Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - this is why it should be easy to remove a sitting judge

smooth · 04-11-2007, 10:41 AM

we need to get a couple things straight...

first of all, your ability to understand how I feel about personal rights vis-a-vis the supreme court is about as miniscule as your grasp of the law, so don't insult me regarding either or I'll bite right back

second of all, I guess you get tired of something...but given that every time you spout ignorance I shut you down, I find it ironic that you would then reply that you're weary of spanking me...

you, once again, fail to understand some BASIC points...

1) there is no explicit constitutional right to travel
there's a constitutional right to liberty, and traveling has been interpreted to fall under liberty, but along with the caveat that government actions curtailing any such "right" to travel falls under strict scrutiny
Do you know what strict scrutiny means?

2) You didn't bother reading the entire legal argument in the case you cited...that's obvious to anyone who has. Because if you had done so, you would have noticed I was paraphrasing the rest of the legal argument when I mentioned that in times of war and emergencies the court has ruled that the right to travel can be curtailed cf. STRICT SCRUTINY.

3) You probably don't know this...but supreme court decisions are narrowly confined to the case at hand. That means that this passport case regarding travel OUT OF THE COUNTRY is of LITTLE to NO RELEVANCE to citizens moving between cities.

Simply because FIVE justices believe that the right to travel is included in the right to liberty as it pertains to passports and travel between countries does NOT translate to binding precedence that they would necessarily rule the same as it pertains to citizens moving between cities. Such a ruling would require a seperate case on that specific issue...and given that the justices clearly established the "right" to travel as CONDITIONAL, it's unlikely that the same justices would have done so if they were alive today and ruling on this katrina case of two people trying to circumvent the police telling them to go somewhere that was better prepared to handle their needs during a national emergency...

4) More to say, but I'm going to leave it at this IRONY:
The last thread you and I had one of these unlearning sessions centered around our understandings of the 14th amendment. and unless I'm forgetting something, you pretty much told the board you thought that the court only recognized certain rights under the 14th amendment due to political bullshit.

now, that is hilarious in it's own right...but it's even moreso this time around because you absolulely need the 14th amendment to make the argument you are doing in this thread...the ONLY way a citizen can make a claim about a city police force to a federal court is by arguing: hey, I've got FEDERAL civil rights that supercede local rights and policies...hear my plea...

so here, you [perhaps unknowingly] hinge your legal argument on the reality of securing federal rights for citizens over and above local rights, but there you didn't want to hear anything of it...mighty inconsistent unless you'd like to clear that up....

the "big" problem today is IGNORANCE...and proud demonstration of it by the ignorant over and over...like threads and comments such as yours. see, it's interesting that the best insult you can come up with is that I derive my thoughts of rights from judges and courts, yet you're the one citing case after case as the basis of the right to travel.

you didn't come at me with a philisophical claim, which I might actually have been interested to hear...no, you posted the legal claims and when I discuss them with you it appears that you have to resort to arguing that I only see rights through a legal prism. I wonder if anyone else considers that oddly hypocritcal...

04-11-2007, 10:41 AM	#37 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	we need to get a couple things straight... first of all, your ability to understand how I feel about personal rights vis-a-vis the supreme court is about as miniscule as your grasp of the law, so don't insult me regarding either or I'll bite right back second of all, I guess you get tired of something...but given that every time you spout ignorance I shut you down, I find it ironic that you would then reply that you're weary of spanking me... you, once again, fail to understand some BASIC points... 1) there is no explicit constitutional right to travel there's a constitutional right to liberty, and traveling has been interpreted to fall under liberty, but along with the caveat that government actions curtailing any such "right" to travel falls under strict scrutiny *Do you know what strict scrutiny* means? 2) You didn't bother reading the entire legal argument in the case you cited...that's obvious to anyone who has. Because if you had done so, you would have noticed I was paraphrasing the rest of the legal argument when I mentioned that in times of war and emergencies the court has ruled that the right to travel can be curtailed cf. STRICT SCRUTINY. 3) You probably don't know this...but supreme court decisions are narrowly confined to the case at hand. That means that this passport case regarding travel OUT OF THE COUNTRY is of LITTLE to NO RELEVANCE to citizens moving between cities. Simply because FIVE justices believe that the right to travel is included in the right to liberty as it pertains to passports and travel between countries does NOT translate to binding precedence that they would necessarily rule the same as it pertains to citizens moving between cities. Such a ruling would require a seperate case on that specific issue...and given that the justices clearly established the "right" to travel as CONDITIONAL, it's unlikely that the same justices would have done so if they were alive today and ruling on this katrina case of two people trying to circumvent the police telling them to go somewhere that was better prepared to handle their needs during a national emergency... 4) More to say, but I'm going to leave it at this IRONY: The last thread you and I had one of these unlearning sessions centered around our understandings of the 14th amendment. and unless I'm forgetting something, you pretty much told the board you thought that the court only recognized certain rights under the 14th amendment due to political bullshit. now, that is hilarious in it's own right...but it's even moreso this time around because you absolulely need the 14th amendment to make the argument you are doing in this thread...the ONLY way a citizen can make a claim about a city police force to a federal court is by arguing: hey, I've got FEDERAL civil rights that supercede local rights and policies...hear my plea... so here, you [perhaps unknowingly] hinge your legal argument on the reality of securing federal rights for citizens over and above local rights, but there you didn't want to hear anything of it...mighty inconsistent unless you'd like to clear that up.... the "big" problem today is IGNORANCE...and proud demonstration of it by the ignorant over and over...like threads and comments such as yours. see, it's interesting that the best insult you can come up with is that I derive my thoughts of rights from judges and courts, yet you're the one citing case after case as the basis** of the right to travel. you didn't come at me with a philisophical claim, which I might actually have been interested to hear...no, you posted the legal claims and when I discuss them with you it appears that you have to resort to arguing that I only see rights through a legal prism. I wonder if anyone else considers that oddly hypocritcal... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman