Senate Confirms Elena Kagan's Appointment To SCOTUS

eldavojohn writes "As expected, by a vote of 63 to 37 Elena Kagan has been appointed as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan, only 50 years old, has no judicial experience. The Washington Post explains: 'Other justices have corporate law backgrounds or a long record of arguing before the court. Kagan worked briefly for a law firm and argued her first case before an appellate court 11 months ago. It happened to be before the Supreme Court, the first of six cases she argued as the nation's first female solicitor general.' Her fair use views and free speech views have made her a focus of Slashdot recently."

Comments

eh

[nomadic]

Nothing wrong with a SC nominee having no judicial or even trial advocacy experience, though you'd hope they'd at least have a significant body of legal scholarship. Kagan is very smart but she has none of these things, she's basically a career administrator/politician.

Re:eh

[strikeleader]

After all we have a president without any experience in governing or managing.

Re:eh

[polar red]

she's a breath of fresh air between all those corporate hacks/religious nuts.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school. Or her published books and papers on legal issues. But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.

(Also, she clerked for Thurgood Marshall in the 80s, so it's not like she has no judicial experience of any kind. And it's not unheard of for SC members to jump into the job without being judges first.)

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

It doesn't help that roughly half the congress opposes him on the basis of his political party and skin color.

Re:eh

[nharmon]

It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

How many companies did Dubya manage into the ground? How did his super-duper governing skillz help him in his 8 years?

What did would-be President McCain govern? What did would-be President McCain manage to do besides crashing 3 planes before even getting to Vietnam?

Re:eh

[Darkness404]

HINT

There were more nominees in the primaries that would have been better, not to mention many third-party candidates that would have been better than either.

Re:eh

[lgw]

How many companies did Dubya manage into the ground? How did his super-duper governing skillz help him in his 8 years?

Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers (the team, not the police force). Got the city to build a new stadium, and massively increased attandance and profits. He also did OK as governer of Texas (though arguable the Lt. Gove has more power there), and often compromised to get things done. I was really surprised by how he behaved as president.

Re:eh

[Sovetskysoyuz]

If at first you don't succeed, crash, crash again. MCCAIN '08

Re:eh

[DragonWriter]

Nothing wrong with a SC nominee having no judicial or even trial advocacy experience, though you'd hope they'd at least have a significant body of legal scholarship.

The polarization of the confirmation process for Justices has made having either a substantial body of legal scholarship, substantive judicial experience, or substantive trial advocacy experience weaknesses in confirmation proceedings, since the processes is almost completely one of opponents of the nomination seeking choice tidbits -- often out of context -- that make good political soundbites to embarrass anyone who would vote to confirm.

This has been increasingly true over time, independently of which party is doing the appointing and which side is inclined to oppose the nomination, so the results in terms of who gets appointed are fairly predictable.

If you want better (by the standards suggested in the parent post) judicial nominees, you need to get better Senators first. And since the behavior of Senators is driven essentially by what works in producing reactions in the electorate to bring pressure to bear on other Senators, you need a better electorate to get that.

Re:eh

[Moryath]

But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.

Speaking as a libertarian, her position on the first amendment - just to name ONE particular policy position she espouses - ought to have been enough to disqualify her.

But ah yes, if the Republicans had actually stood up for the first amendment, they would have been called "anti-woman" or some other stupid shit from Kagan's supporters. Sigh...

Re:eh

[slick7]

she's a breath of fresh air between all those corporate hacks/religious nuts.

If Kagan doesn't announce NESARA, then she will be another hack for the status quo.
It's time to take back this country from the criminals

Re:eh

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, I don't dislike her politics entirely. I like her ideas about fair use, but am appalled by her ideas about free speech. You may dislike pornography and 'hate speech,' at least until it's your speech that has been labelled as pornography or 'hate speech.'

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office. The dems are cowardly little pussies, but the republicans are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

And he seems to be doing some great things even considering the obstructionist methods of the conservative nut-jobs.

Re:eh

[hedwards]

Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.

Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books if GWB had appointed her?

The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers

I always thought Dubya missed his true calling. He should have been the Commissioner of MLB instead of a politician. Hey, he couldn't do worse than Selig......

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice thought experiment you have there. Why didn't the Republicans stand up for the first amendment?

Also, why didn't they stand up for it during the Bush years?

Re:eh

[Duradin]

If a site wants to be taken seriously they should probably get rid of those flashing animated gifs (that bad religious tract vibe should probably go to).

Re:eh

[ThatsNotPudding]

It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.

I've seen little proof otherwise. Their blantly transparent appointment of Micheal Steele as party chairman to insulate themselves from all their members basically shouting the N-word was pathetic.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

Didn't realize those were requirements.

Because the previous guy came without a functioning brain.

Re:eh

[dunezone]

Technically there are no requirements to be a chief justice.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what a great governor -- executing mentally retarded felons.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

You mean it doesn't help that that half has figured the other half out?

Depends on whether you're trying to help the country or yourself.

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office.

Do you think the Democrats would have voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who had previously argued in favor of banning books if GWB had appointed her?

The vast majority of both major parties place duty to party ahead of duty to the Constitution. More's the pity.....

That's a little disingenuous. The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group. I'd argue that republicans are the only ones with party loyalty though.. The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power. When they finally have the power, they're too afraid to actually do anything because it might be used against them in a campaign. But they both suck donkey balls, for a certainty.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience. We can afford to get our endorsement out to a few people on an open forum here.

That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech. It's about making democracy, not plutocracy, the political system we live under. Which was the point of the Revolutionary War.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

Got the city to build a new stadium

So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

Dubya didn't win the election. Karl Rove did. Why anyone looks at the gibbering dry-drunk and thinks he was in charge of anything is a mystery.

Re:eh

[allometry]

I believe the argument there is theory versus implementation. You can be a great scholar of law, but that doesn't make you a great lawyer.

As a self-taught software developer without a CS degree, I've come to recognize that the better and more efficient developers are those that are self-taught, with real-world experience. I've worked with CS grads with their bachelors degrees that cannot stand toe-to-toe with some guy lacking equal credentials, doing their job equal to the time that grad spent in the classroom.

Kagen may be a great law professor and a great dean, but I've learned to remain skeptical of a person's ability until they actually do the job. I believe one senator stated that the Supreme Court is not a place to gain on-the-job-training and I would have to agree with that.

Even though there are no requirements to sit on the court, we shouldn't be stupid enough to put people on the court that lack experience arguing cases. Let's stay away from the bare minimum and look for better. Obama could have found someone better than Kagen.

Re:eh

[conspirator57]

As much as I don't like Steele's neocon politics, he is a legitimate power broker in the Republican party. Please can your racism and exchange it for facts.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in her views on the First Amendment disqualifies her. You might not like those views, but that's not the same thing. Get over yourself, your views aren't the only "right" views.

But ah yes, if the Republicans had actually stood up for the first amendment,

The overwhelming majority did, so the rest of your post is pretty stupid.

Re:eh

[geekthesteve]

To get a better electorate for senators repeal the 17th amendment to the constitution. Steve

Re:eh

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

The great problem is attribution. Here you attribute the varied Democratice voting records to the monolithic voting records to Party Loyalty vs fear of loss of seat, as if those are the only explanations or reasons.

I would counter that the Republican party is more Demogogic and Authoritative and they see that if they stick together and vote together they will keep their seats, and also service their financiers and feather their nests politically and privately with that behavior.

On the other hand the Democrats are more of the people and listen to the diveristy of their constituent and try to serve the people that elected them (not the ones that paid to have them elected) (yes, yes there are some counter examples, but I posit that that is the exception and not the rule). That would explain the less than monolithic voting record of the Democrats. They are not doing things out of fear but listening to and reponding to their constituents, which I claim is what the process should be like, not this opposing everything, even health care for 911 responders.

Speaking of which, what if a 911 responder was an illegal allien. Don't we owe him a deep gratitude and at least health care for the sacrifice he/she made for us at ground Zero. What is this Republican bullshit where they block a vote because they don't want any illegal allien to get health coverage, even if they were a 911 responder.

I don't think the punishment fits the crime here, and exposes some deep seeded and ugly views held by the Republicans.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.

Sorry, none of the things you have mentioned are part of the party platform.

Take racism for example. I'm sure Michael Steele will be shocked to find that the party he leads advances racism.

Don't I recall GWB holding hands with an Islamic Saudi Prince? (Islamaphobia, as with all things that start with Islam, should be capitalized)

Homophobia? I'm sure Dick Cheney hates all homo's. I'm sure his daughter does as well. I think the problem is that homosexuals demand the right to marry. See, marriage is a religious institution to most folk. It was around long before the US government. We see allowing gay marriage to be like the government forcing churches to allow Muslims and atheists to take communion. It's an insult to religion. However, as we understand that there are certain governmental benefits to marriage, we see their point. Most Republicans would be happy to allow all governmental benefits to gay couples joined in some sort of "civil union", but even that has been refused by the gay community. I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do. (Personally, I believe government should not recognize any marriages at all and convert all current marriages to "civil unions".)

Care to try to place any other stereotypes on Republicans? Go ahead. All it really does is further support my claim that it's not Republicans with the bigotry problem. Unfortunately, it's people like you who are the bigots. See, by accusing all Republicans of being bigots, you are displaying bigotry yourself. You truly are what you claim to hate about those with whom you disagree. How's it feel to be a bigot?

Re:eh

[Danathar]

George Washington on Political Parties - I agree..

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Re:eh

[allometry]

If you wish to politik that's fine, but don't be an ignoramus.

Where are the dems standing up to Obama? Where were the repubs standing up to Bush?

Turns out that the Congress is one big fucking social club, where you're ostracized if you don't "play-along". If you hate that, then start standing up to your representatives and tell them what you want! They represent YOU!

And if they lack a fucking backbone, vote them out!

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

If by roughly half, you mean absolutely no power to stop any legislation in the House that the Democrats agree on (if anything fails in the House, it is strictly because the Democrats aren't all on board) and 40 out of 100 Senate seats, which isn't enough to prevent cloture.

The Democrats wield ALL of the power between Congress and the White House right now and the Republicans can't do a thing to stop them, only fellow Democrats that have trepidation about their leadership's goals. But keep blaming the Republicans because that's the narrative being pushed by the White House and their friends in the media, just like how the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 of 8 years during GWB's administration (they may have had a small majority in the House, nothing like what the Dems have now, but the Senate flip flopped back and forth, with Democrats controlling the first two years and the last two years, with a slim, non-filibuster proof Republican majority between).

As for the skin color remark, you're delusional. Maybe 10% of the population cares about his skin color whether they hate him or like him because of it (and you'll never be able to completely eliminate the tribalism involved, just see the way you're smearing Republicans because they have an R after their name). The vast majority of the right has a problem with his policies and has since before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama (Keynesian Economics for example).

And don't take any of the above on the assumption that I think Republicans have governed any better than the Democrats. Both parties suck, especially their leadership. My problem is the regurgitation of false narratives meant solely to smear people, attacking the messenger, because you don't like the message. Even worse, it's because you're dissatisfied with Obama's own party but would rather attack the other guys for his team's own failings.

Re:eh

[nomadic]

No history of scholarship, unless you count being a fucking law professor and dean of the Harvard law school.

She has only four major articles in her career, was a law professor for a total of only 8 years, and "dean" is a political/administrative position, not a scholarly one.

But why would we count that? We don't like her politics.

I don't know her politics. Very few people seem to, which is one of the problems.

Re:eh

[Cro Magnon]

My high-school janitor would have been better than most of the Presidential candidates in my lifetime.

Re:eh

[Nicholas Schumacher]

I don't know that we need a better electorate as we need a better election system. With a plurality voting system in general if you are not voting for one of the two major parties you vote is meaningless, so most people will vote against the person they dislike the most rather than actually voting for who they prefer (and it is much easier to get people to hate your opponent than it is to get people to actually like you).

If we had some sort of preferential voting system there would be more incentive for candidates to actually voice opinions to try to get approval rather than simply attacking their opponent. Unfortunately, the parties in power have a vested interest in keeping the voting system the way it is, and most Americans lack the knowledge of game theory needed to understand why the voting method should be changed, much less what it should be changed to.

Re:eh

[larry bagina]

George Bush had his own Kagan moment -- Harriet Myers (although she's not a lesbian). He eventually had enough sense to withdraw her.

Given the nature of confirmation hearings, someone without any record is better.

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

I know it's crazy talk, but how about the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which made Senators directly elected by the people (and hence, prone to the partisanship winds of the day) rather than being representatives of the states (hence the term Statesmen)? These days, the Senate tends to be just as petty and partisan as the House, if not even moreso, and it's all because the Senators have to play up their act to get re-elected rather than being able to vote their conscience.

As an added bonus, it might just slow down the federal government's powergrab from the states (see things like speed limits or drinking age) since, you know, someone would actually be representing the states in the united STATES government.

Re:eh

[saider]

I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do.

They probably have the "Separate but equal" fiasco stuck in their mind where people who were supposed to be treated equally, were not.

Re:eh

[NekSnappa]

you'd hope they'd at least have a significant body of legal scholarship.

Well since she taught at the University of Chicago, and was the dean of Harvard Law School. I guess she's got you covered on that count.

Re:eh

[UnknowingFool]

You know there is this thing called wikipedia these days where you can check your facts before posting them. Elena Kagan's career so far:

• 1987-1988 Law Clerk to US District Judge Abner Mikva
• 1988-1991 Law Clerk to SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall
• 1991-1995 Associate Law Professor, University of Chicago
• 1995-1999 Associate White House Counsel
• 1999-2001 Law Professor, Havard
• 2003-2009 Dean of Law School, Harvard
• 2009-2010 US Solictor General
• 2010- SCOTUS Associate Justice

By my math, she's spent 4 years as a clerk, 14 years in academia, and 5 years in politics. I don't think that qualifies her as a "career administrator"

Re:eh

[Mongoose Disciple]

It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.

Party politics can't account for all opposition to the President's agenda, true.

But how else can you account for the non-short list of things in the last two years that were either wholly or partially Republican ideas (originally), that the President backed, that Republicans then voted uniformly against?

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

You are claiming that the Democrats voted for "Health Care Reform" bacuse they are listening to their constituents? The same constituents that overwhelmingly opposed its passing, and now that it has passed overwhelmingly favor its repeal? Further you are claiming the Democrats passed a "Financial Reform Act" which strengthens the big banks and promises to bail them out if they screw up again because the Democrats aren't beholden to corporate interests?
I am confused how you can perceive that a group of people (the Democrats in Congress) who take actions that their constituents oppose and their largest campaign contributors favor are less responsive to corporate interests than they are to the interests of thier constituents. I suppose it is the same way that people perceive that the party that ended slavery in this country, championed passing a Civil Rights Act, and in other ways worked to eliminate racism in this country is more racist than the party that fought to extend slavery, founded the KKK, resegregated the Federal Government, passed Jim Crow laws and in many other ways worked to maintain blacks as second class citizens.

Re:eh

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Good campaign speech. Bit low on facts, but hey I've learned to live with that long ago.

But what do you have to say about the fact that Elena Kagan was clearly in favor of banning books ? Furthermore she cooperated in a case that actually wanted to ban a book. "Somehow" that, the whole point in this thread, is missing in your point. Perhaps the book was astroturfing, yes, fully agreed. Perhaps there was money behind it, again, yes.

She's made it clear, on many occasions, that she intends to repeat her attempts to ban books with certain viewpoints.

I guess democrats, at the very least you, and ms. Kagan, just feel that the plebs cannot be trusted to form opinions, and should not be allowed to do so except under your -so graciously offered- guidance. The fact that people like you defend this by saying it somehow safeguards democracy is beyond ludicrous. But hey Hitler justified his nomination as dictator for life by that very same reason, as did Chavez, Kim Jong Il and Mugabe and I guess you've not quite sunk that low.

What's next ? Bread and Games ?

And quite frankly, we all know what happened if Bush would have whispered something to his friends about "not really" liking a book. Why the obvious double standard ? Isn't judging people differently because of ideological differences racist ? Are you a racist ?

If not, why such obvious ideological bias and ad-hominem attacks ?

Re:eh

[tuxgeek]

Oh Yay!
Let's hijack a tech forum to argue political opinion
At the bell, let the monkeys fly

Ding

Re:eh

[nomadic]

Law school dean is a political/administrative position, not an "academia" position.

Re:eh

[Mongoose Disciple]

As a self-taught software developer without a CS degree, I've come to recognize that the better and more efficient developers are those that are self-taught, with real-world experience.

Any chance there's a little bit of confirmation bias in there?

Certainly I've worked with a ton of self-taught developers who had huge egos about their self-taught-ed-ness and were awesome at writing code the wrong way. Hell, almost all of the VB6 developers I've ever had to clean up after were self-taught, proud of it, and produced truly atrocious code even by VB6 standards.

I've worked with a lot of unqualified useless idiots with degrees, too. I just think you notice the latter and not the former because you've already decided that being self-taught, as you were, is better.

Re:eh

[DurendalMac]

From the website...

Why is there so much poverty in a land so rich? Just 10% of the people own, control, and consume 70% of the nation’s wealth. The other 90% of the people producing most of that wealth survive on the remaining 30%. Who is confiscating your fair share?

Who is "confiscating" my "fair share"? I'm sorry, those guys can go fuck themselves raw with a hot curling iron. The breakdown of wealth isn't always ideal, but to cry that someone has more than you and that you want your "fair share" is fucking self-entitled bullshit. You want your "fair share"? EARN IT instead of crying that someone else is "confiscating" it. I've got no love for fat cats, but I've got even less love for class warfare crybabies.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

It doesn't help that the other half of congress think party and skin color is what drives the others to oppose the president's agenda.

I've seen little proof otherwise. Their blantly transparent appointment of Micheal Steele as party chairman to insulate themselves from all their members basically shouting the N-word was pathetic.

Hey, if you can get a video of that, you can make $100,000 for the United Negro College Fund. Should be easy, considering all the cameras there that video taped the whole thing. I find it strange that no one has taken Breitbart up on that challenge.

As to the claim you repeating, it was directed to TEA Party members, not the Republican party. At least get your baseless accusations correct.

In other words, PICTURES, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Or, to modify the meme, Pictures, or you are lying!

Re:eh

[kevinNCSU]

Yea, not everyone has the money and machinery to saturate the market with books and pamphlets dominating free speech and under the guise of witty little titles like "Common Sense" so we need to enact laws in order to restrict this. We can't let this elitist plutocracy use their machines and wealth to spread these dangerous ideas in text that will drown out the voice of us God fearing and King loving common people. God save the King!

Re:eh

[Moryath]

I believe it is fairly obvious that they stopped representing "the people" and started representing instead "the corporations" a long time ago...

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

Let's see, in July of 2002, unemployment rates under George W. Bush stood at around 6%, this is around 10 months after 9/11. In July of 2010, unemployment rates under Barack Obama stood at around 10%. Looks to me like George W. Bush's "super-duper governing skillz" would be nice right about now.

Re:eh

[mpfife]

I would have voted against anyone that proposed the health care extortion^B plan we had shoved down our throats. Neither the dems or the reps are really fiscally responsible anymore.

We have a medicare/medicade program that is slated to go bankrupt by 2020, and a social security system slated for insolvency around 2030. How in the world do we expect ANOTHER huge spending plan on healthcare to work?

But don't take my word for it - here it is straight from wikipedia: "According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019" Citations on the site

Nobody on either side of the isle has the b*lls to stand up to the coming government services collapse that'll be happening in our lifetimes. Welcome to the housing bubble come to the government bubble.

Re:eh

[jimbolauski]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicans would have voted against health benefits for 911 rescue workers if Bush were still in office. The dems are cowardly little pussies, but the republicans are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves.

The republicans and some democrats voted against the health benefits for 911 rescue workers, this bill had so many problems that some democrats refused to vote for it too. You fail to realize or comprehend that the same bill would not have been on the floor had republicans been in power so your point shows your true ignorance.

Re:eh

[Retric]

Gay marriage predates Christianity.

If we are going to uphold the idea of separation of Church and State we need to accept that Religion covers more ground than just Protestants vs. Catholics.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

Yeah, what a great governor -- executing mentally retarded felons.

Um, those "mentally retarded felons" were tried, convicted and sentenced well before GWB was ever the governor. The criticism you are hurling at GWB could just as easily be directed to Ann Richards, the Democrat governor of Texas before GWB.

Strange that you only criticize GWB. Take the following for example:

President Clinton took time off from his 1992 campaign to be in Arkansas for the execution of killer Rickey Ray Rector. He was so brain damaged from a suicide attempt that he asked guards to set aside his piece of pecan pie so he could eat it after his execution, according to the New York Times.

Re:eh

[tsm_sf]

I suppose it is the same way that people perceive that the party that ended slavery in this country, championed passing a Civil Rights Act, and in other ways worked to eliminate racism in this country is more racist than the party that fought to extend slavery, founded the KKK, resegregated the Federal Government, passed Jim Crow laws and in many other ways worked to maintain blacks as second class citizens.

How long are you going to ride those hundred year old coattails?

Re:eh

[commodore64_love]

>>>the republicans are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country

Thank you. I've been waiting for a hate-filled troll to come along and spout a bunch of nonsense (and get modded +5 insightful by other trolls), JUST so I could post the following.

The most racist Party in the whole history of America:

1790s - the Founders abolished importation of slaves, abolished slavery in the north and northwest territories, and banned selling of slaves across state lines. They intended to abolish slavery in the south too but.....

