U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

A topic I'm surprised that hasn't been discussed here more is the Supreme Court. Many of the Justices could possibly retire and be replaced in the next four years.

Obviously whoever gets elected will have an oppurtunity to effect the balance of the Court for years to come. Nevermind all those wild (and strongly denied) rumors of a Clinton (pick one) nomination to the SCOTUS, I would have thought this would be a bigger issue. Certainly more important than Gaffe-watch.

I imagine a Democratic majority in the Senate along with a Democratic president with the ability to nominate sympathetic Judges would be another sign of the "Obamaclypse" to those to the right of center.

Thoughts?

I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are suddenly "concerned" about the balance of power NOW. When Bush shamelessly picked ideological hardliners (after railing about "legislating from the bench" along with his party, and "activist judges") for the Supreme Court and the line out of the GOP was "he should get his pick, stop being obstructionists, up or down vote! It's the tradition the President gets his pick!"

The hardline conservatives: Scalia and Thomas, were already on the bench when he got there. Alito and Roberts are not ideological hardliners by any stretch. You have to really be working the spin machine to call them that. And if I remember correctly, Democrats set a new bar in being obstructionist by fillibustering each of their nominations, though nobody ever leveled any charges against either of them on their records. Harriet Miers on the other hand, is when I realized that my confidence in the president's abilities.... evaporated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The hardline conservatives: Scalia and Thomas, were already on the bench when he got there. Alito and Roberts are not ideological hardliners by any stretch. You have to really be working the spin machine to call them that. And if I remember correctly, Democrats set a new bar in being obstructionist by fillibustering each of their nominations, though nobody ever leveled any charges against either of them on their records. Harriet Miers on the other hand, is when I realized that my confidence in the president's abilities.... evaporated.

---

The Dems thought about holding up the nominations because both of them basically eluded or refused to answer almost every question of any importance whatsoever during the confirmation hearings. Implying that they were hiding the true extent of their views on things until after being confirmed.

I think it is hypocritical of you to posture as if the Republicans could not and would not do the same thing if Obama's picks got up there and, smugly confident in Obama's influence, sneered and refused to answer questions.

Alito and Roberts both having "the right views" on the key litmus issue to the right, abortion, and the issue most important to Bush himself-- executive/government power- and basically both writing or expressing the opinion at some point during their judicial careers, or at least during the nomination process, that they were sympathetic to bucking the law on the issue of abortion, or excessive use of government power in law enforcement or surveillance or privacy violations, very much makes them hardliners in my view. And you would say the exact same things if Obama picked people who said outright they were against standing law of the land on some key issue that turns Dems out to vote.

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

---

I won't be satisfied until Palin gets an important cabinet post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The Dems thought about holding up the nominations because both of them basically eluded or refused to answer almost every question of any importance whatsoever during the confirmation hearings. Implying that they were hiding the true extent of their views on things until after being confirmed.

I think it is hypocritical of you to posture as if the Republicans could not and would not do the same thing if Obama's picks got up there and, smugly confident in Obama's influence, sneered and refused to answer questions.

Alito and Roberts both having "the right views" on the key litmus issue to the right, abortion, and the issue most important to Bush himself-- executive/government power- and basically both writing or expressing the opinion at some point during their judicial careers, or at least during the nomination process, that they were sympathetic to bucking the law on the issue of abortion, very much makes them hardliners in my view. And you would say the exact same things if Obama picked people who said outright they were against standing law of the land on some key issue that turns Dems out to vote.

---

Hypocrite? Because I don't think Roberts is Goebbells and Alito is Eichman? You really play fast and ready with the unfounded insults, don't you....

This isn't an abortion thread, but if everyone that disagrees with you is 'the most extreme right wing', more than 3/4 of the country is "the most extreme right wing". That should make you stop and take stock.

