Our Wacky Government - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Liquor Dealer · 10-09-2003, 10:37 AM

I am going to go against my own best advice and come back to the politics board for a few. I am totally irked by what is now going on in this country. Having taught history and government for too long I know perfectly well the reasoning our fore fathers had in setting up our government. I understand the logic behind checks and balances but we have reached a point far beyond anything Jefferson or any of the rest ever envisioned in their worst nightmare. The legislative branch for years abandoned much of the powers originally given to them and forced the executive branch to assume powers not originally intended for the president - once given up these powers will not ever come back. I have no real problem with this transfer of power - what does concern me is the judicial branch of government. The original intent of the Constitution was to provide for a branch of government that was above, and uneffected by politics - They thought that by appointing a judge for life they would remove politics and the influence of politicians from the mix - good thinking? Maybe in the 1800's. The political appointment process has become so partisan that a man or woman's qualifications are irrelevant - What church does he go to and where does he stand on some politicians pet project or personal belief is far more important than qualification. The current debaucle in California shows just how extreme and out of touch with reality many of those in the justice system have become. What can be done to remove the political influence from the Judicial Branch? Congress prevents new apointees from even receiving a hearing if they are deemed out of step with Democratic Party ideals. I'll shut up - your turn.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-09-2003, 10:46 AM

Good to have you back. I really can't figure out how on earth you could take politics out of anything anymore. Not even science is without its politics. Its a good point about the judicial branch. It was supposed to be our failsafe to take partisanship away. The only way a nomination will go through is if the judge believes the same thing on political issues. Its a sad state of affairs when this happens.

lurkette · 10-09-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
Congress prevents new apointees from even receiving a hearing if they are deemed out of step with Democratic Party ideals. I'll shut up - your turn.

To be fair, the shoe was on the other foot in the Clinton years. I think I remember hearing that this congress actually had a better confirmation record in the first two years of Bush's term than the previous Republican congress had during Clinton's first 2 (of his 2nd term, I think).

Regardless, this only highlights your point: the whole process has become horribly politicized. However, I'm sure there are a lot of qualified candidates for judicial positions and if simple qualification were the only criteria being used to appoint nominees, each president could stack the judicial ranks with extremists of his or her own political/ideological bent. Even with alternating parties in power, you'd just end up with liberal extremists and conservative extremists, which would be balanced on the whole but extremely unbalanced on a local level.

The way things are now the relative balance of power in congress prevents anybody but fairly moderate nominees from being appointed, which IMHO leads to a much better, more objective judicial system. There's plenty of room for interpretation of legal issues and I'd rather have people who are politically moderate interpreting the law than a bunch of liberal wingnuts on one side and a bunch of conservative or fundamentalist wingnuts on the other side.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

I'd rather have people who are politically moderate interpreting the law than a bunch of liberal wingnuts on one side and a bunch of conservative or fundamentalist wingnuts on the other side.

Agreed.

Liquor Dealer · 10-09-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
..... I'd rather have people who are politically moderate interpreting the law than a bunch of liberal wingnuts on one side and a bunch of conservative or fundamentalist wingnuts on the other side.

Are you trying to say that the courts in the San Francisco area are anything other than "a bunch of liberal wingnuts "? Liberal is probably being extremely polite!

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-09-2003, 12:10 PM

Pseudo-Communazi's perhaps more fitting? I mean get serious some of their decisions are so baffling it defies logic, not to mention that about 75-80% of all of the entire 9th circuit's decisions get overturned is just a joke. Lurkette brings up a good point, the Dem's have been pretty good about Bush's appointee's, but Carter and Clinton judges are frankly just frightening and its no wonder the Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep them out.

Liquor Dealer · 10-09-2003, 12:15 PM

There has to be someway, other than bulk impeachment to straighten up the judicial branch. It is perhaps notably worse in California than in other areas but it isn't good anywhere. Lifetime appointments cause those appointed to lose touch with reality, electing them would even be an improvement over the current system, at least they would owe some loyalty to the people, and not the debt of having sold their soul to a political party.

The_Dude · 10-09-2003, 02:20 PM

i'm pretty satisfied w/ the status quo.

look @ what happens when judges get elected?? they worry about re-election and make decisions that would appeal to the popular culture. look @ alabama chief justice roy moore. the man's #1 reference is the bible, than the constitution/laws.

being liberal doesnt necessarily mean that they do everything with the democratic party in mind. those justices in SF interpret the laws very liberally and make their judgements.

look at the justices in the supreme court (US) now. souter is a pretty liberal (and thus, "cool"

)guy. he was appointed by bush41. john paul stevens is the same case. appointed by ford, yet is pretty liberal.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-09-2003, 02:30 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/707454/posts

Think this is an article from Washington Times, at any rate...

Quote:

The federal appeals court in San Francisco that found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday is known as an activist court whose decisions regularly are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal analysts said yesterday.
"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' liberal record ... and its reputation as the most overturned court in the country ... have almost grown to the status of an urban myth," said Steven Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation.
Mr. Fitschen noted that in 1996-97, the Supreme Court issued opinions in nearly 90 cases. "It reversed 27 of the 28 rulings it got from the 9th Circuit, and 17 times, the reversals were unanimous," he said.
Thomas L. Jipping, senior fellow in legal studies for Concerned Women of America, said the court's Pledge decision was more evidence that the 9th District judges "believe they can make law and that they can hijack the culture and run the country," rather than follow the Constitution.
In 1997, Mr. Jipping led efforts against judicial activism. In congressional hearings, he identified as an abuser of judicial power Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that deemed the Pledge's phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
By that time, the Weekly Standard had described Judge Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter, as the "country's most audacious liberal judge" and "one of the most overturned judges in history."
The "noteworthy" rulings in Judge Reinhardt's resume include many that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. In one such opinion, the judge wrote that a Mexican doctor who helped kill a Drug Enforcement Administration agent should not have been forcibly brought to this country for trial over Mexico's objections.
Judge Reinhardt also ruled that a provision in the Arizona Constitution mandating English as the official language of government was "overbroad in violation of the First Amendment." The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the ruling.
In 1992, Judge Reinhardt denounced the Supreme Court, former President Ronald Reagan and President Bush for what he called a lack of confidence in the federal courts by blacks. In a commencement address, he called the federal courts a "bastion of white power."
Anthony T. Caso, general counsel for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the 9th Circuit's rate of reversal is "definitely ahead of the average" and has not gone unnoticed by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Caso recalled that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, visited with members of that bench several years ago and focused attention on the fact "that they were overturned on a regular basis."
To reduce that problem, Mr. Caso said, Justice O'Connor recommended that the 9th Circuit opt for having the full 11-member bench decide cases more often, rather than relying on three-judge panels like the one that ruled this week in the Pledge case.
Yesterday, one of the federal appeals court judges put the Pledge ruling on hold indefinitely. The 9th Circuit includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.
The Supreme Court yesterday was unable to provide figures on 9th Circuit reversals, saying it did not classify such data according to circuits.
But the San Francisco Chronicle said there were years in the 1980s and 1990s when the circuit was overturned more than 80 percent of the time. The Los Angeles Times said the circuit has been reversed in 12 of 16 cases this year.

Written with a conservative twist no doubt, but alot of the facts and numbers are interesting.

ARTelevision · 10-09-2003, 06:15 PM

well, in general, I see the political situation as reflecting the complexities and paradoxes of the people.

politics is people in groups. it is pretty much an externalization of its constituents - with all the irrationality of personal reality - on a public scale.

it's not possible to de-politicize something that is made up of people.

maximusveritas · 10-09-2003, 08:39 PM

well, I'm sure you know the judge who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance decision was a Nixon appointee.
also, according to the USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...all-wait_x.htm

Quote:

Seventeen of the active 9th Circuit judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. Nine were appointed by Republican presidents. Legal analysts rank five judges as liberal, eight as moderate and 13 as conservative.

Also, conservative justices tend to follow the party line much closer than liberal justices. So to try to portray this as a problem of liberal/Democratic judges is just wrong.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas

Also, conservative justices tend to follow the party line much closer than liberal justices. So to try to portray this as a problem of liberal/Democratic judges is just wrong.

