Souter to retire from Supreme Court

[BigSqwert]

Everything else is a blatent disrespect of our Constitution.

Where was this display of "emotion" when Bush crapped all over the Constitution with FISA?

[kapkomet]

Where was this display of "emotion" when Bush crapped all over the Constitution with FISA?

He didn't. So answer me this: if all this stuff is Bush crapping on the Constitution, then why doesn't Congress pass the laws necessary to ensure there is no ambiguity in the future regarding these very laws? I know the answer, let's see if you do.

[NorthSideSox72]

I tend to agree with Kap, on the point that race/gender/religion/sexual preference/hair color should be irrelevant. And I don't think you should go trying to put people on the bench who can directly sympathize with any given group, because there is no way to do that for all groups. Instead, pick people who excel at taking any given perspective in regards to the law. I don't have to be a woman to understand that strip searching an 8 year old is problematic (to say the least), nor do I need to be a woman to understand the laws related to that.

 

Or do you want to make the Supreme Court a membership of a few thousand people? Like a little democracy? I don't think that would work.

 

[Texsox]

Everything's all touchy, feely, emotion.

 

Which is the human element. If not, we could just program a computer to decide.

 

Once it is accepted that humans need to decide, than it becomes more important to have a balance of opinions, experiences, etc. on the court. A range of humans making decisions, IMNSHO, is better than eight clones. If it was that cut and dried, why have eight? Certainly one could figure it out.

 

And if it isn't about opinions, but facts, why do we need more than one level of court?

[kapkomet]

Your first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not explain what you feel. THEN, and NEXT, not BEFORE, do you apply your knowledge to the law. They INTERPRET, not DECIDE what the laws are.

 

If the laws are not what they think they should be, CONGRESS re-writes the law, NOT SCOTUS. I may not like certain decisions, but if they interpret the case based on the Constitution, and not what THEY think, then I cannot argue against a decision.

 

 

[Texsox]

Your first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not explain what you feel. THEN, and NEXT, not BEFORE, do you apply your knowledge to the law. They INTERPRET, not DECIDE what the laws are.

 

If the laws are not what they think they should be, CONGRESS re-writes the law, NOT SCOTUS. I may not like certain decisions, but if they interpret the case based on the Constitution, and not what THEY think, then I cannot argue against a decision.

 

Exactly. And interpret is not an exact science, as language is not exact. That is why we do not have a computer handle this. Interpret is not EXACT, which is why you should want to have eight DIFFERENT people interpret, from a variety of backgrounds, instead of just one.

 

And it is what they think the law is. That is the heart of interpret. And did you really just say that thinking is wrong? They should be thinking about what the meaning of the Constitution is. DIFFERENT people think differently. I see more value in a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds, THINKING about what is meant in the Constitution.

 

And many times, what comes before the court are situations that could not be foretold by the writers of the Constitution. Take something as simple today as wiretaps on phones. Think about the very first rulings. How did the writers of the Constitution handle that technology a couple plus hundred years ago? What should the Judges use as their basis when those sort of issue arise? Some one has to THINK about what is written and apply it to a situation that was not conceivable when the Constitution was written. Someone has to think about what is written and how it applies. Sometimes two competing rights are at odds with each other.

 

Interpret the Constitution and decide freedom of speech for Nazis wishing to demonstrate versus the rights of Jews in Skokie; without thinking or feeling? Interpret the Constitution and decide who has the right to terminate a human by taking them off life support; without thinking or feeling.

[kapkomet]

The difference is, today, liberals want the touchy, feely to come first, not the lens of the constitution. Because, that's a way to create an activism for "rights" that are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. There's a big difference in that and what you are suggesting.

[Texsox]

The difference is, today, liberals want the touchy, feely to come first, not the lens of the constitution. Because, that's a way to create an activism for "rights" that are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. There's a big difference in that and what you are suggesting.

 

And conservatives want to paint every decision that they disagree with as touchy, feely, activism, no matter what. Just as they want to characterize any bad press as liberally biased. Far easier to divert attention than deal with the issue at hand.

 

Do you have the "right" to walk down the street in a pink suit with a green and purple feather in your hair? Where does it guarantee you that exact right in the Constitution? As soon as a Judge thinks that that right is in the Constitution, conservatives would call it activism if they disagree.

[Balta1701]

He didn't. So answer me this: if all this stuff is Bush crapping on the Constitution, then why doesn't Congress pass the laws necessary to ensure there is no ambiguity in the future regarding these very laws? I know the answer, let's see if you do.

They did, in 1978, it was called FISA. Collecting information on U.S. citizens without a warrant for reasons other than national security was prohibited, plain and simple.

 

If the President decides to murder someone, Congress doesn't have to go and re-declare murder illegal to try him.

[bmags]

I disagree it should be a judge. More people than judges are capable of understanding the constitutionality of our laws and the rights guaranteed by that document.

[Balta1701]

I disagree it should be a judge. More people than judges are capable of understanding the constitutionality of our laws and the rights guaranteed by that document.

The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events:

 

1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office.

 

2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive.

 

You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes.

