And these people still get to vote! #@$#$
 

http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_n...C9O48816030623

June 23, 2003 - Wireless Flash
Around The Weird: Bizarre News Briefs

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (Wireless Flash) -- The justices on the Supreme Court are supremely unrecognized by the American public. According to a survey by FindLaw.com, 66 percent of Americans can't name even one justice. The most popular judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, only received 25 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, only 1 percent knew there's a justice named John Paul Stevens.

-------------

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 66%!!!!
I'm living in a nation populated with IDIOTS!!!
sigh

remember that 30% or so americans believe that we found wmd's in iraq??

it is sad.......

but i can name all 4 good guys and 5 bad guys on the court

How ironic, considering only the votes of the 9 justices really matter these days.

If only the Congress had the power to impeach them along with all their appellate sidekicks who rule by edict and ignore the laws passed by the electors of the people.

Congress, The House of Representatives to be more specific, *does* have the power to impeach them, along with 'all their appellate sidekicks...'.

IIRC, only 2 federal judges have been impeached, both at the appellate level, not at the 'Supreme' level (doesn't that sound ostentacious?).

I'm not sure why it is such a bad thing that people don't know the names of the justices of the Supreme Court.

I couldn't name one of them in the Canadian supreme court and I consider myself well informed. They aren't elected officials, they are appointed by Parliament, so I don't have to have an opinion on them only their rulings.

I can name a few (Rehnquist, Scalia, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Thomas, Kennedy are all I know) and I only remember Clarence Thomas because of the old "pube on the Coke can" incident. The others are just because O'Connor is Texan, Rehnquist is the head, Kennedy has a familiar name, and the others had court cases I had to memorize for government class.

I know they do, they just don't have the guts to do it. When judges and justices forget that it is their responsibility to administer the law, not change it, they should be removed. The judiciary branch of this country has overstepped their constitutional limits in a much more grievous manner than John Ashcroft ever has. Because of their liberal nature and the liberal bias of the media, it goes largely unnoticed

I agree with Charlatan.

Supreme Court proceedings aren't open to the public, mass media rarely disseminate their names, and only a few cases are highly publicized.

Where would people consistently expose themselves to the Justices' names--by reading case law all day?

oh come on....the supreme court is as conservative as it's ever benn (oh how i miss the days of the warren court...)

renquest is like the most conservative head of the supreme court ever and add clarence thomas to that.

you have the most conservative 2some ever.

You mean threesome. Clarence Thomas automatically takes that spineless assclown Scalia wherever he goes.

But they represent an entire branch of government, or at least its most visible manifestation, and they have the power to check the other two. Even if they're appointed, not elected, they are still powerful people whose decisions have an impact on our lives, and I would expect responsible citizens (ha) to have some idea of even ONE name. ONE!!!

As to where people would be exposed ot their names, try the newspaper, NPR, and (every time a major case is decided) television news. They talk about which ones are going to retire every time they argue about GWB appointing judges. For fucks sake there are ONLY NINE OF THEM. It's not like it's that hard to remember ONE! It's just a piece of information I would expect people to know if they had the least modicum of interest in our government, which apparently 66% of my fellow citizens do not. It's disgraceful.

I think it's scarier that 30% of Americans think we found WMDs, thus clearing our President, than 66% of Americans not knowing the head of one branch of government.

Alright, so you can name a few Supreme Court Justices... hello, there are very few actual Supreme Court cases, most of the time a case remains in the court of original jurisdiction.

Furthermore, they don't do very much in terms of media attention. Ooh they cleared programs like Napster and made them legal, that's so special.

They don't make laws, and they dont rule our country. Being a judge is basically a free ride when you get tenure. The pay is good, and in lower courts there is a jury that gets to make the decision for you. No grief, no 'failure'.

IMO, being a supreme court judge would be one of the easiest jobs I can think of. You get very well pay, you don't make life-threatening decisions -- we hope -- and you don't have to know every law any more.

A normal prosecutor will have to know every law that applies to all of his or her potential cases. That's a very large amount of laws.

A Supreme Court Justice will only have to study and read about a few laws (Napster's trial involved only a few laws) and as a Justice you get a manilla folder filled with all the previous hearings of your current case.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few Justices didn't just randomly pick a verdict based on the hearings of previous trials.

actually, they have assistants (smartest law students from the best law schools) that brief them and discuss cases w/ them.

i really dont think there is any guesswork involved; i think most of the judges really do take their jobs very seriously, as their vote could set the precedent for cases to come.

for those who do want to know about them....http://www.oyez.org/

Audio of arguements, decisions, etc...the whole works.

I agree with the_ dude. Those justices take their jobs VERY seriously. Best law students and other apprentices not with standing.

They are appointed for life and produce a pant load of opinions. I actually read them frequently. New ones at least once a month. Very interesting. Four-fives, six-threes. Vacated, reversed and remanded for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion, it is so ordered. It's brilliant. We elect the Senators, who approve the nominees, the President we elect, sends them. Every Justice was so appointed. That's how it works, and I think it works excellently.

They are not united on very many issues. Most are just that close, 5-4 or 6-3. Scalia could skew it (never realized that Thomas always followed him, he sure didn't on the cross burning issue) O'Connor obviously. I would love to interview her. The left always wants the feds or other government involved, collecting money for and administering what ever. Often under the guise of ‘it’s the right thing to do’ or ‘compelling government interest.’ The right always wants 'the man' to stay out of it. Local issues local solutions. Feds stay out. Yet that is not always true. They often uphold ridiculous powers of search and seizure for just about every law enforcement department. They (the right) are very tolerant of few restrictions on prisons, and administration of penal restitution.

My fav is Scalia. Strict interpretationist. Doesn't believe in that wishy-washy evolving document crap. Free speech unlimited. You ~can~ yell fire in a crowded theatre. All arms restrictions unconstitutional, You have no right to be gay (state, not feds, can outlaw) or even unoffended.

By the way, Supreme Court proceedings ~are~ all open to the public. In two ways, a continuously revolving line comprising 80 percent of the spectators, for fifteen minutes each. The remaining 20 percent are for half-day access. Justices deliberations are not public of course. Opinions are published immediately upon release in pdf format at supremecourtus.gov.

over,

bear

Nice link chavos, thanks

You make that sound like a bad thing!! I think the court is too liberal, we need MORE conservatives making phat rulings driven by common sense =D.

Yeah, you know what we really need is to go back to the good ol' days of Jim Crow laws, and more Dred Scott decisions.

Yup, definitely the Good Ol' Days. :rolleyes:

Or the good ol' days of telling us the "Pledge of Allegiance" is unconstitutional. Come on these guys carve out a fat niche of power and use that power to force their opinions on the rest of the country. It's time to come to grips with their abuses.

it is unconstitutional, i dont want to swear allegiance to anything related to god.


earl warren is turning in his grave now

So what if you don't want to. Is this a rule by minority? What if the majority of Americans DO want it? It does nothing to establish a state religion- that would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment says"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it doesn't say government documents can't mention God. Let Earl Warren, Icon of the Abusers, rock. If the people want to change the wording LET THEM VOTE ON IT. Don't just issue lordly edicts from on high with the false pretense of "interpreting" the Constitution.

let's not hijack this thread here. but i'd like to remind you that the purpose of the bill of rights was the protect minorities from majorities. if you look around the system, you'll numerous examples of limiting majorities.

Tyranny of the majority. It worked for the Nazis in Germany, why not here?

So we're to subjugate ourselves to a tyranny of the minority because it's better? The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual.

To those who despise the "stupid masses", the minority is king.

I would kindly ask people to take a deep breath and calm down before they compose replies.

Lets not fall into a pissing match.

cuz i'll win such a contest

Let me get home from work and grab a few cold ones and I'll challenge that.

tHE dUDED
Why do you keep pissing on your self.

i am not gonna respond to that.

i'm not going to stoop down to your level

Badass, I get to show this again:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-.../medalpiss.jpg

it is hard to keep politics from becoming personal. liberals and conservatives will never agree no matter how logical their arguments are. it is like trying to get a gorilla and a rattle snake to play with each other.

more like a donkey and an elephant!


dry humor, couldnt help it

I still don't understand why it is important to recognize the supreme court justices when most folks don't know justice when they get it......

Maybe if the signed some lucrative black robe contracts....or something....

Don't we all know who plays for the Lakers?
Or for the stupid masses who drives #8 or #24 or #20 on the NASCAR circuit?

i dont think its important to know who the justices are but it is iimportant to know somehow that people are getting fair rulings...dont try to prove it to me by shoving a proud looking judge infront of an american flag and have him or her smile or pose as if they are helping everyone by keeping justice. its important to know who the puppets are and who really is running the show.