[quote]optheta wrote:
Explain yourself.[/quote]
Well, Bag of Hair, google House of Lords and see what their governing responsibilities have been historically.
Santorum prefers a judiciary, not a super-legislature that hands down policy editcs on high without electoral accountability.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ThunderDolt your problem is you are not even that smart[/quote]
Thanks for that offering, Pittbull. Go back to coloring and studying studies you contend don’t exist.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ThunderDolt your problem is you are not even that smart[/quote]
Thanks for that offering, Pittbull. Go back to coloring and studying studies you contend don’t exist.[/quote]
Wha…Ha…(spitting coffee all over the place)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
Explain yourself.[/quote]
Well, Bag of Hair, google House of Lords and see what their governing responsibilities have been historically.
Santorum prefers a judiciary, not a super-legislature that hands down policy editcs on high without electoral accountability.[/quote]
It’s funny that you mention the Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore is possibly the most blatant example since Roe v. Wade of the Court handing down a decision based on “policy edicts on high without electoral accountability”. But I never hear that case mentioned by guys like Gingrich and Santorum who want to haul Justices up in front of Congress to explain their rationale, as if they’re unaware the Justices do just that already in their majority, dissenting or concurring opinions.
I only hear the right go off on the Supreme Court when the decision doesn’t work for them. I never heard a single conservative pundit or politician decry the ruling in Bush v. Gore, even though the rationale from Rehnquist went completely against literally every other ruling he had handed down regarding the Equal Protection Clause. Personally, I think the decision was correct, but given which Justices voted with Rehnquist, it was surprising. Rehnquist had been probably the biggest opponent in the Court of the Equal Protection Clause and its expansion. He even wrote a legal opinion about Brown v. Board of Education for a law review journal in which he said that he felt Plessy v. Ferguson was the correct ruling and should not have been overturned. He criticized Warren and his view on the EPC and then turned around and used Warren’s rulings to justify his decision in Bush v. Gore. The epitome of hypocrisy. He even wrote in his majority opinion that his rationale should only be applied in this particular case and was not applicable anywhere else.
So when I hear a conservative politician like Gingrich or Santorum criticize the Supreme Court in such a manner, it’s nothing more than partisan bias trying to masquerade as concern for the judiciary if they don’t at some point hold up this case as a perfect example of the political influence that the Court can display from time to time.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s funny that you mention the Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore is possibly the most blatant example since Roe v. Wade of the Court handing down a decision based on “policy edicts on high without electoral accountability”. But I never hear that case mentioned by guys like Gingrich and Santorum who want to haul Justices up in front of Congress to explain their rationale, as if they’re unaware the Justices do just that already in their majority, dissenting or concurring opinions.[/quote]
Does Santorum want to do that? I know Gingrich mentioned it - I am unaware that Santorum wanted to do so.
Well, very quickly, in response to your criticism re: using a Warren court decision in support of his own, Rehnquist’s position on the bench is different than when he was not a justice, because he has a (certain) responsibility to adhering to precedent. It’s more complicated that straightforward hypocrisy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s funny that you mention the Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore is possibly the most blatant example since Roe v. Wade of the Court handing down a decision based on “policy edicts on high without electoral accountability”. But I never hear that case mentioned by guys like Gingrich and Santorum who want to haul Justices up in front of Congress to explain their rationale, as if they’re unaware the Justices do just that already in their majority, dissenting or concurring opinions.[/quote]
Does Santorum want to do that? I know Gingrich mentioned it - I am unaware that Santorum wanted to do so.
Well, very quickly, in response to your criticism re: using a Warren court decision in support of his own, Rehnquist’s position on the bench is different than when he was not a justice, because he has a (certain) responsibility to adhering to precedent. It’s more complicated that straightforward hypocrisy.[/quote]
I don’t understand this point here. Rehnquist’s position regarding the EPC has been the same before and during his tenure as Chief Justice. When it comes to these sorts of cases, Rehnquist did not always adhere to the rule of stares decisis, nor do most Justices when to do so would require a 180 degree reversal of their OWN views. If you look at major civil rights cases that involve the 14th Amendment, Rehnquist has never used the precedent in Brown to justify his rationale anywhere else, except in this particular case.
Gee, I wonder why that is? Is it perhaps because activist judges are on both sides of the political aisle? I’ve heard Santorum say the same sorts of things about the Court that Gingrich has, just not as often or with as much conviction. I think he’s just trying to piggyback on an idea that appeals to those conservatives who think this means hauling liberal judges in front of Congress. And like I said, unless this particular case is cited by ANY conservative politician who holds similar views about the Court, to demand these sorts of changes to it is nothing more than another political wedge.
Where is this idea that Gingrich and Santorum want to haul Supreme court justices in front of congress? I’ve seen Gingrich state that his approach does not and can not involve them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Where is this idea that Gingrich and Santorum want to haul Supreme court justices in front of congress? I’ve seen Gingrich state that his approach does not and can not involve them.[/quote]
I’m sorry. I was mistaken. Gingrich wants to haul Justices up in front of HIM, were he to be elected President. You haven’t heard any of his views in this respect?
I mean, it’s been a hallmark part of his political message for more than 20 years. I thought it was a pretty disingenuous remark on Thunderbolt’s part to say that he’s heard Gingrich “mention” something about this. He’s been railing against the Court for two decades. He’s said way more than just saying that the Court would be excluded from his approach.
Santorum, on the other hand, I’ve only heard mention similar views once or twice. My point here is that anytime I hear a conservative (or a liberal, although I haven’t heard this from them) criticize the rulings of the Court as being the result of a political and/or partisan agenda, I immediately tune them out as partisan hacks trying to placate a certain part of the electorate rather than someone who is actually sincere if they don’t mention Bush v. Gore as a prime example as to why final judicial review should not sit with the Court, for the reasons mentioned previously.
Personally, I’m glad that Gingrich has made these views so widely-known. The transparency that comes with this sort of thing has essentially eliminated him as a viable force in politics. The best thing he could have done, and the worst for the country, would have been for him to keep his mouth shut long enough to win, and then we realize what a monster we’ve unleashed after it’s too late.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I thought it was a pretty disingenuous remark on Thunderbolt’s part to say that he’s heard Gingrich “mention” something about this. He’s been railing against the Court for two decades. He’s said way more than just saying that the Court would be excluded from his approach. [/quote]
Nothing disingenuous about it, I pay little attention to what Gingrich says (has said), so i don’t know the particulars on what he proposed. I knew enough about what he said to know that he floated the idea in one of his faux-populist rants during the campaign, but beyond that, I don’t know much about it, other than it is a loathesome idea, which is why I didn’t investigate it further.
I’ve never heard Santorum suggest that we bring judges before Congress.
Well, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, where else should “final judicial review” rest if not the Supreme Court?
In any event, I don’t pretend there is no partisanship on the part of some conservative opinion on judicial review, but to equate the Right with the Left on this is way off the mark; it’s not even in the same universe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I thought it was a pretty disingenuous remark on Thunderbolt’s part to say that he’s heard Gingrich “mention” something about this. He’s been railing against the Court for two decades. He’s said way more than just saying that the Court would be excluded from his approach. [/quote]
Nothing disingenuous about it, I pay little attention to what Gingrich says (has said), so i don’t know the particulars on what he proposed. I knew enough about what he said to know that he floated the idea in one of his faux-populist rants during the campaign, but beyond that, I don’t know much about it, other than it is a loathesome idea, which is why I didn’t investigate it further.
I’ve never heard Santorum suggest that we bring judges before Congress.
Well, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, where else should “final judicial review” rest if not the Supreme Court?
In any event, I don’t pretend there is no partisanship on the part of some conservative opinion on judicial review, but to equate the Right with the Left on this is way off the mark; it’s not even in the same universe.[/quote]
Of course final judicial review should rest with the Court. That’s partially my point; it’s ridiculous for Gingrich or anyone else to argue that judicial review should lie with the President, ultimately. Especially if you are going to hold up specific cases and not mention Bush v. Gore, which I have never heard any conservative politician arguing in this vein mention.
For the record, I’ve never equated the right with the left in this respect. I would argue that the partisanship isn’t tilted as heavily toward the left as you make it seem to be. A lot of the “activist” decisions that conservatives criticize are simply expansions of civil rights. There are several cases where the left has made a poor decision in the Court (Roe being the most obvious, but they were equally guilty of partisanship in Bush v. Gore; had the case centered around minorities’ ballots instead of ballots by county I have no doubt that Ginsberg, et al would have voted differently).
But I don’t have a problem with "judicial activism when it serves to define exactly what a fundamental right is beyond the vague “life and liberty”. When the definition goes too far, as in saying that a fetus does not constitute a life with the same value as any other human or that a corporation is, for all intents and purposes, a person (Citizens United), is when I have a problem. But I don’t think that there is anything inherently wrong about a liberal approach in general to interpreting the Constitution. The fact is that when it comes to civil liberties the liberal approach serves to protect them better than a conservative approach does.
There are exceptions, of course, liberal stunting of gun rights being the most obvious example. But as far as liberalism strictly within the Court, I think it’s preferential to conservatism. I’d prefer to see conservatism outweigh liberalism (modern American, not classical) in other arenas, such as the economy. But not in the Court.
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president[/quote]
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president[/quote]
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
For the record, I’ve never equated the right with the left in this respect. I would argue that the partisanship isn’t tilted as heavily toward the left as you make it seem to be. A lot of the “activist” decisions that conservatives criticize are simply expansions of civil rights. There are several cases where the left has made a poor decision in the Court (Roe being the most obvious, but they were equally guilty of partisanship in Bush v. Gore; had the case centered around minorities’ ballots instead of ballots by county I have no doubt that Ginsberg, et al would have voted differently).[/quote]
You’ve identified the issue right there - you don’t mind judicial activism as long as it is activism in areas you like - for example, expansions of civil rights. What you want - and what you’re comfortable with - is a panel of judges making law by substituting their personal policy preferences in place of a legislature’s because the legislature hasn’t “gotten around to it” or some other reason.
Same point again - you’re happy with a panel of judges “finding” new “fundamental” rights as they go along - and as long as those “findings” proceed in a policy direction you like, you’re fine with judges having that activism as part of their “toolbox”.
But what happens when a different panel of judges uses the same set of “tools” to come to policy conclusions you don’t like? You can’t complain, because you’ve legitimized the judges’ use of those “tools” - you’ve said that it is ok for judges to decide cases that way. SO, a right-wing judge gets to use the “tool” just as much as the left-wing judge, and you can’t complain - or you’re being a hypocrite.
And so, what you have done is turned the nation into one that is ruled by men, not ruled by law. You were quick to sacrifice this principle in the name of certain policies you personally liked without appreciating that once the door is open, any judge can use it, even ones that see the world very differently than you do.
As for me, I’d rather not open that door to any judge, to the extent that is possible.
Liberalism within the court as you describe it is antithetical to the principle this nation was founded on - that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. We don’t like - and we’ve never liked - the idea that unelected, unaccountable judges be given that much power over policy-making.
Of course, the law being a human institution that incorporates values and policy, we can’t do this with mathematical precision, but we can try our best. Liberalism within the court doesn’t even try - it is guided by an odd belief that we hire judges are to be agents of social change, rather than arbiters of justice. No thanks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
For the record, I’ve never equated the right with the left in this respect. I would argue that the partisanship isn’t tilted as heavily toward the left as you make it seem to be. A lot of the “activist” decisions that conservatives criticize are simply expansions of civil rights. There are several cases where the left has made a poor decision in the Court (Roe being the most obvious, but they were equally guilty of partisanship in Bush v. Gore; had the case centered around minorities’ ballots instead of ballots by county I have no doubt that Ginsberg, et al would have voted differently).[/quote]
You’ve identified the issue right there - you don’t mind judicial activism as long as it is activism in areas you like - for example, expansions of civil rights. What you want - and what you’re comfortable with - is a panel of judges making law by substituting their personal policy preferences in place of a legislature’s because the legislature hasn’t “gotten around to it” or some other reason.
Same point again - you’re happy with a panel of judges “finding” new “fundamental” rights as they go along - and as long as those “findings” proceed in a policy direction you like, you’re fine with judges having that activism as part of their “toolbox”.
But what happens when a different panel of judges uses the same set of “tools” to come to policy conclusions you don’t like? You can’t complain, because you’ve legitimized the judges’ use of those “tools” - you’ve said that it is ok for judges to decide cases that way. SO, a right-wing judge gets to use the “tool” just as much as the left-wing judge, and you can’t complain - or you’re being a hypocrite.
And so, what you have done is turned the nation into one that is ruled by men, not ruled by law. You were quick to sacrifice this principle in the name of certain policies you personally liked without appreciating that once the door is open, any judge can use it, even ones that see the world very differently than you do.
As for me, I’d rather not open that door to any judge, to the extent that is possible.
Liberalism within the court as you describe it is antithetical to the principle this nation was founded on - that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. We don’t like - and we’ve never liked - the idea that unelected, unaccountable judges be given that much power over policy-making.
Of course, the law being a human institution that incorporates values and policy, we can’t do this with mathematical precision, but we can try our best. Liberalism within the court doesn’t even try - it is guided by an odd belief that we hire judges are to be agents of social change, rather than arbiters of justice. No thanks.[/quote]
Welcome to the real world, pal. Of course I like something until I don’t like it. That’s how everyone is. Of course I like a certain approach as long as it fits into my own narrow, selfish framework. I don’t pretend to be intellectually honest in this matter whatsoever. No one on this site is that intellectually honest, but at least I’m upfront about it.
I mean give me a fucking break! The “rule of law” and not the “rule of man”? Who the hell wrote those laws? Men. It’s rule by men no matter what, until some divine figure comes down from on high and provides us with a moral code to live by. That would be the only form of rule by law that isn’t also rule by man. And that allegedly already happened once, and here we are anyways. And if I’m going to be ruled by men I prefer to be ruled by men living today and not men who died 200 years ago.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Welcome to the real world, pal. Of course I like something until I don’t like it. That’s how everyone is. Of course I like a certain approach as long as it fits into my own narrow, selfish framework. I don’t pretend to be intellectually honest in this matter whatsoever. No one on this site is that intellectually honest, but at least I’m upfront about it.[/quote]
So there is no such thing as justice and fairness, only pursuit of interest. Good to know. OUr entire Anglo-American system of laws disagrees with you, but good to know.
Men wrote the laws, and men can change them, but the men that do so should be the men that are accountable to the people who have to live under those laws. That’s the point of the rule of law - some monarch doesn’t get to stand over you and unilaterally determine your fate. It’s kind of a big deal in our history.
But, let’s do a quick thought experiment. You work at a job for over minimum wage. Your employer starts paying you way below minimum wage for your hours. You go before a judge to see for the money you were promised by law as set by the leglislature (above minimum wage) - you think the judge has the authority to say “naw, that minimum wage stuff is garbage - he should be able to pay you whatever he wants. Dismissed.”…?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
So is it me or was about to say ‘nigga’?
[/quote]
If you play it backwards at 45rpm you can hear him say “atheists’ children must be impaled on pikes” - definitely. Listen to it five times then turn around thrice, pat your tummy and rub your head at the same time and you’ll hear it. For sure.[/quote]
However, we do know, without having to play any tape backwards, that he’s not such a big fan of a strong separation of church and state, so…
[/quote]
Do you have evidence of this? Or are you interpreting separation of Church and state that people of religion can’t vote their conscience?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Same point again - you’re happy with a panel of judges “finding” new “fundamental” rights as they go along - and as long as those “findings” proceed in a policy direction you like, you’re fine with judges having that activism as part of their “toolbox”.
[/quote]
They are not finding them, they are stating that they are already there:
[quote]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [/quote]
Now the way they are doing it is complete and utter BS but in principle they do not find anything, they acknowledge what was always understood to be the right of a free man.
[quote]orion wrote:
They are not finding them, they are stating that they are already there:
[quote]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [/quote]
Now the way they are doing it is complete and utter BS but in principle they do not find anything, they acknowledge what was always understood to be the right of a free man. [/quote]
No, they aren’t - the Ninth Amendment does not confer substantive rights and was never a blank check for judges to go an find rights and make them the law of the land. It serves to protect against the notion (that Hamilton and Madison both warned of) that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution could give an impression that the federal government was empowered to legislate on anything it wanted except those specific things that the BOR proects. The Ninth Amendment was included to remind that enumeration of rights in the BOR didn’t enlarge the powers of the federal government beyond their own enumerated powers.