1820s - the South, aka the Democrats, reversed a lot of the laws the Founders had put in place, and adopted a pro-slavery stance, thereby blocking any more progress toward complete abolition.

1860s - the Democrats seceded from the Union because a Republican won the presidency (and because they wanted protect slavery)

1880s - the Democrats invented the idea of Segregation

1950s/60s/70s - the Democrats opposed/ voted against Civil Rights Laws. To quote Senator Byrd: "Rather I should die a thousand times, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."
.
That's 150 years of Democrats trying to keep black Americans down.
So where does this myth come from that the Democrats are the "good"
party and the Republicans are the evil party. Hmmmm.

Re:eh

[UnknowingFool]

There was a typo. She was Law Professor from 1999-2003. Even if you lump those Dean years into your administrator category, she's spent less than half her career as administrator.

Re:eh

[russotto]

George Bush had his own Kagan moment -- Harriet Myers (although she's not a lesbian). He eventually had enough sense to withdraw her.

At the time I felt that the Senate made a mistake giving her a hard time. In Bush's case, a person picked (apparently) because of personal ties would have almost certainly been better than someone he picked because of his (as it turns out) political views.

Re:eh

[orthancstone]

You mean the same Republicans that are currently trying to ration out which religions are worthy of the First Amendment? (This is a reference to the whole mosque thing in NYC)

Perhaps they realized the hypocrisy and decided to shut up. (Ok, yeah, I'm laughing at that one too.)

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

I would counter that the Republican party is more Demogogic and Authoritative and they see that if they stick together and vote together they will keep their seats, and also service their financiers and feather their nests politically and privately with that behavior.

You're an idiot. GWB faced continual "revolts" within his own party by "moderate" (aka turncoat) Senators like Jim Jeffords and Arlen Spectre. So much so that the Republican Congressional "majority" during Bush's 6 years never amounted for much, as the Democrats would always count on enough Republicans switching sides to maintain a filibuster on contentious issues even if there was popular support.

Contrast that with the Health Care vote, where there were 0 defections from the Democrat side of the Senate. 61 votes yes. Not a single vote no, not even from some of the supposedly conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Despite there being a solid majority against it. Despite most Senators not even having read the bill.

And you want to claim that Republicans are more Demogogic and Authoritative?

Of course a minority party is going to stick together more than a majority party, but the Democrats all fall into line like good little socialist ducks following their masters Pelosi, Reid, and Obama (and Marx and Engels and Lenin).

Re:eh

[Misch]

Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers (the team, not the police force). Got the city to build a new stadium, and massively increased attandance and profits. He also did OK as governer of Texas (though arguable the Lt. Gove has more power there), and often compromised to get things done. I was really surprised by how he behaved as president.

Yeah, he got the city to build the stadium on land taken by eminent domain.

What about the part that when the Rangers were sold, Dubya got a significantly larger share of the profits than his initial investment? According to the Washington Post, his $600K investment paid off at $14.9 million, whereas the investment group that bought the Rangers paid $75 million for 86% of the team, and sold (100% of the team, having acquired the rest later) for $250 million in 1998.

For having 1.6% of the investment money, he got about 6% of the profits.

"[George W. Bush] was an asset because his father's career was going up and reaching the top. We just brought the young man over somewhat out of respect for his father."

It's good to be the son of the president.

Re:eh

[gambino21]

Do you have references that these constituents "overwhelmingly favor its repeal"? I've heard this before on Fox news but have not seen any reliable statistics to back it up. On the other hand I did hear last year from several places that the majority of people favoured a public option. However, the health insurance companies obviously didn't want this and therefore many in Washington made sure it didn't happen.

The reason I bring this up is because a lot of people didn't like the bill in the beginning because it didn't include medicare expansion or a public option. But I believe many of those people would still not want it repealed.

Re:eh

[commodore64_love]

>>>I would counter that the Republican party is more Demogogic and Authoritative

The Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout bill in 2008, in direct opposite to the leader of their party (George Bush). In contrast the Democrats voted near-unanimously to pass Obama's healthcare bill, simply because it was Obama that wanted it.

Almost every bad bill that's passed these last 4-5 years has been near-100% Democrat (like the renewal of the Patriot Act) while the Republicans opposed the bill (but lacked the numbers to block it).

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

How long are you going to ride those hundred year old coattails?

As long as they are still relevant to the topic at hand.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

What's to stop you from getting a group of your concerned friends and associates together, pooling funds, and doing the same thing?

Oh yeah...Campaign Finance Reform laws.

Aka the incumbent protection racket.

McCain-Feingold isn't about removing the money out of politics, it's about removing the extraneous players. Like the citizen.

Money is a part of politics it is impossible to remove it, but it's not impossible to remove YOUR access.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

God you're a fucking moron.

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

How about the last 40 years? Oh wait, the parties essentially switched constituencies based on the abortion stance.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

They probably have the "Separate but equal" fiasco stuck in their mind where people who were supposed to be treated equally, were not.

There is nothing stopping homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, they are not treated unequally.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of the way the Clinton and Rodam-Clinton took senior for a ride in real estate.

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

You republicans sure have a preoccupation with having things shoved down your throats.. It's all I hear about from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reily, etc. I'm starting to think you all kind of have a fetish for having things shoved down your throats.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

You misspelled murderers. You know, people that killed someone else with a certain level of depravity necessary to get the death penalty.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.

Can't hold a candle to Obama and Rezko in that regard. Or Clinton and Whitewater for that matter. Or Al Gore and Global Warming. Republicans are amateurs when it comes to ripping off the public compared to the Democrats.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

Exactly. Tell me again why someone sitting around doing nothing but drinking and drug abusing their life away and is somehow entitled to part of my paycheck because I happen to go to work and make a decent living because I chose to do that instead of drinking and drug abusing my life away.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

Name one time when the First Amendment was suppressed under Bush.

Re:eh

[nomadic]

Then please let me know how such a vaunted legal scholar in such prominent positions could have spent the past ten years without taking a stand on any of the critical legal issues of the day? The past ten years have seen fundamental, important legal issues become some of the most important in our nation's history, and she manages to get by without actually letting anyone know her position.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

How is that any different than liberals trying to remove 600 year old crosses off of hill sides in California?

Re:eh

[Nimey]

What makes you think the Senate would be any better without the 17th Amendment? Why do you think state-house politics are any better than the sort they deal with now?

I rather suspect it was enacted because people could see that the senators were beholden to state-house politics, rather than being concerned with the people.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

As a self-taught software developer without a CS degree, I've come to recognize that the better and more efficient developers are those that are self-taught, with real-world experience. I've worked with CS grads with their bachelors degrees that cannot stand toe-to-toe with some guy lacking equal credentials, doing their job equal to the time that grad spent in the classroom.

As a self-taught software developer without a CS degree I think you may be engaging in selection bias. The reality is that the software developers without degrees or CS degrees have to be good and typically have to have a track record to get hired that CS-grads do not. Larger pool of CS grads mean they tend to look worse comparatively, but there are some very good developers that managed to graduate with CS degrees.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

Gay marriage predates Christianity.

1) [Citation Needed]
2) Even if you can prove that, Christianity is not the only religion opposed to gay marriage. Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?

If we are going to uphold the idea of separation of Church and State we need to accept that Religion covers more ground than just Protestants vs. Catholics.

Right, like I said before, Christianity is not the only religion that is opposed to gay marriage. Christianity is not the only religion to consider marriage to be sacred. This is NOT a Christianity thing, so check your Christian bashing at the door, please. What do you think would happen if Steve and Eric walked into a Mosque and asked to be wed?

Finally, like I said before, the gov't should get out of the marriage business. If you want to get "married", fine, but it will hold no legal weight and no one has to "marry" you or recognize your "marriage" by law if they don't want to. What is currently called "marriage" should be legally renamed to "civil union" and carry all the legal privileges and responsibilities currently tied to marriage. All currently married couples would be seen as "civil unionized" (or whatever).

Re:eh

[Nimey]

Race and homophobia as well. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" (god, guns, and gays) to get the knuckle-draggers out to vote Republican had a major effect as well.

Likewise Reagan's courting of the Religious Right in 1980.

Re:eh

[Zot Quixote]

Significant body of legal scholarship? She was a Dean at Harvard.

Re:eh

[westlake]

I'd argue that republicans are the only ones with party loyalty though..

Just a reminder for readers outside the United States:

Party discipline does not exist in the U.S. as anyone who knows only parliamentary government would understand it.

Governing coalitions are forged within - and between - the two major parties. Third parties tend to organize around a charismatic leader and issues that have no great staying power. When one or the other fades from view, the party fades with it.

Re:eh

[rmushkatblat]

Um, yes, people overwhelmingly want it repealed: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Re:eh

[drsquare]

Correct me if I'm wrong from my non-American perspective, but isn't the MLB a cartel organisation where every member is guaranteed massive revenues, and the main qualification for getting to run a franchise is being really rich? And isn't the Governor of Texas pretty much a non job?

Re:eh

[orthancstone]

The GP was implying that a Democrat (or "liberals" as you summarize it) is espousing an opinion that counters the First Amendment's intentions; furthermore, said poster implies that the Republicans should've had the balls to call her out for it.

I reminded said poster that these very same Republicans are currently waging their own war against the First Amendment. Obviously they've got their own issues with it too, and perhaps didn't find much error in the idea that someone could take issue with the Amendment's broad brush. (Both sides are tools for thinking like that, but I digress.)

Which brings me to wondering what the hell your comment has to do with anything. Seems like nothing more than a pathetic attempt to attack "liberals" while staying completely off-topic for this line of discussion.

Re:eh

[nomadic]

Almost every bad bill that's passed these last 4-5 years has been near-100% Democrat (like the renewal of the Patriot Act) while the Republicans opposed the bill (but lacked the numbers to block it).

I never really understood why people make patently false statements that are easily disproven. The majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Patriot Act renewal. The majority of Republicans voted for it. Every single Republican in the Senate voted for its renewal. The only Senators opposing it were Democrats.

Re:eh

[Zot Quixote]

Probably yeah. Because the context is pretty weak tea. Dems have confirmed some pretty sucko Republican nominees.

In this world their are those who take advantage (Republicans), those who try to stop them (Democrats), and those who are too stupid to tell the difference (you).

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're not yet he still is riding them.....

Re:eh

[MHolmesIV]

Wow, a lot of heated opinions here. Seriously though, you have to look at track records. The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc), and the party that has the platform of larger government, more social nets and more social control has been the only one in decades to reduce the deficit, and believes that people should have more liberty (abortion decisions, gay marriage, etc).

Huh, maybe they should just swap names and get on with it. As far as I can tell, the party platform is only there to sucker the idiots...

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason the Senate is called the 'sober second house' in some countries. When you have senators who don't have to worry about their re-election campaign or getting kicked out of caucus, you (hopefully) get senators that aren't afraid to throw the stupid shit the lower house passes.

The system isn't perfect but when you don't have to worry about the majority punishing you, it's easier to stick up for the little guy.

Re:eh

[bigstrat2003]

No, both parties are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves. Stop drinking the damned kool-aid already: almost no one makes it to Washington without being in it for themselves, and no one else.

Re:eh

[alzoron]

Yes, but she admitted herself that the way the law was worded it could be used to ban books. She defended the law for it's good uses and simply said that it's ok that it could be used to ban books because "no one would ever use the law for that." It's similar to defending a law that made jaywalking a crime, and made it legal for the president to rape people because "no one would ever use the law for that." Yes, that is an extreme example, but I consider anything so blatantly unconstitutional to be extreme.

She might not have outright supported banning books, but she was fine with a law that could let it happen. The law is unconstitutional. Defending, voting for, or introducing a bill or law that you know full and well is unconstitutional while in a position of political authority should be criminal. If it's found that a law is too broad, or could be easily twisted to do bad things, fix it. If the same people keep trying to pass bad laws they need to be removed from power.

Both parties are guilty of these kinds of appointments. All they seem to care about is if the appointee is allied with their party and support a few of their pet causes. Who cares if they have a few other views that are insane, we'll just try to cover that up or accuse the other side of being petty because they're not happy the appointee isn't allied with their party.

Sorry about the ranting, but watch C-Span for any length of time and your eyes are opened to just how corrupt the whole system is and you start getting a little angry about things.

Re:eh

[bigstrat2003]

If that's the best argument you can make, it's you that is the moron. It makes me sad that someone actually thought this tripe was "informative".

Re:eh

[UnknowingFool]

There's a difference between saying:

I wish she had more experience in academia and some experience as judge. I also would like to know her stand on some issues important to me

and

"Kagan is very smart but she has none of these things, she's basically a career administrator/politician."

One is your opinion; the other is a mis-characterization of her career.

As for her positions, she hasn't published much about them. But is there some sort of requirement that she had to publish them. As a government lawyer, her position would have been the administration's position. In her career in academia, she would have had the chance. I haven't done any research but have you searched Harvard or the University of Chicago for any papers?

Re:eh

[nomadic]

"Career politician/administrator" does not refer necessarily to an objective count of how many years she's done something, it has to do with her apparent chosen career path and the statements she has made (or not made) in pursuing that path. Law professors love to give their opinions. The reason one might choose to refrain from doing so is likely because she doesn't want to sabotage future political/administrative positions. Glenn Greenwald has a great criticism of her here. Tellingly, her biggest supporters (like Lawrence Lessig) have not really been able to attack the facts he brings up, but their main defense is "I know her and she'll make a great SC justice," which is a stupid justification to pick her.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the Republican party of which Lincoln was a member and the Democratic party which Strom Thurman belonged are dead. Both died in the mid 60's.

Re:eh

[geekoid]

You are claiming that the Democrats voted for "Health Care Reform" bacuse they are listening to their constituents?
Correct

"The same constituents that overwhelmingly opposed its passing"

No, they don't. You have some people with the credibility of a 9/11 truthers make shit up and being propagated by republicans.

"..which strengthens the big banks "

no it does not.

"... promises to bail them out if they screw up "
that not what is says.

"who take actions that their constituents oppose "
they don't.

read the fucking bill. Let me know where it says any of that.

Look at the history of the parties. They are not the same thing the where 50 years ago. and again 50 years before that. They basically swap places over time. MY time is now, so I talk about the parties that exist NOW. It was started by ANTI-slave WHIGS and free soil democrats.
The Conservative/social moderate platform of the republican party of the old days is gone.

You need to stop letting fox feed your arrogance from ignorance. Because that posts makes you look like an idiot.

Re:eh

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

If you have a vegetarian and an omnivore and feed them both meat, are you treating them equally?

Re:eh

[geekoid]

Until the republicans begin being responsible to the people in the society again..so for a while.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Eight years of being a professor isn't enough for you? What does it take to make people like you happy? (And be honest about your complaints. First it was "no scholarship" and now eight years and her papers and books aren't enough. You're either covering for making up facts or you're moving the goal posts.)

Also, how is lack of obvious politics a problem in a judge? Lack of political activism* seems like exactly what you ideally want. The fact that you see it as a problem suggests that she has politics you don't like, but aren't willing to admit because then everyone would know what you are.

* She served under Clinton and Obama. I think you know her politics, don't you.

Re:eh

[oh_my_080980980]

Excuse me, the Democrats voted to confirm Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

It was the Republicans that blocked Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court!

Moron.

Re:eh

[jythie]

Eh, the GP is using the standard tactic of 'people like me believe X, I am a twue American, thus most Americans believe X'.

It has been a major meme among conservatives for a while now.... any time they do not get their way they claim that the majority believe as they do.

Re:eh

[geekoid]

"What's to stop you from getting a group of your concerned friends and associates together, pooling funds, and doing the same thing?"
actually.. nothing.

Unless you start a union or for profit corporation and use it's general funds.

So your wrong again.

Re:eh

[jythie]

Well, they swapped names once in the past already, so maybe it is about time. Modern conservatives have so little to do with conservative thought that it is scary. They really have become retro progressives at this point.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience. We can afford to get our endorsement out to a few people on an open forum here.

That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech. It's about making democracy, not plutocracy, the political system we live under. Which was the point of the Revolutionary War.

Holy fuck are you people thick. This is straight out of 1984, or Animal House.... Up is Down, Day is Night. Banning books is freedom? Really? The point of the revolutionary war was to make democracy, so we have to abandon the 1st amendment? Holy fucking shit, that is the dumbest fucking thing ever written. Ok, that's not true. There's a lot of shit just as dumb or dumber peppered throughout this thread. Sorry about the hyperbole. But it ain't fucking smart either.

Look, the very foundation of the country is freedom. Particularly freedom of speech and freedom of association. Banning books is not compatible with The United States of America. At all. Remember all that "I'll disagree with everything you say but die to defend your right to say it?" That's what America is all about. Not "I think you are a political enemy, so I'll make sure that you can't participate in politics by banning your book." Two legs are not better, asshat.

If all of you fuck-knots would get your team red / team blue heads out of your asses, you'd see that we have a nominee to the highest court in the land who actually argued before the supreme court that a book could be banned if it had one single sentence that advocated for a candidate. Not in a bar-room bet, but in actual open court. Imagine if you will, if I took "On Walden Pond" or "Catcher in the Rye" and republished it myself, only putting "vote for Obama, he's the best" on the last page. She says the Federal Government of the United States of America is allowed to ban that book.

Well, the fucking constitution says exactly the fucking opposite. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Get that? No fucking law, period. Not "no law unless we think it is really, really important." No law with respect to freedom of speech. As in "you can't ban videos that show lesbians giving each other milk enemas" no law. (actual case from last week). That's how fucking important freedom of speech is in the United States of America. No fucking law. Period.

Fuck every one of you team blue fucks you thinks it is OK to ban speech when your team benefits. Equal fuck you to all of you team red theocrats who would do the same thing given a chance. But a special, super fuck you in the ass to anyone who thinks that it is OK to pack the court with political hacks who would ban books just because you think you'll gain a political advantage. Fuck you in the fucking ass, sideways you fucking waste.

Re:eh

[geekoid]

Yes, he got the state to fund his play toy. Well done.

Re:eh

[DerekLyons]

These days, the Senate tends to be just as petty and partisan as the House, if not even moreso, and it's all because the Senators have to play up their act to get re-elected rather than being able to vote their conscience.

And you think they'll act any better when they have to play up their act to get re-appointed? Dream on, because history doesn't support you.
 

As an added bonus, it might just slow down the federal government's powergrab from the states (see things like speed limits or drinking age) since, you know, someone would actually be representing the states in the united STATES government.

And how is somebody meant to represent the state supposed to vote his conscience as you think he would (above)? Or, to put it another way, how do you think the patronage and pork system got started in the first place?
 
You have some very naive political notions.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic, I know, but...

See, marriage is a religious institution to most folk.

And most folk are uninformed.

Marriage, either civil marriage or religious marriage (or both), predates recorded history. We don't know how it began, nor is there only one single origin of marriage, since it has existed in some form or another in almost every culture. But to call it purely a religious institution is simply ignorant of its reality.

We see allowing gay marriage to be like the government forcing churches to allow Muslims and atheists to take communion.

Except that "allowing" is not the same as "forcing". Just because the government allows something, doesn't mean any church is forced to do it. Have you ever seen the Catholic Church being forced to perform a marriage for someone who has previously been divorced? Or a Synagogue being forced to marry non-Jews? Yet the government allows these marriages, don't they?

It's as simple as this: if you're not in a same-sex relationship, then the very question of same-sex marriage is one that has absolutely no impact on you whatsoever, and quite frankly, is none of your business. It's a free country, therefore you're free to have an opinion, but you should have no say whatsoever in the outcome of this issue.

Re:eh

[Boronx]

If a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man then they aren't being treated equally.

Re:eh

[Boronx]

The economy collapsed in 2008 on a far vaster scale than any economic damage caused by 9/11. Bush was still president.

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Check the political climate back in 1912/1913. Woodrow Wilson had just come into power, the 16th Amendment (income tax) had just passed ratification by the skin of its teeth, and the progressives had all kinds of things they wanted to do at the federal level like eugenics/forced abortion/sterilization (never got much farther than the "talk about" stage in terms of national policy), the Federal Reserve system, prohibition, creating a new layer of government at the world level, etc but were worried about the states standing in their way (that is, they wanted to usurp power from the states).

So, they pushed for the popular election of Senators as a means of manipulating the people through propaganda to empower the people that favored big government. Seriously, history classes in the US tend to gloss over Woodrow Wilson and what an evil bastard he was, they don't even really discuss his politics beyond the League of Nations. He flat out hated the system of checks and balances because it limited the power of the federal government to grow unchecked. In fact, he hated the entire US system of government and preferred a parliamentary system

He got his way... ever notice that the federal government just continues to take power these days, whether it's Constitutional or not, whether it is a violation of the powers of the states or not, whether it's a violation of your rights/liberty/freedom or not? And when was the last time your Senator gave you any real consideration (at least without you, uh, returning said consideration, generally, in the form of a bribe, I mean campaign donation)? You're one of millions of tiny voices that he represents rather than one large voice (the state) that his job actually hinges on respecting. For that matter, imagine Senators without the influence of the corporations and special interest groups that they rely on to get re-elected.

Re:eh

[scotch]

commodore64_love is never one to let facts get in the way of his truth. His posts are always good for a chuckle.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you have it folks:
Dean of a law school is a person not practicing nor researching law.
Law professor: ditto. really. Remember, as the saying goes: Can do? Practice law. Can't do? Teach.

