Zing!

 

Don't get me started. It's hard to learn when you try to compare justices' opinions to see how they used their own reasoning, and then he goes against his own goddamn logic.

 

EDIT: Isn't the, er, expletive I used in the last sentence usually censored?

Edited March 21, 201214 yr by farmteam

Don't get me started. It's hard to learn when you try to compare justices' opinions to see how they used their own reasoning, and then he goes against his own goddamn logic.

 

EDIT: Isn't the, er, expletive I used in the last sentence usually censored?

 

Kinda like when Sandra Day O'Connor rails against discrimination and inequality and then is the deciding vote in upholding affirmative action.

 

But to be fair to all of them, it's incredibly difficult to have a strict position in the law. As soon as you create a clear rule in one area, an exception will pop up that completely f***s up your position.

Kinda like when Sandra Day O'Connor rails against discrimination and inequality and then is the deciding vote in upholding affirmative action.

 

But to be fair to all of them, it's incredibly difficult to have a strict position in the law. As soon as you create a clear rule in one area, an exception will pop up that completely f***s up your position.

 

Oh, I didn't mean my Scalia attack to sound partisan -- it just so happens that I've seen this happen with him more than any of the others. And yeah, I can imagine it would be difficult, but that's why I can appreciate a little leeway in distinguishing facts. Scalia just either A)takes WAY too much leeway when distinguishing or B)Seems to ignore his own reasoning entirely.

Oh, I didn't mean my Scalia attack to sound partisan -- it just so happens that I've seen this happen with him more than any of the others. And yeah, I can imagine it would be difficult, but that's why I can appreciate a little leeway in distinguishing facts. Scalia just either A)takes WAY too much leeway when distinguishing or B)Seems to ignore his own reasoning entirely.

 

I'd imagine that's probably because he (1) writes a ton of opinions, especially "popular" ones, and (2) he's the most anti-judicial activism judge on the Court. His baseline rule is that Judges have no businesses making law. If a legislature passes a law, that's what society wants, and that should only be changed if it's in direct conflict with something in the Constitution. This position works 95% of the time, but some of the main areas of the law we take for granted today (privacy for example) aren't covered, so his position becomes unworkable. If you're at all interested he addresses this "problem" in his book (http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Antonin-Scalia/dp/0691026300).

Edited March 22, 201214 yr by Jenksismybitch

I'd imagine that's probably because he (1) writes a ton of opinions, especially "popular" ones, and (2) he's the most anti-judicial activism judge on the Court. His baseline rule is that Judges have no businesses making law. If a legislature passes a law, that's what society wants, and that should only be changed if it's in direct conflict with something in the Constitution. This position works 95% of the time, but some of the main areas of the law we take for granted today (privacy for example) aren't covered, so his position becomes unworkable. If you're at all interested he addresses this "problem" in his book (http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Antonin-Scalia/dp/0691026300).

See, that is the problem. He is so staunchly against judicating from outcomes and "judicial activism," except when he isn't. The most obvious case is Bush v Gore, but iirc he had a dissent last year in the Cali prison case that explicitly reasoned from outcomes. The recent 11th amendment/fmla ruling barring residents from s uing their own state is another example of pretty blatant activism.

 

At least the more liberal lines of judicial philosophy don't pretend to be adhering to a strict, unchanging understanding of originalism.

Edited March 22, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

See, that is the problem. He is so staunchly against judicating from outcomes and "judicial activism," except when he isn't. The most obvious case is Bush v Gore, but iirc he had a dissent last year in the Cali prison case that explicitly reasoned from outcomes. The recent 11th amendment/fmla ruling barring residents from s uing their own state is another example of pretty blatant activism.

 

At least the more liberal lines of judicial philosophy don't pretend to be adhering to a strict, unchanging understanding of originalism.

 

I'd say the majority of the time that he does it it's based on something that's in the Constitution. The recent DC gun ruling is a good example. You probably view that as judicial activism, he's viewing it as just reading the plain language of the Constitution, not what the drafters intended and not what he thinks should be included. I'd bet if someone did a history of his decisions, when his rulings are a form of judicial activism they line up with something expressly written in the Constitution (or not expressly prohibited).

 

But yes, both sides have their decision and find out the best way to use precedent/the facts to support the ruling. That's just the way it works. You don't find a woman's right to abortion in the Constitution, so you gotta find a way to argue it based on the law and public policy.

I'd say the majority of the time that he does it it's based on something that's in the Constitution. The recent DC gun ruling is a good example. You probably view that as judicial activism, he's viewing it as just reading the plain language of the Constitution, not what the drafters intended and not what he thinks should be included. I'd bet if someone did a history of his decisions, when his rulings are a form of judicial activism they line up with something expressly written in the Constitution (or not expressly prohibited).

 

But yes, both sides have their decision and find out the best way to use precedent/the facts to support the ruling. That's just the way it works. You don't find a woman's right to abortion in the Constitution, so you gotta find a way to argue it based on the law and public policy.

I dint have a problem with heller.

 

But look at bush v gore and then his somewhat recent statements on gender protection and the 14th. he makes a legislative intent argument to deny one and completely ignores it to reach a conclusion he likes.

 

Conservatives are typically the loudest in complaining about activism and are completely blind to their own transgressions. That is what is annoying. I don't have a supposedly deep philosophical objection to it, while Scalia does but only when convenient. After bvg conservatives should have lost their right to complain about activist judges for a generation or two.

