loquitur

Will, on the punitive damages hypothetical, there was a series of three cases. BMW v Gore was decided in 1996 and held 5-4 that the Const restricted punitive damages awards. The dissents (esp Scalia and Thomas) said the Const is silent on the issue, and if the corp gets socked, well, that's a question of state law and none of the US Sup Ct's concern. Here is the lineup (lifted from the Sup Ct opinion): "STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined."

State Farm v Campbell gave as a general guideline for reasonable punitive damages awards a multiple less than ten times compensatory, unless it's really a tiny compensatory award. That was decided 6-3 in 2003. Here is the lineup: "Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Ginsburg, J., filed dissenting opinions." Scalia and Thomas were pretty insistent that the const has nothing to say on this issue.

The most recent one was PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, decided 5-4 in Feb 2007. The lineup on that was "Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Thomas, J., filed dissenting opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined."

On the marijuana hypothetical, Gonzalez v Raich was decided 6-3 in 2005, with the dissenters insisting the federal govt lacked power to prohibit you from growing pot in your own home for your own use. The dissenters were Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas (Alito and Roberts weren't on the court yet). Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy and (to my surprise) Scalia thought the feds were perfectly within their rights to do that.

Will, the vast majority of the Supreme Court's work involves reading statutes to figure out what they mean and how they apply to the case. In most of those cases, if Congress or the state legislature don't like the result, they can fix it by amending the statute.

The Supreme Court's work is mainly addressed to keeping the state of the law stable and uniform. There are very very few true hot button cases, and if you look at the results, you'll see quite a number of cases where the result was at odds with what you'd expect if the justices were voting their politics. How about Kelo v New London, where the Court held 5-4 that it's perfectly OK for the state to take people's homes away in order to give the land to Pfizer? The dissenters in that case were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor. I guess they must be corporate tools.

In other words, you have this cartoonish picture of the court in your head that I can tell you from reading its work day to day has NOTHING to do with reality.

As for the duck-hunting-with-Cheney case, you might want to read the opinion Scalia wrote in response to the motion for him to recuse. Suffice it to say there were more issues involved than you think, AND in any event the case was ultimately decided 7-2 in Cheney's favor.

I don't expect laymen who read mainly newspapers for their sources to know the ins and outs of this stuff, but if you do go out on a limb with pronouncements about things like this, it helps to really know what you're talking about.

Willravel

I'm not sure how you can compare Thomas and Souter on swinging. Who are you using as the anti-Scalia? Ginsberg? Are you saying that Thomas votes differently than Scalia less often than Souter votes differently than Ginsberg?

The whole thing kinda falls apart.
It's bad reporting in an article you provided, but that's not important. Until it's in front of him, we won't know, so it's moot.

loquitur

Guys, there are studies posted annually of how often different pairs of justices voted together. You'd be surprised at the high percentage of agreement of most of them, even the supposed ideological opposites.

Cynthetiq

so you're now trying to use smoke and mirrors to not address DIRECT questions??? You've got the BALLS to say something is BAD reporting when you've been blatantly misquoting, misinterpreting, and mostly misunderstanding everything put in front of you regarding the Supreme Court of the US, and yet you are STILL unwilling to admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about? Seriously talk about flying in the face of...

seriously will, I expected better from you regarding knowledge of the seperation of powers and the checks and balances...

Let's try to show you the differences...


loq: can you provide even some cut and pastes of that? I'd like to learn more...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

This kinda reminds me of when Jinnkai would occasionally post obscure articles about violent crime in order to demonstrate that we're all in danger from violent crime.

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 did, actually.

I part one, Scalia and Cheneys friendship dates back to the "years serving together in the Ford administration", which establishes that the duck hunting trip was only the latest example of friendship. This means a well established friendship, which is worse than just being hunting buddies one time. On page 3, he makes the argument that if he were to recuse himself, no one would replace him and it could be a tie. Oh nos! In that case, the decision of the lower court stands. So that's not a massive deal. But a tie is also kinda rare. Scratch that, it's VERY rare.

The best part, though, was this:
Following this statement to it's natural conclusion, his argument is basically that he will be voting in support of the petitioner (his long time friend, Dick Cheney). If he recuses himself, he won't be voting for the petitioner. So of course he can't recuse himself!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...-475scalia.pdf
I'm a layman, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.

Cynthetiq

No, there's a whole thread where you've posted conflicting information and information that has be refuted over and over and over, leaving you being wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The_Jazz

QFTFFTCIGDT

(Quoted For The Fucking Final Time Cause Its God Damn True).

Will, I picked a random justice. Scalia and Thomas vote as a block. It's almost a truism since there's only 6% variation. You were saying that Thomas was a "swing" vote, meaning that he would counteract either the liberal or conservative sides. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Scalia is the intellectual leader of the conservative side of the court. Thomas votes with him 94 fucking percent of the time. You said he was a swing vote. I've proven you wrong. Again.

And so has loquitur.

And I'm sorry that you can't admit that because we would all feel much better with a mea culpa right about now. But I know that isn't going to happen, so you'll keep on being wrong and we'll keep throwing the facts at you. loquitur, would you mind showing us the sites because I'm too tired to look them up now?

No one's saying you're wrong because you're a layman. We're saying you're wrong because you are stating incorrect facts and making groundless assumptions.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

As I pointed out, the "variation" thing makes no sense. This is about people being too politically biased. What would have made more sense would have been showing that Clarence Thomas didn't vote consistently Republican on issues. I was describing him swinging away from conservatives, not from Scalia. That premise hadn't even been introduced to the thread yet.

The_Jazz

Are you really and truly trying to state that Scalia is NOT acknowledged as the leader of the conservatives on the court? Because if you are, then you've proven that you are pulling this stuff directly from your ass.

Let's see. Scalia is the conservative intellectual. He consistently votes conservatively. Thomas votes with Scalia 94% of the time. What does that make Thomas? Right, in your book, he's a swing vote. Explain that one, Will. Especially since I've already shown you actual voting numbers on how Thomas votes. Conservative. Not swing. Conservative.

There is NO Republican or Democrat on the court. There can't be. There IS liberal and conservative, and those causes may be pet ones of either party. The court reaches far beyond party lines, Will.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

FoolThemAll

For the last time, Thomas does NOT swing. He's all Anita Hill, baby!

...sorry, I'll go away now.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

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.
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?

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.

Cynthetiq

really, that's good because so far all you're doing is digging a deeper and deeper hole. Again, I asked you what you meant by swing, at post #80 of which you finally answer at post #91 but really not any real answer but yet another answer with wide enough berth and definition so that in your mind you can conveniently weasel out of in later posts when people refute again what you've posted.

It is actually relevant that you are making this stuff up because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There are many posts here you've made wherein your statements DIRECTLY conflict a previous point you've made.

seriously more smoke and mirrors? are you seriously trying to state that when SCOTUS hands down a conservative decision you're wondering if it means "traditional conservative (libertarian) or neo-conservative." You really are talking out of your ass now. You have no freaking clue or idea of what you are speaking on.

Yes, please respond. You've had plenty of opportunity as I have asked over and over and over and over to explain how and what you understand the separation of powers and the checks and balances to be. Yet I got crickets and have been asking and explaining the differences since your post #13 But will, you didn't state you think it is a good idea, you stated it's stupid, sorry not strong enough, you stated it's FUCKING stupid in post #15. In post #20 you stated it was stupid to allow the exectuive and legistlative to choose the jucicial, this means you clearly understand what the framers meant and the actions happening. In post #24 you stated that it's the opposite of checks and balances and that the 3 seperate branches need to remain seperate to stop a runaway branch.

There's a GLARING big difference between all your statements, sentences, and words you've used.

So there's not a situation of "I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly" but actually you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. There's no shame in stating you don't know something, but please stop with the intellectual dishonesty. It's embarassing even disheartening to see that someone who has some really good discussion and debate turn into this complete charade of smoke and mirrors, subject changing and feignt.

But hey, I'm still expecting to hear the ever so famous Willravel patented and trademarked, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."™

I'd like to be proven wrong.

EDIT: I just realized that by stating "They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch." You do have NO IDEA how the seperation of power and the checks and balances work at all. Because no branch has ENOUGH power to be a runaway branch. No branch has any ability to usurp power to be a runaway branch. The framers were very careful in splitting up the powers as it grew out of the fear of tyranny.

So please do explain.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

loquitur

Will, you know something? As I said, I quoted the freaking alignments right out of the supreme court case summary in the official reporter. That's why it was in quotes. If you think I"m lying to you, tell me and then I'll know how to deal with this. Do your own fucking research, I gave you the case names.

I'm outta here. I was in law school before you were born, and i don't need to be condescended to. Especially when you're not even being intellectually honest.

Willravel

Those four cases were very helpful, but in order to determine whether there's an overall bias, I'd need a much larger sample.
I beg your pardon, but I already offered to do just that:
Remember? I'm offering to go through 6 years of Supreme Court decisions (a.k.a. my own "fucking research")
No one was condescending. Until you started acting like being older than me means I'm wrong and you're right. Ageism is intellectually honest?

So anyway, wrapping this up for now:
- It's probably not a good idea to have the president and senate choose a supreme court justice, as it apparently leads to...
- the SCOTUS seeming to be quite political. While we're apparently close to having even political bias (4 to 4, with 1 swinger), it's still a problem. In 19 of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, the votes broke down political lines, which is why I want to look into this further to see if this is a hell of a fluke or if it represents the overall voting records of the justices. If it does...
- then Hillary becoming a Supreme Court Justice is not a good idea because it will simply continue the status quo of political bias. Hillary has proven to be a politician through and through, which combined with her partisan decisions would mean that she would likely be just another justice that represents Democratic interests on the bench.

Cynthetiq

No, all the reasons in my post #92 shows how you are wrong and purposefully being intellectually dishonest.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Frosstbyte

Ageism isn't intellectually anything. I assume he's saying, "I've been a practicing attorney with experience in constitutional law for over 25 years and don't need to get in a silly online argument with someone who both thinks he's correct and who I know to be incorrect on the issues important to me."

Cynthetiq

so now you're editing your posts 8 minutes after someone else responded so that your thoughts are buried and lost inland in the thread. Again, being intellectually dishonest in your posting. You've not bothered to edit your other posts, but this one you decide to do so after people have commented on them? Seriously...why let reality based information distort, correct, or change your point of view.

You've stated you'd explain how you see the seperation of powers and checks and balances, I've requested you explain yourself better, and this is the best you've posted?

Will, you really don't know what you are talking about at all. Each time you post, you prove it yet again.

See you can't just go back 6 years, you've got to go back 232 years of case law to compare and contrast to state hypothesis. It's not as simple as stating "The past 6 years have been politically biased...." No your statement is that the SCOTUS as a whole is broken. It didn't just break, it has to have been broken from day 1. You've stated that the process was fucking stupid from the beginning.

Still waiting for your explanation as to how you understand the seperation of powers and the checks and balances.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

"I'm older thus I'm more knowledgeable" is an agism fallacy. "I have more experience in this subject and am thus automatically right" is an appeal to authority fallacy. Besides, no one is forcing anyone to post in or even read this thread.

Cynthetiq

I get it.

When confronted with actual reality based discussion, you'll go for the things that are low hanging fruit.

all you've posted in this thread is fallacy after fallacy... all rooted in intellectual fallacy.

will, I'm sorry to say I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for you today.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Cynth, can you summarize your main questions? I don't want to create a monster post.

JumpinJesus

I don't think he's asking you a question, will. I think he's just calling you out on what he believes is your dishonesty.


I'm just watching this thread to see how long before we pull the plug.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Willravel

I don't think I'm being dishonest. I'm simply working my way through this.
While the thread is clearly heated, I don't recall anyone breaking rules. I'm even trying to get it back on topic by tying the big mess back into the OP (from whence it came). If it were closed, I would hope it were closed for a reason other than "I completely disagree with Willravel".

Frosstbyte

Picking out statements which can be fallacious and assuming they're fallacious because it allows you to avoid addressing the issues in the statement doesn't do you any good, will. None of what he said constitutes either of the fallacies you've listed. He posted facts and substance which in his opinion prove his point, based on his years of experience in the field of constitutional law. It doesn't automatically make him right, but it would certainly grant him what they call "expert authority" on the material in a court (since we're talking about law here, after all).

You've posted your opinions, which, as far as anyone reading this thread can tell, are either baseless or based on shoddy or incomplete research and he felt that that style of response to his well-researched and reasoned posts was condescending.

You're quick to call out others for not being civil in heated discussions, but I'd urge you to try to read your posts in the shoes of someone else. They can sound pretty nasty sometimes.

Cynthetiq

More intellecual dishonesty.

More intellecual dishonesty.

You know that a thread isn't closed for disagreements. It's closed because another user is being attacked or flamed. It's closed because the discussion no longer relates to the OP in any manner shape or form. If you believe it's heated, that's because the heat is directed at you. I don't really care at all about this topic. I don't care if Hillary is offered this spot as part of a deal to quit campaigning. I also don't care if you are being intellectually dishonest at this point. You've had ample time to address my questions. You've chosen NOT to address them.

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. I've been asking this since it seems that the fundamental foundation of this discussion has been the point of your arguments where you've said they were fucking stupid. You've even stated that the Constitutional provisions outlines "flies in the very face of checks and balances."

Post #91
Post #92
END OF POST #92
Post #97I've even given you a couple places for you to read in the thread as to learning aids to the seperation of powers and checks and balances in post #39 Entire US Constitution Articles I-III, post #41 soclialstudieshelp.com and post #84 My point of placing them in was to make sure that we are talking from the same starting point. You've clearly demonstrated that it was different. You offered "If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond."

You are welcome to use those to explain how you believe and understand the seperation of power and checks and balances, and then compare them to your belief.

After that bonus questions are:

Post #16
post #50
Post #73
Post #80

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

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.
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.

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.

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.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Bill O'Rights

Why is it that whenever an older member points to having more experience, in any given matter, the clearasil crowd will always point to "ageism"? Typically, I just give up at that point. There really is no use discussing something with someone that resorts to this infantile copout.

Wrong is wrong, and age has not one damn thing to do with it. Opinions, on the other hand, are often formed over time, with greater gained knowledge and experience. In another 20 years, or so, you'll come to understand that. But, then again, what do I know? It's been 22 years since I was 23 and idealistic. All of that extra experience has just jaded me, and turned me "ageist".

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

loquitur

no, Will, it's 27 years of experience practicing and learning law and following the Supreme Court that entitles me to call you out. Unlike you, I don't claim to be a consummate authority on everything, but I do have a fair amount of expertise in this area. I also don't believe in being a partisan hack and mischaracterizing what I read in order to make partisan points. It's not ageism, it's knowledgeability. See, I know that I don't know everything and can't. But I do know what I know and I also am aware of things I don't know. And if I don't know something I'll say so. It's a useful mindset, you might benefit from adopting it.

If you must know, what sent me about your post was the implication that I was lying about the lineups of the justices in the punitive damages cases, when I QUOTED THE LINEUP OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORT. In fact, even if I didn't, but just summarized it - you think I'd lie about something like that? For what? to "win" an argument here? Are you daft? What's more, if you had even the most rudimentary knowledge in this area, which you obviously don't, you would have recognized the syllabus reporter's lingo in that lineup summary. Something like that appears in pretty much every single reported Supreme Court opinion.

Here's a suggestion for you. When you've gone through law school and practiced law long enough to have a sense of how courts work, come back and we can talk about what judges do and why. I don't even insist that you have a Supreme Court argument in your background the way I do (I argued a case there back in 2000). But until then, don't pontificate about the work of the Supreme Court when all you're doing is parrotting partisan bullshit. Don't purport to lecture to me about what judges do and how they act if you haven't a clue what the Supreme Court's work is.

