you chose to ignore:

Everyone else who came to this thread did so to express an opinion they have on judicial review. Biggs came to try and pile on Vince .

Who's butthurt again ?

Seriously now Buggsy, this thread is 13 or 14 pages, do you even have a single comment in this thread on topic? 

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#196 : July 24, 2013, 01:15:46 PM

Btw, many of the judicial review comments in this thread seem to come from a fundamental misunderstanding as to how limited a role SCOTUS plays.  SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution on those very rare occasions where some law or action might conflict with the Constitution.  I say "very rare" because one has to understand that the Constitution is not some gate through which every law must pass, it is a shield, and a very small shield at that, that protects citizens. There are likely hundreds of laws, if not more, that are existing despite questionable Constitutionality. They exist because no one has challenged them and because SCOTUS is NOT a gatekeeper, it is the force behind the very small shield

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#197 : July 24, 2013, 08:30:21 PM

It is my impression that there is a reason for SC Justices to be lifetime appointments because of the expectation they would interpret/review cases very even handedly.  I recognize the variance in backgrounds and would note the passage of Obamacare which was an amazing reach imvho, with the chief justice for all intents rewriting the governments argument during the consideration period.  Are the justices always able to put aside any prejudice or loyalty they might have, I suspect they do their best.  Is there something better in this world at the moment - well?  I haven't seen it. 
: July 24, 2013, 08:36:51 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#198 : July 25, 2013, 05:20:33 PM

If the "ultimate single interpretation" was left to political-types the Constitution would be unrecgnizable by now.

Some would argue that it still is. I don't recall anywhere in the annals of original intent where you heard a founding father arguing that corporations should be considered people and that money should be considered speech. You know who has made that argument, though? Neo-conservatives. Luckily for them, they got the 5 votes needed to interpret the Constitution in the way that they saw fit.

You can go back to decision upon decision of the same thing occurring. You seem to be operating under some manufactured premise that the SCOTUS has avoided the same perils that would occur if "political-types" were left in charge of Constitutional interpretation. The reality does not jive with your fantasy. Jefferson was right when he said...

"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

BTW, Jefferson wasn't  opposed to their being a means of final interpretation. He was opposed to the Judicial Branch alone wielding that authority, because any one body holding that authority would make them superior to the other two. To suggest that SCOTUS justices, who are appointed by political-types based on their ideological similarities to those political types would abandon those ideological similarities just because they got a new job is asinine. If judicial appointees lacked any form of ideological bias, then there wouldn't be nearly the degree of importance on assuring that a particular political party gain the presidency for the purposes of appointing them.

This was no different during Jefferson's time. In fact, it was the underlying basis of what Marbury Vs. Madison was all about. John Adams appoints a crap ton of judges to stack the courts with Federalists after losing the election to Jefferson. Jefferson takes office, and refuses to honor the commissions of any Federalist appointees that weren't sent out prior to him taking office. Marbury happened to be one of the Federalist judges who didn't get his commission sent prior to Jefferson taking office, gets  pissed about it, and files a lawsuit. I guess someone should have informed Adams and Jefferson that it didn't matter anyway, because judges are immune to basing decisions based on their political ideologies.


On the other hand, there is no way for the people or the other 2 branches to limit what and how SCOTUS interprets or what it bases its interpretation on. If 5 of the justices just start making wacky agenda based decisions, there is no way to throw them out, unelect them, etc.

I understand where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree.  First, most Constitutional challenges actually occur in lower courts directly controlled by Congress. Second, Congress controls who becomes a justice and retain the power of impeachment (btw, people who complain that SCOTUS is political are proving why SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution over political types. If SCOTUS is political it is because political types CHOSE to install less than moderate judges).

What an utterly stupid comment. Of course political types choose to install less than moderate judges. That was Jefferson's point (and subsequently mine as well). Political types have, from the beginning of our Republic, always chosen to appoint less than moderate judges. Partisans appoint judges. That's the way the government is set up. It is unrealistic the expect that they would appoint anything other than less than moderate judges on most occasions, which is why Jefferson argued that judges are just as susceptible to party, power, and the privilege as anyone else.

You are essentially arguing that partisan judges making Constitutional rulings is somehow better than partisan politicians making Constitutional rulings. To anyone who would apply even a tiny bit of scrutiny to this assumption, it would be apparent that there is no difference.

The entire government is dependent on faith.  As I mentioned before, Congress could ignore SCOTUS so we are depending on faith that they will "exercise a proper degree of self restraint" too.  The thing is, who is more likely to show "a proper degree of self restraint,"  Justice Kennedy or CBW?  In other words, the decision making about what is and is not Constitutional should be left in the hands of the least political branch of government. SCOTUS is far from perfect BUT even with Congress often self-servingly nominating judges with strong political views, SCOTUS often makes sober, independent decisions. There are examples to the contrary of course, SCOTUS is not perfect, but just look at some of the recent rulings and you will see "out of character" majorities.

What happens when Justice Kennedy, the only justice you bothered to mention because you know damn well all of the rest are just as ideologically driven as any given member of Congress, retires, and Rush Limbaugh or Al Sharpton is elected to take his place? There is a higher percentage of moderate members of congress than their are moderate members of the supreme court. The "swing vote" model is only the model because there just so happens to be a swing voter. That hasn't always been the case, and won't always be the case.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#199 : July 25, 2013, 05:28:15 PM

Btw, many of the judicial review comments in this thread seem to come from a fundamental misunderstanding as to how limited a role SCOTUS plays.  SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution on those very rare occasions where some law or action might conflict with the Constitution.  I say "very rare" because one has to understand that the Constitution is not some gate through which every law must pass, it is a shield, and a very small shield at that, that protects citizens. There are likely hundreds of laws, if not more, that are existing despite questionable Constitutionality. They exist because no one has challenged them and because SCOTUS is NOT a gatekeeper, it is the force behind the very small shield

This is absolutely irrelevant. We aren't talking about who gets to decide what laws are constitutional that don't get challenged. We are talking about who gets to decide which laws are constitutional that do. Besides, Article 3 and the Supremacy Clause give the SCOTUS the authority to decide challenges to state law. We are talking about the power they stole in tossing out federal laws passed by the other two branches of government that they are supposed to be equal to.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#200 : July 25, 2013, 09:59:37 PM

ROFLMAO

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#201 : July 25, 2013, 10:16:49 PM

which is why Jefferson argued that judges are just as susceptible to party, power, and the privilege as anyone else.

You are essentially arguing that partisan judges making Constitutional rulings is somehow better than partisan politicians making Constitutional rulings. To anyone who would apply even a tiny bit of scrutiny to this assumption, it would be apparent that there is no difference.


LOL.^^^^^^^

  When you stop hyperventilating . . . . read that again . . .and ask yourself if it makes any sense at all.  I dont expect you to admit you were wrong on this website -- you would NEVER do that -- so just ask yourself, in a quiet moment, if a supreme court justice appointed for life would be "just as susceptible to party, power and the privilege" as, say, an elected member of Congress who has to fight for reelection every few years in a system that mandates party fidelity for survival . . . . .

ppppppffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

lol

the biggest irony of all is watching you, perhaps the most committed hyper-political person on this board, arguing against judicial review in favor of review by political types .  . because  . .  . . wait for it . . .  . the Court ruled in a manner that clashes with your hyper-political views . . . .  a true Planet of the Apes moment if ever there was one


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#202 : August 01, 2013, 12:39:32 AM

which is why Jefferson argued that judges are just as susceptible to party, power, and the privilege as anyone else.

You are essentially arguing that partisan judges making Constitutional rulings is somehow better than partisan politicians making Constitutional rulings. To anyone who would apply even a tiny bit of scrutiny to this assumption, it would be apparent that there is no difference.


LOL.^^^^^^^

  When you stop hyperventilating . . . . read that again . . .and ask yourself if it makes any sense at all. 

I read it again. It does. What's funny is that in the middle of one of your idiotic rants, you actually agreed with it.

"If SCOTUS is political it is because political types CHOSE to install less than moderate judges"

Yes, they do choose to install less than moderate judges. All the time, as a matter of fact. Which is why Jefferson was right that judges are just as susceptible to party, power, and the privilege as anyone else.

When you are done hyperventilating, answer this question, would Ronald Reagan have ever nominated Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to the SCOTUS? Would Bill Clinton have ever nominated Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court? Would G.W. Bush have ever nominated Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? Would Barack Obama have ever appointed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court?

You know good and well the answer in every one of those cases is "no", and so does everyone else. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that John Adams appointed 58 judges to federal commissions in a lame duck session after losing to Thomas Jefferson in the presidential election? Why do you think Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the "midnight judge" commissions that were granted by the Adams administration after he took office, which was what sparked the Marbury V. Madison case being brought to the SCOTUS?

I don't expect you to admit you were wrong on this website. You would NEVER do that. But I'm satisfied just knowing that everyone with a lick of common sense can see it, regardless of your par-for-the-course, Vinceonian antics.


Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Offline
#203 : August 01, 2013, 01:33:01 AM

"-- so just ask yourself, in a quiet moment, if a supreme court justice appointed for life would be "just as susceptible to party, power and the privilege" as, say, an elected member of Congress who has to fight for reelection every few years in a system that mandates party fidelity for survival . . . . . "


The breathtaking level of logic-fail emanating from this ignorant little man is positively boundless.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#204 : August 01, 2013, 12:26:11 PM

"-- so just ask yourself, in a quiet moment, if a supreme court justice appointed for life would be "just as susceptible to party, power and the privilege" as, say, an elected member of Congress who has to fight for reelection every few years in a system that mandates party fidelity for survival . . . . . "


The breathtaking level of logic-fail emanating from this ignorant little man is positively boundless.

o-m-g, the irony of you accusing anyone of "logic-fail" . . .  . roflmao


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#205 : August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

so just ask yourself, in a quiet moment, if a supreme court justice appointed for life would be "just as susceptible to party, power and the privilege" as, say, an elected member of Congress who has to fight for reelection every few years in a system that mandates party fidelity for survival . . . . .

No response from CBW . . . . . shocking



LMAO  . . .

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#206 : August 01, 2013, 03:17:15 PM

so just ask yourself, in a quiet moment, if a supreme court justice appointed for life would be "just as susceptible to party, power and the privilege" as, say, an elected member of Congress who has to fight for reelection every few years in a system that mandates party fidelity for survival . . . . .

No response from CBW . . . . . shocking

You don't think that this has already been answered? Shocking...

You actually think having to be re-elected makes politicians more politically extreme than judges? Newsflash, smart one: It doesn't. The fact that judges can cast down rulings that are undeniably extreme and/or politically motivated and face absolutely no repercussions for it make them more likely to go that route, not less likely.

As Jefferson said,

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum (at it's pleasure), by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In other words, because the SCOTUS is not under the same elective control that congress or the presidency is, they can do things that politicians, who are under far more scrutiny and have to answer to the public every set number of years, would never even attempt to do.

Now, how about you answer my question. Would George Bush have ever nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court? Would Barack Obama have ever nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Why or why not?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#207 : August 01, 2013, 03:59:23 PM

Now, how about you answer my question. Would George Bush have ever nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court? Would Barack Obama have ever nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Why or why not?

that was actually my point^^^ you are trying to argue that "judges" are more influenced by politics than politicians who CHOOSE to nominate . . .  FROM A MASSIVE POOL OF JUDGES . .  those they perceive to be more sympathetic to their political views?? HUH? That makes NO SENSE. 

You actually think having to be re-elected makes politicians more politically extreme than judges? Newsflash, smart one: It doesn't.

Read slowly:  to the extent that one argues that SCOTUS is influenced heavily by politics, that blame lies with elected officials who try to influence SCOTUS by nominating judges they perceive to be motivated by similar political views.  The truth is, depsite the efforts of elected officials, it doesnt often work out that way.

Let's take a look at the great POLITICAL machine that is SCOTUS:

These are rough numbers, but there are probably 80-90 cases decided so far in the current SCOTUS term.  Only about half of them even have a dissenting opinion - lol  Probably 5-10% are per curiam meaning the court made a UNANIMOUS decision without opinion.  Ginsburg, a presumed "most-liberal" member, has written the Court opinion 9-10 times this term, only 2 of those opinion include a dissent by either Roberts or Scalia (the presumed "conservatives"), I believe in one of them Roberts wrote a concurrence (lol).  Roberts has wrriten the Court's opinion 8 times, I think Ginsberg wrote a dissent ONCE.  Scalia has written the Court's opinion 10 times I think, with Ginsberg dissenting or joined a dissent 3 times. In all other opinion written by Roberts and Scalia . . .  GINSBURG has joined them or concurred . .  lmao. That is 18 out of 22 times (I think) that a GINSBURG HAS AGREED WITH OPINION WRITTEN BY SCALIA AND ROBERTS. That's better than 80%, right? (That's right, the term GRIDLOCK is associated with SCOTUS and not  Congress -- lmao)


Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton
Roberts was appointed by Bush
Scalia was appointed by Reagan

By the way, Reagan also appointed Kennedy

until 2010, the longest running member of the Court was Stevens, a noted LIBERAL . . . . he was appointed by Ford


yeah . . .  SCOTUS is more political than elected officials who, among many other things: 1) almost routinely now look to impeach the other party's president ; 2) gerrymander to keep their opponents out of office; and, 3) use the IRS to initmate and run off policitcal opponents. 

Goodness gracious . . . . .moving on.
: August 01, 2013, 04:01:09 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#208 : August 02, 2013, 12:38:11 AM

Now, how about you answer my question. Would George Bush have ever nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court? Would Barack Obama have ever nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Why or why not?

that was actually my point^^^ you are trying to argue that "judges" are more influenced by politics than politicians who CHOOSE to nominate . . .  FROM A MASSIVE POOL OF JUDGES . .  those they perceive to be more sympathetic to their political views?? HUH? That makes NO SENSE. 

smh...

You just don't get it, do you? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that 99% of all judges are apolitical, and that only 1% are political operatives. There is only one way to make it to the SCOTUS, and that is to be nominated and approved by politicians. If those politicians are only selecting from that 1%, then that means that the make-up of the SCOTUS is going to be political, regardless of what the rest of the judiciary looks like. You blaming the politicians for making SCOTUS political may be justified, but it is also irrelevant, and contradictory to your point that the SCOTUS is not a political branch.

I also reject the asinine assertion that the majority of the judiciary is apolitical, or less political than congress. Judges are almost always either elected or appointed on the basis of their political outlook. If you look from state to state, and district to district, the judiciary is almost always reflective of the constituency that it represents. If you were correct in your assumptions, then there would be no ideological distinction between the Texas State Supreme Court and the California State Supreme Court, and we both know that there is a rather large one.

You actually think having to be re-elected makes politicians more politically extreme than judges? Newsflash, smart one: It doesn't.

Read slowly:  to the extent that one argues that SCOTUS is influenced heavily by politics, that blame lies with elected officials who try to influence SCOTUS by nominating judges they perceive to be motivated by similar political views.  The truth is, depsite the efforts of elected officials, it doesnt often work out that way.

Let's take a look at the great POLITICAL machine that is SCOTUS:

These are rough numbers, but there are probably 80-90 cases decided so far in the current SCOTUS term.  Only about half of them even have a dissenting opinion - lol  Probably 5-10% are per curiam meaning the court made a UNANIMOUS decision without opinion.  Ginsburg, a presumed "most-liberal" member, has written the Court opinion 9-10 times this term, only 2 of those opinion include a dissent by either Roberts or Scalia (the presumed "conservatives"), I believe in one of them Roberts wrote a concurrence (lol).  Roberts has wrriten the Court's opinion 8 times, I think Ginsberg wrote a dissent ONCE.  Scalia has written the Court's opinion 10 times I think, with Ginsberg dissenting or joined a dissent 3 times. In all other opinion written by Roberts and Scalia . . .  GINSBURG has joined them or concurred . .  lmao. That is 18 out of 22 times (I think) that a GINSBURG HAS AGREED WITH OPINION WRITTEN BY SCALIA AND ROBERTS. That's better than 80%, right? (That's right, the term GRIDLOCK is associated with SCOTUS and not  Congress -- lmao)

Not every case that gets decided by the SCOTUS is a politically divisive one, Vince. Those numbers, presented without proper context, mean absolutely nothing.

Also, making the argument that SCOTUS should be the sole arbiter on Constitutionality because they don't make politically motivated decisions most of the time is akin to arguing that the government should have the power to listen to the phone conversations of American citizens without a warrant because they usually don't excercise it.

By the way, Reagan also appointed Kennedy

You do realize that A) while Kennedy has swung on a select few issues, he still votes with the conservatives the majority of the time, and that B) Kennedy was Reagan's 2nd choice for that seat. His original choice, the far more extreme Robert Bork, failed confirmation from a Democratic majority in congress, which essentially forced Reagan to present a more moderate candidate.

until 2010, the longest running member of the Court was Stevens, a noted LIBERAL . . . . he was appointed by Ford

He was appointed by Ford, who had zero political capital after Watergate and would have never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything other than a liberal judge approved by a heavily Democratic congress. Stevens was a rising political star, and Ford, who already looked weak, needed an easy confirmation so that he didn't pick a fight with the Democrats that he had no chance of winning and couldn't afford to lose. It was a rare appointment brought about by rare circumstances. It proves absolutely nothing.

yeah . . . SCOTUS is more political than elected officials who, among many other things: 1) almost routinely now look to impeach the other party's president ; 2) gerrymander to keep their opponents out of office; and, 3) use the IRS to initmate and run off policitcal opponents.

What you are talking about is a difference in the role of the judiciary, not in the temperment of the judiciary. Because judges don't do these things means that they wouldn't were they in the position to? You don't know that. You couldn't possibly know that. Once again, proves nothing, yet acts like he's presented a slam dunk.

Sheesh...
: August 02, 2013, 12:49:16 AM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#209 : August 02, 2013, 12:48:21 AM

You actually think having to be re-elected makes politicians more politically extreme than judges? Newsflash, smart one: It doesn't.

LOL, all those words designed to deflect from that ^^^^ stupidity.  Leave it to CBW.  Judges are more politically-driven then elected officials . .  .bwhahahahahahaahaha


spin . .  .spin  . . . spin
: August 02, 2013, 12:49:55 AM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center
Page: 1 ... 12 13 14 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools