For better or worse, the Supreme Court is a political institution. It is just like a second Senate. I wish it were not like that, but it is. So why should politics not play a major role?

When selecting an emperor, do you look for the man with the most degrees or whatever, or do you look for someone who is going to use his absolute power to benefit you?

7/19/2005 11:26:59 PM

[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 11:27 PM. Reason : missed page 2]

7/19/2005 11:27:04 PM

Quote :

"But judicial re-writing is not the appropriate way to do that, and it's about to end."

Quote :

"For better or worse, the Supreme Court is a political institution. It is just like a second Senate."

7/19/2005 11:28:49 PM

Quote :

""rock solid conservative""

WOO HOOOOO!

7/19/2005 11:30:09 PM

He's not too keen on coloreds voting.

7/19/2005 11:31:13 PM

Seems like an alright guy--probably an arrogant asshole, like most lawyers and their ilk. He's basically paid six figures to do nothing.

Think about it: judges get paid six figures to do absolutely nothing. They handle cases, and write their opinions on them. The job is basically a paid version of posting in the Soap Box, with a credentials requirement.

Judges aren't really accountable to anyone, except for a bureaucratic process. They aren't really held to any standards for results. They just...judge. That's it.

I'm sure Mr. Roberts will lovingly continue the time-honored tradition of boring, slow-motion legal dramas in the Supreme Court. After all, since he (nor the other judges) doesn't have to work for a living like the rest of us, what else would he do with his time? Play Yahtzee?

Will the Supreme Court end abortion? I doubt it. Most Americans simply don't want it overturned, by a huge margin. The Supreme Court is keen to the interests of the common voter on some level, because they really have no enforcement power as a body. They tend to track their decisions with the prevailing mood, on average.

7/19/2005 11:49:18 PM

Actually the law clerks do most of the writing of opinions Hey man I havent talked to you for a while, how you been

7/20/2005 12:05:47 AM

The whole line of argumentation about the SCOTUS upholding rights not specifically listed in the constitution is asinine. Quite to the contrary, the whole point of the SCOTUS is to uphold the meaning of the constitution because every single right could not have feasibly been written in to the thing at once.

Under this line of argumentation, if the government passes a law saying we cannot wear white shoes after labor day, the SCOTUS couldn't overturn that until an amendment were made. There is literally no purpose for the SCOTUS if it cannot interpret the current constitution (sans white shoe language) to say that the white shoe law is unconstitutional. How in the hell is SCOTUS a check on legislative and executive power if it can only uphold rights specifically mentioned 200+ years ago in a very short document? We might as well just have two branches of government if the SCOTUS is supposed to operate as Wolfpack2K suggests.

Who would come up with a system of government like that? It's preposterous. Even if I were starting an imaginary government today, I would not expect any laws I made now to be scripture centuries later.

The other branches can sit back all day long and pass stupid shit such as the white shoes law because they operate on demagoguery -- the rights of the majority would always prevail over the rights of the minority because that's how the incentives work in the other two branches. The presence of an amendment process doesn't solve this problem, either, because that is simply another expression of demagoguery. The SCOTUS is our biggest check against demagoguery.

Quote :

"But judicial re-writing is not the appropriate way to do that, and it's about to end."

Separate from what I just wrote above is the point that the Lemon test and other things are not a "re-writing" of what is in the constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom from a government established religion are tantamount to freedom from religion.

Imagine if tomorrow, the government changed all the vestigial christian practices into muslim ones. How in the world could the government legally justify it?

In bizarro stupid world that Wolfpack2K wants us to live in, the SCOTUS couldn't say shit about it because the constitution doesn't specifically say that we can't have muslim practices sprinkled here and there in our government.

In the world of rational people, we can say, "hold up there -- the only reason that christian shit is in there is because the government was sucky back in the day. If we had to do it over again, we woudln't put that nonsense in, let alone any raghead garbage." Thus, we see both points here:

1. As argued above, we would have a means to prevent the government from doing something crazy, even though that crazy thing is not specifically prohibited in the constitution.

2. You cannot justify the arbitrary (iow, historical) inclusion of religion in government. How can the government decide to keep practice from one religion and exclude the practice of others? The only way this favoritism can be justified is if you completely neuter the SCOTUS so that it can't overrule things not literally written in the constitution -- which is exactly why dishonest religious people champion the strict constructionist line.

They want to preserve this historical favoritism. On top of that, these folks have the gall to say that eliminating such favoritism requires constitutional amendment! ha! This position is nothing less than silly.


[Edited on July 20, 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason : sdfdfs]

7/20/2005 12:31:53 AM

Quote :

"Hey man I havent talked to you for a while, how you been"

Really busy with the aforementioned work thing.

7/20/2005 12:47:19 AM

Quote :

"I wonder what the Christian version of the Taliban would be like."

Southern Baptists Idaho.

7/20/2005 1:19:27 AM

I think of it this way. Regan was considered the most conservative president of his time and he appointed O'Connor because she was conservative. Once she got to the Sepreme Court she made rulings that didn't favor the black and white (not the races). So there is hope that this guy won't be neo-conservative Puritan clown like those who reside in the current executive branch.

7/20/2005 4:12:11 AM

Let the games begin.

7/20/2005 4:48:48 AM

Freedom of religion includes the freedom of nonreligion

7/20/2005 10:44:45 AM

What about the US Military purchasing and supplying the Gitmo detainees with Korans? WTF OMG OMG THE GOVERNMENT ENDORSED RELGION OMG OMG CONSTITUTION IN SHREDS!!!11!

You liberals won't complain about that. You bitch about the meals they eat there which are better than the ones our own troops eat.

7/20/2005 11:23:43 AM

Appologies in advace (since it is completely off the topic), but I can't understand how people justify indefinate incarceration, with no legal representation, just because the food is reasonable.

7/20/2005 11:42:12 AM

Who the hell are you and what the hell are you babbling about?

7/20/2005 11:42:22 AM

back to topic: if we can't have the 10 commandments in a court room, then why are we giving them korans?

7/20/2005 11:49:12 AM

Quote :

"You bitch about the meals they eat there which are better than the ones our own troops eat."

you do realize there is a thread complaining about the quality of food served to OUR troops, right?

(of course, its a jab at haliburton, but its still there)

7/20/2005 11:52:19 AM

Can you honestly not understand the difference between a public display that favors a particular religion and supplying a prisoner with a personal item?

7/20/2005 11:52:47 AM

^^^ Ask your administration.

[Edited on July 20, 2005 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ed]

7/20/2005 11:52:48 AM

If you're bitching about separation of church and state, then you have to ask the legitimacy of taxes going towards holy books!

7/20/2005 11:59:12 AM

I'm far more concerned about all the money that goes into supplying courtrooms with bibles, which, on the scale of conernededness, it somewhere near the bottom.

7/20/2005 12:01:33 PM

You can't bitch about half of it... the way a lot of people see this "separation of church and state" is an attack on Christianity. You all complain about the 10 commandments and bibles, but korans? No, that's diversity.

7/20/2005 12:04:13 PM

I do believe we have bibles in our prisons.

7/20/2005 12:13:22 PM

^^ I apologize for not seeing things in a childishly simplistic light so that you might understand them.

I oppose, first and foremost, the goverment PROMOTION of religion. This includes things like public governmental displays of the ten commandments, or anything from any other religion as well (like that would happen in America--but I digress).

If you do not understand how supplying a prisoner with something they have ASKED FOR, be it a koran, bible, or tv guide, is different from the prison posting said materials and saying THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE, then you are without a doubt an idiot.

7/20/2005 12:25:41 PM

If you believe tax money can go to a koran, then don't bitch about the bibles.

7/20/2005 12:27:58 PM

Quote :

"What about the US Military purchasing and supplying the Gitmo detainees with Korans? WTF OMG OMG THE GOVERNMENT ENDORSED RELGION OMG OMG CONSTITUTION IN SHREDS!!!11! You liberals won't complain about that. You bitch about the meals they eat there which are better than the ones our own troops eat."

uh

those people requested something, under the geneva conventions, which was then given to them. it has nothing to do with government endorsement. Just as was said previously.

providing bibles to a christian prisoner of war would ALSO be acceptable.

[Edited on July 20, 2005 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2005 12:30:03 PM

But would never happen. You can't read when you're head is off and your body dangles from a bridge.

7/20/2005 12:31:28 PM

Okay.

Read this carefully.

Read it slowly. Clearly, you need to.

I HAVE NOT

IN THIS THREAD

NOR ELSEWHERE ON THE WOLF WEB

NOR PREVIOUSLY OR PRESENTLY IN MY LIFE

EVER

SAID

THAT I OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT SUPPLYING INDIVIDUALS

WITH

THE KORAN

THE BIBLE

OR

THE FANTASTIC FOUR

FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE

PERIOD

.

7/20/2005 12:31:59 PM

yeah

um

that's a good dodge.

7/20/2005 12:32:03 PM

Quote :

"You all complain about the 10 commandments and bibles, but korans? No, that's diversity."

Most liberals don't complain about the korans because we don't believe the US should illegally hold detainies indefinately without a trial. The koran doesn't fucking matter, illegally holding POWs is the real issue here.

And I do believe that prisoners in the US are given both bibles and worship services on the tax dollar, and I've never once heard anyone complain about that.

Now having the ten commandments outside of a courthouse is a much different situation, and I think everyone who opposes that would oppose the something from the Koran being displayed outside as well.

7/20/2005 12:50:37 PM

The general consensus in the press and among his friends is that John Roberts is a solid conservative. No suprise.

There are a few interesting things though...

The Democrats have been very restrained in their criticism of John Roberts. According to the press, Roberts is very highly respected and liked on Capitol Hill by all the major players, both left and right. 146 members of the DC Bar Association, ranging from Clinton's formal Solicitor General, Seth P. Waxman to Lloyd Cutler stated in a signed statement that he's “one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate.” From a purely legal standpoint, he's considered one of the top lawyers and sharpest legal minds of his generation. He's presented 36 cases before the Supreme Court. If you've noticed, most of the criticisms aren't coming from Democrats but from the advocacy groups who've been stockpiling cash and itching to spill blood from the moment there was even a hint that a spot would open up on the bench.

I take a lot of the statements he wrote as Solicitor General with a grain of salt; he was working as a representative of the Bush I administration and was thus required to repeat their line.

I give the administration credit: this has got to be one of the sharpest political moves they've made.

7/20/2005 12:52:12 PM

They should have nominated Roberto Mendoza.

7/20/2005 12:54:27 PM

i really hope abonorio is just trolling, and not actually being serious.

can people really be that stupid?

7/20/2005 12:55:31 PM

^ Thats exactly what I was thinking.

7/20/2005 12:58:01 PM

I personally don't mind korans, bibles, whatnot because I don't believe the constitution prohibits these things being used in public. I do care about "selective enforcement" of the "law."

7/20/2005 2:53:07 PM

oh and what would that be?

I know your religion is just SOOOOO persecuted

7/20/2005 3:17:37 PM

Does that matter or are you rewriting the constitution? You can't say that there is a separation of church and state and remove bibles/God/10 Commandments while purchasing bibles/korans for any convict no matter where they are.

It doesn't matter what level of persecution. There is no where in the Constitution that would even hint that there must be some sort of degree of persecution before we can separate church and state and to even say that reeks of sheer ignorance and arrogance.

7/20/2005 5:01:08 PM

k, he's just trolling.

7/20/2005 5:16:56 PM

Quote :

"Does that matter or are you rewriting the constitution?"

The consitution says nothing about religion.

Quote :

"You can't say that there is a separation of church and state and remove bibles/God/10 Commandments while purchasing bibles/korans for any convict no matter where they are."

Sure you can, those are completely different situations. One is putting a religious display in a public building, while the other is simply allowing the free practice of religion by prisoners.

Quote :

"There is no where in the Constitution that would even hint that there must be some sort of degree of persecution before we can separate church and state and to even say that reeks of sheer ignorance and arrogance."

And where exactly is this specified in the constitution?

7/20/2005 5:19:22 PM

I am only in favor of two forms of judicial activism, that of protecting economic and individual liberties. The government can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn't tell me what to do.

7/20/2005 9:07:52 PM

Back to Roberts. Although he did write a brief stating that Roe should be overturned, when asked about it at his confermation hearings he said he was speaking on behalf of his clients.

Quote :

"... Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: 'Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.'"

http://bureaucrash.com/modules/newbb/print.php?form=2&forum=28&topic_id=584&post_id=3844

7/20/2005 10:17:06 PM

^^ I still can figure out why the party that stands for "less government" is so quick to jump into people's most personal decisions - i.e. drugs, morality, abortion, etc.

I'm convinced they are only interested in less government when it comes to business and more government in individual decisions.

7/20/2005 10:21:23 PM

^^you make baby wolfpack2k cry

7/21/2005 12:54:09 AM

^^^ Exactly. What other answer could he give? He was seeking an appellate court position. I would have said the same thing. An appellate court has to apply the law that the Supreme Court hands down - whether it likes it or not. It does not have the power to overrule supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court does. To say "Abortion is settled law" is NOT the same as saying "If I get on the Supreme Court I am not going to unsettle it."

^^ Because abortion is not a personal decision. It involves killing a human being who had no say in it at all.

[Edited on July 21, 2005 at 1:18 AM. Reason : add]

7/21/2005 1:17:42 AM

sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

7/21/2005 1:22:07 AM

Quote :

" Because abortion is not a personal decision. It involves killing a human being who had no say in it at all. "

Yeah, but you were replying to BoBo's post about the party that claims to want "less gov". If you want to make abortion illegal, you also have to be willing to support social programs at all levels to help these families that are dysfunctional by default, which Republicans don't like to do.

7/21/2005 1:22:53 AM

I wouldn't have any problem with that.

7/21/2005 1:24:40 AM

Quote :

"He was seeking an appellate court position. I would have said the same thing. An appellate court has to apply the law that the Supreme Court hands down - whether it likes it or not."

So you would allow the murder of innocents even if you were in a position where you could stop it?

You should be glad this isnt Nuremberg.

[Edited on July 21, 2005 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/21/2005 1:35:45 AM

Quote :

"If you want to make abortion illegal, you also have to be willing to support social programs at all levels to help these families that are dysfunctional by default, which Republicans don't like to do."

Why? If we put programs in place to help dysfunctional families then we would be, in effect, rewarding dysfunctional behavior. Telling people that all they have to do to get free money for life is fuck up their current situation then they'll do it.

I suspect it would be called tough love. By allowing immoral people to suffer we are disuading the rest of society from making the same mistakes.

Personally, abortion isn't a problem for me. It is not really a perverse incentive because, in the end, the couple is still paying for the abortion (emotionally and financially).

If, however, medicaid started covering abortions I'd march on Washington !

7/21/2005 10:20:18 AM