And just because you worked with someone famous doesn't account for skill. I could have been a code weenie for Alan Kay and still write bad code. In the end, that's the academic's justification for measuring merit: it's about "who you know/associated with". Counter that with businessman's justification of "how much you make/sell". And of course, both group think they know it all.

Re:eh

[JonStewartMill]

She's no Harriet Miers, that's for certain.

Re:eh

[geekoid]

Man, you really only read Fox headlines, don't you?

Obama and Rezko?
You mean he bought some land from them? or the part where Rezko committed a crime and then donate a small portion to Obama?
It's like if I embezzled money from my company, gave a small portion to the EFF and then blaming the EFF.

there was nothing with Clinton and whitewater. as hard as they tried an all republican group found nothing wrong. THIS is why is suddenly became about the Lewinsky Affair.

"l Gore and Global Warming. "
He was correct.

All the thing you list are...nothing. Learn to fucking read and think for yourself. You've been manipulated you stupid goon. Jeez, you practically have Fox's hand up your ass moving your mouth.

Re:eh

[geekoid]

Nice straw man, dick.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

So what have you earned? Stuff that you built upon from what your family had and any sort of tax funded education/help doesn't count. In short, where you born in the middle of the desert, where abandoned there and earned everything you have? When a group is exploiting natural resources and capital you can never access because they divided it up before you were ever born, then you might as well be a slave.

Re:eh

[Nimey]

On the other hand, amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Think about that a moment - at least 2/3 of senators and at least 3/4 of the state legislatures thought that having the senate represent the state legislatures was unsatisfactory. If those thought that way of doing things was any good at all, the 17th amendment would never have passed.

Re:eh

[mldi]

Make no mistake, the ending of slavery move was profit and power motivated, not out of goodness of heart or good ethics. Besides, how in the hell is that relevant today? You think things would've remained exactly the same or what?

Re:eh

[Cytotoxic]

Let's recast your argument:

"I am in favor of banning books because...."

You don't have to go any farther than that. There is no reason you can stick behind "because" that makes it OK. You might have 50 good reasons to want to ban speech you disagree with . They all fall short. There is not, nor can there ever be, a sufficient reason to ban speech. That's one of the core values of the United States of America. That's one of the fundamental underpinnings of our freedom. It is inviolate.

Especially in the realm of politics. Especially there. We've fought hard to expand freedom of speech into things like wearing a shirt made out of the flag, or watching pornography or strip clubs. But the real reason that freedom of speech was so important that they put it in the constitution is for political speech. That is absolutely the last kind of speech you should ever consider banning. And any restriction on political speech is absolutely incompatible with the first amendment. It doesn't matter if you think it is a really good ideal. Or even if it really is important. The Federal government has no power to regulate speech, even political speech, because of the first amendment.

The fact that you and many of your compatriots here don't agree with this is sad. The revolutionary war was not about making democracy, as you claim. It was about throwing off tyranny. To ensure that tyranny never returned, they enshrined their values in the Constitution. At the core of this instrument for resisting tyranny was the belief that all men have freedom of their thoughts, associations and religion. That is why they made this the cornerstone of the republic, placing freedom of speech above all others, at the top of the bill of rights.

Re:eh

[bpgslashdotaccount]

So you agree that Obama has no experience.

Re:eh

[mldi]

Depends how you define "feed" or "meat".

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

And you think they'll act any better when they have to play up their act to get re-appointed? Dream on, because history doesn't support you.

The Senate was far, far more rational before becoming popularly elected. Sure, there was the occasional nutjob, but most of them were thoughtful and respectable people that had earned the trust of their state. Care to back your assertion that today's Senate is more thoughtful and civil than the Senate of old? Or is that one of those revisions where we ignore history so we can claim anything we want today, like the notion that the Constitution isn't the hard law of the land, but a living document meant to be constantly reinterpreted into violating itself, like with the creation of the current federal bureaucracy and the erosion of the explicit rights protected in the Bill of Rights?

And how is somebody meant to represent the state supposed to vote his conscience as you think he would (above)? Or, to put it another way, how do you think the patronage and pork system got started in the first place?

It's a lot easier to explain to 30 or 50 or even 100 people why you voted the way you did, especially if you make a habit of consulting with them along the way, than it is to explain to millions of individuals why you voted against the Save the Children and Feed the Puppies Act of 2010, especially when most of those individuals don't pay attention beyond the occasional gasp of "omg, they voted against saving the children and they want puppies to die!" Most voters tend to be very uninformed, most legislators at least tend to take their jobs seriously enough to usually pay attention to what's going on.

Besides, how is being answerable to your state's government a worse thing than being answerable to whoever cuts you the biggest donation/runs a 527 supporting your policies/etc? Those people are already buying the White House and one house of Congress, they don't need the other.

So, now that I've answered it, let me flip the question... how is the direct election of Senators better for the states and people than the old system prior to the 17th Amendment?

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Reread that post again. 90% of the people producing *most* of that wealth survive on the remaining 30%. Why wouldn't the people who produce most of the wealth benefit from it?

They are producing more that the wealthiest 10%. Argue what the definition of the terms are (i.e. what is considered "wealth" and what "own", "consume" and "control" mean). That would have meant something. Instead you jump on what sounds like a pet argument you like to have. Not everything about getting a fair share is entitlement.

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

Until the Democrats do something demonstrating that they are not still a bunch of racists. The last Democratic KKK member in the Senate only recently died, so I think that it is a little less than 100 years old.

Re:eh

[toadlife]

...[rasmussenreports.com]

Now cite another large polling organization who has come up with similar results.

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc),

When did the Democrats ever have less government and fiscal responsibility as their platform? Or haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on in Washington since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 (and especially since Obama got into the WH)? What they have done dwarfs what the Republicans did when they controlled the purse strings from 1994-2006 (during which time that deficit reduction you mentioned occurred).

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

Cool, my very own cyber stalker. And it wasn't a straw man, dick. I shouldn't be punished for your bad choices, and you shouldn't be rewarded out of my pocket book.

Re:eh

[allometry]

I guess we agree to disagree.

But I guess I do carry some bias towards those who are self-taugh, so I will admit to that. However, it seems to me that a self-made-man in America is a wrong thing these days, since their fucking knowledge isn't endorsed by an accrediting council. Personally, I'm looking forward to being done with my CS program. Figure I'd play the game, get my credential and get paid more money for doing the same thing.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

What makes you think they are equal?

What makes you think they are treated equally under the law in other situations?

Example: you have two intoxicated people, a woman and a man. They have sexual intercourse. The man can be prosecuted for rape, but not the woman.

Re:eh

[nomadic]

And be honest about your complaints. First it was "no scholarship" and now eight years and her papers and books aren't enough

I said no significant body of scholarship. Yes, her eight years and her papers and books aren't enough. Why do you dishonestly put "now" in there like I've changed my position?

Also, how is lack of obvious politics a problem in a judge? Lack of political activism* seems like exactly what you ideally want. The fact that you see it as a problem suggests that she has politics you don't like, but aren't willing to admit because then everyone would know what you are.

"Activism"? Taking a position, ON EITHER SIDE, of compelling legal arguments of our day, should be a requirement for anyone who wants to be on the SC.

* She served under Clinton and Obama. I think you know her politics, don't you.

No, I don't know her politics. Neither do you.

Re:eh

[Mongoose Disciple]

I have spoken to homosexuals who have openly stated that they want it to be called "marriage". Nothing less will do. (Personally, I believe government should not recognize any marriages at all and convert all current marriages to "civil unions".)

I'm not opposed to getting government out of the marriage business altogether, but the reality is, there are thousands upon thousands of laws in America that key off the institution of marriage. The amount of law at every level of government that would have to be rewritten to make a civil union equal to a marriage is staggering and, frankly, not realistic.

So given that, yeah, nothing less than marriage will do can be a pretty pragmatic position.

Re:eh

[rpillala]

The TX Rangers are an interesting example. Mr. Bush and a group of investors bought the team when they did not have a stadium. This allowed the acquisition at a bargain price. They then hired a team of lawyers to lobby the city to raise sales tax 1% in order to build a new stadium. A team with a stadium is worth much more than one without, so they were sold at a profit. Where did the money come from? The taxpayers in the city of Arlington were made to subsidize baseball whether they enjoyed baseball or not. The investors then captured the subsidy. This is a case (as are most stadiums) of taking public money and building a private park. The park still charges admission, and the team gets to sell luxury sky boxes. That money does not go back to the taxpayers. I would say the Rangers are a very good example of socialize debt and privatize profits.

If you took all such government subsidy out of Major League Baseball or the National Football League, they'd be operating at a loss. By the way, the entity that built the stadium is prohibited by law from buying the team and getting those revenues.

So why are you surprised?

Re:eh

[DragonWriter]

I don't know that we need a better electorate as we need a better election system.

You need to get a better electoral system adopted within the current political framework. Given that that will require action by at least the federal Congress and possibly both that and state action through either the regular legislative process or citizen initiative processes, I don't think the fact that securing it requires a better electoral system changes the fact that establishing it requires a better electorate in the current system.

I suppose you can dispense with that requirement if you assume that such a better electoral system being would be installed from the top through a coup d'etat by electoral reformers or an invasion and conquest by a foreign power that has a real problem with our current electoral system. But those mechanisms don't seem particularly likely, and would probably be widely regarded as having downsides far outweighing any likely benefits.

Re:eh

[tomohawk]

The reason for the increased polarization is obvious: there much more at stake now that it has become OK to create laws and set social policies from the bench. At the same time, it is harder and harder to do this sort of thing in Congress.

So, it is natural for the selection process to not worry about things such as scholarship or judicial experience - the position no longer requires that. A SCOTUS position is now a policy making position from which to enact broad legal and social changes.

These days, when senators are voting for a new supreme, they are essentially voting for a bundle of laws that they could probably not ever get passed in congress.

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

On the other hand, amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Think about that a moment - at least 2/3 of senators and at least 3/4 of the state legislatures thought that having the senate represent the state legislatures was unsatisfactory. If those thought that way of doing things was any good at all, the 17th amendment would never have passed.

And 98 Senators voted for the original PATRIOT Act. That's more than your 3/4s of states. People do stupid things from time to time, sometimes including shooting themselves in the foot, especially during a crisis or time of political upheaval. Wilson was the first Democrat elected in 20 years, carrying 40 states, and had 300 seats in the House and 52 Senate seats (and filibusters didn't work the way they do today, you could only filibuster for as long as you could keep talking).

It's not that hard to understand how it passed ratification in that climate. I mean, it's not like they didn't pass another amendment a couple years later that would be the only amendment to ever be repealed (prohibition)... only by the time prohibition was repealed (1933), the big government takeover was already well entrenched (20 years) and there was no way it was going to surrender power back to the states, especially under FDR's leadership.

Re:eh

[allometry]

There was a comment above yours that I did respond to and I figure your post deserved a response as well.

Thinking about it, I am bias in my remarks. No sham in saying so, very few of us are ever truly objective, but just an opinion I've formed over the years. However, in regards to what you're saying, let me tack-on some clarification. I have worked with some very good CS grads, whom I've had this conversation with before. What we all tend to agree on is that, in general, a person with working-experience in their field is always preferred to one without.

Now, with that being said, I'm looking at Kagen and another appointee, Harriet Myers who was nominated by Bush. I thought to myself then the very thing I'm thinking now: why isn't our CoC finding more qualified individuals with actual experience? Regardless of politics, wouldn't it be beneficial to find someone who actually tried a case?

To me, I think there are many judges who have been trying cases for decades that are more qualified for the position than Kagen. Thinking about nominating an individual for the Supreme Court, I might have looked there rather than finding an individual that can easily be argued a judicial activist.

But, Obama's President and I'm not. You get what you vote for...

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

What is that, 4 or 5 posts now where you've followed me around?

Re:eh

[saider]

Except when it comes to various legal benefits that are extended to married couples, but not to those engaged in "civil unions".

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

The party that has a platform of less government and fiscal (and personal) responsibility has been at the helm of the largest government increases and spending excesses in history, as well as trying it's damnedest to legislate personal responsibility right out of existence (abortion decisions, porn, religion, etc),

When did the Democrats ever have less government and fiscal responsibility as their platform? Or haven't you been paying attention to what has been going on in Washington since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 (and especially since Obama got into the WH)? What they have done dwarfs what the Republicans did when they controlled the purse strings from 1994-2006 (during which time that deficit reduction you mentioned occurred).

Um, GP was talking about the Republicans as the ones who run on the platform of fiscal responsibility. Don't forget that GWB took a SURPLUS and turned it into a trillion dollar per year deficit. Right now we're spending more to get out of the new Great Depression. It's not the way I'd do it, but I guarantee you it's exactly what the Republicans would be doing if they were in power now. Or don't you remember that most of the Republicans also voted for the stimulus bill?

Re:eh

[Changa_MC]

Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?

Given that swans marry for life, and gay swans marry other gay swans, I'm gonna go with, "yes."

I realize lots of religions try to pretend that "civil union" is different than marriage but it's not. Adding new terms to language to describe the same thing only adds confusion. Please stop.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think they are equal?

What makes you think they are treated equally under the law in other situations?

Example: you have two intoxicated people, a woman and a man. They have sexual intercourse. The man can be prosecuted for rape, but not the woman.

What planet are you living on?

Anyone, regardless of gender, can be prosecuted for rape.

The reality is that women don't generally rape men. It's therefore unlikely that the woman would be prosecuted for rape, because it's unlikely she would have committed rape, and equally unlikely the man would claim to have been raped. Nevertheless, if the man did make such a claim, and the police considered the claim valid, then she would be charged and prosecuted.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, you get it. I don't get why moronic sports nuts think that it's a good thing to be forced into paying for a stupid stadium at the expense of ... everyone. They can build their own damn stadiums. They make more than enough money to do it. Why do people love being ripped off?

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone, regardless of gender, can be prosecuted for rape.

Sure, but in cases where you have two parties equally intoxicated, and both willing participants in sexual intercourse, only the man can be charged for rape later on if the woman regrets it. Men can and have gone to prison for this.

Which is to say, there are multiple areas of the law where men are treated differently from women and it isn't some existential constitutional crisis like "gay marriage bans" are being made out to be (but aren't). Funny how the country managed to survive 223 years before some genius homosexual judge managed to figure out the opposite.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we do like to have SC justices who have a grasp of the ORIGINAL intent of the constitution unbiased by personal moral convictions and not fighting for the cause du jour.
So can you explain by what criteria Kagan is "smart"? I'm kind of at a loss when she says stupid crap like " Someone should be doing more to eliminate hate speech and porn".
We already know she is just a Demotoadie put in place by Omama to help communize us all gently into their plans for human domination.
Does a career administrator/politician qualify as usefully smart enough for any job that doesn't ask "do you want fries with that"?

          You may not like my perspective now, but just wait till she's been fscking things up for a while. She'll end up being a bigger joke than Hillary and people will begin to wonder if women are truly fitted to positions of import. Just like there will never be another black president, there will never be another woman on SCOTUS.
        Just think of her as a puppet with Obamas arm up her ass.

Re:eh

[Retric]

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[41] These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[42] Cicero mentions the marriage (using the Latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.[43] Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages.[44] By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special.".[45] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.[46][47] Note: This is also the approximate age of the written record, prior to this written language was far more abstract, and the fragments that remain are less well understood.

Also for a non western perspective: *In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[39] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[40]*

PS: As another poster pointed out there is significant evidence that gay marriage predates humanity. So the question boils down to "Does Marriage predate Religion" which is somewhat ambiguous and depends on your definition of religion and Marriage. The basic problem is religion predates the written record so while you can find evidence of gay unions 4000 years ago it's in a tomb http://www.pridedepot.com/?p=357

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

If a gay man married a woman, they would have the same benefits as any other married couple. Now, if you want to fucking REDEFINE MARRIAGE from what it's been in Western civilization for the last 3000 years, by all means, go ahead. But don't call it some sort of equal protection bullshit. It's just the continual leftist desire to turn society on it's head.

Re:eh

[clone73]

CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Advance, on behalf of a West Virginia couple who were arrested at a Fourth of July presidential appearance at the state Capitol because they were wearing t-shirts critical of the president. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-and-white-house-charged-violating-free-speech-rights-aclu-lawsuit The couple won the lawsuit. $80k in damages.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

Republicans are amateurs when it comes to ripping off the public compared to the Democrats.

Really? They not only stole $700 billion from the Treasury, they made it look like it was Obama's idea.

And the first income tax? Republicans.

You're the sort who falls easily for the "Hey look it's Batman!" trick.

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

It is over 2000 pages long. There is only one reason to write a bill that long, to hide stuff from people. The law vastly increases the amount of paperwork that financial institutions will need to file. Which company do you think suffers more from a major increase in paperwork, the one with 50 employees or the one with 10,000?

Re:eh

[UnknowingFool]

When you say someone is a "Career politician/administrator" the implication is that they spent most of their career as a politician or administrator. If you said some is a "career criminal" it is implied that they haven't done much with their working lives except commit crimes. She's spent a good deal of time in government and as a administrator. But that hasn't been her whole resume and your statement is not entirely true.

The reason one might choose to refrain from doing so is likely because she doesn't want to sabotage future political/administrative positions

I believe some law professors, being professors, are in it to teach. Some do have political aspirations; some do not. However, anyone with political aspirations has to know that anything they might have said or done in the past will come out when they run for office, even things that were supposed to say hidden. For example, the details of Jeri and Jack Ryan's divorce came out when he was running for Illinois state Senate. Maybe Kagan hasn't said much solely because she is a private person? Not everyone espouses their political opinions to anyone who will listen.

You don't like Kagan as SC Justice. I'm not thrilled about her qualifications either. I wish she had some experience being a judge. But I'm clear on my reasoning. If you don't like her qualifications, that should be the reason. If you don't like her because she leans to the left, that should be another reason. If you don't know enough about her positions, that should be another reason. One reason should not be because you judged her as a "Career politician/administrator" when she was not.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

I don't recall that "Common Sense" named a political candidate.

Recall the issue raised by the original strawman: a book of 500 pages of discussion of political systems, with one line endorsing one candidate.

Take out the one line, and it's free speech. Leave in that line, and it's a campaign contribution.

Learn to distinguish the two, and you won't end up living under the King of Citigroup.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

He's right. You're wrong. Apparently he's the unlucky one who gets to see it first more than once.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

The case was about corporations funding libelous material under the guise of a "concerned citizens" group.

So what? People can rationalize it all they want -- someone that thinks the Federal Government should have the power to prohibit the publication of books scares the hell out of me. I don't care who wrote the book or what the contents are -- the Federal Government does not and should not have the power to ban books.

The democrats are more interested in maintaining their own seats, rather than maintaining party power.

All politicians are interested in that. GOP members of Congress broke with their leadership and the GWB White House on numerous issues. Social Security reform, immigration reform and campaign finance reform all come to mind as issues that a sizable number of GOP'ers broke with their leadership on.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

Do you have references that these constituents "overwhelmingly favor its repeal"?

I guess you haven't been following the news?

Re:eh

[blair1q]

Wow are you ignorant.

There's lots of things that are called "free speech" by the people who were being tried for their content that aren't free speech.

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.

You're certainly free to speak. You're just not necessarily free to make it the only thing that reaches the ears of literally every voter, over and over again, for months before the election.

Because that's not speech. It's an exploit. A hack of the apparatus of informing the electorate. And the difference has nothing to do with the content of what is said, but with how it's delivered.

Corporations are not voters. They do not have the same rights as citizens. They should not have the right to dominate elections. As we've seen over and over again, corporate interests are inimical to the interests of individuals. I and the law will have no problem when they are completely banned from participating as corporations in endorsing or funding candidates.

Now grow the fuck up, turn off Rush Limbaugh, and read a book or two. Look up Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights. It's a good theory.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

That's not about "banning books". It's about banning the political fraud of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to use money to dominate speech.

You can't "dominate" speech. There is nothing stopping anyone from responding to speech. I find the notion that we need to be protected from "dominating" speech to be offensive.

You and I can't afford to publish a 500-page book just to astroturf a statement of endorsement and advertise it well beyond the reasonable costs to promote such a book to its reasonable audience

Two points:

1) You haven't heard of the internet, have you?
2) Even if your argument is true, so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment.

Re:eh

[VerumDicere]

Rasmussen has been criticized for bias on issues polls. Their poll question probably read something like "Do you, like a large number of patriotic, red-blooded Americans, feel that the socialist health care reform bill that will allow a government panel to decide if your mother will be put to death and will turn the US into a third world country should be repealed?"

The Washington Post recently found different results (sorry, probably have to register). I'm sure you'll say they're biased, too, but the point remains that Rasmussen's results aren't the only ones we have available.

Re:eh

[Attila Dimedici]

In December of 2008, unemployment was at 7.2%, In February of 2009 Obama pushed through a "stimulus" bill because without it unemployment might get as high as 8%. By the way, the Democrats have had control of the government purse strings since January of 2007. I would actually argue that Congress plays a much bigger role in the state of the economy than the President.
Interestingly, the guy I replied to is modded "+5 instightful", while I am modded troll. If I am a troll, so is he.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

Actually the vast majority of Democrats voted against Alito (only four voted to confirm him) and exactly half of them (22 of 44) voted against Roberts. This information isn't that hard to find. Next time you should try doing a Google search before you call someone a moron. It might save you from having egg on your face.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

How about results at the ballot box? The people who cared enough to drag their asses down to the polling place oppose it by a nearly 3 to 1 margin.....

Re:eh

[tsm_sf]

Here you go. About 100 years since Republicans garnered the significant majority of black votes, and about 70 years since the Democrats began claiming that majority. Racially speaking, Republicans shot themselves in the foot with Goldwater and still haven't recovered. They're doing it again with the Arizona immigration issue.

You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but should probably ask yourself why most minorities vote for the "racist" party.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.

That's a stupid argument when used in this context. It's not illegal to yell "fire!". It's illegal to commit the crime of reckless endangerment. That crime is not defined as the action of screaming "fire!" It's defined as the commission of an act that a reasonable person should know places other human beings in harms way. Next you'll claim that we don't have free speech because I can't legally say that I'm going to kill you and eat your brains.

Corporations are not voters.

Corporations are collections of individuals, nothing more and nothing less. Individuals own shares. Individuals work for them. Individuals buy their products.

They should not have the right to dominate elections.

They aren't dominating elections. They aren't even dominating the political discourse. Doing so in the day and age of the internet would be impossible. And even if they were dominating it, I don't recall a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. What do you say when individuals like Michael Bloomberg or George Soros spend their millions of dollars trying to dominate a particular issue?

He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights.

Please explain to me why punching you in the face is equivalent to publishing my opinions in the printed and/or video media?

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

He's right. You're wrong.

Your opinion and contribution to this thread is about as valuable as the toilet paper I wipe my ass with.

Re:eh

[Nicholas Schumacher]

Actually you are wrong there. The largest government increases and largest spending excesses in history have come under the current administration.

Re:eh

[fyngyrz]

I believe many of those people would still not want it repealed.

Exactly; it's a shadow of the bill I would have liked to see pass, it fails miserably to curb the insurance companies and in its current form it lacks a public option, and so if people ask be if I'm satisfied with the bill, I say "no", unreservedly.

But that is NOT a declaration that I would see it repealed: It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion, which is healthcare for all, just as I see education for all and fire departments for all as deeply necessary social services best provided in a centralized manner.

It is my hope that once it begins to have a significant effect, that we can tweak it (now that we have something to tweak!) into a better form.

I totally applaud Obama (who I disagree with on many other issues) for helping to get this much passed.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Off hand (without looking a thing up):

* Using government money to pay for religious charities
* Supporting keeping "under God" in the pledge
* Refusing to allow citizen to sue the federal government for warrantless wiretapping
* Refusal to allow the press to photograph things like soldiers' coffins coming back from Iraq
* Turning away people from public events with slogans on their shirts that they didn't like

That's 4/5 in my view.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

Yes, marriage predates Christianity. Does it predate religion?

Given that swans marry for life, and gay swans marry other gay swans, I'm gonna go with, "yes."

I realize lots of religions try to pretend that "civil union" is different than marriage but it's not. Adding new terms to language to describe the same thing only adds confusion. Please stop.

Either way, marriage is NOT a function of government. It predates all government, even mankind if we use your own example. Civil unions, on the other hand, are a government creation. I have no problem recognizing the civil union between two people, regardless of gender no more than I would have a problem recognizing any other contract. But that's just it, to me, and the majority of California, at least, marriage is much more than a simple contract, much more than law itself.

So I don't care if two men or two women have a civil union. Hell, I don't care if they want to call it a marriage. They can have a wedding in a church for all I care. I just don't want to be legally bound to recognize it (I would, but that's my choice), nor do I want my church sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

Read my earlier post.

Re:eh

[ArcherB]

OK, but does it predate religion. The Jews were around long before Rome was an empire. There is more than one religion in the US, and of the top three, all consider marriage to be a religious rite more than a legal one.

Also, the Roman Empire had slavery. Just because it was around long ago, doesn't mean we should have it today.

Re:eh

[sumdumass]

You are marked insightful but you should be marked funny.

The so called "only one in decades to reduce the deficit" is a lie. They balanced a budget- not reduced the deficit- and that was with a republican controlled congress and some special tricks that would have fallen away anyways. These special tricks were the Roth IRA conversions which took taxes that should have been paid in the future and allowed them to be paid now instead in order to bank on the idea that taxes would be higher in the future. These special tricks are also the capitol gains tax cuts that virtually increased the value of holding to make selling of them more attractive which in turned caused tax revenue that wouldn't have otherwise been accounted for. You also have the Y2K situation in which people were tricked into replacing computers and software causing an economic spike that compounded the 2001 recession under the notion that your old computer would kick your wife, rape your dog, and set your house or business on fire because the two digit date would role back and nothing would know what it was doing.

Without all those things, the budget would not have been balanced which in itself is a misnomer. While the budget was supposedly balanced, federal outlays were actually more then receipts when you considered off budget expenditures. While it's true that this slowed the growth of the deficit, it did not reduce it in any way.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we just abolish the senate? It's just a relic of monarchy. Why do we have two legislative bodies who both have the same job? If you want, then grant each state two 'permanent' seats in the house that don't depend on the size of the state's population. As an added bonus, we no longer have to worry about completely irrelevant amendments to bills, since amendments in the house must be germane to the legislation at hand.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

what about the fact that she is a hideous monster?

Re:eh

[Yunzil]

know it's crazy talk, but how about the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which made Senators directly elected by the people (and hence, prone to the partisanship winds of the day) rather than being representatives of the states (hence the term Statesmen)? These days, the Senate tends to be just as petty and partisan as the House, if not even moreso, and it's all because the Senators have to play up their act to get re-elected rather than being able to vote their conscience.

Great theory. The trouble is that one reason the 17th was passed in the first place was the increasing corruption and backroom deals involved with the election of Senators by State legislatures. How do you stop that from happening again?

Re:eh

[BitZtream]

Okay, so now we create a word for gay marriage and straight marriage. And then the argument becomes 'we want to be called straight marriage'.

Separate but equal does not me one and the same.

Re:eh

[modmans2ndcoming]

And how was Obama involved in any of Rezko's illegal activities? All his fund raisers were legit, they bought property from him at market value.

Same goes for Hillary and Bill. They were not involved in any illegal activity around Whitewater.

Al Gore and Global Warming? Really?

I bet you are a birther tea party nut job too.

Re:eh

[spiffmastercow]

Libel has been illegal forever. Just because it's in book form doesn't change anything. I'm not saying I agree with the point Kagan argued. I'd need to read more about the circumstances to form an opinion. But keep in mind that she's a lawyer, and she was arguing the side she'd been hired to argue. In /. terms, you use bubble sort if the boss tells you to. I'm not too concerned over it.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course a minority party is going to stick together more than a majority party, but the Democrats all fall into line like good little socialist ducks following their masters Pelosi, Reid, and Obama (and Marx and Engels and Lenin).

Lol. Seriously, moderators, plus five? After an outright red-baiting claim that Congressional Democrats are communists?! Communists in America?!

Jesus Christ, words don't have meanings anymore. You people don't know shit. I.e., you have shit for brains.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but in cases where you have two parties equally intoxicated, and both willing participants in sexual intercourse, only the man can be charged for rape later on if the woman regrets it. Men can and have gone to prison for this.

Um....... no. There are no parts of rape laws that apply only to males.

Here: US Criminal Code— go ahead, find me a part that specifically applies only to men. I'll wait.

Re:eh

[twoallbeefpatties]

Contrast that with the Health Care vote, where there were 0 defections from the Democrat side of the Senate. 61 votes yes. Not a single vote no, not even from some of the supposedly conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Despite there being a solid majority against it. Despite most Senators not even having read the bill.

If there were perfect support in the Democratic party, we would've had that bill passed after a month. That sucker stretched on pretty much for more than a year because the entire caucus COULDN'T be brought on. They were trying to tempt over moderate Republican Olympia Snowe, but when she bailed, it came to the point that they had to get every Dem on board. So rather than throw their hands up and say that it couldn't be passed, they bargained, they gave things up, they compromised. And oddly enough, the moderate Dems were willing to discuss and compromise on it. Discussion and compromise are not necessarily signs of perfect authortarian Marxism.

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Great theory. The trouble is that one reason the 17th was passed in the first place was the increasing corruption and backroom deals involved with the election of Senators by State legislatures. How do you stop that from happening again?

All those earmarks, Senators getting VIP deals from banks, the campaign donations/bribes, sure went away with the 17th Amendment. It's not like there were any Senators named Ted Stevens or Chris Dodd in the past decade, and that Larry Craig is a paragon of virtue, there is no nepotism (Murkowski, Carnahan), etc.

So it looks like the 17th Amendment didn't fix anything in that regard, is simply shuffled the deck, eliminating some problems, creating others and keeping some. Ergo, it's repeal will eliminate some forms of corruptions, and yes, probably create/recreate some some others.

More importantly, it will restore the rightful place of the signatories to the Constitution (people didn't ratify it, states did). The Constitution is a compact between the states, much like the Articles of Confederation were, though more broad, yet specifically limited, to work together for a common purpose. It is only a modern notion, post Lincoln, and getting progressively worse under Wilson, Hoover and FDR (and all since him), that the federal government gets to tell the states what to do. I'm sure you've heard of jury nullification, read up on the history of state nullification of federal law.

Re:eh

[twoallbeefpatties]

Sorry about the ranting, but watch C-Span for any length of time and your eyes are opened to just how corrupt the whole system is and you start getting a little angry about things.

I would suggest part of the problem is that you watch C-Span for any length of time and your eyes are closed due to just how boring parliamentary maneuvering is.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am a troll, so is he.

Unfortunately, Progressives believe that the ends justify the means on the way to their central-control-&-command, micromanaged Utopian fantasy. Progressives are deeply entrenched in both major parties. They have a long history of demonstrating no personal honor and view anyone else with honor as having a laughably foolish weakness to be exploited. They won't even think twice about attempting to silence any disagreement.

They know what's best. Anyone who disagrees has automatically, in Progressive minds, proven they are too stupid to be trusted to make decisions, and so they feel that by silencing opposing opinions they are simply reducing confusing "noise" that may cause the population to ask embarrassing/inconvenient questions that might slow the dawn of their glorious total reign.

And they are totally convinced that their ideas and policies will work THIS time, even though the same policies have FAILED disastrously over and over the many times throughout history that they've been tried. Read original-source history. None of this is new, and none of this has ever worked. You'd think that if they were really so smart, they would learn from past experience.

Peel the outside from a Progressive, you'll find a socialist/communist/fascist statist. Some lean Marx/Lenin, some Mao/Kim Jong Il, some Chavez/Castro or Mussolini. Most Progressives I've talked with incorporate elements of many, if not all of those failed systems in their ideology.

It matters little as they are all central-planning/central-control true believers that won't let facts, history, or opposition from the majority of people stop them if they can see an opportunity to seize control.

The Progressives in America are running plays (updated for current times) from the 1960s radical revolutionary manifesto titled; "You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows".

Check the authors. Gosh, it reads like a list of Obama's friends, associates, and advisors.

They think you are too stupid to read, or comprehend if you did, that their goal is total transformation from a capitalism-based democratic republic to a socialist police state.

Well, are you that stupid?

Re:eh

[Retric]

So I don't care if two men or two women have a civil union. Hell, I don't care if they want to call it a marriage. They can have a wedding in a church for all I care. I agree, the issue is not should the government allow gay marriage but should it BAN such unions. IMO, I would rather the government decide to remove any recognition of marriage than to regulate it. I just don't want to be legally bound to recognize it (I would, but that's my choice), nor do I want my church sued for refusing to perform the ceremony. I think your concerns are unfounded. The hole issue is separation of church and state. If your religion chooses not to acknowledge gay marriage then that's it's choice. PS: There may be some issues (for some people) with the way insurance etc is currently dealt with. However, I would suggest there is an easy way do deal with that, simply allow people to say "marriage or civil union" when they issue such polices. If you want to call something a zimbo that's fine, as long as other people are allowed to call it a marriage.

Re:eh

[Shakrai]

Libel has been illegal forever.

Libel is a civil matter in most (all?) of the US, not a criminal one. Your relief is to sue for damages not to have the person arrested. The burden of proof for libel with a public figure is particularly high too -- people all but accused Bill Clinton of being a murderer but I don't recall any criminal prosecutions or civil suits being filed as a result of it.

But keep in mind that she's a lawyer, and she was arguing the side she'd been hired to argue.

That's a weak rationalization and is totally contradicted by the rest of her paper trail. You don't have to limit her assault on free speech to Citizens United -- Politico had an interesting article about her involvement in the porn wars. She seems to believe that the ends justify the means regardless of whether or not they infringe on the 1st amendment.

I'm not too concerned over it.

Then you haven't been playing attention or don't value your civil liberties.

Re:eh

[Retric]

Christianity does not universally prohibit gay marriage. There is actually a wide range of reactions to gay people in each of the sects perhaps most surprisingly for me:

Old Catholic, Allows as member, Ordains (after 3 years?), and Blesses unions, but does not allow Marriage.

On the other hand Episcopal (2,057,292 members) expressly allows it as do other sects.

Many fall somewhere in the middle and are not unified in there opposition, Anglican (80 million members), Pentecostal (115 million followers worldwide in 2000), and Lutheran have somewhat mixed views with some local denominations allowing gay marriage while others apparently prohibit it.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

PS: You see something of a fractal pattern on the issue ex: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, as of August 21, 2009, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS), the second largest Lutheran church in the United States at 2.4 million members, does not ordain homosexuals. Lutheran churches in Germany are also divided on the issue of blessing same-sex unions. In general, very few churches in the more rural parishes (Baden, Saxonia, Hesse-Waldeck) are in favor of blessing same-sex unions while the urban churches do allow them (Hanover, Rhineland, Westfalia, Brunswick, Oldenburg, Berlin-Brandenburg, Bremen, Northelbia...).

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

Wow, thanks for pointing this out for me. We narrowly averted a police state.

Re:eh

[lgw]

For having 1.6% of the investment money, he got about 6% of the profits.

So you're agreeing that he was a good businessman in this case, then, right?

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

If by roughly half, you mean absolutely no power to stop any legislation in the House that the Democrats agree on (if anything fails in the House, it is strictly because the Democrats aren't all on board) and 40 out of 100 Senate seats, which isn't enough to prevent cloture.

Where by "40" you mean "41" (remember when Brown was elected? it was in all the papers) and quite capable of blocking cloture (and have done so as recently as last week). That 1 makes a helluva difference and scuttles your entire would-be point.

Before you try to correct someone snarkily, check your own facts.

And by the way

Maybe 10% of the population cares about his skin color whether they hate him or like him because of it

Back it up. If you're pulling it out of your ass, it's no better than what the GP pulled out of his/her ass, so don't pretend it's better or more factual unless you can support your claim any better.

Re:eh

[BlueStrat]

The Progressives in America are running plays (updated for current times) from the 1960s radical revolutionary manifesto titled; "You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows" [archive.org].

Holy shit!!! I started to read that and had to take a break because that shit is *SO* what's happening now that it creeped me right out. Combine that with Cloward & Piven's strategies and that's the Obama agenda.

Fuck the Democrats, they no longer exist. They've been assimilated by the Progressives like the Borg assimilate civilizations. The Republicans are on the way to full Progressive assimilation, too.

"This is Obamus of Borg. Resistance is futile. Your freedoms, values, wealth, and culture will be assimilated. You will be Borg...or be destroyed."

If I start hearing Q laughing, I'm gonna start screaming.

Re:eh

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Where by "40" you mean "41" (remember when Brown was elected? it was in all the papers) and quite capable of blocking cloture (and have done so as recently as last week). That 1 makes a helluva difference and scuttles your entire would-be point.

Good call... but it still gave the Democrats an entire year with nobody to stop them. That they didn't accomplish what their base wanted them to in that time was their fault, not the Republicans. Truth is, the Dems were like kids in a candy store and didn't know where to start, they just started grabbing a little bit of everything in sight rather than focusing on accomplishing any specific goals, which is why we keep ending up with multi-thousand page bills, thousands of earmarks within them, etc.

Back it up. If you're pulling it out of your ass, it's no better than what the GP pulled out of his/her ass, so don't pretend it's better or more factual unless you can support your claim any better.

Show me the polls where a significant amount of people care about Obama's race... and show me a significant portion of the Tea Party movement specifically that hangs their banner on racism... All you need to do, is to go to the JournoList archives to see the lefties in the media literally conspiring to play the race card unjustly to try to marginalize anyone that disagrees with Obama. Just to pull the first link off google. GP was doing more of the same tarring here. I can't prove that only 10% of Americans are racist (be it for or against a race) since you'll never know what's truly in someone's heart, but it should be pretty trivial to prove these so called claims of racism that the left keeps shouting about. Where's the actual evidence of racism on the part of those that oppose Obama's policies?

Re:eh

[DerekLyons]

And you think they'll act any better when they have to play up their act to get re-appointed? Dream on, because history doesn't support you.

The Senate was far, far more rational before becoming popularly elected.

As I said, go study some history.
 

Care to back your assertion that today's Senate is more thoughtful and civil than the Senate of old?

Had I claimed that, that would be a valid question. But since I didn't, fuck the hell off.
 

Or is that one of those revisions where we ignore history so we can claim anything we want today

Coming from the guy who is not only ignoring history, but also denying reality...
 

And how is somebody meant to represent the state supposed to vote his conscience as you think he would (above)? Or, to put it another way, how do you think the patronage and pork system got started in the first place?

It's a lot easier to explain to 30 or 50 or even 100 people why you voted the way you did, especially if you make a habit of consulting with them along the way, than it is to explain to millions of individuals why you voted against the Save the Children and Feed the Puppies Act of 2010,

ROTFLMAO. You think those voters you sneer at won't be on the phone to the Legislature? You think the Legislature isn't beholden to same campaign contributors? You must be on drugs.
 

So, now that I've answered it, let me flip the question... how is the direct election of Senators better for the states and people than the old system prior to the 17th Amendment?

Since I didn't claim it was, fuck the hell off.

Re:eh

[KermodeBear]

Actually, no. Eight years of being a professor isn't enough for me. She hasn't had a whole lot of "real world" experience. Theory and Practice, as I'm sure you know, are often very different.

If someone is going to get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country, then I want a depth of education and a depth of practice. Also, if you had listened to her interviews, you would see how many questions she dodged. It was very difficult to get straight answers out of her on many topics and that sends up massive red flags to me.

Re:eh

[Mongoose Disciple]

Now, if you want to fucking REDEFINE MARRIAGE from what it's been in Western civilization for the last 3000 years, by all means, go ahead.

Bullshit. That statement's ridiculously easy to disprove by counterexample.

Arranged marriages have gone from standard to virtually nonexistant in Western civilization.

Dowries? Standard at one point and gone now.

A fifty years ago black people couldn't marry white people in America. A hundred years before that, black people couldn't marry each other, either.

120 years ago Mormons were still practicing plural marriage in America. Now they can't.

Marriage as seen in the Bible is another great example, if you're the kind of person to take it seriously. You could have as many wives as you wanted and beat them to keep them in line, as long as you didn't use too big of a stick to do it -- God gets pissed if the wife-beating stick is too big. If you raped a woman, you had to pay fifty pieces of silver to her father and marry her. Modern America? Not so much about any of these things.

Standards of legality and acceptedness of divorce have changed radically over the years. Hell, the whole founding of the Anglican Church is all about redefining marriage.

How accepted or legal marrying members of your family is has changed radically over time in Western civilization.

This is all off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more to find if you really want to dig, but I assume you're going to somehow try to justify how all of these huge changes aren't big deals but FSM forbid two women want to marry each other.

Re:eh

[bogjobber]

The ironic thing is that ever since the late Reagan and early Bush senior era, the Democrats have been just as business-friendly and fiscally conservative as the Republicans (actually more so in a lot of ways). But since most voters believe what the media and their party tells them, they don't check to make sure their representatives follow through on their platform. The best example of this, of course, is George W Bush. You'd think he cut federal spending in half and eliminated every wasteful government program the way he campaigned and talked about himself, but in fact he presided over one of the most irresponsible spending sprees we've ever had as a country.

The bottom line is that if voters refuse to call bullshit on their own representatives and hold their feet to the fire when they lie and deceive, nothing will ever change. But Republicans know that they can get people fired up about guns and religion to deflect their attention from the fact that they are all liars and cowards.

Re:eh

[shutdown -p now]

Precisely the same kind of bullshit was used to justify anti-sodomy laws as not hampering equality - after all, heterosexuals would also be punished for a sexual act with another person of the same gender under them.

Before that, similar argument was applied to anti-miscegenation laws.

You really should be ashamed of supporting the position, which has already been used to create innumerable suffering in direct contravention of the most basic principles of human equality - under which your country has been founded - and which you keep using in the same way.

Re:eh

[shutdown -p now]

It's just the continual leftist desire to turn society on it's head.

Good to know that US Founding Fathers were all leftists.

Re:eh

[shutdown -p now]

OK, but does it predate religion.

Why should anyone care? It is supposed to be a secular society.

Also, the Roman Empire had slavery. Just because it was around long ago, doesn't mean we should have it today.

Yeah, which is why we look at how things do with respect to freedoms. Slavery is a clear and definite limitation of freedom. So is ban on gay marriage.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

She was in private practice for 3 years and worked in the White House for >4 more as a counsel. (That's "real world" right there.)

She's done everything you've asked so far, which is amazing considering you guys are demanding opposite things. Either she has to have more "real world" experience or more "scholarly" experience; evidently, you can't win... or is it just that you're desperate to find any reason to hate her?

As for dodging questions, that's been de rigeur for decades now. Where have you been? The Senators aren't asking questions to see if she'd be a good SC justice, they're trying to get her to take a litmus test on her political views (which are irrelevant as long as she doesn't play party hack on the bench, which few justices do). And, of course, to score political points on television. The confirmation process has been political theater for years now. Pretending otherwise or blaming the nominees really misses the pattern.

Re:eh

[DurendalMac]

The description said "the nation's", meaning the US, not the world at large.

Re:eh

[commodore64_love]

>>>I never really understood why people make patently false statements that are easily disproven. The majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Patriot Act renewal
>>>

Yeah I don't know either why people make patently false statements. Here's the Democrat breakdown on H.R.3961 which shows the majority did NOT vote against the Patriot Act's renewal:

Ayes: 162
Nays: 87

And of course Obama, also a Democrat, could have and should have vetoed it.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

The "ballot box", as indicated by a primary as an indication of public sentiment on a single issue? I don't think that's really as accurate as you would suggest. Primaries are somewhat known for bringing out only the more polarized of voters - you can see politicians playing to this effect by moving more to the ideological left or right when campaigning in the primary season. Combine this with the fact that right-leaning talk show pundits on radio and TV have been flogging the faithful to get them spun up about a number of issues (including this), while their left leaning equivalents have not been quite as active (seeing this as a somewhat settled issue, due to the law being passed) - plus, it's harder to motivate people to come out in defense of something that is already accomplished (the "let someone else do it, I'm busy" mindset is hard to overcome unless you actually perceive a threat.) As a result, I do believe that a correctly constructed and honestly administered poll would be a better gauge of actual sentement than a primary election. Also, voter feeling on a single issue (such as health care) is hard to tease out from other issues. Voters may vote based on their feelings on gun control, immigration, abortion, jobs, current military actions in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, "defense of marriage", and a lot of other things that they could put ahead of health care (especially if they feel that health care is "settled".) So, while it is a data point, its significance on *health care alone* is difficult to determine with any certainty. I think too many of our news outlets oversimplify election results by suggesting that the election of a candidate *DOES* indicate some sort of unanimous position on a single issue. I so seldom find any candidate of either party that I agree with on a half-dozen issues that every time I go into the voting booth, I am always picking someone I disagree with on at least one. Maybe this fall, I'll be picking someone who isn't strong on gun rights (even though I am a big supporter of the 2nd amendment) because to do so would mean picking someone with whom I disagree on the equality of homosexuals. I like to think that I'm not the only one making a compromise when I vote. You don't think exactly like every candidate you've voted for in the past, do you?

Re:eh

[VerumDicere]

voter feeling on a single issue (such as health care) is hard to tease out from other issues. Voters may vote based on their feelings on gun control, immigration, abortion, jobs, current military actions in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, "defense of marriage", and a lot of other things that they could put ahead of health care (especially if they feel that health care is "settled".)

I don't mean to refute your basic premise, but the story linked in the parent was to the vote on Prop. C, specifically on the health care issue. Now, I would submit that you are probably correct, the voters who came out for a ballot initiative during a primary were probably still only the more polarized (because that's just what turns up at most primaries), but it wouldn't hurt to read the linked article, would it?

Re:eh

[slick7]

From the website...

Who is "confiscating" my "fair share"? ? EARN IT instead of crying that someone else is "confiscating" it. I've got no love for fat cats, but I've got even less love for class warfare crybabies.

Show me where the amortization tables are "fair" to the people who borrow on a home. A bank payback system where the bank gets it's interest up front to such a degree that the owner pays up to three (or more) times what the house was originally purchased for doesn't seem to be crying to me.
In today's economy, people struggle to keep their homes and families together, the bank doesn't give a rats ass what happens as long as they can repossess the house and do it again to someone else.
Your attitude sounds like a person who "is" a fat cat probably hiding more than what you would like to see the light of day.
Most of the fat cats as you call it appear to be worried about their money, who's trying to take it or who's going to find out how exactly you came by it.
People who claim they have been cheated, are most ignored by those who did the cheating. Are you one of them? Cheaters, not the cheated.
Although there are those who take advantage of the system, the most reprehensible are those who administer the system to their own advantage.

Re:eh

[slick7]

Exactly. Tell me again why someone sitting around doing nothing but drinking and drug abusing their life away and is somehow entitled to part of my paycheck because I happen to go to work and make a decent living because I chose to do that instead of drinking and drug abusing my life away.

That very same question can be put to any member of the House or Senate. Senator Kennedy and Chappaquiddick comes to mind, given the time, more examples can be found.

Re:eh

[slick7]

Cool, my very own cyber stalker. And it wasn't a straw man, dick. I shouldn't be punished for your bad choices, and you shouldn't be rewarded out of my pocket book.

If the IRS knows about that "pocket book", they will.

Re:eh

[Eunuchswear]

Oh fuck here we go again.

Learn something about US political history you moron.

The Republican party of today is not the Republican party of the 1820s, the 1860s, the 1880s, the 1910s, ... and so on.

It is fairly easy to show that the "Republican" party of today is largely the "Democrat" party of yesterday. "Southern strategy" ring a bell?

Re:eh

[Eunuchswear]

You are claiming that the Democrats voted for "Health Care Reform" bacuse they are listening to their constituents? The same constituents that overwhelmingly opposed its passing, and now that it has passed overwhelmingly favor its repeal?

This is a lie.

The "majority" against the crappy health care reform was split about 50-50 between people who thought it went too far and people who thought it didn't go far enough. Even so it wasn't "overwhelming".

There is no "overwhelming" majority for repealing it

Re:eh

[Eunuchswear]

George Bush had his own Kagan moment -- Harriet Myers (although she's not a lesbian).

You have some kind of problem with lesbians? Are you gay, or what?

Re:eh

[Eunuchswear]

Huge bulging packages, filled with pork, being shoved down the throats of trembling terrorized tea baggers by n,, nn,,, non-white people.

Re:eh

[Xonstantine]

So rather than throw their hands up and say that it couldn't be passed, they bargained, they gave things up, they compromised.

That's an awfully long winded way of saying they bribed several wavering Senators.

Discussion and compromise are not necessarily signs of perfect authortarian Marxism.

That wasn't exactly what I claimed. What I claimed is that this idea of inter-party Democrat dissent vs the monolithic Republican party is largely a myth, and the reality is closer to the opposite.

The interesting thing about the Democrat ability to wrangle votes is that a lot of Democrats that were elected in 2006 and 2008 ran to the right of their Republican opponents, and won in traditionally Republican districts. These were ostensibly conservative Democrats that were tired of the Republican corruption of the previous years and wanted a return to fiscal responsibility. Har, har, har. But the voters still fell for it, and now we $1.4 trillion deficits are the new normal.

Re:eh

[DurendalMac]

Then focus specifically on mortgages and address that issue. Don't cry endlessly about class warfare in general. Find a specific instance of clear wrongdoing and hammer away instead of crying that you're not getting your "fair share" because someone is "confiscating" it. There are some ugly things that happen, no doubt, but such a broad attack comes off like the whining of a self-entitled brat who thinks the world should just hand him a living.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think I understand where you were going with that comment, I want you to think about it next time you discover at an inopportune time that you've run out of toilet paper.

Re:eh

[commodore64_love]

>>>the republicans are spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country

Thank you. I've been waiting for a hate-filled troll to come along and spout a bunch of nonsense (and get modded +5 insightful by other trolls), JUST so I could post the following.

The most racist Party in the whole history of America:

1790s - the Founders abolished importation of slaves, abolished slavery in the north and northwest territories, and banned selling of slaves across state lines. They intended to abolish slavery in the south too but.....

1820s - the South, aka the Democrats, reversed a lot of the laws the Founders had put in place, and adopted a pro-slavery stance, thereby blocking any more progress toward complete abolition.

1860s - the Democrats seceded from the Union because a Republican won the presidency (and because they wanted protect slavery)

1880s - the Democrats invented the idea of Segregation

1910s - Democrat Wilson segregates blacks from the formerly unified army. He also invites the KKK to the White House for the first time.

1950s/60s/70s - the Democrats opposed/ voted against Civil Rights Laws. To quote Senator Byrd: "Rather I should die a thousand times, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

.

Republicans are racist? Perhaps so but the R Party's record looks golden compared to the D Party's record. And yes people claim the Democrats "changed" but when exactly? Name a year when Democrats suddenly stopped voting-down civil rights law, and turned pro-black? Because as far as I can tell, they never did. Democrats are still wholly against School Choice even though the majority of blacks are in favor of it (to escape falling-down innercity schools).

Re:eh

[Yunzil]

It is only a modern notion, post Lincoln, and getting progressively worse under Wilson, Hoover and FDR (and all since him), that the federal government gets to tell the states what to

It's also a good notion, IMO.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

It's not illegal to publish a book. It's illegal to be a corporation campaigning for a candidate by hiding behind a book and the first amendment.

Money is not speech, and corporate money less so. The disconnect between the individuals in the company and the decisions the executives make renders it undemocratic to allow companies to act as individuals.

If you don't think corporations are dominating political discourse or election, then I recommend you just keep watching Fox News, because I can't help you.

I'm not sure Oliver Wendell Holmes ever punched anyone in an unrightful manner. If you don't understand metaphor, then I surely can't help you.

Re:eh

[blair1q]

You're paying way too much for your toilet paper. You must be a Libertarian.

Re:eh

[Golddess]

I think you've got the wrong bill #.

HR 3961 from the 111th congress

There was no 3961 that I could find from the 110th congress, but here's HR 3961 from the 109th congress.

I'd post the actual Patriot Act renewal bill, but I cannot seem to find it.

lulz

[Pojut]

I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.

Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?

PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.

Re:lulz

[Wyatt Earp]

People were pissed because she was giving textbook answers to make it through the job interview with the Senate while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.

Re:lulz

[bonch]

The complaints were based on her record. Also, some of her terrible answers--she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.

I see. So this week "activist judge" means a judge with no prior experience. Thanks, I'll be sure to pencil that into the calender.

Let's be honest here, people. Just like nearly every other confirmation, the vast majority of the politicians with the same letter after their name as her think she would be a great pick, while the vast majority of the politicians with a different letter after their name think she would be a horrible pick.

Par for the course. To (seriously) claim otherwise is ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.

Re:lulz

[interkin3tic]

PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.

Exactly. Makes you wonder about the sanity of politicians and pundits who, upon hearing that one of the three branches of government does something they don't like, their inclination is to neuter that whole branch of the government. Not only that, but many of the same people were happy to see executive powers expanded when their guy was in office, apparently not thinking about the day when someone they -didn't- like inherited those powers.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

The complaints were based on her record.

But wait...I thought she didn't have a record, since she didn't have any experience. You can't have a record without experience...

she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.

Source and quote? I listened to the hearings on C-SPAN, and I don't remember hearing her struggling to answer such a question.

Re:lulz

[moosesocks]

The complaints were based on her record. Also, some of her terrible answers--she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.

I'd say that it's a good thing for a supreme court nominee to not give off-the-cuff, kneejerk answers to a question that could have considerable legal repercussions.

Re:lulz

[moosesocks]

People were pissed because she was giving textbook answers to make it through the job interview with the Senate while everyone knows she's going to be an activist judge ruling off of her opinion because she has no practical experience.

[citation-needed]

"Everyone knows" is a shitty argument, and the "no practical experience" argument has been thoroughly debunked. True, she's never been a judge, but she's more than qualified, and if "everybody knew," she wouldn't have been confirmed -- 5 Republicans broke ranks and voted for her, whilst the current crop of Senate Dems are fairly moderate, and wouldn't vote to confirm a far-left activist in considerable numbers, particularly with an election cycle coming up.

Saying something doesn't make it true.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

an activist judge is one who makes a ruling based on there opinion and not on the rule of law.

Re:lulz

[Darkness404]

The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

Kagan gets this one dead wrong. The Constitution is provided to provide for a limited government, no matter what you or I want, unless we pass an amendment. History is filled with tyrants who got to power because people wanted them to have it then they turned on their people.

Limited government is a requirement in the Constitution, any change to give the government more power must be passed through an amendment, not just a simple majority vote.

This is a very strong sign of activism, disregarding the constitution in favor of a form of democracy that puts the minority in the tyranny of the majority, such a thing is no different than living in a dictatorship.

Re:lulz

[hedwards]

Umm, that activism thing didn't seem to bother W when he nominated his picks for the high court. There's been a pattern in recent years of pro-conservative judicial activism on issues from the 2000 Presidential election to the DC handgun ban to the Lilly Ledbetter ruling. It's asinine to suggest that somehow one person is going to dangerously tip the balance away from that.

Re:lulz

[Sir_Lewk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo

Source, as requested. I'll leave deciding the significance of that little exchange up to you.

Re:lulz

[king neckbeard]

Important issues aren't to be taken lightly, but I would contend that it's pretty clear that the government doesn't have the power to tell you what to eat. They have the power to control what food is sold, but if you want to have an arsenic lead strychnine sandwich and wash it down with methanol, that's your choice.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

an activist judge is one who makes a ruling based on there opinion and not on the rule of law.

And every person has a different opinion on what the rule of law actually is. The Second Amendment is a perfect example of that.

Like I said. An activist judge is someone who makes a ruling you don't agree with.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Especially when you consider a liberal is replacing a liberal.

If anything, all you people yelling about how things will be thrown off-balance should be happy. Should another conservative been nominated and made it to the court, things would be skewing towards the right.

If you truly are complaining about balance in the court, then you would be just as mad about that. A liberal replacing a liberal makes perfect sense, from a balance perspective.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

Though I have not seen anything to think that she would be an "activist judge", I kinda hope that she will be. The court already has 5 conservative activist judges ("freedom of speech" for corporations - WTF?). She will need to do a lot to even keep the court moderate.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Sorry, at work and can't view youtube. If you could point me towards something written, that would be awesome.

Either way, I'll check it out when I get home.

Re:lulz

[timeOday]

Also, some of her terrible answers--she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.

Kudos to her, because it's obviously a trick question with no meaningful answer. If she said "sure they can tell you what to eat" people would go nuts. Yet most of those same people would agree that some drugs/medicines should only be taken by prescription; they want the USDA to watch over slaughterhouses and Chinese imports; they want local government to do health inspections on restaurants; etc etc.

Re:lulz

[Sir_Lewk]

Transcribed by myself, because I'm bored ;) Think I got it pretty correct, you'll probably want to watch the video later still though.

Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said: "Americans, you have to eat 3 vegetables and 3 fruits every day.", and I got it through congress, and it's now the law of the land. [pause] got to do it. [pause] Does that violate the commerce clause?

Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law.

Coburn: Yeah, I've got one that's real similar to it, I think it is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which it is.

Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that the courts would be wrong to strike down the laws that they think are senseless, just because they are senseless.

Coburn: well I guess the question I'm asking you is: "do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day.

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that-[interrupted]

Coburn: I mean, what is the extent of the commerce clause? We have this wide embrace of the commerce clause, that these guys that wrote this [holds up book], never ever fathomed that we'd be stupid enough to take our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.

[clip ends]

Re:lulz

[dkleinsc]

"Everyone knows" is clearly wrong.

"More than qualified" is a tougher sell. For instance, one of the top alternatives to Kagan was Diane Wood, who has experience as a Supreme Court clerk, a law professor, an assistant Attorney General, private practice, and 15 years on the Seventh Circuit. In addition to her opinions, she's published a huge amount of legal scholarship. That's what I call qualified. Or you can compare with David Souter, who prior to serving on SCOTUS had worked in the Attorney General's office of NH for a decade, then served on state court benches for 12 years, and the First Circuit for 4 years.

Kagan's resume, by contrast, made Clarence Thomas's look extensive.

Re:lulz

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Especially when you consider a liberal is replacing a liberal.

If anything, all you people yelling about how things will be thrown off-balance should be happy. Should another conservative been nominated and made it to the court, things would be skewing towards the right.

To right-wingers, a "balanced" court means one made up of nine copies of Scalia, just as "bipartisanship" in Congress means Democrats doing everything Republicans say, and "President" means a rich white Republican. Once you understand the language, it's not hard to figure out what they're saying, but it's important to remember that they're speaking something that sounds a lot like English but really isn't.

Re:lulz

[ChetOS.net]

Inspections and bans are not the same thing as mandating that everyone eat three vegetables and three fruits a day.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Thank you, I appreciate it!

To me, she didn't have trouble answering it. It seemed like her response was essentially "this is a pointless question, because a law like that would never reach the Supreme Court. Please try to stay on topic."

From that perspective, I gotta say I agree with her. That being said, she still went on to explain the reasoning behind her initial answer:

But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that the courts would be wrong to strike down the laws that they think are senseless, just because they are senseless.

Then, when the guy repeated his question again, as soon as she started to answer, he interrupted her. I'm sorry dude, but if I'm being interviewed for a job, you ask me a question that isn't realistically possible, I respond that it's essentially a question that has no bearing on the interview at hand, you repeat your question, and then interrupt me when I try to respond...yeah, I wouldn't really be inclined answer anything else you asked me, on topic or not.

Re:lulz

[Reginald2]

What is a good way to refute a straw man argument?

...and is Tom Coburn from Southpark?

Re:lulz

[AndersOSU]

I'm having an awful hard time figuring out what your beef with that quote is (it is a quote right?)

She doesn't say anything about limited or expansive government (here) and sentence one of the two sentence quote directly addresses your concern over tyranny.

Re:lulz

[AndersOSU]

Hey - what's that thing called that a judge/justice issues that explains how they decided a case before them?

Re:lulz

[DrgnDancer]

Nonono... you don't understand. It's only an activist judiciary when it rules against a Republican stalking horse. If it's in favor of the Republican cause of the month, it's respectful of the Constitution. Like a lot of people around here, I'm not a huge fan or either party, but this particular Republican gambit really irritates me.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

the DC handgun ban was a constitutional issue. It's about damn time the second amendment was held up in supreme court. it's not a conservative-liberal issue. it's a constitution and rule of law issue.

Re:lulz

[timeOday]

That's exactly why it's a trick question, because the first thing that pops into people's minds is different than a legal interpretation with some actual well-defined meaning. "Do you believe in freedom?" "Of course!" "Should I have the freedom to walk into your home and take whatever I want?" "No! That's not freedom!" (i.e. 'I don't like it therefore it's obviously something else.')

I guess a better way for her to answer the question would have been to say, "well, I don't think the govt. can mandate that everyone eat three vegetables and three fruits a day, if that's what you mean."

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! The clip ended before she responded!

Re:lulz

[DrgnDancer]

My favorite was the "Nuclear Option". Remember back when the Republicans controlled both Houses and the Presidency, and the bad Democrats were using filibusters to try to stop some of the laws they most disagreed with? And the Republicans had the great idea for the "Nuclear Option", basically using a procedural vote to remove the filibuster from Senate rules? And they basically bullied the Dems into allowing almost everything they wanted by threatening to take away the little power a minority has? Imagine if they'd done it! They'd be laughing heartily at themselves right now I bet!

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying something doesn't make it true.

That is, unless you say it on the Internet.

Re:lulz

[TopherC]

I recently heard someone describe the constitution as "written as a living document." Try reading some of it, and comparing the language with both present-day bills and other late-1700's legal or philosophical writing. The constitution is actually a very easy read, comparatively! It's a much more "common" English. I think that's because it's intended to convey a kind of sensibility more clearly than any actual laws.

The end result is that while it's very easy to understand, or get the gist of, it's also very much subject to interpretation when it comes down to specific issues. And I think that was the original intent of the authors.

So I don't disagree with you about the constitution providing for only a very limited government. But what that really means, and what any of our laws really mean, is not as rigid a thing as half-lives of isotopes or rules for parsing ANSI C. In this context, what Kagan says seems consistent with what anyone with a good understanding of law would have to say. The constitution does establish the role and the boundaries for the supreme court, but the more subtle nuances of laws need to be resolved in each case based on the original intent of the law as well as the practical and popular needs of our society. Any kind of statement you make here needs to acknowledge both importance of existing law as well as the times we live in and the people we have become.

This is a very strong sign of activism, disregarding the constitution in favor of a form of democracy that puts the minority in the tyranny of the majority, such a thing is no different than living in a dictatorship.

No, I think you're reaching this conclusion only because you want to. You're extrapolating way beyond Kagan's statement and envisioning a land where the "minority" (the US citizenship I presume) live in subjugation under the harsh dictatorship of the "majority" (some kind of self-perpetuating regime of former Democrats). While that's a great premise for a sci-fi novel, thankfully there's no connection to the appointment of Kagan.

Re:lulz

[westlake]

she couldn't answer the question of whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat.

The Supreme Court is limited to deciding real-life "cases and controversies."

It doesn't like loaded questions and it isn't there to deliver free legal advice in the form of an advisory opinion.

Farm subsidies. Pure Food & Drug Acts.

School Lunch programs. Pre-Natal Care, Food Stamps. Medicaid. SSI. SSD. The VA.

The government has a substantial say in what crops are raised and how they will be processed and marketed.

The government helps feed the young, the poor, the elderly, the sick and the disabled. It pays a substantial part of their living and medical expenses. Poor nutrition adds to the cost.

Cooperative Extension goes back to 1914. The federal role in teaching "Home Economics" is at least as old as that.

Re:lulz

[tophermeyer]

Yeah, I got the impression that the question Coburn was driving at was the legality of the Government issuing individual mandates to every citizen (replace "eat your vegetables" with "buy health insurance"). I wish the question had been more simply phrased so we could have heard her response. Once cases relating to the mandated health insurance finally reach the Supreme Court, her opinion on that will definitely matter.

Re:lulz

[WeatherGod]

Don't bother... it is another example of (bad) selective editing. The clip ends before Kagan finished her response, hence the apparent 'difficulty' with responding. Yeah, I would have difficulty responding in a video clip if the clip ended too soon.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Significance of...politician comes up with an absurd strawman?

Well, I suppose it shows her restraint in not saying "Hey fucktard, stop asking stupid questions" but that's about it.

Re:lulz

[ChetOS.net]

I guess that would have been a better way to answer it... so why did she bumble through an answer instead of just saying that?

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as the left-leaning blogs have characterized the Citizens United decision as "'freedom of speech' for corporations", it's quite a bit more complicated than that. There are many, many situations in which a group of people wish to exercise their right to free speech, and find it convenient to do so as a group.

The Citizens United decision extends to PACs, lobbying organizations, grassroots organizations, etc., of all political leanings.

Ironically (given the outcry on the left), some of the greatest beneficiaries of the decision--possibly greater than "corporations" (a loose term to start with)--are labor unions.

Besides, as other commenters have pointed out, an "activist judge" nowadays is one who rules in a way you don't like. Who are the judicial activists in DC v. Heller--those crazy gun-nut conservatives who ignore precedent to claim that everyone can have guns, or those crazy nanny-state liberals who ignore precedent to claim that the Second Amendment basically means nothing?

Re:lulz

[ScentCone]

("freedom of speech" for corporations - WTF?)

No, you're trying too hard. It's just called "freedom of speech." Period. If you don't like it, why weren't you complaining about it when the law they ruled on was allowing it for some corporations/organizations (like labor unions) and not others? The "activism" was what they reversed. People who form groups (unions, associations, companies, clubs) don't give up their freedom to speak just because they decide to act together, as a group. The only reason the SCOTUS had to even say anything about it was because a law was passed that infringed on that right.

Don't like freedom of speech? Then don't let labor unions have it, don't let the Sierra Club have it, don't let the AARP, or the NAACP, or CBS/ABC/MSNBC/NPR/FOX/CNN/NYT/WSJ/etc have it, either. Is that really your preference? Don't bother answering - it's pretty clear already, how you want it.

Re:lulz

[ChetOS.net]

The question was worded fine... you obviously got the point. He used something frivolous like fruits and vegetables so she couldn't say, "Well, I cannot comment on a case I might actually get."

Re:lulz

[Attila Dimedici]

The question was whether or not it is Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day. I know this, the men who wrote the Constitution would have had no problem giving a short, quick "No" to that. Anyone who cannot see that any law like that results in requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day is unconstitutional, should not be in any position of governmental authority. The reason she hemmed and hawed when she answered that question is because she could imagine that such a law might be Constitutional under certain circumstances (she didn't know what circumstances, but she could imagine that there might be).

Re:lulz

[Darkness404]

No, I think you're reaching this conclusion only because you want to. You're extrapolating way beyond Kagan's statement and envisioning a land where the "minority" (the US citizenship I presume) live in subjugation under the harsh dictatorship of the "majority" (some kind of self-perpetuating regime of former Democrats). While that's a great premise for a sci-fi novel, thankfully there's no connection to the appointment of Kagan.

But we are already seeing it, albeit not with a constitutional question (yet) look in California and the banning of gay marriages (yes it was overturned but still). Does it even matter if gays marry? Seriously, does the fact that someone lives across the street and is gay make you gay? You have a case where the majority (straight people) are essentially telling the minority what to do even when it doesn't affect them.

There are a lot of other cases like that sadly where the majority who won't be affected with what the minority wants use elections to tell the minority what to do.

Re:lulz

[ArcherB]

I found it hilarious how pissed people were that she gave textbook answers during her hearings while simultaneously complaining that she would judge based on her opinions.

Aren't textbook answers the opposite of opinions?

PS: An activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling that you disagree with.

What textbook says "I don't know" to the question, "Can the federal government tell citizens what to eat?"?

Re:lulz

[Attila Dimedici]

The rule of law means that the law applies the same to everyone and that it doesn't change from day to day (that is, changes to law take quite a bit of time to implement and are well advertised in advance of actually taking affect).

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I have not seen anything to think that she would be an "activist judge", I kinda hope that she will be. The court already has 5 conservative activist judges ("freedom of speech" for corporations - WTF?). She will need to do a lot to even keep the court moderate.

Fuck you.

Freedom of speech applies to corporations, because it applies to EVERYBODY. I would much rather corporations get the right, than all of the sudden other 'non protected' groups start springing up. Soon after, the KKK and NAMBLA lose their rights... YAY... then the ACLU and NRA... after all, those are groups too, not actual people...

In short, go fuck yourself. They applied the constitution as written, and I applaud them for it.

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Really? Her entire answer was "I don't know"? Got any proof of that?

Re:lulz

[Duradin]

Isn't "I don't know" one of the text book answers to anything after Bork?

Re:lulz

[jahudabudy]

Do they have the right to tell you what to eat (or not eat) if you are on government paid health care for diabetes? Do they have the power to decide what you can spend your food stamps on? Do they have the power to outline the nutritional guidelines publicly funded school lunch programs must follow? Maybe you disagree with any or all of these, but I don't think it's "pretty clear" that they are wrong, and I think one could easily argue they fall under the government "telling you what to eat".

Re:lulz

[Xonstantine]

The Supreme Court is limited to deciding real-life "cases and controversies."

This is a dodge. Nominees to the Supreme Court are explicitly coached to avoid addressing decisions that may come before the Supreme Court.

The question regarding whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to eat is another way of asking the nominee if there are any restraints or limits to the power of the Federal government. Since our entire government system was founded on the basis of limited government, the situation where a judicial nominee cannot articulate the limits of government mean that candidate is singularly unqualified to serve. However, now that we have an agenda based imperial judiciary whose primary purpose is subverting the will of the people, this is the type of judicial nominee you are going to get from the Democrats from now on.

As another example, Sotomayor, that wise Latina, was unable to articulate whether or not people have a right to self defense. You know, that's only something that has existed in English Common Law for some 900 years or so. But the concept was completely foreign to her.

Re:lulz

[Xonstantine]

The Republicans didn't manage to bully the Democrats into anything. Most of the Democrats tripped all over each other in voting for the Iraq war in trying to look "strong" in defense, and then tripped over each other a year later backbiting the President over the decision.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

But this isn't the "Freedom of Speech" you are talking about. It is "Freedom to Spend Money Buying Politicians". There are limits on the amount of money an individual citizen can spend on a politician's campaign. There, now, are none on corporations. And, news organizations are totally irrelevant to the conversation, since they are required to give equal air time to political opponents. I do not know the rules on labor unions, but I see no reason they should need to give money to politicians. I actually think it would be best if they don't. They could do just as well organizing their membership into giving individually. I feel the same way about all the other clubs you mentioned. If the current laws are different, then I would fully support their change.

I do not think ANYONE should donate to an American political campaign, besides American citizens. British controlled BP shouldn't. Iranian controlled banks and mosques shouldn't. They can do all they want to mobilize the American citizens they are associated with to give up to their legal limit, but corporations should not be part of our politics.

Don't bother answering - it's pretty clear already, how you want it.

Is that the answer you were expecting?

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

They applied the constitution as written, and I applaud them for it.

That is a democrat's definition of right wing extremist.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

filibusters to try to stop some of the laws they most disagreed with?

So when are simple judicial nominations a "law[s] they most disagreed with"?

Re:lulz

[bigstrat2003]

You mean the DC handgun ban where they upheld the damn Constitution? That case was the precise opposite of activism: it was upholding the law of the land, which guarantees the right to bear arms.

Re:lulz

[elrous0]

With the exception of a few moderates and turncoats (like Stevens and Suitor), pretty much every judge was/is an activist on the Supreme Court. It's just a question of whether they were appointed by a conservative (i.e. to be a conservative activist) or a liberal (i.e., to be a liberal activist). If you think that conservative court members are NOT activists somehow, just ask yourself this: Is there any doubt in your mind how Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas will rule on the gay marriage issue (even now before the case has been presented)?

There certainly isn't any doubt in my mind. Their minds are already made up, the fix is in, and the conservatives who appointed them expect no less. The actual trial is just for show.

Re:lulz

[TopherC]

Okay I hadn't considered cases like gay marriage since I was thinking too much about the big picture. But I don't think this is a trend or a taste of what's to come, since in general human rights abuses in the US have been on the decline over the past century or more. And I don't see how Kagan's recognition that individual ideologies influence law (law is based on ideology anyway) will create more abuses of human rights than protection of them.

I think a good supreme court should be rife with activism. I mean, it should be composed of diverse intellectuals who actively debate the issues at hand in order to find common ground.

I'm not saying that she's the second coming of Christ! But I haven't yet seen any major red flags or accusations in the press that aren't just emotionally overcharged propaganda stunts.

Re:lulz

[misexistentialist]

Liberal activist judges will tend to do more damage, though, since they are less conservative. Conservatives might want the government to stay out of the way of campaign funding, but liberals would favor some sort of government allocation of money that would favor incumbents.

Re:lulz

[king neckbeard]

As it was said, it is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of congress. It was phrased as a mandated diet for Americans, which is not within Congress's jurisdiction.

Re:lulz

[linuxrocks123]

I find it highly likely that Scalia would not overturn a state's law allowing gay marriage; he would consider that the state's prerogative. Now, he would probably rule that there's nothing saying the IRS has to recognize that marriage, but the state can allow marriage for whomever it wants.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

She's asked if it violates the commerce clause. Personally I don't think it violates the commerce clause (as currently defined), but who the hell cares. It's a totally stupid theoretical question.

Re:lulz

[Rayonic]

The ruling didn't change campaign contribution laws. It was about 3rd parties buying political advertising during a campaign. And yes, an individual can buy political airtime too, if they have enough money. If they don't have enough money, they can form or join a group.

And, news organizations are totally irrelevant to the conversation, since they are required to give equal air time to political opponents.

Not since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Not that the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea in the first place.

I do not know the rules on labor unions, but I see no reason they should need to give money to politicians. I actually think it would be best if they don't. They could do just as well organizing their membership into giving individually.

If labor unions had to ask their members before performing an action, I don't think they'd get anything done.

Re:lulz

[yuhong]

Yep the real solution is to explicitly define that money is not speech: http://convention.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Declare-that-money-is-not-speech/25747-7872

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

I disagree. I don't think liberal activism is more or less dangerous than conservative activism. But, if you are a conservative, then you always feel that liberals are more dangerous, and vica versa. But, I would argue that the Supreme Court is, in general, more beneficial to conservatives than to liberals (and I mean that by the true definition, not in terms of Republican and Democrat). This is shown by your statement, because the court could not create a law to allocate government money for incumbents. It can only strike down laws. So, its main power is in preventing change, not causing it (though there are many important exceptions). I think it just balances out with activism being just as harmful from both sides. So, the important thing is to have a balanced court so that the decisions are forced to stay moderate. And, since the current court has 5 activist conservative judges, my original point still stands.

Re:lulz

[pipingguy]

Barack Obama didn't have experience as president, either.

Re:lulz

[ArcherB]

Really? Her entire answer was "I don't know"? Got any proof of that?

More or less. See for yourself:

See HERE

Senator. Tom Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits - every day. And I got it through Congress and it's now the law of the land. Tsk. Gotta do it. Does that violate the commerce clause?

Elena Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law

Coburn: Yeah, I got one that's real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I'm not going to mention which one it is.

Kagan: But I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether the question of it's constitutional.And , and uh, and uh, I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are, er, uh, senseless, just because they're senseless.

Senator Coburn: Well, I think the question is. Do we have the power to tell people what to eat every day?

Kagan: eh, Sen, Senator Coburn... i, it's, uh stuttering

Sen. Coburn: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have the wide embrace of the commerce of clause - which these guys who wrote this never ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take away our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.

Re:lulz

[kwbauer]

Does the EFF have the right to speak politically? Is not the EFF nothing more than a group of like-minded citizens pooling their resources so a s to be better heard?

With McCain-Feingold before the Citizens United decision, the only people allowed to make political speech that could reach the masses were extremely wealthy because they could, from their own pockets, afford to purchase airtime. Most people need to band together to pool their resources to buy the airtime, etc. So, the progressives claim to believe in free (unhindered) speech (they're usually the ones griping about censorship issues) and claim to be looking out for the "little guy" (they only want to tax the wealthiest, etc.) yet they are exactly the ones trying to limit the ability of the non-wealthiest to participate in the political process by disallowing the pooling of money for such purposes.

Momma always said, "Actions speak louder than words."

Open your mind just a little bit and think about why the Founding Fathers were worried about "freedom of the press" and "free speech." They had just rid themselves of a government that issued death warrants against them for having had the audacity to speak against said government and to print and distribute pamphlets repeating that speech. I know progressives generally hate the phrase "Original Intent" but it is very instructive at times and could solve a whole range of problems. The original intent of the writers of the First Amendment was to point out that everyone had the right to speak out against the government and to publish and distribute such words as well. Apply the original intent to the modern environment and we see that distributing pamphlets and making speeches from a soapbox in the public square now include publishing and selling books, making, distributing and showing films (documentary or otherwise), airing radio and television ads, etc.

Want another example of how understanding original intent helps geekdom? Think about the original intent of being "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects". Everybody understands it generally means requiring warrants to search homes and intercept snail mail. That was basically all that was around in the "original" days. When telephones became popular, society still understood the original intent and warrants are required for wiretaps (probably had some fighting over that, though). If the progressives didn't absolutely hate the phrase, they would have a much easier time helping win the case for requiring warrants for looking at email and ISP traffic logs, etc. The original intent is that communications among individuals are part of their "papers, and effects" and are protected. Applying the original intent to the modern world means that modern forms of communications are no different. See, "Original Intent" is everyone's friend. Not simply a conservative way to keep society in the dark ages."

And yes, original intent of the Second Amendment was that the ordinary citizen could own and use any personal weapon or firearm that might be issued by the government to military or police forces. Personal weapons and firearms are generally considered to be rifles and handguns. Yes, selective fire variants would count under an original intent interpretation. read the writings of Hamilton and others as already posted elsewhere in this thread. No, grenades, RPGs, nukes, etc. would not be considered personal weapons or firearms and would still be banned from civilian ownership by nearly all rabid Second Amendment supporters. Sure you can find individuals or groups that think the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a nuke but nutjobs live at both ends of the spectrum.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

The ruling didn't change campaign contribution laws. It was about 3rd parties buying political advertising during a campaign. And yes, an individual can buy political airtime too, if they have enough money. If they don't have enough money, they can form or join a group.

Buying airtime to promote a candidate is a contribution, regardless of whether or not the government considers it so. I do not believe corporations should be influencing elections. A corporation is not a person, they should not have the rights of a person. And being as they are not a person, they are not a citizen of the US and should therefore not have a financial influence in elections. Just as I feel foreign countries should not have a financial influence in elections.

Not since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine Not that the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea in the first place.

Ahh... that explains Fox "News".

If labor unions had to ask their members before performing an action, I don't think they'd get anything done.

Most labor unions serve themselves as much as they serve their members. Requiring a little more involvement of their members could be good for them.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Me too, until second reading. The problem is with the "choices made by the American people" part.

Of course the court shouldn't give a shit about the choices of American people. The court should only care about the consitutionality of the choices of the American people. I heard it best just this week: just because more people in California voted to ban gay marriage than didn't, doesn't mean that popular opinion is not unconstitutional.

This country is not run by the outcome of popularity contests alone.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Thank you for providing more proof that anti-intellectualism is still thriving. PLEASE keep this trend going through the next election cycle.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

I would expect a good judge to not be able to make a decision about "should the government be able to tell you what to eat" until she has heard all sides of the case. That's a stupid question to ask in a confirmation hearing. If she didn't answer this question, then good for her...she'll make a great judge.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Ahhh, the worst part about Senate hearings. The Senators always pose their questions in the form of a statement. Glad to see they don't change anything for Supreme Court nominations!

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Well that's nice that you think it deserves a nice, quick, "NO!" response. But you can't just say something is unconsitutional because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's stupid...which is exactly what Kagan said.

If you think something is unconstitutional, you have to say WHY it is unconstitutional.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Bumble? Her answer was clear--a law isnt' unconstitutional just because she thinks it's pointless. Then she got cut off trying to respond further, then the clip ended.

Man, if this is all anyone can provide against Kagan than it's no wonder she breezed through confirmation.

Re:lulz

[AndersOSU]

I don't have the context, so I'm half guessing here, but what I think she means by "choices made by the American people" is legislative choices made by popularly elected representatives." In other words stock boilerplate I won't be an activist judge (whatever that means).

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if the textbook is offering the author's opinions. PS: A bitch is someone who sleeps with everyone but you.

Re:lulz

[Attila Dimedici]

It is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to decide what you eat. It doesn't matter how the law is written, nor what Constitutional justifications it uses, if it mandates that every American eat three vegetables and three fruits a day, it is unconstitutional.
Yes, if it was an actual case before the Supreme Court it would require some careful thinking to ensure that the ruling did not invalidate laws that are Constitutional.

Re:lulz

[sexconker]

Prove any of my points wrong.
I dare you.
We have the troll on video, being a troll.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kagan, only 50 years old, has no judicial experience."

No, but it (IT) has JEWdicial experience...

What an ugly abomination of a jew she is...

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Prove any of my points wrong. I dare you.

OK, I'll bite.

People were pissed because she was phoning it in with text book answers to text book questions, after having called Supreme Court nomination hearings a pointless joke.

So you're saying she was half-assing her response to half-assed questions that, in context, have nothing to do with "truly" being on the Supreme Court? What's wrong with that?

People were pissed because despite the fact that in the hearings she was asked about her opinions on important matters, she made a joke of the process and never answered them.

Wait...I thought people didn't want her to judge based on opinions. If you don't want her to judge based on her opinion, why does it matter what her opinion is? I'm still surprised that people weren't happy that many of her answers were textbook answers. Textbook answers are the exact opposite of bringing your opinion into your actions.

People were pissed because we know for a fact that this woman hates the first amendment

Fact, eh? A fact means there is proof. Where is your proof, beyond your opinion?

and has no qualms about doing things outside of her legal power that suit her political views, such as banning the ROTC from her campus but still taking in that sweet, sweet, government money.

First off, they weren't banned from the campus, just the career office. Secondly, while I agree that she went about it the wrong way, let's ignore the law for a moment and look at this issue through reality glasses: it's a freakin' law school, filled with people that either got scholarships or live a life of privilege through rich families. Just how much successful recruiting do you think the military would do in a place like that? That being said, her reasons (at least those that she publicly voiced) seem fair to me:

"I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society -- and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us -- makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country."

She didn't feel the military had a place at the career office because they essentially discriminated against an entire group of people...discrimination that, I'd like to point out, would be illegal in a private company.

The woman is a liberal troll.

Tell me...is your knee bothering you?

The last appointment Obama put up is a sexist and a racist. But at least she's shown that she can keep it under control when doing her job. (Or at least as well as the other sexists, racists, trolls, etc. on the bench - both conservative and liberal.)

How do you figure? Have you talked to her personally? Have you seen her attending clan rallies? Have you seen her saying men are useless?

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the Supreme Court a joke, but I agree with the rest of that statement. Every time there is a nomination, if the nominee has the same letter after their name as a politician, they are the most perfect candidate. If they have a different letter, they are worthless and will destroy the court...reality be damned.

Re:lulz

[nixed3]

The question was whether or not it is Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day. I know this, the men who wrote the Constitution would have had no problem giving a short, quick "No" to that. Anyone who cannot see that any law like that results in requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and three fruits a day is unconstitutional, should not be in any position of governmental authority. The reason she hemmed and hawed when she answered that question is because she could imagine that such a law might be Constitutional under certain circumstances (she didn't know what circumstances, but she could imagine that there might be).

A law like that could easily pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause.

I'm not saying it would pass political scrutiny, or even a "giggle test" for that matter... but the Commerce Clause? Absolutely. SCOTUS decided 6-3 that someone growing marijuana, for medical use, in their own home, not for sale, at all, is allowed to be regulated by the Commerce Clause. (See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)).

I can therefore EASILY see SCOTUS writing a 60 page opinion on there being a "nexus" between food consumed at home and interstate commerce. People consuming more fruit and vegetables will have an effect on the dynamic national market for fruits and vegetables, and the market is interstate, so there you go.

P.S. this is Clarence Thomas' dissent to the case, which I find riveting:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[9]"

Re:lulz

[BitZtream]

conservative activist

I know what you mean, but I do not think those words in that combination mean what you think they mean. Not a good combination really.

Re:lulz

[Attila Dimedici]

I agree that I can see the Supreme Court making such a ruling, but just like in the marijuana case, they would be wrong.
The evidence that it is wrong is the following. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution all agreed that the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal government. The Supreme Court ruling in the Gonzalez case that you referenced gives the Federal government license to do anything in the name of regulating interstate commerce, therefore this ruling must wrong. Especially when one considers that one of the Framers of the Constitution (I don't currently remember which one, although I think it was Madison) wrote about something close to this and said it was a misreading of the Constitution to think that Congress had such power.

Re:lulz

[ScentCone]

I do not think ANYONE should donate to an American political campaign, besides American citizens

So, let's say that you three American citizens that love Italian food. They decide to pool their resources and open a restaurant. They incorporate, like any businesss would do. Then someone in their city decides to run for office on a platform of banning any restaurant that sells meals including meat, since it's mean to animals to eat them. You're saying that these three citizens shouldn't be able to run an ad, on behalf of their own business (which is how their local community knows them) pointing out that voting for this particular politician could ruin their business and remove a favorite restaurant from the city? I don't care how particularly plausible that situation is - in principle, it's not at all different than the AARP running an ad that says, "don't vote for candidate X, he's going to cut medicate benifits," or a labor union running an ad that says, "don't for for candidate X, he wants people to be able to vote in private when it comes to forming a union" etc.

Why should members of that union, or the AARP, or of the team of people who are running a small restaurant give up their rights to assemble, and to speak? Should you be stopped from acting in concert with another person who thinks just like you, and running an ad that neither of you could afford individually? Really? Why?

Re:lulz

[kwbauer]

Correct in that giving money is not speech. That is why we still have restrictions on direct donations. However, using money to make speech IS exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect. Do you really think they didn't spend any of their money nor pool their money together to print pamphlets and such to rally support against King George?

Why is it so difficult to admit that it takes money to get a message out and that like-minded people pooling their money to do so is neither new nor immoral nor unethical?

Re:lulz

[kwbauer]

Just to be clear...

You do realize that all political commentators are paid by corporations? You do realize that The Huffington Post, Mother Jones magazine, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. are also corporations?

Are you also advocating that NBC, CBS and ABC along with all of their associated other networks also make absolutely no comments about anything political?

How about the New York Times, the John D and Catherine T MacArthur foundation, any Hollywood production group, PBS, NPR, any other public radio or TV? They are all corporations of one form or another.

If these groups are not restricted, then what is the rationale used to distinguish which corporations are allowed the "freedom of speech" and which ones aren't?

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is /my/ preference. One citizen should = one vote = one voice.

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

No. An activist judge is one who, for example, uses the constitution as a justification for striking down a ban on gay marriage when the US Constitution has absolutely nothing about homosexuality or even fucking marriage in it. Seriously - guh?

And don't get me wrong. I think banning gay marriage is silly, just more busybody religious right nonsense. But unfortunately there's no Constitutional excuse baring extremely ridiculous, sophist interpretations.

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

Your sarcasm is laughable. A corporation is composed of people, people in aggregate have freedom of speech. If you and 50 of your friends get together and decide to get a pool to pay for a commercial it's no different than 50 people who happen to form a corporation doing it.

What next, if my family decides to buy an ad are you going to snark "'freedom of speech' for families - WTF?"? Rank idiocy.

Re:lulz

[shutdown -p now]

We really need some kind of Godwin Law for the mention of "activist judges" in the context of US politics (yes, for both left and right side of the debate).

Re:lulz

[shutdown -p now]

There is a huge difference here. When a corporation decides to lobby a politician, it doesn't mean that all people working for that corporation express the same opinion. It doesn't even mean the same for shareholders! The decision is taken by the few people at the very top in charge of money. And the money is owned by the corporation, not by the individual people working therein.

Note also that your argument can be turned around. If "free speech" is banned for corporations, there's nothing preventing the people forming said corporation from just donating the same amount of money (or paying for propaganda, or whatever) individually. They can even organize and pool money together to make it more efficient (so long as they don't for a new legal entity - that is, a corporation).

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Ah, yes, the old "activist judge" meme. That's code for "I'm not intelligent enough to understand how law works, so I'll make fun of lawyers and call judges names."

Don't these people understand that it's a judge's JOB to determine whether a law that is passed by the legislative branch is legal? That is not activism, that is judicial checks-and-balances, you know, our government at work.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

No. An activist judge is one who, for example, uses the constitution as a justification for striking down a ban on gay marriage when the US Constitution has absolutely nothing about homosexuality or even fucking marriage in it. Seriously - guh?

But the Constitution does have something about requiring due process before the federal government or the states may infringe on people's liberty. And it has something about requiring states to treat people equally under the law. So long as these very broad, very general guarantees can cover same sex marriage, such as the liberty to marry, or equal treatment of both genders, and of various sexual orientations, there's no need for a more a specific provision. And guess what: the recent decision in California is based upon these Constitutional guarantees!

Maybe you should read through the case to see the basis for the decision, rather than just assuming that the federal Constitution is toothless unless it is absurdly explicit.

Re:lulz

[Bartles]

Sure. A basic knowledge of the constitution, which Kagan should have as a nominee, would reveal that the enumerated powers dont give the government the power to tell you what to eat. Therefor the question merited a quick NO!, response.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

A corporation is composed of people, people in aggregate have freedom of speech.

That's wrong, actually. What you're describing is a partnership. A corporation isn't an aggregation of its employees or any other people. It is a legally-created person all by itself, with its own rights, without relying on the rights of any people associated with it.

But, because a corporation is a creature of the law -- they can only exist when the law permits them to, and to the extent that the law allows -- there's really no problem in regulating what rights it is granted. After all, the entire point of allowing these special unnatural entities to exist is to in some way serve the overall public interest. Unfortunately, we've been giving corporate entities way too many rights, and this has been damaging our society and our politics. It's time to rein them in a bit.

And having done so, if the natural people who are associated with the corporation would like to speak on a subject that the corporation is prohibited from speaking on, they're perfectly free to do so themselves -- using their personal resources, but not the resources of the corporation -- either individually, or as a group. The corporation is a unique sort of individual distinct from the shareholders, officers, employees, etc., and is of an artificial origin lacking natural rights, and should be kept from joining in that association of like-minded political speakers.

There's really no reason why we cannot ban corporations from engaging in politics, while still enjoying the right for "you and 50 of your friends [to] get together and decide to get a pool to pay for a commercial."

Re:lulz

[Bartles]

Just because popular opinion in California runs counter to your social views, it doesn't mean that popular opinion in California is unconstitutional.

Re:lulz

[Bartles]

There are no limits on how much a person or an organization can spend on a politicians campaign. That is what Citizens United upheld. There are limits to how much money an entity can give directly to a politician. Someone can spend as much as they want whenever they want on their own advocating for a politician or a particular position.

Re:lulz

[stewbacca]

Exactly my point. My opinion nor yours matters on issues of Constitutionality. If a law is popularly enacted and it is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There are many people in this country who think that "majority rules", such as people who vote to let the government violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

You make a good point. And I think that citizens should be able to pool their money. But, if an organization is going to try to influence an election, then it should have to be able to trace all of its capital to donations from American citizens. Not corporate profits. Not foreign governments. Basically, the restaurant should not be able to run any ads, but a group of citizens in support of the restaurant should. Same for a union or the AARP. As their due-paying members are not all American citizens, then I would like for them to be required to have a political division that is funded by American citizens and does all of the political advertising for the group.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

I don't have a problem with citizens pooling their money. But, if it is to try to influence a particular American election, then I believe that all of the money should be traceable back to individual American citizens. No corporations. No foreign governments. Its hard to say what sort of activism should be allowed from an organization such as the EFF. At what point it would cross the line from spreading ideas to influencing government elections. But I am willing to accept limitations on the EFF (whom I support) if it would prevent meddling in elections by corporations who have their bottom lines and not the public interest at heart.

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah... no. There is no right to marry, it's a state granted privilege like driving. And there are no protections in the Constitution for homosexuality or even recognition of it.

I read the decision. It's predicated on nonsense - namely that there is a liberty to get "married" where none exists.

The correct solution is to short circuit those busybody right wing nuts and just have a federal concept of a union between two people that confers all the benefits (what few there are) of "marriage" and end the concept of marriage as associated with the law.

Then anybody can get "married" who wants to in any church that will let them, and the state has a separate legal state that confers the tax and other legal trappings of marriage.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

If "free speech" is banned for corporations, there's nothing preventing the people forming said corporation from just donating the same amount of money (or paying for propaganda, or whatever) individually. They can even organize and pool money together to make it more efficient (so long as they don't for a new legal entity - that is, a corporation).

Thank you. That almost exactly mirrors my feelings. But, I wrould have no problem with a group of American citizens forming a legal entity to advocate for them. It would probably a sort of non-profit (which I think might technically be a corporation). But they should have to be able to trace all their funding to individual American citizens who support them.

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

It's not wrong, and a corporation is not a legally created person. The whole "a corporation is a person" thing is a facile simplification of the law. A corporation can not vote, for example. A corporation has a multitude of extra laws governing its operation no person has, and lacks many rights a person does.

I can gather 50 of my closest friends and they will sign a contract stating they agree for the funds to be used in a commercial either for or against Proposition X, and that they agree to be bound by the decision of the group. We could then vote, and if 26 of us are for it and 24 against, guess what? We can do the add for it.

Again, a corporation is legally treated, in some ways, as a person but it is _also_ an aggregation of people, each of whom has rights and the sum of whom have rights.

Re:lulz

[ScentCone]

But, if an organization is going to try to influence an election, then it should have to be able to trace all of its capital to donations from American citizens

This is already the case, and the court's ruling did nothing to change it. Foreign based, foreign managed, or foreign owned companies cannot participate in election-related advertising. Domestic companies must document what they spend, and when and how they spend it. This has not changed.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

There is no right to marry, it's a state granted privilege like driving.

I'm not sure the history bears that out; people have been getting married for a very long time, probably long before states cared about such things. Even today, the issue isn't technically marriage, as it is state recognition of marriage.

And there are no protections in the Constitution for homosexuality or even recognition of it.

For homosexual persons, sure there is. In the 14th Amendment there is this clause: No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see any language in the Constitution that says that this is limited to heterosexual persons. It seems very broad. Why wouldn't it apply? Perhaps it could be argued that it would apply, but for some reason not to (though I do not think this could be argued convincingly in most cases), but I fail to see why it would be ignored right off the bat.

As for homosexual behavior, again, sure there is. The same amendment also has a clause reading: No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Sex sure seems like something that would fall under the heading of liberty. There could be laws against it, or against certain types of it, but the onus would be on the state to justify those laws in light of a higher law that does not look kindly upon such prohibitions.

The US Constitution has a lot of very broad, sweeping language in it. You seem to have a problem with this, and possibly with the idea as seen in the 9th Amendment that not all rights are specifically enumerated, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, or aren't protected.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

A corporation has a multitude of extra laws governing its operation no person has, and lacks many rights a person does.

Well sure. Natural persons have a number of rights that are imbued upon us by God, or nature, or whatnot. Well, corporate entities don't exist naturally; we are their creators, and we limit what rights we grant them quite a lot. It might be wise to limit them more. But they nevertheless have a distinct legal identity from other persons associated with them. A corporation could have 10 people who between them owned all the stock, occupied all the offices and seats on the board, and were all of the employees. And then they could all get crushed by a meteor and die, but the corporation, being an independent entity, would survive.

I can gather 50 of my closest friends and they will sign a contract stating they agree for the funds to be used in a commercial either for or against Proposition X, and that they agree to be bound by the decision of the group. We could then vote, and if 26 of us are for it and 24 against, guess what? We can do the add for it.

And that's a partnership amongst the friends, not a corporation.

Again, a corporation is legally treated, in some ways, as a person but it is _also_ an aggregation of people, each of whom has rights and the sum of whom have rights.

Nope. Whatever rights the corporation has, they have to be granted by the state. And the state can change its laws, and thus, the corporation, pretty much at will. The people who create the corporation, or who run it, or who work for it, may have rights, but the corporation is its own person, not an aggregate. It doesn't have any rights at all merely because people are associated with it.

Re:lulz

[gtbritishskull]

Do you have a link to that legislation? I tried looking it up, but all the links I see talk about the "DISCLOSE Act" which supposedly would have banned political advertising from foreign based firms, but from what I can tell, it was defeated.

Thanks

Re:lulz

[hondo77]

I find it highly likely that Scalia would not overturn a state's law allowing gay marriage; he would consider that the state's prerogative.

When it suits him, Scalia doesn't mind crapping on a state's prerogative at all. How it counts votes in a presidential election, for instance.

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

Funny, the SC agrees with my interpretation (roughly). Ultimately you're simply wrong.

Re:lulz

[sexconker]

Lots of fail there, all you did was defend her.

The fact is plenty of people are pissed for the reasons I stated. You can defend her all you want, that doesn't change the fact that people disagree with you, don't like her actions and track record, and are pissed about it.

As for your defense, you're an idiot.

She broke the law in banning the ROTC while continuing to take government money. For whatever reason, however rationalized, she abused her power to spit in the face of the law.

(Banning them from certain parts of campus but not others IS an unjust ban. See "Separate is not equal".)

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Lots of fail there, all you did was defend her.

The fact is plenty of people are pissed for the reasons I stated. You can defend her all you want, that doesn't change the fact that people disagree with you, don't like her actions and track record, and are pissed about it.

You said prove your points wrong, so I posted some detailed thoughts challenging what you said. In response, you didn't reply to any of the points I made; all you did was tell me that I'm wrong.

Glad to know your conversational skills are way up there.

She broke the law in banning the ROTC while continuing to take government money. For whatever reason, however rationalized, she abused her power to spit in the face of the law.

First, I'd like to point out that she didn't continue to take it...she continued to receive it. Shouldn't you be mad at the fact that the federal government continued "sending" her checks? I don't think I've ever actually heard people say that...they're all just pissed off that she kept taking the money without ever mentioning the fact that it was still being sent to her.

On another note, one could also say Presidents have abused their power by breaking the law and applying wiretaps to citizens communications without a warrant...but National Security is always an acceptable rationalization, right?

Re:lulz

[sexconker]

Again, you're failing.
The points are about why people are pissed.
People are pissed because of the reasons I listed.
You disagree.
People are still pissed.

You have tried to prove me wrong by defending the appointees with every liberal ounce of your body. The problem is, my points were about WHY people are pissed off (see the original post I was responding too).

If people were pissed off because the sky was red, and I said, "People are pissed off because they think the sky is red and they don't want it to be red.", and you proved the sky was blue, you would not be proving me wrong.

The fact that you are completely retarded and choose to wipe Obama's ass with your tongue doesn't even come into play, but I'll address it (again) anyway: Obama's appointments are both terrible. Sotomayor so far is about par for the course for the SC, and the latest dog is abysmal.

You can rationalize her bullshit all you want, but what she did with regards to the ROTC was illegal and wrong. How she handled the confirmation hearings was hypocritical, condescending, abhorring with regards to respect of the office, and totally expected.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

Funny, the SC agrees with my interpretation (roughly).

That's certainly not my understanding. And I'm fairly confident I'm right, but I'm man enough to admit that I could be wrong.

And unfortunately, I don't have time to research this, but you appear to have done so already. So, could you please provide quotes and citations? I'd be very interested to see where the Court has said, as you claim, that when corporations assert Constitutionally protected civil liberties, they do so not as a legally-defined person in their own right, but as an association of natural persons, where the civil liberties in question flow from them. It's probably safe to ignore cases in which corporations have lobbied for rights on the basis of unrelated third parties, such as a right to print truthful advertisements of lawful products and services, on the basis that customers have a right to this information.

Please remember to provide contrary quotes, so that I can get an accurate picture, instead of a slanted one. Oh, and please Shepardize, to make sure that you don't cite bad law.

Thanks so much!

Re:lulz

[RightSaidFred99]

Doesn't take much research, Scalia's concurrence in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored.... The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.

Re:lulz

[cpt kangarooski]

It may yet take a little more research. That's J. Scalia's personal opinion, not an actual, binding Court opinion. While it may be persuasive (it's apparently persuaded you), and can be cited to persuade other courts, it is not actually the law of the land.

Further, he has merely begged the question. I see no support for the notion that a corporation is merely an association of individuals, with its rights flowing from the individuals, rather than having an independent origin. He's just assumed it. Where's the examination of the differences between a mere association and a corporation? Or the right to associate, as opposed to the right to incorporate?

Re:lulz

[Pojut]

Again, you're failing.
The points are about why people are pissed.
People are pissed because of the reasons I listed.
You disagree.
People are still pissed.

Wait...so first you say you dare someone to prove you wrong, and now you say no one can prove you wrong because you are simply stating facts...yet presenting them as an opinion? Nice. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that my own thoughts on the matter have no bearing on people that don't even know I exist. I never could have figured that out on my own.

You have tried to prove me wrong by defending the appointees with every liberal ounce of your body.

First off, I have no emotional investment in your original conversation. I was responding to you because ::gasp:: that's what people do in a discussion forum.

Secondly, I've been a registered independent since the day I turned 18. I'm one of those people who thinks you should be able to own a gun while getting government-issued single-payer insurance. But hey, keep on assuming things about people you don't know. I've been called a crazy conservative and a flaming liberal, depending on the topic...so I must be doing something right.

The fact that you are completely retarded

Oh, so that's a fact? That whole "not knowing me" thing applies here as well. But hey, no problem...I understand.

Obama's appointments are both terrible. Sotomayor so far is about par for the course for the SC, and the latest dog is abysmal.

To play devil's advocate here, in what ways from a professional point of view, specifically, are they terrible? What have they done that invalidates them as being up for the job? Remember, talking points don't count...give me something that isn't being touted around by the news networks.

and choose to wipe Obama's ass with your tongue

Ah, I see. Nothing meaningful to say in response to what I posted, so you resort to insults. Again...nice.

You can rationalize her bullshit all you want,

No rationalization, I was merely explaining it from a point of view you obviously hadn't considered. You do know people have views different than yours...don't you?

but what she did with regards to the ROTC was illegal

I completely agree.

and wrong

I completely disagree.

How she handled the confirmation hearings was hypocritical, condescending

Again, you yourself quoted her as saying that such hearings were a joke. How was it hypocritical to react the same way she essentially said she would?

abhorring with regards to respect of the office

Oh, right...her calling a spade a spade by talking smack about a process that you yourself had said bad things about is abhorrent and disrespectful...but I take it you weren't being disrespectful when talking about...what were your exact words? Oh right. You said:

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is a fucking joke. When one of the fossilized fucks shuffles off the bench, it's an opportunity for some sanity to be injected into our lives. But that never fucking happens.

Yeah. Calling someone who serves on the bench a "fossilized fuck" that "shuffles off the bench" when they retire...that's not disrespectful at all. ::eye roll::

and totally expected.

Then why are you raging about it?

News for Nerds?

[lowrydr310]

I must be new here.

Re:News for Nerds?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Sorry, this story is "Stuff that Matters". You wanted this story.

Re:News for Nerds?

[stewbacca]

I can assure you that a supreme court decision will matter more before any stem-cell breakthrough happens. It will probably TAKE the supreme court to clear the way for such a stem-cell story to matter.

Re:Does it matter?

[Wyatt Earp]

You realize that the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't really have anything to do with voting right?

Re:Does it matter?

[spiffmastercow]

Well, it would help if we in the US didn't treat political parties as if they were sports teams. And if the dems weren't such pussies. And the gun control thing is patently false anyway.. I don't know a single democrat who wants to ban guns.

Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

It's only recently that it became a major concern, largely because they use it as a proxy for competence to try and fend off ideological attacks. According to Media Matters, out of 111 Supreme Court Justices, 40 of them had no prior judicial experience. Hell, Rehnquist and Warren (relatively recent Chief Justices) had no prior judicial experience, and Rehnquist only died a couple years back. Personally, I'd be happy with a few more non-judges (ideally a couple non-lawyers) on the Court (not a majority, but two or three), just to provide a touch of humanity. Sometimes, the law isn't clear, and the Constitution almost never is, and having people who are inclined to sympathize with people rather than arcane precedents is a good thing. Yeah, it's not calling balls and strikes, but then, if you really believe any Supreme Court Justice is able to do that, you're delusional.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Darkness404]

and the Constitution almost never is,

What are you talking about? The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers. If there was one document that was written in the 1700s that is the clearest, it would have to be the constitution. What is so unclear about the constitution?

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[sideslash]

Personally, I'd be happy with a few more non-judges (ideally a couple non-lawyers) on the Court (not a majority, but two or three), just to provide a touch of humanity.

I agree that a human touch is good (cf. Dred Scott), but I disagree about having non-lawyers on the court. I think we can all appreciate a decision maker who knows the rules, and knows when to break them. But putting someone in there who doesn't even know the rules is going to be more harmful than helpful. To put it another way, it's the responsibility of the elected legislature to come up with laws. The court should show wisdom in striking down laws that violate our Constitution (our core national values). But if we have a court that makes stuff up as it goes along, then we have ironically sacrificed the democratic element of our government for a pure tyranny of (unelected) judges.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

A non-lawyer supreme court justice is a horrible idea. There's a reason lawyers have so much education. The law is complicated. The law is complicated because life is complicated.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5000547/a_world_without_lawyers/

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Don't suppose you've noticed, but while lawyers are disproportionately represented in Congress, it isn't a prerequisite. Non-lawyers are at least partially responsible for our laws.

For the record, my opinions on this are solely confined to the Supreme Court. Lower courts need experienced judges and lawyers because they are constrained by Supreme Court precedent as well as the laws as written, and it takes training and study to deal with the multiple layers of ambiguity involved.

The whole point of the Supreme Court is that it takes the tough cases, the ones without a clear answer. In those sorts of cases, legal training isn't a prerequisite. Having people trained how to think, rather than solely how to parse legalese is a good thing. A liberal arts student from, for example, St. Johns with a history of non-profit work, or of managing a business, or a successful career as a psychologist would add some diversity of views. The fact of the matter is that lawyers are indoctrinated with a specific world view in modern law schools (a fairly corporatist world view), and having people who don't have these built in assumptions about how the world works on the Court provides more diversity than any number of minorities, women, etc., if the minorities and women were indoctrinated into the law school mindset.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[GooberToo]

I couldn't agree more!

All too often we have reams of context in which we can place these well written documents. All too often interpretation is not required in the least. All too often, interpretation, and a poor one, if not flat out wrong, is what we get.

