Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's not relevant. When I called Thomas "swing" I was saying he was more likely to vote more liberal than Scalia and Alito, which is true. It had nothing to do with either a 6% difference between Scalia and Thomas or what you choose to call Scalia in pointing out he's the head of the conservatives. That's the last I'll speak of it because I'm repeating myself.
|
Not relevant? Are you kidding me?! You think that it's not relevant because it completely refutes your argument about Thomas. I guess I'll have to lead you by the nose:
Scalia is acknowledged as one of the most, if not the most, conservative justice.
Thomas votes with Scalia 94% of the time. That means they agree.
That makes Thomas a conservative 94% of the time.
If he were a swing vote, he would dissent with Scalia much more often. Hell, I'd give you a pass on just about any other justice on the court, but you made the fatal error of picking the one justice that, to his critics anyway, seems incapable of independent thought and calling him a "swing" vote. I've heard the analogy that if Scalia burbs, Thomas says "excuse me". You have the hard and fast numbers in front of you, and I see you trying to twist out of them or turn them in your favor, but let me tell you that if you continue to call Thomas a swing vote, not only are you being intellectually dishonest, you're burning up the tremendous amount of goodwill you've built up around here. I'm really coming to the point where I'm going to have to start questioning the validity of anything and everything you say, even when I agree with it, all based on this thread.
Will, you deserve to know this. I got an email last night from a friend who's never been to TFP before that read this thread after I directed him to it. He's a former SCOTUS clerk (and the owner of the ugliest 16' polevault I've ever seen), and he finally asked me what was going on after I pinged him for info all yesterday. He registered just to read this, so I came to work this morning reading the 4 emails he sent me between 11 pm and midnight with quotes from this thread. You've given him a good chuckle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
We've already had lengthy discussions on TFP about what "conservative" means. When most people say "conservative" now they usually mean one of two things: traditional conservative (libertarian) or neo-conservative. Which are you using? Or are you using a third kind?
|
In all seriousness, if there weren't 4 or 5 posts behind this one that directly refer to this, I'd PM you to edit your post to delete this paragraph. I know that you're not nearly stupid enough to ask this question if you'd thought it through, so I'm just going to chalk it up to the heat of the moment. But, for those reading this in posterity, I meant the traditional conservatism that found in courts. There's no such thing as a neocon judicial philosphy. Anyone who's taken Constitution Law 101 - actually even just sat through the first two weeks and stayed awake - knows that "liberal" and "conservative" have very specific meanings when discussing courts, judges and decisions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Edit: BTW, mea culpa about the checks and balances thing. I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly. It is proper checks and balances. I don't think two branches choosing the leadership of a different branch is a good idea, but it is checks and balances. If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond.
 |
I, too, would like further clarification on what you meant. Especially since you apologized for it in the first sentence, then went back and retracted that apology in the third. I'm starting to wonder if you're just being willfully ignorant of the Constitutional processes that work in this country.
Here's what you should have learned in 7th grade civics:
The leadership of the Executive is chosen by the Electoral College (on the advice of the people).
The leadership of the Legislature is chosen by the Legislature (Speakers, Leaders, Whips, etc.). Until you get to Congress, you'll never be able to vote in any election to select one of these leaders.
The entirity of the Federal judiciary - every single Federal judge everywhere in America including circuit, appellate and SCOTUS - is proposed by the Executive and approved by the Senate. It's not just the leadership, it's the entire branch. So whatever qualification you intended with your "leadership" comment, it has no basis in reality. As I count it, this is the 3rd time I've explained this to you, Will. If you object to the Executive proposing judicial "leadership" (whatever that means) and the Legislature approving it, then you object to the entire system of checks and balances. There is no "grey" area. There is no room for interpretation. It is what is. Please, for both of our sakes, either explain EXACTLY what you mean or give us a real mea culpa on the issue. It's either that or cynthetiq and I are going to start beating you over the head with facts.
loquitur, thanks for your contributions in this thread, and I'm sorry that you got frustrated by the mulishness here. Will, as I see it we're at the point where we're going to test who's more obstinant, you or me. Your posts are going to be easier to concoct because you're pulling facts out of thin air, but you should know that I'm not going to give this up, especially since you're demonstrably wrong on so many things.