[lostfan]

Everything's all touchy, feely, emotion. The constitution is not supposed to be a touchy, feely document. It is set up to govern our country, not tackle the emotional aspect of every goddamn problem that faces our country. It's a f***ing insult to sit there and say "8 men can't understand". Do you know how moronish that statement is? If there was a law broken for that poor girl, then let the law stand for itself, not the emotion of it. That's absolutely the problem with liberals and really pisses me off. Sure, I care. Sure I want justice. But not based on some emotional outlook. If we govern every issue based on emotion, it's no wonder there's the politicization there is, because you cannot fairly judge law that way.

 

In a court setting, the lawyer's job is to make people understand the emotion behind it and the related legal arguments to those emotions, if you will. That includes "8 men" on the Surpreme Court. Their job is then to interpret the law, not their damn emotions behind the law. PERIOD. Everything else is a blatent disrespect of our Constitution.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but when I read your and other opinions regarding waterboarding or GTMO, it sounds like pure emotion sometimes (anger, vengeance). Whenever I say "that is an emotional opinion vs. a logical one," which I've said on this board several times, that's probably what I mean.

[bmags]

The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events:

 

1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office.

 

2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive.

 

You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes.

 

Oh, I'm well aware, but I hardly think Harriet Miers is one of two reasons why not. It's much more to do with number one. But I'd still say a former governor and legislator or respected legal mind could be on SCOTUS and operate as, if not more, efficiently as a judge.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/polit...=rss&src=ig

 

I think it's pretty clear from Obama's previous statements that he won't be seeking a Scalia-type in the liberal form. He had that interview where he was skeptical of the SCOTUS decisions being effective in social movements, specifically citing the civil rights era, and before that the Civil War.

[bmags]

nvm

Edited May 3, 2009 by bmags

[Texsox]

he quoted kap.

 

I caught it and deleted my post.

[mr_genius]

Obama might as well just put Dr.Phil on the supreme court. It's the kind of move many of his constituents demand.

Edited May 3, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Obama might as well just put Dr.Phil on the supreme court. It's the kind of move many of constituents demand.

Really, this was just silly. It's not even a clever insult at us.

[mr_genius]

Really, this was just silly. It's not even a clever insult at us.

 

well i wasn't referring to you guys of course

[NorthSideSox72]

The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events:

 

1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office.

 

2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive.

 

You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes.

For #2 you could easily insert the name Alito and it would fit the same, except he was confirmed. That guy is nothing more than a conservative politcal windsock, which is the opposite of what you want for a SCOTUS justice.

 

[Balta1701]

For #2 you could easily insert the name Alito and it would fit the same, except he was confirmed. That guy is nothing more than a conservative politcal windsock, which is the opposite of what you want for a SCOTUS justice.

I'd still say there was a big difference between Harriet and Sam. At least Sam is a Conservative windsock. I think the other nominee is nothing more than a windsock for admiration of W. (Seriously, go google some of the letters she wrote him praising his intellect. It's just scary).

[mr_genius]

For #2 you could easily insert the name Alito and it would fit the same, except he was confirmed. That guy is nothing more than a conservative politcal windsock, which is the opposite of what you want for a SCOTUS justice.

 

Obama is goign to put in a pro-Democrat windsock. what else is new.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Obama is goign to put in a pro-Democrat windsock. what else is new.

We're owed at least one. You guys have 4 of them. The Dems on the court currently are leftists on a number of social issues but the court is still very conservative economically. Even the liberals.

[mr_genius]

We're owed at least one. You guys have 4 of them. The Dems on the court currently are leftists on a number of social issues but the court is still very conservative economically. Even the liberals.

 

you have 4 already and Obama will merely be replacing one of them.

 

by the way, do you guys know whom named Souter to the court? it was G Bush I and it's often cited as a reason both parties now want to make sure their nominee is going to tow the party line.

[lostfan]

you have 4 already and Obama will merely be replacing one of them.

 

by the way, do you guys know whom named Souter to the court? it was G Bush I and it's often cited as a reason both parties now want to make sure their nominee is going to tow the party line.

Sandra Day O'Connor gets cited for that a lot too, which I think is pretty unfair since she tried her best to see every case in a vaccuum and not an ideological lens.

[kapkomet]

And conservatives want to paint every decision that they disagree with as touchy, feely, activism, no matter what. Just as they want to characterize any bad press as liberally biased. Far easier to divert attention than deal with the issue at hand.

 

Do you have the "right" to walk down the street in a pink suit with a green and purple feather in your hair? Where does it guarantee you that exact right in the Constitution? As soon as a Judge thinks that that right is in the Constitution, conservatives would call it activism if they disagree.

No we don't. Not even close. That's just blatently wrong.

 

Again, if you don't like the laws that are written, you have a majority, pass the laws you want. But the laws need to be interpreted against a Constitutional standard, not "touchy feely" crap based on someone's definition of "rights". Those rights were pretty clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Health Insurance, Retirement, etc. for "pursuit of happiness" is not a "right". Just like all the decisions of emotional crap aren't a true basis against the Constitution.

 

Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I understand it's intent - I think that it's a stretch but again I understand the decision. I think it should be struck down, but not because abortion is bad, IMO, it's because it's a state issue. Just like "gay marriage".