Justice O'Connor Retiring

rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."

Comments

Which way?

[oGMo]

OK, i'm too lazy too look it up; someone want to get some karma by posting her vote on recent controversial issues?

Re:Which way?

[adtifyj]

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/oconnor.htm l

Re:Which way?

[PaxTech]

She dissented on both Kelo and Raich.

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

She wrote an absolutely furious minority opinion on the recent eminent domain ruling. She felt very strongly that it was a bullshit ruling, but it passed 5-4 anyway. Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

Now we probably need to talk about a new Amendment to the Constitution to protect property rights the way the 5th Amendment was supposed to, according to anybody who gives a fuck about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Although she was a Reagan appointee, she's generally regarded as a "swing" vote on a lot of the high-visibility social issues. A lot of 5-4 decisions over the years came down to 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Sandra Day O'Connor breaking the tie one way or the other.

Disclaimer: IANAUSSCJ (I Am Not A United States Supreme Court Justice)

Re:Which way?

[Tassach]

She's the main swing vote on the court. She leans more towards the conservitive side, although she's got a fairly good record of voting in favor of individual liberties.

Given that we have a GOP-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency which kowtows to the fundie nutbars, it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

Re:Which way?

[ReverendHoss]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=4 246

Disclaimer: The Nation is a left-wing magazine. But at the bottom is a listing of rulings where O'Connor has been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision.

Re:Which way?

[soft_guy]

Fuck what the Founding Fathers intended. (They are dead anyway.) Anyone who cares about freedom and property rights should support such an amendment!

Re:Which way?

[alta]

****SMACK****

Adios ya libreral fruitcakes! Lets get those commandments back in our Courthouses so we'll have a reminder of what's right and what's wrong.

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

We on the right don't want to get rid of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, we love the Bill of Rights as much as the "fundie nutbars" that created it.

And as far as having a rightist judge, I'd say it'd only even things out, with the past 20 years of left-wing activist judges.

I'd rather just see judges become apolitical, but of course that can't happen when people try to see things black and white, leftist hippie and rightist fundie.

Re:Which way?

[BoomerSooner]

7 of the 9 Justices were appointed by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

Maybe people vote for what they actually believe instead of following an indecisive electorate.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely love your sig...

Re:Which way?

[Adrilla]

My sentiment exactly, I knew the odds were likely that we would've gotten a new justice under GWB, but I wished ever so deeply that we could avoid it. I guess the inevitable happened. New prayer: Only one supreme court justice leaves the bench. (fingers crossed, pennies in fountain, more rabbits feet than I can count, and does anybody know if satan is still buying souls?)

Re:Which way?

[genrader]

7 of 9 being appointed by Republicans means nothing.

Re:Which way?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Actually the ruling is doing what I hoped it would. Lawmakers are now scrambling to put specific laws in place to prevent this type of eminent domain. At the end of the day it'll end up being harder to eminent domain someones property than before the ruling.

Re:Which way?

[Locke2005]

In the 3 recent bad SCOTUS decisions (including the medical marijuana and eminent domain decisions) it seems to me the "conservatives" wrote the disents. That being said, we may very well be heading towards a fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. In general, I find the recent trend towards "govenments can do anything they damn well please" to be extremely disturbing. Remember that governments are made up of human beings that are quite capable of being short sighted, corrupt, even mean spirited. Hence the need to limit the power of governments to keep people like Richard Nixon and George Bush from doing whatever they want just because the beleive they have some divine right to do so.

Re:Which way?

[bemenaker]

Not all public schools are bad. I regularly debate with people who went to catholic schools in the area, who don't have a fucking clue.

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

7 of 9 being appointed by Republicans means nothing.

I, for one, fully endorse the idea of appointing 7 of 9 to the SCOTUS. She's a bit of a head-case, but a major cyborg hottie!

Re:Which way?

[genrader]

Every school in my area, public or private, are a bunch of retards with no idea what's going on. They're either conservative cause they think it's the right thing or they're liberal because they don't want to be conservative (wtf?). Idiots that will never think.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

The creators of the Bill of Rights were largely enlightenment-types that didn't adhere to any organized religion. Many of them were "theists" who believed in an almighty creator but little to none of Christian mythology. Some of them may even have been atheists. To use your terms, the nutbars who led the Revolution were definitely the "hippies" of their day as compared to the "fundie" royalists. Just because you wish the framers were conservative Christians doesn't make it so; they were, as compared to their contemporaries, closer to being radical left-wing freaks.

Re:Which way?

[WaxParadigm]

...it's almost certian we're going to get a hardcore far right judge as a replacement. When that happens, kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana
- dissenting when the SCOTUS

...I'd say there is more of a chance we'll get reacquainted with the Bill of Rights than not.

If you look at how "liberal" (not to be confused with classical liberalism) judges view the Constitution and Bill of Rights (as a "living document" that much change with the times and social moreys) and contrast it with how the conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR (as things to be interperited/implemented as the authors intended) it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights (as an antequated idea), welcome socialism (as a replacement for the limited government defined in the constitution), and otherwise head down many other slopes that lead away from what the US was founded on.

I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.

Re:Which way?

[VirtualAdept]

Well.. We don't really need an amendment to the constitution to change this - I think just convincing local, state and national lawmakers to pass a law forbidding these sorts of eminent domain seizures would be effective and much, much more likely to get through. Your choice as to what level of government you want to start with: I personally suggest local or state. :)

Re:Which way?

[Shakrai]

Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

I heard a lot of discussion about this locally and on /. Why is this ruling so scary? If you don't want your local government to push you out of your house by rezoning the land then don't elect a local government that will do just that.

If the landowners in that case had tried to make a case to the local voters to get that city government voted out of office instead of using the legal system they might have had more success. If they couldn't convince the rest of the voting population of the worthiness of their cause then it was probably a "means of the many" situation -- which is hardly uncommon when it comes to zoning decisions. Anyone who has ever played Sim City will appreciate that fact.

In any case I suppose I'm more of a fan of trying to influence the local and state governments then using the legal system to force them to do what you want. That's what elections are for people.

Re:Which way?

[smooth wombat]

Ya know, I was thinking about this decision today (rather than doing actual work) and I realized something: this is actually a conservative decision because it represents states rights. Hear me out on this.

For the longest time you have probably heard the conservatives in the country talking about how the federal government is imposing too many rules and regulations on states and how this is a bad thing.

This decision is a victory (if you can call it that) for states rights because the court ruled that states have control over their own domain (no Seinfeld jokes thank you). It is the states who can decide who can build what and under what circumstances.

In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.

In essence, the conservatives of the country got what they've asking for: limited federal intrusion onto the right of a state to conduct its affairs.

While I understand the logic of the court I don't agree with the decision. Even allowing that the people will be fairly compensated for their home and land (don't bet on it) and that they have had their due process of law (as required by the 5th Amendment) this ruling will come back to haunt the justices and everyone else.

Re:Which way?

[mfago]

does anybody know if satan is still buying souls?

Nope, not after getting W's.

BTW, Satan prefers to be called Rove these days.

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.

Re:Which way?

[wiggles]

Isn't it interesting how people always insist the Founding Fathers were just likey they? Whether they are on the right or the left, people always insist the Framers would be on their side. If you listen to both sides, Washington was a fundamentalist hippie who smoked doobies between church services.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

Oh no, the Founding Fathers were not just like me. That would have made them incredibly cynical formerly Communist software engineers.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is precisely what the SC wanted them to do anyway -- their point was that this was the area of the legislative branch, not something for the US Supreme Court to meddle in.

Re:Which way?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Sometimes you can own property in jurisdictions where you can't vote.

Own a business in a town other than where you live, for example. The local government you had no say in electing decides that it knows better than you what to do with your property.

What if one campaigns actively for an opponent of a local government official. The incumbant retains his seat, and then mobilizes the government against all who worked against him.

Re:Which way?

[jlangr]

You have far too much faith in the oppression that is democracy. Most people don't speak up until it's their livelihood that's being threatened. In the Kelo case, it's a small number of homeowners living in a working class neighborhood. The same thing is going on here in Colorado Springs; dozens of low-end but long-standing, legitimate businesses will be destroyed to make way for Costco and Lowes. Yeah, great idea, democracy, it lets us stomp on the downtrodden minority.

Just because it's the "means of the many" doesn't mean it's right. Unless, of course, you're a fascist. And as far as "not voting for people who will do that," ... please. Politicians are a filthy, lying lot.

If a corrupt body (read: any city council) is already elected, and your home is threatened for destruction, it's generally too late to effect anything by re-election time.

Perhaps deriving your political beliefs from Sim City isn't such a great idea.

Re:Which way?

[jeblucas]

She wrote an absolutely furious minority opinion on the recent eminent domain ruling. She felt very strongly that it was a bullshit ruling, but it passed 5-4 anyway. Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

BZZT! Wrong. Conservative judges have always been the bastion of personal property rights. There's nothing odd about this ruling aside from the fact that it 5-4 for the so-called liberal side of the argument. And that largely was a function of federalism more than a question of personal property vs. public good. The Court could be seen simply as deciding question of local takings for the public good are a local issue and should not be semantically argued in the SCOTUS or federal system, regardless of one's feelings towards private economic interests potentially serving the public good.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but those who are affected now have no recourse.

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

If you listen to both sides, Washington was a fundamentalist hippie who smoked doobies between church services.

Haha, that's great.

Seriously though, the Founders weren't like me. Most of the founders were deists (they believed in God, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian one). See my response to the GP, there's a good article detailing the founder's true identities.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if 7 of 9 where appointed by Democrats.

Not.

Re:Which way?

[Guy Harris]

Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.

So if religious talks, etc., are given in Government buildings, should and would "secular humanists"/atheists, etc. be allowed to give speeches, etc., in those same buildings?

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason we have a Bill of Rights, instead of just relying on elections. If all you have to protect you is elections, then democracy boils down to three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for breakfast.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

Where does it say in that piece by the universally respected and unbiased historian of early America George F. Will that the services in question were fundamentalist in tone?

Remember that in those days, much closer to everyone in the United States identified as Christian than do today. A non-sectarian Christian service would have been acceptable to more than 95% of the people in the colonies. In that environment, simply being non-sectarian Christian would have been enough to avoid state endorsement of a sect in almost all Americans' eyes. Today, with a wider variety of people living here, non-sectarian Christian services or displays do constitute state endorsement of a sect in many Americans' eyes.

Now, whether the framers would have felt comfortable with all of the swarthy, non-Christian types being here in the first place is a different question. Remember, many of them felt that slavery was OK, and I'm sure all of them would have been appalled at the thought that women might be given the right to vote.

I'd being willing to bet that if you and I and the "Founding Fathers" were to get together, they wouldn't agree with either one of us about everything. Heck, they didn't agree with each other about much. Maybe that's why they tried so hard to establish mechanisms to prevent tyranny of the majority. And don't get on about the majority of Americans oppressing the Christian minority, it is no one's right to have their religious symbols displayed at the courthouse or to have their clergy blessing the proceedings of the government. No one is trying to prevent fundamentalists from holding their services or displaying their symbols, provided they do so on their own time and property.

Re:Which way?

[Shakrai]

Own a business in a town other than where you live, for example. The local government you had no say in electing decides that it knows better than you what to do with your property.

Then you can still mobilize your employees and customers to fight on your behalf. And you can go to a higher level of elected government to state your case. I.e: If I own a business in a different town I can take my case to my Assemblyman or State Senator.

I'm not saying that I disapprove of all uses of the legal system. I just feel that it's being overused and people don't even bother to try and convince the elected officials or even their fellow citizens of the worthiness of their cause anymore.

This isn't Congress we are talking about. This is your local Government. Nine out of ten times these are the people you went to school with. If you live in a smaller town and they are only part-time jobs you probably even work alongside of them. You live next to them. You see them at the local market.

Perhaps I'm naive but I think a lively debate in your village/town/city council is more likely to accomplish something at less cost then filing a lawsuit. And it's more in line with the ideals of our Republic. The legal system is supposed to be a last resort -- not the first option.

Re:Which way?

[Shakrai]

Politicians are a filthy, lying lot.

If a corrupt body (read: any city council)

If that's the level of faith you have in your local Government then you are already screwed. Yes some politicians on all levels of Government are self-serving or (rarer) actually corrupt.. Some politicians on local levels cave to local business interests at the expense of the residents. But not all of them or (dare I say it) even a majority of them are bad. All the moreso in local elections where the turnout can often be measured in the hundreds or low thousands and every single vote literally makes a difference.

Perhaps deriving your political beliefs from Sim City isn't such a great idea.

Where do you see me deriving my political beliefs from a video game? I was pointing out that anybody who has played it can understand the pressures of rezoning caused by population growth.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 3 recent bad SCOTUS decisions (including the medical marijuana and eminent domain decisions) it seems to me the "conservatives" wrote the disents.

Shh, you're ruining our uninformed liberal outcry!

Re:Which way?

[SA Stevens]

Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

It's the 'progressives' who are into the kind of central planning and strong government/corporate coordination that the particular eminent domain case in question represented.

Those sorts just fawn over 'community development' initiatives.

Re:Which way?

[proc_tarry]

Actually, the founding fathers were "diests", not "theists". All Christians would qualify as theists.

Re:Which way?

[slashdot_commentator]

This decision is a victory (if you can call it that) for states rights because the court ruled that states have control over their own domain (no Seinfeld jokes thank you). It is the states who can decide who can build what and under what circumstances.

No, its the Supreme Court being an arbitrary tool of corporations. The Supreme Court had some form of jurisdiction with the 6th amendment. What the majority decided was that the federal courts did not have the business of determining what was "public use". The Supreme Court can interfere in how a state can run its election process, it can interfere in production of a medicinal herb, even though the herb was for personal use and consumption occured without crossing state lines, but now it decides localities have purview to decide that homeowners' property can be confiscated if a municipality decides it can make a profit on the transaction. How consistent of them to look out for "states rights"

In essence, the conservatives of the country got what they've asking for: limited federal intrusion onto the right of a state to conduct its affairs.

Except its was the most conservative members of the SCOTUS that went against the decision. There is nothing conservative about the decision, any more than Dred Scott. Don't try to imply it hypocrisy on Conservatives' part.

Re:Which way?

[BunnyClaws]

The creators of the Bill of Rights were largely enlightenment-types that didn't adhere to any organized religion. Many of them were "theists" who believed in an almighty creator but little to none of Christian mythology.

Uhh.. I believe they were called "Deists"

Re:Which way?

[King_TJ]

Your logic would be fine, EXCEPT, when you're talking about a clear case of individual rights or freedoms at stake, why shouldn't govt. at the federal level have legislation that helps preserve those rights/freedoms? That's not the type of thing you really want left open for change, just because of some corruption at the local level.

I'm not a fan of giving federal govt. any more power than necessary either - but laying down "ground rules" that ensure freedom and individual liberties are preserved is one of their basic functions.

Re:Which way?

[arudloff]

Get the terminology right: deitists, not "theists." They believed in a surpreme deity.

Further, it may be prudent to note that Ben Franklin (often cited along with your argument), while a deitist, believed that it was better to believe in the Christian God and teachings than not to, simply because he felt that Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. (or something along those lines)

Our society was most certainly not founded on Christianity itself, but to deny the connections to the Christian teachings and its influence on all of the founding fathers (regardless of their professed religions) is to rewrite history in a rather bold way.

Re:Which way?

[Neward Rylet]

Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

Oh yeah, conservatives supporting "property rights" and 'progressives' ignoring them citing the "greater good", that's really a big surprise!

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

Whether someone is allowed to give a speech is not up to me or the government.

Re:Which way?

[Zeinfeld]

Although she was a Reagan appointee, she's generally regarded as a "swing" vote on a lot of the high-visibility social issues. A lot of 5-4 decisions over the years came down to 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Sandra Day O'Connor breaking the tie one way or the other.

In general she has backed the right on most matters, the main standout issue being abortion rights and other social issues.

We have reached a point which almost nobody in Washington ever wanted to reach apart from the tiny number of hard core abortion opponents. Bush is going to have to appoint a new judge to the court that the 'religious' right hopes will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The two groups who are really upset over this are the pro-abortion folk and the bulk of the Republican party for whom this is a major major crisis which puts them in a no-win situation.

If the judge Bush appoints does not help overturn Roe vs Wade then the right wing fundies abandon Bush and the GOP.

But if Roe vs Wade is overturned abortion disappears as a vote puller for the GOP, instead it brings out much larger numbers of pro-abortion rights women. Moreover the pro-abortion rights groups are forced to campaign for abortion rights in every state of the union.

The GOP expects that the result is going to be a major net loss of votes. In most states the sentiment runs strongly pro-abortion rights. The reason that it is a vote getter for the right but not the left is that at the moment due to Roe vs Wade most women beleive that their rights are protected by the constitution and they don't need to fight for them.

So now we have a whole new situation. I expect that Bush will try to put off the decision as long as possible by nominating someone who is clearly unacceptable such as Gonzales, the author of the infamous Gitmo memo redefining the term 'torture'.

Re:Which way?

[NoData]

Maybe you should get the terminology right. They were deists, not deitists. And a deist is a theist. Theism is a Greek-derived word which means belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings). Deism is a Latin-derived word which refers to a particular school of religious thought (I don't know if I'd characterize it as a religion as much as a theological philosophy).

So, deists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., are all members of the set theists.

Re:Which way?

[zoomzit]

" Just because you wish the framers were conservative Christians doesn't make it so;"

or to put it another way:

"Just because you wish the framers were left wing theists doesn't make it so;"

Re:Which way?

[Swamii]

I'd being willing to bet that if you and I and the "Founding Fathers" were to get together, they wouldn't agree with either one of us about everything.

I think that's something we can both agree on. :-)

I have little faith in George F. Will, but I think he offers a valid opinion on the subject of the Founding Fathers, and, by association, the meaning behind the Establishment Clause: the Fathers, though many of them were Deists, meant for the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights as a way to prevent the government from establishing a creed or sect upon citizens.

As a side note, the very phrase "seperation of Church and State" was coined by Jefferson, who, in response to a letter from a Baptism minister fearing Angelicism was becoming the official creed of the government, responded by saying there is a wall of seperation between church and state, assuring the Baptist minister the government will not become Angelican. See the actual letter here.

If you're to interpret the law literally, all expressions of religion are Constitutional, unless Congress passes a law that promotes or denies the religion in question. Has Congress passed a law that forces the 10 Commandments to be displayed everywhere? No. So any state that has 10 commandments displays are not unconstitutional. So the thinking on the right goes.

Even funnier about this whole debate around the 10 commandments is that Christians don't even follow all 10 (haha! talk about hypocrisy!). What's worse is that the Supreme Court has etched in its walls a large figure of Moses holding the 10 Commandments! More hypocrisy! Yet here it is telling other certain states to take down their 10 Commandments displays, and leaving others provided there are enough "reindeer".

So while the left waxes on about how it's everyone's right to be shielded from religion, the right is accurate in that there is no such right, at least, not when the United States was created.

Re:Which way?

[stlhawkeye]

The creators of the Bill of Rights were largely enlightenment-types that didn't adhere to any organized religion.

Modern liberalism bears little resemblance to enlightenment liberalism. This is largely because modern American leftists tend to embrace collectivism, and englightment liberalism tended to focus more on the mobility and elbow space of the individual. The foundations of the country are based in creating a document that defined the limits of government, not a basis from which to expand it's reach into our lives. Libertarians most closely resemble the mindset of Enlightenment liberals. The next-closest would be American conservatives, and then American liberals. American conservatives are trending left on fiscal issues and moving further right on social issues, which is maddening since fiscal conservative policy and liberal social policy most closely resemble the foundations of Enlightenment liberalism. With the Republicans abandoning that space and the Democrats making no effort to fill it, it's a sad time for anybody who gives a shit about their rights or their lives.

To use your terms, the nutbars who led the Revolution were definitely the "hippies" of their day as compared to the "fundie" royalists.

No, because the people who founded this country were intelligent political thinkers who believed in individual freedoms mitigated by individual responsibility. Hippies were rebellious kids who wanted to do whatever the fuck they want regardless of the consequenes.

Just because you wish the framers were conservative Christians doesn't make it so; they were, as compared to their contemporaries, closer to being radical left-wing freaks.

This is utterly inaccurate if you're trying to compare them to the modern left-wing in American politics. At the time, they were contemporary liberals and left-wingers, and certainly radicals in their way. But they bear little resemblance to modern-day leftists and liberal leaders. If your goal is to suggest that modern day leftists "have it right" since our founding fathers were leftists, I have to disagree. I mostly agree with the principles laid out in the Federalist papers and the tenents of Enlightenment liberalism and individualism. The American Democratic party embraces almost none of those things (nor does the Republican party anymore). But I agree that one thing they certainly were not is God-fearing Christian men. They may have paid lip service to it, but it was nothing more than that.

Re:Which way?

[The Analog Kid]

Political affliations means little when it comes to the Supreme Court, voting record is more important, and you'll find that many of the decisions the the SC has made has not always gone the way of the ruling party.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

Get the terminology right yourself. "Deitist" is a pretty new coinage, not found in Webster's or wikipedia, and poorly represented in a Google search.

From m-w.com:

Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

The term I wanted and stand by is "theist", which, as you can see, has a general meaning (coincidentally, nearly identical to your definition of "deitism"), as well as a more specific meaning, which itself appears to be a bit more general than the term "deist". I didn't want to make a more specific representation because I honestly don't know how many of them shared Jefferson's personal views, which were certainly deist.

Who is denying the connections to Christian teachings, or their influence on the framers of the Constitution? Could it not be the principle of mercy, taught them through "the Christian teachings", that led them to see the wisdom of a clear separation between church and state? Or perhaps it was the oppression of minority-sect Christians in Anglican England that led them to that conclusion. You see, there is no such thing as THE "Christian teachings", only many different "teachings" that all claim to be inspired by Jesus of Nazareth. At times, adherents of different brands of Christianity have disagreed strongly enough over the precise nature of "the Christian teachings" to go to war with one another over the issue.

In its turn, Christianity was certainly not founded on Hellenistic religion itself, but to deny the connections between the myth of the virgin birth of Jesus and the myth of the virgin birth of Mithras is to rewrite history in a rather bold way. (Of course, that particular rewriting was pretty much complete by the time of the Emperor Constantine.) Should we have statues of Mithras slaying the bull in our courthouses?

Re:Which way?

[Deflatamouse!]

In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.

The government have no business in making more money. Their job is to protect its citizens, not to rape them for more money or to side with private entities that has its own agenda in which the government can benefit from as a side effect.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

Ah yes, but it isn't so because I wish it were, it is so because it is so. The generally non-sectarian beliefs of the framers are well documented, and they were certainly left-wing by the standards of their day. Of course, what was left-wing back then is probably closer to Libertarianism than anything else you can find these days. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if the framers were alive today, they would never stop puking.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

The "reindeer" thing is actually pretty important. The point behind the requirement for "enough reindeer" is to ensure that religious symbols are shown in a context as one influence, rather than alone as THE influence. I'm perfectly happy to see the Ten Commandments as part of a display, perhaps with a representation of the law code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta, because you can see that it is one part of a larger picture. It's hard not to see a gigantic sculpture of the Ten Commandments as anything other than an endorsement of Judeo-Christian values over other values.

Ask yourself this, would those insisting on the Ten Commandments displays be OK with a gigantic Buddhist wheel right next to the Ten Commandments sculpture?

Re:Which way?

[zoomzit]

Well documented by whom? How exactly can you definitively determine who is a theist and who is not when reviewing the history of our founding fathers when we can't definitively ascertain the beliefs of our modern day presidents.

Liberal Christians distance themselves from Bush by stating that he doesn't have true belief. Conservative Christians distance themselves from Clinton by coping the same argument.

Just because you believe something to be true does not mean that what you are relying on isn't revisionist history. Ben Franklin would definitively be a theist, and certainly others (Jefferson is another that comes to mind). But, a large majority? I don't think you have the historical backing on that.

I certainly agree that they were libertarians and political radicals for their time.

Re:Which way?

[Guppy06]

"Now we probably need to talk about a new Amendment to the Constitution to protect property rights the way the 5th Amendment was supposed to,"

Screw that, we need a whole new Constitutional Convention. Our constitution and our government bear little resemblance to each other, and it's time for us to explicitly decide which one we truly want.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what most people are missing now is that both "liberal" and "conservative" politicians (in whatever office) have all moved more towards authoritarianism in order to implement their views. My biggest concern is getting someone (read anyone) in office that maintains the belief that most things are not, in fact, the governments business.

Re:Which way?

[Guy Harris]

Whether someone is allowed to give a speech is not up to me or the government.

I wasn't asking about just "giving a speech". I was asking about giving speeches on government property, as that's one thing George Will was talking about in the op-ed of his that you cited. If giving speeches, talks, etc. in government buildings is not up to the government, that's fine; if it is, however, the government had better allow people to give talks saying , for example, "Christianity is stupid. Communism is good." (to pick an extreme example) on the floor of the house if they're going to allow "two very Christian discourses" there.

Re:Which way?

[mOdQuArK!]

We on the right don't want to get rid of the Bill of Rights.

There's the secular right, and the religious right. The fundie religious right would be perfectly happy to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper & flush it, just before establishing a complete and total theocracy. They'd be perfectly happy with that result.

I have no idea why the secular right goes along with them (esp. since the size & spending of the federal government seems to be growing astronomically), except maybe out of some irrational sense of party loyalty.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

We're on the same page, for the most part. However, I'm pretty sure that the modern Republicans and Democrats would be equally repugnant to the framers, considering the anti-establishment and anti-militaristic feelings that were so strong among the framers. Modern conservatives seem to be pretty much in favor of the rich getting richer and in favor of invading other countries if it serves our economic interests.

Anyway, I don't think modern day leftists have it right. I think that, as compared to their contemporaries, the framers were closer to being radical left-wing freaks than they were to being conservative fundamentalist Christians.

Re:Which way?

[mOdQuArK!]

conservative judges view the Constitution & BoR

Big clue: Bush & Co. "conservatism" doesn't mean the same thing as judicial conservatism. Witness the growth in size & spending of the federal government during Bush's "conservative" administration.

Given past history, Bush & Co. will do _anything_, including whatever dirty tricks they can justify to themselves, to get a religous ideologue onto the SCOTUS bench.

Re:Which way?

[Bourbonium]

Indeed, Thomas Paine, author of the seminal essay "Common Sense" that caused a great many colonists sitting on the fence to support the revolution, spent several years in prison in France for the horrendous crime of "atheism." When confronted with the charge, he confessed he was an atheist and therefore had to plead guilty.

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

Well documented by the framers themselves, in a set of documents known as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Really intriguing reading. All sorts of stuff about an Almighty Creator, non-endorsement by the state of any particular religion, etc., etc. Not so much about the Ten Commandments or Our Savior. Sounds pretty non-sectarian to me. Each of them may personally have believed in the Christian mythology, but as a group, they were "generally non-sectarian". I didn't say they were Deists, but that they were theists, by which I meant that they believed in an Almighty Creator. I hope they did, because that's what they wrote. Are you suggesting that the "revisionism" was perpetrated by the framers themselves?

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it is pretty obvious that there is more potential for a liberal court to throw out individual rights"

Of course historically it has been the "activists liberals" who have been the rights expanders (contrary to your above assertions.)

- brown-vs-board
- roe-vs-wade
- pro-gay rights
- and on... and on...

So, completely ignoring history, your assertion is correct :)

Re:Which way?

[Petey_Alchemist]

Agreed, WP. It should not be forgotten that, in the judiciary, "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things than in everyday politics. For instance, conservative justices like Scalia were pissed at the eminent domain ruling more than anyone, because it wasn't strictly with the Constitution. Liberal judges are far more likely to impose restrictions or pull together Constitutional concepts to create weak legal prenumbras (which is exactly what happened in the Kelo decision). Personally, although I'm on the liberal/libertarian side of things (sounds somewhat contradictory, I know), I'm in favor of a more conservative judge like Scalia because I know he won't deny me any of the rights the government guarantee me via the Constitution. We read it the same way. Of course, Bush could, as Waxpaper suggested, nominate an "authoritarian conservative". If we could just find another Scalia--with constructionist intent and scathing pen--I'd be happy....which is why I like the sound of Scalito. Hopefully, the liberal legislators can realize the importance of needing constructionists over authoritarians and will make that compromise. --Petey

Re:Which way?

[Rayonic]

Screw that, we need a whole new Constitutional Convention.

Jesus H. Christ! You want the current pack of politicians to rewrite the entire Constitution from scratch?!

I wish I had that kind of faith in our elected officials.

Re:Which way?

[nutshell42]

I probably share with you in fearing that an authoritarian, statist (as opposed to libertarian) judge could take the bench...but I think that's more likely with a liberal judge (and even if not, a liberal reading of the constitution would likely be more permissive or an authoritarian legislature and executive.

[sarcasm]Yeah, because the favorite candidates of the religious right would be so much better[/sarcasm].

What the court needs is a moderate in every respect. Moderate as in neither right nor left and moderate as in doesn't want to overthrow the current political system but also not reactionary to the core. But what we're going to get is a right-wing nutjob because Bush wants to stack the court with right-wing activists to guard against the Democrats stacking it with left-wing activists when they come into power again (whenever that may be). Currently the GOP can appoint SCOTUS judges without the Democrats (if they abolish the filibuster) and there are going to be more openings on the Supreme Court over the next few years. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to ensure that the US is going to stay on course in its transformation from the land of the free to Jesusland (well may be I phrased that a bit drastic not to say trollish but you get my drift) for the next decades.

Imho the best solution would be if the Senate and the House would both appoint 4 judges each with 2/3rds majority and the President appoints the chief justice. (perhaps not exactly that way but the idea is to require a 2/3 majority. Then judges would be boring - in a good way. If the court was split into seats appointed by senate/house/president that would reinforce the idea because a 2/3 majority in the Senate wouldn't allow you to change all nine judges (should they die/resign during the time you had that majority))

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but, which version of the 10 commandments?

Re:Which way?

[bhirsch]

What about those who care about states' rights?

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

liberal/libertarian side of things

Not at all contradictory given the roots of the words. For some reason 'liberal' is today used as an epithet in a rather ill-defined way besmirching some those on the centre-left, even if they do believe in allowing people maximum choice (e.g. the right to choose who they marry).

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you freak out, you should really do your research. I don't like this ruling either, but the justices didn't so much say their opinion on this issue pro/con, they said that it was a states rights issue, not a federal issue.

The SJC ruling simply says that the individual states should decide whether or not to use emminent domain in this manner.

Some states already have laws that protect you against this use of emminent domain, and if you live in one that doesn't, call your local representative and ask them to introduce one.

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

No state has the right to take my property. No state. No branch of government, in fact. Not the federal government, not the state government, not the county government, not the municipal government. My property is mine, and I will sell it to the government if I wish. If I don't, tough beans, government, deal with it.

I consider trumpeting states' rights on this issue akin to supporting states' rights for limitations on freedom of speech. It's a basic human right. The kind of thing the Constitution was designed to protect. And it's absolutely heinous that the government would try to take that right away from me.

Re:Which way?

[bhirsch]

Whether we like it or not, the government is permitted to seize property. Since our Constitution does not prohibit seizure of private property, why should the court have ruled it is unconstitutional to do so? If our Constitution was designed to protect against this, why does it expressly permit it?

Re:Which way?

[jazuki]

At the end of the day it'll end up being harder to eminent domain someones property than before the ruling.

No. In order for it to be harder, there would have to be a constitutional amendment to the effect. (And this constitional amendment would have to be more bulletproof than the current 5th amendment.)

In the meantime, the ruling ensures that this type of eminent domain can only be prevented by laws at the federal and state levels (for every state). The federal government can only affect policy to the extent that moneys from the federal government is used to effect it, and the current bills before Congress reflects this.

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I hold that compensation that is just is and should be decided by the owner of the property, not the government. Just as if I want to sell my house to someone else, I have the final say on if their offer is acceptable to me. It should be no different when the government is the buyer.

Re:Which way?

[alw53]

In its last two big rulings, the court has explicitly delineated the scope of private rights: none. If a State is screwing you, tough, it's a 10th Amendment issue and the Federal Government is explicitly prohibited from doing anything about it. If the Feds are screwing you, tough, it's a Wheat case issue, and anything you do that might possibly affect Interstate Commerce (like breathing, for example) are governable as such.

Re:Which way?

[overunderunderdone]

Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land.

I don't understand the "oddly enough", perhaps you meant "As would be expected"? This was about the prerogatives of government versus the property rights of the individual. "Progressives" consistently favor the government in such cases, and "conservatives" consistently favor the individual. The confusion only arises because usually the "Big bad corporate world" is usually on the individual rights side of such disputes and in this case they weren't. The progressives and the conservatives were each consistent to their principles rather than their (perceived) allies. Justices after all have to be concerned with not just the one case they are deciding but with the fact that they are setting a precedent and establishing the principles that future (often quite different) cases will be decided by. The progressives don't want to establish a principle that limits the prerogatives of government and the conservatives don't want to establish a principle that enlarges it.

Re:Which way?

[John Newman]

I very mugh disagree. If this last week is any indication...:
- conservative side of the court dissenting when the SCOTUS threw out state and personal rights in favor of federal prohibition of medical marijuana

...and any residual respect I had for the intellectual integrity of Justice Scalia went out the window with his assent to that ruling. At least Thomas pretends to be a better libertarian/constructionist (unless civil liberties are the issue).

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Roe v. Wade had no basis in the constitution. Brown v. Board did. You might not want to have both of those in your list.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'd like another Thomas rather than another Scalia. Look at the weed decision recently. Scalia ignored the commerce clause because he thinks weed is bad. Thomas respected the commerce clause, regardless of his personal opinions.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I, for one, fully endorse the idea of appointing 7 of 9 to the SCOTUS. She's a bit of a head-case, but a major cyborg hottie!

This all seems fair enough, as long as the other side get to appoint Number Six...

Re:Which way?

[bhirsch]

Do you consider $1 billion to be just compensation for a shack in the middle of a desert? Although that phrase is somewhat subjective, I have never heard one argue that just compensation meant one would receive whatever they want. I guess I am just not sociolibertarianist enough to get it...

Re:Which way?

[bhirsch]

Christ. Does anyone on /. understand that justice is blind? Courts are not supposed to be ruling on what is good or bad. They are supposed to be ruling on the law.

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

Let me give you an example.

I own a house. It's not all that nice of a house; for simplicity's sake, let's say it's been appraised at $100,000. However, it's been in the family for generations. My grandparents grew up in the house, and I love it dearly. But Uncle Sam doesn't like me having this house, because it's bringing down property values because it's so old, and it's in the middle of a nice, new development. I don't want to sell under any circumstances. Uncle Sam offers me $125,000, which would be more than a fair value if I were looking to sell, but I'm not. So Uncle Sam takes me to court, and the court rules that all ol' Uncle Sam has to give me is $100,000, and they can force me out of my house. I ask you, is that fair? More importantly, is that just? To me, the answer is obvious: No, that is not fair. No, that is not just. The government should not be given the right to buy property willy-nilly, without the consent of the owner. If I don't want to sell to Joe Blow from across town, why should I have to sell to the government? Why should the government take away my right to own my house? What business does the government have doing that?

Re:Which way?

[bhirsch]

I don't think you understand my point. This was a court ruling. These rulings are supposed to be based only on law, not on what is good or bad. The Constitution gives the government the right to seize property. Compensation is determined in as objective a way as possible, generally taking into account appraisals (not assessments), and frequently quite generous.

Re:Which way?

[Rebel_Princess]

Many of them were "theists" who believed in an almighty creator but little to none of Christian mythology.

That would be a Deist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

It all depends on how you define "just." If just means "fair market value," then the Supreme Court's ruling would make sense. If just means fair to the individual, then it does not.

The Founding Fathers really left some words that seemed specific at the time they were written, but seem rather vague now. "Just" is one of them. I suppose the legal definition of "just" is not the same as my personal definition, then. *Sigh* This country oftentimes doesn't seem quite right for a libertarian such as myself...

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

The nitpick here is, the government's right to compelling you to sell them your property is limited to "public use."

This ruling, which was a terrible mistake, declared that bringing in a private business which the government deems good for the location counts as "public use."

It basically means that if you are a big-time real estate developer in a backwater county, just bribe enough government officials and you can have any land you want (and always at zero dollars above the appraisal value), Constitutional property rights be damned. It's an awful ruling which expands a law that should have been much more limited than it now is, and we need to put heat on legislators of both parties to correct this new state of affairs.

Re:Which way?

[Golias]

Sandra Day O'Connor's position was that they ruled on the law incorrectly. Three justices agreed with her, but it was not enough.

Re:Which way?

[Xyrus]

I think he was confusing conservative with neo-conservative. These are two very different beasts.

True conservatives like the idea of less government. For neo-conservatives...well, let's just say that they go by the saying "the ends justify the means".

~X~

Re:Which way?

[zoomzit]

You have got to be kidding me.

You stated previously that the framers were theists and not Christian, not the bait and switch that you are now proposing.

As a religous person, I am happy that the constitution does not refer to the ten commandments, the seperation of church and state and does not create a state defined religion. Yet, SHOCKINGLY, I am not a theist.

You previously implied that the founders were theist, which you further implied was not to be equated with "christian." Now your evidence for this is that the consitiution supports the seperation of church and state, and does not include the ten commandments? That is an awful arguement. Any person with their head screwed on straight can see the benefit in not having a state recognized religion even though they personally may have a particular (in this case Christian) faith.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the people getting their homes torn down for the new Target.

Re:Which way?

[Guppy06]

Lack of faith in my government is exactly why I think we need one. Right now we seem to be stuck in a cycle of electing people we really don't really like. The federal government seems either unable or unwilling to fix itself, and the only proposals for constitutional change froming from the federal government involve banning gay marriage and flag burning (more to do with individual rights than the functions of government). The only avenue left to the people (other than armed revolution) is application to the state legislatures to puruse constitutional change without involving Washington.

Rather than candidates telling people what they want, it's time for some sort of process that actually listens to popular desires with respect to our national government. If it turns out that the people really want what we see happening in Washington today, then at the very least our constitution should be altered to make the whole thing a little more honest (even if we don't really like the taste of the truth in this case). For example, if the people really want the White House to have all but complete war-making powers, then it's time to get rid of the silliness about Congressional war declarations if we're not going to use it.

If, after the dust settles, the people decide that they prefer the constitution as written (or something close to it) over the nature of the government today, then at the very least the process will inpsire the national government to fix itself (lest the people go over their heads). The Twentieth Amendment, fixing the problems of a lame duck period in the term of House members, didn't get through the House (go figure) until several states passed resolutions calling for a convention. Even if the folks in the US government are still reluctant to police themselves, then the people need to pursue constitutional methods to fix these problems themselves.

It's not that I trust whoever might be sent to the convention, it's that I don't see how thing can get that much worse. The status quo of the constitution and the government at odds with each other cannot (be allowed to) stand. If the people opt to ditch our current method of government and hold on to the current republican constitution, at the very least the process could fix some easily-abused loopholes caused by vague language. Otherwise, if we're going to be an empire, it's time to stop pretending that we're not.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

No state has the right to take my property. No state. No branch of government, in fact.

So... all taxes should be voluntary?

Re:Which way?

[BorgHunter]

Short answer: yes. I am in favor of removing all income and property taxes, and having the only taxes being sales tax, with more expensive purchases being taxed at a higher rate. Sales taxes, I find, are entirely voluntary. Food and other essentials would, of course, not be taxed. For this system to work, however, the government would have to be scaled back tremendously. Again, something I'm in favor of.

Re:Which way?

[Petey_Alchemist]

I'll check that out--do some more research. Thanks.

Re:Which way?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard not to see a gigantic sculpture of the Ten Commandments as anything other than an endorsement of Judeo-Christian values over other values.

It would be more accurate to describe those particular displays as an endorsement of The Ten Commandments over The King and I, Around the World in Eighty Days, etc.

Re:Which way?

[jadavis]

That doesn't always fit with reality. Reality may be that the government needs to build a dam or a road, and your property is in the way. In those extreme circumstances (which are very rare), they can force you to sell it for "just compensation" which means you can get screwed, but it's a necessary evil.

The problem is when government doesn't really need your land to do something for public use, it just realizes that it can get much more tax revenue from someone else. So they confiscate your land, sell it to someone else, and claim that the tax increase is a "public purpose". Of course it's not "public use" so that practice is unconstitutional. But the U.S. Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, for whatever stupid reason, and nobody will stand up and tell them "no". The plain english of the Constitution is clear, and the Supreme Court is telling you otherwise using legal BS. It's time for someone to tell them "no, the Supreme Court does not have the final say, the Constitution is the final say".

Re:Which way?

[Alsee]

Isn't it interesting how people always insist the Founding Fathers were just likey they?

It's generally religious evangelicals who want to claim the Founding Fathers established a government that was supposed to favor their religion. That they were Christians and that they were founding a Christian nation with a Christian government.

The founding fathers were not Christians, nor were they like me. The Founding Fathers were generally Desists. I am not a Deist.

A Deist is one who believes in some form of God, but rejects ALL scripture of ALL religions. Unlike me. Deists beleive in God, but reject claims of divinely revealed scripture. Unlike me. Thomas Jefferson in particular called the Bible a "dung-hill" and dismissed apostle writings of miracles as the ravings of a lunatic. Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral teacher - in exactly the same way one would admire Mahatma Ghandi as a moral teacher. One or more other Founding Fathers explicitly dismissed the Bible as a fable. I think it was Madison who said that any contact between government and religion could only be a currupting influence on both.

The Founding Fathers did not establish a "Chistian government", they established a government required to remain neutral between religions and religious beliefs so that the population could best persue and learn and advance religion free of government contact and curruption in either direction.

-

Re:Which way?

[Alsee]

they personally may have a particular (in this case Christian) faith.

Would you say ity's fair to say that someone who considers the Bible to be pure fiction, someone who rejects any divinity of Jesus, that such a person is not Christian?

A number of Framers of the Constitution refered to the Bible as a fable, said they were Deists (Deists reject all claims of divinely revealed scripture), and Jefferson even went so far as to call the Bible a "dung-hill" and apostle description of miracles as the ravings of a lunatic. Jefferson said he admired Jesus - he did so as a moral teacher, as an ordinary man, in the same way one would admire Mahatma Ghandi and his teachings. Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the entire Bible to strip out any refference to miracles or any divinity of Jesus.

Oh, and if you want insight into the personal beleifs of politicians (both modern and the founders) the best bet is to skip their public speechs and look to their personal letters between each other.

-

Re:Which way?

[jerde]

It's not a sale, though. It's compensation. The government is TAKING it, and then compensating you for your loss. It's right there in the constitution.

The constitution is asserting the rights of the country as a whole, over the rights of the individual, in this case.

The land is NOT yours. The land is the part of the many layers of government that keeps our society running.

If this weren't true, it could be possible for someone else to buy all the land immediately surrounding you, and walling you in. No, the government says, there must be an easement, or we'll take suchandso part of your land to build a road, etc. to make society actually work.

But, keep in mind, while this seems like unlimited power for the government, the check and balance here is that that very government is elected by YOU and your neighbors.

- Peter

Re:Which way?

[Murasaki Skies]

I nominate Q. He already has some experience as a judge anyway...

Re:Which way?

[A coward on a mouse]

I said "largely enlightenment-type theists". I didn't say or imply that all of them were one thing or another. I was trying to establish that the framers were not Christian fundamentalists, as the previous poster had stated.

Re:Which way?

[zoomzit]

You are attacking a strawman, rather than my actual argument. My statement was that there were are significant number of "christians" who were founding fathers. I did not in any way state that they were all Christians. In fact, I specifically held up Jefferson as someone who was not one.

Again, my argument is simply this. To state that all of the founding fathers, or even most of them, were theists, is to overstate the fact. To say that all of the founding fathers were "christians" is also incorrect. The truth lies somewhere in between. I don't think my point is very controversial, nor very difficult to grasp.

Re:Which way?

[bar-agent]

I don't think I'd trust Number 6 on the SCOTUS. Too little empathy. My pick for the 2005 SCOTUS Cyborg Hottie draft is Android 18.

Re:Which way?

[unitron]

It's time for someone to tell them "no, the Supreme Court does not have the final say, the Constitution is the final say".

Of course the catch here is that it is ultimately the Supreme Court that decides exactly what the Constitution says or what the meaning is of what the Constitution says.

Re:Which way?

[jadavis]

Of course it's an inherent failing in government: someone has to have power somewhere.

But the people have the ability to interpret the Constitution, too. If the SC says that the Constitution says the exact opposite of what the words mean, people may get pretty mad about the situation.

For instance, the SC has declared that a person growing marijuana plants on his own property and consuming them himself is engaging in "interstate commerce". Huh? I don't want those people to have the final say if that is the kind of ruling that they pull out of their ass. I can't figure out why more people aren't upset.

I suppose it's because they agree or disagree with the policy that the SC has made, rather than question why the SC is the one making policy. I disagree with any ruling that creates policy that is not apparent from the text itself, regardless of my feelings about the policy.

When a court misreads an Act of Congress, it's not so bad. Perhaps one case is harmed, and Congress can clarify the law. When the SC misreads the Constitution, how might that be corrected? You must wait for a new judicial landscape that is willing to overturn precedent in favor of the original text of the Constitution and it's Amendments. That could take decades, if it ever happens.

The Rule of Law is vital to a healthy society. People must be able to know in advance whether they are breaking the law or not. Uncertainty leads to frivilous lawsuits and persecution of the innocent ("We'll find a law you're breaking", or "We'll hire more expensive lawyers than you can afford", or "The risk you'll lose outweighs the settlement you can give me right now", or "It will cost you too much to defend yourselves").

Everyone is vulnerable. Corporations and companies are vulnerable to the uncertainty because a frivilous lawsuit may blindside them. A private individual might not have the resources to defend a lawsuit by a corporation.

Uncertainty in the courts is Rule by Man, which is bad. The most important thing for any society is the Rule of Law. I will support any cause, left, right, or center that supports the rule of law before I support any policy that diminishes the Rule of Law.

Nothing to worry about

[bigtallmofo]

With the spirit of common brotherhood that has been displayed in Washington lately (especially in the Senate), the confirmation of O'connor's replacement should go very smoothly.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[snarkasaurus]

Verily, it must be so. Right after the Dems poison all their opposition.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[RingDev]

You forgot the tags ;) -Rick

Re:Nothing to worry about

[EvilTwinSkippy]

With the spirit of common brotherhood that has been displayed in Washington lately (especially in the Senate), the confirmation of O'connor's replacement should go very smoothly.

And exactly how are they going to pull off that many assasinations simultaneously?

Re:Nothing to worry about

[interiot]

Are you really trying hard to beg the FBI to come knockin'?

Re:Nothing to worry about

[AKAImBatman]

And exactly how are they going to pull off that many assasinations simultaneously?

Load them all into the same bus?

Re:Nothing to worry about

[IceAgeComing]

I'm actually surprised at her retirement announcement. I haven't forgetten that the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on the 2000 Presidential Election, which effectively gave George W Bush the Presidency. From wikipedia:

O'Connor had been quoted by Newsweek magazine as expressing dismay to friends on the night of the election, when Al Gore was reported to have won several key states, and critics suggested that she did not want Gore to appoint her successor.

I would have thought that she'd at least wait until the next Presidential Election before retiring. After all, the Supreme Court has traditionally attempted to look as if it was not in the pocket of one or the other branch of federal government.

Another "impartial" institution bites the dust.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[ndansmith]

The sarcasm of parent has got a real point. I think that Bush's Supreme Court appointment(s) will be one of the defining political battles of recent time. Democrats in the Senate have violenty resisted Circuit Appellate Court nominees, and Bolton for UN ambassador. How much more will they fight the Republicans and President Bush if he nominates anyone but a moderate judge. Yes there will be great strife on the floor of the Senate in the coming months.

Of course, this all depends on who the President picks as a replacement. If he picks Alberto Gonzales (currently attourney general), all hell may break loose.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Or vice versa.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[learn fast]

It's going to go smoothly because one party can push through anything it wants.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Negadecimal]

If he picks Alberto Gonzales (currently attourney general), all hell may break loose.

Why? Gonzales would probably require less of a confirmation battle than any other candidate. He's not well liked by Republican leaders (for being too moderate on issues like abortion), and Bush's advisors are already recommending against it.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Negadecimal]

If he picks Alberto Gonzales (currently attourney general), all hell may break loose

Disregard my above comment... I see what you're getting at.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[lgw]

I would have thought that she'd at least wait until the next Presidential Election before retiring.

It seems to me like she did just that. Not wanting to be seen as choosing the president who whould choose her successor, she waited until the next election. It's not her fault the people wanted the same guy back. The SCOTUS had nothing to do with the 2004 elections.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[ChadN]

FWIW, I've seen Justice O'connor on television, nehemently denying she ever said that, or anything like that. Maybe she's a liar, maybe the news is reporting BS (no, really?). In any case, the court decision on the 2000 election was total garbage (as was the recent eminent domain one; In both cases I don't mean necessarily that the outcome was crap, but that the stated REASONS for deciding the outcome were crap)

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Hoarke42]

Call me crazy, but I don't think that quote's a big deal. I bet any of the judges toward the left side expressed dismay to friends on the night of the election when GWB won. I'm also sure there are critics who believe those judges do not want GWB to appoint their successors.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[linzeal]

Orbital bombardment would work but I don't think it is called assasination than.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[real gumby]

Gonzales....he'll go well with Chief Justice John Ashcroft.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[11223]

Don't worry. Senator Kennedy's driving!

Re:Nothing to worry about

[cpotoso]

The nomination process will be "fun" to watch... Oh, my!

Re:Nothing to worry about

[tsotha]

The Democrats may be overplaying their hand on this one. The Republicans have gone a long way in recent months toward laying the groundwork for ending the filibuster. If the Democrats aren't very careful in its application, they may may lose it forever.

I don't know who's making strategy on the Democratic side these days, but so far I'm not impressed. It would have been much smarter to go easy on the lower court judges and save the big guns for the Supreme Court.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[dpilot]

I say that the Democrats should take a stand, and if the Nuclear Option happens, it happens. Perhaps it will finally sound some sort of warning that things are getting badly skewed around Washington, and maybe the right-swinging pendulum will finally hit (slam against?) the stop.

As it appears to me, the "compromise" of a month or so back simply got a Bush appointee more easily confirmed, keeps the Nuclear Option available, and makes the Democrats look wishy-washy. I haven't personally checked... were ANY of the controversial nominations withdrawn? Did ANYTHING happen other than, "We won't go Nuclear, yet!" and another got confirmed? It didn't look like a compromise to me, just a measured appeasement.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Orbital bombardment would work but I don't think it is called assasination than.

No, I think you call that "A good start".

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans would be very foolish to end the filibuster. It's a tool they have used to good effect for many, many years. Remember, they weren't always the majority party, and they may not always remain as such.

Strategy concerns aside, I think the American people would be horrified if the nuclear option were invoked. We are a country that has always supported a divided government with proper separation of power, and a blatant power grab like this would not go over well.

There are only three, short periods (2 years each) where the White House and the Congress were of the same party. Interestingly, these are often viewed as some of the worst time periods for the governing party! It appears that neither side is good at reining in their extremists without the opposition to run interference.

Finally, for all the noise about the Democrats being a minority in the Senate, they represent a majority of people in the United States. From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A554 29-2005Mar21.html/:

"According to the Census Bureau's July 2004 population estimates, the 44 Democratic senators represent 148,026,027 people; the 55 Republican senators 144,765,157."

So there would suddenly be a lot of constituents who might be slightly pissed that they no longer have representation in the Senate.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[jwthompson2]

Not true. The dems need only convince some moderate Repubs to side with them and we could have a great show...I hope we see something like those legislatures in Asia have with the fist fights and furniture tossing...

I prefer Bush picking O'Connor's replacement in theory instead of Gore or Kerry...but at this stage I am actually kind of scared of what Bush may do. I'm not a fan of Christian Reconstructionist politics and the way Bush seems to blend that with Corpratism and Facist tendencies is somewhat troubling.

I want judges that rule on what the law says and who are willing to dismiss cases when the legislature needs to be the ones clarifying the law. Judges are not legislators, but someone apparently isn't teaching them that anymore and we are in a sad place because of that.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Aeron65432]

I disagree. I think regardless of who Bush chooses, the Democrats will fight, moderate or conservative.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Rayonic]

I think the American people would be horrified if the nuclear option were invoked.

Eh, the only reason the public pays attention to it as much as it does is because of the sinister name "nuclear option". If said option is ever used, I would expect the media to go crazy for a week or so, but the public wouldn't get enraged.

Because, in the end, each judge is still being voted on by the Senate. And using obscure rules to block the vote sounds kinda fishy on the face of it.

The Average Joe's reasoning will go: "If there a truly bad judge is nominated, some moderate Republicans will vote against him and that will be that." And I'm not sure I disagree with Average Joe this time around.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[hacctarr]

This is an extremely important time for our senators to hear from us. They need to know that we are counting on them to stand up to President Bush and protect our rights -- because with a moderate like O'Connor stepping down and a far-right like Bush making the nomination, well, the stakes couldn't be higher. The Terri Shiavo tragedy showed us all just how far these people are willing to go. MoveOn PAC has already started an emergency petition, and we're looking to get 250,000 signatures and comments to the Senate before Tuesday -- which is when rumor has it Bush will announce his nomination. I hope you can take a minute to join me in signing this petition, so our senators know that, in what might be the fight of our lives, we are need them to do what it takes to protect our rights. http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights Thanks!

Re:Nothing to worry about

[jafac]

How much more will they fight the Republicans and President Bush if he nominates anyone but a moderate judge. Yes there will be great strife on the floor of the Senate in the coming months.

It's not strife if the battle is one-sided. Praytell, what leverage do Dems have with which to fight? Bush can use stem-cells to reconstitute Joseph McCarthy, and nominate him, and there's not a damn thing Dems can do other than make noise over it. If you think FauxNews is going to give them more than 15 seconds of airtime to complain (only to be characterized as unpatriotic and obstructionist) then I've got some desert land in Afghanistan I'd like to sell you. . .

Re:Nothing to worry about

[admiralh]

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid has already sent President Bush a list of four Republican Senators who would be acceptable as SCOTUS Justices.

Reid's list: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo.

Also, it Bush would use the Senate Democrats for ADVICE (the constitution says, "Advice and consent", and pick a nominee according to the advice, that the Democrats also would not seriously oppose. (A few will, but not enough to block).

When Clinton was president and had a Dem majority in the Senate, Clinton still consulted with Orrin Hatch about who the nominee should be. Clinton was considering Bruce Babbitt, but Hatch said that there would be a fight. Hatch suggested Ginsberg, or Breyer, and Clinton ended up appointing both of them.

Democrats are simply expecting that Bush show the same respect to them that Clinton showed to the Repubs when the R's were in the minority.

But, considering the typical m.o. of the Bush Administration, if they ask the Dems for Advice, I'll next be seeing pigs flying over my house.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

That little thing about the Geneva Conventions being 'obsolete', maybe?

Re:Nothing to worry about

[SeventyBang]

It's not his driving which is suspect.

It's the quality of his swimming lessons.
(Isn't he due to recertify?)

And speaking of retiring, isn't about his turn? (With his Senate pension, he can have all of the cannolis he can eat and not be interrupted to show up for a vote.)

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Planesdragon]

If the Democrats aren't very careful in its application, they may may lose it forever.

Both houses of Congress have impressively low quorum rules. If the Republicans give the Democrats no reason to stay in Washington--i.e., by being hardcore party-line all the time--then the Democrats can simply withdraw from washington and campaign full-time.

Which, really, will mean that Republicans will lose both houses of Congress. If the Democrats go from "obstructionist" to "revolutionary", they'll win faster than if the Republicans required everyone to become a Scientologist.

And the Republicans were looking for a fight to get rid of the Filibuster--and the media's done a crappy job pointing out that Bush's "straight up or down vote" was never given any President's slate of nominees, party majority or not.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[tsotha]

Finally, for all the noise about the Democrats being a minority in the Senate, they represent a majority of people in the United States.

That's totally irrelevent. The Senate wasn't designed or ever intended to be a body elected by strict population representation. Whether people in the more populous states are upset is entirely beside the point. That's why we have the House of Representatives.

Also, your cite doesn't support your argument. The fact that Democratic Senators represent more people than Republican Senators doesn't give you any information about the relative numbers of Democrats and Republicans in the population.

So there would suddenly be a lot of constituents who might be slightly pissed that they no longer have representation in the Senate.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean to say people are only represented if they get their way? The Republicans are in the majority - they are simply exercising the powers of a majority party. My point was by overusing the filibuster the Democrats are starting to look petulant about losing the election - it gives the Republicans political cover to take it away.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

Chief Justice John Ashcroft ...Hmm, no that doesn't scare me, he is overly authoratarian in many respects, but he isn't a rash guy, nor generally a person known to be unfair & make judgements without hearing all of the facts.
I'm from Missouri and old enough to know what he did here. He is a staunch defender of religious freedom, the 2nd ammendment, strongly against affirmative action in every form. Where I would worry about Ashcroft is in his views on speech, in particular that which people consider obscene (he is an antiporn crusader), and some of the protections afforded in the 4th and 5th ammendment. In terms of social policy he is a real conservative. You wouldn't find him supporting the nanny state on things like forced drugging, or school boards forcing kids into psychiatrist offices, or family services taking children because you wont give them ritalin. I think if he had it in is way to do it, he might actually restore some of the gravely missing lack of constitutional protections missing from family court. Extreme? Yes in some respects, but no more extreme than Ruth, and his extremeness is probably less destructive to the fabric of the nation.

When they put him in the justice dept, they asked him to push it as far as it could be pushed and worry about the constitutionality later, and that is what he did.

I've met him, I've disagreed with many things, but if I he was a judge in a civil court I would be thrilled to have him whether I was suing or being sued. If I had him in a family court mater, I would be thrilled as well. If I had him in a criminal court, I might be a bit concerned depending on which side of the law I was on & the facts - but his tendency would always be to allow more facts in rather than exclude them.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[SA Stevens]

If the Democrats go for 'obstuctionist' to 'revolutionary' they will be thrown out on their ear. Politicians already have a hard time staying credible without transforming directly into the shyster 'used car salesman' bombasts many voters suspect them from being. A 'no work gets done' Democratic wing of congress would find itself unelected quickly.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Planesdragon]

If the Democrats go for 'obstuctionist' to 'revolutionary' they will be thrown out on their ear.

If they did it without provocation, yes.

But, as I said, if the Republicans make it so that the Democrats can do longer do ANYTHING--i.e., every act of congress gets decided on well before it goes to Congress, by the Republicans, and debate is no longer even possible--then they would be smart to make that fact as public as possible, by refusing to participate in the farce of a system.

Note that this won't happen, because the last thing even the most idiotic republican wants is to make Howard Dean 100% right about them--and that means that they need to keep the Democrats in Washington.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed the same thing. Personally, I hope "the nuclear option" is eventually envoked. In the future when the ballance of power between the Republicans and Democrats has shifted once again then the Republicans won't be able to use the filibuster, as they have traditionally done in the 30 some years past when they were in the minority.

Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[corn52283]

We all saw the battle with Bush's other nominations, let's see how badly he can piss the democrats off this time... and if his pick is as bad as John Bolton or Condoleeza Rice, we'll be hearing about it for a good long time... As for Rehnquist, if he retires, that's not just a seat to fill, they need to fill the head seat as well

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[PaxTech]

What's so bad about Condoleeza Rice? You'd think people would be impressed by a strong black woman from Alabama rising from poverty to become Secretary of State.

<sarcasm>Oh right. Sorry. She's a Republican, which makes her a deluded tool of the system. We all know she couldn't have come by her opinions honestly, they're fed to her by BushCoRoveHitler.</sarcasm>

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You managed to write several sentences and dozens of words to say absolutely nothing.

Bravo. Your comment was entirely useless fluff stating the obvious. I hope some mod not paying attention rewards you for your (lack of) hard work.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Tweak232]

He dosn't only pis off the democrats. With a republican majority, it is more of a battle between moderates and conservatives, as opossed to democrats vs republicans.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[stankulp]

As for Rehnquist, if he retires, that's not just a seat to fill, they need to fill the head seat as well

The obvious choice for Chief Justice is Clarence Thomas. :^D

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Trifthen]

This isn't just about pissing off Democrats. With two branches of the government controlled by a single party, and SCOTUS heading that way, what's left to maintain the "checks and balances" so carefully built into the system by our founders?

Everyone should be leery at the implications of this. As a Libertarian, this really scares me.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to stereotype, Rice is hardly from a poor family.
According to the New Yorker profile,
She was an only child, born to older ..., well-established parents, with a large supporting cast of relatives in addition to the community itself, and a long-standing family tradition of ambition and education.
-- kieran hervold

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

Ok, here goes some karma, since I know most of the folks here tend to be on the left side of the asile...

I don't think Bush can mess up the SCOTUS any more than it is already. Please don't forget that it was the left leaning justices who gave your local officials the right to take your property if they deem it to be in the public interest. And I believe most local public officals can be easily purchased by a WalMart looking for a new home.
Nice job SCOTUS.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Procrastin8er]

I'll bet Bush will nominate someone far less controversial than Bolton, it will be a "change up" that no one will expect.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Santos L. Halper]

When the founding fathers were alive and running the country, there were no policial parties at first. They all had similar enough beliefs that they didn't need different parties. It could be argued that that was the same thing as single party rule. And the checks and balances (and the country) survived just fine.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Um, sorry to bother you with facts, but Condi is bad because she was really bad at her job as National Security Advisor.

Example 1: 9/11, and intelligence agencies not playing well together. That's her job. Example 2: Ignoring Richard Clarke. Example 3: No WMDs in Iraq. Example 4: Allowing DoD to ignore State's reconstruction plans, completely screwing up the postwar.

Also, middle class is not poverty. You seem both very race-focused and very ignorant of Condi's background. She's apparently a trained classical pianist as well as an ice skater. Both of these are impressive accomplishments, but they don't mean she'll be good as Secretary of State. Talent is not fungible.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Hey, Bush is pretty good at pissing Republicans off too. If it was simply a matter of getting past the Democrats, Bush's folks would have sailed through. The GOP is making it pretty hard for Republican drones to follow the party line and still be electable.

Just look at Santorum.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this guy that would make a great choice. Should be an interesting confirmation, too: Robert Bork.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[databyss]

Judging by his past big appointments, it'll be a person who must've said at one time or another that the justice system is bogus and we could do without it.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Trifthen]

Which is actually part of the problem. Once you have party affiliation, you have obligations you need to fulfill, loyalties that need to be maintained. Stray too far from the party line, and you're toast. Few politicians will take this risk, and so the band plays on.

I wish we *didn't* have political parties, but it's a little late for that; the barn door on that has long since rotted away.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Make up your mind.

Do you want activist judges or do you want judges who follow the law?

You don't like the Kelo case - you shouldn't. But the remedy is not at the federal court level; there's no case law or precedent to support it.

Most states already prohibit these kind of takings - you know, the kind of taking of private land that made Bush millions of bucks when it was done in Texas. The rest of the states should follow suit, but it would be legislating from the bench if the Supremes would have done it..

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[snorklewacker]

> Oh right. Sorry. She's a Republican, which makes her a deluded tool of the system.

Of course her color makes it impossible for her to actually be a tool of the system. In no way do I think she's deluded, no sir. This strong, accomplished, and intelligent black woman from Alabama quite knowingly lied to Congress in the runup to Iraq. She of course is above criticism, especially when backed by such bigoted racist source material like actual facts.

God bless America, land of opportunity.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Rahga]

"it'll be a person who must've said at one time or another that the justice system is bogus and we could do without it."

Assuming we are talking about the courts in their current state... AWESOME! It's about time we had someone grounded in reality. :)

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

damn. That has to sting. Good work.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone rate down this racist crap. PaxTech, you are a bigot.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[donutello]

The "checks and balances" are not about right wing v/s left wing. The "checks and balances" refer to the job of the SCOTUS to prevent the legislature from making laws that violate the constitution. Period. We shouldn't be having "rightist" or "leftist" judges at all. We should be having Constructionists - i.e. those who rule based on what the law is, not what they want the law to be.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant to say grounded in chrisitanity right?

Cause that's what we're gonna get.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

Ok, so let me make sure I understand what you're saying:

Leftist judges are not activists, it is the right who tries to rewrite laws from the bench?
So, the Kelo case is upholding the constitution?
And... it's all BUSH'S fault. It's always Bush's fault. The left has been crying for 5 freakin' years. Guess what, if the left was a bit more motivated, you could have Kerry in there selling shit to China like Clinton did, and you'd be happy.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[beanlover]

I agree...and I would add it's the job of the legislature to enumerate laws to counteract invalid interpretations of the law by the SC such as the eminent domain ruling (which congress is already I am pretty sure).

B

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Talondel]

but it would be legislating from the bench

No, as Justice O'Connor said in her dissent, it would have been upholding the 'Public Use' clause of the Constitution.

For what it's worth, I agree that if you want to see change to ED law now the way to do it is through state law. Not because that's what the constitution says, but becuase that's the only tool the SCOTUS left us.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[jfengel]

Actually, the obvious choice is Scalia; he's got seniority over Thomas. Stevens has even more seniority but he's too liberal for Bush.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Talondel]

And before someone even says it, public benefit != public use. The court was wrong.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[stankulp]

Seniority? I didn't know SCOTUS justices had a union rep?

Seriously, Clarence is MY choice. He actually considers the United States Constitution in his opinions, and not as a "living document."

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[donutello]

... and Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade was made on a shaky foundation. It was a clearly bizarre interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately the only way to preserve the right to abortions is to either amend the constitution or continue to keep the SCOTUS stacked with judges who support abortion rights and who are willing to disregard what the constitution says. Unfortunately, it is too hard to amend the constitution and even though a majority of the people support abortion rights, it is virtually impossible to get such an amendment through. This issue is important enough to enough people that we will continue to have people oppose constructionists and support activist judges for this reason alone.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Most federal judges are republican appointees; if you're upset at the federal judiciary, you're upset at republicans.

"Judicial activism" is code for "decisions we don't like". Bush v. Gore was judicial activism. Unplugging Terry Schiavo's feeding tube wasn't.

I didn't say Kelo was Bush's fault (unlike you, who tried to blame things on Clinton). I merely pointed out that Bush has been a major benefactor of eminent domain abuse. If you are upset at Kelo, you should be upset at that, too. If you aren't you're a hypocrite.

BTW, turn off Fox News once in a while. Although Clinton was blamed for technology transfers, China already had that tech - thanks to GHWB. Also, do you remember a little spy plane incident involving China and US technology being stolen?

Heck, even those lefties at Judicial Watch are unhappy at Bush's behavior with China.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[PaxTech]

If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.

Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[beanlover]

Actually, there is another way...but it's a lot harder to get to than keeping the SC stacked.

We need to restore State's rights. States are currently "hamstrung" by the feds because the feds have the money and money=power. The income tax is an illegal direct tax (except that the feds SAY it's not a direct tax...so it's not direct by definition even though it is). The feds dangle the money out there and the states jump through hoops to get it. These hoops are usually along the lines of "the legal blood-alcohol limit in your state should be 0.8. You can make it higher, but if you do we won't give you money for roads."

The money the feds have rightly belongs to the citizens of the states. If the states want to tax the citizens then then can. The states should then forward cash to the feds, based on population, to support the military and other stuff. That way if the state I live in legalizes abortion and I don't like abortion (I don't) then I can move to a state where abortion is illegal. Citizens can vote with their feet...and where their feet are their money goes.

The federal income tax is at the root of the problems in our country IMO. It needs abolished.

Control should be from the bottom, up...not the top, down. Citizens elect local and state officials. State governments should go back to appointing Sentators and the citizens get represented by the House folks we directly elect. Since we elect the state goverment officials we indirectly control who the senators are anyway and are ultimately in control.

*sigh* If only we could get back to that...

B

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, since the Democratic party has no strong, intelligent black women. Idiot.

Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil. Condi Rice can tell Congress that no one could have expected planes to be flown into buildings - after the X-Files, Tom Clancy, and antimissile defenses at Genoa - and get promoted.

By the way, Jocelyn Elders worked as a maid to support herself while in college. I think her background is a wee bit more humble than Condi Rice's.

Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.

So it's partisan to expect a political appointee to be competent at their job, or to demonstrate some understanding of what that is?

Or is it just partisan to assign responsibility to Republicans?

Or is Richard Clarke - a man who served under four presidents, three Republican - 'partisan'

Or does saying "partisan" allow you to turn your brain off and ignore criticism?

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[PaxTech]

Fine. I stand corrected on the poverty issue. I knew about the ice skating, and the classical piano. Rice is also an expert on the former Soviet Union.

I find Ms. Rice to be very impressive, and I find your "facts" against her to be highly partisan interpretations of events. I believe that if Rice were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the second coming of MLK.

I'm not even going to get into the whole Iraq thing, it just isn't worth it. Those who cry about "no WMDs" generally aren't worth trying to educate about the war beyond their strict viewpoint. I used to think liberals cared about human rights, but not when human rights are promoted by a Republican apparently.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[jfengel]

Sorry; different modes of communication. I was making a prediction about what is likely to happen, not what I think should happen.

Seniority is not an absolute rule; for all I know he'll appoint somebody who's not even a lawyer. It happens. And in Bush's case his strategy may well be to pick the younger man, to make his influence last longer. But I think the money is on Scalia.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[PaxTech]

Jocelyn Elders is your comparison point? Sorry but a Surgeon General hardly compares to a former National Security Advisor and current Secretary of State.

When Clinton named Madeline Albright Secretary Of State, the media fell all over themselves praising him for picking a woman. Bush picks Rice and all anyone heard was crickets chirping.

As an aside, why is is that whenever I argue with liberals on Slashdot, they immediately get personal and call me names? Does calling your opponents idiots ever actually bring anyone around to your point of view? The predictability of it is almost humorous to me at this point.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Hoarke42]

even though a majority of the people support abortion rights

I'm gonna have to ask for a good citation for this before I buy it. The most recent numbers I've seen, IIRC, was ~60/40 against abortion (though I admittedly don't have a citation, I'm at least giving the notification that I don't have the numbers and not giving it as gospel).

Otherwise, I agree that the decision was on shaky constitutional foundation.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[d34thm0nk3y]

I don't think Bush can mess up the SCOTUS any more than it is already. Please don't forget that it was the left leaning justices who gave your local officials the right to take your property if they deem it to be in the public interest. And I believe most local public officals can be easily purchased by a WalMart looking for a new home.

What a pointless partisan attack. Don't you forget the the one resigning is one of the people who wrote the most scathing rebuttals.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[hackstraw]

Um, sorry to bother you with facts, but Condi is bad because she was really bad at her job as National Security Advisor.

Example 1: 9/11, and intelligence agencies not playing well together. That's her job. Example 2: Ignoring Richard Clarke. Example 3: No WMDs in Iraq. Example 4: Allowing DoD to ignore State's reconstruction plans, completely screwing up the postwar.

Um, do you think that she was appointed by accident?

I believe that all 4 of those examples are why she is _good_ at her job (according to Bush, et al).

How much controversy or stir could a black woman in the US cause at that level? I'm not saying that to be racist or sexist, but I'm saying that a white male would feel a little bit more comfortable going against the status quo than she is.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... If by `at first' you mean `the first few months'. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans formed very quickly after the ratification of the Constitution.

I would point out, however, that the Federalist papers included a paper that explained why parties (or factions, as they called them) were a BAD IDEA. Whaddaya know? They were right.

This is also why anyone who disagrees with state election of Senators (which is no longer the case, of course) and the electoral college should give the Federalist papers a good read-through. They thought about this stuff. A lot.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when exactly were human rights given as the cause for going to war?

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? that didn't make any sense whatsoever. Why don't you get you head out of your ass long enough to say something intelligent, rather than come off as an ignorant partisan who is only interested in being anti-bush?

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, Albright was a much better candidate and more effective Sec. of State than Rice is. I say that based on their relative personality/social/emotional intelligence. When it comes to more logical or technical issues, my money's on Rice. I mean, I think I would make a better Sec. of State than Condi Rice, but I don't think I would make a good one. So much of the modern role of Sec. of State is social and ego massaging. For full disclosure, I am a centrist.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

You assume too much, which I find to be a failing of the leftist/elitists.

I am apalled at all sports franchises augmenting their earnings at the general public's expense. What Bush was involved in does irritate me, along with his refusal to secure the southern border, and his refusal to address offshoring our manufacturing base to a communist country.

Unlike a reflexive leftist Bush basher, I can see the good he's done too. The war on terror is good, I know that can be debated, but I'm on board with it. I do think the country needs a little more conservative balance. So, a conservative judge works for me.
Either party is filled with people that are detestable, despicable, and don't care about us. Do you think Ted Kennedy is a good guy? Did Hillary Clinton have a hand in travelgate, or make any money on cattle futures or whitewater?
Judicial activism is not code. It's how you see things. Leftist judges often refer to the Constitution as a living document, meant to be interpreted as they see fit, in a given context. Most on the right don't see it that way. That is the real difference.
As for my source of information... again, you assume, and you know what happens when you assume. Yes, I watch Fox. I also watch MSNBC, and occassionally CNN. I read Drudge, and FreeRepublic and DU, and slashdot, and CNN online, and follow links to NYT, Washinton Post, Akron Beacon Journal, etc.
Oh, I forgot, the liberal elitist in you assumes I am a knuckle dragger who can barely read, watches Fox and regurgitates everything they tell me.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

I'm saying that a white male would feel a little bit more comfortable going against the status quo than she is.

Actually, there is a (to me, reasonable) argument that women are more likely to be whistleblowers than men.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[linzeal]

Race has less of an impact on how society views politicians more than ever in the US. I don't think we should be championing anyone because of their race.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Rasta Prefect]

Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.

What, exactly, was partisan about what the grand parent said? Just because she's a Republican does not make any criticism of her wrong. All of the things he sited represent serious problems related to national security that occured during her tenure as the national security advisor. It's not partisan - She really was bad at her job.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

the liberal elitist in you assumes I am a knuckle dragger who can barely read, watches Fox and regurgitates everything they tell me.

Yeah, because Hillary Clinton lost money on Whitewater. And she was cleared on "travelgate", which was a non-scandal to begin with. It is true she made some improbable cash on pork futures. Both major parties are corrupted by cash in this country, but Hillary's financial sins pale in comparison to, oh, Duke Cunningham. Or Tom Delay. Oh well, you can take the girl out of the Republican party, but...

you know what happens when you assume.

Yeah, I think you're an ass for citing that idiotic saw, particularly because you are a Fox news watcher, and you were pig-ignorant repeating Fox propaganda in your response to me. To return your saw, "If the shoe fits..."

If right wingers believe that the consitution should only be interpreted in the context it was written, then why did the righties on the Supreme Court get involved in Bush v. Gore? That was clearly a matter for the state and the House of Representatives to resolve.

Also, if the Constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, and the right wing feels that the constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted based on situations, why is the right wing upset they can't detain brown people forever and torture them? It violates the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, both of which are the law of the land, according to the Constitution...

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

We detain "brown people", be specific... Arab muslims because we are at war. You are a spineless coward, and fortunately, you and your ilk are left to impotently railling on the internet, snobbishly telling others how superior they are from mommie's basement.
It's with great pleasure that I inform you that George Bush is indeed your president. And that another conservative will be installed on the supreme court. I also would like to let you know, that it is people like me, who make decisions for people like you.
I know, you'll say: bad descisions. Fine. Don't like it? Shower up, pack your things, and go to Canada. Otherwise, keep living with the decisions we pig-ignorant people make for you.
You slobbering wanker.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Okay, if we're at war, and I'm a spineless coward, I assume you're posting this from a military base (presumably in Iraq)? Because if you're not, you're a hypocrite.

I notice that you couldn't defend any of the mistakes you made. Boy, being wrong gets you mad, huh? Strange how getting mad doesn't mysteriously make you righter.

The Red Cross estimates that 80% of the people rounded up in Abu Ghraib were innocent. I'm a coward because I disagree with torturing innocent people? Truly, you are the more patriotic American.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[DavidTC]

This is why I think Roe vs. Wade was one of the dumbest moves in a long time, and protecting it is dumber still.

It's made the left compromise on so many things. And created this huge movement on the right eventually leading us to where we are now, religious control of a large part of the electorate.

One damn single issue that's simply not that important.

If it had been ignored, most states would have legalized it by now, and people living in Alabama and Mississippi would just have to go to another state.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[mmkkbb]

According to various things I have read/heard on the radio, promotions of that sort are extremely rare, and appointing someone new as Chief Justice is mroe likely.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

because you're a douchebag.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[whats_a_zip]

I didn't point by point reply because I realize I'm dealing with an immature elitist. Even if I did... would it matter to you, you've already told me you think I'm pig ignorant. And I've decided you are a spineless wanker.

But, in case any one comes across this... the Clintons lost money one whitewater, but there were enough irregularities to make a soap opera plot. Susan McDougal went to jail because she refused to testify against the Clintons. You don't find that odd? A fraudlent federal loan, billing records from RodhamClinton's law office that disappeared and magically reappeared. I think there's enough there that would have put joe sixpack away for a long time. Sure she was cleared of that, and of travelgate.
And OJ was acquitted, and so was Micheal Jackson. And so was Richard Scrushy, (Healthsouth). And so was Ted Kennedy. Money is what makes this country and the world go around.
If repeating or using language devices such as "old saws" makes you an idiot, then I'll go with that, along with most other people in the country. Geez what a picky, stupid thing to get seize upon. The mark of someone who's reaching.
I never said I agreed with the ruling in Bush v. Gore. You assume again, you moron. Do all your elected officials, or all leftist judges do exactly as you'd have them do?
You switch places, can't you keep it straight? First you complain of Gitmo, then you bring up Abu Ghraib. It's a good thing losers like you have people like me to protect you. The Red Cross is not the ultimate authority. And the "torture" that was dished out, how does that compare to decapitation and car bombing women and children? Again, misplaced priorities. You get your talking points straight from MoveOn.org. You need to branch out and get some more information.
Finally, I did my time in the miliary, not that I intended to play that card, but you called me on it. And you? You probably still wet the bed.
Bah. Go away, I tire of your meaningless prattle.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Yes, terrorists commiting crimes in Iraq that is worse than what the US is doing. Arguing that makes US abuses OK is "moral relativism". I thought conservatives were against that, or am I "assuming" things again?

You don't think that Gitmo is related to Abu Ghraib? Obviously you aren't aware of the connections. Then again, why should you be? You've demonstrated your ignorance on just about every topic so far.

If you were in the military, sign up and go back. What is this "did my time" stuff? Unless you're missing a limb, you want this war, you go fight it. You aren't "protecting" me from jack and squat, you and your big manly "move to canada" whine. You also aren't making decisions; you're taking the crap that's being fed to you and liking it.

You said that the right wing judges didn't believe in a living constitution. I disproved it. I never said you had to agree with it, I was disproving your argument. It's pretty clear you're not up on logic more complex than grunting.

You're just flinging a whole bunch of whiny crap in the air and running away with your tail between your legs. I'm posting facts and cites, disproving your arguments, and all you can say is "the red cross is not the final arbiter" and yelping away? Talk about a spineless coward.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Dirtside]

Please don't forget that it was the left leaning justices who gave your local officials the right to take your property if they deem it to be in the public interest.

Bullshit. Local governments have had the right to do this for centuries; don't tell me you've never heard of eminent domain before. What the Kelo decision did was lower the bar for using eminent domain. Before, only areas that qualified as "blight" (which was, unfortunately, a rather subjective term) could be seized under eminent domain. But they could still be seized and then sold to private developers under a "turn this into something beneficial" contract.

Now, the "blight" restriction is gone, but the seizing still has to be in the public interest. Yeah, it means rich people can have their property seized too, not just poor people. Of course, rich people have the money to fight this, so... in reality, not much has really changed.

At first I panicked and thought Kelo was much worse than it really is, but then I looked into it, and read up a bit on eminent domain.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm not even going to get into the whole Iraq thing, it just isn't worth it. Those who cry about "no WMDs" generally aren't worth trying to educate about the war beyond their strict viewpoint. I used to think liberals cared about human rights, but not when human rights are promoted by a Republican apparently.

You're right, it's not worth going into Iraq with someone who posts a comment like that. But since you brought it up and you're so fond of human rights as promoted by a Republican, perhaps you could explain to the numerous "allies" of the US why you're still holding their citizens without trial or charge in Gitmo, under conditions that independent international agencies have repeatedly condemned?

I'm sure the war on terror is bringing many rights to the people of places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though. After all, the former is now run outright by warlords, and senior members of your own armed forces are on record as saying they can't actually enforce international laws there because they might upset those warlords and they need their support. And conditions in Iraq are now worse in many ways than they were before the US-forced invasion, even ignoring the thousands killed as a result of that action who would otherwise be alive today.

Don't kid yourself about how much you're improving life for those in those countries, or "spreading democracy", or "fighting the war on terror", or whatever political weasel-words are being used today to justify a flagrant violation of international law that the US government gets away with by virtue of having more guns than anyone else and for no other reason. Those of us outside the US apparently get to see a much more balanced range of interviews with Iraqi civilians than you guys do -- it's probably covered by BBC news and documentaries several times a month even now -- and many of the comments are pretty damning. The interviews with government officials and military spokespeople, particularly those from the US, that they show right before/after the interviews with Iraqis make very sad viewing. If you thought Comical Ali was good, these guys are really top notch. It would be hilarious, if you weren't talking about ruining the lives of millions of people.

This is what happens when you put someone like Bush at the top, and let him bring people like Rumsfeld, and Cheney, and Rice with him. And the scariest thing is the people who buy it, and even voted for him a second time. You guys really have no clue how bad your international reputation really is right now, but I take comfort in the fact that you'll pay for it dearly in the coming years, all the more so if Bush gets to appoint not one but probably two new Supreme Court Justices during his second term. Sadly, all the US citizens who didn't vote for Bush will pay along with you, and the only thing the rest of us can do for them is offer sympathy.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[SacredNaCl]

Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil.

Elders wasn't canned for that, she was canned for suggesting marijuana was a public health issue that should be addressed there and not in the legal system, and for stating it probably wasn't very harmful. Even bringing up the idea of discussing a different approach to drug policy was enough for the Clinton administration to pull the rug on her.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[jkarlin]

This is from an article on cnn.com

"A poll this week found 65 percent of Americans want a new Supreme Court justice to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, while 29 percent want the decision overturned."

They do not cite where the poll is from, which is odd, but this sounds like another poll I saw a few months ago.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Race has less of an impact on how society views politicians more than ever in the US. I don't think we should be championing anyone because of their race. It seems to matter to the AA-Quota Counters, as does sex. The same folks who support that nonsense will get up and say "Racism is wrong" while signing on to government sponsored policies that actively discriminate! Then create other mystical "protected groups", what? Are they trial lawyers?

I wish this nonsense would go away and we would do away with the whole AA, political correctness, special protected classes, sexual harassment pit of subsidy for lawyers.

Of course, to suggest that they call you a racist. Racism & racist are really only a propaganda terms to attempt to stifle honest discussion about racial issues. You can bet if Bush nominates his Latino buddy from Texas that it will be an issue, each of those parties wants that 1/7 of the populations vote and will pander endlessly. Why do you think he granted amnesty to illegals & wont do anything to close the border or stem the stampede there? Just like policitians in California will bend over backwards beyond all reasonableness not to lose those votes. They know the next wave of 'amnesty' will come again & again.

I'm pretty sickened with the whole thing honstly. But I know both classes of politician will be out there creating new protected classes of them, and special privledges, or just not enforcing the law at the expense of everyone else, including the legal immigrants who come here & legal guest workers.

Its not just bread & butter, its crime too. When you can't go into a national park without dealing with armed Mexican gangs protecting their 20,000 plant marijuana grow on public lands, and have your insurance rates for your home and car go up because of who the illegals who move into your neighborhood, and start having to curtail more often when & where your children are allowed to play ... Nothing like being in the middle of a black and latino gang war! Hate crimes indeed...'Cept you never hear about it, the justice dept classifies them as "white" so it obscures the crime data for both white and latinos.

No one wants to touch it, or talk about it. Mexico is right now shelting a cop killer, because they know we would likely give him the execution he deserves for it. What do the politicians care? They can afford to live behind iron gated communities with cameras and security guards and secret service and police details assigned to them where these things are only abstract concepts. The neighborhood I live in now was fantastic 10 years ago, but I'm watching for sale signs go up right & left, businesses pull out, and in a town where we didn't have a murder for 75 years we had 15 of them last year, our first home invasion, a kidnapping, and way too many auto thefts. Our new 'illegal' (and more than half of them are) residents are not improving the neighborhood that I can tell (other than enriching the coffers of western union, which now has a line around the block on Friday evening and Saturday morning to send money home.) These are not folks who will stay, not many of them, so they have no incentive to care about this place, and the ones that do through "amnesty" programs are not usually so great either. Yes, saying that simple truth that anyone can see, and watching anyone walking down certain streets here with now a certain amount of uneasiness they don't feel a few dozen blocks away ... Yes, must just be a racist, we can end the discussion there.

If I was in the senate I would vet those justices, but abortion isn't the thing on my mind - the border is what is on my mind...

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really so well able to judge her abilities as a Secretary of State after she's only held the position for a few months? I bet Madeline Albright didn't do too much in her first few months in office either....

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[bluGill]

While I don't agree with the hold of prisoners in Cuba, that does not violate the Geneva convention because these prisoners never were covered by it - they (their government) did not sign such a thing.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[linzeal]

European americans are politically diverse because of the amount of time they have had in the political process here. Blacks are still a block vote for democrats for the most part and until that changes politicians will be treating them as a race not an ideology.

In 10 years or less conservative white christians and african and arabian muslims in this country will be on the same side, I bet. The increase in what they percieve as moral decay is like one of the harbinger of the apocolypse. If gay marriage rears its pretty head with product at the national level you can bet every religious nutter but the orthodox jews will be holding hands in the republican party.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Straif]

Just a small point about the "independent international agencies". I wouldn't put too much weight into their opinions of Gitmo since, in the case of Amnesty International (the most recent 'independant' group to speak out) their own executive director has admitted to their having little actual knowledge as to any abuse there and has basicly stated their 'gulag' accusations were more of a PR stunt.

Of the nearly 400 separate media visits (with over 1,000 journalists)and 181+ congressional representatives who have visited GITMO (including last weeks visit by a bi-partisan congressional group), I have yet to see any reporting anything that rises to the level of 'torture' or even any serious complaints by the prisoners (unless you include the 5 cases where Korans were mishandled).

As for the lack of trials, as most detainees are considered more on the grounds of prisoners of war and not criminals they cannot therefore be given a criminal trial. On the other hand each detainee has been given a military hearing to determine their status which resulted in several (at least 38) being released. Of course of those 38, about a dozen have be either recaptured or killed during further acts of violence on their part.

On the Iraq front, the latest casulty report's I've seen put 'civilian' deaths around 26,000. Even going from the conservative numbers of how many people Saddam made dissapear in an average year (25,000), there are more people alive today in Iraq than would have been at this time under Saddams rule.

As for the spread of democracy, where have you been hiding your head lately. More countries than ever have begun allowing their people (or in some cases more of their people) to elect or be elected as representatives. While many are only for local positions, others such as Kuwait (unless you missed them allowing women the right to vote and them appointing the first ever female cabinet minister) are much more substantial. Even a recent poll of Iranians show that 74% believe that the US presence in Iraq will help them move from a theocracy to a full fledged democracy.

You may wish to sit there and spout off about how the US is single handedly destroying the world but the facts just do not back you up. And don't try accusing me just standing up for my country. I do not now, nor have I ever lived in the United States.

On a final note, using the BBC as an example of international reporting was a poor choice. They have so much trouble with bias reporting in Iraq that their Chairman was forced to resign not too long ago.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Of the nearly 400 separate media visits (with over 1,000 journalists)and 181+ congressional representatives who have visited GITMO (including last weeks visit by a bi-partisan congressional group), I have yet to see any reporting anything that rises to the level of 'torture' or even any serious complaints by the prisoners (unless you include the 5 cases where Korans were mishandled).

Perhaps you should talk to the ones who've been released? The things they described weren't exactly flattering, and I'm not talking about flushing a holy book down the toilet. We just had reports yesterday about prisoners being forced to listen to Harry Potter for hours to break down their resistance to interrogation. There have also been reports of stress positions, confinement in darkness, and various other common methods that most people would call "torture".

As for the lack of trials, as most detainees are considered more on the grounds of prisoners of war and not criminals they cannot therefore be given a criminal trial.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. They're being deemed "enemy combatants", which conveniently means that they receive neither criminal trials nor the protections afforded to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention. Their presence in a US-run facility that is not actually on US-soil has been used as a means to circumvent the US court system on several occasions, although at the last count IIRC the Supreme Court had come down against that.

On the other hand each detainee has been given a military hearing to determine their status which resulted in several (at least 38) being released.

Well, that's OK then. Several British citizens were held against their will for years, without charge or trial, and then released to the British authorities. Those authorities immediately released the former detainees without charge, despite presumably being shown any evidence the US had to justify detaining them in the first place. Do you really not see anything wrong with that?

Oh, and by the way: 38 down, around 600 to go.

On the Iraq front, the latest casulty report's I've seen put 'civilian' deaths around 26,000.

Even if that figure is accurate, what's the quality of life like for the remainder? How many more are dying every day?

As for the spread of democracy, where have you been hiding your head lately. More countries than ever have begun allowing their people (or in some cases more of their people) to elect or be elected as representatives.

Just out of interest, are you including Iraq within that group?

Even a recent poll of Iranians show that 74% believe that the US presence in Iraq will help them move from a theocracy to a full fledged democracy.

Is that the same Iran that just elected a hardline religious leader to run the country?

On a final note, using the BBC as an example of international reporting was a poor choice. They have so much trouble with bias reporting in Iraq that their Chairman was forced to resign not too long ago.

You need to do a little more research again, I'm afraid. The two senior staff at the BBC resigned, despite widespread support from within the organisation and after a lengthy public stand-off with the government, after one of their reporters said something that couldn't be backed up at the time, prompting the suicide of a government scientist who was found to have leaked information. The reporter who supplied that story also resigned.

That report was subsequently shown to be correct, and the reporter vindicated.

Public confidence in the BBC actually rose after that incident, which demonstrated that its staff right up to the top level were prepared to challenge the government and stand by their claims, even if they unjustly lost their jobs as a result.

I'll take news from the BBC over just about any other major news network any day, thanks.

Re:Replacing O'Connor will be tough...

[Straif]

The Al Qaeda Training Manual retrieved from a raid in Manchester clearly states that all operatives, when ever giving a public voice, are to claim abuse at the hands of their captives. Several of the detaineees who have made those claims have also publically recanted. But of course, the word of a person captured attempting (or after having succeeded) in trying to kill civilians or military personel is to be trusted above all.

And technically, under the Geneva Convention, the prisoners are unlawful combatants meaning under international law the US were permitted to execute them on site (as was a regular occurence during the world wars). I was simply referring to the fact that they are being treated as POWs with respect to the fact that they are not being criminally charged and will be confined until the 'war' is over. Whether that will be when the WOT ends (which would probably mean life) or when fighting in the coutry they were working in officially ceases (at which point they will most likely be turned over the the ruling government). As I've already stated, as pseudo-POWs they may not have broken any laws in their home countries so may not be subject to criminal law there. If a Jamaican goes to Iraq to fight Americans has he broken any Jamaican law?

As for quality of life. From what I have seen from Iraqi reporters and bloggers who are there (as opposed to most international reporters who spend their time inside hotels in Bagdad and only report second hand stories), they seem to be doing better . Electricity production is already above what they had under Saddam, and since the coalition forces are bringing up such support systems accross the courtry and not just in a couple cities as Saddam did, many more Iraqis have access than ever before. Same goes for the hundreds of schools opened up post Saddam. So if you live in dowtown Bagdad, while things are improving they may still be slightly below what you had under Saddms rule (which was disproportionally good compared to the rest of Iraq), if you live almost anywhere else, things are almost guarenteed to be better.

I'm not sure I get what your "are you including Iraq within that group" questions even means but yes, I included (but don't limit the numbers to) the 7 million+ Iraqis who for the first time in generations were able to see more on their ballot besides: Saddam y/n. What about it?

And yes it is the same Iran. It's also the same Iran under which the only people able to run for public office under the current system have to be picked by the Mullahs first. Hardly a true democracy. Who do you think they are going to allow to run? A true reformer?

On the bias topic, guess which documentary company had a nice little film about the neo-con movement in the US in which the narrator said this: "This is a highly sensitive issue, the majority of neo-conservatives have been and remain Jewish ... are strongly pro-Zionist and want to topple regimes in the Middle East to help Israel...". If you guessed the BBC you'd be smack on. And according to Honestreporting.com, of 17 Israel centered docs the BBC made in the past 4 years, 16 have portrayed them in a negative light. I've actually seen a couple of these and I can honestly say, of the ones I saw, they couldn't have been more biased if Michael Moore was making them.

Still on the Israeli front, in news broadcasts they've shown stock footage of injured palestinians being carried to hospital when discussing an attack in which the only thing hit was an empty building (something they forgot to mention). In other words, NO ONE was injured but they showed injured civilians anyway.

Prior to the recent elections in Britian, the BBC even went so far as to send hecklers to a Michael Howard conference (for a story about political hecking). I don't know about you, but I don't believe it is the job of the news department to make the news.

And you're more likely to see a more glowing obit of President Reagan on the Democrats website than the

and introducing our new justice...

[Anonymous Coward]

the honorable Jack Valenti!

Re:and introducing our new justice...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

No need for Valenti, Colin Powell has 2 daughters who could be given the soon-to-be-vacant posts. That way, counting the boy, everybody in the Powell family will have taken advantages of daddy's friendship with the prez.

Re:and introducing our new justice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I give up. Who else did you think would be appointed? Some random lawyer off the street?

Hell, if I was President, I'd pick someone I knew who I thought would do a good job, simply as a matter of expediency. Do you expect him to interview for the position?

I really don't understand the "it's who you know" bashing at all. Or are you just bitter because no one knows you outside your Slashdot alias?

Let the...

[wikdwarlock]

...SCOTUS bashing continue!

Re:Let the...

[Trifthen]

Unfortunately this isn't really about SCOTUS bashing. The point here is that two branches of the government are already controlled by one party, and this latest retirement risks sending the final branch in that direction, depending on who Bush decides to appoint.

We already know the Republicans can, if push comes to shove, remove the filibuster option. Think about what this implies... Three branches of the government all controlled by a single party with a single (supposedly) agenda. What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?

Re:Let the...

[str8]

two branches of the government are already controlled by one party

You forget, every 2 or 4 years, two of the branches are decided by voting (you did vote, didn't you?) so they represent a majority of the country. Why shouldn't the third branch also represent the majority? Don't forget, just because someone has an R next to their name, doesn't mean they are controlled by the party.

Vote, there's your checks and balances.

Psst, hey buddy, can you spare a .sig?

Re:Let the...

[Trifthen]

I voted for a Libertarian. My state is highly (70%+) Democratic. The guy the state voted for didn't win.

Besides, that is *not* the point. The problem is that the system is supposed to prevent the Tyrany of the Majority, but if the majority has enough influence, balance is shifted drastically. Even if we vote every 2/4 years, the voting record is likely to statistically match previous years. Barring some accidental catastrophe on the part of the Republicans, they've effectively dismantled any method of checking their power.

Aside from a few "unpatriotic crackpots," few actually see the problem with this, so it will continue until there's no backing out.

Re:Let the...

[VikingDBA]

The checks and balances are between the branches not between the parties. How do you think the Libertarians and independents feel?

Re:Let the...

[DigiShaman]

Ya, it's called the "Nuclear Option". Personally, it should be used to remove filibusters. It does do a damn bit of good except to waste time on the floor with our tax dollars. Just vote on it with a yes or no. Simple as that.

Re:Let the...

[Golias]

The SCOTUS appointments is 90% of the reason why the religous wing of the GOP went out in droves to vote for GWB. If he does not appoint social conservatives, the "Dixiecrats" will either go home to the Democratic Party, or completely melt down... either way would leave us with one-party rule from the Democrats for a good 20 years or so.

Odds are, three branches of Republicanism will probably inspire enough "broken glass" Democrat voting to turn a lot of red states blue next time around, so it's far from a permanent arrangement.

The problem with the Democrats right now is that their core constituency resides on the far ends of the economic bell-curve: The dirt-poor and the "old money" rich.

The vast majority of salary-earning, 401K-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk seemed to like Clinton fine, because riding that bubble sure was a lot of fun, but the rise of the "Deaniacs" has kind of alienated a lot of those people, to the point that they are even willing to put up with the things they don't like about Bush and his Country Club buddies.

The Democrats, if they want to survive as a viable party, desperately need a way that they can talk to somebody who's currently making $50,000 a year (and hopes to be making over $100,000 within the next five), and get that person to think the Democrats have their best interests at heart. Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues.

Were I in charge of the DNC, I would be making overtures to the libertarians. Become the anti-PATRIOT Act party, the anti-RICO party, the anti-"War on Drugs" party. Let the hard-core socialists run off with the Greens, and establish Clinton-style triangulation on budget issues (wiping out the GOP's second-biggest vote-getter) while becoming the ultimate champions of individual liberty. Stealing the entire middle ground would be a piece of cake.

The Democrats, unfortunately, are moving in the opposite direction. They seem to be systematically purging the Clintonistas of the party, and rallying around the most shrill and bitter voices in their party.

I firmly believe there's going to be a huge political realignment within this generation. The Democrats are either going to radically evolve, or else present the Greens, Libertarians, and even the remnants of the Reform Party with a golden opportunity to become America's main Republican opposition.

Re:Let the...

[jimmyCarter]

The sky isn't falling just about yet. The Dems won't let through any hard-core conservatives and many people tend to forget that O'Connor was a Reagan appointee that was supposed to have been a conservative voter, yet she more often than not was more of a moderate or sometimes even liberal voter.

Re:Let the...

[paco3791]

There is a particularly relavant quote about this from one of the founding fathers, Jefferson I thought. Can't find the exact wording though.

Re:Let the...

[ivan256]

The guy the state voted for didn't win.

The guy? Your state's representatives and senators aren't subject to a national election. If they were elected in your state they're in congress.

Barring some accidental catastrophe on the part of the Republicans...

I think you overestimate the power here. Many republicans, myself included want the old style republican party back, not this social/compassionate conservative crap. There was no republican primary in the last national election. Then next time there is, I bet you'll see some changes.

There may be only two major parties in Washington, but there are three ideologies.

Re:Let the...

[whats_a_zip]

I don't care how independents feel. I'm sick and tired of worrying about each little fraction of the population. Majority rule is not mob rule. Majority opinion is not a bad thing. I know elitist liberals figure the majority is stupid, and they are the only smart ones. Well, I'm part of the majority, and I disagree. It's time we quit going with minority rule.

Re:Let the...

[Trifthen]

I know it's between the branches. But if one party controlls all three branches, and all three branches are shaking hands and pushing the party agenda, guess what happens?

Re:Let the...

[QCompson]

Unfortunately, those elected officials with an "R" next to their name have shown an astonishing tendency in the past few years to goosestep along with whatever their party says.

Also, do not forget that although the Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, they do not necessarily represent a majority of the country. There are 2 senators from every state, but obviously the states vary substantially in population.

Re:Let the...

[pixelpusher220]

Lessee....what will likely be a *more* conservative court will be the final say on these 'elections' you speak of.

It sounds nice and all, but since precedent has been set,

the one UNELECTED LIFETIME servering branch of the gov't now can decide the results of the 'free' elections.

Still feel nice n comfy there? I sure as hell don't...

Re:Let the...

[Hoarke42]

There may be only two major parties in Washington, but there are three ideologies.

I'm pretty sure there are more than that. There is also a range of Democrats from the more liberal to more centrist views.

Re:Let the...

[racer951]

What happens is what has already happend under the Dems

Re:Let the...

[gordon_schumway]

Vote, there's your checks and balances.

Apparently, you have forgotten that the voting systems are controlled by the two parties, which, in turn, reinforces their positions. Jerrymandering and publically funded party primaries are obvious examples, but more subtle is the fact the winner-take-all and plurality voting schemes lead to two-party rule by their nature.

Not to mention the coporate media, among other things, which reinforce the status quo.

Re:Let the...

[Negadecimal]

Don't forget, just because someone has an R next to their name, doesn't mean they are controlled by the party.

Case-in-point: SCOTUS. Seven of the nine were appointed "R", but have still ruled in many cases against the Republican platform (abortion rights, Schaivo, etc.)

I appreciate it when congressmen/senators cross party lines. May not agree with them, but I like knowing that our elected officials think for themselves sometimes.

Re:Let the...

[ivan256]

I left a modifier out there. I'm sure there's an ideology for every individual... I meant major ideologies.. I think that many moderate republicans and moderate democrats agree signifigantly on the basics of majority of issues... At least up to the point where you start defining details. The centrists from both sides make up the third ideology I was talking about.

Re:Let the...

[EastCoastSurfer]

It would be great if a bunch of the libertarian ideas could be moved more into the mainstream. There really is no place for someone to vote who is for personal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism.

Re:Let the...

[learn fast]

No, the problem is not that one party controls everything... the problem is that the one party that controls everything is arrogant, blind nationalist and suspicious of science.

So, who's for secession?

Re:Let the...

[Trifthen]

That's true. I liked the old Republicans much better than the new ones. I also know that a lot of those same old Republicans are highly irate at Bush's tendency to spend like a drunk Democrat. ;)

I hope it's enough to keep things going until a more obvious balance emerges.

Re:Let the...

[Hoarke42]

I agree with a great deal of what you said - and I fall into the realm of Republican with Libertarian leanings.

This last election was either party's to lose -- the Democrats just did a better job of it. I think if either a moderate Democrat won the primary or if Bush switched to a more moderate VP while saying some of his actions were based on bad information given to him (while doing a little housecleaning), then the election could have been one-sided.

Re:Let the...

[CaptainCarrot]

Someone has already pointed out that the "checks and balances" are intended to counterpoise the branches against each other, and that parties weren't even contemplated. Even within the legislative branch the two houses balance against each other, although not as strongly as they once did thanks to the 17th Amendment.

It's not always possible to predict exactly how any particular appointee will affect the balance of the court. O'Connor was supposed to be a conservative, a Reagan appointee, but she turned out to be a very middle-of-the-road "swing vote". Fact is -- and I'm sure that some will be disappointed to hear this -- most SCOTUS decisions are based on law and precedent, not politics, and Justices are affected more by what theory under which they believe the Constitution should be interpreted than the political issue of the moment.

There are, of course, individual exceptions to this, and occasionally very disturbing ones, but law rather than politics is the general rule.

Re:Let the...

[VirtualAdept]

I tend to agree with you - the Democrats need something different. That different is, probably, giving someone with an actual idea the microphone of the party and giving them air-time. So far, most of what I've heard from the democrats has been 'Bush wants this! Bush is evil! We don't want this!'

Very possibly accurate, but not very helpful: what are you going to do different. What policy do you propose, what are your ideas?

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really believe the Republicans control two branches of government, I have a bridge to sell you...
The fillibuster option regarding court nominees was an invention of the 1990's. A fillibuster of today is just a threat - not the classic holding the floor to stop action.
The Senate (100 members) is to simply VOTE on a nominee - IF a majority (50+1) of the Senators approve, the President is to get his nominee - that is what the Constitution says.

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

The Democrats, if they want to survive as a viable party, desperately need a way that they can talk to somebody who's currently making $50,000 a year (and hopes to be making over $100,000 within the next five), and get that person to think the Democrats have their best interests at heart. Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues.

As one who is making $50k a year, they can start by stop trying to raise taxes and go to a friggin flat tax. I despise the progressive income tax and that close to 40% of the population who earns a pay check pays no income tax.

Re:Let the...

[deathy_epl ccs]

Yeah, but let's face it... the Republicans have got to be as scared of removing the filibuster option as the Democrats are. It's a tool used by BOTH sides when THEY'RE not the ones that are in control.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it does then they're shooting themselves in the foot as much as they are the Democrats.

Re:Let the...

[mutterc]

Many here (myself included) don't really trust the electoral system to Do The Right Thing. There are many possible reasons people give (that I don't all agree with): outright fraud (like the direct-record voting machines), registration fraud, people are Just Stupid, gerrymandering, etc.

My reason for skepticism in the process is because of the low quality of our political discourse. Simply saturating the airwaves with FUD (circling wolves, anyone?) can win you an election. "Vote Thag, Og raise taxes. [Grunt.]"

We need to train / educate people to expect more from politicians. Imagine if the entire audience of a Presidential debate stood up after an answer and said "he didn't answer the question!" Perhaps we can get Penn & Teller to follow candidates around and call them on all the bullshit.

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

Gah, let me clarify. I hate it when they try to say that people aren't paying enough in taxes and then only raise it on those they accuse of being "rich". I hate the progressive income tax because it leaves loopholes where people can get away with out paying anything.

Actually, for an tax instead of anything based on income we should go to a VAT tax and leave income alone. Kill the IRS and cut several billion dollars from the budget in one fell swoop.

Re:Let the...

[SeekerDarksteel]

The only problem with making overtures to the libertarians is that it will alienate the poor base of the Democrats who would be deeply afraid of someone taking their welfare, medicaid, and other social programs. Democrats would have to abandon such ideals as a national health care system. With the Republicans going to more of a "let the government take care of you" standpoint I would expect a massive abandoment of the Democratic party if that were to happen. The Republican party, on the other hand, I see has having a lot of potential to move more libertarian. The people being alienated would not possibly turn to the Democratic party as they'd be even more evil than the damn libertarians. As a result the Republicans would lose less of their support base than the Democrats would. But the only way this is going to happen is if current Republicans or independants who vote Republican start supporting libertarian (note, not necessarily Libertarian) candidates and making sure that their votes are heard and felt.

Re:Let the...

[FriedTurkey]

not this social/compassionate conservative crap

Really?? They guys running the show couldn't be any farther to the right. There is a reason George Bush senior isn't part of the adminstration. He would be run out as a liberal just like Colin Powell & Christie Todd Whitman.

I think its funny how all these Republicans are running away from George W. They remember the good time in 90's listening to Rush Limbaugh when there wasn't somebody in office trying to actually implement crazy ideas like privitizing social security. Many Republicans rather keep it as an idea and say "only if".

Re:Let the...

[gumpish]

Vote, there's your checks and balances.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president" - Walden O'Dell, CEO Diebold

We tried that, it didn't work.

Re:Let the...

[OakDragon]

Checks and balances, as I understand them, refer to each branch of government (executive, legislative, judicial) have some measure of power over each other, not parties. Understandably, this is the way it works out sometimes.

On another point, the Republican party is made up of a number of factions. The same is true of the Democrats, the difference being that Republicans are able to put aside differences in order to win elections. As the Republican party gets more control, each faction will increase its demand for implementation of its own agenda (that is, as the perceived need to "just" win elections subsides). This is when Democrats can make a comeback. Although, it's looking more and more like the Democrats cannot resolve their internal strife, and may actually (eventually) split into 2 parties. One of these parties my attract some Republicans.

Re:Let the...

[edremy]

As someone in a similar boat, I have to commend you on being willing to double or triple your taxes so that the super-rich can get another Gulfstream V.

Look carefully at your federal taxes and then pull out a calculator to see what's you'd owe under a flat tax. Under most proposals, I'd be paying somewhere between $3-8k more per year. I'm an exceptional case for a number of reasons, but a flat tax will absolutely screw most middle class americans.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

str8 why do you hate America? You really think the elections there are free and open?

Re:Let the...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Let the Democrats die. Who the fuck really cares about the Democrats? They're useless and spineless.

The country has been in need of strong third party movement that is totally seperate from the corperate democratic party and the corperate republicans.

Yes there is a small difference between the two, but very little and that is why the Democrats lose. They offer too little, and have no means to REALLY stand behind their promises.

This country needs a strong third party movement be it libertarian (which contains both conservatives and liberals that understand and respect each others choice in liberty) or say an independent like Ralph Nader or a Green such as David Cobb.

These are good people. (I should include Michael badnarick in that list of names, Libertarian candidate for president last election) They're all good people who a new take on America and they have no solutions, new ideas... and the best part about it... They're sincere. Frankly i would be glad to have any of them as president right now. Those 3 candidates, especially Ralph are apart of a movement that keeps trying every year to be apart of our so called democratic process. They get pushed off a local ballots because of partisan politics, they get kicked out of debates, they get shit tv time...

And yet those parties, those movements are out trying every year in a system that is not designed to include them. Its quite Sad that the people that really care, and run with all they have... are never really given a chance in our 2 party political system which by design has kept our choices limited to the democrats and republicans.... and this is what we have.

Ralph should have been pres in 2000 :)

And the last time around... if you could only listen to David Cobb, Ralph Nader, or Michael Badnarick... they're some good folks for you you check out.

Re:Let the...

[aaarrrgggh]

Well said; my effective tax rate was 12.8% for federal income tax. Not that bad. A flat tax would be in the 10-15% range.

Progressive tax rates compensate for the fact that people with more income have more tax deductable expenses. While someone just above the poverty line might be in the 15% tax bracket, the effective tax rate is still within reason. Likewise, someone making $250k/year is going to be in the same general effective tax range after taking deductions for mortgage and other things.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks, lump social security into the total tax rate and see what the variations are across income ranges. The higher tax brackets only apply to ranges out of Social Security witholdings...

Flat tax is a better solution than VAT. VAT discourages spending in general, Flat tax is easier to process and eliminates a lot of the overhead associated with the income tax process.

Re:Let the...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

oops, meant new solutions, not no solutions :)

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

As someone in a similar boat, I have to commend you on being willing to double or triple your taxes so that the super-rich can get another Gulfstream V.

Look carefully at your federal taxes and then pull out a calculator to see what's you'd owe under a flat tax. Under most proposals, I'd be paying somewhere between $3-8k more per year. I'm an exceptional case for a number of reasons, but a flat tax will absolutely screw most middle class americans.

Double or tripple? I'm in the 25% tax bracket right now and the max is 35%. According to you with a flat everyone would be paying 50-75% (including those currently paying 35%).

Among other problems with the current income tax is that a good number
Pay zero dollars of income tax. If we are going to have an income tax, I believe a flat tax is the only fair way as it doesn't discourage people from earning more. (One of the things people did when we had a 90% top tax bracket was litteraly stop working when they hit the top bracket, as it was not worth it to continue working). It also makes sure that an increase/decrease hits everyone equally. I'm tired of hearing about people who want taxes raised on the rich because they don't pay enough while the complainers generally pay zero as is.

I have actually been convinced that the best thing to do would be to eliminate the income tax altogether and go with some for of Value Added Tax (VAT) similar to what is used in Europe. Note, this means eliminating the corporate income tax, capital gains tax and pretty much all the other government taxes as well. We would have zero individual tax evasion as we would only have to worry about the buisinesses paying the taxes they collect for the state, like they do right now for the sales tax. We could also eliminate the IRS and a whole host of support for it saving several billion dollars in the budget.

Re:Let the...

[ivan256]

I think its funny how all these Republicans are running away from George W. [...] there wasn't somebody in office trying to actually implement crazy ideas like privitizing social security.

That's not the problem... The problem is the deficit spending, the expansion of medicare, the gay bashing, the destruction of civil rights, and the pandering to the evangelical cultists. Last I checked none of these things were core to the 'old republican' agenda.

We used to want to cut spending.

Religion used to be non-partisan. Hell, with the exception of abortion and birth control, christians used to be considered liberal.

Taking on Social Security and the Energy bill are the only good things Bush done so far this term. Maybe - maybe - he deserves a little extra credit for not getting too involved in Iran and not giving anything money North Korea in exchange for broken promises. The problem isn't that he is actually implementing what you call 'crazy ideas'. The problem is that he's halfheartedly taking on a token few instead of actually pushing the right agenda.

It could be worse. We could be on the path towards socialized medicine.

Re:Let the...

[ivan256]

Bleh... Stupid screwups after re-aranging sentences...

and not giving anything money North Korea in exchange

Should say "and not giving any money to North Korea..."

Re:Let the...

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

two branches of the government are already controlled by one party

Help me out here: There are three branches and two parties; What outcome were you expecting?

Re:Let the...

[FriedTurkey]

That's true. I liked the old Republicans much better than the new ones. I also know that a lot of those same old Republicans are highly irate at Bush's tendency to spend like a drunk Democrat.

According to Dick Cheney, goverment overspending doesn't affect the economy. I guess the message for Republicans changed since the 90's. Its like in George Orwelle's Animal Farm, the pigs come to power telling the sheep:

"Four legs good, Two legs bad"

But when they come to power they change it to:

"Four legs good, Two legs better"

Re:Let the...

[cpeterso]

A simple tax system that many people might accept would be a flat-tax plus a "Citizen's Dividend". For example, you might have a 15% flat tax and a $10,000/year "Citizen's Dividend" payout to each tax payer. This makes the flat-tax system progressive because $10,000 is nothing when you are taxed on your million dollar income. Plus you can reduce many government welfare services (and their huge hidden costs and political battles) because low-income people now have at least $10,000/year to buy food/etc.

Re:Let the...

[edremy]

Well said; my effective tax rate was 12.8% for federal income tax. Not that bad. A flat tax would be in the 10-15% range.

Again, I'm an extreme, but mine is about 3%. (And adoption tax credits bring that to 0% for the next few years)

If you're middle class with a few kids and a house and some basic deductions you are paying very, very little federal tax.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the Democrats right now is that their core constituency resides on the far ends of the economic bell-curve: The dirt-poor and the "old money" rich.


i'd agree with you on this point, but unfortunately, the weath-distribution curve for the US is not a bell-curve. a disproportionately small number of people hold an extremely large portion of the wealth in this country, and they are greatly outnumbered by the poor.

Re:Let the...

[Adrilla]

Not minority rule, just some consideration for the minority. We *are* still almost half of the country, we shouldn't be completely ignored. It's thinking like that, that is splitting us further apart and creating animosity between us, like is being shown on this very thread.

Re:Let the...

[edremy]

Double or tripple? I'm in the 25% tax bracket right now and the max is 35%. According to you with a flat everyone would be paying 50-75% (including those currently paying 35%).

You don't understand how the current tax system works. I'm in the 25% bracket (for some of my income) but I pay nothing like 25% of my income to the feds.

The actual number is closer to 3%. Moderate income, two kids, house, state/property taxes, some charitable donations wipe out virtually all the tax for someone like me. (And I'm not uncommon- in fact, we're quite close to the median American family.)

The one area I'm really different is adopting my kids. The adoption tax credit is going to set my federal taxes to 0 for the next few years. The credit makes it possible for normal people to handle the expenses involved- eliminating it will seriously hurt adoption in the US, toss more kids into foster care and end up costing the taxpayers money in the long run.

Re:Let the...

[DavidTC]

I've started calling them 'Don't tax, just spend' Republicans.

Remember when the fight was whether or not national healthcare would cost too much? And how much welfare did cost? Remember when the budget was the important thing?

Don't we all look silly arguing about how many hundreds of millions social programs would cost, when we can apparently spend billions on a war while lowering taxes! Stupid us.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that worked so well last time didn't it?

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

My definition of moderate is different from yours, then. Kerry is to the right of moderates. Bush is to the right of the taliban.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As one who is making $50k a year"

This may suprise you but a revenue neutral flat tax will raise your taxes. You have been duped. I have a fiscally conservative brother who works for the IRS (suprisingly the IRS has lots of conservatives) and has a masters in tax policy. He loved the flat tax until he did his thesis. When he realized it would raise his taxes on hist modest family income (~$35,000 ten years ago - don't know what he makes now), he decided John Forbes was the devil!

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has no one else pointed out that the Supreme Court has a 7-2 (well, 6-2 now) Republican majority? It's not that the Supreme Court isn't "controlled by the Republican party" in the majoritarian sense, but not all of the justices are controlled by the party apparatus. Souter and Stevens don't show any partisan tendency, while Kennedy and O'Connor will more rarely also sometimes show respect for precedent and human rights. These last two are judges who, in Kennedy's case ordered his clerk Miguel Estrada to prevent any liberal opinions from reaching him so that he wouldn't risk agreeing with them, and in O'Connor's case was visibly giddy at the opportunity to ensure the Republican candidate became President in 2000. Not "moderate" in any sense of the term except that the three more "conservative" judges are absolutely nuts.

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

A simple tax system that many people might accept would be a flat-tax plus a "Citizen's Dividend". For example, you might have a 15% flat tax and a $10,000/year "Citizen's Dividend" payout to each tax payer. This makes the flat-tax system progressive because $10,000 is nothing when you are taxed on your million dollar income. Plus you can reduce many government welfare services (and their huge hidden costs and political battles) because low-income people now have at least $10,000/year to buy food/etc.

A citizens divedend sounds like a good idea until you start doing the math on it. Primary problem is money. There are 300 Million people in the US. At $10k per person, that comes out to a total payout of $3 Trillion dollars. That is larger than the current US budget and is over a quarter of the US GDP.

Second problem I have with that, is that we are having the government take money from some people and giving other people money without having to do anything to earn it. I have a problem with that (even if I am the one getting hte money). Stealing from Peter to pay Paul and that kind of thing. If people want to help out others who are less fortunate, let them give their own money willingly without getting the government to handle it (and force others to give money). It's not that I have a problem with charity, It's that I have a problem with the government forcing me to as that is not charity.

One of the recognized problems with a citizens dividend (and welfare for that matter) is that you will have a certain percentage of the population who will become "surfers". (That's the persons term who wrote about this, not mine). This group would live off the "dividend" (if you can really call it that) without ever trying to get a job.

One last thing. You may actually increase the political battles over this. For one thing, about how to set the $10k, when to move it, who will have it taxable and many other things. Also, you may make people more reliant on the gov as employers will most likely factor this into their paycheck calculations among other things.

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

You don't understand how the current tax system works. I'm in the 25% bracket (for some of my income) but I pay nothing like 25% of my income to the feds.

Maybe it comes down to how we are calculating the ammount we pay. I'm taking the ammount I pay in the year to the government in taxes (after filing me refund) and dividing that by the ammount I make in one year. It comes out close to 25%. I don't have many deductions. Sucks to be me.

The adoption tax credit is going to set my federal taxes to 0 for the next few years. The credit makes it possible for normal people to handle the expenses involved- eliminating it will seriously hurt adoption in the US, toss more kids into foster care and end up costing the taxpayers money in the long run.

Why should the adoption credit be any more than the credit for having your own biological kid/dependant? I don't understand that. Or am I missunderstanding you. It seems to me that those who have their own kids should have just as much of a credit (for having the same expenses) as those who adopt.

Re:Let the...

[jafac]

What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?

The massively entertaining internecine turf wars and power struggles, followed by the splintering of the party, loyalty purges, treason trials, and civil war?

Re:Let the...

[Viking Coder]

Why shouldn't the third branch also represent the majority?

Well, all kidding asside, in 2000, the Executive Branch was not elected by the majority.

But the real answer to your question is - The Tyranny of the Majority is what's wrong with it.

Also, all but 2 of the justices were nominated by Republicans, already.

Re:Let the...

[jafac]

The vast majority of salary-earning, 401K-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk seemed to like Clinton fine, because riding that bubble sure was a lot of fun, but the rise of the "Deaniacs" has kind of alienated a lot of those people, to the point that they are even willing to put up with the things they don't like about Bush and his Country Club buddies.

Not THIS salary-earning, 401k-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk. I've got a daughter, and I don't want to see people like James Dobson putting the burqua of Dominionism on her. I will NEVER vote for the party that endorses Social Conservative policies.

Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues. Were I in charge of the DNC, I would be making overtures to the libertarians. Become the anti-PATRIOT Act party, the anti-RICO party, the anti-"War on Drugs" party.

War, Social Security, and Medicare issues are what are absolutely KILLING the Republicans, right now, if you look at the polling data. Bush's approval rating is 42%, based on these issues. Your advice to the DNC is to abandon those traditional, reliable Democrat issues (ie. Principles), and going to these fringe issues like PATRIOT, RICO, and Legalization? With absolutely no ideological basis for doing so? That's the most batshit crazy idea I've ever heard of. In fact, it's SO batshit crazy, it just might work! It might actually cement the utter and irrevokable disintegration of the Democratic Party in the US!

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because people only look at half of the flat-tax proposal.

They think he's talking about taxing 20% across the board or some bullshit like that. His flat tax (and most serious flat-tax proposals I've seen) have a higher percentage rate but don't count the first $20,000 or so of your income. So it is still an extremely progressive tax system, it's just that the math is way fucking easier, allowing you to cut the entire IRS from the budget, and save small business owners their huge accounting fees, and save the rest of us the sixty bucks or so we spend on TurboTax.

Re:Let the...

[Golias]

Only if you subscribe to the distinctly American notion that somebody with a house, a family car, three TV sets, electricity and central air to be "poor."

In most of the world, "poor" means you have nothing, and no way of getting anything.

In America, "poor" means you live in a bad neighborhood where your $100 Starter jacket might get stolen, and you can only afford to have two or three games for your PS2.

The folks who are genuinely down-and-out in America most certainly do not outnumber the inherited-wealth millionaires.

Re:Let the...

[Golias]

War, Social Security, and Medicare issues are what are absolutely KILLING the Republicans

If being "KILLED" means re-electing a hard line ideologue of your party plank as President and retaining (and expanding) your control of both houses of Congress, I'm sure the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make sure these issues keep KILLING them.

Re:Let the...

[RalphSlate]

The Democrats, if they want to survive as a viable party, desperately need a way that they can talk to somebody who's currently making $50,000 a year (and hopes to be making over $100,000 within the next five)...

Here's where the Republicans have you fooled. If they have their way, anyone making $50k a year will be making $40k within the next five. Remember, they are the party of capital, not labor. Your $50k salary is something to be controlled, not increased.

George Bush and his cohorts are pushing a policy of wage deflation. They are allowing corporations to gain tremendous amounts of power. They allow industries to set huge barriers of entry which means less competition. And they are setting up an economy where, yes, a few people will double their salaries from $50k to $100k, but the majority will remain stagnant or lose ground.

Plan on working longer hours for less money in the future under a Republican economy. Picture this: you have to do whatever it takes to keep your job because you are under water on your house since the housing bubble burst, and corporate consolidation has slashed the regional demand for your profession. Sure, you could land another job, but you'll have to move across the country to find it -- taking a $100k loss on your house.

The Republicans have you believing that you, with a dollar and a dream, can strike it rich. They have you hooked. You actually believe that if you just work hard enough, you'll double your salary in five years. Trust me, it's not that easy, especially in a lousy economy.

Ask a Republican if they believe in the concept of a meritocracy and they will tell you "absolutely!" Then ask them why they think it's important that we eliminate the estate tax so that a few wealthy people can set their kids up for life without them standing on their own merit and they'll say "uhh...".

It is hardly a meritocracy when the position you start out in life largely determines the position you will end up in. Social mobility is dying more every day. If your parents didn't make enough money to send you to the right schools, then your destiny probably involves the line "may I help you...?"

So do you still think you're going to hit that $100k, or will your entire industry be farmed overseas (Chinese autoworkers: $1.50/day, and no one over 30 need apply) and you'll have to start from square one?

That is the George Bush vision. More for the top, and tell people that this is good because it makes them hungrier, and hungry people work harder.

Re:Let the...

[edremy]

Maybe it comes down to how we are calculating the ammount we pay. I'm taking the ammount I pay in the year to the government in taxes (after filing me refund) and dividing that by the ammount I make in one year. It comes out close to 25%. I don't have many deductions. Sucks to be me.

That's exactly what I'm doing- $to feds/$earned. It's about 3%. You need to buy a house. The entire tax system is set up to encourage homeownership.

Why should the adoption credit be any more than the credit for having your own biological kid/dependant?

We still get the usual personal exemption for a kid, but the credit is designed to help with the up-front costs. It's a one-time $10k credit. (Bush raised it from the $5k introduced under Clinton) People with biological children don't have to pay those up front costs- health care&birth expenses get picked up either by insurance or Medicare. (And before you complain, if your health care costs go over ~$5k, you can deduct those- I do that too some years.)

Depending on the agency and situation, adoption will run $5- $40k, the former being domestic non-healthywhiteinfant, the latter being international for some of the more expensive countries. If you are careful about your agency you can do an adoption for free, and given the huge number of kids who need to be adopted right now anything we can do to remove obstacles is a good thing

Re:Let the...

[Ironsides]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the costs associated with adoption. No complaints about the health care cost deductions. I will say this though:

Depending on the agency and situation, adoption will run $5- $40k

Holy **** those costs need to come down.

Re:Let the...

[jafac]

If being "KILLED" means re-electing a hard line ideologue of your party plank as President and retaining (and expanding) your control of both houses of Congress, I'm sure the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make sure these issues keep KILLING them.

By "KILLING" I'm talking about the recent phenomenon, over the past two months or so, (particularly since the downing street memo hit the scene), of Bush's waning national popularity, and how Congressional Republicans are starting to keep their distance from him, for instance, on issues like Social Security phase-out, and Bolton's nomination, Bush has had to fight tooth and nail, and his support has become more and more diminished. I admit, things looked really bad for Democrats, around 11/04, but with the exception of the SCOTUS appointment(s), it's looking like the remainder of his term is going to look like a duck on crutches. Because the American People don't support Social Security phase-out, and the majority no longer supports the war.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the American People don't support Social Security phase-out, and the majority no longer supports the war.

So you're saying that the majority of Americans want to raise taxes enough to keep the Social Security system the way it is, and want us to pull out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan? The majority?

I'm guessing you're a poli-sci prof. Nobody else could misunderstand the sentiment of the American public so wildly.

Re:Let the...

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't fiscal conservatism and social liberalism at odds with each other?

Re:Let the...

[jafac]

So you're saying that the majority of Americans want to raise taxes enough to keep the Social Security system the way it is, and want us to pull out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan? The majority?

On Social Security, yes, polling indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the president's private-accounts SCAM. (borrow 3 trillion dollars which essentially just covers the increase in management costs for private accounts, does NOTHING to fix the solvency issue - tax increase was part of the plan for the 1983 agreement).

On the war, no - I think no significant portion of the public wants a pullout. Most people realize that we're irrevokably committed now. But polling indicates that most americans feel that the war was a mistake, and that Bush deliberately misled. This isn't about a blowjob, it's about 1800 dead GI's, and $300 billion wasted, and our national image and credibility tarnished.. We realize it's now our responsibility to stay the course - but it was a dumb idea to get started, and it may cause some congressmen their jobs in 06.

I'm not a poli sci prof. I just read the news. This is recent polling data.

Re:Let the...

[EastCoastSurfer]

I don't really think so. Let people do what they want as long as it provides no harm to someone else and let them live with the consequences of that action. Basically stay out of peoples bedrooms. That is my idea of socially liberal.

You're probably thinking that socially liberal means gov. programs. Well I guess it could so that's why it must be linked to fiscal conservatism. To sum up, I could care less what anyone else does to themselves, I just don't want to pay for it.

Not to sound like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

but how is this news for nerds or have to do with my rights online? I realize the new judge will make decisions affecting us geeks, but the retirement of the old does not really concern me.

Sorry to flame

Re:Not to sound like a troll

[__aaclcg7560]

I think her replacement is being outsourced to India like any other American job. The Indians can judge better than Americans for lower pay. Gotta love the free market economy. :P

Re:Not to sound like a troll

[Dr. Transparent]

Here here. I thought this is what the politics section was all about.

Huh..?

[__aaclcg7560]

Why is this relevant to the /. community? It's not like the departing Supreme Court Justice is being replaced with a computer.

Re:Huh..?

[anoiniminious cowher]

Haven't been reading /. much lately have you?

Re:Huh..?

[adtifyj]

With Bush at the helm, it may make more sense to nominate HAL for the job.

Re:Huh..?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your joking. Things like the DRM, copyrights, patents, file-sharing, etc. Many of the issues that are hot here eventually work their way up through the courts and the buck stops there. You haven't kept up on their last rulings this week, have you? I don't want to sound rude, but these are VERY important. I hope that answers your question.

Re:Huh..?

[cOdEgUru]

Purely because, assuming that you didnt just crawl out from under a rock, SCOTUS has been the focus of a number of Slashdot discussions (mainly Eminent Domain and P2P) plus it has ruled recently on a variety of issues that has relevance to the community, technical or not.

What the current administration and the Christian groups will love to see is for Bush to push two conservative judges thus tilting the balance in SCOTUS firmly towards conservative rulings for the near future. Since Justice O'Connor mainly provided the swing vote in many rulings, its a clear win for the conservatives to replace her with someone that is far towards the right. If Bush suceeds (whether he wants to or he is forced to) expect a lot of contentious issues (think Roe Vs Wade, Prayer in Schools, Pornography, Flag burning) to end up again at SCOTUS.

This is one court that has always held me in awe, in the manner at which justice that has been passed down and the fairness of its rulings. I am afraid that is about to change, for good or bad.

Re:Huh..?

[mopomi]

How is this NOT relevant to the entire community (US and otherwise)? This is one of only NINE people who have ultimate say in interpreting ALL the laws of the US, laws like the PATRIOT act, laws involving copyright, laws involving data transmission, laws involving environmental stewardship, etc.

How can you possibly think this isn't relevant?

Re:Huh..?

[ReadParse]

Notice that it's posted in the "Your Rights Online" category, a category that I actually bitch about quite a bit, but which has its moments of propriety. And I think this is one.

A lot of the slashdot crowd gets overly-excited about things that they purport to be their rights but which are actually not rights at all, such an employer "violating" your freedom of speech, which is not possible, since that freedom to speak protects you only from your government, not including when that government is your employer.

This story, however, does qualify for the category, I think, because the Supreme Court decides a lot of issues that have impact on the IT world. And Sandra Day O'Connor is one of the more critical justices on the Court, because she is a moderate and, therefore, a swing voter. Her opinion is usually the opinon of the court. So replace her with a hardliner from either side and the balance of the court will definitely change to favor that side.

RP

Re:Huh..?

[(trb001)]

Because a great many YRO articles have to do with court cases dealing with privacy. Many of those, including the recent filesharing case, make it to the SCOTUS. The selection of a new judge (replacing a notorious swing vote, incidentally) will change the outcome of those cases in the future.

--trb

Re:Huh..?

[MindStalker]

Not nessesarly so. You forget that Supreme Court judges have been extremly strange in this manor. It seems that every judge that has been put into the SC has drastically changed their opinions and manors of conduct. I think its a matter of being safe from having to answer to political pressure.

Re:Huh..?

[rho]

You can say she's a moderate. You can also say that she's a confuser. That is just as accurate. Decisions like the recent Ten Commandments one, where they say "this is okay, this is not" only serve to confuse the issue, requiring that every subsequent case be brought all the way to the Supreme Court.

There is no clear guidance from a "moderate". I don't like Ginsburg's decicions, for instance, but at least I know where she stands.

Re:Huh..?

[__aaclcg7560]

Actually, I been reading quite a bit. It seems like this particular article is going to send the /. community into a foaming-at-the-mouth fit. However, if the /. editors wants flamebait material on the front page, LET THE PARTY BEGIN!

Yes, I'm being modded a troll since I dare questioned the /. groupthink. Sheesh...

Re:Huh..?

[Locke2005]

Uh, I think there might be a chance that decisions like Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. may have some slight effect on Your Rights Online, and thus might qualify as "News for nerds".

Re:Huh..?

[__aaclcg7560]

That topic has already be covered here, and the person who took part in that decision will soon no longer be on the Supreme Court. I very much doubt that technology issues are going to play a predominant role in selecting the next Supreme Court justice. At this point, it's all politics along party lines. Someone leaving the bench is probably news for the news junkies but not for nerds.

Re:Huh..?

[Ironsides]

expect a lot of contentious issues (think Roe Vs Wade, Prayer in Schools, Pornography, Flag burning) to end up again at SCOTUS.

Like maybe that emminent domain rulling as well? It looks like a good number of people on /. would like that one overturned.

Re:Huh..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has freaking happened yet and you are already moaning! My god get a life.

American

[mnemonic_]

Oh, you American.

Re:American

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked Michigan was part of the United States.

Boooo

[BooRolla]

I'm really not looking forward to Bush filling one "for life" seat. Filling two is 2x shitty.

Re:Boooo

[Cromac]

Not nearly as bad as Clinton appointing 2 for life.

To quote Bender...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're boned.

YRO.slashdot.org or Politics.slashdot.org?

[Rude Turnip]

Under any other administration, I could see this one clearly going to the politics section of Slashdot. But, undoubtedly, the fundie whackjob that Bush will nominate for the open SCOTUS seat better places this story under YRO.

Justice O'Connor Retiring

[Hachey]

You know, I think it'd be to citizens' advantage not to put people on the bench that were old enough to be on cash. Consistency is what the voice of law needs, ya know? Having said that, I hope Bush puts some very old judges on to replace the leaving justices. We don't want anymore of this crap.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

Re:Justice O'Connor Retiring

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a 60 year old age limit so anyone he valiantly chooses would be somewhat 'young.'

Go Bush!

Re:Justice O'Connor Retiring

[SeekerDarksteel]

Ah yes, true, but in a cruel cruel twist of fate, we might instead end up with more of this crap.

About time.

[Capt. Caneyebus]

It is about time we can get some fresh blood into the SC. Let's just hope they can actually put someone good in that is young and can actually grasp today's technology better.

Re:About time.

[sinserve]

Bush nominates John Bolton to take up that Supreme Court gig part-time.

Re:About time.

[jalefkowit]

Let's just hope they can actually put someone good in that is young and can actually grasp today's technology better.

I nominate Paris Hilton! Who better to rule on issues of privacy rights and data security?

"Swing vote? That's hot!"

Re:About time.

[Capt. Caneyebus]

I second that vote. She works a nightvision camera quite well.

Be afraid...

[confusednoise]

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Never has there been a president more intent on making sweeping changes and pushing an agenda that upon final analysis is fairly marginal (and more truly radical than most realize).

Supreme court appointments are no joke - these appointments will likely have more long reaching consequences than any other actions taken by this president.

Re:Be afraid...

[Wyatt Earp]

"Never has there been a president more intent on making sweeping changes and pushing an agenda that upon final analysis is fairly marginal (and more truly radical than most realize)."

Ha.

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt

To name two.

Re:Be afraid...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously flunked your American history. The supreme court was expanded by D.F.Roosevelt when it did not do what he wanted prior to WWII.

Re:Be afraid...

[Dr. Transparent]

Um, ever read about that FDR guy?

Re:Be afraid...

[Anonymous Coward]

D.F.?
Looks like you need some remedial history yourself .

Re:Be afraid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's terrible. If only we had a Democrat nominee we could fill the court with more liberal justices who believe your home should be seized to build a shopping mall.

Re:Be afraid...

[jZnat]

You can't forget that during Lincoln's presidency, the nation was quite divided, but at least he tried to keep America united, even if it meant going to war with the South to keep them with us. FDR fixed several major issues at the time for the good of the common people of America, not just the wealthy. Here, we have Bush doing his radical doings without trying to keep America united (well, at least not in any viable way).

With a bit of luck.....

[Nagatzhul]

we will replace her with someone who will protect the Constitution instead of creating whole, new laws from scratch on the bench.

Good riddance to the woman.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[magarity]

While caustically phrased, parent post is not trollbait. It's 100% on that "judicial activism" is a serious problem with the modern government that needs to be fixed. And it can only be fixed by removing judges with activist tendencies.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[mcgroarty]

Why is the parent moderated as flamebait? Like it or not, she's one of the greatest advocates of the "living constitution" -- in favor of erasing the rights granted individuals in favor of New Deal "community rights" that don't exist in the constitution. Only last week, people were up in arms against the pro-community-rights eminent domain ruling.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Only last week, people were up in arms against the pro-community-rights eminent domain ruling.

Which she voted against.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[donutello]

How the heck is the parent Flamebait? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.

That being said, Sandra was one of the few judges who dissented against the recent property-grab decision. My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her. Someone who makes laws from scratch to favor the right is just as bad as or worse than a judge who makes laws from scratch to favor the left.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[jandrese]

I'd be all for this, except that the people fighting for removal of "Judicial Activism" invariable turn out to be highly conservative types who are pissed off that some Judge said they couldn't hold christian revivals in the local public schools during school hours and stuff like that. When judgements go their way, even if they expand judicial powers, they stay quiet.

It's the same tactic as repeating the phrase "Liberal Media bias" over and over and hope that people start to believe it. The sad thing is that it works and we see a gradual shifting of the media from the center to the right to compensate for this percieved imbalance. The whole position that the media is liberal and activist is rediculous when you realize that they're just parroting GOP talking points and prepackaged news reports without even offering countering views so much of the time.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Mr_Huber]

Bullshit. Judicial activism is just a name for rulings one particular group doesn't like. It is not a serious problem with modern government, but evidence of a properly balanced government.

Or were you really that offended when the 'activist judges' blocked Congress' grandstanding attempt to reinsert Terry Schiavo's feeding tube?

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[whats_a_zip]

The leftist navel gazing of this site is getting to be a bit much. The parent is a legitmate, thoughtful comment. If I had any points I'd give them to that comment.
I'd write it off as a bunch of nose picking, spoiled kids, but they are kids with jobs and votes. What will you kids fight for? Do you have the will to do anything but complain?
Get out of your mother's basement, and you'll begin to realize, there are things that are more important than what you downloaded from bittorrent or what CPU Apple is using this time around.
The parent was thoughtful... THIS is flamebait.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Somethings are WORTH fighting for...including the Constitution.

"Let's invent some WMDs somewhere so the American public can think it has something worth fighting for!"

When you're done watching Fox News, please educate yourself about the true state of the world and of this country, then you can talk about what's worth fighting for...

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[snwcrash]

Typically claims of judical activism come along because you disagree with a ruling, no one ever sees the problem is they were to agree with the ruling.

If you start removing judges because their rulings aren't in line with the polical winds of the time, then you don't have an independent judicial, which is arguable one of the most important components of a strong democracy.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Nixoloco]

You are exactly right. The expression "activist judge" is so overused and elastic that it is essentially meaningless. Eash side of the political specturm throws it at decisions they disagree with. A more neutral definition would be far more appropriate, such as, labeling a decision "activist" when it overturns a federal/state law or existing precedent. If you look at decisions with this definition, you see that those of both ideologies are using the courts to achieve goals they can't in the legislature.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous law, not substitute it with the law they'd like to see. A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy. The task of making law should be left up to the legislature, not usurped by the judiciary.
Interpretation of law can easily create derivative law. The entire legal system must be internally consistent, if a law is passed that creates inconsistency, then the courts may need to strike it down, clarify it, change scope or otherwise change the law passed by the legislature.

If precedent cannot be logically consistent without a non-legislated right, such as the right to privacy, then the courts are well within their bounds to surmise that such a right exists for the purpose of maintaining logical consistency. In other words, if the Bill of Rights doesn't make sense without a right to privacy, then the courts are entirely within their official and traditional mandate to declare one exists. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who argues otherwise is either lying or has no reliable knowledge about the history of Western law.

This is the power that balances against the legislature and it is the only way to constrain a legislature. If the legislature or the voters don't like the can of worms they've opened by writing or asking for bad legislation, then they need to think through their actions more carefully.

The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demagogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.

My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her.
Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from loony and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).

The courts do not act arbitrarily (except for Bush v. Gore, remember it's not to be used as precedent), legislatures that continuously have anti-choice laws overturned are just throwing a demogogues fodder to the voters. They know that their laws will be overturned, or are otherwise inconsistent with precedent involving the health of the mother, rape, etc. They do this to keep the pro-life PAC checks coming every election cycle.

My worry is that Bush will nominate someone who is right-wing rather than a Constructionist to replace her.
Don't worry, it's the best of both worlds, it will be a right-wing fundamentalist who will be billed as a "Constructionist". Not that "constructionist" really means anything outside of Scalia's deranged mind. The definitions of "Constructionist" by self-proclaimed "Constructionists" varies from looney and lacking historical evidence to being identical to the "original intent" method preferred by Liberals (albeit with different outcomes and ideas of original intent).

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, there's already a bipartisan effort underway to curtail any such abuses of the Emminent Domain powers.

They've voted to starve any municipality caught doing it of federal funds in retalliation if they use those powers to grab private land for some developer.

There's also the ironic twist where some developer wants to take Scalia's own house for the "Lost Liberty Hotel" via the very powers he voted to uphold... But I somehow doubt it will go through.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Shit, I completely forgot about the Contitutional section relating to regime change in sovreign nations that we don't like.

Oops, not there. Well, surely it's a Constitutional amendment...

You mean that our current administration's actions have little to no grounding in the Constitution.

Yeah, the Constitution is worth fighting for. 99% of other falsified bullshit isn't.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[donutello]

Not Scalia's, Souter's. Scalia is one of the most "conservative" judges on the bench and he voted in dissent of the eminent domain abuse. Souter, one of the most "liberal" judges, voted for it. Scalia is the Democrats example of a terrible judge and Souter is their "ideal" judge.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that the media has a liberal bias is the equivalent of claiming that science has an evolution bias.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[mbius]

A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy

I might remind you the United States is not a democracy, which is the whole reason for executive judicial appointments and lifetime terms.

The court doesn't "make law" and never has. It rules. To decide an act of legislature violates the principles of the republic is not a "law against lawmaking;" that's patently silly.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[magarity]

Judicial activism is just a name for rulings one particular group doesn't like

No. "Activist" as a term for the judiciary has a specific meaning: when the judge(s) issue orders as defacto legislation. See: Forced bussing, the Massachusettes legislature ordered to make a law regarding same sex marriage, a myriad of nonsense ordered under the guise of the 14th, etc. When a judge strikes down a law under an interpretation of the Consitution, it's a proper function of the judiciary whether you or I agree or not. The Schiavo case is an excellent example of this; the court behaved in the appropriate role. When a judge orders new laws made and/or tax dollars collected and spent in a specific manner, it's activism and should not be tolerated. In the Schiavo case, if the Court ordered the legislature to make the law to reinsert the tube, they would have been acting in an activist manner.

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[Anonymous Coward]

hey cock sucker how about you fuck yourself in the ass? I'm a pussy because i'm against a fascist, ignorant, selfrighteous bastard of a president? I'm a pussy because i don't support his war that is costing the american people 1 TRILLION dollars, has killed 100,000's of iraqis, lied through his teeth to solidify rights to oil for all of his buddies?

You f-ing brainwashed jerkoff, I'd like to kick the shit out of YOU!

Re:With a bit of luck.....

[cold fjord]

It's the same tactic as repeating the phrase "Liberal Media bias" over and over and hope that people start to believe it. The sad thing is that it works and we see a gradual shifting of the media from the center to the right to compensate for this percieved imbalance. The whole position that the media is liberal and activist is rediculous when you realize that they're just parroting GOP talking points and prepackaged news reports without even offering countering views so much of the time.

That is a bunch of malarkey. The facts are practically the opposite of what you stated, and not hard to find.

But study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological "common sense moderates," nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic, their views on issues such as abortion and gay rights are well to the left of most Americans and they are less likely to attend church or synagogue. When it comes to the free market, journalists have become increasingly pro-regulation over the past 20 years, with majorities endorsing activist government efforts to guarantee everyone a job and to reduce the income gap between rich and poor Americans.

Question.

[rackhamh]

I'm going to show my lack of knowledge concerning the SCOTUS here, in the hopes of learning something new.

How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"? Presumably, the swing vote is a concern in decisions that are split 5-4. But if there are 5 justices voting in a particular direction, how is it known which of those justices was undecided? (And, in fact, shouldn't they ALL be undecided until they've considered the merits of the particular case?)

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process? Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions? (Which would also strike me as somewhat questionable behavior from a SC justice.)

Please enlighten me!

Re:Question.

[voice of unreason]

She was considered a swing vote because her opinions could often go either to the left or to the right. Therefore, it would often happen that there would be 2 sides of 4 judges each, all of whom were fairly predictable, making O'Connor's vote critical.

Re:Question.

[MadMorf]

How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"?

I don't know that it is "determined", but usually a swing voter would be a Centrist, which O'Connor has shown herself to be, in the long run...

A real Centrist's votes would/should "swing" back and forth between Progressive (formerly Liberal) and Conservative issues. Otherwise, they would fall into either of the other camps...

Re:Question.

[rcs1000]

Well: the Supreme Court typically (and this is by no means always) tends to split into two seperate camps:

(1) The "progressives" or "liberals", who have tended to favour an "expansionist" interpretation of the constitution, and have typically been in favour of Roe vs Wade.

(2) The "conservatives" who typically are more "creationist" and who believe that "if it ain't in the constitution, we shouldn't try and add it."

Because many issues fall clearly into one of the two camps, and there are some justices that reliably support one side rather than the other (i.e. Stevens is as liberal as they come for example) the decision often depends on the "swing" justices.

Of course, there are issues that transcend this simple left/right analysis, and even within this there are sub-groupings: states rights are one area (Clarence Thomas is normally staunchly conservative but voted that California's pot laws should not be overturned ), and religion another. The recent Grokster case is also interesting, if only because of the dissenting opinions filed. (Which indicate that the decision might have been entirely different if just 10% of the traffic was for "legitimate" purposes.)

Anyway: this is all very interesting, and for anyone with an enquiring mind I highly recommend reading some of SCOTUS's rulings.

Thanks,

Robert

Re:Question.

[Dr. Transparent]

I find the concept of a "swing" vote pretty much anathema to the whole point of the court. Personal opinion not withstanding, here's why she's a "swing vote":

Over the past few years especially, when you look at decisions that were made 5-4 she is *very* often in the group of 5, regardless of who the other 4 were. In some ways she's kinda like the court's version of /dev/rand that's used to break ties.

Re:Question.

[Daniel_Staal]

The "Swing Vote" is the person who didn't have an obvious voting record. In almost all cases, 4 of the justices are likely to vote one way, and 4 the other. (One side being very conservative in it's reading of the law, the other being very liberal.) That is, most of the justices will read the laws in predicatible ways.

Sandra was the one who was most likely to change groups she voted with on any issue; therefore she was the swing voter. And therefore this is a very important position for Bush to fill: If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.

Of course, Justices are not known for doing what the people who appointed them want them to do. Sandra, for instance, was appointed by Reagan, who was a very conservative president...

Re:Question.

[Qzukk]

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process?

Yes.

The justices write majority and minority opinions based on whether they were on the "winning" or "losing" side of the argument. Typically one on each side will write the opinion and everyone else endorses it, although sometimes some justices will write their own opinion by themselves.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the justices reveal their deliberation process?
Sometimes. Justices can write separate concurring or dissenting opinions if their interpretation of a case is different than the majority or minority opinions.

Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions? (Which would also strike me as somewhat questionable behavior from a SC justice.)
Sometimes. The Supreme Court rules on individual cases, not broad issues. A justice who changes his or her vote on a particular issue almost always does so b/c of different specific circumstances in the case under consideration. The history, local laws, and judical proceedings are different in every case. Justices' opinions on the law may vary over 30 years, but are very consistent year to year. (Except for Scalia. He does whatever he wants. And Thomas usually follows his Big Poppa Tony.)

Re:Question.

[UnknowingFool]

How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"?

The court is divided most of the time between the "liberal" and "conservative" members. The definition of "liberal" and "conservative" changes and not every justice votes according to their label. Most of the justices do vote the same way most of the time with their ideology. Although she had thought to have been conservative when she was appointed, she has sided with the liberal side sometimes. Thus she has been a swing vote. Some however would argue that Justice Thomas has been a swing vote too as he has deviated from the conservative side as well.

Re:Question.

[jdavidb]

Or are particular judges just considered "swing votes" because they aren't consistent in the leaning of their decisions?

Uh, it's sort of like that. Basically, if you assume that every person and every issue fit into a linear liberal-conservative spectrum, the "swing votes" are the ones who tend to wind up on different sides of the midpoints at different times.

Another way they are classified is by assuming that any justice appointed by a Republican is or should be expected to be conservative/Republican, and any justice appointed by a Democrat is or should be expected to be liberal/Democratic. Given that assumption, I believe there's two or three justices who sometimes don't line up with where they would be expected to vote.

Re:Question.

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

Essentially, the term "swing" as used in this context, means that the person does not fit nicely in to either the conservative or liberal category.

Justice O'Connor's decisions tended to defy American society's recent unrelenting desire to categorize every human behavior as a black or white issue. She was essentially a wild card that kept the court in balance. In very general terms, there are four judges that lean right, and four that lean left.

O'Connor tended to make up her own mind, regardless of her own political views, and as a result was more often than not, cast the deciding vote in very close decisions. Hence the term "swing" voters.

She was a very good justice, and her presence will be missed. Look for a good deal of chaos in the coming weeks, as everything that sucks about our two party system is about to kick in to overdrive.

See the obligitory Wiki article on the SCOTUS for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUS

Re:Question.

[Niten]

According to the Washington Post article highlighting her service on the Supreme Court, O'Connor was considered a swing vote because she has exhibited less of a political agenda than most of her fellow Justices, generally being relatively open to rational persuasion, and less predictable in her decisions as a result.

In my opinion, this isn't "questionable behavior from a SC justice"; the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be non-partisan and open to discussion on polarizing issues. To the extent that Sandra Day O'Connor exemplified these positive characteristics as a Justice to a greater degree than her colleagues, she has been considered a "swing vote".

Re:Question.

[donutello]

No, being a swing voter has nothing to do with being Left or Right. 4 of of the justices on the SCOTUS currently are "constructionists", i.e. they believe that their job is to resolve ambiguities in the Constitution by figuring out what the people who wrote it most likely meant when they wrote it. 4 others believe that the Constitution is a "living document" and that their job is to resolve ambiguities by applying modern interpretations to the words in the document. Conservatives like the constructionists because their rulings tend to support their own agendas and likewise the liberals tend to like the "living document" wing because their rulings tend to conform to their agenda.

O'Connor is a "swing" voter because sometimes she reasons based upon a strict interpretation and at other times reasons based upon a more creative interpretation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with Centrism. The fact that constructionists are aligned with the right and the "living document" wing is aligned with the left is merely an accident of what the constitution actually is.

Re:Question.

[rackhamh]

Sorry, I should clarify. When I said it might be questionable behavior, I did not mean to imply that the world should be viewed in black and white terms.

Rather, I meant that it would be problematic if a justice were *inconsistent* in her decisions -- making decisions that seem to defy or contradict earlier cases.

Furthermore, in the recent elections, a "swing voter" was somebody who could be swayed in either direction. These voters were considered somewhat susceptible to political manipulation down to the last moment. I'm not saying this is the case, but it would be a shame if that were true of our SC justices as well.

Re:Question.

[ajakk]

There were no dissenting opinions filed in the Grokster case. The case was decided 9-0. You might be thinking of concurring opinions.

Re:Question.

[babble123]

The "conservatives" who typically are more "creationist" and who believe that "if it ain't in the constitution, we shouldn't try and add it."

I'm a little puzzled by your use of the term creationist in this context. Do you mean originalist? The court doesn't see many creationism-vs-evolution style cases these days.

Re:Question.

[Tassach]

How is it determined which of the justices is the "swing vote"?

By keeping track of who votes together. Justices Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas generally all vote the neo-con party line together, Souter usually joins them. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens usually vote the traditional liberal party line as a bloc. Kennedy and O'Connor can go either way on any issues, although O'Connor tends to lean a bit to the right and Kennedy a bit to the left.

With O'Connor retiring and Rhenquist on his way out (one way or the other), it looks like we're going to have a SC with 4 hard-right justices (Scalia, Thomas, and 2 new ones), one medium-right (Souter), one moderate (Kennedy) and three left (Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens).

This new structure pretty much wraps up the Supreme Court for the neo-cons 5-4 on any partisan issue. Say goodbye to all forms of sexual freedom (including legalized abortion), seperation of church and state, and the right to privacy.

Re:Question.

[Strawser]

If he can get someone who will vote the way Bush wants, Bush can likely get the whole SCOTUS weight on his side.

Yes, and the problem is that one small group of people, the party leadership for the GOP, will control both houses of Congress, the Executive Office, and the Supreme court. They will be able to pass just about any law they want, sign it, and uphold it in court.

That's exceptionally dangerous.

Re:Question.

[Qzukk]

The problem is that at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no more "conservative" or "liberal" or "Democratic" or "Republican". You have Federalism and Constitutionalism. The Federalists seek to understand how the constitution can be expanded to cover new issues and give new powers that weren't even imaginable in the 1700's (paved streets stretching thousands of miles? Jefferson would have headgibbed! But lets see... trucks carry goods on roads, roads cross state lines, why yes, I think we can allow the feds to regulate the roads). The Strict Constitutionalists seek to interpret the Constitution literally (10th amendment for the win!). It tends to be that in the past, most conservatives believed in limited federal powers, while most liberals believed in expanded federal powers, which is how the "liberal" and "conservative" lables got stuck on the camps, but anyone watching Bush and DeLay whine on and on about how the courts aren't letting them pass a law concerning the life or death of a single human being (try finding THAT power in the US Constitution) it's pretty clear that labels are as meaningless as ever.

Re:Question.

[mcgroarty]

I think you mean that the conservatives have an originalist interpretation of the constitution. They adhere to the original document, not personal interpretations of the founders' intent. Yes though, there are many conservative creationinsts. Just not in this context. :)

As for Roe v Wade, people need to understand this ruling better. It argues against legislating abortion because abortion laws would treat men and women differently. Well, duh. When women being required to wear bikini tops on the beach represents a constitutional crisis, you'll be able to argue that this was a good ruling. Until then, it's the biggest cop out evasion in history. Whether you're pro- or anti-abortion, you've got to agree that the constitution doens't cover it and accordingly, that it should be decided in state courts. Until I can use the womens' can, Roe v Wade is hella weak.

Re:Question.

[donutello]

Clarence Thomas is a constructionist, not a Conservative. His dissenting opinions in the marijuana and private-property-grab decisions are consistent with his positions.

We need more Constructionists on the bench. The opposite of constructionist judges is autocratic ones.

It's sad how much the lack of a constitutional amendment supporting abortion rights is going to harm this nation. I wish we could get such an amendment into the constitution in the next few years so people will have no reason to fear constructionists and we don't drift towards an autocratic SCOTUS.

Re:Question.

[iabervon]

People get a reasonable idea of what various justices think about various topics, and figure out how they might be expected to vote. They can't tell about the justices' actual discussion, but they do read the decisions and dissents, and look at what the authors say, how they write them, and who writes what decision, as well as how each justice voted on a particular case.

Re:Question.

[ecklesweb]

Labelling O'Conner as the "Swing Vote Justice" is just media BS. O'Conner herself has commented on it:

"That's something the media has devised as a means of writing about the court, and I don't think that has a lot of validity."
--Sandra Day O'Conner (as quoted by CNN)

I tend to agree with her.

Re:Question.

[jfengel]

The term he's looking for is "constructionist", as in "strict constructionist".

Re:Question.

[jfengel]

Arguably, one could make it a "right to privacy" amendment, which would be more palatable to some. Strict constructionists have made a big deal out of the lack of an explicit right to privacy in the constitution, even though that's one of they keys upon which Roe was based. They had to find it by a slightly tortured reading of the fourth amendment. I'd support an explicit right to privacy, though that would flood the court with cases overturning existing laws.

I think it's going a bit far to say that the opposite of "constructionist" is "autocratic". Usually the opposite is considered "activist", and that's taken on a pretty pejorative tone. The right of Congress to impeach a judge limits their autocratic powers: the judge can always be removed.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) The "progressives" or "liberals", who have tended to favour an "expansionist" interpretation of the constitution, and have typically been in favour of Roe vs Wade.

I.e. the "Big Brother Is Watching You" government. Government should be in charge of every thing you do, every penny you earn, every penny you spend, who you talk to, where you are allowed to go, and when you are permitted to do or see anything. Abortions are ok anytime.

(2) The "conservatives" who typically are more "creationist" and who believe that "if it ain't in the constitution, we shouldn't try and add it."

I.e. Let individuals decide what they should do. Government shouldn't be in control of every aspect of your life.

Oh, those evil conservitives, who don't believe in the great socialist cause! We must destroy them!

If we can tax them till they are poor, and force them to live on welfare, then we can control them too! Just repeat it after me, "they aren't paying their fair share", even though they pay a lot more tham me. "They aren't paying their fair share", even though they pay a lot more tham me. "They aren't paying their fair share", even though they pay a lot more tham me.

Re:Question.

[Hoarke42]

It's sad how much the lack of a constitutional amendment supporting abortion rights is going to harm this nation. I wish we could get such an amendment into the constitution in the next few years so people will have no reason to fear constructionists and we don't drift towards an autocratic SCOTUS

Recent thoughts I've had: I'm curious as to why people on both sides of the abortion debate place it so highly. I think it's important, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's more important than almost every other issue combined - which is how some people sound. Personally, I'm on the other side as you on this issue; but I think I'd rather have someone who I agree with and think is qualified and only disagree with them on this one issue rather than someone with whom I only agree on their abortion stance.

Just trying to get where people are coming from when the make abortion/life their major issue:
The argument I can see from my side of the fence (I'm stating it, not defending) is that someone supporting abortion must have some sort of character flaw to be supported murder, regardless of their other voting record. Is the argument from the other side that someone who is pro-life must be inherently against individual rights, regardless of their other voting record?

Now back a little more on topic...
That all said, I agree very much with the parent's statement that the rights should be enumerated so that we could more easily have Constructionalist judges - something I think is VERY important.

Re:Question.

[donutello]

Actually, I haven't made up my mind about abortion. On the one hand, I resent the idea of governments telling people what to do with their life without affecting the rights of others. On the other hand, there is a need to protect the life of those who can't protect their own. It all boils down to whether or not you consider an unborn fetus a "human life" and unfortunately I don't see any clear medical or philosophical argument establishing one way or the other.

I'm also a pragmatist. It's clear that a lot of people feel very strongly on the subject and that a majority of people support abortion rights. I'm all for a constitutional amendment enumerating it as an unalienable right if it gets us back to talking about the more important things.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

you haven't been paying attention lately have you?

To say that the democrats are the big brother wing is beyond rediculous. BOTH parties have members who want to control people's lives. Often, it's diffent parts of your life they want to control. Let me ask you a few questions:

-Why should anyone care what chemicals you put in your body? If complete strangers can tell you what drugs you can use or can't, are you still free?

-Why, should anyone else care about your sex life? If it's between 2 concenting adults, in privacy, who cares? If they do, why?

-Why would law enforcement need to hide their activities? Even from a Judge?

-Why should I decide whether or not someone should stay pregnant? Should the state make moral decisions for the individual?

-Why do you believe the way you do? Because you were taught to believe that way? Have you ever believed differently than you do now? If you haven't, are you free to think how you do? Or have you been programmed?

That last one is the big one. If you have never changed your mind, most likely, YOU were not the one who made it up in the first place. The right and the left both parrot off their platforms, and it's worse on the extremes (which the parent poster appears to be a member of). After a bit of thought, you'll realize it's not simply black and white -- both parties have problems and need to be closely watched. NEVER give a blank check to a politician -- no matter what he claims to believe.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. We need to challenge the laws requiring women to wear bikini tops on our beaches. These laws a blatantly unconstitutional and must be struck down!

Re:Question.

[GigsVT]

How dare you suggest that there are more than two sides to something!

Fox should fire you right now! :)

Re:Question.

[BeerCur]

They had to find it by a slightly tortured reading of the fourth amendment

I always thought it came more from the reading of the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The framers realized that progress would transform the society we lived in. This amendment was a reminder to the judicial branch that the basic premise and intention of the Bill of Rights was to limit government's power to infringe on our freedom. The spirit of Bill of Rights therefore should be considered when deciding new constitutional "law" in this every changing world.

Re:Question.

[magefile]

"Big Brother Is Watching You"

Funny. Telling people that they can't get married because of what they do in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms isn't Big Brother-ish? Telling people that what they do in their own homes (e.g., using birth control) isn't Big Brother-ish? Granted, the later is an old and perhaps obsolete example - but it's very closely tied to the reasons for Roe v. Wade.

Re:Question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example is bogus. Roads are a constitutionally enumerated responsibility of the feds. See I.8.7 of the US Constitution.

Re:Question.

[Niten]

Oops, I misunderstood your parent comment the first time I read it. Good point, I agree: Inconsistent and contradictory decisions by a Supreme Court Justice would indeed be very worrisome.

Re:Question.

[Alsee]

I'd rather have someone who I agree with and think is qualified and only disagree with them on this one issue rather than someone with whom I only agree on their abortion stance.

Agreed, single issue voting is destructive to good and healthy democracy. And this exactly leads into the next point...

I'm curious as to why people on both sides of the abortion debate place it so highly.

About 2/3 of the public do not want to overturn Roe v Wade and about 1/3 do. A substantial portion of that 1/3 are indeed single issue voters. The abortion-is-murder group. The Republican leadership has been using and abusing it as a wedge issue.

I think very few people who want to uphold Roe v Wade do so with single issue determination, and as a 2/3 position they ordinarily have no need to. If there any signifigant number of pro-choice voters actually "placed the issue so highly" then with a 2-to-1 majority all elections involving the issue would be a forgone conclusions. With a 2-1 majority almost all elected officials would be pro-choice *if* pro-choice had any substantion single-issue base. However the pro-choice side does often need to take notice and respond to the intense and magnified single-issue-abortion-is-murder politics.

There were... and are... abortion-is-murder activists who have said and are saying that they handed Bush the election on this single-issue-basis. Saying that he *MUST* make good on his "promise" to them to make a Supreme Court appointment on a single-issue-basis. Powerful activists, Bush's own supporters, who have said that they will raise bloody hell if Bush "betrays" them.

I recall one of the debates in Bush's reelection campaign where he was asked about Supreme Court appointments. Bush answered that he had no litmus test for Supreme Court judges, being careful not to alienate the pro-choice majority, but then his answer was dominated by a bizzare tangent. A bizzare tangent that slipped past most of the public as meaningless jibberish. A tangent about the Dred Scott Supreme Court case. The key point here being that the abortion-is-murder camp often equate Roe v Wade to the Dred Scott case. See here and here. Bush was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. To most of the public he said that he would not appoint judges on a single issue basis, while he said "in code" to his abortion-is-murder base that he would absolutely positively only appoint a judge that would overturn Roe v Wade in exactly the same way Dred Scott was overturned.

Here's the transcript from the debate:
QUESTIONER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've

Confused...

[daalro]

This news is not nearly nerdy enough to be posted on Slashdot. What gives?

Re:Confused...

[Procrastin8er]

I used to say the same thing, until I realized that any story that can be spun by the kooky left will be at home on /.

Re:Confused...

[fakeplasticusername]

You like surfing around the internet without dealing with blockages like the ones that the people in china have to deal with? You like the fact that you work as a Techie in this country and not a middle-manager or a salesman: that your job is one of the few that hasn't been outsourced?

Yes, i'm being over-dramatic, but to demonstrate a point... O'Connor was often the center point in a left/right decision and if she is replaced with a neo-conservative, the loosely defined balance that exists now will dissapear.

Only one word springs to mind:

[peacefinder]

Eeek!

Put in Politics section?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a rarely used Politics section on slashdot, and here comes a relevent article, which is placed in the YRO section.........

O'Connor's impact

[onree]

From Salon.com: We've already noted the critical role Sandra Day O'Connor has played as a Supreme Court swing voter over the last 24 years. Here's more on that front -- People for the American Way's list and description of notable 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more conservative justice were sitting in O'Connor's seat: * Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus; * Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act; * Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment; * Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting; * Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled; * Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary; * Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person; * Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports; * Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events; * Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor; * Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates; * Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits; * McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties' use of unlimited soft money contributions; * Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion; and * McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

Re:O'Connor's impact

[bindster]

Here is a more faithful reproduction of the Salon piece:

O'Connor and the 5-4 decision

We've already noted the critical role Sandra Day O'Connor has played as a Supreme Court swing voter over the last 24 years. Here's more on that front -- People for the American Way's list and description of notable 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more conservative justice were sitting in O'Connor's seat:

• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus;
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act;
• Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment;
• Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting;
• Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled;
• Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary;
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person;
• Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports;
• Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events;
• Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor;
• Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates;
• Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits;
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties' use of unlimited soft money contributions;
• Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion; and
• McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

-- Tim Grieve

Re:O'Connor's impact

[Dr. Transparent]

Where's the modification for "-5 Craptastically formatted."

Re:O'Connor's impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesintg.

Do you know if there is a list of Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more liberal jsutice were sitting in O'Connor's seat? That would be interesting too.

Let the eagle soar!!

[k4_pacific]

This means that Bush has his chance to appoint John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court where he can do some REAL damage. Wouldn't that be fun?

Re:Let the eagle soar!!

[MadMorf]

This means that Bush has his chance to appoint John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court where he can do some REAL damage.

Jeez.
Don't even joke about this...

IMHO, that man is one of the most dangerous men on the planet...

Re:Let the eagle soar!!

[idontgno]

AAAAAAAAAAGH!

Geez, Don't even JOKE like that! That craps' SCARY!

Re:Let the eagle soar!!

[zoomzit]

I wouldn't worry about that. Ultimately republican congressmen are going to have to put their neck out for whoever Bush nominates, and not even ultra-conservative senators are going to want to justify to their constituents why they appointed Ashcroft.

They want someone very conservative, but they need someone who hasn't built an ultra-conservative trackrecord yet so that it plays well for the constituents. Because of this, I think he will appoint Gonzales.

Re:Bring on another Scalia

[numbuscus]

Yeah, those damn liberals on the court! All 2 of them that were nominated by democrats!

O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Although O'Connor was nominated by Reagan, she proved to be a compassionate conservative, not a diehard conservative. She often voted in favor of strengthening individual rights over the power of the state. She was a graduate of Stanford Law school and is a credit to her profession.

By contrast, Bush is not a compassionate conservative. He is a religious conservative and will attempt to replace O'Connor with an Ann-Coulter think-alike. The Democrats need to fulfill their responsibility to, not only Americans, but also to the citizens of the world; in short, the Democrats need to filibuster every single religious conservative that Bush nominates. So help me, Buddha.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, it doesn't matter that MOST americans voted for Bush, the minority - that would be the group that less than most wanted - should block the will of the majority. Long live the liberal losers.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: Democrats represent more people in congress than do the Republicans. The system is not set up to represent the majority. Head back to civics class.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[snorklewacker]

It's people like you that make this country great. I salute you sir. By the way, I stoned your wife -- I could see the harlot's ankle, she had it coming! I'm sure you don't mind.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that neither side has a majority. Where I come from 51%, or even 55%, is considered half. Technically, yes, it is a majority, but for practical purposes it isn't. If they pick a candidate that makes 55% happy, but that 45% hate, that isn't good. If they pick a candidate that 45% like, but 55% don't, that's worse.

If Bush does something totally out of character and picks a candidate that 55% of the senate likes and the other 45% considers acceptable, then great. I bet there are a lot of judges like that out there, who are conservative but well respected for being reasonable and responsible and following the Constitution. Then again, things have been polarized to the point that
a. Bush will not consider compromise in his selection.
b. The Democrats will likely fillibuster whoever he selects, no matter how worthy.
c. The Republicans will likely cry foul and use the 'nuclear option' against any fillibuster, even if Bush had selected a mass-murdering, alter-boy raping Catholic cardinal. (No offense against Catholics or murderers meant. Just that this person shouldn't be a justice.)

Note, the Democrats approved over 200 judges in his first term, and only blocked 10. That doesn't seem unreasonable, 45% of the senate blocking 5% of judicial selections. Why should Bush, with 51% of the vote, get 100% of his policy?

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[zors]

You should head back yourself. That may be true in the senate, but not in the house, which is set up to represent the majority. So, the republicans represent the bulk of the states (the senates) and the bulk of the population (the house) ergo they represent the majority. Or do you think that the red states with just one representative are what gave the republicans the lead in the house?

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans didn't vote.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Deflatamouse!]

... every single religious conservative that Bush nominates. So help me, Buddha.

Why would Buddha help you? Buddhism can be considered a conservative religion as well. Please read up on it before invoking it. You make yourself sound very uneducated.

I think you probably mean "...every single Christian conservative...".

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

So help me, Buddha.

So help me, God, too. Theocracies rarely help the religions that they enforce.

The last benefit Christianity got from a quasi-theocracy was the conversion of Constantine - and that mainly because he stopped the official persecution of Christians and took away a lot of the tribal paganism throughout Europe. Once a religion is well-known and it's not being persecuted, a theocracy doesn't help it anymore.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Gulthek]

You sound like you are active in the world, which means you are gaining karma, which means you are being bound to this world (they say golden chains for good deeds, iron chains for bad deeds). That's not a bad thing as long as you think playing on the wheel is fun; but Buddha is one who has no chains. Thus, I don't think he'll offer much help if you want to keep playing on the wheel.

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[FriedTurkey]

He is a religious conservative and will attempt to replace O'Connor with an Ann-Coulter think-alike.

I have optimism that Bush can come up with somebody better than Ann Coulter. Ann doesn't understand any issues. On talking head shows, she doesn't answer the questions. She just responds with one of the same four jabs at liberals she always does. It was hilarious to see her on the cover of Time as the new face of the right.

Everyone of Ann Coulter's judicial documents would start: "Those elitist liberals..".

Re:O'Connor was a Compassionate Conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you've never heard of thing called redistricting. When a state gets its reps assigned to it, it doesn't have to equally portion out those reps amungst the population, that's how a whole large city can end up with one rep they vote for while a farming area might vote for 3 reps while having a much smaller population than the city.

Welcome to

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now that Bush will get the chance to nominate two justices, America will be changing its name to ....

The Christian Republic of America!

Re:Welcome to

[Dr. Transparent]

Actually I heard rumors the new name would be Happy Fun Land.

It is a big deal.

[Ken Broadfoot]

So far no one here seems to care too much about this. The supreme court makes decisions that truly affect our lives..

If the vote in florida had been allowed to finish most probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would still be alive as well as 1700+ americans.

It may not be news for nerds but it IS stuff that maters.

--ken

Re:It is a big deal.

[PaxTech]

What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq, and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

Re:It is a big deal.

[coopaq]

If the vote in florida had been allowed to finish most probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would still be alive as well as 1700+ americans.

Objection you honor! Speculation.

Sustained.

Re:It is a big deal.

[hagrin]

Well, you gave people 8 minutes to respond to the news posting here. Many of us, in those first 8 minutes, were rushing our girlfriends to Planned Parenthood to "get it taken care of" just in the nick of time.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, hundreds of thousands (I would say thousands, but I'll use your words) would be alive today. They would be free to be gassed, tortured, and executed by poor Saddam and his sons. Imagine also, the people who ran the rape and torture rooms would be employed too. Yes, it truely is sad. Imagine the thousands of Germans who would be alive if that damned Roosevelt would have not been elected. Your point is well understood.

The Democrats lost! Get over it and quit harping on old news. Spend your efforts finding a candidate that can connect with someone besides the hard left-wing liberals. Use your energy wisely.

Re:It is a big deal.

[isa-kuruption]

I really don't know how this Supreme Court decision, which upheld Florida law, had anything to do with the tragedy of 9/11. By the way, the number was more like 3000.

Ohhh you're talking about the soldiers. Well, you're right, if it wasn't for our supreme court decision, then 50 million of Iraqis and Afghanis would still be under the facist rule of dictators.

And where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? No number can be verified as to how many and even the most liberal estimates put it at only about 50,000 to 60,000.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Ken Broadfoot]

"most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!"

Bush's first gutless act was going to the feds to settle a state issue. What happened to states rights? Strict Constructionist he says...

Medical Marijuana,
Assisted Suicide.

If he was so sure he was going to win the recount he should have let it be.

Same for Gore too... He should have asked ALL counties to recount. Not just the democratic ones.

Yes I am a liberal. So what? If everybody in America walked in lock step with Bush this truly would be a scary place. There are two parties for a reason.

Debate, etc...

--ken

Re:It is a big deal.

[revscat]

What are you talking about?? Clinton administration policy was for regime change in Iraq, Gore is on record before 2000 calling for regime change in Iraq,

A) They were wrong. B) You're taking what they said out of context. C) Bush has been such a stubborn ass that he won't change any policy, no matter how badly it fails. D) Repeating lies don't make it true.

and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

That is a lie. Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.

Re:It is a big deal.

[tktk]

I think people do care. This is after all "Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.", etc. Try finding other technology sites that are talking about this.

People here probably are not commenting since they don't know much about SCOTUS.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Jerf]

Given the kill rate of Saddam (no, it was not zero), I think we're well into the positive, not that that's saying much compared to Saddam. And on the whole, both we and Iraq are better off with the ones getting killed than the ones Saddam would have killed. And, best of all, his kill rate would have upped if we just backed down; there's this huge untapped Kurdish area he could have drawn from.

But hey, keep thinking in propoganda. It's easier. Gets modded better, too.

Re:It is a big deal.

[wass]

So you think that Gore merely calling for regime change in Iraq is synonymous with Bush invading Iraq? And furthermore intentionally misleading the country about the urgency to invade Iraq? And even more so, ignoring the advice of military brass and invading Iraq with insufficient troops and without any forethought given to a viable occupation plan or exit strategy?

Gore isn't responsible for the deaths of 1700 American soldiers, but the Commander in Chief certainly is.

Re:It is a big deal.

[ivan256]

Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.

So you're against freedom of expression?

Re:It is a big deal.

[mcgroarty]

Respectfully, your calculations don't include the thousands of Iraqis killed every month for political and religious dissent, and it doesn't include the number of Americans who may not die if (yes, a big if) Bush's plan for reforming the middle east reduces terrorism.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Wyatt Earp]

Alright. Theres a fiction here at work that people just like to ignore to bash Bush.

The fiction is that the Democratic Administration would have been "nicer" to Iraq than the Republicans. Thats a fantasy.

Clinton-Blair were every much as militarily active against Iraq as Bush-Blair. The military planning for OIF were devised in the late 1990s as Operation Desert Badger. Basicly if a US/UK or UN aircraft was shot down over Iraq the US/UK were going to invade Iraq.

"...discussions on Iraq preceding that, and subsequent to that, had been basically on Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch and I think I mentioned to you that we had a plan for a downed aircraft called Desert Badger. And that I was uncomfortable with the fact that our planes were being shot at and we weren't able to do much about it under the constraints that existed.

I was also uncomfortable with Desert Badger, and I thought the President ought to have additional options, so I told him that I was going to see if we could pre-package some additional options, and we ended up pre-packaging a Desert Badger Plus and a Desert Badger Plus Plus. So that he knew about it, and that in the event a plane went down, I could call him and recommend one of those three."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/new s/2004/04/mil-040419-dod02.htm

Don't forget DESERT FOX
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_ fox.htm

The US/UK/Saudis/Kuwaitis were waiting for an excuse to go into Iraq. Right or wrong this happened in 2002-2003 and the Invasion was one.

This was going to happen no matter who was in the White House. Bush '41, Clinton, Bush '43, Gore, Kerry, it doesn't matter, US/UK policy was for removal of Saddam, to think otherwise is fiction.

Re:It is a big deal.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.

Shooting is too good for them. Think human punch cards.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you always gobble up everything the media feeds you, like a little puppy being thrown table scraps? Hmm...

Re:It is a big deal.

[jdavidb]

and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

That is a lie. Also, anyone -- anyone -- who supports unverifiable electronic voting should be shot.

What the heck? How does an assertion about the vote count of Florida automatically mean the person supports electronic voting, verifiable or unverifiable??

Re:It is a big deal.

[lowmagnet]

Shooting people is a form of expression.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Procrastin8er]

If the vote in florida had been allowed to finish
I think you meant to say, if the Democratic fraud had been allowed to finish...

Re:It is a big deal.

[dildatron]

I am just curious how you would go about changing a regime? Or are you one of those people who think the UN really does have power?

Re:It is a big deal.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Actually we more or less funneled arms and money in to found, and prop up both governments.

For the record, Afganistan was a fundimentalist Regime, not a Fascism. And Iraq didn't really have enough of an industrial base to be rightfully called a Facism.

How many Native Americans did we strip of their land, send off to die in reservations, and/or outright kill during the 19th century. Can you say "millions." I knew you could.

Now get off your high horse. War is about economic or political advantage. Afganistan may have been justifiable as retribution for housing Al-Queda. But Iraq was just plain stupid on so many grounds both economic and political that Bush is going to give Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of "Worst President."

Re:It is a big deal.

[clontzman]

And where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? No number can be verified as to how many and even the most liberal estimates put it at only about 50,000 to 60,000.

McLaughlin Group this weekend reported north of 111,000 civilians killed in Iraq. Not hundreds of thousands, but double your liberal estimates.

Re:It is a big deal.

[revscat]

It doesn't, necessarily. But eleectronic voting was widespread in both Florida and Ohio. Nevertheless, the statement is true nonetheless.

Re:It is a big deal.

[revscat]

You can express yourself all you want. But when you endorse treason against the democracy, you should be prepared for the consequences.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Bush still would have won Florida in 2000, recounts were done over and over even after the decsion. Maybe what you meant is if people with opinions different than me were not allowed to vote.

Get over it, it's five years ago, if it had been such an injustice, the voters would have corrected it in '04.

Re:It is a big deal.

[jac1962]

The claim that the Liberation of Iraq killed "100,000" Iraqis is another example of the Left exaggerating a single study for political purposes.

But since we're going to talk about dead Iraqis, let's talk about the 500,000 Iraqi children Clinton and Albright allegedly killed by enforcing U.N sanctions against Saddam's regime.

If we're going to believe the hyperbole and hysteria generated by the Left and parroted by the MSM as fact, then we have to acknowledge that Bush is about 400,000 Iraqi deaths behind Clinton.

Don't we?

Re:It is a big deal.

[isa-kuruption]

How many Native Americans did we strip of their land, send off to die in reservations, and/or outright kill during the 19th century. Can you say "millions." I knew you could.

What this has to do with Iraq or Afghanistan I do not know, but I'm sure you can come up with something crazy enough to justify such a rediculous comment.

Regardless, this was more or less a war, that is, the battle between the colonists and the Native Americans. I'm not necessarily justifying the actions (of either side), but also history shows mistakes on both sides of that conflict. In any case, your point to show how "bad" America is falls short, like all other liberal arguments.

Now get off your high horse. War is about economic or political advantage.

Of course it does... because, again, America is bad... and no one ever does anything for other people.

But Iraq was just plain stupid on so many grounds both economic and political that Bush is going to give Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of "Worst President."

Which perfectly contradicts the last sentence I quoted you on. It wasn't about either money or politics. It was about principle. Bush put his presidency on the line by going into Iraq. If it was all about money and politics, he wouldn't have done this.

Oh and btw, Clinton was the worst President. Or maybe it was Carter. Tough call! </opinion>

Re:It is a big deal.

[dfenstrate]

You're pretty good at calling someone a liar without a single link to back your view up.

Nothing would get posted on the internet if everyone had to cite something when making a statement, but if you're going to yell LIAR LIAR at someone, at least have the decency to post one link supporting your insulting allegation.

Re:It is a big deal.

[snwcrash]

Regardless, this was more or less a war, that is, the battle between the colonists and the Native Americans.

It wasn't a war, we were dislocating the native population through any means necassary, look at the Trail of Tears. If this happened in modern times we'd call it a crime against humanity. Calling it a mistake is a huge understatement.

Re:It is a big deal.

[marcus frost]

As a fairly staunch conservative (although I will also say that I am at odds with the administration on a number of issues as well), I have to tell you that what you wrote is very, very respectable, and I applaud you for it. It seems too often people from one side use "bashing" the other side as the reason they are what they are. "I'm a conservative because liberals are xxxxx" and vice versa. Kudos to you, I am glad liberals like you exist, because you are completely right - if the entire country followed in any leaders footsteps, it would be a scary place. Many times in political discussions I've given things new thoughts because of liberal interpretations or opinions, and vice versa. It's very healthy, in my opinion, even if it's impossible for both sides to agree on things. I really sometimes wish there was less extremism on both sides, but I suppose it is all human nature especially in such a divese society as what we have here.

Re:It is a big deal.

[UnknowingFool]

If the vote in florida had been allowed to finish most probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would still be alive as well as 1700+ americans.

At best, it's speculative that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. If Gore had invaded Iraq, my personal opinion is that Gore most likely would not have tried to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda and WMDs as an excuse. Gore would have found some other reason that may have been more persuasive to the rest of the world. My $0.02.

Re:It is a big deal.

[PaxTech]

> > and most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

> That is a lie.

Tell CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html

Re:It is a big deal.

[OakDragon]

If the vote in florida had been allowed to finish most probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would still be alive as well as 1700+ americans.

Or, just maybe, a whole lot more Americans would be dead while we attempted to "arrest" Bin Laden.

Re:It is a big deal.

[OakDragon]

To add to my own post, I just realized I implicitly agreed about the vote in "florida" [sic]... I did not mean to give that impression. And I'm getting OT.

Re:It is a big deal.

[wass]

And on the whole, both we and Iraq are better off with the ones getting killed than the ones Saddam would have killed.

You obviously support this war, which branch of the armed forces are you serving in?

If you're not currently serving, then will you march right down to your local recruiting station and sign up to serve in this war you so happily support? Or are you a chickenhawk of the 101st armchair brigade that happily lets other people do the fighting and dying for him/her?

Re:It is a big deal.

[Ken Broadfoot]

Why, thanks! *grin*

I guess I am a liberal because I really am a closet libertarian. I have been to places in the world where freedom FROM government is held more sacred than anything else. Generally the new conservative movement is opposite of that. Lots of issues, I believe, the government should stay out of. Womans right to choose, medical marijauna, gay marriage, state sponsered religion. I was suprised at the recent imminent domain ruling.

I do believe also that government should protect and benefit people and not corporations.

I get told sometimes that this is what the Republican Party stands for: Personal liberty etc...

I just don't happen to see it. Maybe it did in the Barry Goldwater days but not today.

Also, I am not happy with the doctrine of preventive war.

Imagine preventive murder... "Based on the fact the kid comes from a broken family were the father was an achoholic. There is a 57% chance the kid will murder someone in the next twenty years. So we will put him into a mental institution in another country without review for an indefinite period of time."

Great idea right? Not in America. Freedom is far more important than safety. Really it is...

--ken

Re:It is a big deal.

[wass]

So what you honestly believe is that merely "calling for regime change" in a country is the same thing as rushing to invade that country causing countless deaths?

Back to the point at hand in my original post, there is no way Gore is just as responsible for the deaths of 1700 American soldiers as the Commander in Chief. Especially given that Bush didn't have an exit strategy, ignored the advice of advisors telling him to bring in far more troops than the number he wanted, and that the units on the ground were severely under-equiped.

But hey, you're right, Bush can do no wrong, better blame that liberal Gore who apparently said he wanted regime change. After all, he was VP when Clinton got a blowjob, the horrors the horrors.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

The study showed the 100,000 plus body count. No one had to exaggerate it. As for deaths that followed sanctions, your understanding of cause and effect is a little off (to put it mildly). The United Nations imposed the sanctions. Bush Senior started the enforcement. Clinton only fulfilled his obligation to the U.N. Bush Junior, rather than do anything to lessen the sanctions, actually sought to increase them (Russia intervened and threatened to veto the move). So, Bush took us to war against the people of Iraq. He has no plan for the peace. No WMDs did he find. He used fantom WMDs to justify his invasion of a sovereign nation. Why did Bush seek to justify his invasion this way? Because otherwise Bush's act is considered a violation of International law. That's right, George Bush is a war criminal (Downing Street Minutes prove this). That puts Bush in the warm and fuzzy company of, dare I say it, Nazis. If the Gulag isn't so bad down in Cuba, as Republicans (and Bush) claim, he won't mind staying there.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, can we get over this already? The presidency was lost fair and square. But that doesn't suddenly make it "okay" to fuck with the votes.

We should be focusing on the state and local races that were stolen in places like Volusia County, where for the second major election in a row, the vote tallies were tampered with (only this time, the commission was too stupid to forge the election overseers signatures on the tallies they turned in, and left the originals on the curb. Oops!) So the tampered votes wouldn't have changed the presidency? What about Senators? Representatives? County Commissioner? DA? Mayor? School District Superintendent?

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

He backed his position just as well as the guy he was arguing with (i.e. not at all).

Neither gave any linkage.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Jerf]

which branch of the armed forces are you serving in?

Unlike you, I don't think in binary terms, and there is more to life than "support/not support". Your argument stands no chance of convincing anyone's mind; it just makes you feel better.

You will, personal experience shows, try even harder to trap me in a "contradiction" generated by your one-dimensional framing. Your one-dimensional ideas are your problem, not mine.

But for what it's worth, funding and homeland support.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pretty good at calling someone a liar without a single link to back your view up.

When the facts have been out in the open for three and a half years, you don't need a link. The first complete count of the Florida vote was finished in early September 2001 and showed Al Gore to win by a tiny margin -- between 70 and 300 votes -- by any standard of determining voter intent, chads or no chads. Certain current events made the vote-counting consortium (a group on newspapers, mind you) skip their mid-September 2001 release date. They said they didn't want to stoke partisan tensions and it seemed irrelevant who the real winner of the election was and stuff like that.

The newspapers held onto the data for a whole month before they found a way to spin it so they could claim Bush won in their headlines, saying that if only the counties that agreed to Gore's request to count all their votes had done so, then Bush would have been ahead in some circumstances. Of course, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a full and complete count, so this spinning was irrelevant.

In addition, there was large-scale abuse of Florida's laws prohibiting felons from voting. Choicepoint corporation has reported that, at the request of Secretary of State Katherine Harris, they compiled a list of over 150,000 Democrats who would be removed from the voting rolls as "felons", over half of whom were black and nearly all of whom were innocent. Assuming even 0.5% of them tried to vote and were not allowed to, even Harris's fraudulent official count should have gone to Gore.

And yes, in case you're wondering there is clear evidence of fraud in Bush's favour in the 2004 election in Ohio, but it doesn't look like it caused Bush's victory rather than fortified a legitimate one.

Re:It is a big deal.

[g0hare]

Another ignorant neocon. Clinton's regime change doctrine specifically excluded military intervention. And don't forget, if the old people in Palm Beach copunty could have figured out their ballots, there would have been no need for a recount. Whether or not people who can't figure out a balalot should be ALLOWED to vote is another issue!

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the three recounts requested by former vice president Al Gore wasn't enough to determine that Mr. Bush won Florida? Face it, libs, you LOST. Quit your whining! And you lost even more in the last election.

Re:It is a big deal.

[wass]

Interesting how you accuse me of binary thinking right after you justify the situation in Iraq based on a binary decision of less dead under US occupation than Saddam. If you think I'm trying to "trap you", it reveals more about your own interpretation of your actions than perhaps you'd have liked to let on.

You're right, though, it's not a binary situation. For example, I fully support our troops in the miltary, and I hope and pray for their safe return. I don't, however, support the administrations decisions to invade Iraq, especially the way in which it was done.

Additionally I believe that anyone that wanted to invade Iraq, especially those that justify the number of dead American soldiers, be 100% willing to enlist themselves (or their children or relatives if they're physically unable) into service with the Armed Forces. If not, they are not willing to fight firsthand for what they believe in, and IMHO are cowards for letting other people do the dirty work for them.

Re:It is a big deal.

[NMerriam]

Yeah, those crazy hard-left kooks who only represent 49.9% of the voters? what kind of crazy government would ever recognize the views of such a piddling minority?

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tsk, tsk, such bitterness. No wonder the general population rejected your ideas so completely last November.

You're one of them Deaniac freak, right? You just keep on working to "reclaim" your party with your ideologies. That's exactly what Mr. Rove is counting on.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, hundreds of thousands (I would say thousands, but I'll use your words) would be alive today.

The British medical journal Lancet, based on interviews with Iraqi hospitals, said over 100,000. If you think that's too high, the US army estimated killing 8,000 Iraqi troops around the time of the conquest of Baghdad, which when added to all the other deaths afterwords, would make "tens of thousands" at a minimum. If you hadn't heard about this, pull your head out of your ass and start paying attention to the world.

They would be free to be gassed, tortured, and executed by poor Saddam and his sons.

Not by the thousands, moron. Probably the tens, maybe the hundreds. Instead, about a hundred prisoners have been executed (tortured to death or shot) by the US, not counting whoever has been killed in prison by the US's allies, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, and so on.

Imagine also, the people who ran the rape and torture rooms would be employed too.

Gee, guess what. I don't have to imagine!

Now since you've been proven a complete and total imbecile with no connection to reality, the rest of your hallucinations will be left unmolested. Wait. Al Gore? "Hard left"?! Ha! Maybe they should have nominated Gus Hall? Maybe you think they did!

Don't mod me "flamebait". Mod parent "flamebait". Parent is a moron. This is the flame.

Re:It is a big deal.

[NMerriam]

Or, just maybe, a whole lot more Americans would be dead while we attempted to "arrest" Bin Laden.

As opposed to now, where "we think we may have a pretty good idea where he might be"?

Maybe if all the military/intelligence reources, equipment and personnel hadn't been taken from Afghanistan for use in Iraq, the mass murderer who killed thousands of Americans on our own soil wouldn't still be walking free today.

For all the big talk about 9/11 the president constantly repeats, he sure doesn't seem to give much of a damn about actually capturing and punishing the madman behind it.

Re:It is a big deal.

[Edmund Blackadder]

Neither Clinton nor Gore would have undertaken the illegal and utterly stupid invasion of Iraq. Of course they were for regime change. Saddam was a ruthless dictator after all. And they would certainly support any Iraqi freedom movement. But that does not mean they were going to fuck over America with the stupidest military decision since Austro-Hungary atacked Serbia.

As far as the recount the investigation by the leading US newspapers showed that Gore had more votes in Florida. "Bush would have won the recount" is a misleading statement that relies on the fact that Gore asked for a recount on only a limited number of districts and those districts had more Bush votes, so essentially Gore asked for the wrong districts. However, the Florida Supreme court was going to recount the whole state not only the districts Gore asked for.

Re:It is a big deal.

[halivar]

Bush's first gutless act was going to the feds to settle a state issue.

Umm... Al Gore's camp filed the lawsuit.

Re:It is a big deal.

[PrntlUnit27]

The Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the Florida state constitution, thereby placing their rulings above the law rather than simply applying the rule of law. They, therefore, placed themselves above the Florida state legislature (and so above the people by whose consent their powers are derived). States' rights? Whose rights are we discussing here anyway? The "states' rights" phrase which so many people toss around today refers to the people of the *state* of Florida, and their right to justice via the rule of law. What happened to *their* rights?

Florida law had in place specific deadlines and procedures to follow which would have covered all of the contentions of both sides, if only the law had been allowed to run its course. Counting ALL of the counties was not an option according to _that_state's_laws_, nor was any recount of any county lawful after the deadline clearly spelled out in *their* constitution (reminder: states' rights).

It was illegal for the Florida Supreme Court to overstep their bounds (squashing the state's rights *of the people*) when they extended the non-negotiable deadline for certification of the votes.

SCOTUS should not have been dragged into the whole mess where they did not belong either, but once an oligarchy forms (FL Supreme Court) and upsets the checks and balances within a state, only a stronger oligarchy (SCOTUS) can restore order. Unfortunately, our system of checks and balances in the USA has been discarded, without the consent of the governed. [Sorry, Benjamin Franklin, we were not able to keep the Republic you wrought.]

If the people of the states think their systems are broken, they should elect representatives to change the laws, not appeal to the judges to break them. If you think hemp (for paper, plastics, textiles, oil, medicine, recreation, etc.) should be freed from its unreasonable chains, vote for representatives who agree with you (and me). If you think physician assisted suicide should be legal, do the same. If one state has better laws than another (according to your tastes), then move there, or vote your own state into becoming better. The federal government should not be micromanaging the nation (states' rights again), nor does the judiciary at any level have any business writing law by ruling contradictory to standing law and setting unlawful precedents (e.g. absurd applications of eminant domain).

What makes this recounting (pun intended) of recent history so on-topic is that Bush ought to nominate for the SCOTUS individuals who will uphold the laws enumerated in Constitution of the United States of America, no more and no less.

For the record, I agree that it would be a scary place if everybody "walked in lock step with Bush," or, for that matter, Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., but that is a discussion for a different thread.

Recommended Reading:

The Law, by Fredrick Bastiat (something old)
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Men In Black, by Mark Levin (something new)

Re:It is a big deal.

[dfenstrate]

When the facts have been out in the open for three and a half years, you don't need a link.

So is this one of those instances where if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true? Offer a link, or re-read my previous post until the notion sinks in.

Just one little link. If the facts have been 'out in the open' surely you can spend three seconds to find a link supporting yourself.

Why is this on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite serious here. The Wikipedia article doesn't provide much information. What has Sandra O'Connor done that is relevant to geeks? Was she involved in any DMCA cases? Why is this story on YRO instead of Politics?

This is relevant because...

[RingDev]

As we all know Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is actually a beta cyborg developed by Microsoft. She is actually an updated version of the Rhenquest Alpha model which is currently undergoing repairs to attempt to lengthen it's life cycle.

-Rick

Re:This is relevant because...

[Dr. Transparent]

Coming soon...

the iJustice, from Apple.

It's clear plastic judicial goodness in a shiny metal box.

Re:This is relevant because...

[databyss]

Will it support DRM?

Re:This is relevant because...

[Dr. Transparent]

Yes but only if you can pay the appropriate lobbying fees.

A new Court

[Azeron]

I am surprised by this decision. It had been rumoured for a week or so, but I didn't think she would do it. This is going to herald in a new much more conservative court, and is perhaps the most significant legal development in about 30 years. What makes this more significant is that with Requinst likely to retire soon as well, the next justices likely to retire are all liberals. With Bush's Presidency set to last till 2008, considering the advanced ages of those liberal Justices, that Bush may be able to make a 3rd or 4th, most likely from some natural ailment such as a heart attack.


A divided Court no more, for better or worse for another decade.

One of the Worst Judges

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

Matthew Franck nails it:

"O'Connor should be remembered as one of the worst contributors to American jurisprudence in recent history. She was notorious as a "swing vote," equally maddening to Left and Right at various times. But she consistently held one of the most expansionist views of judicial power, committed always to the most capacious version of the Court's authority over American life. A few years ago I told my students my "O'Connor rule" for saving oneself a lot of trouble: If the Court has declared anything unconstitutional, and the vote was 5-4, and the fifth vote was provided by O'Connor, the case was wrongly decided. Reading the opinions is necessary only to confirm that judgment."

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[eukreign]

She voted against the broadening of eminent domain! That is enough for me to respect her more than any of the other judges who voted for taking peoples property away.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[jandrese]

Yeah, it must suck for those pundits when they can't predict what position someone is going to take based solely on their political party. No wonder she aggrivated them so much.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[Detritus]

WTF does it have to do with political party affiliation, if any?

Judicial philosophy and political affiliation are not strongly correlated. There are plenty of liberals who think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, even though they support free access to abortion.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[snorklewacker]

> She voted against the broadening of eminent domain! That is enough for me to respect her more than any of the other judges who voted for taking peoples property away.

SCOTUS ruled that they had no authority to intervene in a state's use of eminent domain, either for or against it. In short, they refused to expand federal power.

Now congress is looking to grab the power of eminent domain for itself. Yeah, sure they give a shit about you. Some of them are just up for reelection soon.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[Anonymous Coward]

O'Connor should be remembered as one of the worst contributors to American jurisprudence in recent history. She was notorious as a "swing vote," equally maddening to Left and Right at various times.

Pissing off everyone in the poltical spectrum of one time or another. That is a sure sign of a judge who weighs things on merit vs. ideologoical principles. Personally, I am as liberal as they come. I still want to see a well-balanced and moderate court. I want carefully discussed and contemplated decisions, not just knee-jerk decisions based on which of the petitioners agrees with the judges stance on gay-marriage.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[zoomzit]

Worst judges ever because she's a centrist? Ultimately Franck is stating that because she isn't in the pocket of the left or the right, she's crap.

I haven't heard that flawed of an arguement in a long long time.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[zoomzit]

"Judicial philosophy and political affiliation are not strongly correlated."

I think this is key. I don't think liberals should fear conservative nominees just because they are conservative, but rather they should fear any conservative nominee who has a history of placing political affiliation (or personal bias) above judicial philosophy.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[PipOC]

"Fox News" Sealed the deal on the credibility of that snippet.

Re:One of the Worst Judges

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling had nothing to do with the expansion of federal power. Eminent domain is only allowed in the constitution for "public use."

Here's the text of the fifth amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Where do states rights enter into this?

Two Tickets to Mars, please!

[Stanistani]

Now's the time to see if my dual citizenship still holds...

Re:Two Tickets to Mars, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

i know lots of people that say things like that, but then they never move away...

Re:Two Tickets to Mars, please!

[Stanistani]

I'm waiting on Martian Bureaucrats and Burt Rutan's progress... it all takes time.

Patience... soon we'll live in the best of all possible worlds.

Obligatory futurama reference

[mizhi]

Chief Justice: The justices and I will now confer using high-speed telepathy. [The court clerk hooks them up and the judges discuss the verdict.] By a vote of six to three we find that flag eating is not protected by the constitution.

Okay... it's not TOTALLY a computer... they're just hooked up to one.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Wyatt Earp]

Heh. Yea because a position that is set for life by the US Constitution is so sensitive to public scandal.

The fact that O'Connor wasn't forced to retire because of a scandal or public opinion because of a decision shows that the US Constitution is working in regards to the Supreme Court.

Re:Good Riddance.

[kmmatthews]

*Gasp* You mean it's not all right to change your mind about something?

How dare someone make a mistake, ever.

[/sarcasm]

Bush names successor

[Karl Cocknozzle]

In related news, President Bush has announced plans to exhume Hitler's brain, have it surgically implanted in a Great White Shark, and to nominate that shark for Justice O'Connor's seat on the court. No comment yet from ocean swimmers or fish schools about this development.

Re:Bush names successor

[42Penguins]

It had better have a frickin laser mounted on its head!

Re:Bush names successor

[Karl Cocknozzle]

What douche would waste his mod points modding this post "over-rated"? Its a one-liner, not fucking literature, dipshit...

Re:Wow, so how will this affect open source?

[thetejon]

This affects everything. And it could affect everything for the next 30 years. Imagine a worst-case scenario where Bush appoints an ultra-conservative Christian lunatic (As opposed to who he should appoint, a moderate with a knack for compromise with good moral values.), and they overturn Roe Vs Wade, allow the Patriot Act to be strengthened, steal more of our civil rights . . .

That's a good example of how it affects the nerds. What if they rule that all of the internet wiretaps they want aren't unconstitutional. Surely that would affect your average nerd.

YRO, that's how.

[EraserMouseMan]

She just voted in favor of removing people's property rights (that was last week). That is a very highly publicized news item recently.

The /. community would be wise to support a replacement that respects the constitution and will vote against any decisions to take your rights away (be it property rights, patent reform, privacy rights, etc.)
.

Re:YRO, that's how.

[phasm42]

No, she was very strongly opposed to it.

Re:YRO, that's how.

[mopomi]

No, she voted that the constitution doesn't restrict the States' rights to immenent domain, and that the State law wasn't unconstitutional.

Re:YRO, that's how.

[EraserMouseMan]

Yep, I was wrong about her support for that decision. Sorry about that. And thanks for correcting me.

But supreme court justices will eventually effect YRO. That's why it's important.

Re:YRO, that's how.

[umbra_dweller]

Well if she really voted for it, then her 11 page dissent which you can find in the last half of this PDF is pretty strange.

AAAAAAAARGH!

[sinserve]

Mean while old-man Rehnquist is still around.

Re:AAAAAAAARGH!

[zoomzit]

Unless you are far to the right and desire more activist judges, you should be very thankful that Rehnquist is still there.

There isn't a chance in hell that Rehnquist will be replaced with a more intellegent and legally sound justice. When you read his rulings, even if you disagree with him philosophically, you have to respect the guy for his noggin.

O'Connor's Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to SCOTUS Blog's sister site Supreme Court Nomination Blog for the following info.

Relevant post from which this is taken

*****Copied Post Follows*****

Which Important Precedents are Likely to Be in Jeopardy?
Jurisprudential Effects | Posted by Marty Lederman at 01:23 PM

These are among the cases in which Justice O'Connor's has been the decisive vote or opinion, and in which a more conservative Justice might well vote to overrule the governing precedent. (Post in progress. Please suggest additional cases.)

Note: Because most Justices consider stare decisis a more serious obstacle in cases of statutory construction, those cases (e.g., the Davis and Jackson Title IX decisions) might be more secure, even if Justice O'Connor's replacement would not have agreed with her as a matter of first impression.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) -- Ten Commandments displays

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Educ. (2005) -- Title IX Liability for Retaliation

Rompilla v. Beard (2005) -- standard of reasonable competence that Sixth Amendment requires on the part of defense counsel

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing (2005) -- assessments for government speech

Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) -- double jeopardy

Small v. United States (2005) - felon firearm possession ban doesn't cover foreign convictions

Tennessee v. Lane (2004) -- Congress's Section 5 power

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) -- Tax Injunction Act

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) -- EPA authority under Clean Air Act to issue orders when a state conservation agency fails to act

McConnell v. FEC (2004) -- campaign finance

Groh v. Ramirez (2004) -- sufficiency of non-particularized search warrant

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -- affirmative action

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) -- no takings violation in IOLTA funding scheme

American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi (2003) -- presidential foreign-affairs "pre-emption" of state law

Stogner v. California (2003) -- ex post facto clause as applied to changes in statutes of limitations

Alabama v. Shelton (2002) -- right to counsel

Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran (2002) -- upholding state laws giving patients the right to second doctor's opinion over HMOs' objections

Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) -- capital defendant's due process right to inform jury of his parole ineligibility

FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) -- upholding limits on "coordinated" political party expenditures

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) -- prohibiting indefinite detention of immigrants under final orders of removal where no other country will accept them

Easley v. Cromartie (2001) -- race-based redistricting

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) -- "judicial" ex post facto

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) -- state action

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -- "partial-birth abortion" ban

Mitchell v. Helms (1999) -- direct aid to religious schools

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ. (1999) -- recognizing school district liability under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harrassment

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997) -- injunctions against abortion-clinic protestors

Richardson v. McKnight (1997) -- private prison guards not entitled to qualified immunity in section 1983 suits

Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) -- provisions of the Voting Rights Act are constitutional as applied to choice of candidates at party political conventions

With the recent close votes

[VolciMaster]

in the supreme court, and the lack of any recent appointments to the highest court in America, it seems like a good thing that there will be some new blood in the justice seat. I don't personally support everything Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect.

I personally supported almost nothing the previous president did, but I still respected him for being President of the United States.

Also note that the justices appointed don't always carry otu the 'wishes' of the appointer. President Ford, a fairly conservative leader, managed to get one of the more liberal judges appointed.

What we really need is to get judges who stop trying to legislate from the bench, and return to applying law to the case, not writing law for a case.

Re:With the recent close votes

[eukreign]

How can you respect someone if you blatantly see them destroying this nation? Boggles the mind...

Re:With the recent close votes

[numbuscus]

One of the biggest problems is not that the courts makes law, it's that congress writes such shitty and unclear law that it has to be interpreted over and over again.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me an example of when the SCOTUS legislated. Show me an example of when any court legislated. A REAL example, not something from some newspaper.

The courts are meant to interpret the laws. . .in the context of the Constitution. Not in the context of the federalist papers, not in the context of popular opinion, in the context of the Constitution. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of the law and the Constitution, doesn't mean they're writing law. It simply means you don't know enough about the laws or the Constitution.

And, no I don't agree with every decision ever made.

Re:With the recent close votes

[FungiFromYuggoth]

I'd be willing to bet that in the majority of cases you think are "legislating from the bench", the judges were just following existing law you didn't like. Like they were in the Schaivo case, and Kelo, and with detainees.

Care to cite any counter-examples?

Re:With the recent close votes

[Detritus]

That's what my grandfather said about Roosevelt, AKA King Roosevelt II.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Socially, I'm as liberal as the next person.

But please, show me the line in the Constitution that gives us a right to privacy.

I think we need an amendment to actually put it there so that all the things we've gained from court decisions pretending it's there are guaranteed... But I admit, it's not really there.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

no, I think the problems lies in the fact that there are people like the OP and worse.

Re:With the recent close votes

[porcupine8]

Actually, I've noticed that usually when someone says the court is legislating, it's because they struck down a law that the person liked. Like with the sodomy laws, or laws against gay marriage. Upholding laws can't really be construed as legislating, because they're not changing the law at all - but when they declare a law unconstitutional, they are making changes to the laws in a way.

Re:With the recent close votes

[bhima]

The problem is that the US has become seriously fucked up since Ford was around.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? You respect someone purely for being President? It doesn't matter how bad they are or how much evil they do, you still respect them because of their title? Sounds a little too worshipful for me.

As for the part about "legislating from the bench," are you saying judges shouldn't rule against the legitimacy of a law once it's enacted by Congress? If so, do you understand the reasons for checks and balances in government, and how they reduce the accumulation of power in the hands of a few?

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

So...Anybody that remembers their lines and doesn't bump into the furniture that occupies the office gets your respect? No matter how foul? Blind loyalty is not a virtue.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was the liberal hippy generation that began the charge, but you're close!

Re:With the recent close votes

[Jherek Carnelian]

But please, show me the line in the Constitution that gives us a right to privacy.

Sure:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Valdrax]

Also note that the justices appointed don't always carry otu the 'wishes' of the appointer. President Ford, a fairly conservative leader, managed to get one of the more liberal judges appointed.

That will absolutely NOT happen. In case you haven't been following this administration, this President does not pick people purely on merit but picks people who are not friends or friends of friends. This is the most insular Presidency of my lifetime. You can rest assured that any judge nominated to the Supreme Court will be a staunch neoconservative.

Consider that Alberto Gonzalez is very high on the list of candidates.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the Ninth Amendment is that it doesn't even attempt to define what a "right" is. This makes it worthless for determining whether something is a right, and why so many people prefer to have rights explicitly spelled out.

The closest thing in the Constitution to a right to privacy is the Fourth Amendment, but it's a huge leap from there to the right to abortion-on-demand.

Re:With the recent close votes

[magefile]

There's also the 1st Amendment, in that if one is unable to have privacy, one won't be able or willing to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. However, I think the Ninth Amendment is quite clear.

Re:With the recent close votes

[hacksoncode]

Geez, is that the best you can do?

How about:

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unlike many of the other amendments, this one doesn't even say "Congress shall not"... it's a blanket prohibition of violation of privacy.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Phil Karn]

"Legislating from the bench" and "activist judge" is just neoconservative code for "striking down my repressive, Draconian laws just because they happen to violate the Constitution".

Some people seem to forget that the Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights -- is the supreme law of the land, and judges have a duty, as established in Marbury v. Madison to strike down unconstitutional laws and abuses of executive power. It's that simple.

Re:With the recent close votes

[killjoe]

"Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect."

Nobody deserves respect. It has to be earned.

"Mr Bush has done as president, but he is my president, and as such deserves my respect."

You are in the minority. Other people resored to grilling about which orifice of Monica he stuck his cock into. Yes they point blank asked him if he stuck his cock into her mouth and her pussy (under oath!). Now that's what I call respect.

"What we really need is to get judges who stop trying to legislate from the bench, and return to applying law to the case, not writing law for a case."

Whoever Bush picks will be looking to make lots of new law. Bush wants somebody who will roll back roe V Wade, make sure fags never get married, roll back affarmitive action, and institute prayer in schools. He will be looking for somebody whose philosophically thinks the US should be a theocracy.

Re:With the recent close votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? You respect someone purely for being President? It doesn't matter how bad they are or how much evil they do, you still respect them because of their title? Sounds a little too worshipful for me.

I have to wonder; if the OP was born an Iraqi, would he have said that he respects Saddam Hussein for being the country's leader?

I Nominate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Diana Ross

VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-choice?
homophobic?
evangelical christian?
xenophobic?
pro-business?
anti-privacy?
old, white, and crazy?

please mail your resume to:
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
re: SCOTUS

Re:VACANCY

[MarkPNeyer]

If by 'pro-buisness' you 'supportive of buisnesses taking whatever land they wish' there are already plenty of those guys on the supreme court.

Re:VACANCY

[learn fast]

This administration really specializes in finding extreme-right appointees that are members of minority groups.

Look, this memo was written by hispanic Albert Gonzales! The choice bits: "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

That certainly would look good under Supreme Court letterhead, wouldn't it!

Re:VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can let us know WHY he said these things, without using wording like "right-wing" and "extremist"(ie doesn't agree with me), then you might be worth some points.

Re:VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are more xenophobic in Lexington, Kentucky. For years, at the taxpayers' expense, our fearless Democrat mayor has championed condemnation of the water company. "Why," you ask?

Is it because of contaminated or poor water quality? No.

Is it because of repeated interruptions of service? No.

Is it because of growing public outrage over billing rates? No.

It it because the water company, Kentucky-American Water, is a subsidiary of a German conglomerate? Of course.

Council members favoring condemnation were beaten in the last election. The mayor lost her mandate. Meanwhile, other segments of Lexington's public infrastructure are crumbling and in embarassingly bad shape. Roads are ripped up for months before new surfaces are put down. High Street between Rose and Mill Streets, one block off of Main Street downtown Lexington, has been so cratered for over three years now that I refuse to drive on it and cannot bicycle on it for safety reasons.

Even worse are the power lines which often snake through dense wooded areas in the rear of property lines. You would think a seriously dehabilitating ice storm such as the one suffered in February of 2003 would prompt its city management to plan for something, anything better. That storm put the entire city out of commission for a week. This has not happened, and the next ice storm (we have a serious one about every ten years here) will cost us even more.

Re:VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the modifiers are part and parcel of the why (at least I hope so -- you don't think this is non-extremist, do you?).

But to answer the why: he memorialized these things because he needed to provide cover for the violation of law Bush had decided to participate in. Torture is at least part of why the war is going so poorly (complete loss of moral ground & makes our soldiers that much more at risk). At any rate, Bush should be reminded (write 100 times on the chalkboard): Don't invade sovereign nations on false pretenses if you want to stay on the legal side of international law. Furthermore, don't seek out legal counsel to write legal documents trying to stretch jurisprudence to justify torture in spite of the Constitutionally-mandated Geneva Conventions (and basic common sense/human decency).

It isn't any surprise (to me at least) that Bush, back when he governed Texas, signed a historic number of death warrants. That's just the way he is. Power to destroy human life. Now the question is: is putting power above human life the right wing value it seems to be? And, does extremist need to be a modifier in these context anymore? Right wing seems to sum it up these days. Not a pretty picture.

But you are reflected by those you choose to lead you. Drunk driving convict. Property theft conviction during College. C grade point average (at schools he could not have gotten into on his merits). Missing in action from the war of his age (AWOL according to the records that exist). Business failure except in an eminent domain taking. Morally-bankrupt governorship. Worst president in history.

Re:VACANCY

[jwthompson2]

I sadly have to agree...I'm a conservative, but I shudder at how the Right continues to plunge into neoconservatism. As a christian I am also upset with groups like the AFA and others for co-opting what it means to be an evangelical and turning me into a bad guy. What we have going on in Right-wing politics now seems to be a strange blen of Christian Reconstructionism, Corpratism and Facist tendencies. I have enraged some of my fellow seminary students by labelling some among them Christo-Facists, but it is accurate and disheartening that I now respect many liberals more than I do or can 'conservatives'.

When did the Constitution stop mattering? When did federalism die amongst republicans? Where is this land I love going? And will it still be the land of the free and the home of the brave when we get there?

Sad days these are...sad days...

Re:VACANCY

[Rayonic]

The Geneva Conventions are outdated. They simply do not adequitely cover the fighting conditions in the last two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan.) I would think that war critics would be first in line to revise and update the Geneva Convention agreements.

Re:VACANCY

[DerekLyons]

Look, this memo was written by hispanic Albert Gonzales! The choice bits: "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Yet, the fact remains, both statement are completely true. Never before has a worldwide war been fought against such a decentralized enemy. Furthermore, the detainees at Guantanamo *do* fall outside the Geneva Conventions. They aren't combatants under arms in the sense of the Conventions, and they aren't ['irregulars'|saboteurs|spies] in service of a nation state either.

That is emphatically NOT to say that the Administration's treatment of them is correct, as it patently is not. They are people, and do have basic rights to legal counsel, fair treatment, etc... etc... But it's ludicrous to claim that they are covered by either the Conventions or by tradition.

Re:VACANCY

[Alsee]

Your qualifications are in error. Allow me to correct:
anti-choice?
homophobic?
evangelical christian?
xenophobic?
pro-business?
anti-priva cy?
young, minority, and crazy?

The agenda is to appoint a fairly young judge that will remain on the bench for 30 years or more.

The scheme is to appoint a woman or probably a hispanic, just to make it that much politically harder to oppose to oppose the nominated neanderthal.

-

Re:VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-choice?
homophobic?
evangelical christian?
xenophobic?
pro-business?
anti-priva cy?
old, white, and crazy?

Pro Baby Murder?
Anti Human Species?
Satan Worshiper?
Hate People With Traditional Values?
Anti-Capitalism?
Pro-Terrorist?

You sir, are crazy. Feel free to leave my country.

Re:VACANCY

[killjoe]

Yes they should be replaced by the universal human rights that all humans should enjoy no matter what.

Re:VACANCY

[killjoe]

They do this to play the race card. IT wins them points in the election and they get to call the democrats racist for opposing a hispanic or whatever.

Typical sleazy republican tactic.

Re:VACANCY

[Anonymous Coward]

To wrap evangelical christianity in with your other list entries is, frankly, extremely offensive. I dont believe you would get away with alluding that all muslims are terrorists, so why do you feel that you can vilify another religeon?

well....

[TheClam]

I'll be the last one to praise Bush for his....well, anything, really; and the last to agree with his post-election '04 statement about his "mandate"; but you've got to figure, statistically at least, that any president who serves two terms will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice.

Now comes the endless fun of watching him try to nominate someone....whoo-eee! I can't wait to see the gems he picks, and whether or not the Democrats will continue to have the balls to do anything about it.

(mod me what you will - and shouldn't this be in politics?)

This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left...

[katharsis83]

O'Conner's retirement is actually much more important than if Rehnquist had retired; on a pretty wide array of social policies, i.e. abortion and affirmative action, O'Conner has been the swing vote in the 5-4 decisions. Rehnquist, on the other hand, tends to vote conserative, period. Slashdotters might be pleased to know she was a key vote in the challenge to the President to arbitrarily detain individuals w/out review:

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested," she wrote last year for the court in the Iraq-war era case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. "And it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." ~ taken from the Washington Post article today.

There are pretty much two options for Bush to play this:

1) He tries to appeal to the Hispanic vote, key for his party in upcoming elections, by nominating Alberto Gonzalez. Problem is, the Christian Right, would be pretty pissed about this, since they think he'll vote to keep Roe v. Wade and affirmative action. Just a reminder though, this is the same guy who authored the infamous legal documents saying we don't need to treat prisoners from Afghanistan under the Geneva Conventions, and wanted to redefine torture more loosely.

2) He tries to please his core-base, the social conservatives, by nominating someone likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, and affirmative action. This'll set off a firestorm on the right AND left.

Option 1 would be the far more moderate choice, and less likely to create a protracted battle in the Senate, which SEEMS to be what he was hinting at he wants when he said in his speech that he wanted a "dignified" nomination process - of course this could just be posturing.

Another interesting tidbit will be to see how the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, who avoided the filibuster showdown, will react if Bush goes with Option 2. No offense to the "Gang of 14," but I think that pressure from far right and left interest groups are gonna tear the agreement under asap. Especially since Frist hates the agreement, since it was pretty much a slap in the face to him when key Republicans went around him to get it done. I doubt he'll lift a finger to try and negotiate if Bush nominates a social conservative like Scalia or Thomas.

Just a few thoughts. The comings weeks will be fun to watch.

So!

[Anonymous Coward]

And this has what to do with my rights online? Are you guys going to start posting stories when court parking lots are full? Just to let us know that this might effect yro?

DAMN YOU SLASHDOT!

I wonder how the media will play this out?

[SengirV]

I mean, I remember all the calls from the media know-it-alls lobbying for Clinton to appoint centrists - *LMAO*

Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face.

Re:I wonder how the media will play this out?

[Anonymous Coward]

The media never called for Bill Clinton to appoint centrists because there were never any vacancies during Clinton's terms.

Re:I wonder how the media will play this out?

[SengirV]

Did I say SCOTUS? You do realize that the President appoints judges OTHER than those on the SCOTUS? Remember a filibuster being mentioned in the news recently?

Re:I wonder how the media will play this out?

[skarth]

The media never called for Bill Clinton to appoint centrists because there were never any vacancies during Clinton's terms.

According to wikipedia Clinton appointed 2 justices, Ginsberg and Breyer.

And the parent is right - there was no clamor back then to appoint any 'moderate' judges.

Since they can't win elections, the liberals are clawing with their fingernails to try to hold onto whatever power they can get. Judges are their last chance, hence the embarrassingly bizarre obstructionism we see in Congress these days (can anyone say 'borking'?).

remember... this posting is for life...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what America needs, right now...
A new supreme court justice [maybe two] who will back up those important neo-conservative views, like the inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions to "enemy combatants", &c... If GW gets a relatively young'un in, they could color federal law for another couple of generations.

Heck -- They [the USSC] might even be able to finally, officially get rid of [or, at least, severely cripple] those pesky first ten Constitutional 'Amendments' that those whining left-wing Liberals keep bringing up.

-anon_ex_pat

Back into the closet with the buttsex & aborti

[OwP_Fabricated]

It was a good run anyway.

Re:Florida, Florida

[stinkyfingers]

If it's the Sandra Day O'Connor who would normally advocate restoration of states' rights in the new Federalist manner, but chose to override the Florida State Supreme Court in the matter, then I think it's the same one.

Re:Florida, Florida

[magarity]

the same Sandra Day O'Connor that stopped the recount

You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election. Well, I guess it doesn't matter. The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

Justice Takes a Holiday

[Doc Ruby]

Interestingly, all the dissenters in the Bush v Gore decision to install Bush as president are hanging tough. Considering Rehnquist's been reporting to work during chemo, O'Connor's retirement while she's in apparent good mental and physical health seems like a copout. Maybe she just doesn't have the guts to deliberate a case brought later in Bush's term over a Constitutional Amendment declaring a "person" is any human, starting at conception (unless it's gay).

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[numbuscus]

She had breast cancer, maybe it's come back in some form?

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the news articles around her reasons for retirement. One mentioned her husband was in the early stages of alzheimers and her desire to help care for him.

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[oncebitten]

According to CNN (and what's been reported in the local news here in DC), her husband is in the early stages of alzheimer's.

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[Doc Ruby]

Not the ones I've read, including the NYT story we're discussing (which mentions only that her husband "has been ill"). Link, please, while you're sanctimoniously recommending further reading, Anonymous Coward?

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[syphaxplh]

Maybe she feels she has had a successful career, knows she has made valuable contributions to our justice system, and simply feels it is time to retire while she still is in good health. She should not be faulted for that.

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[Doc Ruby]

If her committment were to her retirement, rather than the usefulness of a politicized Court, I could fault her for that. So I did. She isn't a country judge - she accepted a "lifetime appointment". Now she's quitting, while even Rehnquist is showing what a "lifetime appointment" means.

Re:Justice Takes a Holiday

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
100% Flamebait

Funny, of all the responses, most of which disagreed with me, none were flames. TrollMod would rather flame me anonymously with a negative mod, than risk joining the discussion and look like a fool. I suppose that passes for judicious.

Re:Florida, Florida

[SengirV]

Shhhhhhhh - Enough with the facts on /. when it comes to politics. The left KNOWS what is right, no matter if it's proven wrong.

respect

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of politics, isn't it disrespectful to refer to the president as Mr. Bush instead of using his title?

Re:respect

[NoahsMyBro]

Personally, I believe the 2004 election was rigged, and he who must not be named certainly hasn't earned, in my opinion, the title. I consider it an extreme exercise of huge restraint to refrain from referring to him with every derogatory and obscene term I can summon.

So, personally, I don't think he deserves to be called Mr. President.

Re:respect

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, we should all be referring to him as the Supreme Asshole of the United States.

Re:respect

[Ma$$acre]

It is disrespectful, but it's hardly illegal or even unlawful, which I suspect you feel it should be despite your "regardless of politics" comment.

And using disrespect, or even actually holding the belief that he's not the POTUS, to make a point is definitely covered under freedom of speech. It speaks volumes about any writer's intent when opting for Mr. Bush or just Bush, over President Bush.

If the write is serious, he would use one of the above, but if they are just spouting propaganda, maybe Dubya, or George W, or something equally derogatory. Which is Also covered under free speech.

Though I doubt many people would care to address him personally as Mr. Bush, the office carries respect, even if the person holding it does not.

Re:respect

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ahhh... Mr. Bush, that's my dad... Just call me George. Here buddy, have another brewski and let's party."

Re:respect

[rsynnott]

Why, yes. We must refer to him as King Bush in future. Wouldn't want to be accused of Lese majesty, would we now?

Re:respect

[Xyrus]

You think Asshole is better than Mr. Bush?

~X~

Re:respect

[Anonymous Coward]

only if you respect him in the first place.

Re:Good Riddance.

[glrotate]

Perhaps you should try reading the opinions?

If she had acknowledged that she was changing her view that punishing people for being white could only be done where there exists a compelling governmental interest and with the least restrictive means, ie "strict scrutiny" (Adarand), then you might be able to excuse her.

Instead, in Bollinger, she states that she's applying strict scrutiny, then she applies an ordinary scrutiny test.

It's just bad jurisprudence. As I said, good riddance.

pUleeeeeeze

[eh2o]

None of the justices are actually undecided about what they will rule, its all determined well in advance of any case actually *getting* to the SC. After all, things generally don't go straight to the SC -- first they wind through some lower courts, so the facts are already known.

All the "deliberation" and the selection of one of the justices to be "undecided" is just an illusion to make us all think that this process of unilateral rule is actually democratic -- its not -- its nothing more than a pile of paperwork with a pigs nose.

Sorry for the rant. Have a nice day. :) Buy McDonalds and smoke Marlboro. USA! USA! USA!

Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Supreme Court Justices are required to be conservative. The definition of their job is to interpret new laws for consistency with the old ones, rooted in the original - the Constitution. So they are required to exercise the maximum possible conservatism, determining whether the new law conserves the law, or makes a new legal principle. Only very rarely can they allow a new legal principle, on the theory that that the old ones are just, and comprehensive.

So the Justices are all conservative. The only question is how conservative, or whether they're really radical (changing the root), or just using conservative language to make new changes.

Re:Public ConServants

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Remember boys and girls: conservative != fundimentalist.

Indeed, fundimentalists would be call "liberals" or "leftists" in any other era.

Re:Public ConServants

[magarity]

Supreme Court Justices are required to be conservative

!?!?!? Have you been paying attention for the last 40 years?

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

How is a "fundamentalist" a "liberal"?

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Of course I have. What have you been paying attention to? Where's the innovation, the novel legal principles? Please skip the fake "framers' intent" mumbo jumbo used to mask innovation in the name of mythological conservatism. Where is it?

Re:Public ConServants

[lgw]

A fundamentalist can have any political ideology. The word just means someone who believes that the fundamentals of something are more important than the trappings. You can be an "Ice Cream Fundamentalist", after all, or a "Reading is Fundamentalist" or whatever.

Re:Public ConServants

[Danger Stevens]

There's a difference between real conservatism and modern conservatives. Bush is considered a conservative. He's liberal with the military, liberal with spending, liberal with tax breaks and corporate advantage, liberal with big government and federal power. SCJs are required to be conservative in a way that calls for moderation and tact in letting our country make changes. The two are completely different, they're just both called 'conservative'

Re:Public ConServants

[John Newman]

How is a "fundamentalist" a "liberal"?

The classic examples are the abolitionist and utopian movements in the 1800s, both of which were born of Christian "fundamentalism". But it seems like fundamentalism is far more often associated with authoritarian reactionaries. The whole idea of fundamentalism is that the truth is already known, so any "progress" can only deviate further from that truth.

Re:Public ConServants

[pipingguy]

I call intentional mispelling troll.

Re:Public ConServants

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Remember boys and girls: conservative != fundimentalist.

Indeed, fundimentalists would be call "liberals" or "leftists" in any other era.

Maybe you should remind them of this, cause the religious fundies in this country sure like to call themselves conservative and rate "conservatism" along their fundamentalist's measuring stick. Hell, they've got $18 million stockpiled to mount an offensive to get Bush to appoint a religious fundamentalist to the bench under the label "conservative".

As for your linkage of fundies to leftism. If you had noted that the theoretical structure of the extreme left and extreme right are identical, and right-wing fundies are more prevalent now, you'd have been correct. However, if you want to see right-wing fundamentalism in action, look up the history of the Noble Lie.

Fundies are allergic to liberalism, and liberalism tends to just condescendingly pat them on the head. Liberals are moderates by definition and antithetical to fundamentalism. But hey, not like you're the first to confuse leftists and liberals 'round these parts; so don't be surprised when people start confusing religious fundamentalists with conservatives.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

So then how can a "fundamentalist" be a "liberal", in the terms of the post to which I replied? They clearly are implying one kind of politics, citing only "liberal" and "leftist". Two political labels which are synonymous primarily to Christian fundamentalists today.

Obscuring the actions of Christian fundamentalists with a semantic smokescreen is disingenuous. Merely citing the dictionary without respect to the context is naive. Both are dangerous, hiding some of America's best organized and radical activists from public discussion of their activities. Especially in the context of Bush, a fundamentalist spokesmodel, appointing at least one new Justice to the Supreme Court.

Re:Public ConServants

['nother poster]

Huh? Where in the constitution does it say that? Just did a quick peruse of all the articles that mention the supreme court, and the inferior courts also, and nothing says they have to behave in the manner you describe.

Re:Public ConServants

[CommandoB]

fundimentalists would be call "liberals" or "leftists" in any other era.

Or rather that conservatives would be called "liberals" in any other country.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Conservatism as a political ideology is nonsense - particularly apt for fraud. Conservatism as a legal doctrine is deterministic. Which is one reason why fake conservatives choose the name - because they never have to prove their bona fides in court, at least not in any "truth in advertising" case.

Re:Public ConServants

[sneakers563]

How is abolitionism, which by definition was trying to change the status quo, be considered fundamentalist under that definition? Did the abolitionists not consider the abolition of slavery to be "progress"?

Re:Public ConServants

[afidel]

Hmm, I would say their ruling on thermal imaging devices was pretty novel. They not only ruled that the police were required to get a warrant for the use of that specific device, but also laid down that any device which allowed the police to see in a manner enhanced from the naked eye would also require a search warrant.

Re:Public ConServants

[lgw]

Can I help it if two perfectly good words, "fundamentalist" and "liberal" are so commonly mis-used? A Justice who is a Constitutional Fundamentalist (one could only hope) would greatly support personal liberty, and would therefore be a liberal in the original sense of that word. The abiguity is legitimate.

Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life, which isn't conservative at all in the original sense of *that* word. Hey, I can't help thinking this way, I'm a linguistic fundamentalist! (Although the ice cream thing sounds good, too.)

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

So in other words, fundamentalism and liberalism are only coincidentally related. The principles of absolute adherence to founding principles of an ideology, and the principles of maximum liberty, are separate. Sometimes they agree, but not because of their essential principles. Only extrinsic contingencies.

So "fundamentalists are liberals" is about as informative as "Americans are capitalists" - some are, some aren't.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

New principles - using international law to ban juvenile death sentences.

Regardless of its morality using international law sets a precedent that the rulings and laws of other nations (which are unelected and not beholden to the american public) can be used to
justify other issues.

This IMO is clearly not their job. The only items used should be the constitution, the framers opinions, and common law.

Re:Public ConServants

[zxking]

You have to realize though that there is a difference between judicial conservatism and socio-political conservatism. O'Connor is/was a judicial conservative who held a lot of centrist views that reflect the views of most Americans. The president will be doing a great disservice to the nation by appointing someone who does not fit here mould.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

1> How is that novel? The police were using a device that penetrated the reasonable expectation of privacy, like peeking behind window curtains with a periscope. Which was not allowed - the new technology offering the same violation did not make it a new violation, which might be allowed.

2> You apparently didn't like this action, which you claim is "novel". So you agree that the Court's role is to conserve the existing legal theories.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

So we're guessing at what EvilTwinSkippy meant by their inscrutably fuzzy buzzwords. I note that they haven't responded in this thread, since I called them on their vagueness. No ice cream for ETS!

I am, without oxymoron, a conservative liberal. I'm keeping all of my liberty. Regardless of the rollbacks coming from fake "Conservatives", demonizing "Liberals" as somehow hating the liberty from which they are named. Now, the Canadians have a fake Conservative party they call the "Progressive Conservative" Party...

Re:Public ConServants

[DavidTC]

In fact, you can even argue that the founding fathers were fundamentalists. When you read stuff like 'All men endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights', you have to ask yourself...sez who?

This just asserting that things exist with no evidence or real logic, and that therefore things must be as they say, is fundamentalism.

Luckily, 'human rights fundamentalism' is one I can get behind. Screw a debate on how much rights people 'should' have to balance societies...people just have rights, period.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

The "foreign laws" against executing children was used to illustrate just how unjust would be the US remaining among those few countries which still execute children: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The opinion itself was based on the legal history, and the principles of justice, of the United States.

Where do the "framers opinions" come into it? All that matters is the agreed documents, like the Constitution and even the Declaration of Independence. Everything else is conjecture. Just like the previous drafts of articles of the Constitution that were not accepted by the Congress, or ratified by the states. Even some articles that were ratified, but were repealed, like some Constitutional Amendments, are without merit in deciding US law. Why should some unaccountable private correspondence, or opinions inferred from them centuries later, have any weight? Unless you're deifying those men, who used their reason to create a government not beholden to religion for its legitimacy.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, I realize the difference. Judicial conservatism is legitimate; it can be measured by its consistency with existing legal principles. "Socio-political conservatism" is imaginary. What we have is "political marketing conservatism", fake conservatism. The leaders of these "conservatives" don't only violate their own demands to conserve things like the Treasury, American equality, the intrusion of government into private affairs. They also have made unprecedented changes in American policies, like military "preemption", lying to Congress, pensions, product liability, and on and on. Fake "conservatives" have discovered a big American constituency that can be fooled all of the time by talk, without noticing the contrary actions. We're going to get a new Supreme Court stuffed with fake conservatives who talk "faith", and do "corporate". Just like the bunch of corporate faith-wavers Bush shoved through the Senate this Spring, by threatening to eliminate the minority right to filibuster. But I don't have to like it.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

All that matters is the agreed documents

This is exactly where their opinions come into play. In order to understand what was agreed to one must take into account the meaning of the language AT THE TIME it was written. You must also take into the account what the people who framed the document understood the document to mean.

Why should some unaccountable private correspondence, or opinions inferred from them centuries later, have any weight? because the documents upon which our government was based and agreed upon was written with the meaning and understanding of the words at the time of adoption.

Unless you're deifying those men

Nope. The problem I have is with the "living" document "interpretation" where new powers are "found". It is very simple, the Constitution provides for change, the amendment process. When new powers or rights are found without going through this process it subverts the letter and spirit of the constitution.

If the American public wishes to ban guns, or have a Drug war, fine. Just amend the constitution. An example, Congress felt it did not have the power to prohibit alcohol. Thus we changed the Constitution.....

Why then is an amendment not required to prohibit drugs?

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

They said the truth was self evident. They refered to the source of the inalienable rights as "their creator". They were stating axioms, as they founded a country. They were founders, not mere "fundamentalists". If you want more elucidation of the logic behind "inalienable rights", Lincoln had some of the best. He described how people would inevitably revolt against suppression of their inalienable rights. The founders of the country created a stable government that would be supported by the people, because it was also "of" and "for" the people. The government is created by the people merely to protect those rights, and to stay out of the business of violating them.

Re:Public ConServants

[Anonymous Coward]

Who moderated this Insightful? Almost everything the good Doc said was baloney. It's a new record!

Judges required to be "conservative"? This is not only not true today, it has never been true. In 1801, less than eleven years from the founding of the supreme court, Chief Justice John Marshall strongly asserted the court's authority and power, in a string of decisions that would be considered exceptionally "activist" today. In Marbury v. Madison -- arguably the Court's most important case ever -- Marshall established the Court's claim to be able to overthrow congressional legislation, and after a long series of cases, Marshall had moved the court to a highly activist one, capable of eliminating laws, treaties, and entire chunks of government that the court deemed "unconstitutional".

Society changes, and with it the interpretation of law must as well. Through the history of the court, it has developed numerous new legal principles, particularly involving the rights of citizens. What Doc Ruby is trying claim is the conservative notion of "strict constructionism": that the Consitution must be interpreted solely by the letter and not the spirit. Strict Constructionism is an invention of the 1980s, largely a backlash against the Warren Court, and pushed by the ultraconservative crazies behind the Federalist Society. Its most visible adherent (in the sense that Tom Cruise is Scientology's most visible adherent) is Thomas Scalia, and even he has violated it numerous times this past year in the name of God.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Those "opinions" can be found in the laws made, defended, and repealed or overridden, following the founding documents entry into force. The signers of the Constitution were representatives of each of their respective states' people. There's little disagreement on the meaning of the official words at the time. There is lots of disagreement on conjectured implications of their words. For example, the Second Amendment predicates the noninfringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms on "a well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state". We know that "regulated" meant "supplied", not the modern "legislated" and "militia" meant a part-time force of citizens, not a standing army. With our standing army, such a "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary to the security of a free state; the predicate is now invalid. Yet the dependent noninfringement is demanded more strongly than ever. Because the implications are being conjectured by partisans with vested interests that control their inferences.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

Prior to Roe vs. Wade, back in the 40's - 60's a lot of Christian fundamentalists were liberal democrats because of the part of Chritianity that supports "social justice". A lot of the whites involved in civil rights were christians (from the north) who believed that discrimination is wrong. For example, quakers and other groups. The republicans were mostly aligned with the rich and big business which is why they typically were not winning elections prior to 1968.

The one exception , Eisenhower, could have been elected as either a republican or a democrat as he was in charge of the Allied victory in Europe.

By 1968, the democrats had self destructed over vietnam, the hippy rhetoric took over the party, the civil rights issue had permanently caused three southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama) to switch from "solidly democrat" onto their course of eventually becoming solidly republican.

Prior to 1980, when people thought of religion in politics, they thought of the democratic party. People were afraid when Jimmy Carter was elected because he was a "religious fundamentalist". And in fact, he was a very principled man who is deeply religious to the point where he was willing to let the US be embarassed (Iran Hostage Crisis) because of his principles.

To those who will no doubt say "What else could Carter have done?". I guarentee if Teddy Roosevelt had been President the situation would not have gone on for 444 days. Carter could have, for example, diplomatically "recognized" Iran and then asked Congress to declare war on them declaring our "war aim" to be the return of the hostages unharmed OR the unconditional surrender of Iran. I personally think that would have scared Iran into coughing up the hostages very quickly.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

Progress towards achieving the ideals of what they see as the fundamentals of their religion is OK. Because by that definition, overturning Roe vs. Wade would be changing the status quo too. We all know that is an aim of fundamentalists.

Re:Public ConServants

[jadavis]

I disagree. O'Connor is a moderate politically, but an activist judge. She sometimes comes down on the side of the right, and sometimes the left, but almost always making law that didn't exist before.

Example 1: The death penalty for minors. Where in the Constitution does it say that the death penalty can't be used on minors? It's a perfect example of something that should be left up to the states. As justification, the majority in that decision used international laws (wtf?) and some kind of "evolving standards". That is not rule of law, that is rule of man (or woman, in this case).

Example 2: Roe v. Wade. Let me say that I believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances. However, I am against the decision for two reasons: first, it should be up to the states, and second, if it is national law, why not let the legislature make the law? The Constitution does not state anywhere that abortion is illegal. 5 judges of 9 decided that for the whole nation. If it should be a right, try to get an Amendment passed. Otherwise, it's up to the states (or at least the legislature).

We live in a nation where the rule of law should apply. You should know in advance whether you're breaking the law or not, in plain english. Even 4 Supreme Court justices don't know that you're breaking the law? That's the abysmal state of our legal system right now. In reality, they fabricate the law where it doesn't exist, and interpret the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of what it says because of a chain of precendents each using odd reasoning and ignoring the implications.

You can give me a million good reasons why it's a good idea to require registration and waiting periods for guns, and to impose all kinds of restrictions on the sale, transportation, manufacture, and so forth. But it's all unconstitutional, plain as day. The 2nd Amendment does't say "the right of the militia" it says "the right of the people". It's unqualified permission for any person in the United States to keep and bear arms. Of course responsibility comes with that, and if you are threatening people, you go to jail, where you lose all kinds of rights. But the Supreme Court is too smart and clever to read the simple sentence, they use all kinds of strange logical constructs and legal BS to ignore the text.

Now we have stupid rulings where it's legal to have the 10 Commandments in Texas but not in Kentucky. One place it's Constitutional and the other place not? I hear all kinds of political BS every day, and all of it is "protected speech" (even if paid for by the taxpayers), but if someone gives it the magical label "religious" it is now "unconstitutional speech". What deserves the label "religious" vs. something else? Judges, primarily.

In other words, we live in a land ruled by man, not law.

Re:Public ConServants

[Zeinfeld]

Regardless of its morality using international law sets a precedent that the rulings and laws of other nations (which are unelected and not beholden to the american public) can be used to justify other issues.

Since the framers of the US Constitution framed it in the context of English law the idea of applying foreign law in interpreting the constitution is not new. In fact judgements from other common law jurisdictions are routinely considered in US courts, 'common law' really is just that. Foreign rulings are not binding precedent but they are considered illustrative.

The ammendment the court was asked to rule on in the execution of juveniles case specifically states 'cruel and unusual'. There are two ways in which the term 'unusual' can be interpreted. The first is by reference to the laws of the various states of the Union, the second is in the wider context of world standards. Execution of minors was found to be 'unusual' in both contexts. It is unusual at the state level and it is exceptionally unusual at the international level. The only countries that executed minors at the time of the rulling were despotic regimes like Sudan and Iran.

The Supremes do not have a great deal of other context in which to interpret terms like 'unusual' except by reference to international standards. If only five states executed minors but this was common internationally it could not really be considered unusual. On the other hand five states out of fifty and three nations out of 197 is very unusual.

As for not being elected, it may suprise you but many other countries also hold elections these days. Some of them for hundreds of years. Most of them even count the votes in those elections as well.

Re:Public ConServants

[Deflatamouse!]

Moreover, religious fundamentalists often argue for radical change to our current way of life

Since when does religious fundamentalists (more specifically, Christian fundamentalists) often argue for radical change to our current way of life? I can hardly think of any examples that support your statement.

How is preserving marriage and preserving life a change to our current way of life? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant... or give me a few good examples.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

With our standing army, such a "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary to the security of a free state

Freedom from a tyrannical state was as much a fear (if not more so) than a foreign invasion. Parse the sentence how you will, but the intent Clearly was to protect against both other nations AND a tyrannical federal government. (not to mention the ability to defend and protect one's natural rights from bandits etc.) If you think the second amendment is no longer valid, fine, just amend the constitution. That is precisely why the amendment process is there.

An example of my own, is the interstate commerce clause. Nowhere was it inferred or implied that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the power to PROHIBIT commerce. It was understood that the power was to protect free commerce FROM interference. If this was not the case, then the 18th amendment would not have been needed since the power to prohibit the trade in liquor would have already existed.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

An Anonymous Coward calling my post "baloney". OK...

Marshall's Court, as you point out, was in the very beginning of the Court's history. In the beginning of the history of such a court, interpreting the law as written by representatives of the people. Justices made up the role of the Court within the new American system. In accordance with the (then relatively few) laws of the country, including the Constitution. The Court, the Congress, and the Executive made up quite a bit of rules and precedents then. The degree to which they conserve the principles stated in the existing laws is near unity. Except when laws are struck down, and when they are mistaken - as argued in courts, under the principle of conserving existing legal principles. The fact that the early principles that you cite, invented or expanded by the Court, are the guiding principles today, centuries later, attests to the principle of conservatism.

Your connection of my statement with "strict Constructionism" is baloney. People like Robert "Watergate" Bork invented "Constructionism" to grab power with a fake, unsupportable basis in unproveable conjecture about the "intent" of the "framers". A completely fluid basis for undermining justice whenever the opportunity was created by those in power.

We're talking about the governing documents. The Congress' job is to create laws, even to repeal them, especially to reject bad ones before enactment. The Court's job is to decide whether a law is just. Justice is consistent. So only rarely is a decision made in contradiction to previous decisions, and then the documents must be amended. Such as when slavery, previously accompanied by a large body of law based on the legal principle that slavery was just, was finally admitted to be illegal - the Constitution was amended. So future contests of other laws would be measured against the Constitution. The Congress amended the Constitution so that the Court could apply the new law without contradicting the Constitution, or creating new laws from the bench.

The fact is that I find Scalia to be an unaccountable rationalizer, justifying his unlimited power by invoking god, rather than the representatives of the people. He is inconsistent, and a radical - not a conservative. He speaks of the "original intent" of "the framers" in order to change the basis of our law to one that suits him, and his corporate and ecclesiastical cronies, in a way that mere consistency would prohibit. He's a fake conservative, twisting the meaning of a popular buzzword 180', just as you have misinterpreted mine.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

As for not being elected, it may suprise you but many other countries also hold elections these days. Some of them for hundreds of years. Most of them even count the votes in those elections as well.

Really? Did you get to vote in Germany or France or Spain's last election cycle?

My point is they are not elected by US citizens, nor do they represent US citizens. Thus what they do in their own countries should have no bearing upon our laws. "Unusual" IMO should mean unusual by the majority of these United States period.

The more international law is used as a pretext to find governmental powers, the less representative our government is of its citizens.

Re:Public ConServants

[Pentavirate]

The "foreign laws" against executing children was used to illustrate just how unjust would be the US remaining among those few countries which still execute children: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The opinion itself was based on the legal history, and the principles of justice, of the United States. Where do the "framers opinions" come into it? All that matters is the agreed documents, like the Constitution and even the Declaration of Independence. Everything else is conjecture. Just like the previous drafts of articles of the Constitution that were not accepted by the Congress, or ratified by the states. Even some articles that were ratified, but were repealed, like some Constitutional Amendments, are without merit in deciding US law. Why should some unaccountable private correspondence, or opinions inferred from them centuries later, have any weight? Unless you're deifying those men, who used their reason to create a government not beholden to religion for its legitimacy.

That's not the point. The biggest problem with that ruling was that 5 men and women that were appointed (not elected) for life created a law that did not exist before. The only body that has legal right to create law, according to the Constitution, is the Congress (and the president to a much lesser degree).

The majority of states had already outlawed the practice. When the court makes a decision like this it effectively takes the debate off the table. Legislators can no longer debate it or decide on it. The court has taken away their ability to do so. The people have no more power to decide on the laws of the land.

If the people of a state don't agree with a law, they have power to overthrow it. If their legislators don't agree, they get voted out in 2 years. Not so with the court. If the court decides something. That's it. No recourse. Nothing. The only exception is an amendment to the constitution which is very difficult to do and there's no guarantee that the court won't just invent new meanings of the clauses used in the amendment.

That is precisely why the eminent domain issue is so mortifying. The only hope is that maybe with this issue the people will finally wake up and take notice to what the courts have been doing for the past 60 years which is progressively usurping more and more power. The eminent domain issue is equally horrifying to both (political) liberals and conservatives that hopefully it'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Re:Public ConServants

[NMerriam]

Geez, what a silly straw man argument. Nobody ruled on the death penalty because of international law, they merely used it as an illustration of broad social (un)acceptability of the practice. Which IS required, since "cruel and unusual" clearly requires some sort of contemporary context to be evaluated. They would use similar explanatory text in rulings about pornography or other issues that depend on social norms.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

That's a pretty neat Republican history of America. Of course it omits the KKK, still burning crosses for their "Christian America" (and whose mailing lists are part of Senator Bill Frist's franking privileges). It skips the Republican opposition to labor rights which sank the party during the Great Depression, though it was able to coopt Eisenhower in getting rid of an entrenched "5 term" Democratic White House. Yeah, it skips Nixon, who was able to win in 1968 when the Democratic frontrunner , Robert Kennedy was mysteriously assassinated, like his brother the president who had defeated Nixon the last time around. You do get in mention of the hippies of 1968, who spent all their political time marching against Johnson, a Democrat, until gassed and beaten in the streets of Democrat Daley's Chicago - really your most egregious historical distortion, in degree if not in importance.

Probably your most important distortion is how "the civil rights issue" caused three southern states to switch. Yes, white southerners sided with the Democrats while the party produced racists like Alabama's George Wallace, promising to protect their jobs from management above, and blacks below. The racists have now found a home in the Republican Party, as they foolishly believe that Republican exclusionary culture will protect their remaining privileges, though they are themselves excluded from any benefits but promises to turn the country into a "more Christian one".

So it's no surprise that you ignore Carter's negotiations with the Iranians, whose revolution kicked out the Shah propped up by Nixon during the creation of OPEC. Of course you don't mention the simultaneous negotiations of the Republicans, to keep the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated, which deal was honored in exchange for illegal military assistance known as "Iran/Contra" by those with more complete histories than yours. Your boys instead armed Iran, and entrenched their government, while simultaneously backing Iraq, and its chemical warfare. Creating both the monsters that are our biggest foreign threat today. Except perhaps for Pakistan, the source of the Taliban and probable home of bin Ladin. Or Saudi Arabia, source of 19 of the 9/11/2001 planebombers, and the apparently the majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Or the nuclear program they accomplished while your boys, Reagan and Bush, ensured we pumped maximum money and security into their tyrannical regimes, to say nothing of your Saudi hand, cheek and ass-kissing president now covering these enemies with more cover than we can even produce.

Now, I've gone on long enough just adding a little balance to your unilateral distortion of history. I could add all kinds of Democratic malfeasance, like Johnson's prefiguration of Iraq in the Gulf of Tonkin, Carter's refuge for the Shah, protection of Ceausescu, benevolent neglect of Peron and Pinocet. Or Clinton's coddling Indonesia among various other tyrannical client states.

But I'm not going to hide the manipulation of "faith-based" (nonrational) American voters behind the complicity of Presidents in multinational corporate tyranny. Because that would be just as devious as hiding the agenda of these fundamentalists behind meaningless political labels. The people we're talking about have always been willing, even anxious, to discard American justice and equity in exchange for the right to be the ones doing the persecuting. Their leaders have ridden that wave to unquestioned power, counting on "faith" to keep them in the best position to exploit their own people first, and the rest of us in their name second. These Christian Taliban are the greatest threat to America - greater than foreigners, greater than their current shepherds in the Republican Party. If they tempt the Democrats into their antiamerican agenda, then all is lost.

Re:Public ConServants

[danbeck]

I defy you to even remotely prove that the minority in any branch of congress has the RIGHT to filibuster. What law? What amendment?

Don't go around assigning rights to things just because you think they should have those rights. You are only living in some ridiculous hippie fantasy world.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

We don't have a "well regulated militia", certainly not one that can compare to, say, the Marines. And the best equipped militas in the country all prefer various degrees of violent tyranny to representative democracy. Which is why I do favor the repeal of the Second Amendment. And its replacement with an Amendment ensuring that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be protected, provided they regularly prove their competence in their maintenance and use, as well as their allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, the government it defines, and their competence in abiding by its laws". Which means failing a shooting test (at least yearly), failing to keep logged maintenance of weapons, including registrations of purchase and acquisition/discharge of ammunition, remaining in a felonious status (from conviction through completely serving a sentence) or violating other laws with penalties including permanent revocation of weapons permission, each would prohibit the person from keeping or bearing arms.

I don't like guns, and I don't trust the government much. There is certainly a place for guns in American society, but not everywhere. I personally learned to shoot well in the Boy Scouts, and I don't want these dangerous products in unrestricted commerce. I think any honest person who understands the tradeoffs in guns would accept such an amendment. But the people in charge, from the NRA to the politicians they employ, won't be introducing that amendment anytime soon. In fact, those very same people are busy with all kinds of other, frivolous amendments, and no change to the system that makes it hard for some environmentalists to hunt, and easy for people to kill each other.

This kind of regulation is related to your interstate commerce example. Unrestricted traffic in some products depends on interstate commerce, which is clearly regulated by Congress under the Constitution (despite a hundred years of political hackery of the "question"). If a gun is legal in one state, and illegal in another, interstate commerce of guns into the second state must be regulated by Congress. As for the liquor ban, the 18th Amendment is now notorious for its partisan political basis, rather than its justice or even political legitimacy. The right of the government to prohibit possession of consumables ony any basis other than public health or safety is unsupportable by justice. And if such consumption is prohibited by law, its distribution can be prohibited on the same basis, in the phase of the illegal transaction over which the Federal government has unique jurisdiction. If drugs (including alcohol) were a direct threat to anyone other than its user (rather than an indirect, "contributory" threat), they'd be like guns, or cars without brakes, or airplanes with uncertified pilots. The Federal government would be responsible for protecting our other rights, like safety, from their demonstrated inevitable abuse.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

Sorry you took what i said wrong. It was not my intention to write some definitive history of america, nor am I a republican (I am a registered democrat and I have never voted for a republican for any public office ever.)

You are accusing me of "distortions" about topics I didn't mention and "omissions" in a freaking post to slashdot - not some definitive text on history. Give me a break.

My take on the three southern states that flipped btw is that the national party nominated kennedy - the racists would not accept a catholic as president. All three states voted for Stom Thurmond in 1960 causing (depending on how you look at it) Kennedy to eak out a win. If they had voted for Nixon, then Kennedy would have lost. If they had voted Kennedy, he would have at least had to maintain status quo by not supporting civil rights. So, they ended up screwing themselves because kennedy could support civil rights because he didn't have any reason to feel loyal to a part of his party that wasn't loyal to him. In response, these people eventually moved to republican party causing it to become the majority party in those states. To me, that is simply a dispassionate account of what happened.

I think Carter's handing of the hostage crisis was the last nail in the coffin for the democrats. It was pure dumb luck that we were able to have Clinton in office for 8 years. We have Ross Perot to thank for the first four years. The republicans picked Bob Dole who was the weakest possible candidate they could have fielded in 1996.

Re:Public ConServants

[John Newman]

I put the term "fundamentalist" in quotes because it just doesn't quite seem to fit in that situation. Abolitionists were definitely religiously motivated, and were zealous about how their faith inspired their politics. Yet they were all for changing what had been the status quo for all recorded history, and the Bible certainly doesn't condemn slavery. Many of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement a century later were similarly inspired by a deep faith. There must be a better term than "fundamentalist" for such folks.

Maybe "fundamentalist" has just been tainted by modern association with strict sex & gender codes, instead of other teachings about, for example, social justice. Jesus was a (little-c) communist after all, among other things.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

Nobody ruled on the death penalty because of international law, they merely used it as an illustration of broad social (un)acceptability of the practice.

Really? and if freedom of the press was a socially unacceptable practice in the majority of the world does that mean we should lose it?

Or a more historical example, at the time of the revolution most of the world was either tribal or some form of monarchy. Thus going by world standards our form of government would have been unacceptable.

What is required is merely that "cruel and unusual" is defined as being so by large majority of the individual states of the union.
Other nations laws should not apply, and should never be used to justify nor condemn any laws of our own.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

I find it ironic that the same people who argue that a fetus has a "right to life", regardless of anything else (especially in which state the fetus is gestating), demand that the right of a child to live without the possibility of execution be decided "by the will of the people". Of course, they're more vocal the more they believe that the current will of the people reflects their own, or can be demonstrated as such in elections.

As for the ED ruling, it's not so hopeless as to require a rarely-created Constitutional Amendment. The Court decided that the ED action in Connecticut was consistent with current laws. When Congress changes those laws, a new case can be brought, and retried under the then-current laws. The Court did not find a "timeless principle" of rights in that case. They merely found that the laws, as constructed, allow some people to abuse the property of others. It's disappointing that they did not find the right of the people to be secure in our homes, papers and effects to trump the inferior laws in that case. It's actually outrageous, and a terrible blow to our fundamental rights, even the value of our property. But it can be fixed without changing the form of the system (Amendment) - it can be fixed by first fixing the parts of the system upon which the bad decision was built - the underlying laws.

What is valuable, as you and I agree, is that the ED decision shows that these politically useful, but badly oversimplified, pigeonholes of "liberal" and "conservative" are fake. The camel whose back must be broken is the casting of subtle, complex legal protections of our liberty into purely operational divisions among Americans who are mostly united ideologically. Unfortunately, as I predicted on Slashdot in the wake of that ED decision (to much BS castigation), that decision will be used by Republicans to demand that the next Justice appointed, possibly starting next week, be a rightwinger whose "property rights" are a smokescreen for protecting the interests of the greatest property holders of all: multinational corporations.

America was created as a balance between the people and the government, favoring the people. Over the past century or so, some people have created corporations that compete with people for the favor of the government. Our system is not equipped to protect the people, or the government, from the corporations. Only the people ourselves can do so, which is why corporate power and privilege has advanced slowly, to avoid confrontation. When it goes too fast, like in the robber baron era, the people strike it down, like the antitrust laws. But we are now in a period where the reverse is true. The real test of our system is underway now, as corporate power trumps the people at every turn. I hope we win.

Re:Public ConServants

[DavidTC]

I know, I was just making the point that countries had, until then, been a debate about how much 'important' people had rights vs. the right of the government to control them.

They said, screw that. All people have rights that the government cannot ever infringe, and these rights just magically exist, they aren't any part of any sort of social contract. If a government infringes these rights, anyone has the right to overthrow it.

Ergo, they were revolutionary fundamentalists. Human right fundamentalists, who said 'This is the way the universe works, we will make people bend to it.'.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Right, me and the hippies in the Senate, the rules of which define the conduct of the filibuster. Which are protected by the Constitution, that love-in from those notorious longhaired hippies who founded the country. You are swinging your empty notions too close to the gears of reason. Try your majority tyranny someplace where it impresses someone. Who calls the Senate rules a hippie fantasy world? Someone living in a fascist fantasy world, where 56% means total control.

Re:Public ConServants

[Zeinfeld]

My point is they are not elected by US citizens, nor do they represent US citizens. Thus what they do in their own countries should have no bearing upon our laws. "Unusual" IMO should mean unusual by the majority of these United States period.

Neither is the supreme court - by express intent of the framers.

If the US people want to change the constitution they have a mechanism for doing so. The interpretation of that constitution is not subject to popular opinion.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Democrats who believe the one-sided Republican view of history you reported are #2 reason they lose elections by 1.5%. Republicans who believe it are the #1 reason. Otherwise, there would be at least 10% margins for Democrats, despite the 20% of voters who are racicst sadists who don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', except who's promising them more unaccountable violence and handouts.

Try reading Bob Woodward's _Veil_, for example, for lots of details of the covert operations that keep Republicans in the White House. Bill Casey is dead, but his legacy is the power of Bolton, Negroponte, Poindexter, Cheney and the rest of the "security state". The lack of high school history about Iran/Contra, despite convictions and confessions, tells us a lot about where the power rests in America: ignorance and manipulation, backed by lies, theft and killing.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

You aren't making any sense. What part of what I said was "one sided" or "Republican"?

Yes, I know about Iran/Contra. However, I don't think it is all that important that it be taught in high school history. History more recent than 1900 is too politicized to be taught fairly in school.

And where the heck did Iran/Contra come up in this thread? All I was originally talking about is that it *is* possible to be "liberal" and a "christian fundamentalist" and that it was common in the democratic party prior to 1980.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

Which is why I do favor the repeal of the Second Amendment. And its replacement with an Amendment ensuring that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be protected, provided they regularly prove their competence in their maintenance and use, as well as their allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, the government it defines, and their competence in abiding by its laws".

Which is exactly how the nazis removed the ability of its people to resist. By allowing the government to define who is acceptable, you free it to become tyrannical.

I don't like guns, and I don't trust the government much
You don't trust people to own guns, yet you trust a government (which is made up of people) to own all the guns?
Frankly I prefer to trust the people who have no taste for power with weapons over those who do.

If a gun is legal in one state, and illegal in another, interstate commerce of guns into the second state must be regulated by Congress

PRECISELY, the key there is the STATES decide what is legal, NOT the FED. What we have now (especially with the medical marijuana decision) is a situation where something produced and legal inside a state, which was NOT sold nor bartered (thus no commerce) nor transported across state lines (thus no interstate commerce)
was upheld as being interstate commerce.

Again, it is within the power of the FED to regulate interstate commerce. If one state outlaws a product the FED can and should help stop that product from entering said state. It is up to the STATES however to decide upon the products legality.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Your entire post was a litany of Democrat screwups that made midcentury Christian Democrats seem "liberal", though the ones who switched were mostly racists - hardly "liberal". It's the Republican history of the Democratic Party, which invents a "liberalism" that did not exist, certainly not identical with the Democratic Party. Every counterexample that I cited, and of course many more that I did not, demonstrate how one-sided was your post.

But then, you don't think that the US running a secret, illegal war in Central America for years was "important". You don't think the 100K Salvadorans we paid to kill, with weapons and "trainers" we supplied, were important. Or mining Nicaragua's harbors, conviction for which justified our withdrawing from the World Court we founded. Funding and resupplying Iran to generate money for the operation, and repay their keeping he hostages for Reagan's campaign: not important. CIA traffic in guns and drugs around the world: not important. Savings & Loans defrauded by the CIA, but repaid by our taxes, to fund the operation: not important. Saudi funding our covert war, later repaid in successive wars on their belligerent Iraqi neighbors: not important. The branch of the operation funding/arming the Mujajideen in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden and the Qaeda they created for him: not important. All of those terrible catastrophes coming home to roost ever since, as we promote the Iran/Contra architects and operatives into our most powerful official positions: not important.

How did it come up? It's the most clear example of how history is told to minimize the damage to Republicans and their operations. How else could critics of Mark Felt, Deep Throat, like the criminal G. Gordon Liddy (who Felt enabled to be convicted and jailed), cast Felt as a traitor, when they were jailed for their work in illegally attacking the Democratic Party headquarters during the 1972 presidential campaign? All this talk about "liberal fundamentalists" is a delusion. When selfrighteous Democrats are reiterating the Republican whitewash of history, it's no wonder that Republicans get to fool half the voters into handing them the power.

Re:Public ConServants

[isotope23]

Your point is?

The laws of the land here in the usa are supposed to be made by representatives of the
citizens of the usa. Just like any other country.

The SCOTUS is appointed by our representatives, not by japan nor russia nor any other nation.

They are there to interpret the laws made by congress according to the constitution. Not to
interpret nor justify the law based upon other countries legislative actions.

Re:Public ConServants

[bindster]

You, sir, are a fraud!

"Constructionism" is a fiction of Robert Bork's imagination? This doctor (and at this point I call him one only because it is his name) doesn't know the first thing about anything he's talking about.

Strict constructionism is a viable, time-honored theory of constitutional interpretation, which attempts to adhere to the "plain" meaning of the law (i.e. what is written in the paper). You may wish to review the history of Justice Hugo Black. Alternatives include the living-constitution theory, which asserts that the meaning of the Constitution needs to be discerned with respect to the history of the U.S. Anyone who says these are just partisan gimmicks is a dumbshit who doesn't know what they're talking about. Exactly the kind of person one might occasionally run into on /.

And then this charlatan goes on to say that the Courts, as provisioned in the Constitution, provide justices with the ability to interpret the law and determine its compliance with the Constitution. I suppose the Constitution could be interpreted this way, if you had an extra chromosome. I'm sorry, that's mean to people with Down's Syndrome. Judicial review, as another poster submitted, is a result of Marbury v. Madison. Originally, the Supreme Court was only granted the power to hear controversies which fell into Federal jurisdiction; the ability to review and reject Congressional acts is a power it discovered only later on.

Only a person who used their high school American Government textbook to wipe their ass would think the original post was insightful.

Re:Public ConServants

[soft_guy]

My example was about how southern racists screwed themselves because they were idiots and how many non-racists in the north moved the democratic party in the morally right direction on civil rights, but at the expense of no longer being the majority party.

And you can't argue that the democrats didn't tear into each other over the issue of viet nam. Because of that, the 1968 convention became a fiasco and we fielded a very weak presidential candidate (Humphrey) and (gasp!) lost because of it.

And even though I am a democrat and think highly of President Carter, I think his handling of the hostage crisis in Iran was very bad and cost our party a lot of respect. The iranians violated international law, attacked our embassy - which is a serious attack against our country, and he's there negotiating. I'm sorry, that's just not the approach I can support.

I think Iran/Contra was a horrible scandle and its what I would expect from the republican party: inept, corrupt, and bungling.

However, I do not think the way to win elections is by bringing up Iran/Contra. Nor do I think it is by attacking G. Gordon Liddy and brining up Watergate. Who the hell is going to care?

I think the way for democrats to win elections is by fielding strong candidates who can clearly articulate the positions of the party that resonate with voters.

Re:Public ConServants

[Pentavirate]

I find it ironic that the same people who argue that a fetus has a "right to life", regardless of anything else (especially in which state the fetus is gestating), demand that the right of a child to live without the possibility of execution be decided "by the will of the people". Of course, they're more vocal the more they believe that the current will of the people reflects their own, or can be demonstrated as such in elections.

The difference, of course, is the actions of the parties involved. In the case of the death penalty, we're talking about a handful of youths (not children) that have done acts heinous enough to cause a jury of their peers to convict them and sentence them to death. Unborn children are innocent of any crime except inconvenience (in the vast majority of cases) to their parents. The other thing that is inaccurate about your statement is that we believe the "right to life" should also be by the "will of the people", so there is no inconsistency there. We just want the legislatures (and therefore the people) of the country to be back in charge of the decision instead of the court having taken it off the table. Some people (erroneously) believe that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will be illegal across the country. Not so. It'll return to be decided by each state legislature.

As for the ED ruling, it's not so hopeless as to require a rarely-created Constitutional Amendment. The Court decided that the ED action in Connecticut was consistent with current laws. When Congress changes those laws, a new case can be brought, and retried under the then-current laws. The Court did not find a "timeless principle" of rights in that case. They merely found that the laws, as constructed, allow some people to abuse the property of others.

A constitutional amendment is not so far fetched in this case because of the general outrage, but in many cases that are more evenly divided it is, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not for the court to make the decision. That's the job of Congress. In the ED case, the court ignored over 200 years of precedent and changed the way the constitution is read. What they should have done is read the "public use" clause and reaffirm what it has meant for the whole history of this country and establish a "timeless principle" of rights in this case in the favor of the individual's property rights.

In the end we do need to do something about the court. There really is no effective check against what the court has been doing. If we have a court that continues to usurp power, the people have to recourse. As far as I know, "interpreting" the constitution is no an impeachable offense. As long as we're creating amendments, perhaps we should create one that brings the courts back under the control of the people. We can give them term limits, make them elected, or give congress and the president an overruling power of a court decision, or something else I haven't even thought of but something needs to be done before we become an oligarchy under the control of 5 out of 9 men and women in black robes.

Re:Public ConServants

[jamstar7]

Take a good look at the current military adventurism taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's one thing to go someplace to arrest somebody for crimes committed in the United States ( i.e. Noriega in Panama ), quite another thing to force a change of government on a sovereign nation under the guise of attempting to arrest someone for crimes committed in the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say we are authorised to force a change of government on somebody? Particulary when we withdraw from things like the Treaty of Rome, saying decisions of the World Court are not binding on the US simply because it's not a US court.

Who is the United States Federal government to make these kinds of decisions? Where in the Constitution is the power to make these decisions granted?

Re:Public ConServants

[NMerriam]

if freedom of the press was a socially unacceptable practice

The point you're missing is that freedom of the press isn't qualified in the constitution with any words that require context. It's given simply as an absolute.

"Cruel and Unusual," however, are clearly words that have to be interpreted. There is no timeless definition of either of those words, indeed the word "unusual" by definition REQUIRES comparison to other penalties which are "usual". The constitution offers no guidance as to what physical or temporal realms are to be compared for the sake of "usual"-ness, so the Supreme Court gets to make that call.

Clearly what is cruel and unusual today is not the same that would have been cruel and unusual 250 years ago. To determine that question, they looked at current state laws and found that in these United States the execution of minors is indeed unusual. To see if this itself was an anomoly, they broadened the search to include other nations.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court interprets law based on our western common law legal traditions, and it is not at all unusual in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, etc, to see cases from the other nations cited -- not as legally binding precedents, but as potential sources of illustration and illumination of our legal codes, to see if a particular legal interpretation on our shores is interpreted differently elsewehere, and if so, why.

Re:Public ConServants

[letxa2000]

Democrats who believe the one-sided Republican view of history you reported are #2 reason they lose elections by 1.5%. Republicans who believe it are the #1 reason. Otherwise, there would be at least 10% margins for Democrats, despite the 20% of voters who are racicst sadists who don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', except who's promising them more unaccountable violence and handouts.

You forgot the zero-based #0 reason: Arrogant Democrats like you who talk down to others and are quickly identified by the public at large. As long as people like you exist and keep talking like you do, the #1 and #2 reason will take a major backseat to the #0 reason and you will keep losing elections. So please keep it up!

Truth be told, America is a conservative nation. I know it pains the liberals to hear that, but it's the truth. No, maybe not as conservative as the most conservative Republicans, but yes, the nation is more conservative than it is liberal. Deal with it.

Re:Public ConServants

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a racist and I do not consider the Republican party representative of my beliefs, nor do any of my bretheren. I also find your assertion that Nixon was behind the Kennedy assasinations laughable. Nixon & the Kennedy's played for the same team, just like the Demicans & Republicrats of today play for the same team. It's all about maintaining the status quo for the benefit of the wealthy, at the expense of the working class.

Re:Public ConServants

[Anonymous Coward]

To understand ruby, you need to know that he is a meth addict.

Re:Public ConServants

[SacredNaCl]

Jadavis, that was the most right on comment I've seen in this entire discussion.

When you go back to the basics of what the constitution actually says, most of the current operation of the Federal Government is quite simply illegal under the law. There is an ammendment process for a reason, but instead of using the difficult process they stack the court with people to make convoluted decisions to increase federal power. It was sort of inevitable that this would happen as you have two different federal branches picking the candidates.

Other than brute force, I never understood why the states went along with it. Back then the state legislatures appointed the senate, so they did have some way to litmus test who they sending to the swamp and put a check on unruly behavoir of this kind, but I suppose just like judges you never really know what they will do with it till you put them in the office.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

This probably won't compute in your binary reduction, but I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a member of any party - the whole party system is a ripoff, except for those who own them. Which, more often than not, are the same people working both sides.

Now, that liberal/conservative jive is fooling less and less people all the time - and I personally am way past that. The "nation" is easily led, especially by conscienceless liars running media corporations. So stick your calls of "arrogance" where you keep your smug certainty that the "nation" is like you. Sure, there are millions of people who prefer sadistic entertainment, on TV and in politics, to anything like humane treatment. You've got your torture fans to deal with, just like me. But most of us care about living decently, rather than chortling over how easy it is to lie to people who want to believe something. Ignoring that 49% of voters in the glow of your slim victories has 40% of Americans saying they'd welcome impeachment when Bush is proven to have lied us into war. It's sent Bush's popularity into the tank, the more his conceit sends him around the country peddling scams like his Social Security handover to stockbrokers, his lies about Saddam Hussein's responsibility for 9/11, and the economic toilet he's been handle-jiggling since he took the head plumber job.

So keep your "truth" to yourself. It's a cheap gimmick, probably made in China like the rest of your favorite shiny products. It's worth about as much as your base: zero.

Re:Public ConServants

[Zeinfeld]

The laws of the land here in the usa are supposed to be made by representatives of the citizens of the usa. Just like any other country.

Since the US has taken the lead in asserting extraterritorial judgement in human rights matters you are dead wrong on this.

The US is bound by treaty obligations it has accepted, in fact the Constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the US are part of US law.

That is why sooner or later there is going to be an accounting for the crimes being committed at Guantanamo. Regardless of whether Guantanamo is under US sovereignty US law clains extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases of torture.

This is not a bad thing, it would be a bad thing if the US ended up extraditing US troops to Cuba for trial for war crimes committed on their territory. On the other hand it means that Bush cannot block prosecutions by granting pardons.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

The documentation of the right to bear arms doesn't define "who is acceptable", it defines who can carry a gun. That's not tyrannical, it's sensible. Because it defines those people based on competence, and allegiance to the Constitution. What's wrong with that? Are laws which define treason "tyrannical", when they simply define it as opposition to the basic laws that protect our freedom? Even under such a gun law, people can oppose the Constitution if they wish, even in the legislature. They just can't carry guns. Are you trying to protect armed opposition to the Constitution? To protect violent overthrow, in the name of a fear of tyranny? Your Nazi argument is specious, because they did not have a US Constitution - they had tyranny, often arbitrary. Not to mention how many guns, not just Germans in neighborhoods, it took to stop them.

Your fallacy of the excluded middle is especially weak in this case. I specify a law that protects the rights of everyone not opposed to the Constitution to carry guns. You then describe a state in which no one is "trusted" to carry a gun. Then you somehow invent a class of people "with no taste for power", out of nothing.

I'm not going to switch this debate to another Constitutional principle when you're playing so fast and loose with the first one. Your political agenda, unbalanced personal freedom, is more important to you that the kind of debate that could teach me anything. It's the usual kind of argument offered by people who want everyone to carry guns, anyone to traffic in any product, regardless of the harm it poses to people who didn't choose to participate in the trade or use of the products. It ignores the necessity of people to identify unacceptable risks, and closely regulate them, so people can enjoy their freedoms without depriving other people of theirs. So naturally it ignores the necessity of rational consistency in debate, in achieving the freedom of saying and getting whatever one wants.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not "DR. MARIO", whoever it is that haunts your .sig, so you don't have to be so terrified. "Strict constructionism" is a fraud, designed to project imaginary, unproveable shadows behind the very real Constitution, and misinterpret the document in terms of whatever the interpreter wants to conjecture. Bork is a proven liar - just because the press doesn't mention his career-making work, "playing ball" with Nixon by firing the Watergate prosecutor, doesn't mean that he wasn't one of those who chose expedience over his obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law. He's a good representative of people who invent unproveable "intents", more important than explicit actions, in determining what people have done, or will do.

So go on with your childish insults. I expect that kind of inanity from people who throw around the exact bugbears they know they themselves represent: partisanship, charlatanry, dumbshittery, and wiping the Constution with your ass. That includes the Bill of Rights, even though it was added after the "orignal intent" of the "strict construction" was complete, making the Constitution a truly "living document". That lives in the times of the living, who must live with it. Not just in our imaginations, or of those criminals who'd find a way to pervert it to paper their own lying asses.

Run along now, little one. I hear DR. MARIO calling you. He wants to know where you got the balls to shoot off your mouth, when it's aimed only at your own ass. When you've got your own secret shame worked out, maybe you can come back and start talking some sense about Constitutional law, or psychology.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

Nicholas Negroponte was Ambassador to Honduras, running cover for the secret NSA/CIA war run by armies hidden there, against neighboring Honduras. Now Negroponte is in charge of all US intelligence, heading a new domestic spying agency. His resume, which includes the illegal murder of thousands of Nicaraguans at our expense, is certainly important. As is Poindexter's conviction for lying to Congress (and pardon by Bush Sr), which didn't stand in his way when the evil genius returned with his "Total Information Awareness" domestic spying agency under Bush Jr. The list goes on, especially in the names of the old spooks and their bureaucrats which never made the papers, but who have their old parking spaces back.

Iran/Contra was a proven conspiracy to break the law, and work against legal American policies, Congress and the people. It armed the Iranians, it sold drugs to Americans, it ran a war in Central America, it funded and armed bin Ladin. And it was run by people who had to hide in the White House basement then, but who now control the government.

Americans know Iran/Contra was a fraud that stole our government to benefit spies and our foreign enemies. Connecting these senior operatives in Bush Jr's office with their junior crimes in his father's office will help open America's eyes to how far we've fallen already. And help destroy the possibly terminal fraud now crashing down all around us.

Of course there were plenty of Democrats complicit in the coverup. Lee Hamilton is the Democrat bagman who whitewashed Bush Sr's oversight, declining to question Bush when he merely stated his famous disclaimer that he was "out of the loop". Hamilton of course showed up for the Democrats, in the 9/11 Commission whitewash, which naturally didn't connect bin Laden's Afghan Mujahideen with anyone in Bush Jr's 2001 White House, and their mutual interests. So those strong Democrats, with clearly articulated, resonant positions, have a lot to gain by casting off the chains of their Party's old, corrupt leadership, and leading our country out of the ongoing BushCo spook nightmare.

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

No, your people are after political expediency. Where are you on the thousands of in-vitro fertilized embryos discarded every year? The "innocence" of even newborns doesn't exist in the words of your leaders, with "original sin". The only "outrage" we find is among people whipped into a frenzy by their . Most Americans continue to generally trust the Supreme Court, despite decisions like Eminent Domain and Bush v Gore.

In terms of ED, it's the laws that the judges judged that are wrong. I don't see this outrage targeting the elected Congress or state Assemblies, demanding new laws which a retrial could use to fix that egregious mistake. The Court should have exercised justice in overruling the lesser laws, finding them unconstitutional in light of, say, the 4th Amendment. But they didn't - with the "help" of the lawyer who didn't persuade them of that priority in presenting the case. Our system offers existing ways to fix this error, without some new, untested structure that will be abused immediately to further politicize the Court.

Your "final solution" for the court is the hook, line and sinker you've been fed. The real value of the rightwing judges you want to see in charge is to their corporate backers, who mask judicial "flexibility" on corporate liability with throwaway compliance with packaged points like antiabortion laws, school prayer, and other theocratic logic.

The problem with inventing a new structure for judicial oversight now is that it's driven by people obsessed with "outrage", even when it's only in a minority community not actually "oppressed" by the court, except in their desire to control the actions of everyone else. Don't have an abortion. Pray on your own in school. Don't burn a flag. Just remember that your freedom to swing your fist ends at your neighbor's nose. Because when you just switch your own robes in for the majority 5, you're consolidating the power of an office to regulate your beliefs, just like those of your neighbors. Your own nose will have the same target as theirs.

Re:Public ConServants

[Grym]

...Because it defines those people based on competence, and allegiance to the Constitution.

1) Competence. What is competence? Being able to shoot well? So, if my grandmother ( a wonderful lady but probably a terrible shot) cannot pass a firing test she is not entitled any personal protection--even in her own home? That's just ridiculous. How many gunfights with legal guns (because illegal guns would be unaffected by this change) do you think actually happen? I'd venture to say that the vast majority of gun violence (with legal guns) occurs at close range, indoors, with only one party firing a shot. Accuracy matters little in those instances. As an aside, Lee Harvey Oswald was an excellent shot. He could pass your tests with flying colors if he lied on the second requirement.

2) Allegiance. Allegiance to what? My only allegiance is to my maker and the people. The government, on the other hand, has to earn my allegiance. Whether you realize it or not, there's a right to revolution in this country. It's a part of our heritage. If the government ever becomes completely corrupt (which isn't the case yet), there is, like the founding fathers showed, an option--nay, an obligation--to oppose it. Plus, If I'm a citizen of the United States, I shouldn't have to prove that I'm a flag-wavin', God-fearin', apple pie-eatin' good ol' boy just to secure the basic right to personal protection entitled to me under the constitution. Not only does that violate my implicit right to privacy, but it turns the "right" to bear arms into a privilege to be granted and taken away, like a driving license.

Obviously, there's a fine line that needs to be drawn between what weapons citizens should and shouldn't be able to have. I don't think any private citizen needs a machine gun or grenades. Those are too dangerous. Coming up with such a compromise won't be easy, but the ideas you suggest to arrive there seem far too shortsighted to ever achieve it.

-Grym

Re:Public ConServants

[Doc Ruby]

If your grandma can't shoot, you must want her dead if you want her using a gun. It's not just "point and click" you know. And if your grandma had conspired to assassinate the president, she sure as hell shouldn't be carrying one.

You don't have to prove your allegiance. You just have to be free from being proven that you are working to overthrow the Constitution. You don't like the Constitution? You'll have to live with it. Armed opponents of the Constitution are unacceptable, no matter how sympathetic you feel to their "revolution".

It is your constructions that are shortsighted and narrow. Mine carve out protections for the rights we have: to have guns when we can use them, which doesn't include using them against the Constitution.

Re:Public ConServants

[unitron]

" I defy you to even remotely prove that the minority in any branch of congress has the RIGHT to filibuster. What law? What amendment?"

From Article 1, Section 5 of The Constitution of the United States of America:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

The Rules of the Senate currently allow for filibuster under certain conditions, although I doubt they use that specific term. You are correct that it is not a right, as it can be overturned by a sufficient majority of the Senate voting to change their rules, however it is, at present, part of those rules which the Constitution gives the Senate the right to determine for itself.

Seems to me Bush won reelection

[unassimilatible]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.

You might not like it, but it's the truth. And you wouldn't mod me down just because you disagree with me, would you?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'd mod you down because you're ugly.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

That I can live with.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

The people have spoken???

Uh, Bush won by 51% of the vote.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Pixie_From_Hell]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken.

Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.

While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.

This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.

And you wouldn't mod me down just because you disagree with me, would you?

Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2004 presidential election is looking more and more like it was stolen by Republicans in Ohio. Go read up on Thomas Noe on http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Thomas+ Noe&btnG=Search+News .

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Tyler Durden]

The only thing separating a democracy from a tyranny of the majority (and a thin majority electing Bush - in this case) are rights granted its citizens by the Constitution. That these rights continue to be upheld is the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

That being the case, the Democrats should use any legal means within their power to prevent a questionable individual appointed to the Supreme Court. If they simply step back and let someone who will evenutally overturn Roe v. Wade get appointed then they'll have a lot of explaining to do to the people who elected them. And it looks like 2 more Justices might step down other than O'Connor.

It would be a damn shame if the rights of individuals take a hit just because the population at large had a temporary case of irrational reactions to fear after the attacks on 9/11. The population at large is already beginning to see a big mistake in the power-sapping debacle that is the war in Iraq.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[revscat]

And one of his platforms during the campaign was nominating solidly conservative justices. Additionally, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in the last election. Seems like the people have spoken. Bush should be able to nominate the jutices he wants, and get an up-or-down vote, not be dictated to by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org.

Dictated? Coming to a compromise is not "dictating." Democraces are built upon compromise, and the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country? Sen. Reid, the leading Democrat in the Senate, has already offered up a list of Republican candidates who they would be willing to negotiate over. But the usual tactic for Republicans is to give a rats ass about actually being democratic, so I'm sure they'll attempt to run roughshod over the American public again.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is still more than the simple majority required to win, ergo, in our electoral system, more people liked what Bush offered over sKerry, or at least people thought he was less scary than sKerry.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[FungiFromYuggoth]

This may make your brain explode, but it's not my fault if it does.

Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.

Damn that Ted Kennedy!

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[beanlover]

go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate.

Precisely why the senators should go back to being appointed by the state governments to represent them. We the people have the House of Representatives to, wait for it...represent us. How many we get depends on the population of the state.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the constitution calls for judges to be approved by a simple majority, not by "compromise". If Ted Kennedy can't convince enough of his fellow Senators that a particular judge is a poor choice, he shouldn't expect to be able to stop it anyway.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me there was extensive problems with voting in the swing state of Ohio -- so much so that the outcome of the election is completely in question. That is the fault of the Republican secretary of state there and his policies which disenfranchised those populations which have statistically favored the other candidate. Furthermore, the exit polls, which have correctly predicted every other election in history at the scale this showed Bush lost, showed that Bush did indeed lose. I'd say O'Connor's vote to stop the counting of votes in Florida in 2000 disqualifies her from ethically stepping down until Bush is out of the white house. But I don't expect ethical behavior from this Reagan appointee.

It's really unfortunate that she helped Bush into the white house giving him the opportunity to ignore the 40+ threat alerts during summer 2001 of Al Qaeda planning attacks on the U.S. soil. Her shame should be at least equal to his lack of shame.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.

Well how about that -- the constitutional privisions to keep representation equal in the Senate, so that big states don't always win out over smaller states...works.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[kmac06]

How about he nominates someone who has the crazy idea of actually reading and interpreting US law instead of legislating from the bench or looking to foreign law.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are not being democratic? Is it not the Democrats in the Senate that are holding up the democratic process by NOT allowing an up or down vote?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you losers have finally shut up about Florida in 2000.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jpsowin]

Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?

So what you are saying is Bush should appoint a moderate who only 5% of the population agrees with. I'd rather he pick someone who about 55% of people agree with, even if I disagree with the decision.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Sir Pallas]

But do they represent more than 50% of the states? Just like in the presidential electorate, the population is not the predominant thing. That means that dense states can't oppress sparse states, because of course the United States is not the United People.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[revscat]

No. All the Democrats in the Senate asked for were nominees that (a) weren't complete fascist ideologues and (b) in Bolton's case that the White House provide documents that would allow them to assess his competence.

The "advice and consent" means that the Senate can and should stop nominations when they judge it to be best.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

One People! One Party! One God! One State!

We're all Republicans now.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Qzukk]

Precisely why the senators should go back to being appointed by the state governments to represent them

The EU shows exactly how bad this kind of idea works. Without some way for the public to control the Senate, they'll do whatever the hell they want to do. Replacing the state government that put them there will take an election cycle, then replacing the senator would take the rest of the senator's term.

This kind of setup is where the ability to have a public vote of no confidence leading to a replacement mid-term would be useful, though, but the state could still abuse the system until the state was replaced.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Lawrence_Bird]

Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.

Dude get a grip. House of Representatives. Proportional representation. R 232 D 202 Republicans complained for 40 odd years of getting Dem rule down their throat but at least they didn't whine every day out it.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority."

Just like the founding Father's intended it. I guess that's why the House is controlled by the Democrats. Oh wait....

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[kmac06]

This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.

Try reading the Constitution. This "up-or-down" vote is spelled out in Article II, Section II, Clause II:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court.

You can argue what "Advice and Consent" of the senate means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the senate picks the Justices. Historically it has meant an up-or-down vote once the Justice gets to the floor of the Senate.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Qzukk]

So what you are saying is Bush should appoint a moderate who only 5% of the population agrees with.

Why would a moderate only have 5% of the population's support? I can say it's pretty safe to assume that with 48% of the public voting democrat, far more than 5% of the public would support someone who isn't right-wing. In fact, I suspect that even with 51% voting Republican, there are at least a few people that would favor moderate justices to right-wing justices. I can see popular support for a moderate-to-slightly-right justice being far more than support for a far right justice.

I'm sure that when the Republicans inevitably lose power again, the people who are crying for blood now will be crying for moderation too.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[revscat]

So what you are saying is Bush should appoint a moderate who only 5% of the population agrees with. I'd rather he pick someone who about 55% of people agree with, even if I disagree with the decision.

Yes, I agree completely. That's exactly what he should do. If he appoints someone that is acceptable to the Senate, then he has proven the nominee is acceptable by 60% of their members, and therefore 60% of the people who elected those senators.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Epi-man]

Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.

While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.

Just because you are so busy raising your nose in the air claiming such brilliance....care to check the representation in the House? Let's see, the 108th Congress consisted of 227 Republicans and 205 Democrats, the 109th Congress moved to 231 Republicans and 202 Democrats. So, what exactly was your point again? It went from 52.18% of the populace being represented by Republicans (there are 435 seats) to 53.10% in 2004.

Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.

It is a shame the moderators haven't done the same to your post since it is not founded on facts and is hardly insightful (at least on this point). I agree with you that we (I assume you too are an American) shouldn't have a one sided government, but please debate with accurate statements.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[beanlover]

Read my comment here for a little further explantation of what I meant. If we could get that done then I don't think what you are saying would ever be a problem.

Of course...that requires citizens to pay attention to what is going on...may never happen.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[mattdm]

But do they represent more than 50% of the states? Just like in the presidential electorate, the population is not the predominant thing. That means that dense states can't oppress sparse states, because of course the United States is not the United People.

A strange anachronism -- the same weirdness that brings us the electoral college. While I'm very aware of the crucial need to protect minority voices from a simple tyranny-of-51%, is there *really* any reason to do this state-line-based gerrymandering in this post-Civil-War day and age?

(Leaving aside that this is how the country was set up and that it'd be practically impossible to change because changing the constitution uses the same mechanism.)

This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'm genuinely curious....

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[mattdm]

You can argue what "Advice and Consent" of the senate means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the senate picks the Justices. Historically it has meant an up-or-down vote once the Justice gets to the floor of the Senate.

And clearly, you mean "historically" literally, as in only before 1806. Sort of like, "historically,

There's a good reason for rules which allow minority parties to have a decent say in vital decisions like this one -- no matter *who* the party in charge is.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[BreadMan]

The EU shows exactly how bad this kind of idea works.

This worked fine until the 1920's. The Senate is balanced by the House, that keeps them in check. Most legislation must oringinate in the House, so the Senate just can't do as they please. When the consitiution was framed, the Senate was supposed to balance the "mob rule" effects of the House as well as protect the interests of the States, which were much more independent of the central governement at the time.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Sir Pallas]

It's not really gerrymandering because the State lines aren't redrawn all that often. I don't know where you've lived, but I've lived both in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Maybe it goes without saying that they are completely different worlds; the States operate very differently. They are individual entities with distinct voices. When I try to explain my politics to people on the West Coast (in particular) they get confused because their picture is different than the picture where I was raised. And I think that distinct voice needs to be heard. (I am also quite proud that Missouri, my birthplace, has voted with the winner in the presidential elections for about the past 100 years. It's a representative voice.) Think of it this way: just beacuse one man is bigger doesn't make his voice more important; just because one state has more people, doesn't make its voice more important.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

what's up with the 'sKerry' ? is that another one of those cute M$ type things? Explain it to me like I'm a two year old.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[cfulmer]

There's a problem with your logic, or at least its implication that each party should go half way and meet in the middle. Applying that to the nomination process is approximately the same as saying "the New York Jets and my middle school football team agreed to compromise and call it a draw."

The fact is that both the President and the majority of the Senate are Republicans. If there's any compromising done, by all rights it should be "Ok, Harry Reid. We'll give you 10% and we'll take the other 90%," if that. The Democrats are hardly equal partners in this, nor should they be treated as such.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Jherek Carnelian]

I am also quite proud that Missouri, my birthplace, has voted with the winner in the presidential elections for about the past 100 years. It's a representative voice.

What kind of baloney is that?

My group is on the winning side! Yay me!

Elections are a contest for the candidates, not for the voters.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[ChristTrekker]

Right - either consent to the nomination, or withhold your consent. Either way is fine. But don't stall bringing the issue up.

Judicial appointments are not legislation, and shouldn't be treated with the same procedural rules. In the grand scheme, nobody's going to care if we go another day with or without some law being passed. But justice goes unserved when there are vacancies on the bench.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[DavidTC]

Except that Americans have unenumerated rights. (Rights not specifically listed.)

And thus it's not insanity to look to other countries to see what rights those people have when trying to define unenumerated ones. (Considering that's where our listings of rights came from in the first place.)

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[kmac06]

No, I mean "historically," as in a filibuster has never been used to stop a vote on a judge on the Senate floor. Until now, of course.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Democraces are built upon compromise,...

Yes, but compromise is complex beast.

If some religious nut thinks I should have to spend an 42 minutes a day jumping up and down and squawking like a chicken and I think that I should spend 0 minutes a day doing that then the right "compromise" isn't that I spend 21 minutes a day doing it.

In particular, the right "compromise" is not that everyone's point of view is taken into account equally. The right compromise involves this thing called "freedom": the idea that a person's point of view is relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the issue under consideration.

The current administration tends to forget this: "We won 51% of the vote so we get to tell everyone how to live their lives". Not if you believe in freedom, you don't! Even if they won 99.9% of the vote it would still not give them the right to take away other people's freedom.

Admittedly, abortion (unlike flag burning which is a pure freedom issue) is a tricky issue in the sense that of the two entities most affected by the decision (the woman and the fetus), the one entitie is not capable of forming an opinion.

The way I see it though, the modern abortion debate isn't actually about abortion but is instead about certain religious fanatics trying to create an environment where people who are not married are prevented from having sex.

If it was actually about abortion then nuns would be handing out condoms at frat parties and the hundreds of billions being spent on the Iraq war would instead be spent on social programs that guarateed that all children would have a decent life regardless of their parent's ability to care for them.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?

Why did Clinton appoint Ginsberg and Breyer rather than more moderate justices?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.

But you're ok with a tyranny of the minority since that suites your hypocritical viewpoint.

Your opinions are worthless because you don't care to look at any other viewpoint than your own. The Senate Republicans have been making a huge effort to govern with civility and justice, but the Democrats are so obsessed with opposing Bush at every turn that they will only obstruct.

I'm laughing at the Dems because they keep digging themselves a bigger hole with each election. After the next election they won't even have the 40 votes they need to stop cloture, then they'll start lobbying for a 2/3 majority to vote cloture. Such losers, but very amusing.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[BagMan2]

It's not like Clinton appointed moderates, just look at how left-wing wacko Ginsberg is. Over the long-term, the Supreme Court should tend to follow the makeup of the elected officials at a slower pace. If Republicans stay in power for 20 years, then it's completely appropriate for the court to slant more conservative.

While the Democrat's may not like a more conservative court, they need to win at the ballot box to stop it, not use parliamentary tricks to try and stop it.

With O'Connor gone, Bush is going to get at least 2 appointments (Rehnquist will never last that long). If the Democrats try to filibuster reasonable nominees, they are going to lose the filibuster option. The Republicans are holding all the cards at this table. The best the Democrats can hope for is to make the Repulicans spend some political capital to get there.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[TCQuad]

"Ok, Harry Reid. We'll give you 10% and we'll take the other 90%"

How exactly does an ~51% majority in the election and a 55% majority in the Senate equate to a 90/10 split?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[kmac06]

Uhhhmmmmm....we do? I'm guessing you're talking about the 'right' to abortion, among other things?

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[parcel]

Uhhhmmmmm....we do?

Uhhhmmmmmm... yes, we do. Article IX.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[parcel]

How exactly does an ~51% majority in the election and a 55% majority in the Senate equate to a 90/10 split?

Same way that the 51% is a mandate from the people, the last 12 years out of 14 is the last-throes end bit, and we can ignore billions in war expenses when budgeting... republi-math.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[DavidTC]

Actually, I think that right is pretty damn stupid.

There's no way we can have a right to medical privacy, and yet drugs remain illegal.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

NO. There is no "right to abortion". Nobody ever said there was.

But we DO have a right to consult with a doctor and make private medical decisions that affect our health, without Theocratic busybodies prying into our private business.

If the Republicans would just submit an anti-abortion bill that had an exception to protect the life of the mother, they could probably easily work around the Roe v Wade ruling anyway.

But they won't do that, because the Republicans cannot accept the moral calculus of protecting a woman's right to decide to save her own life over a man's right to knock her up and force her to bear a child even if it kills her. Thus, the perfect (absolutely ALL abortions outlawed, no questions) becomes the enemy of the good (abortions outlawed with some exceptions).

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

Bitching about foreign law, and yet your side wants to incorporate the 10 commandments; law originating from a 5000 year old Hebrew culture of sheep farmers, as appropriate for Modern America.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

I would rather he select someone who agrees with a modern interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, instead of trying to roll US Law back to 1859.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?

Because he doesn't have to. Bush didn't run on promises to compromise with the Democrats. I doubt he's going to do so. The Republicans have a majority right now. Reid is talking out his ass.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[txmadman]

"Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority"

Well, that means exactly nothing, because the Senate is not built around population. A senator is supposed to represent the state in which he lives. The House is a better measure of popular representation, and it has been Republican since 1994.

Also, keep in mind that the Democrats have lost the presidency twice in the last 5 years, and they have lost seats in the Senate over the last 3. Americans are clearly trending Republican/conservative (Bill Clinton was elected as a moderate Democrat, as opposed to Kerry and Gore who are demostrably very far left), so it is absolutely called for and appropriate that Bush nominate a conservative in the vein of Scalia to the Court.

As to the up/down vote thing, the filibuster for court nominations is a practice without precedent employed by Democrats over the last 3 years. They abused 200+ year tradition and custom; Republicans are perfectly justified in adapting to the new tactic.

Also note that the last two justices appointed to the Court (Bader-Ginsburg, who worked for the ACLU, and Steven Breyer, who worked for Ted Kennedy) were not filibustered or mal-treated by Senate Republicans...I am curious to see if Schumer and Leahy have the class of Orrin Hatch. We shall see.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

It's the Republicans in the Senate that are being undemocratic by putting limits on fair and open debate.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

Also note that the last two justices appointed to the Court (Bader-Ginsburg, who worked for the ACLU, and Steven Breyer, who worked for Ted Kennedy) were not filibustered or mal-treated by Senate Republicans...I am curious to see if Schumer and Leahy have the class of Orrin Hatch. We shall see.

I believe that is because Clinton passed up his first candidate, and chose two who Hatch said the Republicans wouldn't have a problem with. That despite the Democrats having a majority at the time. You know, "advise and consent". Kind of like "compromise".

If Bush would show the same class and consider the list of Republican candidates already suggested by the minority leader, then we won't have a problem. The Democrats don't have a problem with Bush appointing conservative judges, they aren't that stupid. They just want to keep him from going off the deep end.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

I would rather he select someone who agrees with a modern interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

And that interpretation would be what? You have no right to be controlled at a local level rather than a federal level (see: Raich, in which Kennedy arrogantly said that Californians had the "democratic process" at their disposal if they wanted marijuana law changed, ignoring the fact that their law passed on a public initiative and a state legislature vote)? That it's OK for the Feds to tell you what you can grow on your land (Wickard), and the decision that started all of this "it's all interstate commerce somehow, so we can rule everything!" crap: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.. Or how about the fact that it's OK to give your land to a developer for a few extra tax dollars (which Stevens specifically said is based upon a shift in the meaning of "public use" in the mid-nineteenth century)? That limiting political expression (McCain-Feingold) is OK (and, incidentally, creating a special class of people called "media" who are exempt; defining that's going to be interesting).

Sorry, I'm not convinced this "modern" interpretation is all that good an idea. The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys, if only we'd follow the system they gave us.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[mattdm]

No, I mean "historically," as in a filibuster has never been used to stop a vote on a judge on the Senate floor. Until now, of course.

um, actually, that doesn't seem to be "historically" true:

[...] Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination [...]

And then, it was the Republicans blocking the nomination. As Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.) said at the time, "On any issue the majority at any given moment is not always right." And it's still true today.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[cfulmer]

The President has 100% of the presidency and his party has a majority of the Senate. To the winner go the spoils. It may not be 90/10, but they clearly have the lion's share of the power and should thus obtain the lion's share of the benefit in any agreement with the minority party. That's how our Constitution is set up.

Using your logic, a 42-41 victory in the Superbowl would entitle the losing team to almost half the trophy.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[TCQuad]

Using your logic, a 42-41 victory in the Superbowl would entitle the losing team to almost half the trophy.

Politics is not a game.

Treating it as such is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[jafac]

I wasn't specifically referring to those issues. I'm specifically referring to the Amendment 9 and 10, and 14 issues, which Republicans repeatedly salivate about.

Remember, it was Clinton who appointed a Surgeon General Shalala, who was hounded out of office by Congressional Republicans after saying that "this nation needs to take a hard look at marijuana prohibition, and the use of medical marijuana".

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Grym]

Why shouldn't he appoint someone who both sides agree upon, instead of trying to comletely silence fully half of the country?

As a moderate, I can't help but worry about the long-term consequences if Bush nominates a staunch conservative.

That being said, I fully expect him to. And I see nothing wrong in the act of him doing so. How can you? Bush is quite obviously a conservative. He's going to pick conservative judges.

It's his job to choose the candidate as he sees fit--which, has usually turned out to be a judge with similar views. The senate can then accept or reject the candidate by a simple majority vote. Those are the rules.

Why would Bush be doing something wrong when operating by the pre-established rules in a manner consistent with the platform on which he was elected? If it were a liberal president, I'd expect him (her?) to do the same.

-Grym

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Anonymous Coward]

But we DO have a right to consult with a doctor and make private medical decisions that affect our health,

But the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are done not done for health reasons, so your argument fails.

without Theocratic busybodies prying into our private business.

I'm against having a state religion as much as the next guy, but you're way overusing the word "theocratic". If a nation that passes laws against what it sees as homicide is a theocracy, then I'm perfectly willing to live in a theocracy!

Republicans cannot accept the moral calculus of protecting a woman's right to decide to save her own life over a man's right to knock her up and force her to bear a child even if it kills her.

This would require legalized rape, and I can't think of a single politician who's in favor of that.

Furthermore, rape and death in childbirth are red herrings used by the left to emotially justify legalised abortion, whereas in reality it's about the vast majority of abortion seekers who just don't want children, and get rid of them after the fact.

Thus, the perfect (absolutely ALL abortions outlawed, no questions) becomes the enemy of the good (abortions outlawed with some exceptions).

I totally agree with you, but it's not just stubbornness that makes Republicans resist health exceptions, but the very real threat that those exceptions will be used as a loophole.

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[Onan]

...a filibuster has never been used to stop a vote on a judge on the Senate floor. Until now, of course.

......what?

Right, with the exception of the nomination of Richard Paez to the 9th circuit court on March 8th of 2000? Or Marsha Berzon, Harvie Wilkinson, Stephen Breyer, or Lee Sarokin? On the first of those occasions, Republican Senator Smith of New Hampshire asserted:

"But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."

Re:Seems to me Bush won reelection

[uncqual]

Umm... I think you're missing the argument here about abortion... Little of the debate has to do with "the life of the mother" (I'm sure the Republicans would agree to that) - the "health of the mother" is what the pro-choice people insist on - confident that there will be plenty of doctors specializing in abortion who will declare that "the mental health of the woman is at risk if she does not have an abortion".

One side believes that abortion (or, as you call it, medical privacy) is a right since an unborn fetus is not a "person" and should be given no consideration by the law.

The other side believes that abortion is murder since an unborn fetus is a "person" with rights and should be given protection by the law (even over the wishes of the vessel carrying it).

Then the real extremism starts...

Extremists on one side insist that it's fine to kill an unborn child partway through delivery - even if killing the same child just 500msec later would be a capital crime in many states. During this 500msec, the child's chance of survival (if not aborted) does not increase except to an infinitesimally small degree. This is a very odd concept - perhaps we should also allow parents to kill children in the first 14 days after birth in case they don't like the kid or decided kids are just too much trouble and interfere with watching Oprah?

Extremists on the other side insist that a fertilized egg is a "person" deserving full protection from being terminated. This is also a very odd concept - don't a great many of these fertilized eggs die before anyone even realizes they got fertilized? I've seen few tombstones with "Here lies a fertilized egg, Fertilized 9/11/2001, Died 9/11/2001" - if they were consistent, wouldn't we expect the same care to be given by this side to a dead fertilized egg as to Grandpa?

(I myself don't give a damn except it's clear that both extremes are wrong - I think Roe v. Wade picked a reasonable point before which the fetus should not be protected - but we should also pick a point after which the fetus is protected. In any event, I think it's a state issue, not a Federal issue (after all, if I kill you in California and you're not a Federal employee and I don't drag your body across state lines, the Federal government doesn't, and shouldn't, care). As a strong proponent of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, I'm pretty inflexible about incursions on the Second Amendment - sometimes I look at the abortion debate and am reminded that on the Second Amendment topic I'm as extreme as either side on the abortion debate - fortunately I have the "shall not be infringed" language to back me up!)

Re:What rights online?

[magarity]

OMG! The irony blinds me!! Mod a complaint about trolls as being a troll!!!

Sort of an answer.

[Leontes]

Human Beings differ. Just like other human beings, individuals nominated to the supreme court have points of view, some of these views are more sacrosanct to the individual than others. The place where Sandra Day O'Conner happened to be less wedded to ideas than others happened to be those issues that the court were ruling upon.

For some justices, state rights are such an essential part of their reading of the constitution, beyond the other variables in the case, this justice is likely to rule in favor of sate rights, for other justices the rights of the minority within those states could be more essential part of what needs to be protected per their own individual reading of the constitution. Invariably, there is an individual who weighs both sides, swinging, if you would, back and forth between the two issues, is this going to be one where state rights are going to be reinforced or the right of the individual. Hopefully, this reflects the facts of the case.

This individual is the swing justice. It's just a reflection of the flavors of humanity coupled with the zeitgeist of the people, the court and the nation. Justices are notorious for being set in their ways, if it was other issues being decided by the times or the cases, other individuals may be this swing vote.

Sour grapes make the best whine.

[glrotate]

Another Sore Loserman.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I'm outraged that you can think what you said. Anybody who is crooked, slanted, or biased in a position of importance such as the one Mrs. Connor holds should expect to resign when facing massive public outcry. The fact that the US public is so de-politized, apathic and more interested in the Jerry Springer Show than in what happens with their country isn't germane to this imperative.

At least to me, she and the 5 other justices should never EVER have interfered with the electoral process. What kind of a democracy is this? If that's not the sign of a partial justice, I don't know what is.

(And to the moderator who thinks I'm a troll, you're an idiot: you should know the difference between a strong opinion and a troll)

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

Is that the same Sandra Day O'Connor that stopped the recount and helped Dubya get the cool job in 2000?

Are you really going to pretend that people don't know better than to swallow that line any more? Though the court finally stopped the selective, standards-less, designed-to-help-Gore style of zoned re-counting that was crawling along, it didn't in any way help Bush win. The multiple recounts that continued to go his way did that. And, of course, you're conveniently forgetting the several news organizations that went through every stinking ballot again, finding that, as the original counting indicated, he won.

What the court did was say that picking and choosing a couple of counties that Gore thought, counted in hanging-chad-mind-reading-mode, might get him a few more votes, was not up to equal-protection standards.

O'Conner, just like the others that found the capricious re-count process (not that there was a real process, per se, as it was requested by the losing side or conducted by panels dominated by that party) unacceptable, voted not for a president, but to demand an even-handed method. The result was to fall back on the existing, already applied method, which was the end of the show. The fact that no matter how other parties counted all of the state's votes (even using the Gore camp's most hoped-for looseness of standards, just as another what-if test) still further supported the existing outcome... that doesn't seem to register with certain people, mysteriously enough. Or maybe idealogically enough. Either way, seeing the very politically motivated Florida state court's nonsense rulings overturned was definitely appropriate. Sorry your guy didn't win, if it's really under your skin, but the court didn't change the votes, and didn't make the divining of dents in paper in different counties using different methods and counting of them unfair (quite the opposite). The only thing that would have changed the outcome would have been Gore getting his way, and only manually mind-reading badly handled ballots in a couple of counties - and if that's his idea of a fair way to treat all of the voters in Florida, then I'm quite glad that he didn't win.

Re:What rights online?

[Rude Turnip]

I think it's pretty well-established that "Your Rights Online" means "discussing your rights in an online forum." Kind of like National Geographic Online.

Re:Great!

[Dagny Taggert]

Amen. Liberals always looked at this court as "conservative"----it is center-left at best. Look at their recent decision further eroding private property rights.

Re:The Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually involves your "real" life. It is an important political issue that effects you no matter which side of the isle you are on. Poltics are tightly integrated with technology and are heavily influenced by judicial decisions. Further, interest groups put pressure on their political figures through lobbying (elect). I'm sure you already know all of this, however.

Re:Wow, so how will this affect open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want someone with good moral values to compromise them? Would not that be an oxymoron?

Re:We Need another woman....

[glrotate]

She's the Boss applesauce!

Property Rights (Re:Which way?)

[mi]

Now we probably need to talk about a new Amendment to the Constitution to protect property rights

Congress is busy already. Although you are right, I'd prefer it be set in the Constitution too.

According to Pelosi, Bush is replacing God

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

How important is replacing a Supreme Court justice? According to House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (speaking of the Kelo eminent domain case):

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:According to Pelosi, Bush is replacing God

[Procrastin8er]

Another reason to despise Ms Pelosi.
I didn't think she believed in God.
"One nation under the Supreme Court" Yikes !!

Re:Florida, Florida

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Whether G.W. would have won the election or not, my point is that she should have been sanctioned, she and the other 5 justices, for even *thinking* of interfering with a recount. Period. That's not being left- or right-wing, that's plain good sense. Justices have no business interfering with the electoral process, and I still haven't fully recovered from seeing that nobody reacted at all in this country. It's appalling...

Doesn't surprise me

[jangobongo]

When I heard that she was going to be teaching a class at the University of Arizona (albeit, during the Supreme Court's winter recess in 2005-2006), I had a feeling that she might retire soon.

She's a republican, she's 75, her husband has Alzheimer's and she wants to spend time eith him. She probably thinks there's no better time to retire and let Bush put another Republican in her place.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

"...her husband has Alzheimer's and she wants to spend time eith him."

Why? It's not like he'd know that she's gone.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[rsynnott]

She's one of the more moderate republicans, tho; she was in the majority legalising homosexuality across the US in 2003, for instance.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[killjoe]

Newsweek reported that she was agitated when she thought Bush was going to lose during the 2000 election. She definately wanted to get out during a republican presidency so that the court could continue to vote republican.

Worst possible timing, but I'm not surprised.

[Limburgher]

If she and Rehnquist both go under Bush, he gets to fill both seats, which means we'll probably get two more Antonin Scalias, which means you can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye. Heck, I think theocracy can't be too far behind. Sad that people call any judge to rules according to the constituion and not a strict literal interpretation of the Bible an "Activist Judge", and yet we condemn countries like Iran when they try to map their laws onto the Qu'ran.

I just hope we can put off filling these seats until either a Democrat or a Republican with some respect for the constitution and checks and balances is in the White House. I'm tired of Bush trying to gut the other two branches or bend them to his will.

Re:Worst possible timing, but I'm not surprised.

[Ironsides]

Sad that people call any judge to rules according to the constituion and not a strict literal interpretation of the Bible an "Activist Judge"

Sorry, but after that judge in jersey ruled that the Boy Scouts fell under an anti-discrimination law that was made for hotels/motels, an activist judge is in no way anyone who "rules [strictly] according to the constituion"

Re:Worst possible timing, but I'm not surprised.

[Edmund Blackadder]

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it will screw over many women, but it will also help democrats. In fact it will be a great boon to democrats.

You see, most americans are pro choice and the trend is towards more pro choice americans. So if Bush puts in a justice that will overturn Roe v Wade, most americans will be very unhappy and vote accordingly. And guess what, that justice will probably work for a long time and provide consistent and reliable anti-republican sentiment. So an ultra conservative justice will be a great help to the democrats.

But I dont think the republicans are that dumb. They know very well that OConner saved their asses with her occasional liberal ruling. So it is very likely that they will not nominate anyone that overturns Roe v Wade. They will try to find a justice that is very conservative on economical and civil rights issues, but will keep Roe v Wade.

And what about the cristian coalition? Well they will get fucked over by the republicans. But that is nothing new, it always happens.

Lets not just bash Bush here...

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality what this does is gives the facists that are trying to stage a coup in this country a chance to fill a Supreme Court seat. George is just a puppet in the current game they are playing.

Re:Great!

[torstenvl]

Wait wait... a court legalizes taking away private property for big business use, and you think this means it's philosophically aligned with the grassroots party?

Are you crazy?

This IS critical to nerds

[katharsis83]

This decision IS important to nerds. How many of us here regularly complain about the deprivation of our rights under the Patriot Act and the Guantanomo detentions?

Sandara Day O'Conner voted in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that the "War On Terror" did not give the Executive a blank check to detain individuals without independent review, which I think most here would agree with. This may not have to do with the latest case mods, but this affects all of us. She managed to piss off the left AND the right, and that's the mark of a truly neutral jurist.

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested," she wrote last year for the court in the Iraq-war era case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. "And it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

- Washington Post Article, referring to her decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld.

I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[b0r0din]

Frankly I hope the two parties tear each other to pieces. Maybe then some third party could finally get in edgewise and actually get rid of this horribly corrupt administration and Congress, Dems and Repubs alike. And no, I don't necessarily mean Libertarian. Something that fits with my socially liberal, fiscally conservative agenda. Let's face it, neither party is anywhere close to that right now.

Personally I'm a moderate, and I agreed with a lot of O'Connor's decisions, particularly recent were her decisions on eminent domain (although I agree with her Pro-Choice stance too). I can't help but feel all of America is about to get the hard end of the stick with Bush's next appointee. And if he decides to be the angry child he normally is, I have no doubts the government will cease to function in Washington over this next nomination.

Let the war begin!

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[snorklewacker]

> And if he decides to be the angry child he normally is, I have no doubts the government will cease to function in Washington over this next nomination.

One can only hope. You forget that the same corrupt party controls two branches of government, and is gunning for the third. And frankly, they're a lot better at pandering to ignorance and fear, so they'll get the vast majority of the public behind them.

I can hope we get another David Souter. I think we're going to get one that makes Thomas look like Ginsburg. Maybe even two.

The next 20 years look grim.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[anagama]

Something that fits with my socially liberal, fiscally conservative agenda. Let's face it, neither party is anywhere close to that right now. ... Personally I'm a moderate ...

Yeah! Another radical moderate (I figure moderates are radicals because the status quo seems to be far left or far right).

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we're going to get one that makes Thomas look like Ginsburg. Maybe even two.

I certainly hope so. Thomas generally adheres to a more strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is what they are supposed to be doing.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

By being the "angry child he normally is," you of course mean excersizing his constitutional power to appoint judges who have similar views and beliefs as himself? In this situation, the only "comprimise" that the democrats will be satisfied with is appointing a liberal judge. That isn't a comprimise at all, that would simply be surrender.

George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

The majority of this country chose him knowing full well that he would appoint judges who believed as he did. Why shouldn't he therefore follow the wishes of the majority of the country and do JUST THAT?

So when you say that "I can't help but feel all of America is about to get the hard end of the stick with Bush's next appointee," what you SHOULD be thinking is that if Bush appoints a judge of HIS choosing, the majority of the country will WIN. Only if the democracts are allowed to win this battle will the country get the "hard end of the stick."

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[daVinci1980]

You misunderstand the point of the judicial branch. The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers, and that the other branches don't shred the Constitution.

The judicial branch is supposed to be above partisan politics. Judges are appointed for life at the federal level. Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.

Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country. (Although he was re-elected by a majority. Go figure).

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[google]

Bush has already spent his political capital. I hate to tell you, but 1% is not a mandate.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Do you honestly believe this? The only people who benefit from any of the Bush policies are those who are already rich. He is hurting the poor and middle class to feed the rich even more. Pretty soon, we'll all belong to the giant corporations. There will be no jobs except WalMart and McDonalds. The republicans have only fooled the masses into believing that their god/guns/gays agenda is serving them. I pray for all of us.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[rcamera]

"The majority of this country chose him..."

not the first time around.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Thomas doesn't take a shit without Scalia's approval.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Brian_Ellenberger]

You misunderstand the point of the judicial branch. The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers, and that the other branches don't shred the Constitution.

That's nice and all in abstract, but who watches the judicial brance to make sure THEY don't shred the constitution? After all, the whole reason that we have a democracy, 3 branches of government, and checks and balances is because human beings are fallible. If we could find a perfect human beings who make perfect decisions everyone agrees with we could create a dictatorship with all decisions made by that one person. But there is no such person. And the current supremes are obviously biased by their internal politics and beliefs. Most observers can predict what each supreme will do, not based on the observation of law, but each supreme's perception of reality and what is right and wrong.

The danger is that the Supreme Court does not have the same checks and balances as Congress or the President. Supremes are not elected, have lifetime memberships, and the only way to theoretically overrule a decision is to amend the constitution. The more decisions that the Supremes make that overrules the elected bodies, the less we become a republic and the more we become a autocratic society.

Brian

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Saige]

And if he decides to be the angry child he normally is, I have no doubts the government will cease to function in Washington over this next nomination.

Given the current state of things, this might not be a bad thing at all.

Of course, the whole media circus will give the press another excuse to ignore the Downing St. memos - not like they care about that at all. Perhaps if the memos showed the administration lied about somethign concerning sex instead of the war, then they might care... or considering the corporate handouts the media companies are getting, likely not.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Saige]

The judicial branch is supposed to be above partisan politics.

That was proven to be a myth back in 2000.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Momoru]

You forget that the same corrupt party controls two branches of government, and is gunning for the third

Well a) Most people with your attitude would argue that conservatives already control all three branches, so i'm not sure what you think will be changing here, O'Conner wasn't liberal.

b) Second GET OVER your "my team is better" thinking...democrats are just as "corrupt" as republicans... When democrats controlled all three branches say in the late 70s or late 60s were those really better times? Vietnam war and Iran hostage crisis / Energy crisis / Inflation anyone? Both parties make stupid laws and play partisan politics. If you look at the records most politicians have agreed with something at one time only to change their mind when it was politically more advantagous. Its not limited to one party, open your eyes.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[JeanPaulBob]

That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.

That looks like a load of bull to me. That is, the extent to which decisions like Roe v. Wade depend on "loose construction" or "living document" notions is the extent to which the decisions are not based on what the Constitution says, but rather on the personal stances of judges or on their perception of the stances of the majority of the population.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

By being the "angry child he normally is," you of course mean excersizing his constitutional power to appoint judges who have similar views and beliefs as himself? In this situation, the only "comprimise" that the democrats will be satisfied with is appointing a liberal judge. That isn't a comprimise at all, that would simply be surrender.

From what I've read, the senate (including the Democrats) approved over 200 federal judges in Bush's first term. The Democrats fillibustered 10. That's right, less than 5%. Now, how can you possibly say "the only "comprimise" that the democrats will be satisfied with is appointing a liberal judge"? That is pure crap. They compromised over 95% of the time.

As for the "angry child" bit, Bush didn't veto a single law in his first term. He liked everything that came out of congress. He had 10 of his judges block, so what did he do? He sent them back to try again. No explanation, no bargaining, no changes. He's just going to try the exact same thing over again. When he didn't get his way the second time, he had a temper tantrum, and dragged his party into it with him. He thinks everything should go his way because his party has a majority, and is furious that he doesn't have the 60% needed in order to be able to completely blow off the other party.

Personally, I consider myself to be slightly on the "conservative" side. I favor small government, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, strict enforcement of laws. I hate that people can get by (or even do well) without working for a living. Sadly, though, I find myself totally alienated by the Republican party's strategy lately, and it feels like a lot of it is coming from Pres. Bush. Probably the worst of it is their holier-than-thou attitude. Basically, "We have a majority, and we know what is Right, so we will do it no matter what anyone else says." No explanations, no compromise, no apologies. Those would show weakness, and we can't have that. That they cop this attitude with 51% support is just absurd, because they ignore the opinion of half the population they are supposed to represent.

You would think that a devout Christian like Bush would realize that only God is right all the time, and as a human he will inevitably make mistakes. By refusing to admit that he does, he is blasphemous. But then, I don't consider him a good Christian at all. He talks about it a lot, but doesn't practice it at all.

So when you say that "I can't help but feel all of America is about to get the hard end of the stick with Bush's next appointee," what you SHOULD be thinking is that if Bush appoints a judge of HIS choosing, the majority of the country will WIN.

The majority isn't always right. It is very possible (and historically common) for the majority to choose a bad course of action. (Godwin: Hitler was elected by a majority. Hussein, too.) I happen to believe that Bush received a re-election based on a successful FUD campaign, not based on his qualities or ideals as a leader. More controversially, I believe that the majority is misguided on several subjects and in a decade or two they will come around and see that they made some bad choices.
Any of these things can completely invalidate your last paragraph.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[fbg111]

I can hope we get another David Souter.

How can you hope for another David Souter after his recent ruling on eminent domain??? People don't seem to understand that both the Democrats and Republicans are now statist parties. Just b/c the Democrats oppose the Republicans doesn't mean they're suddenly libertarian good guys.

And to set the record straight, it was the conservative, Republican-appointed judges who opposed this decision - three of Reagan's four judges (Rehnquist, Scalia, Connor, but not Kennedy) and one of Bush Sr's two judges (Thomas, but not Souter) opposed the ruling[pdf]. Furthermore, it is Congressional Republicans introducing legislation to mitigate its damage, while Congressional Democrats state both their opposition to that legislation and support of the Kelo decision. Of course, there are plenty of examples of people on both sides of political spectrum opposing this, even socialists, so it's much more complex than the typical dumbed-down Democrat-vs-Republican football match. So enough of the uninformed, knee-jerk reactions please, and we'll take two more Rehnquists President Bush, thank you very much.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[afidel]

Uh, where does it say that the president has unlimited power to put whoever he wants on the bench? From what I see he has the power to appoint judges with "the advise and consent" of the congress. That little clause is meant to be one of the many checks and balances engrained into the constitution. It means that a tyrany of the masses is that much more difficult. From an objective point of view Washington is at its best when it is doing almost nothing, when only those ideas that are almost universally supported are passed into law. The rest of the time the pundulum is swinging too far to one side or the other, usually with bad results for everyone.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[centron]

This dramtic oversimplification brought to you by the American Black and White Idealism Committee, bringing you opinions void of thought for over two hundred years.

I won't claim objectivity, since anyone that does so is lying or fooling themselves, but George Bush is the least compromising individual I have ever witnessed in a position of authority. Some call it "staying the course", and "determined leadership", but it is really just euphemistic for "don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind".

The idea that every branch of our federal government can now be dominated by the agendas and members of the far conservative right, especially after Rehnquist finally bites it, with nothing to temper it towards a moderate stance, should be deeply concerning to anyone that doesn't buy into the same beliefs as the staunch conservatives and the fire and brimstone Christians. Even for conservatives, this may well lead us to a government too far right for comfort.

Add to this the continued Republican policies of deficit spending, something they have decried the now oddly fiscally responsible Democrats for years about, and you have a recipe for the alienation and fracture of American society and America as a respected world power, not to mention the economic disaster that the current financial policy puts in our future.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[MHobbit]

The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers,

Not really. Making sure that the other two branches don't abuse their power is the checks and balances system working.

I interpreted the "point" to also mean "purpose".

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[japhmi]

Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.

No, some judges decided that *THEIR* MORAL stance required abortion to be legal, and so created what is generally seen (even by many pro-legal-abortion people) to be one of the WORST legal decisions ever. The judicial branch has been going crazy the last few decades with allowing the federal government's powers to expand.

Now, since Bush is the legally elected president, it's his prerogative to nominate judges who have a similar judicial theory to his own (probably some sort of originalism or other strict interpretation theory). Unless the Senate has some serious reservations about the person's ability to perform the function (not 'they may rule against my positions') then they should be confirmed.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"only "comprimise" that the democrats will be satisfied with is appointing a liberal judge"

Nope. I'd settle for another moderate republican like O'Connor. That's really the best I can hope for. What I think we'll get is another right wing not job like Scalia or Thomas.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[t35t0r]

George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A conservative president going to war without the approval of congress? Not once but twice? Puts a whole new meaning to the word conservative!!!!

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[dpilot]

I was stunned last week to actually find myself on the same side of a ruling as Clarence Thomas. He was on the losing side of Eminent Domain, along with me.

On another site, (fark?) I saw this listed as left-wing liberals at work. I beg to differ. Left-wing liberals have long had their form of eminent domain - taking land for the common good. This was right-wing eminent domain, taking land and giving it to developers - for the economic common good. (We'll just have to see how that one plays out.)

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[jwthompson2]

Judges are appointed for life...

Only if they maintain 'good behavior'...

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,... (Article III, Section 1)

Justices can be removed from the bench...I just can't think of anytime this has happened or what the grounds would be for doing so. History geeks help me out on that one...

The issue that I have with our present courts is the failure to decide what the law actually says and instead to make up new law. BOTH liberals and conservatives do this. When the law is silent only the legislative branch has the right to produce laws. But the courts have been able to effectively legislate through their rulings and precedents and that is unconstitutional...

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[snorklewacker]

> How can you hope for another David Souter after his recent ruling on eminent domain???

How did you want him to rule? That the federal government has authority over the states use of eminent domain? If you think local government is unaccountable, you should see what happens when congress gets control of eminent domain.

I'm as incensed about the use of eminent domain as the jext guy, but Jesus Christ, it's like people forget that there even is a government other than federal.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[snorklewacker]

> On another site, (fark?) I saw this listed as left-wing liberals at work.

Holy crap, fark makes slashdot look like the fucking mensa society. I read it for the photoshop contests, and that is it.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Moofie]

Go read about "Tyranny of the Majority" and stand in the corner until you become a good citizen.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[dpilot]

That's one way of putting it, and I won't even dispute it. But then again, I go there (and memepool) primarily for humor.

Much of the time, he seems like a classic neocon, and I'm surprised when he comes out with a counter-example.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the same corrupt party controls two branches of government, and is gunning for the third.

You're right. It's time to give some control back to the other corrupt party.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Fullwin]

Bush has already spent his political capital. I hate to tell you, but 1% is not a mandate.

Though for better or worse, 1% more than the other side is all the "mandate" any politician really needs. The next justice will be the most conservative person possible who can garner the votes of 51 senators. (Bush and his team don't strike me as the type to do their opponents any favors, you know?)

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Ralp]

libertarian good guys

Haha thanks, I stopped reading here because this made me laugh out loud.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[exegene]

It should be mentioned that the president does not appoint judges to the SCotUS, but nominates them; Those the president wishes to fill certain posts must receive the blessings of congress. There's really a very big difference between a nominee and an appointee that most news outlets and voters seem to have completely excised from common awareness. The requirement that the president's nominees be approved is one of the important checks and balances that were intended to keep the USA from spiralling into tyranny or whatehaveyou. The recent attempts to stifle congressional debate on presidential nominees are entirely counter-democratic and result in error in knowledge of the extent of the president's powers to gain popular currency. This does not change along with the name of the majority party.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[jafac]

George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

Tell me.

What part of the Conservative Philosophy includes:
- unlimited foreign immigration into the US.
- massive increases in deficit spending (largest in history).
- largest increase in size of the federal government in history.
- circumvention of judicial review for law enforcement.
- increased national dependence on foreign resources (oil) and finance (chinese-owned debt).
- violation of protection rules for classified national security information (Iraq war plans to Saudi Arabia, Sigint information to Iranian Intelligence via Ahmed Chalabi, other classified information to Israeli intelligence via AIPAC through civillian reps in the Pentagon (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc) and exposure of CIA agent's identity for purposes of political revenge.
- federal encroachment on state's rights (2000 presidential election, and recent decisions on Medical Marijuana).

George W Bush is no conservative.
He's nothing more than a power-hungry statist fascist.

That said - the Democrats have, indeed, already lost this battle. Bush gets to appoint whomever the hell he wants to, and there's not a damn thing anyone from the opposing party can do to stop it. No sense in whining about it now, that's for sure. This country DID elect Bush. And it deserves what Bush is about to do to it.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

and to set the record straight, Kelo was decided on 100 years of precedent (RTF decision for the cites) which explicitly gave the states the authority to determine the definition of "public use" in cases of eminent domain, and the state in question had specifically legislated that economic development was a valid use of eminent domain. I also disagree with the decision, but at least take the time to learn why it was made.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[surprise_audit]

Does the "the advise and consent" clause include any kind of retribution if the President decides to totally ignore the advice and do what he damn well pleases?? Impeachment, maybe??

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judicial branch is supposed to be above partisan politics. Judges are appointed for life at the federal level. Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.

That's right, abortion is somehow covered under the "right to privacy". Oh, and the "public use" mention in the fifth amendment also covers private development for generating tax revenue. Yeah, those guys are doing a great job upholding the constitution.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Mr2001]

Tip: The word "statist" isn't considered negative as widely as you might think.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country. (Although he was re-elected by a majority. Go figure)."

Precisely why Bush and the other PNAC thinkers had Mossad engineer an attack on the World Trade Center--because he knew that (in addition to endless wealth) it would give he and his cronies the second election thanks to wartime solidarity and as a result the guarantee of being able to select the next supreme court justices, and thus to control the court enough for the neocons to seize power permanently in a silent, invisible-to-many coup.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of the country didn't vote for him.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[SeventyBang]

You liked the eminent domain ruling? So anyone who doesn't have the bucks to appear to be a threat to drag things out in court can expect their property to be condemned and turned over to a developer just so they can put up a strip mall?

You could have just invested $20'000 in your house to "modernize" it - new kitchen, remodel the bathrooms, etc. - not an unusual sum of money - and it means squat when it comes to giving up the property. Take the offer(s) or expect to find your house marked condemned with a bow affixed to it.

That is not what eminent domain was intended for. The Founding Fathers likely started spinning in their graves and probably won't stop for a long, long time.

As for the predicted fireworks, it couldn't have come at a bitter^w better time. (maybe the first word was better)

The big question is: when Rehnquist resigns, does it mean between the two Justices retiring, will there be three confirmation hearings or two? Remember: to move a sitting Justice to Chief Justice requires a confirmation hearing. It's easiest to nominate an outsider to the Chief Justice and have a single confirmation.

The best part of this is when the Democrats (no, I'm not a Republican, I thrive on political conflict, particularly when it comes to nominating and confirming Justices) have said Bush must|ought|should give them a list in advance of any public announcements so they can pre-screen them.

Snicker.

I can see them receiving a list of twenty-five names, responding, "No. None of these are acceptable. Where's the list of real candidates?"

How will they Bork all of the nominees this time?

Boy, am I glad I'm working from home these days. This is going to be better than the OJ "trial".

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Analogy Man]

I would have been more convinced by a farsical aquatic ceremony myself.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck would socialists oppose this? Isn't their *goal* for the government to assume ownership of everything?

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, abortion is somehow covered under the "right to privacy"... Yeah, those guys are doing a great job upholding the constitution.

OK, then tell us where in the constitution it says that abortion should be illegal?

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

what you SHOULD be thinking is that if Bush appoints a judge of HIS choosing, the majority of the country will WIN

You received +5 Insightful? Seem like the rednecks are out in force on Slashdot today. Sadly, in the long term the country will lose if his next appointee is another rabid right-wing fundamentalist.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[ThreeE]

Get over it already. Imagine how much worse things would be if Gore was in office... Saddam would be dropping nukes on Paris by now. Oh, wait -- I hadn't thought of that...

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[rcw-home]

the only way to theoretically overrule a decision is to amend the constitution

Only when that decision chooses to recognize the highest law in the land at the expense of regular legislation.

Congress passes and the states ratify constitutional amendments. The amended constitution takes precedence over law, as well as judicial opinions concerning that law or the previous constitution. Federal courts interpret the amended constitution.

Congress legislates federal law. The law takes precedence over old judicial opinions concerning that law. Federal courts interpret the new law.

Two levels of law, but other than one being very difficult to modify, they both work the same way. Federal courts refer to 'direction from Congress' all the time. It still seems to me that as a group, our justices strongly prefer such direction over making their own decisions.

I'd imagine the reason you feel that the SCOTUS does not have the same checks and balances is because Congress has been too cowardly to make the most controversial decisions on their own. Someone else mentioned abortion - can you imagine the trouble a representative would have getting reelected if he/she proposed a bill either for or against abortion?

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[LS]

All your noise about Bush "being elected" and "exercising constitutional power" doesn't change the fact that he is a corrupt robber baron who will fleece and stomp on the ignorant public that was herded into voting for him.

LS

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Maniakes]

Um, the Kelo ruling wasn't a federalism question. The ruling was that using eminent domain to allow property developers to buy up land cheaply met the Fifth Amendment requirement of being "for public use", so long as it was plausible that the proposed development would slightly increase the tax base.

I don't know what the grandparent post wanted SCOTUS to rule, but I wanted them to rule that "for public use" meant "for public use".

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this rated "Score:5, Insightful"?

No good insight can come from making one-sided arguments!

I could counter centron's arguments but they'd only come across as being just as bias, now that's insightful!

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[bigdavex]

Regardless of a judge's MORAL stance on an issue, they are to rule according to the LAW, and the Constitution. That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.

Your mistating Roe v. Wade. The justices ruled that state laws restricting abortion violated the rights implied in the fourth ammendment. Not just that Constitution allows abortion, but rather that it prohibits the states from making it illegal.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[killjoe]

He said he was a uniter and not a divider. Let him act like a uniter.

Bush will appoint a religious fundamentalist and a idelogical zealot. This won't be good for the country because zealots are not allowed to reach certain conclusions. This means substantial amount of evidence will be ignored.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[b0r0din]

Congratulations for not RTFA. I belive I stated I liked HER ruling on it - she was part of the dissent.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Eric S Raymond]

Yes, but when was he "elected?"

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your comic book rendition of politics.

Howzabout you pray for yourself, first.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[bluGill]

It has happened, not on the supream court, (that I can recall), but to the other federal courts. Several judges have been impeached for things like taking bribes. Several others avoided impeachment (and many of the rest avoided conviction) by resigning.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam never had nuclear weapons, nor did he have an active program to develop them. His nuclear facilities were destroyed by Israel in 1981. While he de did enjoy support from the USA in the form of money and weapons in his 1980 to '88 war with Iran, the first gulf war extinguished any hope Iraq had of future nuclear development. Get over it already.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the Kelo ruling wasn't a federalism question.

Bullshit. You obviously have not even bothered to read the decision. From the ruling, p 16-17, I quote:

Viewed as a whole, our jurispurdence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizning the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in descerning local public needs. See Hairston v. Danville & Western R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 606-607 (1908) (noting that these needs were likely to vary depending on a State's "resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people"). For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of takings power.

Translation: let the states decide "public use", not the federal government.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[ThreeE]

It was a joke. I don't really care if Saddam had nukes or any other kind of WMDs. He disobeyed, now he's gone.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

s/disobeyed/had largest oil reserve/

HTH

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[ThreeE]

Yeah that's it. For the money the US has spent giving Iraqis freedom, we could have bought all those crappy reserves. And I won't even point out the fact that those reserves are still owned by the Iraqis. Whoops, I did.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke. (Neat how that works!)

So the US invaded for Iraqi freedom now, not because Saddam "disobeyed" as your original message indicated? You're not being a flip-flopper, are you?

Oh, btw, what Iraqi owns the oil reserves when Halliburton (Kellogg, Brown, & Root, subsidiary) is pumping and transporting it? Which Iraqi owns the Iraqi ports when the ports are now managed by US companies?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war _contracts/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm

So much for the ownership.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[ThreeE]

The nuke part was the joke -- the disobeyed part wasn't.

You make my point for me. Those contracts are paid for by the US government to bring the Iraqi oil infrastructure back online. The proceeds from the sale of the oil goes into the Iraqi governments coffers.

Get a clue.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[ThreeE]

I think you meant to say that all your noise about Bush "being a corrupt robber baron who will fleece and stomp on the ignorant public that was herded into voting for him" doesn't change the fact that he has been elected and is exercising constitutional power.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

You make my point for me.

Not so fast. That would be true if we both agreed about the interpretation. Since we do not agree, then I do not nor those articles make your point for you. This is Argumentation 101 material.

Those contracts are paid for by the US government to bring the Iraqi oil infrastructure back online.

When are the Iraqis going to see that money?

You also ignore the fact that companies from Russia, France, and other countries already have oil facilities and contracts in Iraq which predate the latest war. The new US and UK only contracts oust the previous companies.

If it is really about freedom, not conquest, shouldn't the Iraqis, not USA, be the ones to have the say on who should rebuild?

Get a clue.
A clue like these?

http://www.thelondonline.co.uk/theline/article.php ?articleID=437
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128 oilprofit.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0403 rebuilding.htm

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Anonymous Coward]

The election was a fraud.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[phlinn]

This is probably a waste of time... but check out the Raich decision. You will enjoy the spectacle of Scalia engaging in Legal Gymnastics in an attempt to justify banning Marijuana at the Federal level, while Thomas sticks to his principles and says it can't do that.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[Saige]

Yeah, with those WMDs that were found all over Iraq, right?

Perhaps Gore would be busy trying to find Osama Bin Laden and the actual terrorists, instead of invading countries that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Re:I can't wait to watch the fireworks.

[spikedvodka]

With W. Bush controlling the senate (and don't say that he doesn't... we all know that he does) all the "Loyal Oppositian" can do is fillibuster... and they 've threatened to take that away.

Re:We are sooooo....

[whats_a_zip]

Did I hear you wimper? :)
Yep, everything is Bush's fault. He's trashing the place.
But, for your own good, he's going to pick someone who will interpret the constitution, not try to rewrite it.
As with all kids, one day when you're old enough, you'll see the wisdom and thank president Bush. Or not. Either way, works for me.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

in a position of importance such as the one Mrs. Connor holds should expect to resign when facing massive public outcry

So, someone who faces huge public outcry should quit? Like, say, Lincoln, for emancipating the slaves? There was a huge public outcry against that. Or the members of the supreme court that ruled that school segregation was unconstitional? There was a huge public outcry against that, too.

she and the 5 other justices should never EVER have interfered with the electoral process

It's a good thing they didn't then. They prevented other people from interfering with the process, though, and that's a good thing. That's not "partial justice," it's allowing even-handed justice by not allowing a candidate for office to pick and choose arbitrary places and standards by which he thinks he can mine for a few more votes. That's the sort of corruption that should shame someone out of public life. And that's what Gore was trying to do - scrape out a win by trying to twist the local recount in a way that would ignore some votes and count only those that would help him. Truly corrupt, so I'm sure you have a very low opinion of him, right?

And to the moderator who thinks I'm a troll, you're an idiot: you should know the difference between a strong opinion and a troll

Maybe the moderator has found, reasonably, that your "strong opinion" is actually irrational, rudely stated, and thus a troll.

Probably a Senator.

[glrotate]

My guess would be someone like Hatch. How could the 'rats filibuster one of their own?

Why lie?

[Anonymous Coward]

most importantly it's been shown that Bush would have ultimately won any Florida recount anyway!

Does this make you feel like a big shot?

Or help you sleep at night?

Guess they didn't like my submission

[Neil Blender]

Here It Comes, Bitches: O'Connor Resigns.

Supreme Court Sucks

[Z-Knight]

Given how many recent poor decisions have come from this "Supreme" Court (and I use the term supreme sarcasticly), I'd wish they'd all go.

How many right have we recently had trampled??? Emminent (spelling) domain extended to be used by PRIVATE companies, Grokster being found liable for what others do. Not to mention the other recent bills being passed around in the House or wherever they it is...I'm referring to the Banning of the Burning of the American Flag.

How many rights have lost in the last two weeks? This is really scary, so pardon me if I'm not upset about losing such an "esteemed" justice...geez, good riddance, better if they all left.

Alright, I've eaten some beans and I'm gassy...flame away!!!

Re:Supreme Court Sucks

[fahrbot-bot]

Um, dude. Perhaps you should learn how the three branches of the government work before espousing uninformed opinions. Case in point: The Congress passes bills into law, not the Supreme Court. If you don't like the Flag Burning Amendment, blame Congress. They're attempting to pass this legislation *because* the Court protected flag burning as a form of free expression. (See high-school government 101.)

Re:Supreme Court Sucks

[Z-Knight]

k, genius...I did mention that I thought the Flag Burning Amendment was in the House which is a part of Congress so at least I was close.

I'm simply pointing out that we have lost a lot of rights right now and this government, though a democracy/republic, feels like more of a dictatorship or is at least heading that way...so my sarcasm was to say let's just get it over with and get rid of all checks and balances because they are obviously not working in the first place.

ball is in your court, oh great one.

Re:Supreme Court Sucks

[surprise_audit]

Isn't it not so much banning Burning, as banning Desecration of the flag?? In which case, this guy is gonna be in trouble...

Re:Supreme Court Sucks

[Whyte]

I'm simply pointing out that we have lost a lot of rights right now and this government, though a democracy/republic, feels like more of a dictatorship or is at least heading that way...so my sarcasm was to say let's just get it over with and get rid of all checks and balances because they are obviously not working in the first place.

Which rights have you lost again? You mentioned the right to burn the American Flag (a subset of personal expression) and hinted at the infrequently used eminent domain powers (a subset of property rights).

Does not being able to burn the American flag truly hinder your ability to express yourself? Do you even own any land right now you are afraid the government will take away?

Why do you have such a strong opinion that your rights are disappearing?

OT: Iraq body count

[Valiss]

Where can I find a link to the current body count in Iraq (for soldiers and civilians)? I know it's a "large" number for a "war" that was supposed to be swift with minimal casualties, however the local news doesn't ever seem to cover this topic.

Re:OT: Iraq body count

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite one is at Cryptome. You can just search Google for Iraq body count and variations thereof to get a bunch of other places tracking the dead.

I have a question (for anyone): Is it still a fact that Bush has failed to attend a single service person's funeral?

Re:OT: Iraq body count

[Valiss]

Just curious:

Why would he attend? Have previous presidents attended such events?

Re:Great!

[h4rr4r]

This court is not center left it is neo-con!
This is why it went for eminent domain.
Neo-cons love corporations.
This court is far closer to fascist then liberal. Of course to Americans in general (the mouth breathing fox news watching type) this is considered to be great. This way we can have the worst of all sides of the political spectrum. Companies can have property seized for them by the government, screw you out of health care in the form of HMO decisions that let people to save a few dollars and then claim anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist.
Every day I feel ashamed for our country. But I may yet have to move back to my birthplace to avoid what the future members of SCOTUS will allow their corporate master to do to the common people.

grok

[simpl3x]

perhaps, it will impact you like this! how dare you want something that we refuse to re-release! or, release in limited numbers for the sake of price! how dare you impact the sales of an important business like Microsoft!

you dear sir are a troll!

Re:Florida, Florida

[greg_barton]

You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election.

What's so bad about changing the law for political gain?

Reality Check

[Fished]

There is no reason to think that, even if the vote in Florida had been allowed to go forward (by which you mean recount after recount, under increasingly improbable scenarios until one was found to favor Gore) that Gore would have won. If Gore had managed to get a count that favore him, Bush would have contested that using exactly the sort of absurd logic that Gore was trying to use to get Bush's win overturned. Bottom line: three counts were completed, and Bush won all three. So get over it already.

Re:Reality Check

[SydShamino]

Sure there is. After the election, Florida newspapers and universities succeeded in getting all the votes for a statewide recount.

Gore would have lost his recount, had it continued.

Had the entire state been recounted, Gore would have won the presidency.

Gore was asking for recounts only in large Democratic counties, where it seemed that more Democratic votes would have been miscounted.

It turned out that more of the undercounted Democratic votes were in the more conservative areas of the state.

In other words, if every vote had been counted as they should have been, Gore would have won. But no, if Gore would have gotten his recount as he asked for, he still would have lost.

Re:Back into the closet with the buttsex & abo

[MarkPNeyer]

If you're having buttsex in the closet, you needn't worry about having abortions. See, it all works out in the end!

Hello?

[glrotate]

How can an agenda that is "fairly marginal" also be "truly radical" ?

I think you need to go back to Democratic Underground to get your talking points straight, because what you said made no sense whatsoever.

Re:Hello?

[whats_a_zip]

Unfortunatly, reason in the politcal arena gets you nothing here. The parent, which truly is Bush bashing non sensical drivel, is at a 3, and will be modded up because it's a bash. Your comment is 1 and will go no higher. If I hadn't commented already, I'd mod you up! :)

Re:Hello?

[glrotate]

It looks like he got modded back down. I didn't even notice his nick, "confusednoise", how appropriate.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something is wanted by a minority doesn't mean it isn't radical.

Re:Hello?

[neonleonb]

"Marginal" means that not a lot of people want it. It's the opposite of "mainstream". On the other hand, "radical" means a big change. So we're talking about: big changes that some people want. How does that not make sense?

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

Justices have no business interfering with the electoral process

You're referring to the Florida state court, right? They were the ones looking to change the election rules, after the votes were cast, to favor a candidate from their politcal party. That's judges interfering with an election, and the US supreme court did exactly what they should have done: made the process adhere, evenly for all voters, to the existing laws of the state.

it's apalling

If the Florida judges had been allowed to change the rules in the middle of the election, then the thing you say you don't like would have happened. Now that would have been appalling.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ThePlague]

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

That's an interesting theory, but it is not backed up by the facts. I suggest you research it.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the many reasonable ways of counting, about half came out each way. IMO, they should have revoted.

tyranny of the majority

[bemenaker]

that is why all 3 branches should not be under one house.

Concurrent Redundancy

[Sir_Eptishous]

Yes, I concur wholeheartedly.
Most of our non C-Span watching posters here have no idea how the court works, or what it is...

Let alone the fact that just because a particular administration succeeds in getting their choice in the court doesn't mean that judge will rule the way they want.
"Why does this affect me?"

Hmmm..., lets see?
Can you shove your head any further into that hole in the ground?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day I feel ashamed for our country.

Then get the FUCK out or do something about it.

It's not for life.

[VikingDBA]

"shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

Or at least it shouldn't be if the justices keep screwing up. I for one think one or two justices getting impeached might do the court a hell of a lot of good.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[ajakk]

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats will allow someone who is on the solid right (e.g. Scalia, Renquist) be appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1993, the Republicans did not filibuster the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though she was solidly on the left. They actually confirmed her 97-3. If someone like Luttig is nominated, will the Democrats grant him the same type of deference?

Re:What rights online?

[UserGoogol]

Well, the Supreme Court sometimes rules on issues which cover the Internet. Thus, this event will effect our online rights.

Draft Judge Prado

[killmenow]

Draft Prado

Re:Draft Judge Prado

[zoomzit]

Oh... for a second there I thought you said "Vote for Pedro"

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

If it's the Sandra Day O'Connor who would normally advocate restoration of states' rights in the new Federalist manner, but chose to override the Florida State Supreme Court in the matter, then I think it's the same one.

Being an advocate for states' rights doesn't mean she should drop her advocacy for Equal Protection. And when the Florida courts decided to try to change the election law in the middle of the election process, while one candidate was pursuing the very selective recounts of only those areas that might produce him some more votes, and while the panels in those areas were using highly capricious mind-reading-style methods... well, it's a good thing that there is such a thing as the SCOTUS to make sure that crap like that doesn't happen.

Appointment

[g0dsp33d]

How is the new judge selected? I presume the president selects someone and then they must be approved by congress and / or the house of representatives? And seriously slashdot should disable mod points for political discussions.

Re:Appointment

[jsweval]

The President appoints someone and the Senate confirms their appointment.

Re:We are sooooo....

[Procrastin8er]

What do you mean "We"?

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[bmwM3]

Exactly. I am suprised at the apathy of /. in the posts so far. For the reasons listed in the parent post among others O'Connor has had a HUGE impact on a lot of vital supreme court decisions by being the swing vote. She is often regarded as the most powerful woman in America (or at least in the top 10). This is a monumental announcement and should not be taken lightly.

Republic of Gilead

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new Christian "Taliban" overlords.

This blows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a voting Republican, but this totally sucks. No President should be nominating 2 Justices. Good god, what a fiasco this process will be.

Re:This blows.

[CrazyDwarf]

I do not think it will really matter. The Dems in Congress will sit on any nomination Bush makes for a couple of years, then the next pres (who they hope will be a Dem) will make the nominations. If anything, I see this as being a major issue that will have folks yelling on both sides of the aisle.

There are no constructionalists

[isotope23]

on the court. There are only those who claim to be contructionalists when it supports their agenda. The medical marijuana case clearly shows that. If ever there was a clear cut case of states vs federal power that is it.

What we really have is two camps of judges, one who promotes the increase of federal power for the liberal agenda, and another camp which promotes the increase of federal power for the conservative agenda.

A constructionalist would do neither....

Re:There are no constructionalists

[donutello]

Umm.. who do you think dissented on the marijuana case(besides O'Connor)? Rehnquist and Thomas - constructionists. It was the activists who supported expanding the federal governments powers to stop states from legalizing marijuana.

Who do you think dissented in the Kelo v/s New London property-grab case (besides O'Connor)? Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist - constructionists.

Both cases clearly supported the so-called right-wing agenda: big business and banning "immorality", yet these so-called conservative judges dissented in these cases. It's because they are constructionists, not conservatives.

Re:There are no constructionalists

[isotope23]

First, if scalia was a true constructionalist why did he not agree with oconnor thomas and rehnquist on the Med case?

Second, if there were constructionalists on the court we should expect to see stinging condemnations of administrative warrants, opinions that a number of federal departments are unconstitutional, and number of other items. Granted Thomas is closer to a constructionalist viewpoint, but a true constructionalist would be forced to consistently rule against the power and scope of today's federal government.

Sadly in today's climate no one of that mindset has the potential to make it far on the federal bench.

Re:There are no constructionalists

[jazuki]

It's useful to keep in mind that the SC, or any court, can only rule on the dispute before it. Thus, they don't rule on the legality or illegality of the proliferation of cabinet departments because those matters are not under dispute in the cases before it.

Secondly, the SC will only take cases where there is a dispute that the court with its current makeup can resolve. If there is no chance that currently contructed court will change settled law or constitutional interpretation, it will simply refuse to take the case. Thus, you'll be hard put to bring up a case challenging the consitutionality of the IRS for example, because the court will consider it a waste of time. Why? Not because there may not be members of the court who would like to overrule settled law on the matter, because there may well be. But because they would have to decide there was actually a chance they might overrule it.

(Generally at least 4 justices have to decide to take a case for the case, but this is SC tradition, not a matter of law.)

Re:There are no constructionalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree there are no constructionists, but I think a better case example is the Eldred case. Eldred was argued by constitutional scholar Lawrence Lessig, and in his book free culture, Lessig points out that his constructionist argument regarding constitutional interpretation of the copyright clause were ignored by the court entirely in their decision.

Re:There are no constructionalists

[Maniakes]

Remember that proceedural due process rights were greatly expanded by the Warren Court. While I think most of those expansanions are good policy (I would support most of them without reservation were they passed by a legislature), most of them weren't stricty justified by the text or by the information we have about the founders' intent.

Administrative warrants, for example, are constitutional (by strict textual interpretation) if they are issued "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched".

You are correct that there are no full-out strict constructionists on the court. Rehnquist and Scalia are close, and Thomas is very close, but all of them to a certain extent are reluctant to alter settled precedent too radically (not that those three alone could do much even if they were willing). I suspect that Scalia in particular skews towards upholding precedent based on his personal views (I base this mostly on his decision on medical marajuana), but I haven't been watching the court closely enough to say for certain.

Re:There are no constructionalists

[Kafir]

I was disappointed by the medical marijuana ruling too, but the decision was in line with sixty years of precedent in related cases (look up Wickard v. Filburn) - and all the justices, left or right, constructionist or not, to some extent acknowledge the value of consistency in law. So the problem in that case was weighing constructionist logic against respect for precedent - stare decisis. The most important case ever in extending the scope of federal power was McCulloch v. Maryland, back in 1819, and for all I know Scalia disagrees with the logic of that decision, but he's not going to try to overturn it, because an awful lot of what our government does today is predicated on that decision - as are nearly two centuries of subsequent Court decisions. Whereas very little law, and none of our government's structure, is based on the Roe decision (which most constructionists would like to overturn).

So - I don't entirely disagree, but the conservative justices are not, in my opinion, as cynical or as partisan as you think.

This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[John Seminal]

The Senate has never in its history been so owned by corporations. Hell, the RIAA has a few senators in their pockets. The Senate just passes a law allowing the exporting of more USA jobs. This senate is very pro-buisness, the gap between the poor and rich is huge. Just from the news, Motorola lays off 11,000, GM lays off 25,000, Motorola builds plant outside the USA, GM moves jobs to Mexico (for a wage 1/20th of the USA, so it is not like Mexicans are getting good jobs), the RIAA sues grandmothers for downloading songs, Chicago puts up 3,000 cameras for the police department.

If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked. Because I don't think the Senate will take anyone the RIAA is against, someone who is pro-people, someone who is anti big buisness. Bush pused to do away with the 40 hour work week, by killing overtime pay. I can just imagine what the future holds- the 6 day work week, 9 hours a day. I am suprised buisnesses have not started selling advertising space in their offices. I can just see an spreadsheet open on the bottom 3/4ths of a monitor, with an advertisment on the top 1/4th.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[Cheeko]

Well in all honesty, its not quite as bad as you make it sound. Yes in all likelyhood he will replace 2 justices. BUT, one will be Rhenquist, who is as conservative as they come. If Bush replaces him with a diehard conservative, it will just be status quo. O'Connor being a moderate conservative is slightly different, but she is still a conservative on most issues. His best bet at getting someone approved will mean someone in a similar mold. Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.

Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President. Things like Free Speech, etc, are fairly clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights, no amount of RIAA politicing will CHANGE the bill of rights. Its just a matter of getting the right cases to the Supreme Court so that they can smack down laws that are in violation of those rights. The reason many things like the DMCA survive is because nobody will challenge them to the degree neccessary to get them to the Supreme Court. This I think speaks more for the legal system as a whole, that allows people with deep pockets to intimidate people who are in the right, according to the constitution.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[kmac06]

Go put on your tin-foil hat before Bush's secret police come and use their mind control device!

Oh noes! Companies do things to make money! Unborn babies will no longer have the Constitutional right to be murdered! What is this world coming to?

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[Scurrilous Knave]

If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked.

We could be fucked? Um, I guess that pain already emanating from my backside is just a particularly severe case of 'roids, eh?

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[admiralh]

Only if one of the liberal members decided to step down would you see a massive swing in policy.

I agree with you, except for one thing: There aren't any big-L Liberals on the court.

The closest thing to a liberal is Justice Stevens, and he only seems so because the rest of the court is so right-wing. Blackmun, Brennan, and Marhshall were all more liberal than Stevens and were replaced by more conservative justices.

What we have is 1 moderate liberal (Stevens) 3 centrist judges (Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) and 1 moderate conservative (Kennedy) and 3 extreme conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). O'Connor was typically another moderate conservative. She or Kennedy would usually be the decider in close cases.

Of course I expect George W. "Uniter, not a Divider" to nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas. After all, he was quoted as saying they were his favorite Justices.

Also one thing people forget to SOME extent, is that history tends to show that supreme court justices, no matter who pics them, generally have done their job as described, and thats to interpret the constitution and laws as set forth by Congress and the President.

In past Administrations, I would agree. But this Administration has made a partisan mockery of nearly every function of government. Scientific reports have been edited by industry insiders. Intelligence has been "fixed" to support policy. FEAR has been used to drive policies that have nothing to do with security.

I'm betting he nominates John Ashcroft.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[DerekLyons]

The Senate has never in its history been so owned by corporations.

Such a statement suggests you haven't actually studied any history. The remainder of your comment simply confirms it.

If the Senate has ever been well and truly owned by Big Business, it was in the latter half of the 1800's up until the early years of the 1900's. (Today's big business has got nothing on the Robber Barons of yore.) Public sentiment (and voting) broke that logjam - trustbusters, support for unions, more liberal work and health policies, etc... etc...

I can just imagine what the future holds- the 6 day work week, 9 hours a day.

That future will come true because of individuals like yourself, who believe illiterate rants on the internet and a 'gimme gime gimmee, I g0t rights und nobdi3 else does' attitude are a reasonable substitute for philosophy and discourse.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[DerekLyons]

Things like Free Speech, etc, are fairly clearly laid out in the Bill of Rights, no amount of RIAA politicing will CHANGE the bill of rights. Its just a matter of getting the right cases to the Supreme Court so that they can smack down laws that are in violation of those rights. The reason many things like the DMCA survive is because nobody will challenge them to the degree neccessary to get them to the Supreme Court.

The reason such things survive is that the opposition's position can fairly be described as "fuck the big corpseorations, i can fucken download whatever i want, i have all the right and they have fuekn none". Until a philosophical basis can be formed that is somewhat more mature than that - matters won't improve no matter who sits on the Supreme Court bench. The massive improvements of the early 20th Century didn't come about because the public sat on it's collective fundaments, nor did it come about because they whined and moaned on the equivalent of Slashdot (old fasioned op-ed pages and letters to the editior). It came about because people were able to erect a rational philosophical basis, and use that to convince people to get to the polls.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[jafac]

BUT, one will be Rhenquist, who is as conservative as they come.

Please. Renquist isn't anything like Scalia or Thomas. This nation could do far worse than Scalia and O'Conner. (could do far better too - but what do you think Bush is going to do?)

Personally, I believe that O'Conner chose this time, because she perceives that Bush's popularity is waning somewhat (ie. 42% approval rating!) - and Republicans in congress are starting to worry about 06, so she figures Bush will have to replace her with a "moderate" (or at least someone who their mouthpieces at FoxNews will spin to the public as a "moderate" - like Gonzales). No major policy shifts to follow. If this carries Republican Dominance through the 06 elections, then Renquist retires or dies maybe, and THEN you'll see someone like Ann Coulter appointed, and all the stops pulled out in the fight to stop it, but impotent Dems unable to do so. Doesn't matter what happens in 08. The court will have been stacked, and the Dems utterly screwed for another 20 years. AND - I believe that the policy focus will be more towards fiscal conservativism (Corporate Statism) than towards Social conservativism (Dobson in your bedroom) because, let's face it, that's a fringe group that Bush easily manipulates through talk to get support, but ultimately, he never hands them anything significant, because he doesn't want to piss off the moderates.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[blonde rser]

Not that I disagree with your comments but I do want to clarify something. The term big-L Liberal refers to someone who is part of a political partied titled "Liberal." It is not (how you seemed to use it) capitalized for emphasis. Someone who has very liberal beliefs could be referred to as a big small-L liberal: big for emphasis.

I don't think this is incidental like a spelling or grammar mistake. By misusing a term that has meaning you rob it of its meaning so that after repeated such abuses we won't have these terms to make such distinctions. And to be blunt, misusing a term like this makes you seem uninformed and makes it much harder to agree with your point.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a "Liberal Party" in the US? One that gets more than 0.0001% of the vote? If not, then quit picking nits. I expect everybody who read that understood exactly what he meant, which is after all the purpose of written language here.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously think Ginsberg is a centrist? That is like saying Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. Maybe you mean liberal in the "old" way of meaning, in which case your best bet is the conservative judges on the bench for anything resembing the traditional meaning of liberal. As far as the modern definition of the word, Ginsberg is a statist-socialist-exteme leftist, and worse, a judicial activist.

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[kmac06]

Hey...I'm drunk

To whoever modded me down:

Fuck you. That is all.

Mod me down. Please.

Once again. I'm drunk. And can take the karma hit. =].

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[gilzreid]

It may be the worst time in history right now, but do you honestly expect things to be better in say, 5 years time? Will the Senate quit their corporate sponsorship? Will the Senate be less pro-buisiness? Will the gap between rich and poor get smaller?

And are Democratic Senators any less in the pocket of buisiness?

Sorry to be so gloomy, but is there anybody who really believes that once Bush is gone things will suddenly be 'all right'?

Re:This is the WORST time for a justice to retire

[admiralh]

Thanks for making my point for me, Mr. AC.

Stevens and perhaps Ginsberg seem liberal because the court has moved so far to the right in the last twenty years, the replacement of Marshall with Thomas being the largest shift.

And your "modern definition" of liberal indicates to me exactly what the right-wing strategy has been: Demonize those on the far left (the liberals), and then gradually change the definition of liberal to move it farther to the right, and demonize the new definition as vociferously as you did the old.

I'm not buying it.

One of the Worst Judges, Evar!

[glrotate]

Her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger was proof enough of the onset of dementia.

Perhaps now we may get a justice that understands that "strict scrutiny" doesn't mean "if the state says it's fair, that's good enough for me."

Re:We are sooooo....

[snorklewacker]

> But, for your own good, he's going to pick someone who will interpret the constitution, not try to rewrite it.

He is absolutely going to pick someone who will agree with him on:

1) Abortion. Outlawed that is. (Do note that Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision)

2) Flag burning. Ditto. (probably has a ways to go, tho a few more C. Thomases might do it)

3) Guantanamo. What's that?

Just to name three. You think Bush is a constitutionalist? Maybe his father was. Bush Jr will look for endorsements from the Flat Earth Society before even considering a candidate.

I nominate Senator "Turban" Durbin

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd be a voice of reason on the Court.

swing vote?

[Traa]

According to Justice O'Conner the idea that she was often the so called 'swing vote' was made up by the media.

What is a swing vote? If a decision is 4-5 aren't all the 5 voters in the majority group considered swing voters? Since if any of them would vote the other way ... 'SWING' their goes the vote.
Was she statistically speaking most often in the group of 5 for all the 4-5 votes?

Does anyone care?

Re:swing vote?

[Ardeaem]

No, NOT everyone is considered a swing vote. If there were no correlations between how justices ruled, you'd be right, but consider this: By knowing a justice's position on an issue, that gives you a certain amount of information about how the other justices will rule. If you know Thomas, you know Scalia, almost for certain. Some justices give MORE information about the other justices than the others. The ones with lower information content are called swing voters, because they don't necessarily pair with the other justices as much.

Re:swing vote?

[corngrower]

According to Justice O'Conner the idea that she was often the so called 'swing vote' was made up by the media.

She was really the teeter-totter vote.

Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[Nagatzhul]

Most "right wingers" tend to be constructionists, by definition. The problem tends to be views on what liberals (general term used for purposes of communication) think the amendments mean.

Does the 2nd protect an individual right? Is there such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution? If you have two views on that, you will have two views on what the decisions should be.

That being said, in my experience, most who label themselves as liberals have never read the Constitution or even heard of things like the Federalist Papers. I would consider reading the Federalist Papers the minimum level of education before you can form an intelligent opinion about your rights (these days) and the Constitution.

Re:Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[Ironsides]

Does the 2nd protect an individual right? Is there such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution? If you have two views on that, you will have two views on what the decisions should be.

A summary of the views:
2nd: Militia = group of private citizens vs. Militia = a military group commsioned by the state

Seperation of Church and State:
Government can't have anything to do with religion and must be atheis vs. Government can't discriminate based on religion.

I know of people who interpret seperation to mean that baring religious organizations from competing with non-relgious organizations for public grants as unconstitutional (as they see it as discriminating against religion).

Re:Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[QCompson]

Guess what? It's not just liberals who base their judgments on what they think the amendments mean. The Constitution is not a long document. It requires interpretation.

For example, the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. If you were to take that quite literally, then citizens should be allowed to own grenade lauchers, canons, and howitzers. Instead, it is generally interpreted to mean that citizens are allowed to own certain types of guns.

In my experience, most who label themselves as conservatives have never read the Constitution either, and I've found the best use for the Federalist papers is to cure a nasty case of insomnia.

Re:Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[Nagatzhul]

It does not require interpretation per se. It was designed to be simple and easily understood by the common man. And it was done that way on purpose so that the common man would not need lawyers.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no great distinction between military and civilian arms. But the intent was for the final political power to reside in the citizens and for them to be able to take it back by force if necessary.

But then again, if you actually find the Federalist Papers inspiring instead of simply inspiring sleep, you already know that.

Re:Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[QCompson]

Unfortunately, all of the chaps that were around in the 1780's are no longer with us, so we have to interpret the language when a new constitutional issue arises (such as when a distinction arose between military and civilian arms).

And just because the Federalist Papers seductively lull me to sleep like some sort of sweet opium smoke doesn't mean that they don't inspire me. I can kiss founding father ass with the best of them!

Re:Right wing vs. Constructionist?

[Nagatzhul]

That's the point, it is not a "new" issue. It is a preexisting one. One that preexists even the Constitution. Which is why the 2nd Amendment, for example, does not establish a right but protects a right that was already established.

And kissing someone's ass is only possible, never mind useful when they are living. I simply respect that they sacrificed a great deal to make sure my rights were protected. And it is incumbent upon me to make sure that I continue to protect them.

conservative, liberal, or moderate---Irrelevent

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the nominee is or should be irrelevent. As a judge, you should interpret the law and constitution and not let your personal and political beliefs influence your decisions.

Whether you believe in abortion or not, Roe v. Wade was not a good decision. There is no "right to privacy" nor right to an abortion in the constitution.

However, there is a right to keep and bear arms. There is a right to be protected against unlawful searches and seizures (Patriot Act). There is a right to own property. There is a right to free speech-"Congress shal make no law..." (Campaign Finance Reform).

Judges needs to interpret the law, not make law. If current law or the constitution is not applicable, then judges need to refer the matter to congress. Case in point, Roe V. Wade. Abortion would no be the contraversy that it is if it was legalized through normal democratic processes-ie the congress passes a law, Prez signs it.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Doug Dante]

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

OK pal, that's true under most conditions depending on how you count the votes that were cast and valid.

What about the votes that didn't even make it to the recount? The African Americans who gave up after waiting 4 hours in line? The votes summarilly tossed without notification in poor (again mostly African American) communities?

Don't believe me. Believe former President and Jimmy Carter, who said, in the summer of 2004, that:

some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.

Read it in The Washington Post .

I don't care so much if a Democrat or a Republican wins, but we must get the election right.

Re:Great!

[numbuscus]

7 of the 9 were nominated by republicans. "Center-left"? I think not. Maybe "left" of you, but not to most. I'll guess that most americans support (in general terms) the Court's decisions over the last decade. Otherwise, wouldn't there be massive, daily protests in front of the courthouse? Relative to the country, I'd say the court has been fairly moderate. Too "right" for me personally, but probably pretty much representative of the median voter's position.

May i be the first to say

[Ghotli]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! There go my civil liberties..

Re:Florida, Florida

[Wyatt Earp]

Well, thats the entire problem. The Supreme Court has life time terms because the Framers knew that public opinion in the short term could be terribly reactionary. 5 years after the election, some people are still quite reactionary about the Election, thus the Constitution is working fine in that regard.

The United States is NOT a Democracy. The United States is a Republic and there are serious differences.

Jerry Springer Show isn't on anymore I don't think.

Ob Futurama Quote

[anaesthetica]

"You were all for preserving Hitler's brain, but putting it inside a shark's body...THAT'S GOING TOO FAR!!" --Professor Farnsworth

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was the "liberals" on the court that formed the majority. They were, in no way, siding with the major corporations. The majority opinion was, essentially, "this is a state and local issue."

Yeah because that Saddam was such a sweethart

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Saddam would have been pleased to be able to finish gassing all the kurds, boy it sure is a shame we didn't let him finish his lifes work of killing millions when we could have save those few hundred thousand (some of which of course insurgents have killed...)

Stop Spread the Myth of the Florida Recount

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

For Gnu's sake, people, stop spreading the well-debunked myth that Gore would have won an honest recount:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

How much clearer than that does it need to be? On what objective, non-partisan evidence can you base your opnion that Gore would have won a honest recount of Florida?

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Stop Spread the Myth of the Florida Recount

[numbuscus]

He would have won a recount of those ballots under those laws. But the whole election in Florida should have been thrown out, given the strange discrepencies in the election. From the same article you quote:

According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.

Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

Anyone who's interested in fair elections would agree that the process in Florida was messed up. It's our duty as citizens to prevent it from happening again.

Re:Florida, Florida

[kirk26]

I'm sorry. I rarely see African Americans where I live. Just black people.

Moot

[isotope23]

If Bush gets his 2 replacements, we could be fucked.

Your point is moot. The constitution does not limit how many justices the court is made up of. If Bush wanted to he could simply ADD justices.

That is how FDR steamrollered the high court into accepting his new deal programs. The courst declared many of his first programs unconstitutional. FDR responded by trying to add an additional judge to the court for each judge over a certain age (60 I think) which would have effectively doubled the size of the court. The proposal died in Congress, but got the desired effect; the court knuckled under.

Re:Moot

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposal didn't die in Congress, it was slaughtered in Congress. It was probably FDR's worst political move in his very very long presidency. Were Bush to try it, in a climate far more 50-50 than FDR's was, he would probably be burned alive, politically speaking.

The way the SC functions is so ingrained as to be virtually a part of the constitution, even if it is specified through law.

Oh, come on.

[Grendel Drago]

"Fundamentalist", in general usage, refers to Christian Fundamentalists---the largest and most visible group that self-labels that way. Don't be difficult.

--grendel drago

Re:Oh, come on.

[the_mad_poster]

Maybe in your vernacular, but a fundamentalist in the real world is just any individual with a philosophy of Fundamentalism on a given subject. For example, I follow the fundamentalist automotive performance philosophy that's usually summed up in "No replacement for displacement".

In fact, I rarely, if ever, hear the term fundamentalist used without some sort of qualifier such as "Chrsitian" or "Muslim" or "Right wing". The only time it would even work in intelligent conversation is if the qualifier is implied based on some other part of the conversation that's already passed.

There's a difference between being "difficult" and being "accurate". This is accurate, you're just being confusing.

Re:Oh, come on.

[lgw]

And I hate it when language is ruined that way. Is a "conservative Justice" supposed to be understood as judically or socially conservative? Is a "fundamentalist Justice" supposed to care about the Bill of Rights or the Bible? Loose language.

Re:Oh, come on.

[praedictus]

I always thought it derived from
Fund To provide money
Amental Without thinking
...but that's just me

News for Nerds?

[Puzzleer]

I'm as interested as anyone in political debate, but is this really the appropriate forum?

Since when did we put raw political issues on a technology news site? I haven't seen yet how this article constitutes "News for Nerds" more than anything else on CNN.

Re:News for Nerds?

[PrntlUnit27]

Stuff that Matters...

For one thing, consider how the balance of the Supreme Court may affect future rulings of interest to nerds in particular regarding: DMCA, centralized databases of personal information (medical, financial, etc.), monopolies, free speech (like this forum).

No he didn't..

[cybrthng]

Project for a New American Century "think tank" tried convincing clinton that regime change was the only choice he had.

Clinton didn't act on it, Bush did. If you read the PNAC you see all sorts of dirt you blame on Clinton.

Indeed!

[Grendel Drago]

I can't wait to get rid of all those damned graven images! And outlawing Sunday overtime! Err, Saturday overtime if you're Jewish.

--grendel drago

Re:Indeed!

[saintlupus]

I can't wait to get rid of all those damned graven images! And outlawing Sunday overtime! Err, Saturday overtime if you're Jewish.

Like there's going to be any Jews left.

[I know, Godwin, blah blah]

--saint

Re; Great! (Parent is moron.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Center-left-at-best my ass. What universe have you been in lately? The recent Kelo decision is in line with the usual kleptocracy of the Bush administration.

Re:We are sooooo....

[whats_a_zip]

I'm ok with:

#1 - A hot button, but I'm ok with it.
#2 - Not a big deal to me. Much to do about nothing.
#3 - Oh right, that Gulag, the Killing Fields of Cuba. Please. What do you do with captured enemy combatants in wartime.

The hawks are keeping you hand wringers safe. Maybe one day you'll be able to understand what was done for you. If they aren't successful, you and your grandchildren will have plenty of time to think of what could have been when you are praying 5 times a day while facing Mecca.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[general_re]

Good analysis. Al Gonzalez is the safe choice, without a doubt. The fun choice would be someone like Janice Rogers Brown. Depending on one's definition of "fun", I guess, but then political food fights are always fun, aren't they? :)

Just as I suspected, liberal mods

[Anonymous Coward]

abusing their mod points by modding down that which they disagree with.

You fucking libs, by any means necessary to get your point of view across, squelching others along the way. Free speech my ass. What about the parent is "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive"?

Scalia Fan Club

[Detritus]

Can we clone Scalia?

I can hardly wait for People for the American Way and other so-called non-partisan groups to start predicting the end of civilized life on the planet if another judicial conservative is appointed to the court. It's a great way for them to raise money.

Re:Scalia Fan Club

[Bassman59]

"Can we clone Scalia?"

Congratulations! You've presented the best reason for banning human cloning.

"I can hardly wait for People for the American Way and other so-called non-partisan groups to start predicting the end of civilized life on the planet if another judicial conservative is appointed to the court. It's a great way for them to raise money."

funny how the Xtian right and their so-called non-partisan allies have been predicting the end of civilized life on the planet if another judical liberal is appointed to the court. And they've been raising money hand over fist in anticipation of a fight over SCOTUS nominations, and they've already indicated that they're going to spend it.

Judicial versus Political Conservativism

[ari_j]

One thing you seem to have missed is that judicial != political when you are talking about conservatives versus liberals. Although it's true that most issues don't bring light to the difference, it is there. For instance, when it comes to abortion the political conservatives say you have no right to it, while the judicial conservatives agree that the Constitution doesn't guarantee any such right. The difference is that a judicial conservative would not say that the Constitution prohibits abortion, while a political conservative would make sure to pass laws that do just that.

Justice Scalia is very judicially conservative, and sometimes that conflicts with his political views. When faced with that choice, he chooses to be judicially conservative. Even Rehnquist, who is definitely a political conservative, is not nearly as judicially conservative as you would expect if you equated the two traits as one.

Of course, it is extremely rare to have a dichotomy on the liberal side of things, because political liberals want things to be a certain way and judicial liberals are really good at reading the Constitution to mean just what they want it to. You will rarely, if ever, find a politically liberal judicial conservative.

My personal hope is that Bush appoints someone who is judicially conservative and politically moderate. But he wouldn't do that any more than Kerry would have appointed Cheney to the bench.

Christian Fundamentalists ???

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Fundamentalist", in general usage, refers to Christian Fundamentalists

Sshhhhhh....don't let any of the Islamic fundamentalists hear you, they might be offended and come and be-head you, lock your women up as property, prohibit all relitions except Islam (see Saudi Arabia), prevent women from voting, prevent women from driving....

Re:Florida, Florida

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Ahem.

1: There was a standard: intent of the voter. If that standard isn't well-defined enough for you, blame the Florida legislature. Imposing a new standard would be "legislating from the bench".
2: The Supremes stopped the count because to continue it would do undue harm to Bush. How can counting votes do harm to one candidate in an election?
3: How can it be unfair for different counties to have different methods to determine voter intent, but fair for different counties to have different spoilage rates?
4: If the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore was so great, then why didn't it set precedent? Can you explain why it specifically didn't set precedent?

Yes, it's true that the recount Gore asked for wouldn't have voted him in. Boies was an idiot. But that in no way excuses the Supreme Court from interfering in a decision clearly designated as a matter for the House of Representatives in the Constitution. Bush v. Gore was complete and utter politics, down to the refusal of involved judges to recuse themselves.

It's not about who won - it's about how it happened. Rule of law, and all that.

Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[eison]

If the highest judges in the land can't agree better than 5-4, shouldn't that indicate that the case isn't resolved and prevent a decision? They should need at least a 6-3 vote to take action.

Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[Sir Pallas]

The problem is that that could paralize the head legal interpreters ouf the US. Say the vote is already 5-3; a judge --- even one normally on the majority side of this issue --- has the opportunity to freeze the issue for whatever reason. So now you've got the problem that the SCOTUS has accepted a case, but fails to make a ruling. A court that doesn't freeze is the whole idea behind having an odd number of justices; because once they accept a case, they need to rule.

Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[EXTomar]

Given such a small pool, asking for a 6 vote majority for an affirming decision means that many harder decisions are no-decisions which are meaningless when seeking a arbitration on the difficult issues. Just because a question is hard and needs to be decided carefully means a decision needs to be rendered, not put off.

Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

By the time a case gets to the Supreme court, it's so arbitrary and so specific that just about any system would be "unjust."

By definition, the Supreme Court is filling in the gaps where the law isn't clear. If there was a clear cut way to decide the case, it would have been.

It's a misunderstanding to think of the Supreme Court as the "Championship" level of the Legal System. You don't get to appeal because you lost a case. Your appeal has to either prove an error on the part of the proceedings, or some novel question of law. SCOTUS acts like that wizened old Engineer whose been around since the start of the project, and elaborates on details that elude all the lower levels of problem solvers.

Re:Why do swing votes have to be so important?

[geoff43230]

I agree, however I think, ultimately, it comes down to one magic word : "precedent". In theory, once the US Supreme Court agrees to hear something involving anything of issue X, while the case itself may be super-specific (and, ultimately, usually is), it bodes very well in any future case, at all, anywhere, for the simple phrase "Yes, but the Supreme Court recently ruled, on this issue, X" to come up.

I'm another one

[Anonymous Coward]

I too describe myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Let's see:

I'm a pro-choice atheist registered Republican that voted for McCain in the Bush/McCain primary in 2000 and then I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 general election. All because I couldn't stand Bush. Then with the fantastic way that Bush has handled the war on terror, he won my vote in 2004.

The thing that scares the hell out of me is that all things considered, I probably agree more with Democrats than Republicans. With the despicable and intellectually dishonest way they act (playing on people's ignorance of topics) I don't think I'll be able to vote for one ever again unless they make radical changes to their party. That scares me because I don't want religious fundamentalists to take over the country, but on the other hand, I find myself greatly disliking today's Democratic leaders. First and foremost, Dean. Oh, Kerry is an idiot too. Every democrat would agree with me if only he wasn't your only good shot against Bush. Pick someone better and maybe people like me will actually vote for them.

Re:I'm another one

[DavidTC]

Here's a deal:

You get rid of the nutcakes on charge of your party, and the Democrats can stop desperately throwing faces at the wall and hoping one of them sticks.

Dean is an attempt to keep the Greens and Reforms from shooting them in the leg every time they kneel down at the starting line. You'll notice he didn't get the nomination, he's just an attempt to applease the people disgusted with both parties. It's saying 'Look, the Democrats will work with you people. Please stop shooting at us.'.

And Kerry's not an idiot, he's a politician. He was playing the 'King of the Center' that presidential candidates do after primaries, where you try to make the other guy go slightly too far to the side, and failed to realize the other side had changed all the rules.

He should have figuratively stood up and spit on the president and everything he did. Don't say 'I would have supported the war', and talk about 'your plans', stand there and say 'This president has made horrible choices. Here's a list of his decisions that I don't agree with. Here's evidence he engaged in a conspiracy to get us into a war.'

Maybe the next guy will do that. Although he obviously won't be running against Bush, but if Republicans don't get their act together he'll be running against his replacement.

If they do get their act together and kick out the neocons, all this is moot.

Re:I'm another one

[admiralh]

Then with the fantastic way that Bush has handled the war on terror, he won my vote in 2004.

I'm sure glad so see that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda are taken care of so they won't threaten us any more. It's so much easier flying now that the terror levels been at Green for the past year. And we haven't had a terrorist kill a U.S. Serviceman for 9 months. Bush had just done a fantastic job!

</end sarcasm>

Excuse me, but what planet do you live on? You say you're socially liberal (Bush isn't) fiscally conservative (Bush isn't, since when is running up huge debts fiscally conservative?), and you laud Bush for the "War On Terra"(TM) when most of the responsible parties for 9/11 are still at-large.

And what is it you don't like about Dean, and why is Kerry an idiot? In your opionion, what radical changes do the Democrats need to make?

You say you don't want religious fundamentalists, but then you spout vague attacks on Democrats like you've been listening to Fox News all day.

Think about what you agree with and what true competence is, rather than obsess with the personalities. You don't have to like someone to respect them and work with them.

Re:Florida, Florida

[PerlDudeXL]

Winner or no winner. Elections carried out with anything else than pen and paper are flawed and bogus.

Re:We are sooooo....

[snorklewacker]

Ooh, gotcha on the hot button #3.

Hand-wringers like us are the reason women are allowed to purchase birth control.

Or for some areas of the country, "were" might be a better word.

Your definition intrigues me.

[Grendel Drago]

I know! How dare those left-wing activist judges perform a judicial coup to place a hardline fundie in power! Or Eldred v. Ashcroft a huge giveaway to corporate interests! Damn those lefties!

--grendel drago

Re:Your definition intrigues me.

[Swamii]

Totally agree with you! And how those right-wing activist judges over the last 20 years have ruled from the bench, passing hard-line, right-wing, fundie ideas into law by legalizing aborting, denying my right to prayer in school, the list goes on! Damn those righties!

Re:Your definition intrigues me.

[soft_guy]

Whose stopping anyone from praying in school? As long as there are exams, there will be prayer in school.

Oh, you mean your right to force everyone else to participate in a public lead prayer? I guess I didn't understand you.

Yes, your rights to force me and my children to pray are certainly being infringed. You should be outraged.

Re:Your definition intrigues me.

[Swamii]

Oh I don't want to force anyone to pray, if it came to forcing you or keeping quiet, I'd much rather keep quiet. Forcing someone to do something against their will was not what Jesus was about.

According to my government, I have the right to freely express my religion, including prayer, even on so-called "secular" grounds such as public schools.

It is not your right to be shielded from all religion, but it is my right to freely express my religion (even if you can hear or see such expressions!).

This is all according to my government's establishment of religion clause. If it was modified to suit your views, I would be breaking the law. Fortunately, we have some balance in our country, and the freedom of religion still exists.

Re:Your definition intrigues me.

[soft_guy]

You are making some presumptions about what my views are.

Students in school are free to pray silently during any classroom break.

It is my right not be forced to pray. When there was school-led prayer, people were forced to pray. Kids who did not pray were singled out and beaten up. I know that because my father, who is an atheist, had that happen to him in school.

Fortunately, by the time I got to school, we weren't forced to pray. Of course, I still was threatened by the Christian kids if they found out I was an atheist. They would threaten to "kick my ass" or "have god strike me blind" and various things.

Fortunatley I knew how to fight. (And so did my dad.)

Re:Your definition intrigues me.

[Tassach]

Forcing someone to do something against their will was not what Jesus was about.

I think you need to educate your co-religionists on that interpretation.

There a large number of people who call themselves "christians" who have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use the might of the Government to force everyone else to live according to the dictates of their religion.

Part of the problem is that practically no one can agree on a definition of what a "christian" really is.

From my observations, a typical member of the religious right would define a Christian as being "someone who belives that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, and has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior." There are millions of people who would be "Christians" under this definition -- but there are many, many "Christians" who don't meet this definition.

From my (admittedly dim) recollections of Sunday School, the Roman Catholic church teaches a more inclusive definition: everyone who has been baptized is a Christian. This definition covers a lot of people who don't meet the more stringent fundimentalist protestant definiton above.

Personally, I believe the rational definition of Christian is "someone who lives their life in accordance with the actual moral philosophy taught by Jesus of Nasareth himself" (as opposed to those, for example, who follow the contridictory teachings of Paul of Tarsus). There are very, very few people on the planet who qualify as Christians under this more stringent definition. You don't see this kind of Christian very often, because they are usually out meekly serving others, instead of making themselves rich and famous by preaching hatred and intolerance on the television while scamming money from their congregations.

Re:Great!

[benzapp]

Do you even know what fascism is? Why do you use that word? Oh, you are just another idiot listening to all the "I hate Bush" rhetoric coming out of MTV studios and related media propaganda outlets, interestingly enough owned by Neo-cons.

The court cannot be fascist because fascism is much more about a system of government, a system far different than our own. Fascism is anti-democracy, it is the rejection of the principle that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. It is the rejection of egalitarianism, the belief that all people are born equal. Fascism rejects materialism as the fundamental basis of economics and human civilization. Supply and Demand has no relevance to the fascist worldview and political ideology. Beauty is the goal of fascism, as detailed by Ezra Pound, one of the greatest poets to ever live.

It is the creed that authority derives from excellence, and that excellence itself is subjective and varies from culture to culture. This is why governments labeled fascist have been so different, because what defines the Japanese culture is not the same as what defines the Italian culture.

More than anything however fascism is the latest chapter in the eternal battle between Athenian democracy and Spartan aristocracy. The little bits of nonsense you mention are trivial in this grand struggle. Who cares if slaves like yourself get healthcare or lose your house when human civilization as we know it is rapidly crumbling. Your concerns are mundane and banal, fascism is concerned with preserving legendary honor and greatness; the very stories that give our lives meaning.

I feel ashamed that simpletons like you even have a say in our governmental structure. Your place in this world is to follow, not lead.

oh, and PS: fascist governments were more than successful in giving their people jobs, and providing healthcare and schools, as well as encouraging home ownership.

VOTE FOR PEDRO

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh!

Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[glrotate]

How's Gun crime around schools raises insurance rates, so the feds have the right to pass gun free school zones via the Interstate Commerce Clause, for innovative legal theory?

Or how about Breyer and Ginsburg's "We should consider how foreign countries courts have ruled, but only liberal countries that share our personal biases?"

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Doc Ruby]

So, by disagreeing with those innovative legal theories on the part of the Court, you agree that their job is to conserve the legal principles of the country, right?

BTW, the "foreign laws" considered by those Justices in the "death penalty for children" case are from "only liberal countries", only when those "not liberal" are Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The only countries that allowed child execution while the Court was deciding to join Yemen in finally outlawing the desperate practice.

You want guns around schools, you want children executed. Forget the Supreme Court - what gives you this bloodlust for children?

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Hentai]

Honestly? It's the fact that children aren't treated as persons under the law de facto, but we're not allowed to come out and say that they're property. This creates a level of tension that leads to a lot of nasty behavior on both sides of the 18-year barrier.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[JWW]

That's the scaries thing about this type of logic. The more degrees of separation from your initial statement to your final decision the more you're just making things up.

The Supreme Court was specifically designed to rule on whether things fit within the constitution or not, not to "create" law based on other countries or tying toghether things that can be legislated to things that cannot with loose logic.

The eminent domain decision was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent history. In my opinion, it absoulutely needs to be reversed, and now it will be very hard to do so.

That decision shows how enourmously more important personal property rights are than intellectual property rights. At least when IP is violated you don't lose your house.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Doc Ruby]

Children are treated as persons, with some restrictions deferring some of their rights to their guardians. The law doesn't have only two categories for entites, persons and property, under which all rights are defined. We would be a lot clearer with a clear definition of "minor" vs "adult", even if there are some laws which take effect early, or late, as the transition is gradual for everyone. Living with increased expectations is part of that process.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

The eminent domain decision was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in recent history

The court essentially ruled that the previous decisions made on the back of cases such as Poletown v. Detroit still held. In this sense it was a conservative decision: it sought not to change existing court decisions, i.e. that eminent domain is a matter for State governments and not one for Federal intervention, and that eminent domain does not violate the Constitution (due State process observed, compensation offered).

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Hentai]

And if only our culture reflected that attitude, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, it often doesn't.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Doc Ruby]

We've got a good start with subcultures that offer children a traditional "coming of age" ceremony. Like the Jewish "Bar Mitzvah". Even though girls need a different ceremony, it's better than nothing, which is what most people get. I think that ritual is one reason why Jews commit fewer "antisocial" crimes than other people, per capita. I'd like to see one that doesn't depend on something imaginary like religion, but just being shown explicitly that adults meet different expectations, and every adult you know has gone through the change, is very valuable. Maybe we'll eventually all do it.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Hentai]

That would, indeed, rock. The best we seem to have is getting one's driver's liscense, which if you ask me, just doesn't cut it.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[uncqual]

Back when we had an active draft, I think to some extent military service (or even the risk of it) was a "coming of age" experience for many males. I've talked with quite a few vets over the years that found the military experience very valuable in this regard - mostly because the military forced adult expectations and, more importantly, consequences on them. I know of a "gentleman officer" during the Vietnam conflict who was, of course, a greenhorn when he was given his command and had little idea how to implement "adult consequences" on his subordinates. But after a short time, a sergeant explained it to him how to do it - something like "Let me take care of this guy's attitude problem" - and the sergeant was quite successful (although the sounds that came from behind the building where the sergeant was teaching the lesson were, apparently, somewhat unpleasant to listen to). I don't expect that today in the era of instant news and Internet that this form of teaching would be as tolerated now.

Of course I don't think we should have a draft (and certainly not for this purpose) nor do I think this role of the draft was probably the primary vehicle through which the majority of society members came to understand their adult role.

I do question that the Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies (or even the preparation) themselves bear much responsibility for a reduced antisocial crime rate among Jews. Those who go through these ceremonies (and, in the case of Bar Mitzvah, the rather grueling preparation) tend to be practicing Jews who, as a demographic group, have a number of other attributes that, alone, would cause them to be at lower risk for committing antisocial crimes. It is my sense that practicing Jews tend to place a high value on community ties, tend not to be low-income, tend to have a strong sense of family cohesion, tend to be indoctrinated with a standard of moral values, tend to have high educational expectations for children, and tend to come from stable homes as compared to the general population. I suspect that it is these traits, not the ceremony itself (or even preparation for it), that contributes more to the lower crime antisocial crime rate.

Re:Stevens' dissent in Lopez comes to mind.

[Doc Ruby]

Lots of people "become men" through military service - it's part of the advertising. I question the kind of men (or women) they become, in a service defined by killing, however justified or necessary.

Of course the Bar Mitzvah is celebrated by practicing Jews, by definition. But for many, if not most in America, that Bar Mitzvah is the only practice they have. Most attend at least one of the 5 required holidays a year. But most merely attend, do not pray outside synagogue, and don't observe any of the many lesser holidays, keep kosher laws, maintain any sabbath rituals, etc. And of course this includes poor Jews, who are much less visible because they don't fit the Hollywood stereotype, and are more likely to live outside high-profile neighborhoods. The Bar Mitzvah is the package that allows many Jews to participate in the traditional religion, though otherwise completely assimilated.

The ceremony cannot be disconnected from a Jew's relationship to their community. That is one of the reasons for its role in socializing the adult, and their concommitant acceptance of social norms. The Bar Mitzvah creates a sense of personal responsibility for stewardship of the torah, which everyone is taught means "law", by making the person a leader in its use and interpretation. That kind of participation in the law and society is exactly the kind of thing that makes Jews respect law and society, as part of their self respect. It doesn't always work, especially when overwhelmed by other factors, like criminal role models, and "broken homes" (Jews have higher rates of divorce than nonjews). But it's part of a Jewish identity, explicitly constructed to bring children into an adult community of responsibility and respect. Especially as Jews are generally so secular these days, the ceremony's power could probably be translated to any group, either religious, ethnic or otherwise defined by its people's collective identity.

the "progressives"

[zogger]

You got it. Governmental "progressives" have a thoroughly dismal record of taking peoples property via government scams/seizures like the "endangered species act" and so forth. A nice example would be to revisit what happened to thousands of people in Klamath Falls Oregon with that little "progressive" fiasco. How about "stakeholders viewscapes", that's another "progressive" winner. Of course that's usually leet urbanites seizing property from poor rural people thousands of miles away, but hey-it's progressive!

They are just as much to blame as so called "conservatives" when it comes to thievery, being bribed or blackmailed, or being in the pockets of fascist transnational corporations.

Bottom line, if it's elected, appointed or hired on and it comes from government, expect to lose if you have something they want. Labels mean nothing beyond "private citizen or governmental employee", those are the ones that count. And for that matter, pay no attention to those ridiculous D and R labels, they are designed to keep the rabble occupied thinking they have some vague "voice" in government. There's about as much difference as between the Crips and the Blood.

Agree

[DarthVeda]

Condi pre/9-11 did a horrid job with anti-terrorism. Least of which was the debacle with Mr. Clarke.

It's been somewhat better after 9-11 because everybody in washington had to get their stuff in order. I don't know how much we can expect as she is more geared to the geopolitics of the 1980s and the cold war, and not so much the "new world order."

Re:Wow, so how will this affect open source?

[Procrastin8er]

ultra-conservative Christian lunatic
So are you saying that all Christians are lunatics or that all ultra-conservatives are Christian?

How does the overturn of Roe vs Wade affect someone in the sense of being a nerd?
I also do not see how internet wiretaps would affect the average nerd. Maybe the .1% Maybe.

Fundamentalism == Doubt is Bad

[justanyone]

According to my religion instructor at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, the definition of fundamentalism is "any ideology where doubt is a sign of weakness. If the idea is that faith is strongest when it is never in doubt, then this it is a fundamentalist faith.

The Opposite of Fundamentalism is (at least embodied in the Unitarian Church's perspective) that a questioned faith is the strongest. Where faith is a cognizant (thinking) recognition, that faith is strongest because it has been examined and no perspective is unworthy of discussion, that the truth of a situation depends on your viewpoint.

Fundamentalism can apply to any religious doctrine, just as it can apply to an unwavering faith in a person or institution, be they political or not.

Re:Fundamentalism == Doubt is Bad

[cicho]

Of course this therefore means Fundamentalism = reason is bad. You start doubting when you start thinking about things.

Re:Fundamentalism == Doubt is Bad

[dedalus2000]

Maybe the discussion could be clarified by replacing the word fundamentalist with zealot or fanatic.

Troll much?

[Gruneun]

Right, because we all know the last of the major decisions happened well before 1981. Maybe, after 24 years and a third of her life under the Supreme Court microscope, she just wants to spend some time yelling at the neighborhood kids who cut across her lawn.

Frankly, I don't think either side can fault her, considering she was arguably the least likely to be influenced by political pressure when interpreting the law. Maybe it's just me, but I like that in my judges.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I did something about it. I got the FUCK out! You can die in your own shit.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[CyberZen]

O'Conner's retirement is actually much more important than if Rehnquist had retired; on a pretty wide array of social policies, i.e. abortion and affirmative action, O'Conner has been the swing vote in the 5-4 decisions. Rehnquist, on the other hand, tends to vote conserative, period. Slashdotters might be pleased to know she was a key vote in the challenge to the President to arbitrarily detain individuals w/out review:

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested," she wrote last year for the court in the Iraq-war era case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. "And it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." ~ taken from the Washington Post article today.

Actually, you should read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. He contended that the US government had no authority at all to hold a citizen at Guantanamo.

Justice O'Connor Retiring

[falconwolf]

Will Bush be a uniter or a divider? Falcon

Re:Florida, Florida

[evolutionaryLawyer]

Nice try, but if a State Supreme Court, which is the highest power in interpreting the State Constitution, determines that the local election law (with its hard date cut-off) is an unconstitutional deprivation of a citizen's right to vote, they have the duty to prevent the enforcement of the law.
In fact, a court cannot change the law unless there is an injury that can be redressed. So, they cannot change the law before the election, because there is no injury. They also cannot change the law after the results have been certified and the winner has been declared, because the injury cannot be redressed.

Re:Florida, Florida

[IceAgeComing]

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

Sorry, I can't let such revisionist history go. I'd like to see links to those reports.

I looked over the Wikipedia article on the 2000 election, and at the bottom are the results showing that Gore would have won a statewide recount. The problem apparently rested with the fact that no clear rules were in place mandating a complete statewide recount in a close race, but the Dems may have succeeded in arguing for a complete recount if they had had the foresight to do so:

In November 2001, after conducting an unofficial recount of Florida's ballots, the news outlets discovered that if all legally cast votes had been counted - regardless of the standard used for evaluating chads - Gore won [8]. But when legal votes were evaluated, based on the standards set in law at the time, Bush won.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting theory, but it is not backed up by the facts. I suggest you research it.

One person cites three sources, albeit generally.

One person posts the equivalent of "Did not."

Which person needs to do more research? (hint: a 5 digit Slashdot ID does not make one an authoritative source)

Re: You forgot one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget: Wealthy?

After all, in the United States now, the wealthy get all the benefits, while the middle and lower class folks get screwed over big-time.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Ironsides]

Heh, one of the things I love that people forget about the 2k election is that the news announced that the entire state of Floridas poles closed at 7pm Eastern. The segment of florida that is just south of Georgria and Alabama are in the Central time zone. They had a noticeably lower voter turnout there. Course, not surprising since that area is mosly white (and as such the votes don't count as much as if they were from a mostly black district).

Why?

[commodoresloat]

If he picks Alberto Gonzales (currently attourney general), all hell may break loose.

I don't see why -- we already have one justice who is pro-torture on the bench (Check out Clarence Thomas's interpretation of the 8th amendment). Then again, Thomas' confirmation was certainly no cakewalk.... but it had nothing to do with his pro-torture stance.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

take your own advice and read the case.

Thomas

[Anonymous Coward]

Associate Justice Thomas is often no more than Associate Justice Scalie's "second vote."

Right, left, or center, pick someone who can think for themselves, already!

The point of the judicial branch...

[glrotate]

The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers

I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[ConceptJunkie]

I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.

It's part of the "checks and balances" the 3 branches are meant to have on each other. Of course, this implies that after confirmation, the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it, it seems they are either happy with the situation or lack the will to exercise their own powers. I find either possibility unacceptable.

The fact of the matter is that the Court is increasingly issuing rulings based on anything BUT the Constitution, citing things like morality, changing times, foreign law, or "emanations of penumbras" (translation: "I'm trying to rationalize the fact that I pulled this out of my ass"), and have all but stated that the original intentions of the Founders who wrote this magnificent document, and in many cases the clear, plain English words contained therein simply don't matter in this so-called politically, socially and scientifically enlightened age.

If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off. Of course, it will never happen, because then the other two brances would be forced to acknowledge that 4/5 of what the Federal Government does uses powers never granted by the Constitution, and that through increasingly (small 'l') liberal and tangential interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the very idea of the Federal government being restricted to only those powers specifically enumerated has become irrelevant.

In other words, they threw the Constitution under the bus decades ago to serve the interests of big business, post-morality "morals", extremist pressure groups, a sense of universal entitlement and their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance.

Once upon a time, a bunch of really smart guys got together to form a new country based on the idea of supreme and inalienable individual rights. They drew upon and expanded traditions that had developed largely in Europe and had existed in various forms since the days of the Romans and the ancient Greeks.

In their wisdom, they decided it best to surrender a small amount of these rights (but not life, liberty ot the pursuit of happiness) to a small, explicitly and narrowly defined Federal government, whose primary purpose was to help the united, but largely autonomous, states to engage in fair commerce, defend themselves against foreign aggressors, and to make sure that the rights of the individual states, and more importantly the people are preserved... and very little else.

It's ironic in the 21st century to even consider that there was a faction of the Constitutional Convention that felt the Bill of Rights was completely superfluous, as it spelled out the obvious, and that the Federal government as defined by the Constitution could never possibly usurp those God-given rights spelled out therein. Nowadays, the average American will not only recognize those rights, but a substantial portion of them think those rights go to far. If you look over the Bill of Rights today, the only right spelled out therein that I think we can all agree has not been watered down, whittled away or completely tossed out is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house. And I wouldn't hold me breath if, God forbid, there is ever military conflict on American soil.

In the Federalist Papers, you will see the great lengths the various Founders go to explain the huge advantage the unity will provide in terms of global economics and security, but they also believed that such a union would only be just if it were voluntary. As we know, this was changed radically less than 100 years later, as was the very (small 'c') constitution of the Federal gov

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[glrotate]

the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it

Ever heard of FDR?

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[ConceptJunkie]

To be honest, I was thinking only of recent times (last 40 years). I know about FDR, and I'm sure there were others prior to that.

Thanks for the correction.

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[Dirtside]

If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off.

Translation: If they would start interpreting the Constitution the way I want, I'd stop whining.

Where does the Constitution say anything about contributory copyright infringement? Nowhere. As a result, SCOTUS must resort to interpretation of both the Constitution and extant law in order to figure out whether something qualifies as constitutional or not. There's a long road and two hundred forty years of law and history between "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and "Corporations can be held liable if they promote copyright infringement via downloading."

Perhaps you could grace us with an answer to the Grokster question without relying on any document except the Constitution itself?

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[Seraphim_72]

I was going to mod you - but WOW - That is the single most thoughtful post I have ever read. Bless You Sir, I hope your life if good and long

Sera

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[kcbrown]

Perhaps you could grace us with an answer to the Grokster question without relying on any document except the Constitution itself?

Oh, that's easy.

1. Is what Grokster is doing protected by the Bill of Rights? Well, to answer that, you have to ask what Grokster is doing. They're doing two things:
   1. Publishing a program.
   2. Advertising the program.

   Publishing is a direct exercise of speech, and is thus protected under the First Amendment. And so is advertising.

   That means that any ruling against Grokster must meet very high standards. And so we move on to the copyright question.

2. The Constitution is very clear about copyright, patents, etc. The explicit and only reason for the existence of such protections is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And so, the test of whether or not any act is an affront to the clause in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to make laws that have the effect of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is whether or not the act in question impedes such progress.

Now, because the acts themselves in this case are protected by the First Amendment, the acts must clearly impede the progress of the sciences and the useful arts for them to be forbidden by law. It's not sufficient for the acts in question to be neutral with respect to that, because the acts are an exercise of one of the (if not the) most important rights we have.

What Grokster was doing doesn't clearly hinder the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. If it did, then it would be easy to show that it did. That what Grokster was doing would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment means that the plaintiff must show that Grokster's actions clearly impede the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. The plaintiff did not do so.

Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court very clearly should have been in Grokster's favor, based on nothing other than the Constitution and the stated intentions of those who wrote it.

Re:The point of the judicial branch...

[torokun]

No one here has mentioned the difficult line that the Supreme Court must walk.

Much of its history has been an exercise in attempting to assert a little influence and have a little backbone in the face of a very powerful congress and a very powerful executive. The Supreme Court did not have much respect in the beginning, and had to be very careful to maintain its position and not incite the President or congress into just blowing it away. FDR didn't just want to "pack the court," he wanted to increase the number of Justices to 21 (IIRC) and appoint all the new ones.

The SC, in order to avoid being made completely irrelevant, had to consider the political realities of the situation. They folded, and tried to make it look like they hadn't. They stayed to fight another day. Even now, consider what the republicans might be able to do if the Court repeatedly shot down their attepmts at anti-terrorism legislation. They really would go insane; they would throw everything they could at the problem, rule of law be damned. We clearly saw that attitude with respect to Terry Schiavo.

So just remember that the power of the Court is not absolute. They have to be very careful to avoid being made irrelevant, or being ignored. So some of the things they've done are actually theoretically 'wrong', but many of the 'wrong' decisions probably had to be that way for larger reasons.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini Since A=B and it then follows that B=A, I believed our court to be Fascist. Now that that is settled (or at least my belief explained) let me discuss your other points. Who care's if the slaves like me have nice lives? Us the slaves! You may believe my place is to follow but I believe your place is be amazed by some poet that no one gives a damn about. But I will refrain from insulting you, even if you will not extend other this simple courtesy Also compared to what governments were fascist ones more successful? If you mean ours today then that says very little. Unless you are part of this aristocracy why would you wish to support or even tolerate them?

O'Conner: binding Church and State?

[CommandoB]

There is a NY Times magazine article: A Church-State Solution (published on the web before the O'Conner announcement) that suggests that America's separation of Church-State problems could all be easily solved by reversing every one of O'Conner's swing rulings. I won't claim to agree with the article, but I found it an interesting read, more so now that the announcement has been made.

On a side note, it seems obvious to me that with Supreme Court decisions frequently making "News for Nerds," the retirement of Justice O'Conner is also news for nerds. Sure, the politics of it are rather tense, but I guarantee that O'Conner's replacement will be ruling on IP/privacy issues before their new chair is even warm.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

I ahem your ahem.

Imposing a new standard would be "legislating from the bench".

Which is exactly what the Florida supreme court tried to do. Determining voter intent using different mechanisms/standards by different reviewers is absolutely unduly harmful - to the voters, first of all.

How can counting votes do harm to one candidate in an election?

When the "counting" is being done in non-standard ways in very select area chosen specifically because of a more likely outcome, and with every intention of not mining for more mis-counted or undercounted votes in those areas that would likely have eclipsed them. That's how.

How can it be unfair for different counties to have different methods to determine voter intent, but fair for different counties to have different spoilage rates?

The spoilage rate is like the weather - it just happens, but does so because of a lot of variables. It depends on the acts of a large mass of people, and their demographic, experience, intelligence, education, and (it would seem) political orientation seem to have an impact on how capable they are of actually voting. The residents of each county vote into office the people that run their elections. If a county's priorities don't include upgrading their election facilities, that's a local political issue. But different methods of determining voter intent from one county to the next wasn't even the issue. There were different methods of determining voter intent from one counting table to the next in the same county. In most cases, there were no specific guidelines on determining intent, and that was part of the problem. So having the Florida court step in and try to invent some standards after the fact... not reasonable. The state already had a viable way to cast and count ballots, and the losing party didn't like the results. The amiguity in the intent area was simply a loophole through which they tried to drive the election, and that effort failed, as it should have.

If the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore was so great, then why didn't it set precedent?

What do you mean? All judgements set a precedent. It's a question of whether (especially in a very specific case like the one in Florida at that time) there's another similar case that would hinge on that precedent. Nothing like that has come up again since, so it's a non-issue, so far. That's like asking why the recent Connecticut city's taking of private property didn't set a precedent. It hasn't been used as such yet, but you know it will be. The odds of Bush v. Gore being used as precedent are pretty slim, because that exact set of circumstances is very unlikely to occur again, with the same challenges, the same state supreme court action, etc.

But that in no way excuses the Supreme Court from interfering in a decision clearly designated as a matter for the House of Representatives in the Constitution

The SCOTUS didn't interfere with Congressional power in any way. Congress can still act as they see fit once each state's electors say their piece. This was all very upstream from that part of the process.

Bush v. Gore was complete and utter politics

You're right there, but only because that was forced by the Gore team's actions. They made the politcal decision to try selective vote counting, and then they took their issues to a highly politicized state court. The matter was inately political before it ever got that far up the food chain.

It's not about who won - it's about how it happened. Rule of law, and all that

Right you are. And when one side of the equation decided to see just how much wiggle room there was in Florida's half-baked law, it escalated. The Florida court should have stopped that ridiculous selective vote-finding excursion right in its tracks, but they instead made the thing more political by appearing to concoct the very sorts of twists and turns that the Florida legislature should have done. But of course the legislature had no role to play - the election had already taken place.

Who are you kidding

[lbmouse]

"You forget that the same corrupt party controls two branches of government"

Dems and Reps are the same animal anymore. Call it a donkephant or a elephonkey.

Re:Who are you kidding

[Dasein]

Jane, you ignorant slut!

WTF, this is the sort of ignorant crap that got GWB reelected. Do you honestly think that we'd be in Iraq with a dem?

Do you think we'd be fearing the overturn of Roe V. Wade.

Do you think we'd be running the deficits that we are?

WTF! If I could reach out through the internet and whack yoiu upside the head, I certainly would.

Re:Who are you kidding

[Moofie]

"Do you honestly think that we'd be in Iraq with a dem?"

Uh, yeah. Kerry said he'd continue fighting the war, he'd just do it more nicely.

I think the war was a cock-up from Day 1, but it's not like the democrats have been effective at opposing it...

Re:Who are you kidding

[Dasein]

Yep, your right about that. In my blind rage against the "they're all the same" argument, I forgot to specify that, even though I mentioned reelection, that Gore wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq.

Re:Who are you kidding

[Rycross]

Dems voted for the war. They voted for military spending. They voted for the Patriot Act and the DCMA. They voted for the act with Real ID. They consistently vote to give more power to corporations. The liberal judges in SCOTUS voted that states can take your property and give it to private entities.

So yes, I think all of those things, with the exception of Roe V. Wade, would continue to happen with a dem.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. There are precious few politicians, Republican or Democrat, who are looking out for your best interest. We in America need a new breed of politicians with integrity and the best interest of their constituents in mind.

Re:Who are you kidding

[Dasein]

I don't think the dems had a desire to invade Iraq before Sept 11. So there would have been less interest in trying to link them to terrorism and therefore probably not a push to go into Iraq.

So, yes, the dems voted for it but I don't think they would have pursued Iraq, if in power.

The RealID was buried in a military appropriation bill. If the dems had voted against it then the R's could of held up that vote and said "They voted against getting body armor for our troops." Which would have been true, in a sense. I don't think the dems would have attached RealID onto a military spending bill.

The DCMA, I give you is a problem of money for both dems and reps.

I don't know enough about the SCOTUS decision to be able to speak intelligently about it.

I agree the dems and reps both aren't looking out for the small guy's best interest but to say that there's no difference seems a little loopy.

Re:Back into the closet with the buttsex & abo

[EvilTwinSkippy]

If you're having buttsex in the closet, you needn't worry about having abortions. See, it all works out in the end!

On several levels.

Yes it died,

[isotope23]

but it got his message through to SCOTUS.
That was all he cared about.

Re:Yes it died,

[Anonymous Coward]

Was FDR buried? Because they should mix his crumbled remains with those of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, and see what they come up with.

Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for Pedro

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[zoomzit]

Rehnquist, on the other hand, tends to vote conserative, period.

You might want to read this interesting article on the liberal love for our man Rehnquist. http://www.slate.com/id/2121352/

Re:We are sooooo....

[whats_a_zip]

Ok, one of two things here, I'm not quite sure where you were going.
Women were able to purchase birth control?!
Is abortion birth control to you? If it is, we diverge here in a huge way. Abortion is not trivial in my belief system. It's not like buying contraceptive pills, or condoms, etc.

If you don't see abortion as contraceptive, and you were jumping to hyperbole right away... well, that's the kind of thing that leads those of us with a stronger constitution to take hand wringers lightly.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner

I suppose that you're referring to the NORC study, which actually showed that Gore would have won Florida in four different recount scenarios - including a state-wide recount. Link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407200008

Taken from a Salon.com article

[Visigothe]

This is reprinted from salon.com.

People for the American Ways list and description of notable 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that could have gone the other way if a more conservative justice were sitting in OConnors seat:

• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus;
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act;
• Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctors opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment;
• Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting;
• Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled;
• Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary;
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person;
• Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports;
• Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events;
• Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor;
• Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates;
• Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits;
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties use of unlimited soft money contributions;
• Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion; and
• McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

Err, Whatever...

[EXTomar]

We should take what is written in The National Review as fact because...?

Why is an expansionist view of judical power bad? In Common Law and in particular in the US, one of the few things that keeps the Legistlature in check is judicial review. The fact the far elements in Congress want things like a Flag Burning amendment is because the restraints the judiciary puts on them.

What Mr Franck should have said is that he is disappointed because O'Conner kept deciding against things he liked instead of trying to pull the "flip flop" card. Being mad a judge for deciding against what they desire does not make that judge bad.

Re:Err, Whatever...

[Rayonic]

The fact the far elements in Congress want things like a Flag Burning amendment is because the restraints the judiciary puts on them.

Uh, when it comes to amendments, Congress isn't restrained by the Judiciary.

Re:Err, Whatever...

[jazuki]

Why is an expansionist view of judical power bad?

The reason is that an opportunity to correct a judicial mistake is limited, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court. Your only recourse in constitional interpretation decisions is an amendment to the constitution. Or try to change the makeup of the court and hope for the best. In any case, the work of generations.

If the legislative or executive branch makes a mistake, you vote the legislator or executive out. Short of impeachment, the standard for which is set rather high, there is no recourse for judicial mistakes.

I'm all for judicial review, because legislators and executives are human and make human mistakes, but as the branch of government that is least accountable by custom to either the other branches or the governed, judges need to take special care with their powers.

Because, guess what, judges are also human and make human mistakes.

Re:Err, Whatever...

[overunderunderdone]

What Mr Franck should have said is that he is disappointed because O'Conner kept deciding against things he liked instead of trying to pull the "flip flop" card

No, because that is NOT Mr Franck's point. John Paul Steven's or Ruth Bader Ginsburg presumably keep deciding against things he liked far more often than O'Connor. BUT, he thinks O'Connor is a worse judge DESPITE the fact she sometimes (even often) rules in ways he would prefer (while Ginsburg rarely does) because she refuses to rule in ways that set a real precedent either way. This is VERY BAD because it means the law is never settled, you never know whether certain things are legal or not. in some areas of law EITHER of two available courses of action may be illegal, a series of costly lawsuits are inevitable no matter what you decide and in the end you can only know which decision was the legal one after it goes to the supreme court. That is unavoidable when dealing with new laws and novel situations but it's ridiculous when the reason the law isn't settled one way or the other is because Justice O'Connor has switched back and forth in cases that are dealing with identical issues.

Re:Great!

[stinerman]

This entire thread has been killed by semantics.

First, to you, !conservative != liberal. Also liberal != more government. Actually the party in control of the government is for more government and the minority usually takes up states' rights.

To the rest of people, you're intent on thinking that Republican == conservative, when it doesn't. Furthermore, on the supreme court, "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things than we're all used to.

Regarding the court, the Kelo v. New London was a "liberal" decision in that it tended to give a loose constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It was by no means in line with liberal political views. No one liked that decision except for statists and corporatists.

Took from the Individual, gave to the state

[MDMurphy]

While I guess some might construe the "eminent domain" ruling to be a "victory" for states rights, I don't quite see it that way.

In the recent medical marijuana case and "out of state wine purchases" case the SCOTUS took the control out from the states and gave it to the federal government. Yes, technically they ruled that the federal gov't already had control, but the result was less state control.

In the eminent domain case they took the rights from the individual to his property and gave it to the government. While they didn't rule that the constitution prohibited this, it was still a case of control moving up hill, away from individuals.

So IMHO, I wouldn't call that a benefit for states rights, but a continuation on the theme of rights and control moving farther away from the individual. Additionally, I don't think the eminent domain case means the states the only one who can wrest property from the owners, I'm sure the federal gov't could do it as well. All they ruled was the individual is not the master of their domain ( no Seinfeld joke )
So if the gov't wants your property, even if the reason is that some other person "bribed" them with the promise of more taxes, there's nothing you can do but stand there holding your... ( Seinfeld joke here )

Re:Took from the Individual, gave to the state

[Guuge]

In the eminent domain case they took the rights from the individual to his property and gave it to the government.

Eminent domain has existed for a long, long time. You have no constitutional right to be free from eminent domain. The only questions are these: Is the property for public use? And did the owner receive a fair compensation? They are both nontrivial questions, but they really have nothing to do with the supposed right of an individual to be free from eminent domain.

So if the gov't wants your property, even if the reason is that some other person "bribed" them with the promise of more taxes, there's nothing you can do but stand there holding your... ( Seinfeld joke here )

Some laws suck. That's why you have to vote. The SCOTUS is not a nanny institution in charge of solving all of your problems.

Re:Took from the Individual, gave to the state

[MDMurphy]

Yes, the public use aspect is what they ruled on. In the previous interpretation, it was the public who got the property. (roads, public buildings, dams ) In the recent case they allowed a local government to take the property from one person and gave it to another who bribed them with more tax revenue. The previously accepted definition would NOT call this a case of eminent domain. The majority ruled that "public use" is no longer the standard, but "public purpose". Seizing the property and transferring it another private party offering greater tax revenue was deemed sufficient to call this instance "public purpose".

Fair compensation should not even come up. If I steal your car, but leave a check for high bluebook taped to your garage door there wouldn't be a discussion if the amount was sufficient. For property to pass from one indivudal to another there should be some agreement.

The surpreme court is supposed to rule on constitutionality. They screwed the pooch on the the eminent domain one. O'Conner summed it up well:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

T-Minus Ten and Counting

[Anonymous Coward]

"... Houston, we are now T-minus 10 years to Civil War, engage spin control overdrive, pogrom coverup system enabled, prayer channel volume to maximum."

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are moderation points when you want them?

something's wrong with this list

[commodoresloat]

Where's the CowboyNeal option?

James Madison at 7200 RPM

[rlp]

Hopefully, they'll pick someone who will walk down to the National Archives and take the time to read James Madison's little document. Right now we've got justices that are taking direction from international law. I don't recall Madison mentioning international law. But I suppose it explains the Kelo decision - they must have looked at law in Zimbabwe.

Re:James Madison at 7200 RPM

[magefile]

I've heard this before, but can you give me an example or examples of SCOTUS taking cues from international law?

Re:James Madison at 7200 RPM

[Whyte]

Right now we've got justices that are taking direction from international law.

International Law is simply the cummulation of treaty documents signed by the Executive branch and ratified by the Senate.

What you mean is foreign law. But when we began this experiment in democracy (the U.S. of A.), we borrowed all of our common law from one place - the British judicial system. So expecting our justices to operate in a vacuum isn't all that reasonable.

Beyond that you will see from time to time other foreign law cited by SCOTUS Justices. But usually it isn't citing precident, but rather an administrative way of handling a problem that has worked for other countries. Much like you will see during the development of all public policy.

SCOTUS is frequently called on to provide Administrative law, or operational instructions, due to the fact that the Legislature does such a poor job at oversight and self-correction.

Miranda warnings given by police during custodial arrest situtations provided by Miranda v. Arizona is an excellent instruction. Mirandizing was not a function of Legislative law, but Administrative (Judicial) law. You can thank John Marshall, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for allowing SCOTUS to create administrative law - all three made it happen in Mayberry v. Madison.

Story at Wikinews

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the link to the story at wikinews:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_ Court_Justice_O'Connor_to_retire

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I think liberal vs. conservative is not nearly as important as arguing law vs. arguing one's faith system.

When one's arguments are based on law, we can go to the law and discuss. If someone is alienated, you have the constitution to back you up, that the american people fought and died to bring about.

When one's arguments are based on personal faith, even pratictioners of your own faith may differ with you. If someone is alienated, the debate comes down to "my God is bigger than your God." And just about every faith system in America was, at one time or another, at the wrong end of those discussions, remembers it, and does not want to see it happen again.

A New Wind is Blowing through the Land

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope that Bush has the good sense and courage to appoint Judge Janice Rogers Brown to fill this vacancy. She's an exceptionally talented and able black woman from California who just won confirmation to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

For those concerned about the government taking their home for a Walmart, she's solidly against the government abusing eminent domain to enrich private developers. The daughter of a poor Alabama sharecropper, she consistly sides with those who lack political power and connections--those who can't keep their homes from being taken away with a single, well-placed phone call.

Brown would also expose just how condescending modern liberalism is toward black people. In every other group (i.e. Jews), a multiplicy of viewpoints is accepted by all. But liberals viciously attack any black person who dares to break with the one point of view they dictate as acceptable. Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Janice Brown are all exceptionally intelligent and able. As you'll notice if there are confirmation hearings, like Condi, she's quite attractive and articulate.

Liberalism treats blacks as if they must live on the liberal plantation and always vote Democratic. No thinking is allowed. Liberals do not like 'uppity' blacks. They like race-ranting mouthpieces like Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Sharpton. Fortunately, a new wind is blowing.

You can read more about Judge Janice Rogers Brown here and here.

The negatives? You hear that soon enough, stuff so vile you'll wonder why Judge Brown has not been locked up in an institution for the criminally insane. Write those who say such things off as bigots.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, Editor: The Life of Toussaint L'Overture: The Negro Patriot of Hayti

It was a blow against NIMBYs

[infonography]

NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard.

Suburbanites demand good schools and police, but when it comes time to pay to for them they vote down levies and taxes to pay for them. In some ways it's just like that P.O.S. No child left behind bill of Shrub's. Lots of demands but no money to make the changes, just lots of hard work for free. Also they chase out revenue for other sources like Factories, researce sites, Prisons, and commercial complexes. Since they are rich and educated they lobby for State funding for their services and it comes out of the state coffers instead of going to fix urban schools and roads in areas more taxes are collected. In the end you don't get services for free. Somebody must pay the taxes and better it was a local business then some already overburdened city company half a state away.

Re:It was a blow against NIMBYs

[corngrower]

How wrong you are. Typically the higher educated, higher paid people living in suburbs are the ones voting for bond levys for improved schools and services. It is the poorer people, the ones barely making a go of it and for which that extra $20 per month in taxes makes it even more difficult to balance their budgets, that vote against such things. Look at where the best schools generally are, the suburbs (especially white collar suburbs).

Used to be that businesses paid the lions share of taxes. IIRC, that's not the case anymore. Individual taxpayers foot most of the bill for government, or at least the Federal government.

The poor quality of urban schools has nothing to do with lack of funding. In Minnesota the urban schools have the highest per student spending and are the worst at educating these students. By far the worst. The problem in Minnesota is that many of the inner city families are non-english speaking and students do not get proper support from their families and social environment to encourage them to do well in school. And by the way, it's the suburbanites who end up paying for the additional costs of the inner city schools, not the other way around.

Re:It was a blow against NIMBYs

[infonography]

Typical GOP/Fox News pablum. It's the

"non-english speaking and students do not get proper support from their families and social environment "

Where did I hear something just like it? hmmm.. was it this?

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here
in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good
Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and
Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're
good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing
to the soil.

You know that Johnny Werzner kid - the kid who delivers papers in the
neighborhood? He's a fine kid. Some of the neighbors say he smokes
crack, but I don't believe it. Anyway, for his 10th birthday, all he
wanted was a burrow owl, just like his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow
owl. I'll never ask for anything else as long as I live". So the guy
breaks down and buys him a burrow owl. Anyway at 10:30 the other night I
go out into my yard and there's the Werzner kid looking up in the tree. I
said, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I'm looking for my burrow
owl." I say, "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a
burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground! Why the hell do you think they
call it a burrow owl, anyway?!" Now Stuart, do you think a kid like that
is gonna know what the queers are doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this, about 10 years ago, the summer my oldest boy
Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival that comes to town every year?
Well this year it came with a ride called the Mixer. The man said "Keep
your head and arms inside the mixer at all times." But Bill Jr., he was a
daredevil, just like his old man. He was leaning out saying, "Hey
everybody! Look at me, look at me!" POW! He was decapitated. They found
his head over by the snowcone concession. A few days after that, I open
up the mail and there's a pamphlet in there, from Pueblo, Colorado. And
it's addressed to Bill Jr. And it's entitled, "Do you know what the
queers are doing to our soil?"

Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big
underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example.
Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you
can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming.
But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers.
They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay
Martians. I swear to God.

You know what Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other people, here
in the trailer park.

Stuart by The Dead Milkmen.

Tough Job

[Doc Ruby]

I liked her apparent adherence to the law, rather than ideology, too. Which is why I don't want her to step down. From its absolute beginnings of official existence, the "Bush v Gore" decision, the Bush administration has politicized the Judicial Branch, and the Supreme Court, more than any other administration of which I know. So losing an independent, who will be replaced by a partisan, is a letdown that she is enabling. Yelling at the neighbors' kids seems like a relatively low priority for someone given the kind of power, for life, that she was.

Now, since you had the cojones to call me a "Troll", I want you to back that up. What makes my post a troll?

Re:Tough Job

[interiot]

C'mon, it's not just Bush v Gore. Obviously Roe v Wade is a huge part of the politization, and it's not something that only the Bush administration started. Half of it is because due to control of both the presidency and both houses of congress, this may be their best shot to overturn Roe V Wade.

General public awareness of decisions has also increased the politization of SCOTUS... eg. any cases which makes some group of people think the SCOTUS made a completely brain-dead decision... whether that be Pat Robertson's constant moanings and the general attitude of fundies towards the judiciary, or whether it's cases that seemingly everyone (liberals and conservatives alike) seem to be upset about.

Re:Tough Job

[Doc Ruby]

You just restated my statement backwards. I said the Bush admin has politicized the court since the beginning of the Bush admin, which was in Bush v Gore. The politicization of the court has increased as the reach of the Executive Branch has reached structural limits, requiring the Executive to exert power through other structural means. Like Cheney's unprecedented direction of the CIA, from the agency's premises. Like the recent Bush instructions to the Senate Majority Leader, Frist, that Frist restart Congressional hearings on Bolton's UN Ambassador appointment, after Frist had given them up. There has been increasing politicization of every part of the American government, most notably since Republicans took Congress in 1994, but peaking earlier under FDR, and earlier during Reconstruction. But even Reagan and Bush Sr, facing Democratic Congresses with power to reject, appointed only Justices to the court with predispositions closer to a compromise than to their own favored poles of power.

Re:We are sooooo....

[snorklewacker]

Is abortion birth control to you?

No, but there are a number of people who believe the converse is true. In fact they legislated this particular belief for some time, until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. This was not idle "hand-wringing". This was reality. The belief that things cannot go backward is not well-founded, as there are a number of pharmacists who refuse to do their job and prescribe birth control to anyone. Or refer them to a different pharmacy or pharmacist, and in some cases actually holding their prescription hostage. What will SCOTUS's decision be if Catholic Healthcare West decided to make a similar decision?

Real issues. Not hand-wringing.

Re:Florida, Florida

[OMEGA Power]

You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election

In reality (as opposed to the warped mind of whatever right-wing radio host/blogger/tv personality you got that idea from) the Fla court said that the votes should be counted according to state election law which said that if "a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office...the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office (Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166, Paragraph 1 of the Florida State Code) and " A vote for a candidate or ballot measure shall be counted if there is a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice." (Paragraph 5a of same.) Now that that is out of the way feel free to explain what law the Fla Supreme Court was trying to change and how they were changing it and ?

The LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post all conducted their own independent counts and found that GWB was the winner.

Actually, they counted the votes using 6 different standards/methods (including the one ordered by the FLA Supreme Court) and everyone of them showed Gore winning.

Roe V Wade and Population Death

[linzeal]

Abortion is based on the right to privacy in this country you are deluded to think that is a rock solid anchor in the constitution to base it on. Pro-abortion lawmakers know this and so do the pro-lifers trying to get more humane laws. Eventually it will be changed either way as it is too weak to stand as it is.

I am not right wing in the least but I do think the fact that up to 40 million humans that have been aborted since Roe v Wade in this country has changed the demographics to the point where we live in an artificially old person world that is increasingly conservative. When the baby boomers die we will lose a large chunk of our population and wealth will be artificially greater than ever before. I don't think the termination of a sizeable portion of our generation will make it worth it.

Re:Roe V Wade and Population Death

[sconeu]

Abortion is based on the right to privacy in this country you are deluded to think that is a rock solid anchor in the constitution to base it on.

The right to privacy is implied by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth.

Re:Roe V Wade and Population Death

[xpyr]

Abortion is based on the right to privacy

No, abortion is based on the right that a woman has a choice to do what she wants to her body and that you can't supercede someone's rights with anothers rights.

When the baby boomers die we will lose a large chunk of our population

The human race is not in danger of extinction. Your line of thought is flawed.

Pro-abortion lawmakers know this and so do the pro-lifers trying to get more humane laws.

Oh you mean like the law in some states that were turned down by the courts where a teenager who is pregnant has to get their parental consent first before she can get an abortion.

And we're not called pro-abortion. We're pro-choice. If a woman is pregnant, she can decide what to do about it. She can keep it, have an abortion, keep it but then give it up for adoption. We support any choice she makes.

Unlike what alot of pro-lifers say that we just want every woman who gets pregnant to have an abortion. We just ensure she has the right to choice. Even some of the extreme pro-lifers have said that a woman who has sex unprotected shouldn't take the morning after pill. In other words, they just want to punish women for having sex. And most of these are christian men. Even if the woman had been raped, they wouldn't have changed their mind.

I did hear one time of this christian woman who said abortion was wrong, bad, etc. But she got pregnant one time, and what do you know, had an abortion. To this day, she still emphasizes abortion is wrong and denies she ever had an abortion. Such a hipocrit.

Re:Roe V Wade and Population Death

[linzeal]

You are wholly ignorant of what I am talking about here. Read up on Roe v Wade and understand that it cannot stand on the right of privacy forever. Eventually a case will reach the supreme court which will draw this out and effectively make the legislation from the court that created Roe V Wade invalid. Conservative in regards to the constitution means they take an almost literal approach to its interpretation. If you think that bush will not elect two people who pass this litmus test you are more deluded than I thought.

The human race is in danger as we do not have enough people to take up the jobs when the 40-50 year olds now begin to retire in 10-20 years. Many countries have been offseting this with increased immigration such as Germany and England in Europe and Canada and US in the Americas. This is completely unsustainable as conditions improve in their home countries people will be less likely to come to the US to work shitty jobs when they can stay home and get a better job. We cannot expect the world to be our wageslaves forever as our currency is only worth as much as other countries are willing to buy it for and as hatred against the US rises our precious dollar drops in value. We will not be able to pay a wage great enough to entice people to come here. Minimium wage is already impossible to live on in large cities. As a side, Japan is hated by most of Asia still at some deep level and cannot recruit enough people to work in their service industries even now. When 3rd world countries have better population balance than most 1st world countries something is broken.

'Pro-choice' is deceptive doublespeak from a relatively new form of radicalized violent feminism. When I hear those words from someone purporting to cherish such beliefs all I can see is the cold heart of a deluded brainwashed monster. Yes, feminists can be extremists just as much as Islamists (Bin Laden) and Christians (Waco, TX). However, women in this country have the blood of 40 million on their hands a many times increase than all the wars of the 20th century. I would say the greatest murderer in the 20th century is abortion doctors and the women who choose abortion when history takes note of how the population changed so radically in the past 30 some odd years. You cannot hide the missing population forever like the Chinese tried to do with death camps. I can see the Times magazine now, "Abortion: where has the youth of America gone and who will take care of the old?"

PS. If you think robotics are going to be anywhere near useability for service jobs in the public sector in 10-20 years you are getting different information than I am and I am studying it. I hope you enjoy the lower crime rates bought by exterminating 10's of millions of black children, because I know you will justify it with the mindless label of "choice" as if millions of individuals privately made such decisions. When in reality such eugenic results were the reason abortion was brought about in the first place.

Re:Roe V Wade and Population Death

[xpyr]

Eventually a case will reach the supreme court which will draw this out and effectively make the legislation from the court that created Roe V Wade invalid.

Pro-lifers have been saying this for years actually. You claiming not to be a pro-lifer sure do sound like one. But the feminists movement won't let that happen.

If you think that bush will not elect two people who pass this litmus test you are more deluded than I thought.

A filibuster of 41 votes from the senate is all it takes to prevent bush from putting on a judge that is anti-woman. And he can't put one on their unless he has the support of the senate.

The human race is in danger as we do not have enough people to take up the jobs when the 40-50 year olds now begin to retire in 10-20 years.

So that means no one is having babies anymore? Thats what you make it sound like. But what happens in an economy when there is less people then jobs that need to be filled? Salaries go up as job demand increases. That's how the economy works.

as hatred against the US rises our precious dollar drops in value

So then the jobs will go elsewhere. Abortion is legal in lots of countries, not just the US and they're doing just fine.

Minimium wage is already impossible to live on in large cities.

Minimum wage jobs were designed for teenagers and college/university students before they got their career going. They weren't ever meant to be lived off of like a career is meant to be. You could get a better paying job at a warehouse without having to go to school.

As a side, Japan is hated by most of Asia still at some deep level and cannot recruit enough people to work in their service industries even now. When 3rd world countries have better population balance than most 1st world countries something is broken.

Then why does Japan have such a good economy? Explain that. As for 3rd world countries having better population control, then why are millions starving in africa? They aren't taught about proper family planning, which Bush had pulled the funding for, simply because it was also used to do abortions. Having the ability to have an abortion if needed to is part of proper family planning.

'Pro-choice' is deceptive doublespeak from a relatively new form of radicalized violent feminism.

Exactly how is it double speak? And how is it violent feminism? Do they go and blow up clinics? Blow up trains? Shoot pro-life protestors? NO.

When I hear those words from someone purporting to cherish such beliefs all I can see is the cold heart of a deluded brainwashed monster. Yes, feminists can be extremists just as much as Islamists (Bin Laden) and Christians (Waco, TX).

So you're calling me a monster now? Now look at whose deluded. The pro-life camp has blocked clinics that provide abortions to keep women from going in their. Even nurses and doctors and other staff. They've shot at doctors who provide safe legal abortions. So who seems to be in the extreme here? Not pro-choicers apparently. Exactly what do you find wrong with giving a woman the choice whether she wants to keep her pregnancy going or to abort it? If you claim I'm lying, then it only shows your ignorance of the facts.

However, women in this country have the blood of 40 million on their hands a many times increase than all the wars of the 20th century.

And these women had chosen to have a safe legal abortion for whatever reason. Not everything that is created is meant to survive. Face it. Are you against miscarriages too? Because they're technically nature's way of an abortion.

I would say the greatest murderer in the 20th century is abortion doctors and the women who choose abortion when history takes note of how the population changed so radically in the past 30 some odd years.

The definition of murder is illegal homicide. Abortion is not illegal, therefore it's not

Re:Florida, Florida

[FungiFromYuggoth]

What do you mean? All judgements set a precedent. It's a question of whether (especially in a very specific case like the one in Florida at that time) there's another similar case that would hinge on that precedent. Nothing like that has come up again since, so it's a non-issue, so far.

Okay, much is explained, you're just ignorant.

Look at the decision. You'll see that the court ruled (anonymously) that different counting standards violated the Equal Protection clause, which is a completely novel argument.

Think about the implications there, and remember Brown v. Board of Ed.. If the different standards of when-is-a-chad-not-a-chad violate equal protection, don't the different spoilage rates from different systems also violate equal protection? How does one use the equal protection amendment to throw out all undervotes because some undervotes might not be counted?

What about the list of black 'felon voters' who were struck from the rolls? Doesn't that violate Equal Protection? (Race was taken into account; Florida keeps track of voter race because of the Civil Rights act. Ironic.)

BTW, Florida spoilage rates are a lot higher for black voters than for white voters. Your 'weather' rains a little harder on people who vote Democrat.

From the decision: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." AKA, "This decision only applies to this case".

That aspect of the decision has been widely criticized, but you didn't know about it. Of course, you still felt qualified to heap scorn on those who had problems with the decision.

Not quite

[Scurrilous Knave]

The majority of this country chose [Bush] ...

Actually, the majority of the country did not choose him. The first time, not even the majority of voters chose him. But even in '04, if you count up the number of voters who selected him, it's nowhere near "the majority of this country."

I suppose it's possible to argue that people who don't vote don't deserve to be considered. I would not so argue.

Re:We are sooooo....

[whats_a_zip]

"Real issues. Not hand-wringing"

I see it as hand wringing. Taking a point, a move, a shift, and extending it as far as you can in a negative direction, in order to get your way. I fall right of center. I admit it, I'm ok with it. Withholding birth control is over the top for me. Most of my "right wing" buddies, (which includes some Catholics), would feel the same way.
You have a lot of factors in play here. Vast public opinion, free market forces, over stepping of bounderies... I feel safe in concluding that would never happen. In fact, I'm betting my kid's America on it.
Feel free to go back to hand wringing though.

Slow down cowboy

[glrotate]

I was only disagreeing with the statement that there hasn't been any innovative legal thinking in the past 20 years.

Nice kneejerk rant though.

Re:Slow down cowboy

[Doc Ruby]

No, you were also showing which decisions you don't like, and calling them "innovative". Including one of your two, which was not innovative. I'm not familiar enough with the second to comment on its lack of innovation. But you are, revealing your interest. And your resistance to admitting that you believe the court should be conservative really outs you as a cryptoconservative, despite your ignoring the question. Then using words like "kneejerk rant" to describe my simple, direct, and calmly factual insights showed you up competely. You're not only a weaselly ideologue, you're not very good at the weasel part. I've already commented on your ideological competence.

I'll take that.

[khasim]

Rice is also an expert on the former Soviet Union.

And in 2005, that is about as important as being an expert on Elizabethan England. Maybe you should include her best time on the Rubic's Cube, too.

I find Ms. Rice to be very impressive, ...

I'm sure you do. And I'm also sure that you cannot name a single item that is "impressive" that she has accomplished since she was appointed to either of her jobs.

Do you know what "racist" means? Would you find her as "impressive" if she was a white woman?

How about "classist"? Would you find her as "impressive" if she were a rich white woman?

How about we wrap this up and check if you would find a rich white man as "impressive" with the same list of accomplishments since being appointed?

I didn't think so. And before you go off making claims about how you aren't racist, be sure you include specific accomplishments. No one cares about some rich white guy learning to play the piano.

I believe that if Rice were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the second coming of MLK.

You can believe whatever you want.

But, just maybe, you should look at what the differences between those two really are. Why don't you try naming them, other than one was a liberal and the other was not.

Those who cry about "no WMDs" generally aren't worth trying to educate about the war beyond their strict viewpoint.

The fact is, our current regime claimed over and over that Saddam had them and that we knew where they were.

How do they spell "lies" on your world?

I used to think liberals cared about human rights, but not when human rights are promoted by a Republican apparently.

How do you define "human rights"?

Is it okay if we only kill 1/10th the number of people that Saddam did as long as we're doing it as part of the "war on terror"?

How does killing innocent people equate to "human rights"?

And before you go off on how many people Saddam killed, you'd better be damn sure you want to start making comparisions between the USofA and a 3rd world tin-pot dictator.

Re:I'll take that.

[bluGill]

I'm sure you do. And I'm also sure that you cannot name a single item that is "impressive" that she has accomplished since she was appointed to either of her jobs.

... Thinks...

Nope. Come to think of it any adviser or cabinet member who does something impressive is failing at her job! Their job is to tell the president how to look good, so if they look good they failed at placing all the credit on the president. If they look bad, well it is their own stupid fault for the stupid idea they were proposing. Hard place to be in, but they get a lot of behind the scene power.

It is.

[CrazyDuke]

It is already an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Violating the oath to uphold the constitution is an impeachable offence to say the very least. And, yes, they can be impeached.

Re:It is.

[mi]

against unreasonable searches and seizures

The notion of "Eminent Domain" is also in the Constitution and has been considered "reasonable" for centuries.

The recent Supreme Court ruling shows to many (myself included), that a new law (or, better yet, a clarifying ammendment) is needed, and I'm glad, Congress is finally doing something useful again.

Violating the oath to uphold the constitution is an impeachable offence to say the very least. And, yes, they can be impeached.

Who are you going to impeach? Supreme Court judges? Yeah, that's what they do in Ecuador and I would not like that...

Re:Florida, Florida

[DoubleD]

Oh the joys of selected reading. Here is a better href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.bal lots/stories/main.html">link that actually seems to describe the study from a non-biased point of view. (link courtesy of another post in this article).

Summary.

Scenarios described:
1. SCOTUS does not intervene. Hand recount of all votes.
2. Hand recount in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. Described as Al Gore's original request.
3. Palm Beach standard used for all counties.
4. Overvotes included. Marked a candidate but also wrote in the name.
5. Confusing ballot design (butterfly ballots,etc) where 2 candidates were voted for.

Scenarios 1 and 2 showed a slightly bigger Bush win and a slightly smaller Bush win respectively.

Scenario 3 showed Gore winning by 42 votes.

Scenario 4 showed Gore winning by 200 votes.

Scenario 5 is the most interesting as the the votes are described as invalid by any interpretation of the law but that Gore potentially lost thousands of votes in this manner.

The truely sad thing is failure of the 2004 election to put the election results and vote counting procedure beyond reproach.

Huh?

[whats_a_zip]

Right, the person retiring was not in favor of Kelo. Nor am I. Nor were the conservative judges. It was the left that were in favor of this decision: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
I'm not even sure what you've got your pants in a twist about? Just looking for a right winger to take a swing at?
What a pointless reply.

Re:Huh?

[d34thm0nk3y]

O'Connor is pro-abortion and pro-affirmative action that hardly sounds conservative to be.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have received a particularly poor grade in Constitutional Law.

This was a Federal Election. The conduct of Federal Elections is governed by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Code, with significant powers delegated to the States. The hard cut off date (which was December 12) is required by 3 U.S.C. sec. 5 (which you would know if you read ANY of the relevant opinions).

The Florida Supreme Court has no authority to abrogate a cut off date specified under Federal law for a Federal Election. The U.S. Supreme Court was quite clear that the recount could not proceed because it could not be completed by that date in a constitutional manner (U.S. constitution, that is).

Quoting from section III of the opinion:

As the dissent [in the Florida Supreme Court decision] noted:

"In [the four days remaining], all questionable ballots must be reviewed by the judicial officer appointed to discern the intent of the voter in a process open to the public. Fairness dictates that a provision be made for either party to object to how a particular ballot is counted. Additionally, this short time period must allow for judicial review. I respectfully submit this cannot be completed without taking Florida's presidential electors outside the safe harbor provision...

this was an important point, because, also from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, 1.

If you look at 3 U.S.C. sec. 2, you would know that failure to meet the December 12 date would mean that the Florida State LEGISLATURE would have selected the electors, which means ALL SIX MILLION VOTES WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT. (Republican legislature, Republican governor, and you think that they'd send Democratic electors?)

Also, you stated that "They also cannot change the law after the results have been certified and the winner has been declared, because the injury cannot be redressed." That's odd... because the U.S. Supreme Court noted

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes.

yet the Florida State Supreme Court purported to change the law on December 8...

If you really are a lawyer, you're a damn poor one. Just a little advice from one actual lawyer (licensed in Illinois) to a supposed one...

What a bunch of whiners.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought /. was full of intelligent, critically thinking, well educated people.
Of course after reading all the f-stick liberal posting on here, I know that undeniably to be false.
I guess you people know nothing of government, of law, of freedom, and most importantly of the human condition.
The one and only solution to the human condition is individual liberty.
Government and law restrict freedom and individual liberty - they are always a force against humanity.
Also remember Quinn's First Law: Liberalism always begets the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Re:What a bunch of whiners.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Government and law restrict freedom and individual liberty"

And we are seeing that more than ever in the US government today.

Consider any instance where a big corporations wants to increase its bottom line and that desire conflicts with peoples' right as granted by the Fair Use Act. What side of the fence is the US government taking? The big businesses side! Which beggs the question: Who is more important. People or corporations? My vote is for people.

SETH EZRA IZENZON for Supreme Court!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://izenson.net/
READ His magnificent views in FULL SPLENDOR!

He will be an administrator for this country!

SETH EZRA IZENZON, the new way!

Re:Great!

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

A lot of people are complaining about parent characterizing this court as "center-left". Look at the username for a hint why. Dagny Taggart is a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. This means that parent's conception of "right" and "left" is probably the Randian individualism vs. communism.

Just because neo-cons evolved from right-wingers doesn't mean that they're not communist. A state-backed and state-helped "private" corporation is no better than a state-run industry. If "private" corporations can use eminent domain - a power of the state - then aren't the state and the corporations the same thing - a feature of a Communist government?

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Chris Burke]

Option 1 would be the far more moderate choice, and less likely to create a protracted battle in the Senate, which SEEMS to be what he was hinting at he wants when he said in his speech that he wanted a "dignified" nomination process - of course this could just be posturing.

Come on, haven't you decoded the Presidental Code yet? When he says he wants a dignified nomination process, he means he wants the Democrats to shut up and just confirm his choice. Just like when he says he wants to be "a uniter", and what he means is he wants people to stop expressing disagreement with him. He sure "united" when he drove Powell, the only competent member of his cabinet, out of office. Now everybody around him would tow the line!

By the way, the idea that Gonzales is the more moderate choice for justice really frightens me. This was the man who was, as far as I can tell, appointed specifically to make people who said "Oh, thank God John Ashcroft is leaving! Anybody will be better than him!" eat crow.

Re:Bring on another Scalia

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are you for states' rights or not? The decision was that the state law was not unconstitutional, it didn't extend emminent domain.

God, what a bunch of fucking whiners Republicans and Libertarians are.
"Waah, we want the government to control who sleeps with who, and what people do in their own houses, and whether they can smoke something other than tobacco or ingest some drug other than alcohol. In fact, if we disagree with something on 'moral' grounds, it should be legislated, heavily. But if it involves economic policy, don't let the government decide anything at all."

Yeah, let's be just like Taliban Afghanistan, a fucking warlord state ruled by fundamentalist, religious nutcases.

Stupid fuck nut, you, Bush, and Scalia are the ones destroying America.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ScentCone]

which is a completely novel argument

But the courts, in particular the circuit and supreme courts, are like factories for novel arguments. That's sort of their jobs, really - to confront the awkward stuff, and find a way that the Constitution speaks to (or about) it. Certainly one could say the same thing about Roe v. Wade. That was a ruling that really needed to be made, and the use of the "privacy" angle would certainly be considered novel. I've got no problem with novel arguments as long as they're rational.

don't the different spoilage rates from different systems also violate equal protection

No, because the causes of the spoilage rate aren't found in the actions of the elections officials (in the way that chad-divining were, for example). You're confusing correlation with causation. If 100 voters in one polling place hose up their ballots, there's no equal protection angle on it when 200 voters hose up their ballots in the next zip code. If the procedures in both those places were run by the same authorities, and there was a reasonable understanding that people were, through the actions of the electoral officials, going to all be saved from low-IQ card-handling mistakes, then different results at different polls would be a reasonably challengable issue. But not when we're talking about more voters in one district who half-way punch out three choices for president than do the voters in another district.

spoilage rates are a lot higher for black voters than for white voters. Your 'weather' rains a little harder on people who vote Democrat.

Again, correlation vs. causation. That, or I'm just being polite and not saying that people inclined to vote Democrat are for some reason less able to think through the complexities of using the polling equipment. I mean, I know that Democratic party affiliation tends to hand in hand with wanting government to do things for you, but surely even that stops at having government look over your shoulder while you're voting to make sure you don't make mutually exclusive votes. Or that you can read, for example.

That aspect of the decision has been widely criticized, but you didn't know about it

Actually, I have read the entire decision, and am aware of that statement. That does not stop a future court, confronted with exactly the same circumstances, from considering how this event was handled. But it probably was very important for the court to indicate that they were responding to the specifics of the challenge at hand (the way that the counting was brought up by the Gore camp, and administered, moving-target-style by the local officials, and then subjected to changing rules by the state court).

Of course, you still felt qualified to heap scorn on those who had problems with the decision.

Follow the thread back. The person to whom I first responded set the scorn tone (aimed at O'Conner). I replied mildly in kind to the person who posted the comment, and who seemed quite confused over whether or not somehow O'Conner "helped get Dubya the cool job." That demanded first, a reminder that the votes involved were objectively clear on who won, and that second, if there was a round of judicial politicking, it was to be found in the Florida courts, with the SCOTUS as an appropriate check-and-balance.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Anonymous Coward]

You make some good points, but I'd argue that option 2 is unlikely to happen or at least the person finally confirmed won't be in that camp.

Abortion is a key wedge issue for the Republican party. It fires up their base like no other. There's a huge, well-funded infrastructure in place that aids Republicans in fundraising and getting out the vote on election day, all based on this single issue. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a significant loss for the Republicans and their strategists know it. They need that carrot on the stick to keep social conservatives politically active. Call it the Rove strategy: feed the base, demonize your opponents, and draw lines in the sand. Abortion is a key in that, but a fine line needs to be tread so the base keeps its hopes alive while making sure they never quite get what they want.

Here's how I think it'll play out: Bush will nominate someone so far out there that they'll be unacceptable to all but the most ardent wingnuts. There'll be a showdown and the "Gang of 14" will be forced to make good on their agreement, thus dooming the nomination. This will fire up the base and give them someone to blame, i.e. the immoral, terrorist-loving pussies aka liberals and moderate Republicans who have "betrayed" the party (goodbye McCain '08, hello President Frist).

A deal will then be brokered that clears the way for a moderate judge to be confirmed. Republicans will thus be able to keep their wedge issue while saving face among social conservatives. Everyone wins. Wait, no, Machiavellian Republican* douchebags win, everyone else loses.

* At least they claim to be Republican, though the facts prove otherwise (militarily inept, fiscally irresponsible, freedom hating, federal gov't expanding, etc.)

Don't forget BANANAs

[cpeterso]

BANANA = "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything"

Yes, EXACTLY.

[katharsis83]

We need justices who will follow the Constitution closely, and stick with strict constructionism:

1. Judges who will allow state marijuana legalization to stand because the 10th Amendment reserves all rights not listed above to the States.

2. Judges who will preserve abortion because a woman's right to privacy is given in the 4th Amendment, and not open to the federal government to legislate.

3. Judges who will ensure that any detention authorized by the Executive is subject to independent review, and preferably, trial by jury, thus maintaining the Bill of Rights' delcaration of due process and speedy trial as valid even during the "War on terror."

4. Judges who will ensure that the 1st Amendment's prohibition on the State establishment of religion is maintained, so that for every 10 Commandments we will also have the Analects of Confucious and quotations from Mohammed displayed in Texas and Kentucky.

Good.

I agree with you.

"looking to foreign law"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about he nominates someone who has the crazy idea of actually reading and interpreting US law instead of legislating from the bench or looking to foreign law.

Foreign law has been looked to for millenia when the native law is unclear! It's not just natural and proper for the U.S. court system, the practice predates colonization! Also, most cited instances of "legislating from the bench" are where the justices are clearly interpreting established law, often recognizing constitutional limits on Congress's authority (which since the 14th amendment are also limits on the states). Turn off the radio, grab a history book, and learn something about the world.

Re:"looking to foreign law"

[kmac06]

Also, most cited instances of "legislating from the bench" are where the justices are clearly interpreting established law.

Please, tell me where in the Constituion, or in any document from that era, does it say that abortion at any time in the pregnancy is a protected right?

Turn off CNN and stop reading the NY Times, grab a copy of the Constitution, and learn something about the world.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on...this is Bush we're talking about. The options you presented are what reasonable, intelligent presidents might do. I have 4 words that should send a chill down the spine of every freedom-loving American...

Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft

(leave now before they start rounding people up for internment)

Re:Florida, Florida

[ThePlague]

He did not cite 3 sources, he made a claim regarding 3 newspapers that, if true, would validate his contention.

To illustrate the difference, here's an obvious example. If I were to say: "Bush said that his primary mission as president is to line the pockets of his supporters", I did not cite Bush, rather attributed a (presumably) false paraphrase to him.

Please Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Condi is a national security ADVISOR. She is not the head of a Cabinet like Rumsfeld or Powell were. As an advisor, she merely advises. So did Rumsfeld and Powell, who, being cabinet heads, had far more power than Condi. Moderators, please check your facts.

Re:Please Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

Condi is a national security ADVISOR. She is not the head of a Cabinet like Rumsfeld or Powell were. As an advisor, she merely advises.

And as someone who directly advised the most powerful man in the world, she probably wielded as much power as anyone you mentioned in that post.

If anything, moving her to State may have lessened her powers of persuasion in this area, given the long-running tension between that department and the rest of the Washington spin machine where international issues are concerned.

Correcting myself

[NoData]

Oof. Buddhism was a bad automatic example. Buddhism is actually, strictly speaking, the largest non-theistic religion, although with some sects thats debatable.

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that that is out of the way feel free to explain what law the Fla Supreme Court was trying to change and how they were changing it and ?

As you noted, on December 8 the Florida Supreme Court changed the standard for evaluating overvotes and undervotes through the "clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice" test -- note the lack of any statutory authority. They could probably even do that...

What law did they really change? Well, they attempted to change 3 U.S.C. sec 5, because there was no conceivable way that 64 counties worth of overvotes and undervotes could be fully evaluated (recounted, challenged, and reviewed) under a new standard in 4 days.

I already went through the legal exercise here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154577&cid =12964429

Not really worried

[Nemus]

Take a look over the past few years of Supreme Court History. While there certainly are judges (Scalia, Scalia, Scalia) who adhere to a rather rigid ideology, one must remember that the Supreme Court foists on it's members the most powerful force known to man:

Peer Pressure.

When it all comes down to it, the Founders got this one right. As a SC Justice, you cannot be removed from your post except by your own free will or the icy hand of Death. No one's opinion nessecarily need matter to you....except for one simple fact. Most SCOTUS Justices serve I think something like 10-15 years. Imagine having to deal with the same eight people every day....for the next 15 years....and not getting along with them. Despite namecalling and derisive comments, no one can say that an SC Justice is an idiot. These people, no matter how insane or bizarre some of their ideologies may be, are very intelligent, logical people. Even if you disagree with them (Scalia, Scalia, Scalia), you have to grin, swallow and accept the fact that they are not lunatics, but reasoned, seasoned, judiciaries. Disagree with them, but do so respectfully.

To put it simply, while whatever right wing nutbag Bush slams into O'Connor's vacant seat may come into the SC thinking he or she is there to Kick Ass and Chew Bubble Gum, what do you think the odds are that the other eight justices, old, crocthety, and intelligent as they are, are going to allow this Noob to come in and tell them how to do their jobs? I say, not damn likely.

Re:Not really worried

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Intelligence and logic are not bars to insanity. Nor are they bars to desiring to deliver rulings that please those who appointed them and the party to which they belong.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you remember the appointment, you the compromise was that she was old. She was more center-left than the conservatives wanted, but they felt they wouldn't have to put up with her for long. If they rejected her, Clinton would appoint someone to her left and younger. If the Republicans rejected again they would be painted in a bad light.

Re:We are sooooo....

[snorklewacker]

Some of your right wing "buddies" don't feel the same way, and they are stepping over the line. People with the power to really affect the freedoms of others. Free market forces do not exist where markets are not free; I mentioned CHW because they're huge, and the only game in town in some markets. I specifically mentioned some of the interference with free markets going on, like refusing to release a prescription to another pharmacist. Hell, this is just an issue off the top of my head, it's hardly even a cause celebre for me.

But hey, feel free to fall back to name-calling if that makes you feel good. I guess I can't expect everybody to take the same issues seriously that I do.

You Just Can't Tell

[bayers]

Eisenhower promoted Warren to the Supreme Court and he said it was the worst mistake of his life, Warren being one of the most activist judges ever.

Bush Sr promoted Kennedy who he thought was a lot more conservative than he turned out to be. O'Connor was supposed to more conservative than she turned out to be.

When you are promoted to SCOTUS, you've reached the pentultimate spot. You can't be fired and it's almost impossible to impeach you. Now, you can do what you want, everyone else, presidents, congress, be damned.

I'm not worried in the slightest.

Re:You Just Can't Tell

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are promoted to SCOTUS, you've reached the pentultimate spot

By "pentultimate," do you mean penultimate? Wow. Really? What's next?

"Penultimate" means next-to-last. Try using a dictionary next time you try on big words.

O'Connor was also a friend of Betamax

[linefeed0]

If you read the Grokster slip opinion, it becomes somewhat clear that the SC punted on the real issue of law, and sent the case back on a procedural issue, as an improper dismissal (there is the issue of what constitutes contributory infringement, but the unanimous part of the opinion focused instead on the business model question, not on P2P as such).

However, you could already see the factions lining up in the concurring opinions. In one corner, you have Breyer, Stevens, and O'Connor, defending the Betamax ruling, and in the other, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Rehnquist, wanting to water it down in favor of copyright holders. Souter stayed out of the fray and Scalia and Thomas were nowhere to be seen. If I had to guess, I'd say Scalia would rule with Rehnquist out of habit, and Souter would probably side with Stevens given that he did not join the Ginsburg concurrence, but speculating about SC votes is kind of pointless. What it's looking like is that if a serious issue of law were brought up regarding the legality of P2P as such, the vote might be 5-4 one way or the other.

If that is surprising, consider that Betamax itself was a 5-4 decision. A right people take for granted today squeaked by the SC in one vote! Google for it on Findlaw, the dissent in Betamax would have been an incredible handout to the copyright industry. Only three justices on the SC at the time are still in today, and all are expected to retire soon. Stevens and O'Connor ruled in favor of the VCR, Rehnquist ruled for the studios. These issues are still up in the air, and it doesn't help that we've acquired justices like Ginsburg and Kennedy since then.

As an aside, I found O'Connor's dissent on the Kelo eminent domain case very readable and damn near convincing -- and this is an issue I am not convinced on either way. I am quite liberal, but I hate the government acting like a corporation and shafting people to increase tax revenue. It made much more sense to me than Thomas' dissent, partly because I am not convinced that the Constitution says anything on it either way, so she bases her argument deeply in common law. It is too bad she won't be around to continue lending her insights and writing skills to the court. I hope someone like Breyer can carry that torch. I'd warmed up to Kennedy after the Lawrence v. Texas case, but between Kelo and Grokster he's in all the wrong places now.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Valdrax]

I don't suppose the concept of intrinsic human rights has any meaning in your personal ethic system, does it?

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

SengirV why do you hate America?

Re:Great!

[yo_tuco]

" Do you even know what fascism is?"

Well, you can identify elements of fascism. Mabye that's why people use the word. One element is a government tightly coupled with business.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938

Darn if Roosevlt's words don't ring some element of truth in today's US government.

Re:We are sooooo....

[QCompson]

My hands are a bit sweaty from wringing my hands, but I'll try to type this... I would submit that the hawks are making the world more dangerous for Americans. Starting a war based on bogus facts and occupying a foreign land doesn't help national security, it just breeds more enemies.

But hell, we're not going to agree, and I'm sure you're busy enlisting in the army so you can fight in the war you so vehemently support. I'm going to go wring my hands some more.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Flordia ballots become public record after a period of time. I can't remember where I read it but the Miami Herald did a recount of the votes using Gore's set of standards and Bush's.

If the standards Gore wanted used would have been Bush would have won by more votes.

If the standards Bush wanted would have been used Gore would have won by 2 (I think. Can't remember exactly but).

So if either one would have just shut the hell up. They would have won with a hell of a lot less contraversy.

Ironic isn't it.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put!

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

To illustrate the point YET AGAIN, how convincing is someone who posts "Did not!"?

Answer: Not very.

Here's research: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html

Bush would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court would have done nothing.
Bush would have won if Gore had gotten exactly what he wanted.

And that, my friend, beats your "did not".

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html

Then there's this one:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan- june01/recount_4-3.html

And just look at the article Wikipedia cites as proof Gore may have won under some circumstances:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

Not exactly non-partisan journalism.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[magefile]

This is somewhat offtopic, but when you refer to the Gang of 14 in the Senate, is that by analogy with the Gang of Four that used to hold power in China? And could you expand on the analogy a bit for me, since that section of my history is somewhat weak?

Re:Great!

[Rayonic]

7 of the 9 were nominated by republicans.

And also approved by the Senate -- a Senate which not too long ago had a Democrat majority.

And thus we ended up with Republican-nominated judges who supported the Kelo ruling, and other such nonsense.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ThePlague]

Now, that is a cite. However, it does not prove anything, as if you'll read the story:

The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators.

Since the margin was only about 300 or so, and since there were definite partisan shenanigans going on at the precinct level, those 2200 "problem ballots" are more than enough to swing the count the other way. Basically, we'll never know for sure.

Follow that logic!

[bobbuck]

There are SOME lawmakers scrambling to correct this. MOST are not, especially at the state level. The Democrats will try to FILIBUSTER in the senate and it may not pass. It may take a constitutional amemndment to fix this mess and even then if there are still Democrats on the Supreme Court what would it matter? They would just ignore the amendment.

YRO?

[sp3d2orbit]

What does this have to do with online rights? This article should be listed under politics.slashdot.org.

We had a good run

[mclaincausey]

...but the Grand Experiment appears to be dissolving into an un-free state.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[jafac]

On the other hand, Scalia had this to say about the subject:

"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis---that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia, eviscerating the Bush administration's detention of terror suspects without charges or trials.

Text of O'Connor dissent, Kelo v. New London

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posted anonymously to avoid possible karma whoring.)

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded-i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public-in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

I

Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood.

In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5.

Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels-Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for "

To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC's proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of th

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[jafac]

The REAL question, applicable to Slashdot, is where has O'Conner consistently ruled with regard to IP Law issues, corporate oversight/regulation, etc.? I confess, I'm utterly ignorant on this matter.

(I posted Scalia's quote in another response on this thread - it's been one of my "keepers" for quite a while. Fuck inter arma silent legis!)

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[jafac]

close.

Then after repubs retain their margin in congress in 06 elections, Renquist retires, and Bush nominates Ariel Sharon.

Re:We are sooooo....

[Cutting_Crew]

Roe Vs Wade Overturned would not mean that Roe v Wade would mean "literally" overturned. it would just mean that it would be left up to the states.. give it to the states to decide.. which personally i think would be a good thing, as well as gay rights.. leave it up to the states. with these vital issues whats wrong with letting the people decide? i see none.

I'm going to burn some Karma

[DeanFox]

What I like most about this new world order, is an event I'll never forget. Talking with a co-worker, who's a pounding the table Republican Bush supporter, that is now facing some minor charges. Very minor charges in my mind, and I hold no judgment against him but, nevertheless, accusations that are significant in his life...

"No problem, I am innocent." He declares. "I will be found innocent by a jury of my peers." This, being his basic defense and hope.

My response..., "You're no longer guaranteed a trial or even a defense for that matter."

Astonished, "What do you mean?" He says. "I am a patriotic American, I am a believer of 'The American Way', I voted Republican to preserve my way of life."

"What you voted for... my friend", I said, "let's put it this way..., you voted to take away the rights of the bad guys, well... because they're bad, right? To get even, and inflict justice against them."

"Yes I did.", He said. "And I'm proud of it!", pounding the table, "I voted Republican, I support Bush and I'm a patriotic American. These are *bad* people and nothing we can do to them is too harsh, even torture is too good for *them*."

"Well...", I said calmly, "Now, *you're* one of the bad guys."

You know what I will never forget for the rest of my life? The blank look I got in return. Those 10 seconds of his astounded epiphany will last me a life time.

I don't know who wrote the "I did not protest because..." stuff. But, I have personally seen it and experienced it in real time, in my own life, and I now know those words were spoken as was wisdom before their time.

I am seriously suspect of anyone pounding the table for any cause "x". I have proof, backed by psychology, that anyone pounding the table against any "x"... Well, you do the research yourself.

Anyone holding a candle to this administration, to me, is suspect.

A fundamental Christian Republican, in my research, would be begging the government to turn the other cheek. How did the fundamentals, of my Christ Jesus, get so turned around? The fundamentals of my Christ Jesus, is doctrine that these people (Republicans) have never accepted, or by choice have simply turned away from. And for the public record, my Christ? I *believe* you.

Reading Revelation, I never accepted, I could not believe so many "Christians" would accept the "mark" and turn away from the word of God. Not until Bush and his administration and his supporters, the "Christian 'Right'" did I begin to understand.

I believe now in His word more than I ever thought possible. "We are Christians, and speak for Christ", they say, "hate, war, murder, death, kill."

I never understood, until now, the truth Christ Jesus spoke of. That in the name of God, He said, people will murder you, believing that they're doing God's service.

My description? ...Republicans, their goal and what they stand for.

In the USA, we have "churches" kicking out "Democrats" and self proclaimed "liberals" from their congregation as "un-godly", no longer welcome in their congregation. Un-holy, and unworthy of the message of "their" god. I am thankful that they are right. We are not worthy of the message of *their* god. *Our* God is Jesus Christ and his message of salvation.

BTW: I have been moderating and meta-moderating for years now. I already know that the "right" has plants at /. modding down anything that goes against current political policy. They have mod points and will "they" will mod me a troll. But, do you know what? I'll burn some Karma for the truth. This is a very true experience and it really happened and this is what I know to be true.

Mod away "his helpers", mod away.

-[d]-

Re:I'm going to burn some Karma

[Bassman59]

"I don't know who wrote the `I did not protest because...' stuff."

It was Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Re:I'm going to burn some Karma

[DeanFox]

Thank you. These words describe the *blind* in our world, and because I believe the Word of our Holy Father, The truth will be, and is, hidden from these people. These people proclaim they speak for Christ saying: hate, murder, death, kill is our Father's message saying that they are fundamentalist Christians even though the basic fundamental message or our Christ, doesn't even come close to what they preach.

They are blinded, as the Word tells us that they will be. Not unlike the KKK who use the Bible to spread their particular form of hate in God's word. Republicans actually believe, as do the KKK, that they are morally superior to everyone else.

What I read of our Father's Word is that these people (Republicans, as I interpret their message), are self proclaimed "Christians", those who are willing to accept the "mark" denying God's message. They do believe in what they're doing. They'll even murder you in God's name believing that what they're doing is God's work, as we've seen in Iraq.

War, hate, murder, death, kill was, and never has been, the message of our Holy Father's Word. Yet these people (Republicans) see fit to proclaim they are messengers of our Christ Jesus. Revelation come true. I believe more now than I ever have before.

Again, I am willing to take a hit on my karma. Go ahead "his helpers", mod me down.

-[d]-

Re:I'm going to burn some Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW: I have been moderating and meta-moderating for years now. I already know that the "right" has plants at /. modding down anything that goes against current political policy. They have mod points and will "they" will mod me a troll.

It's good to see your tinfoil hat is working.

If your post was modded as a troll, I think it'd have less than a right wing conspiracy to control the hearts and minds of Slashdot (a largely foreign, liberal, and generally irrelevant readership) and more to do with the fact that your post is, in fact, a troll.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[katharsis83]

Care to explain why you think that?

I happen to think Gonzalez shouldn't hold any public office, given his deplorable views on human rights, but his nomination WOULD be the politically moderate decision, since another Scalia/Thomas would generate a huge political battle.

Human rights doesn't get the far left/right nearly as riled up as abortion/seperation of church and state; you can choose to disagree with the status quo (which I do), but that doesn't mean it's not true.

No relation.

[katharsis83]

I meant no comparison between the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, who I admire for their principle, or if not that, at least their political skill, and the "Gang of Four" in 1960's China. The latter created a political firestorm in China that resulted in the death of untold number of civilians, and was a huge setback for Chinese intellectualism. Hundreds of thousands of college students and professors were sent to rural farms to be re-educaed by peasants and to do manual labor. Millions disappeared or were sent to remote jails under conditions similar to Soviet Gulags.

"The group included Mao's widow Jiang Qing and three of her close associates, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four

The "Gang of 14" in the Senate was just something the press came up with as a catchy headline.

he wasn't elected by a majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush was not elected or re-elected by a majority of the people in this country; only by a majority of counted votes.

# people > # voters > # people who voted for Bush

Re:Florida, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

It proves plenty -- basically, to the best of our measuring ability, GWB won the election.

definite partisan shenanigans

those 2200 "problem ballots" are more than enough to swing the count the other way.

again... "did not" response. There's nothing to even statistically suggest that those 2200 ballots would have gone for Gore in the necessary numbers.

If you're happy appearing lazy and partisan, then go with it, but don't pretend that others should be persuaded by your undisclosed knowledge.

Reference to Handmaid's Tale?

[katharsis83]

I was thinking of the same thing after Nov 5, last year.

Scary parallels.

Bring it on, biotch!

[sweetnjguy29]

The changing of justices means little in the grand scheme of our system of law. The current state of Federal law and how our constitution works is fairly stable and is not going to change drastically.

For example, the two recent cases on journalist's protected sources and the eminent domain cases are merely logical extensions of previous court rulings. There have been no drastic changes in the black letter law.

It has been well know among lawyers that journalists could go to jail for failing to reveal their sources.

It has also been well known that the government could take private property and give it to a private individual for a public use. How far the government could go were the questions the court resolved this past week.

With the main corpus of our law unchanging, there are a few areas that could be changed by a supreme court justices vote, most notably abortion rights and the right to privacy in your home. (For the most part, even if the federal law changes, there are quite a few states where u could still get an abortion...or you could go to europe...etc. Its not like they are going to outlaw blowjobs or something. Wait, thats sodomy! Oh shit!)

However, the most important issue up for grabs is how the supreme court interpretes the constitution and statutes by using the judicial philosophy of Strict constructionism.
(Go to this link for an interesting discussion of the different hottly debated philosphies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)

Justice Anthony Kennedy & Intl Law

[rlp]

I've heard this before, but can you give me an example or examples of SCOTUS taking cues from international law?

From Yahoo news article:

Kennedy analyzed four recent Supreme Court civil law rulings, including a discovery dispute between two Silicon Valley giants, a price-fixing case involving vitamin makers, an effort by a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany to reclaim her family's paintings from the Austrian government, and a claim by a Mexican national for damages arising from his abduction and trial in the United States for the torture and murderr of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

But the high court's most controversial reference to foreign law was in its 5-4 ruling in March outlawing the execution of people for crimes committed while they were juveniles. Writing the majority opinion, Kennedy cited international rejection of such executions. DeLay called that "outrageous."

On Friday, however, Kennedy cautiously supported the consideration of international law by U.S. courts.

"It's really quite wrong to say that the Supreme Court ignores international law and doesn't understand it," he said. Referring to the title of a book by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman about increasing globalization, Kennedy said "the world is now flat, and the U.S. is beginning to be involved in international law."

Re:Great!

[IdahoEv]

it is center-left at best. Look at their recent decision further eroding private property rights.

The court is neither conservative nor liberal, it is primarily statist and authoritarian, as is most of our government right now.

Many liberals, including my self, were horrified at that ruling. Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term.

The Political Circus gets Better

[PHAEDRU5]

So, Bush II gets to appoint two new Justices. Doubtless he'll pick them based on their past conservative decisions, only to have them become raving looney liberals as soon as they're confirmed.

Meanwhile, Hillary becomes the next President, and Bill becomes Secretary General of the UN.

Congress remains Republican.

And the great game continues.

Re:We are sooooo....

[XaProf]

...interpret the constitution, not try to rewrite it.

If you really, honestly believe this, I encourage you to read the text of the 11th Amendment and then read some of Justice Scalia's opinions surrounding its...ahem....interesting meaning that is completely ahistorical and not founded on the text of the actual Amendment.

Oh, wait. You're probably too busy being a gloating, knee-jerk, know-nothing d**kwad, like most Bush supporters. Have fun torturing Iraqis next time you're in Baghdad. ("Don't worry, this is for your own good 'cause you're just too much of a kid...)

Re:Great!

[overunderunderdone]

Just because neo-cons evolved from right-wingers doesn't mean that they're not communist.

You mean LEFT wingers. The definition of a neo-con is a left-winger who turned right. Most prominent Neo-cons were in fact bona-fide communists (or at least particularly radical socialists). Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle et al are all either former socialist party members and/or the children of socialist party members.

That being said I don't know of any neo-cons lauding the Kelo decision, indeed they few I have seen comment on it were vehemently against it. They seem much more inclined to Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Conners view of private property.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Alsee]

Your post is absolutely hysterical. "will the Democrats grant [Bush] the same type of deference?" LOL! Clinton asked the Republican majority leader who whould be an acceptable nominee... Clinton asked for the ADVICE and consent of the Senate as the Constitution says. And Clinton nonimated someone the Republican leader said would be acceptable. And as you say the confirmation was almost unanimous.

Now the question is will BUSH show the Democrats the same type of deference? Will Bush nominate someone acceptable to both sides? Something tells me he wont. Something tells me Bush is going to nominate some radical psycho and attempt to ram the nominee through. Something tells me Bush is going to spark a fucking shitstorm war both in the Senate and in the general public.

And why do I think that's why he's going to do? Because as my sig indicates, Bush is the Great Divider. He's probably been the most divisive polarizing president since Lincoln. Bush, love him or hate him... and either way you can't dispute he's tearing the country apart.

And the comical thing is that Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider". Yeah right, lets see him ask the Democrats Senators for advice like Clinton did, lets see him nominate a candidate tolerable to both sides. Lets see him be a uniter and nominate a candidate that can pass the Senate 97-3.

-

Re:Great!

[geekee]

" This court is not center left it is neo-con!
This is why it went for eminent domain.
Neo-cons love corporations."

No. The liberal justices believe the govt. has a right to take your land "for the public good", even if that means giving it to another private citizen to develop something the govt. likes better.

The conservative justices believed this was an abuse of govt. power. Neocons believe in non-interference of govt. in business I believe, not govt. charity to businesses.

The fascist comment isn't that far off, though, but liberals can be fascist too. When you think the state is more important than the individual, as fascists and socialists do, individual rights get trampled.

No president has been elected by a majority....

[Whyte]

Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country.

No president has been elected by a majority of the population in my lifetime (if ever). They are elected by a majority of the people that vote - which historically has been far less than the total population of this country.

That said Bush.2 was elected to a second term by a majority of the popular vote and the electorial vote - a feet not frequently accomplished in the U.S. of A.

Re:No president has been elected by a majority....

[daVinci1980]

Several presidents have won by a true majority. George Washington was voted in unanimously. I wasn't referring to a majority of people in the country, but the typical majority referred to in elections. (IE, the majority of people who voted).

In 2000, Bush didn't have the most popular votes. Al Gore did.

Re:No president has been elected by a majority....

[Whyte]

Several presidents have won by a true majority. George Washington was voted in unanimously.

Which has nothing to do with my point. A majority of the POPULATION did not vote at all then (no women, minorities, non-landowners, etc were allowed to vote).

In 2000, Bush didn't have the most popular votes.

And again a majority of the population didn't elect anyone in 2000 when Gore won the most popular votes or in 2004 when Bush.2 won the most popular votes. In 2004 roughly 70 million people elected Bush which is a far cry from a majority of the U.S. population he now governs.

To use popular vote by a percentage of eligable voters in order to claim a public mandate is a farce. There is not such thing as a public mandate in our national public election. Our founding fathers went to some length to ensure that the vote had little to do with such a notion (the electorial system).

Re:Great!

[geekee]

""The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil" Monopoly Investigation, 1938
"

This was just fear mongering by Roosevelt. Standard Oil clearly had no real govt. influence, since the govt. destroyed them without any difficulty. In reality all standard oil did was lower the price of oil considerably for consumers because rockefeller was a genius.

I agree there should be a strict separation of govt. and business, but socialists like Roosevelt think govt. has the rights to dictate how businessmen behave, and you're surprised this power mainfests itself in ways that help businesses unfairly, as well as hurt then unfairly?

bs

[geekee]

"Regarding the court, the Kelo v. New London was a "liberal" decision in that it tended to give a loose constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It was by no means in line with liberal political views. No one liked that decision except for statists and corporatists."

No, the decision was in line with the liberal view that the needs of the collective often outweigh the right of individuals. Just look at Marx.

Re:bs

[stinerman]

Haha! Every good liberal has a copy of the Communist Manifesto, just as every good conservative has a copy of Mein Kampf.

Go troll somewhere else.

Re:bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Hitler was head of NAZIonal socialist german workers party.

Sounds like a right-wing organization if I've ever seen one. Learn a little about history, idiot.

Re:bs

[Armadni General]

Actually, the word came from NAtionalsoZIalistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Learn a little about Deutsch, idiot.

Re:Great!

[letxa2000]

Hopefully we can replace this swing vote with another justice that will vote to protect property rights. We definitely need more conservative justices as the propery rights decision shows.

Re:Great!

[letxa2000]

Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term.

And refusing to accept that it was liberals who arrived at that decision shows that you have a deep failure to understand reality.

Re:Great!

[overunderunderdone]

Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term.

The term "liberal" is admittedly problematic (by the classical definition many "liberals" are not in fact liberal while many conservatives are) But, from the point of view of contemporary common usage I think it's fair to call this a "liberal" ruling. It was supported by the most "liberal" members (Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) of the court and opposed by the most conservative (Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist) with the two "swing" justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) split.

Many "liberals" I'm sure were horrified at the ruling and I'm happy to hear them praising Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist while castigating Sourter, Breyer and Ginsburg. But I'd argue they're horrified only because of the particulars of the case not about the principles involved. Looked at through the prism of abstract principle and ignoring the individuals involved it's easy to see why this was considered a "liberal" ruling. It was about governments ability to do things for the "greater good" versus individual property rights. Liberals (using the informal contemporary usage of the term) are very supportive of government action and the "greater good" and not very supportive at all of property rights. Supreme court justices because they are setting binding precedents are more concerned with the principles established than with the particulars. So this time it was the "liberals" supporting corporate greed and conservatives standing up for the little guy.

mod down uninformed

[geekee]

"The court is neither conservative nor liberal, it is primarily statist and authoritarian, as is most of our government right now.

Many liberals, including my self, were horrified at that ruling. Calling that ruling "liberal" merely shows that you have a deep failure to understand the term."

The decision is clearly an economically liberal decision. Socialists believe that the needs of the public can outweight individual rights. Therefore, if a community needs more tax dollars to benefit the public, they take your land and sell it to someone who can generate more tax dollars for the public good. Classic socialist decision. Economically conservative people believe in strict separation of business and govt., which means no favors for business from govt, as well as no unfair regualtion of business.

Re:mod down uninformed

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're misinformed.

Socialism is regulation on industry to protect consumers and citizens. This ruling helps industry before the consumer. Hardly a restraint on corporations.

You're confusing corporate fascism and socialism.

Re:Great!

[overunderunderdone]

Oops, forgot justice Stevens (and he wrote the majority opinion too)

not odd at all

[geekee]

"Oddly enough, it was mainly the so-called "progressives" on the court who voted to give the Big Bad Corporate World the legal means to get governments to push you out of your homes by promising to deliver better tax revenues with the land."

Not odd at all. Progressives believe individual rights take 2nd to public welfare. So if a "big bad business" generates more tax revenue on your land than you do, than progressives logically feel that the land should be taken to serve the public good. This is the same thinking that brought us the progressive tax system, where rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people.

Re:Great!

[ResidntGeek]

Neocons believe in non-interference of govt. in business I believe, not govt. charity to businesses.

Unfortunately, not true. Old-school conservatives believed in government non-interference, but neocons have no problems whatsoever with interference, especially in favor of big business.

Whatever, this is politics as usual...

[Whyte]

Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.

This has to be the most tired argument advanced in modern politics today. This method of electing our executive branch has been our operative mode for over 200 years. Yet once your darling party is out of power you suddenly want a break from the system. Why didn't you or your party complain about this when you were in power and had a better chance to amend the constitution? The answer is obvious.

This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.

And this was any different than the way the Democrats controlled the Senate for 50-70 years prior to 1994? This is politics as usual for both parties. You lack objectivity when evaluating the process because you haven't studied the Congress in any temporal depth. Tyrany in an informal, deliberative body like our Senate? This isn't the House of Representatives where getting your bill through means controlling the Rules committee. The Senate is a totally different animal. If you aren't careful you risk being outed as a thoughtless shill yourself with meaningless utterances such as those.

Kiss my karma goodbye.

[nbahi15]

Here are my positions up front:
I think Sandra Day stepping down is a bad thing during this administration.

I don't think the eminent domain ruling was a particularly bad one.

Here is why:
Sandra Day is the swing vote, and a voice of 'moderation.' Unbalancing the supreme court like this will likely lead to some polarizing decisions in this country. First against the wall will be Roe v. Wade.

In this modern world, a world some people want to fight kicking and screaming, abortion is a reality. It will happen regardless of the legality of it. Any many ways like other prohibitions. Further I find Andrew Leigh and Justin Wolfers contention that the legalization of abortion can be tied to the post 1990 reduction in crime. This makes me very concerned about any potential appointee that will work with the Bush administration to strip the right to privacy from women.

As for eminent domain. I'm not as up in arms. To me property is not sacred, nor was it to our founding fathers. It is something that one is allowed to own for a period but by no means an inalienable right. It can be removed from you for any number of reasons including non-payment of taxes, drug charges, a legal process and eminent domain to name a few. As I have heard it interpreted, the ruling allows cities with a planning process to exercise a right they always had, to reclaim property and use it for what is considered a common or public good. Splitting hairs over the word public is pointless, much of the constitution is vague. They didn't want to or couldn't hash out contentious issues so they just left blanks to be filled in later. The government clearly has the right to reclaim land, and without that right individuals can halt the progress of society or a city as a whole. I guess that my view on physical property is similar to that on intellectual property. Individuals can unjustly hold property over the rest of the world's head without consideration for the consequences, or how the property was acquired.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

If "private" corporations can use eminent domain - a power of the state - then aren't the state and the corporations the same thing - a feature of a Communist government?
Ehhh... No.
As the private corporation is still independent of the state, it can not be considered characteristic of communism. However, because the eminent domain ruling allows the state to support a private compan, it makes the ruling a fascist one.

It is Gerrymandering...

[Whyte]

It's not really gerrymandering because the State lines aren't redrawn all that often.

It might not be Elbridge Gerry doing it, but it is Gerrymandering.

Redistricting is done every 10 years following the Census. Unless you have a non-partisan group handling your redistricting, then it accomplished by political gerrymandering. Political gerrymandering is supported by the Supreme Court, unless it discriminates against a cognizable class (by gender, race, etc).

In political gerrymandering, whoever controls the state legislature has considerable control over chances for reelection do to this additional control. Specifically, do some reading on the "excess vote" and "wasted vote" methods for gerrymandering if you want a full understanding of how this actually goes down at the district voting level.

No such thing as a mandate...

[Whyte]

A mandate from the people in the US is a fiction.

Since only 59.6% of eligable voters participated in the 2004 election (highest since 1968 which had 61.9% voting), it would take a landslide of over 85% of the vote to equal a real Mandate from the country (51% of eligable voters).

Now back to your normally scheduled trolling...

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Valdrax]

Care to explain why you think that?

Because the person I responded to, Azeron, was attempting to justify the indefinite detention and torture of terrorist suspect by the atrocities of the past. By arguing purely from legal precedent, he was denying (and decrying) the view that the prisoners had any instrinsic human rights that merited treating them with the same principles of respect for one's fellow man that are enshrined in the Constitution -- the document that makes America more than just a bunch of people living on a spot of land.

The poster seems to relish being rid of O'Connor and the dawning of an era where we sink back into barbarism. Clearly, the concept of intrinsic human rights does not exist in his worldview.

Gerrymandering is a State issue.

[Sir Pallas]

Intra-state, yes. We're talking inter-state.

Re:Gerrymandering is a State issue.

[Whyte]

Ahh, by state line he ment state BORDER. I've got ya now.

Re:Florida, Florida

[overunderunderdone]

I don't know if you have any other sources for this but the Wikipedia appears to be in error. The source provided in the link next to the paragraph you cite is this.

It's to a news organization that I've never heard of (consortium news) written in a rather partisan tone* that didn't do any research themselves but only cite a Newsweek article saying that the Florida judge *Considered* counting overvotes (ballots with two votes recorded in a single race) but that the news articles that vindicated the Bush victory only looked at undervotes. (Quote for Wikipedia's source: "Lewis has said in more recent interviews that he might well have expanded the recount to include those 'overvotes.'" )

Far from asserting that "the news outlets discovered that if all legally cast votes had been counted ..." it actually says:

"...front-page stories of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets, which stated that Bush would have won regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling..."

To be fair the source does contain the statement that the overvotes would have resulted in a Gore victory "according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations."

But going to the ACTUAL source (those leading news organizations themselves the story is rather different. The actual report tested several scenarios and stated that their own recount included many subjective judgments and had a large margin of error.

Scenario one: If the statewide recount (that O'Connor stopped) had continued as it had been going with the standards as they had been set in the different counties: Bush wins by 493 votes.

Scenario Two: Only Gore's preferred four counties are re-counted: Bush wins by 225 votes.

Scenario Three: Use of the most expansive definition of a valid vote (The "Palm Beach" standard) Gore wins by 42 votes.

Scenario Four: Inclusion of overvotes: Gore wins by "less than" 200 votes (a precise number wasn't given by cnn)

The study noted the subjective nature of such vote counting: For instance they found that male investigators were more likely to find votes than females and that there was a statistically significant relationship between the candidate votes found and the partisan affiliation of the investigator. (Important to consider when you realize that the investigators were trained and only doing the counting for academic purposes whereas the county commissioners actually doing the real counting were serious partisans of either stripe and playing for all the marbles. Even subconscious desires played a role, never mind outright fraud (something I'm quite sure occurred. One guy with a skewer and a stack of punch card ballots would produce enough votes for his guy and/or spoiled ballots for the other guy to swing the election.

*Here is an example of the dispassionate reporting in the source cited by Wikipedia :

"It turns out that the thousands of demonstrators who protested Bush's Inauguration were closer to the truth when they shouted at his motorcade, "Hail to the Thief!"

Re:Florida, Florida

[SengirV]

I LOVE America, that is my problem with a lot of what I see going on with the extremists in BOTH parties. It's just A LOT more obvious with those on the extreme left.

Curious...

[crimson30]

libertarian good guys

Haha thanks, I stopped reading here because this made me laugh out loud.

What's so bad about libertarians?

Re:Curious...

[killjoe]

They don't exist, they are irrelevent, nobody cares about them, they are unelectable to any office higher then school board.

Re:Florida, Florida

[ThePlague]

You're assuming that the missing 2200 are a representative subset of the whole. While ideally they would be, in a situation such as Florida 2000 there's plenty of reason to suspect they were not. Sure, no one can prove anything; that's what happens when evidence is destroyed.

The President doesn't have absolute authority

[Anonymous Coward]

The President doesn't have absolute authority in picking judges. That's why the Senate has domain the approve or disapprove, or deadlock, the President's appointments.

Stop acting like the President is some sort of king or something. One man does NOT get to wield ultimate power. This business of "up or down" is hogwash and NOT a constitutional point. That's a temper-tantrum invented by conservative schemers.

"not writing law for a case"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what judges do - it's called "case law." Isn't that funny? And get this - judges can also strike down laws, too.

They're called the third branch of government because they are a check and balance against the other two. If the legislators write crappy law, the judges can rewrite it or throw it out. If the executive misapplies the law, judges are there to tell them "No."

Welcome to democracy, love it or leave it.

Re:What rights online?

[magarity]

I said:
posts in 'YRO' topics be subject only to + mod points since it's just a slam session of who can get mod points from their side before being cast into -1 oblivion

And I was right:

Comment Moderation sent by Slashdot Message System
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Troll (-1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Insightful (+1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Insightful (+1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Insightful (+1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Overrated (-1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Overrated (-1)
posted to Justice O'Connor Retiring, has been moderated Troll (-1)

re: roe vs wade

[Eric S Raymond]

I can't see that ever actually being overturned, because how often does the Supreme Court overturn it's decisions?

And really they should they overturn their decisions? If they do that, then people would lose confidence in them and the entire system.

And guess who's picking the replacement

[oncebitten]

from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/01/resignation .next/index.html?section=cnn_topstories CNN.

"The president learned of O'Connor's plans Friday morning and spoke to her on the telephone".

Hmm, that's odd, anyone who has listened to WTOP news in DC for the past 2 weeks would have known this then.

And:

"He then met with top advisers who are going to help him in the selection process, including Vice President Dick Cheney; Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; presidential adviser Karl Rove; counselor Dan Bartlett; and Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the White House said."

We ... are ... fucked.

Re:And guess who's picking the replacement

[rdean400]

Really?

The person Bush picks is not likely to be one of the ones that sided with private companies using city councils to perform an eminent domain land grab.

Re:And guess who's picking the replacement

[oncebitten]

Yes, really, considering Gonzales is on the short list (one would think that being on the search committee would preclude you from being on the list, but I guess not).

The eminent domain decision doesn't bother me, it merely stated it's the localities decision, not the federal government. In fact, the side effect is that it's raised awareness and caused people to say "Shit, they can't do this, can they?" and has caused state legislatures to work on passing laws to prevent it (such as here in Virginia).

The possibility of having someone who thinks torture is OK on the bench scares me a whole lot more.

Bush is NOT a conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a NEO-conservative, which is NOT the same thing at all. His record speaks for itself.

SCOTUS Amendment

[isotope23]

Personally I would like to see an amendment to change the way the court is appointed. I believe the SCOTUS should be made up entirely of sitting STATE chief justices. Either each chief justice from every state, or perhaps a set of 9, choosing different states each year.

With the current system there is no check, and an actual bias towards judges who look favorably upon greater federal consolidation and power. Perhaps drawing from sitting state chief justices would tilt the balance back again.....

From a consevative, you're right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even for conservatives, this may well lead us to a government too far right for comfort.

As a fiscal conservative, I can tell you that you're absolutely right. I voted for Al Gorge in 2000 and George Bush in 2004. To dispel the inevitably insulting bible-thumping accusations, I can tell you that I'm a long-time staunch atheist that lives in the Northeast.

Even though I'm a registered Republican, I have voted many times for Democrats. With the divisive behavior of Democrats lately, you've pushed this swing voter strongly into the Republican camp. What's ironic is that even on social issues like abortion that I agree with the left on, I surprisingly find myself hoping you lose in every battle because I can't stand your behavior so much.

My advice? Lose morons like Dean, realize that morons like Kerry gave you no chance to win the whitehouse, and stop cozying up to Hollywood and the rest of the ultra-left. Or, keep losing elections and continue your marginalization. All the while thinking how intellectually superior you are to everyone else and how Bush has lied to and fooled the American people.

In short, stop being so full of yourselves.

Re:From a consevative, you're right.

[centron]

As a registered none of the above, I agree with all your points. The Democrats did reasonably well in policy while in power, but recently in attitude they are petulant, in candidates wanting, and in understanding the dynamics of the political landscape, clueless. For having a degree of savvy, I will give the Republicans credit, though their policies have found little purchase in my esteem.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[bluGill]

Is that like 'bi-partisanship' which means the republicans do what the democrats want? Looks like it to me.

Not every pro-lifer is a christian nutjob

[linzeal]

And basing a procedure that around half the population thinks is murder and 40% of democrats on the right to privacy will stand the test of time? I doubt it.

Re:Not every pro-lifer is a christian nutjob

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139841,00.html

A majority of Americans say President Bush's next choice for an opening on the Supreme Court should be willing to uphold the landmark court decision protecting abortion rights, an Associated Press poll found.

Feel free to spin that any way you wish. You know you will anyway.

I'm confused

[BCW2]

Why are all the liberals so worried about a possible 2 Supreme Court nominations? The conservatives have not had power for long enough to overcome 20 straight years of liberal court packing. Yes, 1933 - 1952, don't say that FDR and Truman didn't appoint liberals to every level of the Federal Court system, they did. With retirements and deaths falling when they did, the conservatives have not been able to replace half of them. More were replaced during Democrat Administrations than Republican in the last 50 years which is why the Judiciary has a leftward tilt. If it even got to an even balance the liberals would cry about a huge defeat. An amazing fact is that the Supreme Court is moderate in most decisions no matter who gets appointed.

Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..

[Chris Burke]

Yes! Now you're catching on.

Not a right wing person but methinks...

[linzeal]

Lol, spin.

The fact remains 100's of millions of people support life over 'choice' and should not be discounted as a republican dominated government is in power that is pro-life on abortion and euthenasia; but sadly still believes in the death penalty. I'm sure a majority of people in the US were against the idea of abolishing slavery even after the civil war but it happened because slavery like abortion is dehumanizing.

Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it.

Of course during the civil rights era the roles were reversed and it looks again that when abortion does become limited or abolished it will likely be republicans as the democrats are still basing their idea of abortion on 1970's hokey psuedo-scientific terminology like trimesters.

Re:Not a right wing person but methinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

You were the one arguing "almost half the population thinks it murder." I was only pointing out that it was not nearly as cut-and-dry as you seem to suggest.

hokey psuedo-scientific terminology like trimesters.

Creationist also consider evolution pseudoscientific.

However, I don't expect to influence your thinking or change your mind. Beliefs are a much deeper structure than the surface structure of thought and as such mere thought isn't enough to change them especially when they are tightly entwined with the deep structure of emotion. This is why, for example, religion is based on faith and emotion, not reason. We tend to believe that which makes us feel good. If it makes us feel good then we decide it is true. In my opinion, this cheapens the meaning of "truth."

Re:Not a right wing person but methinks...

[linzeal]

Um, you don't know the roe v wade decision well enough to note that trimesters were argued de facto in the opinion. They had not existed before than because most people thought at the time that life was a continuum as they do now.

I hate arguing with links to polls as anything can be proven but here is one that shows about 50% of Americans are pro-life and it is increasing. That includes 43% of democrats.

Divorcing yourself emotionally from issues that pertain to human life is monstrous. Are you a sociopath? I think emotion when it comes to human life has been key to our granting of liberties in the past and our curbing of abuses in the present. However I am not pro-life solely because of the emotions that I carry for the issue but because 'pro-choice' is based on arbitrary measures of consciousness, unscientific methodology and has become irrevocably tainted by the fact that it is big business.

Re:Not a right wing person but methinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, as I'm sure you're aware, that for aproximately the first three months of pregnancy is when the embryo undergoes most of its structural development. After these three months, the general physical structure of the embryo is nearly complete. It is from this three month period that we get the trimester division. Hardly a pseudoscientific observation.

First you argue for the popularity of a pro-life belief. When I point out that the popularity as measured isn't as cut-and-dry as you claim, you then switch to the argument that popularity is no concern and as your example you use slavery. Now you're arguing for popularity again. Such rapid switching between mutually exclusive arguments to support the same general idea looks more like a ex post facto justification for your beliefs, not a carefully thought out argument. It would do you better to decide which you feel is the better argument, and stick with that one as otherwise their exclusive nature of those arguments tend to cancel each other. In other words, it looks like desperation. Now, I'm not saying it is desperation. I'm saying that if you want someone to follow along with your thinking it would be better to be full coherent. If I were to step into your shoes and argue for the elimination of abortion, I wouldn't use the argument from popularity, personally. It is, as I'm sure you know, a fallacy.

Accusing the person who you are attempting to convince of being a monsterous sociopath using a retorhical question is also not a good idea as it would only serve to alienate your reader.

I fear you misunderstood what I was saying in regard to emotion and belief vs reason. Emotion and belief are associated with the older structures of the brain -- the limbic system and hypothalamus. Reason is associated with the newer outer and frontal structures as seen in mammals. As such, there is a disconnect between our beliefs and our reasoning. Often we are only vaguely aware of our beliefs. We "just know" or "have a feeling" for them. Our beliefs aren't fully into our consciousness -- they lie at a much lower level than consciousness. They distort and filter our thinking much as feelings do. for example, if you're alone in a dark and unfamiliar place, you may become afraid. We believe we may be in danger from unseen or unknown vague "things" or people, even though we have no real immediate reason to feel that way. These feelings often cloud our thinking. Beliefs work much the same way. Because much of our beliefs are outside our immediate consciousness, our thoughs about our beliefs are often times ex post facto or ad hoc justifications for them.

This is why a Creationist's world view and beliefs force the Creationist to regard evolution as pseudoscientific, for example. Evolution, so the Creationist believes, is in direct oposition to his or her religious beliefs. But, again, religious beliefs are without rationality -- they are at the level of deep structure. When there is a cognitive dissonance between only reason and only belief, belief will always win.

Re:Great!

[phlinn]

That's a rather misleading quote. The meaning of corporatism at the time was far different than the current usage.

Re:Great!

[benzapp]

Well, you can identify elements of fascism. Mabye that's why people use the word. One element is a government tightly coupled with business.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is the subserviance of government to the powers of business, fascism explicitly restricts what business can and cannot do on the basis of how they benefit the state. How else could a small country like Germany with almost no natural resources and a dependence on foreign sources for food fight the whole world for six years? Does that sound like some JP Morgan or Bernard Baruch would be keen on?

Roosevelt was a stooge of the financial capitalists of the early 20th century, and the quote you have provided is pointless. What does Standard Oil have to do with anything?

The point is you know nothing of what went on in countries labelled "fascist" and you have never read a single written work BY a fascist author. You have read nothing but victor's propaganda. Meanwhile you can bare conceive of a world where economics is not defined by materialism.

Wake up.

Re:Great!

[unitron]

" It's not for big business use dumbass. It allows the GOVERNMENT to take private property."

It allows government to take private property and turn around and sell it to big business. It could already take private property for government type stuff like highways and such.

Re:Great!

[unitron]

" Hopefully we can replace this swing vote with another justice that will vote to protect property rights."

The court acted to protect property rights. The rights of big business to manipulate local government into handing over your property to big business.

Re:Great!

[yo_tuco]

Okay, good point. My point was, enlight of the may posts talking about fascism, was that when you see a "feature" of it, people use the word. Now just because a feature of it exist, it doesn't mean you have a facist state.

And if I recall my history leasons correctly, the combination of things like a government coupled with business, strong nationalism, a strong right-wing political system with little political diversity, loyalty to a single leader, and a few others I don't recall off the top of my head were elements one would define as a facist state. Typically a government resembling Mussolini's. The quote I posted was not in reference to Standard Oil but what he says, IMHO, are things happening today with business and the US government. Like when a large corporation want to increase its bottom line and that envades on the peoples' rights granted by the Fair Use Act, the US politcians are siding with the large corps in lieu of the people.

And, yes, everyone doesn't agree on the definiton of fascism either.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

just goes to prove that righties will see the world as left of them no matter what the reality is. it's nothing to do with making the country better, but all about hating the dreaded liberals. they are blinded by their hatred and fear. righties see this ruling as "liberal" and the rest of us properly view the ruling as fascist and corporatist, not left or right. the op is a typical blinder-wearing rightie. move along. nothing new to see here. he's probably rolling naked in his ann coulter books even as i post.