Slashdot Mirror
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."
Hopefully this means her wishy-washy vote will be replaced with a more Scalia or Thomas-like vote in the future.
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
--Ronald Reagan
wow first post
OK, i'm too lazy too look it up; someone want to get some karma by posting her vote on recent controversial issues?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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.
I'm a big tall mofo.
awash all the 404 madness
Booyeah!
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
the honorable Jack Valenti!
...SCOTUS bashing continue!
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
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
So how does this impact open source software or anything that nerds care about?
Why is this relevant to the /. community? It's not like the departing Supreme Court Justice is being replaced with a computer.
The woman was senile. Read her opinions on the affirmative action cases and see her do a total flip-flop within a few years.
not quite numbnuts
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
Oh, you American.
Yes seriously ?
We've seen how the liberals on the court have been destroying America. Eminent domain anyone?
Is that the same Sandra Day O'Connor that stopped the recount and helped Dubya get the cool job in 2000? I'd say it's about time she retires. I only wish she was forced to, by a public scandal, but it never happened.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I'm really not looking forward to Bush filling one "for life" seat. Filling two is 2x shitty.
We're boned.
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.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
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 !
Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
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.
-- Yes, I work for the government, and yes I am watching you.
Supreme court appointments are no joke - these appointments will likely have more long reaching consequences than any other actions taken by this president.
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.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
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!
... screwed
This news is not nearly nerdy enough to be posted on Slashdot. What gives?
Eeek!
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
What exactly does this have to do with any specific rights online? It's just a troll-fest waiting to happen.
I hereby submit that 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.
We have a rarely used Politics section on slashdot, and here comes a relevent article, which is placed in the YRO section.........
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.
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?
Unknown host pong.
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.
Well, now that Bush will get the chance to nominate two justices, America will be changing its name to ....
The Christian Republic of America!
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
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
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?
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
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Judge Judy has my vote!
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.
"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
Now's the time to see if my dual citizenship still holds...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
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.
Humorless sig goes here.
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.
Who did what now?
One aspect of the recent cable internet decision, is that the baby bells now feel that they can bar third party internet providers from providing DSL service.
I know a friend of the family recently was told by AOL that they needed to find another DSL provider.
Yeah free market, what ever. Monopoly of infrastructure.
She just voted in favor of removing people's property rights (that was last week). That is a very highly publicized news item recently.
/. 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.)
The
.
Mean while old-man Rehnquist is still around.
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
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.
antipaucity
Diana Ross
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
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?)
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.
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 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.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
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
It was a good run anyway.
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).
--
make install -not war
Regardless of politics, isn't it disrespectful to refer to the president as Mr. Bush instead of using his title?
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.
:) Buy McDonalds and smoke Marlboro. USA! USA! USA!
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
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.
Another Sore Loserman.
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.
Congress is busy already. Although you are right, I'd prefer it be set in the Constitution too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Crow T. Trollbot
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.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
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.
You are not the customer.
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.
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.
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!
Yes, we all now about the romaing bands of Federal Agents looking ot arbitrarily arrest people and throw then in jail for no reason at the behest of thier Glorious leader and madman George Bush. I am sure, terrorism has nothing to do with these detentions, because we know Bush just likes to imprison people for the hell of it. I still haven't figured out why there are still democrats in the senate and the house, they were suppossed to be arbitraily detained as well.
Look O'Connor's opinion, was both rediculous and stupid as well as hyperbole and a gross mischarecterization of what is going on. The Bush Administration is on solid legal ground in denying trials to terrorists, as there is precedent in detaining not only foreigners indefinitely, but also American Citizens. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government has done this before, most noteably during the Civil War, in which not only did we detain them till the end of the war, but we also burned thier homes down too! The only trial these terrorists are entitled to is one before a Military Tribunal, where will be tried According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for war crimes, right before we line up against a wall and fill'em full of lead! Hell during WW2, we summarily executed German troops that were not in their proper uniforms, you can even watch footage of the executions on the History Channel.
Good riddens to grandstanding O'Connor.
My guess would be someone like Hatch. How could the 'rats filibuster one of their own?
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?
Here It Comes, Bitches: O'Connor Resigns.
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!!!
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.
-Valiss
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!
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.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
If you're having buttsex in the closet, you needn't worry about having abortions. See, it all works out in the end!
My blog
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.
that is why all 3 branches should not be under one house.
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?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
"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.
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?
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Draft Prado
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.
lol: You see no door there!
Exactly. I am suprised at the apathy of
I, for one, welcome our new Christian "Taliban" overlords.
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.
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....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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."
He'd be a voice of reason on the Court.
According to Justice O'Conner the idea that she was often the so called 'swing vote' was made up by the media.
... 'SWING' their goes the vote.
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
Was she statistically speaking most often in the group of 5 for all the 4-5 votes?