I dint have a problem with heller.

 

But look at bush v gore and then his somewhat recent statements on gender protection and the 14th. he makes a legislative intent argument to deny one and completely ignores it to reach a conclusion he likes.

 

Conservatives are typically the loudest in complaining about activism and are completely blind to their own transgressions. That is what is annoying. I don't have a supposedly deep philosophical objection to it, while Scalia does but only when convenient. After bvg conservatives should have lost their right to complain about activist judges for a generation or two.

 

I think Bush v Gore is a total outlier for most things. They were flying by the seat of their pants and were tired of the endless challenges.

 

Not familiar with the recent gender protection/14th cases. What were those?

 

 

I think Bush v Gore is a total outlier for most things. They were flying by the seat of their pants and were tired of the endless challenges.

I'm a fan of the fact that the Bush v. Gore case literally says that the case cannot be used as precedents in other cases (and the Supreme Court has thus far followed that standard). Which may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about the Court doing.

I'm a fan of the fact that the Bush v. Gore case literally says that the case cannot be used as precedents in other cases (and the Supreme Court has thus far followed that standard). Which may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about the Court doing.

 

It's more common than you'd think.

I think Bush v Gore is a total outlier for most things. They were flying by the seat of their pants and were tired of the endless challenges.

 

ie they made a bunch of s*** up to get the political end they wanted and the opinion explicitly stated that they were doing so.

 

Not familiar with the recent gender protection/14th cases. What were those?

 

Maybe a year ago Scalia said in an interview that the 14th amendment doesn't protect against gender discrimination because that wasn't the original legislative intent. But he invoked the 14th amendment in favor of protecting Bush from recalls or however their terrible "logic" in that ruling actually went.

 

Legislative intent is awesome when he can use it to justify the conclusions he wants and conveniently tossed aside when it doesn't.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010...aco_talk_toobin

What made the decision in Bush v. Gore so startling was that it was the work of Justices who were considered, to greater or lesser extents, judicial conservatives. On many occasions, these Justices had said that they believed in the preëminence of states’ rights, in a narrow conception of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, above all, in judicial restraint. Bush v. Gore violated those principles. The Supreme Court stepped into the case even though the Florida Supreme Court had been interpreting Florida law; the majority found a violation of the rights of George W. Bush, a white man, to equal protection when these same Justices were becoming ever more stingy in finding violations of the rights of African-Americans; and the Court stopped the recount even before it was completed, and before the Florida courts had a chance to iron out any problems—a classic example of judicial activism, not judicial restraint, by the majority.

Edited March 23, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

I only post this here because I wasn't sure where ti goes and it's Republican related, but it's not any commentary on the actual candidate.

 

Apparently there are a lot of pissed off people in the Barrington school district over the 30 minute speech Newt held at one of the High Schools. I was told they spent more $$$ on security for that 30 minute speech than they do for some teachers salaries. Oh, and the school district is crying poor right now.

wouldn't something like that typically be paid for by the campaign or covered by the Secret Service?

wouldn't something like that typically be paid for by the campaign or covered by the Secret Service?

Maybe the person who told me was misinformed. But she said the district paid.

Dick Cheney had a heart transplant today.

Dick Cheney had a heart transplant today.

too many jokes to post.

This is just full of fail.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/...9e7ctc.facebook

 

President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’

 

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

 

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

 

The exchange:

 

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

 

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

 

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

 

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

 

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.

 

A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

 

-Jake Tapper

Hello? Uh, hello? Hello, Dmitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? [pause] Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then, as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well, it's good that you're fine, and — and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. [Laughs] Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb. [pause] The BOMB, Dmitri! The hydrogen bomb! Well now, what happened is, uh, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little...funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes...to attack your country. Well, let me finish, Dmitri. Let me finish, Dmitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? [sounding hurt] Of course I like to speak to you! Of course I like to say hello! Not now, but any time, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly,...you probably wouldn't have even got it. They will not reach their targets for at least another hour. [pause] I'm sorry too, Dmitri. I'm very sorry. All right! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are Dmitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, all right? All right.

Hello? Uh, hello? Hello, Dmitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? [pause] Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then, as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well, it's good that you're fine, and — and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. [Laughs] Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb. [pause] The BOMB, Dmitri! The hydrogen bomb! Well now, what happened is, uh, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little...funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes...to attack your country. Well, let me finish, Dmitri. Let me finish, Dmitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? [sounding hurt] Of course I like to speak to you! Of course I like to say hello! Not now, but any time, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly,...you probably wouldn't have even got it. They will not reach their targets for at least another hour. [pause] I'm sorry too, Dmitri. I'm very sorry. All right! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are Dmitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, all right? All right.

 

I'll never get that few minutes back, thanks.

Sorry for providing you with a classic line from a classic film!

Sorry for providing you with a classic line from a classic film!

 

Apology not accepted. And that's not a "line", it's an entire scene.

 

A line is...

 

"I'll be back..."

 

What you did was recite many many many lines.

The whole is greater than that sum of its parts with that one.

 

you're welcome.

The whole is greater than that sum of its parts with that one.

 

you're welcome.

 

Thank you.

Ok, yeah, so I'm posting this here to see if any of the Republicans literally break their computers. Please tell us on your new computer when you do so.

In the midst of recruiting an all-star ensemble for his long-gestating passion project "The Butler," director Lee Daniels has tapped Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan.

LMAO. Wow. Nancy's likely to cap her ass.