Ok, my turn to call you out here. Do you have any proof of that?

Basically conservative judges tend to rule by the LAW as WRITTEN. They don't think in terms of if its a good or bad law, as long as its approved and follows the constitution of the state/fed then its upheld.

A liberal judge rules on how they THINK the law SHOULD be. If they say the law isn't fair, then they feel free to ignore it. This my friends is a form a judicial despotism. Lets look at the Gore thing in Florida, or the Torricelli thing in NJ. In both cases the State (and in Florida's case federal law) were CLEARLY against the Democrat position. In NJ"s case it was crystal clear beyond any doubt. State law said you couldn't be a candidate for senator unless you were already on the ballot after a specific date. The Dems were going to lose the seat, so they tried to get someone else in anyways, and the State Supreme court said 'ok sure, lets ignore the law'. Same thing in Florida (and it was bad enough that the Chief Justice even said in his opinion he KNEW it would be overturned by the Supreme court since the majority position was so obviously flawed). These activists judges MUST be stopped, its not their job to write law.

What the liberals/socialists can’t win at the ballot, they will try to win in the courts, stacked with judges unfit to serve.

maximusveritas · 10-09-2003, 09:14 PM

I based it on what I have read. But I did find this real quick to back me up:http://www.sacbee.com/content/politi...-8373894c.html

I'll post an excerpt that's relevant to the topic

Quote:

But the 9th Circuit "is by no means dominated by liberals," says Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley constitutional authority.

The circuit is large enough that the panel of judges deciding any case may be quite conservative, he says; so the outcome may well depend on which three or 11 judges are randomly assigned.

It's politics but, cautions Choper, "not politics in the usual style. It is ideological leaning in the judicial style," which means in practice that a judge may interpret individual or government rights expansively or narrowly.

"Ideology is simply a descriptive word which indicates your values," Choper says.

"Ideology is part of the appointments game," says Vikram Amar, a constitutional expert at Hastings College of the Law. "That's what the Constitution sets up."

But the Constitution also gives federal judges life tenure, "so that political ideology is just the beginning, not the end, of the judge's story," Amar says.

The circuit's history is replete with examples of judges who have written opinions defying their presumed politics.

For example, the Pledge of Allegiance decision was written by Senior 9th Circuit Judge Alfred Goodwin of Pasadena, a judicial middle-of-the-roader appointed by former President Richard Nixon.

"That's the way he saw the Supreme Court's (precedents), and he called it as he saw it," Choper says.

Amar says that various presidents have placed different degrees of emphasis on their appointees' ideology.

He says George W. Bush appointees "so far have been more uniformly conservative than the Carter or Clinton appointees are uniformly liberal."

Choper calls the current Supreme Court conservative. It has seven justices appointed by Republican presidents and two appointed by Democrats.

The 9th Circuit has a reputation as the one the Supreme Court most often reverses.

In most years, the circuit's reversal rate is in line with the national average.

But there's a basis for the reputation.

Some of the circuit's most prominent decisions -- on medical marijuana, assisted suicide and three-strikes sentencing, for example -- have been overturned.

Adding to the circuit's renegade image, says Amar, the Supreme Court more often is unanimous when it reverses the 9th Circuit than when it reverses other courts.

The_Dude · 10-09-2003, 09:15 PM

I think that there are more instances of a conservative turning liberal rather than the opposite.

Macheath · 10-09-2003, 09:31 PM

I think historically in England, America and Australia, the only thing that restrained judges was thier loyalty to the idea of the "legal fraternity". As it was, a judge could bend logic backwards to come up with a pure political decision but there plenty of other quality judges with SHARP legal minds who could call bullshit on them.

I've had to read cases and I'll admit it all looks like bullshit on the surface but sometimes you can dig down and find a really beautiful arguments. Check out some of the english judges like Lord Denning. Other times you keep reading and it just remains bullshit.

Anyway, law is just another business now, just another chance to make a buck and get some dickhead another Porsche. It's had the life sucked out of it, just like all of the other professions. You have law journalists (like what Charles Dickens used to be) who sit there and go "hang on, did that judge just justify their decision by saying that the sky was purple and hamburgers ate people?"

"Hey, who cares; so-and-so won their case, that's all that matters."

bonbonbox · 10-09-2003, 09:40 PM

Work to kill the two party system we have now. Choice of A over B isn't much of a choice now is it? That would water down the heavy influence of politics on the judicial system. I think more people would get involved in the process which is a good thing. As I have said before, work towards the end of career politicians. That would really take some air out of the bias balloon.

Sun Tzu · 10-10-2003, 02:27 AM

To quote Thomas Jefferson: "A little revolution every twenty years is a good thing." I say we're about 200 years overdue.

Will thats a little harsh; how about just cleaning out Congress and hopefully get some fresh vision; it reeks of stagnation.

seretogis · 10-10-2003, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sun Tzu
To quote Thomas Jefferson: "A little revolution every twenty years is a good thing." I say we're about 200 years overdue.

Absolutely.

Ustwo · 10-10-2003, 09:53 AM

Conservatives/Liberitarians will win, we have all the guns

matthew330 · 10-10-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

I think that there are more instances of a conservative turning liberal rather than the opposite.

perhaps in the 18-25 age range, but beyond that no way

Lebell · 10-10-2003, 11:39 AM

Demographics have consistently shown that as people get older, they tend to be more conservative.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-10-2003, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Demographics have consistently shown that as people get older, they tend to be more conservative.

This is true for most people I know, including myself. I think people get more conservative with age especially if they have kids. As soon as people have kids they get super protective and they tend to worry about themselves & their family more than other causes.

The_Dude · 10-10-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
perhaps in the 18-25 age range, but beyond that no way

I mean justices.

Read my first post on this thread for more background.

mml · 10-10-2003, 02:50 PM

If you go back through American history, you will see that every generation has complained about the bias of the Judicial Branch. We tend to get upset when constitutional interpretation does not match our opinion, but history has shown that in the long run our system works.

As far as the 9th Circuit, it does lean a bit to the left. Much of this is due to the fact that it covers a great deal of the country and was under staffed in the late 70's. The result was that we decided to expand the number of judges and Carter got to appoint all of them. As time has gone on, the 9th Circuit has become less and less liberal and as new judges are appointed over the years it will even out. The fervent hope of all of us should be that there is an even balance of those who interpret by the letter of the law and those who interpret by the spirit of the law. Too much literal interpretation results in harsh and often unfair laws. Too much speculative interpretation waters down our legal system. (IMO)

Ustwo · 10-10-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mml
As far as the 9th Circuit, it does lean a bit to the left.

I award thee King Understatement

10-09-2003, 10:37 AM	#1 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Our Wacky Government I am going to go against my own best advice and come back to the politics board for a few. I am totally irked by what is now going on in this country. Having taught history and government for too long I know perfectly well the reasoning our fore fathers had in setting up our government. I understand the logic behind checks and balances but we have reached a point far beyond anything Jefferson or any of the rest ever envisioned in their worst nightmare. The legislative branch for years abandoned much of the powers originally given to them and forced the executive branch to assume powers not originally intended for the president - once given up these powers will not ever come back. I have no real problem with this transfer of power - what does concern me is the judicial branch of government. The original intent of the Constitution was to provide for a branch of government that was above, and uneffected by politics - They thought that by appointing a judge for life they would remove politics and the influence of politicians from the mix - good thinking? Maybe in the 1800's. The political appointment process has become so partisan that a man or woman's qualifications are irrelevant - What church does he go to and where does he stand on some politicians pet project or personal belief is far more important than qualification. The current debaucle in California shows just how extreme and out of touch with reality many of those in the justice system have become. What can be done to remove the political influence from the Judicial Branch? Congress prevents new apointees from even receiving a hearing if they are deemed out of step with Democratic Party ideals. I'll shut up - your turn. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

10-09-2003, 10:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Good to have you back. I really can't figure out how on earth you could take politics out of anything anymore. Not even science is without its politics. Its a good point about the judicial branch. It was supposed to be our failsafe to take partisanship away. The only way a nomination will go through is if the judge believes the same thing on political issues. Its a sad state of affairs when this happens. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-09-2003, 12:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Pseudo-Communazi's perhaps more fitting? I mean get serious some of their decisions are so baffling it defies logic, not to mention that about 75-80% of all of the entire 9th circuit's decisions get overturned is just a joke. Lurkette brings up a good point, the Dem's have been pretty good about Bush's appointee's, but Carter and Clinton judges are frankly just frightening and its no wonder the Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep them out. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-09-2003, 12:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	There has to be someway, other than bulk impeachment to straighten up the judicial branch. It is perhaps notably worse in California than in other areas but it isn't good anywhere. Lifetime appointments cause those appointed to lose touch with reality, electing them would even be an improvement over the current system, at least they would owe some loyalty to the people, and not the debt of having sold their soul to a political party. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

10-09-2003, 02:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i'm pretty satisfied w/ the status quo. look @ what happens when judges get elected?? they worry about re-election and make decisions that would appeal to the popular culture. look @ alabama chief justice roy moore. the man's #1 reference is the bible, than the constitution/laws. being liberal doesnt necessarily mean that they do everything with the democratic party in mind. those justices in SF interpret the laws very liberally and make their judgements. look at the justices in the supreme court (US) now. souter is a pretty liberal (and thus, "cool" )guy. he was appointed by bush41. john paul stevens is the same case. appointed by ford, yet is pretty liberal. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

10-09-2003, 06:15 PM	#10 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	well, in general, I see the political situation as reflecting the complexities and paradoxes of the people. politics is people in groups. it is pretty much an externalization of its constituents - with all the irrationality of personal reality - on a public scale. it's not possible to de-politicize something that is made up of people. __________________ create evolution

10-09-2003, 09:15 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	I think that there are more instances of a conservative turning liberal rather than the opposite. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

10-09-2003, 09:31 PM	#15 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I think historically in England, America and Australia, the only thing that restrained judges was thier loyalty to the idea of the "legal fraternity". As it was, a judge could bend logic backwards to come up with a pure political decision but there plenty of other quality judges with SHARP legal minds who could call bullshit on them. I've had to read cases and I'll admit it all looks like bullshit on the surface but sometimes you can dig down and find a really beautiful arguments. Check out some of the english judges like Lord Denning. Other times you keep reading and it just remains bullshit. Anyway, law is just another business now, just another chance to make a buck and get some dickhead another Porsche. It's had the life sucked out of it, just like all of the other professions. You have law journalists (like what Charles Dickens used to be) who sit there and go "hang on, did that judge just justify their decision by saying that the sky was purple and hamburgers ate people?" "Hey, who cares; so-and-so won their case, that's all that matters."

10-09-2003, 09:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	Work to kill the two party system we have now. Choice of A over B isn't much of a choice now is it? That would water down the heavy influence of politics on the judicial system. I think more people would get involved in the process which is a good thing. As I have said before, work towards the end of career politicians. That would really take some air out of the bias balloon.

10-10-2003, 02:27 AM	#17 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	To quote Thomas Jefferson: "A little revolution every twenty years is a good thing." I say we're about 200 years overdue. Will thats a little harsh; how about just cleaning out Congress and hopefully get some fresh vision; it reeks of stagnation. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

10-10-2003, 09:53 AM	#19 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Conservatives/Liberitarians will win, we have all the guns __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-10-2003, 11:39 AM	#21 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Demographics have consistently shown that as people get older, they tend to be more conservative. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-10-2003, 02:50 PM	#24 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	If you go back through American history, you will see that every generation has complained about the bias of the Judicial Branch. We tend to get upset when constitutional interpretation does not match our opinion, but history has shown that in the long run our system works. As far as the 9th Circuit, it does lean a bit to the left. Much of this is due to the fact that it covers a great deal of the country and was under staffed in the late 70's. The result was that we decided to expand the number of judges and Carter got to appoint all of them. As time has gone on, the 9th Circuit has become less and less liberal and as new judges are appointed over the years it will even out. The fervent hope of all of us should be that there is an even balance of those who interpret by the letter of the law and those who interpret by the spirit of the law. Too much literal interpretation results in harsh and often unfair laws. Too much speculative interpretation waters down our legal system. (IMO) __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams