Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice?
 

This is an interesting thought. Hillary as an SCJ as a consolation prize to bowing out gracefully now...

I have always been interested in the SCJ confirmation process, and never really thought about the idea of lower age being better for the party. It's an interesting take.

I don't know what to think or expect if Hillary is a SCJ... her NY Senate voting has been very different than what I expected when she first was elected. I don't disdain her as much as I did when she first was in office. Her voting record has been less offensive to me and more in line with my own ideology than the liberal Democrats.

She'll have to be a federal judge first. It's not an official rule, but nominating someone who was just a lawyer and who has no judicial experience is just stupid.

Come on, Will. Not doing it because it's stupid isn't sufficient reason not to do it. Have you seen Washington in the last 20+ years? :D

I suspect there's plenty of people who'd disagree with your sentiment, also. It's got some pros and cons, but it's certainly an interesting notion. Points for creativity, also!

will...some of the best Supreme Court justices (IMO) had no federal judicial bench experience....Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurther...and more recently, one of the worst (IMO)..William Rehnquist.

And you will recall that Bush nominated his good friend Harriet Miers (currently under a House subpoena and contempt of Congress order). He withdrew her name not because of lack of judicial experience, but because she was perceived to be not conservative enough.

In any case, I just dont see Hillary having interest. She is a politician by nature, not a jurist. I would put more money on her running for governor of NY in 2010 rather than languish as a back bencher in the Senate, where most of her party members support Obama.

Rehnquist was never a federal judge. He did very well as Chief Justice, even if I didn't agree with quite a few of his decisions. Why was he "good" and not "bad? As CJ, it was his job to move things along efficiently and assign decisions to be written when he was in the majority.

Lewis Powell wasn't a judge either. Neither was Thurgood Marshall. Same with Earl Warren. Those are three really powerful names in court history, and they wrote some big decisions.

It's not stupid at all. Nor is it a prerequisit, although it looks that way from the current crop of justices. Rumor has it Mario Cuomo turned down a nomination during Bill's term because he wanted out of politics, but he never served as a judge (to the best of my knowledge). Being a federal judge before is neither a help nor a hinderance. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.

As for Hillary herself, I think that it would be a very smart move on her part.

How could I forget Marshall!

She'd make a terrible judge, pure and simple. Just look at how great a judge she was of her hubby's character. *snicker*

And for christ's sake, what have we come to when we're giving away judicial seats as consolation prizes?

Hugo Black got his because he supported the New Deal in the Senate. It's been done before and will keep being done. How the justice gets their seat doesn't matter so much as what they do with it, IMO. Most of Nixon's appointees are classic examples.

I still say the best thing for this country is Hillary President, Obama as Vice. Open your eyes, she can get things done, he can guide us with his vision, they can both learn from each other, and together I think anything that is positive change is possible. And in 8 years, he can still be president. It does not get better than this, and it probably never will.

Exactly who can she get things done with? Her legislative record in the Senate isn't particularly noteworthy, either positively or negatively.

Besides, Obama as the nominee is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, barring something that drives the superdelegates away from him in droves. Not to mention the fact that the path from the Vice Presidency to the Presidency isn't exactly well paved. In modern times and barring those who gained office upon the death of the president (or resignation), only GHW Bush has managed to do so. You have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find one. So maybe that's not as big a sop as you think.

Got your eyes open yet? :)

I am sure I will get some "polite" rebuttal for this, but personally I don't think Hillary would be a good president. From what I have seen in her political ackground, she tend to be an off-the-cuff type person. She shows signs of letting her emotions make her decisions instead of a greater good. And in all honesty, we don't need a president that leads our country on their emotions. We need someone who can be level headed uder pressure. Now I am not saying that Obama is like that, because until he started showing up as a potential candidate, I really didn't know much about the man, but in my opinion, Hillary just isn't the right person for the job.

maybe that's the case, but how do you feel about her being a Supreme Court Justice... since that's the discussion point of the OP.

The bottom line:
She'd be just another partisan and corrupt justice.

That's the absolute last thing we need. We've got as many partisan and corrupt hacks on the Supreme Court as were running for president last year. Scalia went duck hunting with Chenet at the same time Cheney was a named defendant in a case before the Supreme Court. Alito presided over a case involving a company in which he'd invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alito sees terrorism cases despite being best friends with Michael Chertoff (head of DHS). The best part? They vote down party lines on nearly every decision. Of the 24 5/4 decisions in the 2006-2007 term, 19 broke across ideological lines. They invented law to steal an election.

We should be fixing the Supreme Court, not making it worse. The day Hillary becomes a Supreme Court justice is the day I devote my life to making sure that Justices will be elected by the people as it's clear the system is completely broken.

To me, you seem to have made a compelling case for appointing someone of your perceived Clinton partisanship to the court. Otherwise, there is no countering vote to what you so aptly described is happening now, in the court's decisions.

I see Clinton as a centrist, maybe skewed a bit to the right. Who do you see as a better choice, if you want to counter the partisan bias, yet lessen the overall partisanship on the court and in the appointment process?

It's not about having even partisanship. That's putting a band-aid on the hemorrhage. Actually, it's more like having a hemorrhage in each arm and widening the wound on the left so that you bleed out evenly.

What we need are impartial justices. Really, honestly, and truly impartial justices. I know a few judges in my area who would probably do a damn good job keeping politics out of the Supreme Court, but the real issue is with confirmation. Alito's nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor made me want to vomit. Why, on god's green earth, do we allow a president, king of partisanship, to choose a judge to sit on the highest court in the land? It's (pardon my french) fucking stupid.

Just because a president chooses, doesn't mean it's automatic.

that's the point of the confirmation hearings and being confirmed by congress. there are still CHECKS and BALANCES which is the whole point of the way that everything has been created via the US Constitution. So you're stating that what the framers did was stupid?

how is it stupid?

QFT. It's one of the original parts of the constitution. All that's been altered is the number of judges, not the selection procedure.

And Will, your precious nonpartisan judges were nominated by either the President (if they're federal) or the governor (if they're state). If they're local, well, in my opinion they don't count in this discussion since they're deciding traffic tickets. But that's my opinion. Just like it's your opinion that Hillary would do a terrible job.

Packing the Supreme Court with your cronies goes back to the Jackson administration. And it backfires ALL the time. I offer Hugo Black as a quintessential example, given that Nixon was after a true conservative and got a liberal-leaning moderate.

It does when the same party rules the executive and legislative. Like it did when Alito was appointed in January of 2006.
It's one among many mistakes that were made. Any document made by fallible people is open to being fallible. That's why they developed the amendment system. Don't agree with slavery? Amend it. Want women to vote? Amend it. Don't want partisan justices?
Political parties are a method of overriding checks and balances. Nowhere is that more evident than in the past 6 years of policy and our current Supreme Court.

So for 6 years the rest of the process hasn't been stupid? By your statement because it culminated in the past 6 years, the previous 226 years were just fine? So the framers should have not made the Constitution as they did since 6 years while Willravel was around it made him vomit because of party swings of legislative and executive banches actually meeting and meeting in such a way that disagreed with Willravel? Maybe for some it was actually not a stalemate and that things got done quickly and efficiently to their statisfaction.

There are ALWAYS coming checks and balances.... so while maybe a party controls the executive and legislative, it won't control it forever. Seems to me then 6 years out of 232 seems to be working for this "social experiment."

So you've stated how to circumvent it, but you didn't address how it's stupid.

Strawman. The past 6 years are further evidence. I never said the last 6 years was the only example.
They had no way of knowing the power political parties would hold in the future (thus the amendment process). Still, allowing one branch to choose the leadership in another branch flies in the face of checks and balances. They had to have known that.
The way things are going, for now and into the foreseeable future, it will always be the republicans or democrats in power. Binary oligarchy.

Why is "social experiment" in quotations?
Stupid was allowing the executive and legislative to choose the judicial. The process by which members are appointed should be independent of one another, as they are with the executive and legislative. This makes impropriety more difficult.

Stupid is:
Any process that can lead to this level of corruption needs reform.

So in summary, you're calling the framers stupid for making that executive and legislative choose the judicial? is that a correct assessment?

to quote you "strawman" since during the framers time it was also primarily a two party system.

It is in quotes to remind one that it is still an experiment it is only 232 years old. It hasn't lasted the time and duration of Chinese Dynasties or The Roman Empire wherein what you were born into was probably what you'd live with for your lifetime.

if we were talking just 3 people I'd tend to agree with you. But you're talking about 2/3 congress and 1 president. A bit hard to get that much collusion going, especailly for any length of time. Again, from my personal understanding of how the framers intended anything was that it wasn't to PREVENT things from happening 100% but to ensure that it wasn't going to last a lifetime.

Completely wrong. There's a massive difference between being stupid and doing something stupid. George W. Bush is stupid. The framers made a stupid decision among many brilliant decisions.
Yes, a brand spanking new party system which had not yet explored all avenues of corruption like they have now.
2/3 of a republican congress and a republican president. It's not "collusion", it's simple partisan politics which manifests in a partisan SCOTUS.

Huh? That's the very DEFINITION of checks and balances. That's why the Senate can remove the President from office and the President cannot fire judges or anyone in Congress.

Will, I have to ask what you think "checks and balances" means because it's most definitely what I learned in 7th grade civics class. Or in any other class. The Supreme Court has never been elected, and all Federal judges are appointed. There are no exceptions. Each branch has control over the other. That's the underlying theory behind the whole system, and I think you've got something else in mind.

As for your "stupid" examples, Alito being friends with Chertoff means nothing until you can prove it clouds his judgement. And I can argue that it doesn't despite what I think of both of them. That said, Scalia probably should have recused himself in the Cheney case, and Alito definitely should have.

One other thing - SCOTUS is not the only body that is appointed by the President.

It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?

They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.
That's true. I'm more comfortable with a president choosing staff members and other executive positions, though.

Can you imagine the president and SCOTUS choosing senate members?

they are independent. where do you find that they aren't? the SCOTUS doesn't report to the President and the President doesn't report to the Congress. Congress holds the President accountable, as does the SCOTUS hold the laws that Congress creates accountable.

Just because they are picked doesn't mean that they are enmeshed and disfunctional. Please prove that it is as such, and the current administration isn't a fair example since you've got 200 more years of history to wade through as well.

The president doesn't pick ALL the SCOTUS, just the ones that move on during his tenure. So how can you state that it is again not independent? Could the SCOTUS know in the future who is going to be president?

I can't imagine SCOTUS and the POTUS picking the Senate because that's not the way the framers created it. I believe that there were many times that the framers were stating very simply that the average person isn't educated enough to pick each and everyone to run the government, but to allow representation to handle it for them.

But again, you are still not showing how it's stupid.

I am reduced to this: Oh. My. God.

How many examples do you want of the judiciary exercising their supremacy over the legislative and executive branches? Go read Marbury v. Madison. The Marshall Court basically stated that they could overturn laws that were unconstitutional. Would you like a list of which federal laws they overturned? As for the judicial branch stopping a runaway executive? That's not their responsibility. It's the Senate's. They impeach all folks in the Executive branch that are impeachable.

Will, every single Federal judge in the United States is selected for his views. Every. Single. One. Not necessarily his political views, but definitely for his judicial views. And every single one is reviewed by the Senate and approved or rejected. Every. Single. One.

Exactly how to you propose selecting "independent" judges? By lottery? Election? It seems to me that you're proposing a very radical change that you haven't thought through.

Can you imagine the amendment necessary to allow them to do so? Oh, wait. Can you imagine birds flying out of my ass?

Apparently not any more.

Our SCOTUS is broken. We've lost civil liberties, equal protection, free speech... we've got school segregation. It's basically impossible to sue big corporations before the SCOTUS.
If they're going to be partisan, they should be elected.

and over time those things may change yet again.

you've had things like slavery, women's sufferage, prohibition all come and go... based on the CHECKS and BALANCES of the process.

i don't see where free speech is lost, where school is segregated... please explain.

Will, this is getting difficult, either intentionally or not. You seem to be either willfully ignorant of the Constitution, its basic themes and how it has worked for the past 226 year or you never learned about it.

Many of the things you refer to are laws that have not been heard before SCOTUS. School segregation? When there are still open court cases from the 60's and 70's still being imposed on various school systems around the country?

As far as suing big corporations before SCOTUS, well, you've never been able to do that. SCOTUS never hears first tier cases. They're not designed to. You can appeal something to SCOTUS, and I can give you all sorts of examples of cases involving corporations from the past 6 years.

Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation

I'm pretty sure Host brought this to my attention, which means it's probably already on TFP somewhere.
I'm surprised you're so frustrated with me when it's clear you aren't doing your homework on this one.

You apparently think that checks and balances is actually one branch choosing the leadership of another branch, blatantly choosing people who would agree with them instead of unbiased people.

You think that the supreme court hasn't dealt with school segregation, big oil (can you say exxon oil spill?) or even any big corporations.

You have to love when the striking down of an affirmative action policy is spun into the return of school segregation.

I have to wonder how much of Will's dislike for the selection process comes from the court leaning slightly conservative and therefore being disagreeable to him.

Especially since George W. Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court with exactly two justices. That would be the same as Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Reagan got three, including the retired Sandra Day O'Conner. There is even John Paul Stevens still hanging-on from the Ford administration.

No, hell no, The whole reason I don't want to vote for her to begin with is because she's too conservative and censorship happy. She doesn't believe in freedom. She wants to shelter everyone from reality, she thinks media should be controlled, freedom of expression? pfft, no, no room for that.

If shes in the business of putting criminals away, then fine, but if she wants to preside over courts that determine the bigger fates as to what defines right and wrong? no thanks.

Will, not only do I think that checks and balances is one branch chosing the ENTIRITY of another branch, that is, in fact, what it actually means. The power to appoint the judiciary by the executive is CHECKED by the legislature and BALANCED by their ability to impeach any sitting judge. It is a check and a balance. Wow, look at that.

And again, when, in the entire history of any Western Democracy with appointed judges, a set that includes but is not exclusive to the United States, has any single judge been appointed by those in power when that judge will not agree with those who appointed him? I just want one example of any judge anywhere that was appointed in a checked and balanced system because he was "unbiased". It doesn't happen. It has never happened. It will never happen. "Unbiased" is not part of the job description. It is, in fact, an actual part of the job description for a judge to have opinions. Some might argue that it is the very nature of the job. An unbiased judge would be an absolute nightmare.

Now maybe you mean "unbiased" in a political sense. You haven't stated that, but I can see where that's what you logically mean. If that's the case, it's also completely unworkable because it would be a huge infringement on the free speach of anyone who ever hoped to even possibly be considered for the bench. You're proposing McCarthyism, only with Republicans and Democrats replacing Communists.

Of course SCOTUS has dealt with corporations, desegregation and the like. It's what they do. It's their job. That doesn't mean that you, Willravel, can have your suit against Exxon or whoever heard by SCOTUS just because you want to. If it has merits or the lower courts erred in judgement or they have some other reason to hear it, they will. Not every case automatically gets heard. You really make me believe that you're not paying any sort of attention at all here.

If that were the case why would I be so pissed about Hillary being appointed? She and I both agree on a lot, including really big things like healthcare.

It's about the decisions falling exactly on ideological lines. That's the very definition of bias, and that's what has no place on the bench.

Wait, what? Of course I meant politically. What's the alternative?
This is scaring me, Jazz. Did you do any research on the SCOTUS before posting? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Exxon had a known alcoholic ship captain who was piloting 10 million gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound, devastating a unique natural environment and causing one of the largest ecological disasters in history. In the original trial, Exxon had their asses handed to them and was ordered to pay $287 million damages and $5 billion punitive. This case is now before the Supreme Court, and it will likely reach it's decision before July.

Here's the clincher: Scalia said he wanted to overturn the decision COMPLETELY. Oh, and he invests heavily in Exxon... and this was long before he was forced to recuse himself after a shitstorm in the media.

Or, it means that those who happen to be considered "liberal" or "conservative" have certain things they believe, and therefore disagree on those cases.

Are you familiar with the process by which one becomes appointed to the SCOTUS? They have to answer questions under oath like (paraphrasing) "Have you ever considered how you would rule on a case involving abortion?" $5 says that particular question forced several justices to perjure themselves. Why would they ask such questions? Well, that's simple. Justices are supposed to be (politically) unbiased. And yet their decisions fall down party lines consistently.

Ahh, but Will, you're forgetting to take into account the precedent Ruth Bader Ginsberg set with her confirmation hearings when she refused to answer questions regarding her positions on politically charged issues.

People vote for elected officials based on what they say they will and won't do. Likewise, the Senate votes on a SCOTUS nominee based on what he or she says when questioned. If the person in question lies, they misrepresent the manner in which they will serve.

Ginsberg should have answered the questions, but likewise there shouldn't have been such political bullshit going on in the Senate. I love Ginsberg. I agree with a lot of her politics, but I worry that she brings her politics to the bench.

This is why I take issue with political parties. Labeling something you are evokes allegiance. It makes one less likely to disagree with those who use the same label. That's dangerous.

so what you're saying is you'd rather not have ANY idea as any kind of descriptor to an individual? That happens all the times, heck it even happens with pitching movies... "It's kind of like Die Hard, but on a ship." "Well, it's like Purple Rain, but with rap music." People are not able to digest long diatribes and making absolute sense out of them. Labels work to some degree.

Let's go back to Civics class. I didn't get one until sophomore year in HS, but it's really as simple as this.



separation of powers the constitutional doctrine of dividing governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches

checks and balances the constitutional doctrine in which each branch of government shares some of the powers of the other branches in order to limit their actions

As you've posted, they do hear cases, they agree to hear cases based on the merits of if they believe that lower courts have not done correctly. It's not hard to understand. Maybe you watched that episode of Boston Legal where Denny Crane got to try a case before the SCOTUS and you think that it's real and how things get done. Denny Crane.

I saw part of that one, but was mostly distracted by how creepy it was that the actors playing the justices looked so much like the real ones.

I actually had to double-check to make sure they weren't.

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../seppowers.png

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

how are they representing the said party?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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?

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Loquitur, you are my new hero. Thank you.

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.

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.

thank you.

thank you. thank you. thank you.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

:lol:

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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'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.

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.

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