Does anyone care?
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.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
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.
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! There go my civil liberties..
"You were all for preserving Hitler's brain, but putting it inside a shark's body...THAT'S GOING TOO FAR!!" --Professor Farnsworth
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
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...)
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
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.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
"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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
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.
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
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? :)
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
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"?
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
> "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....
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.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
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.
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Gosh!
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?"
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.
Volkswagen, literally "people's car," has been producing vehicles in Germany since its original founder, Adolf Hitler, brainstormed their first concept. Their niche was once to build a car that the everyday Aryan could afford, and to bring strength by empowering their people to commute cheaply and effectively where they needed to go. Today, Volkswagen is much more, representing an entry-level German nameplate for automobile owners to get the trademarks set by every German automobile: great styling, great handling, and prohibitively expensive repairs.
Their product repertoire includes several historical namesakes from previous generations, as well as modern day contenders in the 21st century automobile market. The New Beetle and the Jetta are Volkswagen's entry level vehicles for German beginners. Moving up the chain brings you the Passat and the Golf, for European luxury in midsize prices. At the top of the chain brings the near-luxury Touareg (German for "SUV") and Phaeton (German for "German Luxury"). What Volkswagen wants you to forget, however, is their rich lineage which spawned today's vehicles.
Founded in 1932 by the famed Nazi leader, his first project was to design a vehicle which would aid in building the strength of the fascist state. The car would be built to mimic the symbolic ideals of the cult-like ruling Nazi party. The Beetle, it was to be called, would be Volkswagen's first foray into enabling the Nazi leaders to commute to battle meetings to coordinate the death of the Allies. Throughout the War of Europe and subsequently World War II, Volkswagen earned the Nazi regime heavy profits due to its rapid expansion and slave labor. This, in turn, allowed Volkswagen to expand plants to newly-acquired German territory in Russia, as well as Czechoslovakia.
After the crumbling of the Nazi party, and effectively the entire German social structure in 1945, Volkswagen was left without its founder and entire management structure. Influenced by the opportunity of quick expansion, wealthy British entrepreneur Richard Branson, Sr. invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the plants to retool them for postwar production throughout Europe. Volkswagen was then reborn to make models that would carry its rich heritage to nations left unaffected by its founder.
Throughout the 1950's, 60's and 70's, the world went through major changes as a global economy started trickling into every nation.
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."
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.
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
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.
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.
Will Bush be a uniter or a divider? Falcon
Should there be a Law?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
"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.
On several levels.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
but it got his message through to SCOTUS.
That was all he cared about.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Vote for Pedro
You might want to read this interesting article on the liberal love for our man Rehnquist. http://www.slate.com/id/2121352/
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:
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
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.
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 )
"... Houston, we are now T-minus 10 years to Civil War, engage spin control overdrive, pogrom coverup system enabled, prayer channel volume to maximum."
Where are moderation points when you want them?
Where's the CowboyNeal option?
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.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Here's the link to the story at wikinews:
_ Court_Justice_O'Connor_to_retire
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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
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.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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?
--
make install -not war
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.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
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.
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.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.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?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.
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.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
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.
http://izenson.net/
READ His magnificent views in FULL SPLENDOR!
He will be an administrator for this country!
SETH EZRA IZENZON, the new way!
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.)
BANANA = "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything"
cpeterso
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.
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.
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)
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.
Oof. Buddhism was a bad automatic example. Buddhism is actually, strictly speaking, the largest non-theistic religion, although with some sects thats debatable.
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.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
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.
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.
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.
I don't suppose the concept of intrinsic human rights has any meaning in your personal ethic system, does it?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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?
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.
What does this have to do with online rights? This article should be listed under politics.slashdot.org.
...but the Grand Experiment appears to be dissolving into an un-free state.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
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.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
(Posted anonymously to avoid possible karma whoring.)
... . 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).
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
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
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!)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
close.
Then after repubs retain their margin in congress in 06 elections, Renquist retires, and Bush nominates Ariel Sharon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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?
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
Mod away "his helpers", mod away.
-[d]-
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.
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.
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
I was thinking of the same thing after Nov 5, last year.
Scary parallels.
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)
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."
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
"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.
Vote for Pedro
"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.
Vote for Pedro
"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.
Vote for Pedro
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.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
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.
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 matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
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...
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Intra-state, yes. We're talking inter-state.
libertarian good guys
Haha thanks, I stopped reading here because this made me laugh out loud.
What's so bad about libertarians?
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.
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.
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.
Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/01/resignation .next/index.html?section=cnn_topstories CNN.
... are ... fucked.
"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
He's a NEO-conservative, which is NOT the same thing at all. His record speaks for itself.
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.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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.
Is that like 'bi-partisanship' which means the republicans do what the democrats want? Looks like it to me.
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.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Yes! Now you're catching on.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty