Cynthetiq

here's a more visual primer for you will... maybe this will help you a bit more understand how the checks and balances are defined and how they actually are intended to work as designed by the framers of the US Constituion.

__________________
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.

Cynthetiq

will, you aren't the one doing your homework...

You do understand how a case gets to the SCOTUS right? It's not like because you don't like what a lower court stated means you get an automatic invitation to SCOTUS, no they DECIDE if your case has any merits. If they AGREE to hear your case, then it gets heard.

I don't get how come you're now obfusicating the discussion with smoke and mirrors.

The bottom line is that the PROCESS has not changed for 232 years. It has been the same.

EDIT: removed the case as I reread what will was stating about cases brought before the SCOTUS

__________________
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 did too, actually.

Edit: Getting back...
Does anyone remember this? Before oral arguments started on Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, Scalia was quoted saying:
Guess who voted dissented in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld? Yeah, Scalia. Isn't it odd how his statements before hearing the arguments echo his decision?

That's what I'm talking about. A justice chosen by a republican president and passed by a republican senate (99th congress, 53 republicans) happens to rule republican on basically every decision that's come before him.

I could do this for every presiding justice, be they liberal or conservative.

Frosstbyte

Needless to say, I agree completely with cynth, and, as usual, have NO idea what will is talking about, but am very glad for him that Boalt doesn't give grades, because his Con Law I grade would be ugly.

The_Jazz

Will, its you that looks like he hasn't done any research. Scalia wants to overturn the decision because he thinks the lower court erred. He's said so. And he's got one vote out of nine.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that Scalia can't do anything by himself. There needs to be 5 (I think) justices that concur that a case needs to be heard before them before it's put on the docket. One justice can't do it themself. A case has to go to trial in the circuit court then be heard by the Appellate Court. Once the Appellate Court rules, then SCOTUS can decide to hear a case or not. If they do, it's put on the docket, arguements are heard and an opinion issued a few months later. Getting to the Supreme Court is a long, arduous procedure and a diminishingly small percentage of cases are heard by them.

__________________
"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

What you seem to fail to grasp is that every member of the SCOTUS is patently politically biased, which is reflected in all their decisions. They're not unbiased justices, they're Democrats and Republicans in robes. This is why I take issue with the idea of Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice. It'd be more of the same problem if she were appointed.

Cynthetiq

So how is that STUPID????

Even if they are ELECTED which is what you've stated you'd rather see, how is that going to change how they vote? Isn't it shocking to you that Sentors and Congressmen are voted into office and the make decisions on party lines and are patently politically biased.

You must be totally shocked to come to this revelation suddenly in your 20s.

Again, they maybe biased, but when the president changes and it's a different party, they still sit on the bench. So there's still an opporunity for change and dissention.

__________________
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

What you fail to grasp is that telling judges and potential judges that they cannot be a member of a political party is an outrageous abridgement of free speach. Every single member of the Supreme Court going all the way back to John Jay was a member of a party, whether they were Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist or whatever. Any Federal judge is almost certainly going to be as well.

Is this just about tilting at windmills and thinking about the way it should be in a perfect world? Or do you actually have anything to contribute that would matter one iota in the real world? Up to this point, I've seen you say that nominating someone to SCOTUS with no judicial experience is stupid, that Clinton would be corrupt, deny that checks and balances exist and that political parties are a method of overiding checks and balances - which don't exist. I've seen nothing beyond incorrect facts, outrageous assumptions and an overarching failure to recognize the realities of the political system that has been in place for 226 years. So, do you have anything - anything at all - to add that can redeem yourself in what I can only hope is the worst series of posts you've ever made.

__________________
"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

When did I say they couldn't be members of political parties? All I'm saying is it's not their job to represent said party on the bench. That's the issue.

Cynthetiq

how are they representing the said party?

__________________
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

Another outrageous assumption. Try again.

But I'm confused - are they representing the party or are they representing their own selfish interests, like you've accused Scalia and Alito of doing?

You've said that they're all biased because they're coming from the parties. You've also said that no SCOTUS judge should get a seat without having judicial experience first. So the obvious assumption is that we need Federal judges who aren't members of a party since the party will bias them. Your statements - you clear them up.

__________________
"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

Either one is wrong. They're separate parts of a bigger problem.
You've said that they're all biased because they're coming from the parties. I said it was a bad idea to nominate someone to the SCOTUS without any judicial experience. We need all judges from local judges up to the supreme court to be impartial. Part of being impartial is not bringing personal politics to the table.

The Supreme Court Oath:
The job requires one to be impartial.

Cynthetiq

so then the onus is on you to PROVE that they are NOT being impartial.

__________________
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

No, you said it was "stupid" to nominate those without judicial experience. I didn't say that they're biased because they're coming from political parties. I said that was the logical implication of what you've said, and I'll thank you for not putting words in my mouth since I don't happen to agree with the statement. The other logical implication of your statements is that they are not impartial.

Again, let's see something that actually has some sort of real world value. You've shown two cases where judges should have recused themselves because of personal finances. You've accused Alito of being biased towards Homeland Security cases because of his friendships without offering any proof whatsoever.

__________________
"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

What do you call it when someone commits to a bad decision? I generally call it stupid. Like "It's stupid that we stayed in Iraq after it was discovered there were no links to al Qaeda" or "It's stupid to call that woman after you found out she was a man".

There's an old saying, "The definition of stupid is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results". Either Congress is stupid expecting to get an impartial justice or they're corrupt in expecting to get an impartial justice. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
A judge or justice can be a member of a political party and be impartial. A judge or justice, however, cannot take into account his or her political ideologies when coming to a decision without becoming impartial.
Here's a source for that:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rt-right_N.htm

Cynthetiq

geez... will, you're really NOT doing any homework, even cribbing off others...

get the old saying right... it's a famous ALBERT EINSTEIN quote.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

So you have not shown how they are being impartial. Or how their decisions show that they aren't being fair. No, you're just lumping things is as you parrot back some quotation from USAToday.

__________________
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

I don't know what else to do here except scream at the top of my lungs "You're wrong, you're wrong, YOU'RE WRONG!". Both dc_dux and I have given you several examples of top-notch justices (our disagreement over Rheinquist notwithstanding) that had no judicial experience before their SCOTUS terms. So if you're going to call Thurgood Marshall, for instance, a "stupid" choice, which is what you're doing thus far, then I'm going to have to metaphorically smack the taste out of your mouth. The same with Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurther or Lewis Powell. We're at the point that you either need to conceed that there glaring holes in your "stupid" arguement or consine yourself to the fact that your inability to back down is making you look very foolish.

Did YOU bother to read the article you quoted? Not once does it mention political leanings of any single or group of justices. I don't see the words "Republican" or "Democrat" appear at all in the article. "Conservative" and "liberal" both appear multiple times but unless you're saying that a judge can't decide consistently in one way or another, then those terms don't really matter. Judges, like all of us, have opinions on the way the world should work. And, unlike you and I, they get paid to have those opinions. As a matter of fact, those opinions are published, reviewed and studied. Some could argue that opinions are the stock and trade of judges everywhere. So if you want judges without opinions, I will insist on all the birds flying out of my ass be wearing White Sox gear since they will, by definition, be shitbirds.

__________________
"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

Third paragraph, last sentence. Our of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 "broke 5-4 along ideological lines".
I am against abortion. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would not rule against abortion based on my personal beliefs because I would have taken an oath to be impartial.

Jesus, look at the moderation on TFP. All in all, it's impartial. I dance on Cynthetiq's nerves constantly, but he has never once let our disagreements spill over into his administrative duties on the site. Why? Because he understands that as an administrator he is responsible for being fair and impartial. You yourself do the same thing. And no, this isn't sucking up.

The_Jazz

You're kidding, right? It's not the same thing. Some justices tend to vote more liberally. Others more conservatively. Occassionally they all agree. There's absolutely no implication of parties there. Several of the most ideologically conservative justices were appointed by Democrats and vice versa.

You sersiously need to take a Constitutional History class. IF (big if) Roe v. Wade gets overturned it will not be because of justice's inability to be impartial, it will be because the right of privacy that was created out of thin air by the Warren Court will be disipate. I'm pro choice, too, but as someone who's actually studied court cases I recognize that the basis for Roe v. Wade is flimsy at best. There is no "right to privacy" stated anywhere in the document or amendments, and at best it's implied. That doesn't mean I disagree with the decision (I do) but that I know that it's the product of an activist court that had to plumb the depths of the law to concoct a decision that greatly hemmed in the rights of the states.

And if you didn't rule against abortion, it wouldn't be because you were or weren't impartial. It would be because you followed precedent, which typically implies a conservative justice. That's what SCOTUS does, sets and defines how all following similar cases should be viewed.

I'm glad you recognize that we go to great lengths to have "flat" moderation, especially in Politics, but that's really apples and oranges. We're only guided by the rules section. There's no rule of law here or great tome of previous decisions.

In the end, I guess I'm completely confused as to what you mean by "biased". A judge can be neither conservative nor liberal? They have to follow prescedent dogmatically? There can be no expansion or contraction of the scope of any previous decision? There's a reason that we have 9 justices, Will. There are two very different schools of thought on how to interpret the Constitution, and each is represented. Do you want to abolish the schools of thought?

__________________
"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

Cynthetiq

thanks.... but that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion and can't express it.

So what you're saying by this is that your impartialness creates an instant "bias" because any view you personally have, you must vote opposite of it. How is that impartial? How is that something that someone can acutally measure and understand just how "impartial" one is? Because the fill out a questionaire and then decide based on the oppposite of what they filled out?

In fact it sounds like you're trying method of living as an SCJ. That is patently absurd on its face. It may in fact even be more like we've entered the world of
Note: ideological does not mean or equal POLITICAL. You know better than that, you are smarter than that, at least that's what I thought from previous posts. This current thread you've undone most of that since you're claiming that ideological = political and that the framers did something so egregiously stupid that no one has discussed it or thought about it for 200+ years.

__________________
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'll double check.

- John Roberts: Republican, nominated and confirmed by Republicans
- John Paul Stevens: Democrat, but Republican when nominated and confirmed by Republicans (call it the Stevens "gotcha")
- Antonin Scalia: Republican, nominated and confirmed by Republicans
- Anthony Kennedy: Centrist, nominated and confirmed by Republicans
- David Souter: Democract, but Republican/Centrist when nominated by Republican president George Bush 1, and confirmed by Democratic Congress
- Clarence Thomas: Republican, nominated by Republican president George Bush 1, and confirmed by Democratic Congress.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Democrat, nominated and confirmed by Democrats
- Stephen Breyer: Democrat, nominated and confirmed by Democrats
- Samuel Alito: Republican, nominated and confirmed by Republcians

Huh. It seems to me that outside of a Democratic Senate choosing Thomas (who happens to be black), they were all choosing people with the same ideological agenda as they had. That's interesting.

The_Jazz

Roberts - correct
Stevens - confirmed by Democrats
Scalia - confirmed by Democrats
Kennedy - confirmed by Democrats
Souter - confirmed by Democrats
Thomas - confirmed by Democrats
Ginsburg - confirmed by Democrats
Breyer - confirmed by Democrats
Alito - correct

The Republicans only controlled the Senate from 1995 to 2007. Get your facts straight, 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

Cynthetiq

so far your evidence is circumstantial based on labels, which you've already discredited as being "dangerous"

yet it seems that you aren't getting it that ideological does not equal political.

in fact, your above statement flies in the face of it.

Seems to me that people have switched allegiances and changed parties. Hmmmm... how about that...

thanks. I have been trying very hard to find that information and I couldn't recall just when it changed but I know that it wasn't and hasn't been as forever as the democrats controlled the House. In fact, that's again a VERY good example of checks and balances and the separations of power at work. A great example actually.

__________________
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

Which is why I've spent the last day and a half wondering if someone had slipped me some crazy pills whenever I read this thread.

Will, we've given you very specific examples of why your wrong and countered your arguements with hard-and-fast facts. And again, you're stating that judges or potential judges should not be in political parties:

I can give you very specific examples of SCOTUS voting against party interest if you want.

__________________
"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

I'm sorry I had to manipulate you into doing actual research on this, but it seemed like the only way. BTW, you're list isn't correct. Scalia was nominated under the 99th Congress, which had a Republican majority of 53/47.

Getting back to my point, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are the most Republican-voting members of the Supreme Court, followed by Thomas (who was confirmed fifty-two to forty-eight, the narrowest Supreme Court confirmation vote of the twentieth century).

Stevens (who became liberal after becoming a supreme court justice), Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are the most Democrat-voting members of the Supreme Court.

Kennedy is the swinger.

You do see the pattern, right?

The_Jazz

Of course we see the pattern, Will. But for the love of God and my sanity, tell me why that makes any of your previous arguements relevant at all. Because it doesn't. At all. In any way that I can possibly imagine, even if I try to imagine myself as crazy as you're appearing in this thread.

__________________
"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, consider this hypothetical: corporation does something terrible to someone, gets sued, and the jury socks the corporation with a huge award of punitive damages. The corp appeals, the appellate court affirms. It petitions to the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the punitive damages award is excessive and unconstitutional. Sup Ct takes the case. Question: how did Clarence Thomas vote on the case - for the corp or for the individual?

Or this one: woman grows marijuana in a flower pot in her house for her own medicinal use. The feds object, raising the federal Controlled Substances Act. She resists and argues the feds have no business making it illegal for her to grow stuff in her own home for her own use. Supreme Court takes the case. Question: how does Clarence Thomas vote - for the pothead or for law enforcement?

There are plenty of cases like this. You might want to look at some of Scalia's opinions about wartime powers of the president - he takes a fairly dim view of many of the Bush Administration's arguments, though not all.

The point is that judges are supposed to rule on what the law is, not what they want it to be. They are NOT politicians in robes. That doesn't mean someone's view of life isn't going to affect how s/he goes about the task of judging, but this idea that your political views dictate the outcome of cases is just plain wrong. Scalia, for example, has been very clear that much as he may detest abortion he doesn't think the constitution outlaws it. He thinks the constitution is silent about the issue, which means it's a public policy question to be decided by elected officials rather than judges. And some Catholics have criticized him for it (they think a fetus is a "person" protected by the 14th Amendment), and he's told them to take a hike.

Breyer, by the way, will tell you the same thing: he makes decisions on what he thinks the law is, not what he wants it to be. He just uses a somewhat different set of tools than Scalia does to discover what the law is. You might benefit from watching some of their joint appearances where they actually discuss this stuff. Ginsburg is a lot like Breyer in her approach.

The_Jazz

Loquitur, you are my new hero. Thank you.

__________________
"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

Cynthetiq

seriously....

Gee Wally, they didn't vote along party lines, nor but they did vote in a manner consistent with the way they voted for the president. What does that mean??????

Again, it flies in the very face of facts of what you are saying.

so far you're not proving anything as to what your impartial statements or political or ideological lines states. Seems to be counter intuitive.

I don't think that the framers made a stupid choice since it seems that the checks and balances are working just fine even if Willravel thinks it is stupid.

__________________
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

Jazz, it's basic first year Con Law. Nothing heroic about it. Oh, and I also read Supreme Court opinions pretty regularly and follow the arguments. Part of what I do for a living.

Cynthetiq

thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you.

__________________
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

A pattern of the Democrats picking Democratically biased justices and the Republicans picking Republican biased justices? That sounds an awful lot like the bias I've been talking about since post #13, when I mentioned that Hillary would be another partisan justice.

In the scenario presented by the OP, Obama (Dem) nominates Hillary and she's confirmed by what is almost certainly going to be a Democratic congress. Hillary Clinton, as I hope we all know, has been very liberal in both her legal and political career. Should that scenario actually play out, we'd simply be placing a Democratic yes-man on the bench, simply maintaining the status quo, which we've established is a politically biased SCOTUS.

Instead we should be nominating people who are clearly going to put justice above partisan politics. Those are the people that should be on the bench, be that the bench of the SCOTUS or even a local bench. That's the point I've been trying to make all along.

Cynthetiq

I'm sorry we have established the SCOTUS is politically biased in it's determination of cases? because you've not shown or demonstrated that at all.

even my simple socialstudieshelp.com example showed how it's not partisan politics. You keep spouting it, but not showing how it is that besides the labels the people are given versus the ACTIONS that the people take.

further, your entire political allegiances has been completely undermined by your own post:

#61
You've still not established how they are partisan.

Seriously, I feel a Willravel "Agree to disagree" coming up...

__________________
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

You mean the same Thomas who was confirmed by a Democratic Congress (albeit by a really, really narrow margin)?

Out of curiosity, how did Scalia, Alito and Roberts vote?
On the court there are generally two that swing more, Kennedy and Thomas.
You'll have to forgive me, I'm only familiar with his more famous quotes.
They continue to act as politicians in robes, though. That's what I take issue with.

BTW, the Scalia quote about abortion:
“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution.”
Maybe I'm jaded, but I read that as "they beat us here, so we'll move on to trying to amend the Constitution".
Are the Democrat tools? Because that's kinda what I'm talking about.

The_Jazz

I am breaking my promise to myself and posting here again.

Dude, don't make me do this. You really don't want me to prove to you AGAIN that you don't know what you're talking about. Thomas is not and has never been a swing vote, except on a miniscule number of cases. He is the justice most likely to vote with Scalia, to the point that their votes correspond on well over 90%. When you say that Thomas is a swing vote, it shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. At all. You might as well call Scalia a swing voter, but I'm sure that you know JUST enough about the court to know that you suspect that he might be on the conservative side.

You've entirely missed the point of loquitur's post. They are NOT acting like politicians in robes. He's even given you the example of Scalia, which you then went on to quote:

You're both jaded and completely unclear on the concepts being discussed here. He's said that the matter is settled. Scalia has actually come out and completely refuted your arguement here - that he's not going to act as a Republican but as a strict jurist. He has not said anything about a movement to amend the Constitution, he's said that the matter is settled unless there is a change to the document that would require revisiting the matter.

Christ, Will, I don't know what to do with you at this point. You've shot all of your theories so full of holes that there's barely any theory left. You're left with a handfull of holes now. There are checks and balances in place. They work. The court isn't packed with Republicans. We've given you example after example after example. I guess that I'll sit back with cynthetiq now and await the patented Willravel "agree to disagree" closure. But I've got to tell you that, on this particular subject at least, you really seem completely lost on a lot of the basics. Has your account been hijacked by someone? And I'm halfway serious about that question.

__________________
"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

Mkay.
So you're disagreeing with Liq?
He said it was off one stage, he didn't say it was "settled" Unless you actually have a link to share?
Nope, grammar and syntax match. It's me.

I only agree to disagree when my adversary isn't up to the intellectual task. You are up to the task, so don't expect me to "agree to disagree" with you or Liq.

The_Jazz

He said nothing of the sort. He used Thomas as an example. Nothing more. Nothing less. You're the one who assumed that Thomas is a swing vote. Here's proof I'm right and you're wrong. 10th paragraph.

He said it's off the democratic stage. That's small "d", meaning the country at large. Meaning that if Kansas decides to outlaw first trimester abortions, Scalia will vote to overturn the law. He has to. He's not a judicial activist, and he has precedent to guide him. You're right that he didn't say it was settled. He said it is the law of the land unless and until the Constitution is amended to change it.

But since you wanted quotes, here you go. Here's Scalia basically saying that Willravel doesn't know what he's talking about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2090280.shtml

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Vi...domy_1016.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25601

__________________
"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

I never said Thomas was the swing vote. Kennedy is. Thomas tends to swing MORE. As in, more than Alito or Scalia. You can go back and read it.
He said it was off one stage, but then named the next logical step in attacking pro-choice: an Amendment. You'll have to refresh my memory, has anyone recently suggested there should be an amendment "protecting marriage"?

BTW, Scalia hasn't been particularly consistent on the issue of abortion. Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled.
That kinda flies in the face of letting the decision stand. And it's from the article you provided.
You're above this mocking tone. I expect it to stop because you're above it.

The_Jazz

You're right, you never said that Thomas was THE swing vote. You said he was A swing vote. And again, Thomas' vote varies from Scalia's a whopping 6% of the time. That is not a swing vote. Souter is more of a swing voter than Thomas, as is Breyer.

I'm not even going to address your gay marriage strawman beyond acknowledging what it is. Scalia said it was off the stage and that it's settled in the court's eyes. You chose to see that as some sort of call to arms to amend the Constitution when there's no documentation of him making any sort of follow-up that one would expect from that sort of movement. I know I'm not alone when I say that you're reading something into the statement that's not there.

Interesting considering that the Supreme Court has heard no direct challenges to Roe v. Wade during Scalia's tenure. It's bad reporting. Scalia has consistently voted to limit the scope of Roe, but he's never once had the opportunity to overturn it.

__________________
"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

Cynthetiq

yes you did....
In my language the word AND is a conjunction and makes things be together

hmmmm so why would I think that you meant ONLY Kennedy since you said "AND Thomas."

jeez....i'm trying hard not to post a Picard facepalm.

but now WTF do you mean by SWING more? you mean in the same way that Anita Hill was smearing him about Long Dong Silver or some sort of swing that way? Or that he's a sexual swinger??? Seriously will WTF are you talking about?

__________________
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.