And one other thing - don't suggest that other people are lying unless you have a pretty damn good reason to think that. People who deal with me professionally consistently say that I fight hard but I play fair and am always straight with them. There's very little that pisses me off more than an accusation that I'm not being straight - especially when it comes from someone who in this area is, at most, a spectator.

And that's all I'm going to say about this. I made the mistake of thinking you were discussing stuff here in earnest. I'm not making that mistake again. The last refuge of the dishonest arguer is to accuse the other person of bigotry. Congratulations, you've scraped bottom.

Willravel

I've found responding to you difficult lately. I decided to take a short hiatus.
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.
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.
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.
I should have stuck with this:
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:
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:
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.

loquitur

Will, I wasn't denying the overall patterns. They are there. What I was saying was that you can't predict the outcome of a particular case based on political views, which is why I picked those two subject matter areas as examples.

Political views and judicial philosophy are two different things. Judges will usually apply the latter even if the result will conflict with the former - the idea being that judges are not in the business of making policy, they're in the business of deciding cases according to the law. That is why I used the eminent domain, medical marijuana and punitive damages cases as examples - in each of those, the supposedly left-wing justices reached the right-wing result while the right-wing justices went the other way. That's because they aren't looking at the result of the case, they're looking at the rule of the case. That is as true of Stephen Breyer (who, by the way, is a great judge) as it is of Nino Scalia (also a giant). They are not politicians.

And if you look at the cases the Sup Ct decides, you'll see most of them are not hot-button constitutional issues. The main work of the Sup Ct is resolution of circuit splits on issues of federal law. (Supreme Court opinions are here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html)

If you want a good left-wing law professors' blog, look at Balkinization. For libertarian law professors, go to Volokh. For conservative, look at Professor Bainbridge.

As far as your chart is concerned, you really need to define what is a liberal result and which is a conservative result. Take the medical marijuana case: which one is the conservative result - that Congress can criminalize raising pot in your own home for your own use? Or that Congress lacks power to do that? In that case, the so-called liberals upheld federal power and the so-called conservatives voted no (though Scalia was in the majority on that one, which surprised me). How about the eminent domain case - which is the liberal position, that it's ok to take someone's home away and give it to Pfizer or not? The "liberals" said it's ok, the "conservatives" said it isn't. Again, it was an issue of the extent of governmental power.

Most of the non-bill-of-rights constitutional issues are questions of "who gets to decide" and NOT "what is the right answer." The NY Times characterizes these consistently on the result of the single case, which is stupidity writ large. In the who gets to decide category, there are disputes of Pres v Congress, Congress v States, agencies v courts, etc etc etc. The issue in those cases is not what the policy is, but who has the power to make the policy in a govt system of separated powers. The results won't be characterized easily as liberal or conservative, but you'll be able to read the cases and see what principles the various justices apply.

That's why the use of political labels as applied to judges is pretty problematic.

The_Jazz

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

loquitur

Will, what Scalia said about torture was not a pronouncement on policy. As a legal matter, if the 8th amendment applies only to the criminal process then it doesn't have application to the war power. That's not neoconservative at all, it's an issue of where one part of the const ends and another begins. If your local jailer tortured convicts or criminal suspects, then the 8th amendment would come into play. But it has nothing to do with collecting intelligence in wartime - that's covered by a whole different set of rules.

There is no such thing as a neo-con view of the constitution. Neoconservatism is a foreign policy approach, not a legal approach. It has to COMPLY with the law, but so does realism, or internationalism, or isolationism, or Wilsonianism or any other ism.
You're just throwing labels around.

Cynthetiq

If this was a test for 10 points, you'd probably only score 3-4 points. You didn't state anything about the seperation of powers, and your example is a simple example, but no example of what the seperation of powers is or means. You've stated the labels but not what the functions of each are. If you did, you clearly see how there is no ability for ANY branch to be a runaway. Power is limited because the powers are seperated from the very beginning.

In other words, your explaination 3-4pts and all, is also intellectually dishonest.

I didn't know what neo-conservative really meant, I had some clear ideas, but once you mentioned the word, I made sure to double check the meaning. There is not a single article ever written that states the 2000 election decision by the SCOTUS was a neo-conservative move, tactic, decision, anything. In other words, 2000 election SCOTUS neoconservative never were put together in any articles. If what you stated was in fact even a host-ism, there would be at least one post somewhere. But other people have posted what neo-conservative means, and I agree that it has more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy.

Since you are the one bandying about lables and jargon, how is neoconservatism defined and what does it mean to you?

Will, no one is trying to be rigeously indignant. In fact, I don't know where you are getting that his is turning into a "different ways to call Willravel stupid" since no one has to call you that, you've clearly shown your ignorance on the topic and subject of US Constitution and US Government all by yourself. No one has to say a word to that.

But what I will state here is simple:

More intellectual dishonesty.

So you didn't remember it from your history or schooling, but you've clearly been able to read the post of Articles I-III that I posted, you could have easily read the socialstudieshelp.com or even listened to the fabulous , all of which would have given more complete and intuitive answers that you did in explaining how you understand it.

I've seen you rip up the threads here with citations and quotations of very complex issues, yet the most basic foundation of the United States government you're going to blame your lack of grade school, high school, or college level learning. Are you serious?????

That smacks of even more intellectual dishonesty.

The answers were spoon fed to you, and still exist now, but still you insist your position.

You cannot overide the checks and balances, you cannot consolidate the seperation of powers, if you could then the system itself would be broken. The only way that I can see if anything like that could ever happen is if the US Constitution is suspended or revoked. Even then the way I understand it, the very fact that the Constitution has enumerated States versus Federal rights, the US Constitution would still stand in almost every other state. The framers were very mindful to make sure that the power was not centralized so that anyone would have to live under tyranny.

Again, the very assertion means you don't understand what the words of Articles I, II, III say or mean.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

What are we disagreeing about, then? That's all I was saying.
That being the case, a running tally probably would probably just be a waste of time.

Still, I have to wonder... couldn't a supreme court justice use favorable precedence to support their political agenda? I know in some cases there can be conflicting precedent, and if something does appear before the supreme court it's often not open and shut. Say Scalia names a conservative precedent and Ginsberg names a liberal precedent, is that political or judicial philosophy?
Can you explain this to Jazz? When I brought this up, he basically called me stupid.
Well put. I think I have a better grasp on this now. It has the appearance of being political to a layman (like, oh I dunno, me), but in actuality it's a lot more like establishing who has jurisdiction or what precedent has jurisdiction.

BTW, I hope you are clear that I never intended to call you a liar.


Jazz, do you think that a Republican Senate would impeach Bush under any circumstances?

Also, I'm not going to Berkeley Law in the fall. I'm going back to get my BA in Political Science. After that, I'll take the LSAT. Then I'd like to get clerical experience in the law field. Then, if my grades, scores, and recommendations are worthy, I'll apply to Boalt (or Berkeley Law, as they call it now). No where in this thread have I resorted to calling someone stupid. You cannot say the same.
Count how many times you've said "intellectually dishonest". And FYI, you're using the term incorrectly. Intellectual dishonesty requires one knowing what one advocates to be false. None of my posts fall into that category.
This is likely a good example of intellectual dishonesty. Hit control + f then type in "stupid".

Strange Famous

I want to jump in at the end of debate... but this woman is a disaster and a crook and should not be allowed to hold any public office.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

The_Jazz

We're disagreeing because you insist on calling these political when they're judicial. The two have nothing to do with each other, as I've tried to tell you over and over.

Not only could they, but they do, especially in high-profile cases. I don't pretend to know nearly as much about the court as loquitur, but I know enough that they use whatever precedent is handy to explain their views on any single issue. That's the way courts work.

I said no such thing. I did not address your chart or any of the information within it at all. Will, my frustration stems from you not admitting that you are wrong on so many issues here, especially when confronted with people who do actually know what they're talking about.

ANY circumstances? Sure. If he killed someone in a duel. If he raped his mother. If he went completely running-around-naked-on-Pennsylvania Avenue crazy. Johnson (the first) was impeached by his own party. Just because they're in his party doesn't mean that they do or don't agree with him. They just think that he hasn't done something suitably agregious to be impeached.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

And if George W. Bush were a Democrat but still committed the same acts and came to the same decisions, you feel that the Republican Congress come to the same decision?

The_Jazz

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts...."

Maybe? Who knows? That's not the world we live in. The current Senate doesn't think that he did enough wrong to warrant impeachment. End of story. Do I disagree? Yes, for what it's worth.

Let me herd you back to reality AGAIN.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

The nice thing about this hypothetical is that we can look back to get historical context (Bill Clinton's impeachment in the House and near impeachment in the Senate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...perjury_charge

Cynthetiq

Not only are you being intellectually dishonest Will in responding to my statements, your "I didn't have the benefit of learning civics...." is one of the points you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess they taught Biodiesel creation/usage, fuel efficiency and chipping engines in your school, since you do seem proficient in that to some degree.

I've outlined them quite well, save putting a 1M candlepower spotlight on it. I really don't think anyone deserves to be publicly humiliated but if you want to continue the charade I'll be happy to point them out.

See it seems this is the closest we will get to seeing you make an admission you have no idea as to what the Articles I-III state as to the separation of power and checks and balances.
Yes they do. I'll keep saying it each and every time you keep doing it. Let's make sure we are defining the word correctly.

You are stating the wikipedia version of intellectual dishonesty and that's fine. Using your definition, it still applies because you cannot state on one hand that you understand the separation of powers and checks and balances and then continue to make incorrect statements as to how they work or situations should be applied. Either way one of the statements you are making is intellectually dishonest. If not, then I'm giving you too much credit since the only next logical conclusion drawn is that you truly do not know what you are talking about and are ignorant of the subject being discussed and cannot admit that you do not know or understand the separation of powers and checks and balances as stated in Articles I-III of the United States Constitution.

I'm using John T. Reed's Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. I will list just the ones that you have used and have applied directly to this discussion:

You've clearly stated that you were going back to school to be a lawyer, not maybe go to law school, but be a lawyer. You've stated the illustrious profession of public defender on many occasion and then moving on to private practice because the pay is high. Delusion? Daydream? Pipe dream? What? Or is it more intellectual dishonesty, your definition, or even self-deception? Or is it more like that personal situtation I have found myself in we've discussed in PMs which I've asked your assistance; the one you helped with kind words and links to many resources?

You've not recanted or even restated that position. You've even started another thread that demonstrates very clearly that you still do not understand the separation of power and the checks and balances that Articles I-II of the United States Constitution clearly define.

I'm not taking the bait on the changing of the subject with the Bush as a democrat scenario because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand which is: you stated that the method of selecting a Supreme Court Judge is stupid, and flies in the very face of checks and balances as the method that is currently used. You are still stating political when they're judicial.

The posit of the Bush scenario shows you still don't understand the foundation of the discussion of separation of powers and the checks and balances stated in the US Constitution. If you are seriously making this a What If? It may be a discussion, but it's simple and one dimensional since it doesn't matter as to what the partisan politics, they have some bearing maybe, but not all bearing. That's about as far as that discussion can go.

Back to selecting Justices post#13, how is it stupid? post#15 How is it that they are representing partisan politics?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I've had plenty of history classes, but the only government-specific class I ever took was one semester my senior year in high school.
Loq made a compelling argument.
This is just a list of logical fallacies. It's also, ironically, a massive red herring.
I never said "maybe", Cynth. Boalt Hall is one of the most elite law schools in the US. I'm sure Loq can attest to it's reputation. Maybe even Jazz. I'm a damn good student, but I can't say with any level of certainty that I'll get in. I'll sure as hell try, but sometimes one's best efforts aren't enough.

If I don't get into Boalt, I'll have to reevaluate my goals. Will I try for Stanford, or will I have to settle on a less elite school? I honestly don't know. Fortunately, this is a few years down the line, so I have time to figure this out. I might apply to Stanford, Boalt, and my alma mater Santa Clara, just to give myself the options. But this is getting way off subject, and I've shared more than enough about me personally.