I'd say its a brilliant idea, TinCow. I, personally, would prefer that he be appointed to Secretary of Defense; I'd rather see Bill Richardson as Secretary of state. Again, personally, I see him as a somewhat more diplomatic guy, whereas McCain slightly more, I dunno, gruff or "hardball" in his approach. Plus, Richardson's been US diplomat to the United Nations, so he's have perhaps a little more experience in direct negotiations. But again, I think its a very good idea for Obama to do so, if he would win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I had an interesting office conversation today. The gist is that we (all pretty liberal guys and gals) would be extremely enthusiastic about Obama appointing McCain as either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Ever since this was mentioned, I've thought it was possibly the most brilliant political move I've heard in a long time. Ignoring whether McCain would actually accept such a position or not, I'm interested to hear how both the lefties and righties in here would regard such a move.

From my perspective, it is simply perfect. McCain is very highly qualified for both of those positions. There is no doubt whatsoever that he would be a good advisor on both foreign affairs and defense. In addition, I think it would go a long way towards uniting a large majority of the country behind an Obama administration. What better way to heal a rift than by inviting your opponent into your own cabinet? In the best case scenario as I see it, we could result in an administration with Powell in State, McCain in Defense, and maybe even Buffett in Treasury. Talk about capable and bipartisan...

Thoughts?

---

No, I don't think so. Obama can't call McCain feeble-minded, erratic and border line senile (John Kerry recently suggested that McCain wears Depends) and then have him on his cabinet. I don't hold out a lot of hope to 'reaching out across the aisle' in any form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Hypocrite? Because I don't think Roberts is Goebbells and Alito is Eichman? You really play fast and ready with the unfounded insults, don't you....

This isn't an abortion thread, but if everyone that disagrees with you is 'the most extreme right wing', more than 3/4 of the country is "the most extreme right wing". That should make you stop and take stock.

---

No. Listen. Read.

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on legal precedent.

Picking someone on the basis that they have ignored or voiced opposition to the law, as it stands, in favor of some ideological belief-- that government should have the total right to invade your privacy to protect its own power, or that the law isn't justified because you believe abortion is wrong-- is pretty much the first and worst and only way you can abuse having the power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Especially when you and your party have made a huge buzzword outrage out of "activist judging."

I don't give a crap what someone's view on abortion is per se. But if you say "I think the law is wrong and should be undermined, overturned, ignored or broken because abortion is wrong", you are, by definition of the job, unfit to be a judge in the United States. Let alone SCOTUS.

But, you would not be new in defending it as just the rightful spoils of war for the victor to pack ideologically with something that helps his side, regardless of qualification for the job. It just isn't an appropriate defense of Alito and Roberts as good SCOTUS picks that the Dems shouldn't have had the NERVE to question, especially when they were snotty enough to not bother answering questions in the confirmation process. It's an ideological pick. Apparently we have amnesia as well that Bush only got around to picking Alito because his own party rejected his ideologically aligned, but totally unfit, choice of Harriet Meyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

No, I don't think so. Obama can't call McCain feeble-minded, erratic and border line senile (John Kerry recently suggested that McCain wears Depends) and then have him on his cabinet. I don't hold out a lot of hope to 'reaching out across the aisle' in any form.

---

What do you think of the idea, Don? Do you think McCain wouldn't make a solid secretary, for either department? Setting aside election nonsense, what do you think of the idea as a practical one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

What do you think of the idea, Don? Do you think McCain wouldn't make a solid secretary, for either department? Setting aside election nonsense, what do you think of the idea as a practical one?

---

I'm being practical, that's not a partisan slam on Obama. If McCain somehow lost, he'd be equally unlikely to be bipartisan and offer positions to Democrats. Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State. And after the attack on Cindy McCain last weekend, I think there's going to be a lot of blood in the water on January 21st. Not fearmongering, calling 'em as I see 'em. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm being practical, that's not a partisan slam on Obama. If McCain somehow lost, he'd be equally unlikely to be bipartisan and offer positions to Democrats. Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State. And after the attack on Cindy McCain last weekend, I think there's going to be a lot of blood in the water on January 21st. Not fearmongering, calling 'em as I see 'em. :shrug:

---

I disagree; from what I've seen, Obama's never called McCain senile. Certainly, he called him on some of his position switches; however, he just used a "erratic" instead of "flip flopper". :shrug: Methinks you're putting words in his mouth.

And I still don't get how you can claim that the NYT is actually literally run by the Obama campaign, given they endorsed Hillary in the primaries. :shrug: Just doesn't seem quite logical to me.

And again, I'm talking about how effective McCain would be in the position. Not whether its likely he'd accept, or even if Obama would offer it. Just that.

My my, look what's happening.

Looks like we need a little removal from the gene pool.

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

-- Josef Stalin

I think this reigns true regardless of who wins

I agree with Don Corleone. McCain would be a terrible choice for any cabinet-level position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Seriously though Makikhan, Obama's whole case against John McCain is 1) he's a clone of George Bush and 2) he suffers from dementia and is 'out of touch', due to senility. How could Obama then explain offering up the same guy as his candidate for Sec of State.

---

Do we need to remind Don Corleone that many a VP pick has been a former political opponent? Do we need to go into the mudslinging between Bush and Reagan? Between Kennedy and Johnson?

Really, Don, you seem ready and eager to believe anything evil and mean of the Dems at this point. You're sounding almost hysterical. Deep breaths, man, deep breaths.

Neither candidate is going to destroy America. McCain won't outlaw abortions and Obama won't take your guns away. McCain won't invest everybody's retirement money in Pets.com stock, and Obama isn't going to nationalize every 401k.

Just chill. It's almost over.

-edit-

As for putting McCain in a cabinet position, there's no political reason not to do so. Plenty of people with more bad blood between them have kissed and made up in politics. The question is what he would bring to which post, and would he be the best guy for the job. Based on his performance at the Harvard Law Review, that's how Obama would make such a choice. Assuming he gets the chance to make such a choice. The election hasn't happened yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Do we need to remind Don Corleone that many a VP pick has been a former political opponent? Do we need to go into the mudslinging between Bush and Reagan? Between Kennedy and Johnson?

Really, Don, you seem ready and eager to believe anything evil and mean of the Dems at this point. You're sounding almost hysterical. Deep breaths, man, deep breaths.

Neither candidate is going to destroy America. McCain won't outlaw abortions and Obama won't take your guns away. McCain won't invest everybody's retirement money in Pets.com stock, and Obama isn't going to nationalize every 401k.

Just chill. It's almost over.

-edit-

As for putting McCain in a cabinet position, there's no political reason not to do so. Plenty of people with more bad blood between them have kissed and made up in politics. The question is what he would bring to which post, and would he be the best guy for the job. Based on his performance at the Harvard Law Review, that's how Obama would make such a choice. Assuming he gets the chance to make such a choice. The election hasn't happened yet.

---

Even the Clintons are finally making their presence known again and trying to help in the campaign... finally.

Even though, qualitatively, I know that the campaign has gotten a lot nastier now that it's Obama vs. McCain, it's hard to feel that way. I guess because it took so many Dems by shock how vicious Hillary got during the primaries, that now what the Republicans are doing just sorta feels like been there done that. So yeah, given that Hillary and Obama... while not chummy... are at least back to being "allies" again, I would say it's not impossible between Obama and McCain. Although if it is, I think it would be more on McCain's end, refusal to serve under someone he considers not just a political opponent but a significant junior, politically.

Can someone explain to me two things:
1) What the SecDef and Sec of State actually do in the day-to-day running of the Administration (ie what powers do they have to influence policy? Advisory, etc)?
2) If McCain is qualified, relative to other appointments to these posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

No. Listen. Read.

Judges are supposed to decide cases based on legal precedent.

---

Hahahaha. Stare Decicis is not the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jurisprudence Constante is generally sensible when dealing with not outright bogus cases. You know that our system is primarily based on Civil Law right? Based on the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments?

Where do you find Stare Decisis in the Enumerated powers and responsibilities of the Supreme Court?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Stare decisis in civil law systems

Stare decisis is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law. However, the civil law system does have jurisprudence constante, which is similar to Stare decisis and dictates that the Court's decision condone a cohesive and predictable outcome. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound to precedents established by higher courts. In practice, the need to have predictability means that lower courts generally defer to precedents by higher courts and in a sense, the highest courts in civil law jurisdictions, such as the Cour de cassation and the Conseil d'État in France are recognized as being bodies of a quasi-legislative nature.

The doctrine of jurisprudence constante also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions in common law jurisdictions are extremely wordy and go into great detail as to the how the decision was reached. This occurs to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent in future cases.

By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently France) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and not going into great detail about how a decision was reached. This is the result of the theoretical view that the court is only interpreting the view of the legislature and that detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, much more of the exposition of the law is done by academic jurists which provide the explanations that in common law nations would be provided by the judges themselves.

In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, court opinions tend to be much longer than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and academic writing. However, some courts (such as German courts) put less emphasis of the particular facts of the case than common law courts, but put more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is

Quote:

---

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944

---

Roe was a bad call, the right doesn't exist in the Constitution and the decision should be seriously reviewed, ultimately overturned. Unfortunately it may not matter once Obama signs FOCA as his first order of business.

I haven't been to the Life March in Washington for years. This will be the first year that I return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Roe was a bad call, the right doesn't exist in the Constitution and it the decision should be seriously reviewed. Unfortunately it may not matter once Obama signs FOCA as his first order of business.

---

The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

If this were any other topic, Tuff, you'd be lecturing on about "take it to the legislature, stop abusing the courts and ignoring the Constitution to get your little liberal pet agendas passed." But Roe v. Wade gets a pass? And sympathetic judges to excessive and broadly exercised interpretations of government invasive power in privacy and law enforcement to help legitimize, legally, things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping. Some hefty double standards going on here.

More on Senator "Tubes" Stevens... he can't vote for himself...

Quote:

---

I was convicted of a felony, but have served my time and am on probation. Can I register to vote?

No. A convicted felon may not register to vote unless unconditionally discharged from custody. When you are no longer on probation, a copy of your discharge papers will allow you to register.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

---

What? Is it "activist judging" to apply as a litmus test that justices uphold the Constitution and the separation of powers? We aren't asking the justices to find abortion to be unconstitutional - we are asking them to overturn a ruling that imagines things in the Constitution that aren't there. The question of Abortion is to be answered by the States, or if necessary by the Federal legislative process. The Justices have no business drafting or re-writing policy unless existing policy contravenes the Constitution.
On the other side there are tests, because the Dems tend to believe in "Living Constitutionalism", to make sure that they defend Roe against all opposition- reasonable or otherwise.

Where does it say that they have to swear allegiance to unacceptable decisions that disempower the legislature in the text? Oh, I guess that must have written itself in later while it was busy living.


As an aside - do you take back your assumption about Stare Decisis or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The SC can overturn on the basis of constitutionality or yes, in cases of finding former wrong in existing legal application. Stacking the court intentionally with people who have pre-passed a litmus verbally, in their opinion rulings, or otherwise, to produce that result on a specific topic, is exactly the sort of activist judging that the GOP claims to be principled against... when it suits them.

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

If this were any other topic, Tuff, you'd be lecturing on about "take it to the legislature, stop abusing the courts and ignoring the Constitution to get your little liberal pet agendas passed." But Roe v. Wade gets a pass? And sympathetic judges to excessive and broadly exercised interpretations of government invasive power in privacy and law enforcement to help legitimize, legally, things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping. Some hefty double standards going on here.

---

You are making a very confused argument. You are saying that because I believe that liberal Justices are defending a bad Constitutional decision because of ideology - that I am the Judicial activist? That is hare-brained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The Justices have no business drafting or re-writing policy unless existing policy contravenes the Constitution.

---

And there, you just contradicted your earlier post. :)

Additionally, under no circumstances can it be argued that Alito's .. "liberal" interpretation of government intrusion into privacy which won him his Supreme Court nomination was merely Bush picking someone who upheld the Constitution and the separation of powers. That pick was purely to help cover Bush's rear in regards to his expansive interpretation of Executive power and Federal surveillance which are, even by the admission of most Republicans around here, quite unconstitutional.

It's pretty amazing the more I think about it. Even Republicans blast the Bush Administration's wanton disregard of constitutionality -- and in fact even blame Democrats for not doing more to stand up to him about it. But then you go and defend one of the best examples of his disregard for constitutionality in his ideologically-driven Supreme Court picks, who were hand chosen because of their presumed predispositions to dissent with established law of the land on the one hand and constitutional intepretations of Executive power on the other.

Quote:

---

As an aside - do you take back your assumption about Stare Decisis or what?

---

I already amended my characterization of the Supreme Court. It still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on defending these picks as "Constitutional crusaders."

Quote:

---

Tell me, if a Dem specifically scoured the records of potential judicial nominees for the Supreme Court for a favorable attitude about gay marriage and excoriation of existing legal interpretation about the definition of marriage-- how would you feel about it? You'd have a different tune coming out in your whistles, I think.

---

Well? :) A lot of people and several state courts have already found that existing intepretations of marriage law are not supportable in light of equal protections. So if a future Democratic Supreme Court pick was hand chosen for specifically having this view in advance, you'd have no issue with it? It would just be the Dem supporting Constitutionality and separation of powers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I already amended my characterization of the Supreme Court. It still doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on defending these picks as "Constitutional crusaders."

---

So you had a fundamentally poor understanding of the role of the Court in the American System at 29 years old? How did you miss that? It has characterized your understanding of Roe for all these years and you've just now "amended your characterization of the Supreme Court"?

Have you read the part of the document where it enumerates the powers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So you had a fundamentally poor understanding of the role of the Court in the American System at 29 years old? How did you miss that? It has characterized your understanding of Roe for all these years and you've just now "amended your characterization of the Supreme Court"?

Have you read the part of the document where it enumerates the powers?

---

Not at all, we've been over this before in previous discussions and you are just trying to shore up a weak defense of these judicial picks with style points now. You know very well that in the gay marriage topic I talked at considerable length about the SC's ability to reexamine existing law in light of both Constitutional considerations and formerly flawed application or interpretation.

Yes, I have both read the Constitution as well as studied a rather large body of Supreme Court rulings pertaining to resource rights, water and jurisdictional issues as part of my formal education. And Rehnquist comes to mind immediately, but he's not alone, when I say that the few people who read the detailed opinions and dissenting opinions of Supreme Court cases can fairly plainly see the damage that can be done by someone hand picked to pursue a specific ideological slant, the Constitution or equal rights or other claptrap be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Well? :) A lot of people and several state courts have already found that existing intepretations of marriage law are not supportable in light of equal protections. So if a future Democratic Supreme Court pick was hand chosen for specifically having this view in advance, you'd have no issue with it? It would just be the Dem supporting Constitutionality and separation of powers?

---

Here you go again. Those states had equal protection laws based on Sexual Orientation on the books, backed up by the State Constitution. The decisions were awful, but hard to refute.

If there is something that I disagree with in the Constitution, but it is in the Constitution - I'd expect that it would be upheld by Originalist judges - UNTIL it was revised or repealed by a large enough majority in Congress. The system has a plan - to change the system, amend the plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Not at all, we've been over this before in previous discussions and you are just trying to shore up a weak defense of these judicial picks with style points now. You know very well that in the gay marriage topic I talked at considerable length about the SC's ability to reexamine existing law in light of both Constitutional considerations and formerly flawed application or interpretation.

Yes, I have both read the Constitution as well as studied a rather large body of Supreme Court rulings pertaining to resource rights, water and jurisdictional issues as part of my formal education. And Rehnquist comes to mind immediately, but he's not alone, when I say that the few people who read the detailed opinions and dissenting opinions of Supreme Court cases can fairly plainly see the damage that can be done by someone hand picked to pursue a specific ideological slant, the Constitution or equal rights or other claptrap be damned.

---

I want to know where you got the idea that Stare Decisis was somehow part of the job since you are such Constitutional scholar. It wasn't a simple error.

Your side picks Living Constitutionalists! That is crazy - and it is judicial activism. It is bizarre to claim that the Original Meaning Justices are the "real" activists. I want the justices to overturn very bad decisions that weaken the Constitution when presented with the opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Here you go again. Those states had equal protection laws based on Sexual Orientation on the books, backed up by the State Constitution. The decisions were awful, but hard to refute.

If there is something that I disagree with in the Constitution, but it is in the Constitution - I'd expect that it would be upheld by Originalist judges - UNTIL it was revised or repealed by a large enough majority in Congress. The system has a plan - to change the system, amend the plan.

---

Needing to specifically mention a group of people in Equal Protections laws in order for them to qualify for Equal Protections is a Constitutional contradiction when state governments recognize Equal Protections for some group which is not specifically mentioned and thus, by your argument, not granted Equal Protections, on the Federal level. Which is why this is a controversial topic and why it's not going to be topic non grata in the courts anytime soon.

My question still stands, really. You didn't answer it.

Quote:

---

I want to know where you got the idea that Stare Decisis was somehow part of the job since you are such Constitutional scholar. It wasn't a simple error.

---

Stare decisis IS part of the job. If it were not, the Supreme Court would be making up a new ruling/interpretation of law everytime a case came before them which they didn't throw out. If something cannot be proven to be unconstitutional or having been formerly interpreted in flawed fashion, what does the court fall back on? Letting the law rest, and deciding that the contested law application in question had in fact been correctly implied, and that there is not a problem with the law itself.

Specifically picking justices, in advance, who show a proclivity to disagree with a specific Constitutional interpretation or ruling, is exactly the kind of ideological manipulation of the courts that the GOP rails against. Whatever happened to picking someone because they are a good judge, and because, from a reading of their opinions, you cannot decide if they are Republican or Democrat, or big government or small, but merely a good interpreter of both existing law and Constitutionality? That just falls by the wayside in your defense of these justices.

You haven't denied that these judges had their picks heavily influenced by their specific slants on specific issues. You're just okay with that, because it's in line with your own political beliefs. And you haven't even addressed Alito.. .just Roe. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Needing to specifically mention a group of people in Equal Protections laws in order for them to qualify for Equal Protections is a Constitutional contradiction when state governments recognize Equal Protections for some group which is not specifically mentioned and thus, by your argument, not granted Equal Protections, on the Federal level. Which is why this is a controversial topic and why it's not going to be topic non grata in the courts anytime soon.

My question still stands, really. You didn't answer it.

---

You are talking about Gay marriage all of a sudden to avoid addressing your faulty and ideological position on Roe based on your faulty and long standing ideas of the role of the Supreme Court.

Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation is not recognized federally in the way that it is in Conn. You want to start talking about Gay marriage again - I remember that you want Federal Supreme Court justices to find unconstitutional marriage laws that only recognize the union of one man and one woman. You are trying to use this as an example of why I am actually the one who wants activist judges on the bench?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Stare decisis IS part of the job. If it were not, the Supreme Court would be making up a new ruling/interpretation of law everytime a case came before them which they didn't throw out. If something cannot be proven to be unconstitutional or having been formerly interpreted in flawed fashion, what does the court fall back on? Letting the law rest, and deciding that the contested law application in question had in fact been correctly implied, and that there is not a problem with the law itself.

Specifically picking justices, in advance, who show a proclivity to disagree with a specific Constitutional interpretation or ruling, is exactly the kind of ideological manipulation of the courts that the GOP rails against. Whatever happened to picking someone because they are a good judge, and because, from a reading of their opinions, you cannot decide if they are Republican or Democrat, or big government or small, but merely a good interpreter of both existing law and Constitutionality? That just falls by the wayside in your defense of these justices.

---

Where is it necessarily part of the job?! Find me anything to suggest that this is their role.

Judicial Review is an important aspect of the role of the Supreme Court - but it is already a stretch based on the limited powers enumerated. Take it to the next level and you have a life tenured court of 9 writing all of major laws of the nation. You don't see how corrupt this understanding of the court is?

Civil Law is the basis of the Court. We are not a Common Law system. Previous rulings should inform proceeding rulings, but should never throw madates at them unless Constitutionally sound.