No cop-outs on the checks and balances thing, Will. You're still wrong. Political parties do
not override the checks and balances. They were contemplated in the system. Political parties in no way impede the ability of the Senate to impeach the President (ask Bill Clinton about that one) nor to remove judges. They also do not impede the ability of the President to veto legislation. This is very, very basic stuff, Will - so basic that I can't believe that you don't already know it. For you to be right, political parties would allow the President to become a tyrant. Say what you will about the current administration, but that's just not true. Host might have you believe that it's coming, but it hasn't happened yet.
Now we come to Scalia and Thomas and your continued attempt to weasel out of hard and fast numbers. I'm not going to let that happen. You've again pulled numbers out of thin air. Even if I grant that your 84% conconction is correct - and it most certainly isn't - 79% conservative by no means makes Thomas a swing vote. That makes him a conservative. Period. Then again, your numbers are completely worthless anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
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.
|
It may have been a "neo-con move" but it was by no means a neo-con decision. There...is...no...such...thing. You may think those were neo-con politically, but that has nothing to do the judicial realities.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
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.
|
No, that's not neo-conservative. That's conservative. He's said that the Eight Amendment does not exend to non-citizens held outside the US. Are you deliberately misusing the term or do you just not understand?
Listen to those here that actually know what they're talking about, Will. For Christ sake, there's a guy in this thread that's actually argued a case in front of the Supreme Court telling you you're wrong!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
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.
|
Someone going to Berkeley Law in the fall should know better. Anyone who's taken the LSAT should know this stuff; I know it was on mine. As far as righteous indignation, this is looking more and more like a situation where you just cannot stand to admit that you are wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm doing a little research on court decisions to try and validate or invalidate my assertion that the court is politically biased.
|
If we've gotten this far into the argument and you're trying to validate the fact that there are liberals and conservatives on the bench, then you're wasting your time. There have ALWAYS been liberals and conservatives on the bench. Historians and law professors have made whole careers out of studying movements in each direction on the bench. But that's not what you've been arguing up to now. You've been arguing that they are Republicans and Democrats, and that's a very, very different thing. And one we've all been trying to pound through your head for 2 days.