RE: Republican's make a choice?

RE: Republican's make a choice? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/14/2009 2:58:01 PM)
Care to explain that....by the way, thanks for the link to my profile.....I've been looking for it and couldn't find it till now.

DomKen -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/14/2009 3:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia's views on stare decisis are out side the mainstream, to say the least. Bullshit. That IS the mainstream. Listen to Sotomayor's own testimony today on the role of precedent. Or look at the Warren and Burger courts where over 120 precedents were overturned. Or any legal textbook. Scalia has frequently called for ignoring stare decisis in cases where he didn't like the precedent. See his dissents in: Stenderg v Carhart Dickerson v USA South Carolina v Gathers Tennessee v Lane As well as his baffling majority opinion in: D.C. v Heller (note particularly his contention that an individual right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be permanently stripped by judgement of a civil court which flies in the face of two centuries of precedent.)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/14/2009 3:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia's views on stare decisis are out side the mainstream, to say the least. Bullshit. That IS the mainstream. Listen to Sotomayor's own testimony today on the role of precedent. Or look at the Warren and Burger courts where over 120 precedents were overturned. Or any legal textbook. Scalia has frequently called for ignoring stare decisis in cases where he didn't like the precedent. See his dissents in: Stenderg v Carhart Dickerson v USA South Carolina v Gathers Tennessee v Lane As well as his baffling majority opinion in: D.C. v Heller (note particularly his contention that an individual right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be permanently stripped by judgement of a civil court which flies in the face of two centuries of precedent.) Which of course has nothing to do with whether that is the mainstream position, which it is.

DomKen -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/14/2009 3:43:24 PM)
No, the mainstream opinion is that stare decisis is to be over turned in very rare cases. Your claim of the amount opf times the Warren and Burger courts over turned precedent seems to have no source and as near as I can tell the Warren court only did it in a small number of very well known cases. Scalia has called for overturning every major precedent he doesn't like which is simply bad jurisprudence and is well outside the mainstream.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/14/2009 5:48:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, the mainstream opinion is that stare decisis is to be over turned in very rare cases. Your claim of the amount opf times the Warren and Burger courts over turned precedent seems to have no source and as near as I can tell the Warren court only did it in a small number of very well known cases. Scalia has called for overturning every major precedent he doesn't like which is simply bad jurisprudence and is well outside the mainstream. Well that depends on your definition of "very rare", doesnt it? Nobody, including Scalia, says that it should be easy or frequent. Your initial rhetorical question implied "never". This book shows 97 overturns for those 2 courts: http://books.google.com/books?id=hijkcWi-48IC&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=warren+court+overturn+precedent&source=bl&ots=pAU80owp8G&sig=Zm9uno5RF5I6Ty1b7xhun5TUFqk&hl=en&ei=USVdSsLJKIm2sgOPzt2qCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 Another one I will find later had 123 or 124. Scalia has set forth very specific critieria as to when a precedent should be overturned, far from "every major precedent he doesn't like". "Criterion for following stare decisis should not be whether you think the decision is mistaken or not. The criteria should be how wrong it was. Scalia uses three criteria in determining whether to overturn precedents: 1) Was the decision wilfully wrong? 2) Has the wrong ruling been generally accepted? (For example, Scalia thinks the incorporation doctrine, which uses the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights against state governments, is mistaken. That said, it is now so widely accepted that Scalia wouldn’t think about reversing it). 3) Does the existing precedent put me in the role of a legislator rather than a judge? On the abortion question, for example, Roe v. Wade establishes that laws placing “undue burdens” on women’s reproductive choices are unconstitutional. Scalia has no idea on how a judge can figure out whether something is an “undue burden” or not. Such questions should be left to legislative determination. This quip is even more direct: Life is too short: you can’t question everything in every case! “Do you want us to review Marbury every time? Go on to the next mistake.”

Arpig -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/15/2009 1:42:35 AM)
To return to the original topic. I think the Republicans, in the apparent absence of any real concrete reasons to oppose her appointment should be gracious losers this time and allow the nomination.

rulemylife -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/15/2009 8:55:13 AM)
Personally, I think Scalia has early-onset Alzheimer's. His interviews and comments lately have become increasingly bizarre.

Lorr47 -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 5:05:26 AM)
From what I hear her abrasiveness towards attorneys and brethren is at a very high volume level. I keep seeing Obama leaning back in a rocking chair with a cigarette laughing about what he has done to Roberts, and Alito's neighborhood. Kind of like placing a Marchall amplifier in a closet.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 5:45:39 AM)
It's turning out about how we expected it to: The republicans are putting on a show, filled with thinly veiled racisim and misogeny. It's costing them what little public image and credibility they have left, and costing them support from hispanic voters. Probably the worst thing about it is watching a GOP senator, who was up for federal judiciary himself (but was denied on the basis of his racist record) now sits in judgement of Sotamyor! Again, the best reality TV show, soap opera, farce is out own US government in action.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 10:29:45 AM)
Oh, sorry, I should mention his name... Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R) Alabama. Sessions was quoted as saying that "(He) thought that the KKK was a great bunch of guys, until I found out that some of them used pot." and that he also had a black assistant in his office whom he used to refer to as "boy" on a regular basis. He also cautioned this assistant to "watch what you say to white people." Yes, this is the kind of guy who should represent the GOP in their bid to smear Sojna Sotamyor. There should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about her "racist" comments, daring to suggest that maybe a minority voice in the judicial system might be a good thing. Obviously, as Bill Marr put it the other night on Hardball, "they're all incensed about how latino women have had their boot on the throats of white men for decades, and they intend to put a stop to it!" After all, Sessions does fit in with the GOP's attempts at "rebranding" themselves... as out of touch, behind the times, racists who only appeal to hillbillys and rednecks. GO, GOP! You guys are destroying yourselves far better than any of us on the "left" (actually, most of us are centrist) could possibly hope to do ourselves!

downkitty -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 11:18:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig To return to the original topic. I think the Republicans, in the apparent absence of any real concrete reasons to oppose her appointment should be gracious losers this time and allow the nomination. I'd rather everyone show their true colors. If a Republican (or anyone) has objections, I want them to voice them and give their reasons, especially if its race/gender related. I want to know what my politicians REALLY think and believe, so everyone can make an informed decision when politicians come up for election. Its so hard to know real positions since politicians are so ready to give this piece of themselves in order to get that thing they want. I say, let the assholes be assholes loud and clear, so we can weed them out.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 3:25:58 PM)
downkitty, And that seems to be the case.

Brain -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/16/2009 5:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u It will be interesting to see how the republicans handle the Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings this week.Will the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee,faced with the inevitability of her confirmation,look forward and try to make nice,thereby hopefully making some inroads into the large bloc of Hispanic voters.....or is it business as usual...in other words more pandering to their base. Pandering to the base,in this instance seems foolhardy.....Sotomayor by all accounts will be confirmed.If the Republican party really wants to be seen as a party of inclusion rather than one of exclusion the hearings starting this morning would be a good place to start.Questioning begins tomorrow...if nothing else it should be entertaining. The Jeff Sessions Show: Sotomayor hearings embarrass the nation Rachel Maddow always has a way of calling it the way she sees it. Maddow said on her show that the Sonia Sotomayor cofirmation hearings have become much more about the political beliefs of Republican senators than about the judicial beliefs of Sotomayor. Maddow pointed out that Republican senators, particularly Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), have turned the past two days of confirmation hearings into race-and gender-baiting rants that have largely steered clear of any real examination of her judicial record, which is what the hearings are supposed to be about. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m7d15-The-Jeff-Sessions-Show--Sotomayor-hearings-embarrass-the-nation

Lorr47 -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/19/2009 6:28:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Oh, sorry, I should mention his name... Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R) Alabama. Sessions was quoted as saying that "(He) thought that the KKK was a great bunch of guys, until I found out that some of them used pot." and that he also had a black assistant in his office whom he used to refer to as "boy" on a regular basis. He also cautioned this assistant to "watch what you say to white people." Yes, this is the kind of guy who should represent the GOP in their bid to smear Sojna Sotamyor. There should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about her "racist" comments, daring to suggest that maybe a minority voice in the judicial system might be a good thing. Obviously, as Bill Marr put it the other night on Hardball, "they're all incensed about how latino women have had their boot on the throats of white men for decades, and they intend to put a stop to it!" After all, Sessions does fit in with the GOP's attempts at "rebranding" themselves... as out of touch, behind the times, racists who only appeal to hillbillys and rednecks. GO, GOP! You guys are destroying yourselves far better than any of us on the "left" (actually, most of us are centrist) could possibly hope to do ourselves! Ah Sessions. The republican party finally has a poster boy.

Brain -> RE: Republican's make a choice? (7/19/2009 8:08:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia's views on stare decisis are out side the mainstream, to say the least. Bullshit. That IS the mainstream. Listen to Sotomayor's own testimony today on the role of precedent. Or look at the Warren and Burger courts where over 120 precedents were overturned. Or any legal textbook. Scalia has frequently called for ignoring stare decisis in cases where he didn't like the precedent. See his dissents in: Stenderg v Carhart Dickerson v USA South Carolina v Gathers Tennessee v Lane As well as his baffling majority opinion in: D.C. v Heller (note particularly his contention that an individual right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be permanently stripped by judgement of a civil court which flies in the face of two centuries of precedent.) Sometimes they just do whatever they want. They say they do what the law compels them to do but it’s just not true.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875