Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You've chosen NOT to address them.
|
I've found responding to you difficult lately. I decided to take a short hiatus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
But my question has been simple, explain how you understand the seperation of power and the checks and balances provided by the United States Constitution.
|
Checks and balances is a system built into our governmental system meant to ensure that no one branch has too much power. For example, the Legislative can investigate the Executive and the Executive can veto the Legislative. In this way different branches can police one another.
The intent, imho, is the most important part of checks and balances. No one branch can be allowed to be too powerful.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
Let's say that Scalia votes conservative 84% of the time. That'd mean Thomas could vote conservative maybe 79% of the time. What I'm saying is that the proper control shouldn't be Scalia at 84%, but rather a hypothetical 100%. That's all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
Maybe you're forgetting that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. That was a neo-conservative move. It was not a traditional conservative move and it was not a liberal move. Scalia has also clearly said that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment." That's neo-conservative.
I know everyone is high on righteous indignation, but this thread is turning into "different ways to call Willravel stupid". The last government-specific class I took was in high school, what with having a degree in psych and all. Yes, I plan on getting into a decent school and getting my BA in poli-sci, but I don't have it right now. So maybe, just maybe, people can stop discussing how poorly I've done in classes I never took. I've never taken Constitutional Law. My 7th grade class barely covered history, let along government.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I, too, would like further clarification on what you meant.
|
I should have stuck with this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Political parties are a method of overriding checks and balances.
|
because it's a lot more clear.
Liq, no one called you a liar. I was looking for an overall bias in the court and you only posted a few cases. I'm sure you understand that in order to determine if there is bias, one would need to look at numerous cases ranging many topics. I said this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Show me the website that outlines their various decisions and rationalizations and I'll go through them one by one and tally them up.
|
I'm doing a little research on court decisions to try and validate or invalidate my assertion that the court is politically biased. I'm starting with the court under Roberts. From Gonzales v. Oregon through Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, I've tallied (lib/conservative):
Roberts: Liberal: 1111, Conservative: 1111
Stevens: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Scalia: Liberal: 1111, Conservative: 1111
Kennedy: Liberal: 11111, Conservative: 111
Souter: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Thomas: Liberal: 111, Conservative: 11111
Ginsberg: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Bryer: Liberal: 111111, Conservative: 11
Alito: Liberal: , Conservative:
The issue I'm now having is
1) Deciding which cases don't include any liberal or conservative issues and
2) determining whether a case was decided based on precedent or bias, which is of paramount importance. I'll ask again:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Show me the website that outlines their various decisions and rationalizations and I'll go through them one by one and tally them up.
|
I'm serious about this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see why.
You're right in pointing out that my education on all this comes from newspapers and other similar media. I'm asking for the tools to educate myself.