The US Constitution is one of the easiest to comprehend legal documents around. It was purposely made so. When judges can't understand the US Constitution or don't know where they should refer about ambiguity, its their way of saying they are unfit to sit on the bench. All to often, people take this to infer the Constitution is the problem. In reality, it almost never is.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[spatley]

If it were 1 or 2 out of 9 liberal art students on the IT department, maybe we could then give some better error messages than hex codes or "method of object not found"

Having a team of diverse backgrounds does make it stronger and more compentent to serve a world of diverse needs.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

And to be clear, this isn't a knock on lawyers in general. They aren't bloodsuckers (in general), but they have been taught a world view that is very narrow. It's the same way serious Computer Science geeks are probably not the best people to design a UI (at least, not without end user input); their idea of usable is not going to match the general populace's. The general populace doesn't see why a corporation is a person, or money is speech. And I'm not saying either of those is necessarily wrong (though I've yet to see a really good argument for the latter), but it's better to have people on the Court willing to question these principles rather than rely on them blindly.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

And that liberal art student will have no idea of how to deal with Habeus Corpus, Men Rea, what does and does not constitute intent (remember it's not just "knowingly or willingly" "recklessly" and "without negligence" are in there too).

They won't have any history of how law forms and what the effects are on the other courts. They don't know the logical theory behind law. The causes of sentencing... etc.

Law is not just "making decisions about stuff" and more than programming is just "writing a set of instructions".

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[DragonWriter]

The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations.

Actually, its clear only when you try to do that, because then the tint you choose to use resolves all the inherent ambiguities and conflicts for you -- in the favor of whatever ideological tint you've selected.

The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers.

Yes, and in some of those books and papers, some of them write about how they were deliberately vague in writing some provisions of the Constitution, in order to let some aspects be resolved by experience because of the inability to come to a consensus on resolution on some points. Because, believe it or not, the political elites of the United States were no more united and homogenous in their ideology of government in the late 18th Century than they are in the early 21st; they were more able to work together, perhaps, but largely because they were more keenly aware of the potential consequences if they failed to do so.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[sideslash]

If it were 1 or 2 out of 9 liberal art students on the IT department, maybe we could then give some better error messages than hex codes or "method of object not found"

No. The solution is _not_ to give that work to people who lack the technical skills to do it -- the solution is to give programmers and IT people better training in human interface principles. And for those doing hiring for IT/dev to actually start paying attention to whether a candidate has developed skills in those supposedly extracurricular areas.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers.

And a certain high-profile scotus judge is well known for saying that the context provided by those writings should never be applied, unless it happens to support his personal biases that is...

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Cidolfas]

If the lib art student knows how to fix a misbehaving AD server? If the engineer is a photoshop wizard? There are people who have skill sets outside their profession, and to dismiss them because what they're known for doesn't encompass their full range of ability is short-sided.

If somebody isn't a lawyer but has extensive knowledge about the law, legal systems, and the fundamental underpinnings of the American legal structure, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered as fair applicants for the Supreme Court.

Especially when you look at the decisions the lawyers appointed to the court have been making towards their former employers (say, Monsanto). Those hardly seems objective to me...

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[sexconker]

What is so unclear about the constitution?

The degree to which we'll (continue to) allow the government to shit on it?

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[hedwards]

You'd have more credibility if you didn't take that pot shot at liberal arts students. It's arguably the most useful degree you can get. While it doesn't set you up for a specific field, it does give you the back ground thinking necessary to accomplish things. A quality of thinking that's sorely lacking in many graduates.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[wowbagger]

"What is so unclear about the constitution?"

How to get around the bits that prevent the government from doing whatever it is I want it to do, in spite of those pesky "rights of the people".

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Monkey_Genius]

....the law isn't clear, and the Constitution almost never is...

Congress shall make no law...

That's pretty fucking clear to me.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I wasn't so lazy to register on /. to give you mod points for that post.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

I didn't take a pot shot against liberal art students. I said they didn't have IT knowledge and therefore shouldn't be doing IT work. Did you assume my comment on space was a pot shot against engineers?

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Darkness404]

Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

Yes, some of it was deliberately vague, but the majority of the time its very specific. For example, how the hell do you take the ninth amendment along with the fourteenth and suddenly create another right, the right to an abortion? If you read both of those amendments, the same logic used to create a right to an abortion can be used to overrule just about every single state law.

The problem is, people take the specific parts of the constitution and try to force them into some ideological form and create things with constitutional authority without making amendments to them.

You can't create rights out of nothing, you can't in essence "amend" the constitution from the bench without passing an amendment, but this is exactly what the Supreme Court consistently does.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

If you have the legal knowledge to equal 4 years of prelaw, 3 years of law and a year of paralegal then I am totally OK with that.

But to address your example. You can know photoshop here to mars and back, it doesn't help you DESIGN anything. That requires knowledge of visual aesthetic and design theory.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[biryokumaru]

That video is the biggest piece of bull I've ever seen. Lawyers didn't do hardly any of the things on there, and the few they had a hand in, they were fighting venomously on both sides. It's like saying murderers are good because they can murder other murderers for us. Ya, that makes sense, right?

Out of all the propaganda I've seen, this ranks right up there with that old libertarian party ad campaign comparing Bush and Gore to the devil, superimposing their faces and making fire shoot out of their eyes. If anything, that video further damaged my opinion of lawyers, because now not only do I think they're evil, but I also know they're idiots.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[AndersOSU]

Right...

The constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a number of extremely important points, because like all other political things the constitutional congress passed the buck on the hard issues of the day.

Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.

Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?
Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?
Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)

Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"
On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?
Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Does the part referencing and establishment of religion mean they:

1. Can't create a state religion
2. Can pass no law that even mentions religion (religions are subject to the laws in the same way as any other corporation, profit or non-profit, depending on their income)
3. Must explicitly exempt religions from all laws
4. Can't pass a law regarding the physical property of religions

A literal reading of the text would probably come closest to the second or third interpretation. Problem is, now you need to:

1. Define a religion
2. Determine if there are limits to said freedom

Defining a religion is tricky. At what point does it change from cult to religion, or should all supernatural belief structures be considered to have a religious nature? What if the tenets of the religion are antithetical to society at large? Murder or slavery might be easy to dismiss as they compromise supposedly inalienable rights, but what about secession from the nation due to a belief that religious dictates must not be compromised by secular government? Belief that property can't be owned (and therefore no compunctions about theft)?

Even on the easier clauses (freedom of speech), literal interpretation is problematic, for example, the old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception. If the people decide to peaceably assemble on someone else's front yard, is that right to peaceable assembly still protected, or can the property owner force them to leave? Even for the most clear aspects of the Constitution, the real world makes it impractical to interpret them 100% strictly.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[GlassHeart]

What is so unclear about the constitution?

How it applies to problems that the founders never even could have imagined. For example, their concept of privacy is largely physical, where "unreasonable searches and seizures" applies to physical property in your home. How does that Right apply on the Internet, for example? Would you like to post some of the "lots of books" they wrote on this issue? What are their views on human cloning? Stem cell research? Hell, organ transplantation and test tube babies? What did they think about black people and women voting in elections?

The founding fathers are to be highly respected for their achievements, and they are to be complimented for being ahead of their time, but there's a limit to what even the most brilliant humans can foresee. Don't forget also that they produced the Constitution inevitably as a political compromise of their day, not an idealized document.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Which is why, like I said, I wouldn't want a Court that is primarily composed of non-lawyers either. But having 5-7 lawyers/judges to provide the structure and training to guide debate, and 2-4 non-lawyers to provide different viewpoints is fairly safe. Worst case scenario, you run into a case where the law is clear, but the non-lawyers are somehow incapable of applying it correctly, and you end up with a more slim majority. Beyond that, the implication that an intelligent, well read individual is incapable of learning the necessary basics to do the job is ascribing superhuman abilities to lawyers. Lawyers are people. The precedents drilled into law students are not the infallible word of God, they're the opinions of fallible men, and having people more willing to question them is a good thing.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Grond]

What is so unclear about the constitution?

Here are two examples, just to get you started. "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" but yet "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

So which one trumps? Can Congress make a law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press in order to grant an author the exclusive right to his or her writings? And, hey, what about visual artists? They don't write anything, so do they get copyright protection or not? Or composers? And what about laws that only incidentally affect the press, like taxes on ink or printing equipment? What about a general sales tax that happens to affect ink?

Not so clear, is it?

Or how about this one "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States?" What does that mean? Does it apply only to things like interstate taxes? What about the infrastructure of commerce like interstate roads? What about products sold across state lines? What if the seller doesn't ship it across state lines but the buyer brings it across? What if one state subsidizes the heck out of a product, leading to competition problems with the neighboring state? What about products that are illegal but sold across state lines, like drugs? What if the product is being given away, like open source software, is that still commerce?

So you can see that the Constitution is not very clear at all on a lot of points. Sometimes it's because parts of the document are in tension with other parts. Other times it's because the words are just plain vague. Scholars, politicians, and judges have spent centuries trying to figure out the best way to balance those tensions and interpret those vague words.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[king neckbeard]

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law and being a lawyer doesn't mean you have a good understanding of the law. I would say that it's best for lawyers to make up a disproportionate amount of the court system, and that SOME kind of legal background is going to be very helpful if not necessary, but to say that not being a lawyer means that you can't do the job well seem incredibly elitist.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW. There's a reason it takes 7+ years of schooling to be allowed to take the bar. There's a lot to cover. Apply your logic to any other vocation. A skilled trade, computer science, medicine, research (insert scientific field here)ist, engineering, architecture... etc.

Your are suggesting nearly half of the most important court in your country not actually have the background knowledge required to have the LOWEST position in the court system.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Adrian Lopez]

... and having people who are inclined to sympathize with people rather than arcane precedents is a good thing.

"Inclined to sympathize with people" is a meaningless phrase in this context, as every court decision favors one person's claim against another's (and you can sympathize with either side). Even when the other side is the government or a corporation, there are always real people affected regardless of which way the court decides a case. The "arcane precedents" you speak of may often be cold and rational rather than emotionally sympathetic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing -- courts should never allow emotion to get in the way of justice when justice and emotion are in conflict.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Those first four years are nearly unconstrained. Yeah, you can do a pre-law major, but tons of people study random stuff, then later apply to law school. The three years of law school are quite intensive, but remember, much of the study is in working out how to apply precedents from different states, work within the confines of Supreme Court rulings, etc. The Supreme Court doesn't have to worry about that to the same degree. Someone with a good liberal arts grounding is capable of learning and functioning in a new environment. Like I said, assuming the opposite is assuming that lawyers possess superhuman skills not available to mere mortals.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The law-as-software metaphor is pretty common on Slashdot for obvious reasons, and in most ways I think it's a good one, but here it breaks down. Courts aren't like programmers in this regard; that would be Congress, i.e. the people who write the "software." Nor are they users; that role is taken by the executive branch (consider how users often abuse software, and this part of the analogy becomes startlingly accurate.) We, The People? We're the poor bastards who have to deal with all the "come fix my computer" requests and bot spam and DDOS attacks from idiots who don't understand the first thing about how their magic glowy boxes work or how to take the most basic precautions

Couts are more like operating systems, except subject to all the vagaries of human behavior. There really isn't anything in the tech world that's comparable.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[jayme0227]

If the Constitution is so clear, we'd only ever have unanimous decisions. Even the very first court under John Jay had at split decisions, indicating that less than 5 years after the constitution was completed, there were already disagreements on how it should be interpreted.

The document was written 200+ years ago, before many modern issues could have hoped to crop up. Photography, cinematography, automobiles, airplanes, rocket ships, computers, the internet, medicine, civil rights, economics, weaponry, physics, chemistry, & even mathematics have all advanced significantly since the inception of the constitution. Many of the advances in these areas were completely out of the realm of comprehension in 1787. Even if they were possessed with great foresight, how could the framers have possibly anticipated copyright issues with movies or music, the possibility that health care could ever cost someone more than many people make in a lifetime, or the ramifications of corporate personhood? The fact is they couldn't, and because of that, there are areas in which the constitution is very *unclear*.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[sideslash]

It's not elitist, it's just a simple truism. If you "can do the job well", then you are in a very real sense "a lawyer". That's what it means, no? And if you "can do the job well", then you should be able to pass the bar exams, too. That's actually what bar exams test -- judicial knowledge and ability. (But IANAL, I'm just trying to highlight what is in my opinion a really bad idea.)

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

Philosophy, Psychology or prelaw are generally the accepted courses. And since the supreme court is actually SETTING the precendents of it then I'd like them to have a solid grounding in legal theory/philosophy. If you have a psyche/philosophy major that wants to be on the court they can take the 3 years of schooling required to become a lawyer.

Your problem seems to be that you assume law school somehow brainwashes these people. That the reason they make decisions you don't like/understand/agree with is that the system has corrupted them without considering that maybe they know something that you don't. That maybe when they side with the corporation they have a perfectly legitimate reason to. It's the effect where anything you lack knowledge or skill of looks easy. Most decently well read people think they could write a novel if they tried specifically because they've never tried. They don't understand what makes the job so hard, what reason there is for 7 years of schooling and a year of paralegal to "just argue about the rules". Take a few courses on basic legal theory and you start to realize the pool is much deeper than it looks.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

The supreme court are the people writing the programming language.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Darkness404]

Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.

They are both rather broad powers that gives Congress a central power to pass laws in accordance to the constitution. It basically does as it says, lets Congress regulate trade and let congress pass laws needed at the time in accordance to the constitution.

Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?

An individual right, as shown in various quotes from people who lead our country in the 1700s.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson, note man, singular.

And there are a lot more from almost every person there. None of them said anything to deny each (free) person the right to bear arms.

Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?

The Constitution provides several limits on the government's power collectively they form a right to privacy. There is no listed "right" of anonymity, but when the rest of the constitution is preserved, the ability to be anonymous is also preserved.

Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)

Do they have the constitutional authority to do so? I think so. Do they have a practical right to do it, not after the civil war.

Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"

Someone born in the US or to people of US decent.

On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?

Now that is something the supreme court actually should interpret because that is one of the few passes intentionally left vague for interpretation throughout history.

Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?

I think when it comes to the marriage issue we have to step back and really wonder why the hell the state is defining our relationships in the first place. And then determine that question later :P

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[king neckbeard]

I would think that being 'a lawyer' depends upon a legal vocation, particular as an attorney, and bar certification. While both of these are generally very helpful, I don't see them as being inherently required. As for the desire for non-lawyers, what I suspect is the biggest concern is trial lawyers, who may be conditioned to see things in a certain light, largely regardless of viewpoint. For example, an RIAA attorney would be likely to have a very artist-centric viewpoint of copyright law that differs greatly from the constitution. Basically the concern with lawyers is that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" This of course doesn't apply to all lawyers or all trial lawyers, but it is a concern, and rightly so.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[AndersOSU]

Yeah?

(establishment)
Can congress give money to a religiously run school?
Can you have public prayer in public schools? How about moments of silence for religious reflection?
Can a public school teach creationism?
Is congress allowed to authorize the placement of a christian cross on public land? If they do, do they have to authorize the placement of a summum pyramid?

(free exercise)
Can congress mandate that women aren't allowed to wear face-coverings in government jobs generally? What about jobs that require interaction with the public? What about jobs involving the use of heavy machinery? What about soldiers?

(press)
Can congress force journalists to reveal their sources in testimony?
Can congress forbit the publication of details sensitive to national security? Troop movements?

(assembly)
Can congress mandate that your demonstration requires a permit?
Can they give permits to some groups but not others?
What kind of fee can be charged for a permit?
How close to private property can I assemble?
Can I obstruct through traffic? For how long?

(speech - my favorite)
Can congress ban dangerous speech?
Libelous speech?
Obscene speech?
Fraudulent speech?
Deceptive commercial speech?
Corporate political speech?
The speech of members of the armed services?
Speech carried over public airwaves?
Speech in public schools?
Is wearing a black armband speech? What about carrying a poster?
Does the right of free speech extend to public areas of privately property?

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

2nd amendment, FFS.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[DrgnDancer]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems to be a popular one. It seems that some people believe it indicates an inborn right amongst all people to posses any weapon (up to and including tanks) that they can afford. Other seem to believe that it implies a right to be armed, but not necessarily a right to any weapon one might chose to own. Still others seem to think it is an abridgeable right, and those guilty of certain types of crimes forfeit it. Others still believe that it implies nothing at all for those who don't happen to be in a "well regulated Militia". I'm not going to go into what I think, but the fact remains that the amendment itself is awful damned vague and a reasonable argument can be made for any of the above. There are other examples, but that's definitely the one that jumps to my mind when people ask about "vague" pieces of the Constitution.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[slater.jay]

Okay, I'll bite on one of them.

Here are two examples, just to get you started. "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" but yet "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

After explicitly stating the caveat that the Constitution is a higher authority than legislation (to prevent someone from jumping out from behind a bush, pointing a finger and saying "Ah-HA! But what about..."), I'd comment that most systems of rules state that more specific rules have precedence.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[tophermeyer]

Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

How about that pesky 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures that the government keeps finding ways around?

The 9th and 10th amendments that everyone ignores?

You're a fucking moron.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[tophermeyer]

Funny example my US History teacher loved to give: The Constitution gave the Government the power to maintain and Army and a Navy. The Constitution made no mention of an Air Force...

The US Constitution is pretty well regarded as being remarkably well thought out. Personally I admire its brevity and simplicity. Its genius is that it was written with the understanding that it could not provide solutions or guidelines for all issues that might arise in the future, but instead set up a system of Government that was capable of adapting itself. The Government it established has run uninterrupted for over 300 years. How many other forms of Government have lasted that long without being overthrown? (Some, but not many).

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[tophermeyer]

Crap, I had a typo in there. Should have been 200 years.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Caball]

Most useful degree you can get? Not if you want to find a job, which I am assuming is why you went to college in the first place.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[mcgrew]

Actually, its clear only when you try to do that

No, it's clear only if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS itself mucks up the Constitution, like when they said "for limited times" in referece to copyright means whatever Congress says it means, when the average peron of average intelligence or better can clearly see that "longer than a lifetime" is in no way limited and clearly goes way past any reasonable definition of "limited".

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, read it again. ^ It's that fucking true.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Hatta]

Well said. As long as the laws are meant to be obeyed by non-lawyers, they should be comprehensible by non-lawyers. Therefore it makes perfect sense to have non-lawyers determine what the law means.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Hatta]

the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW

And yet, we're all supposed to obey the law. How can we when it takes post-graduate training to even understand a small part of the law? The problem here is not non-lawyers in the Supreme Court. The problem is an absurdly complex legal system.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

It's an absurdly complex world.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[DragonWriter]

Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

I'm not sure what this means: the points that were left vague in the text were left to be resolved by experience (both through political means and through judicial interpretation in light of specific cases, something the founders would well have been aware would occur, as they were widely familiar with the common law practices that the courts they designed would inherit.)

I never suggested anything about "constant unresolved" points of any kind.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Attila Dimedici]

Show me an example of constantly unresolved point of the constitution.

Slavery. The authors could not come to a consensus about how to define it or even describe the industry. Once everybody realized that everyone else had different opinions, they stopped trying. The distinction between citizens and property was intentionally not discussed in the Constitution, partly to allow the States to make their own independent conclusions, but primarily so that the Legislative branch of Government could address future aspects of the issue as they arose. Slavery was simply to divisive of an issue to handle at the time, and would have broken up the infant nation had they tried. This example is pretty well documented.

I don't know where you have been for the last 145 years, but that one has been pretty resolved for a little while now.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[tophermeyer]

But it took us 100 years after the Constitution was written to solve it. I'm not saying Slavery is still a fuzzy issue, I'm just pointing to an example of where the Constitution was ambiguous and required elaboration/interpretation.

And keep in mind that the issue of what constitutes a Citizen deserving of the protections granted by the Constitution is still a hot topic.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

And one more point, "well regulated" in itself is a vague term. Using the language of today, one might infer that it is talking about a militia which is "controll[ed] [...] by rules or restrictions."

Using the language of the time, one could conclude that they are referring to a "fit, prepared" militia.

And that's just two words.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[AndersOSU]

They are both rather broad powers that gives Congress a central power to pass laws in accordance to the constitution. It basically does as it says, lets Congress regulate trade and let congress pass laws needed at the time in accordance to the constitution.

Those two powers by themselves can be read to give congress such sweeping authority as to render the 10th amendment moot. It can quite reasonably be argued that the line the founders intended to draw in the 18th century is not the law that they would have intended to draw today, after all the key word, commerce, has been completely revolutionized since then. So no points for "plain meaning" here, and sorting out where the line ought to be is complicated and does a fantastic job of negating your original point, that the meaning of the constitution is "clear." For instance, does a commodity like corn (or marijuana) that is grown, sold and consumed all in one state effect interstate commerce and hence fall under federal purview? Well it certainly effects the price of that commodity not just locally, but internationally.

The Constitution provides several limits on the government's power collectively they form a right to privacy. There is no listed "right" of anonymity, but when the rest of the constitution is preserved, the ability to be anonymous is also preserved.

Your explanation already doesn't seem clear. Is my choice of birth control protected by constitutional guarantees of privacy? What about a woman's right to seek an abortion? Can I (a white man) marry a black woman? Have sex with a man? Were all of these things "clear" in the meaning of the constitution?

Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"

Someone born in the US or to people of US decent.

Really? So if a couple emigrated to China, lived there for decades, had a child there, raised him there, and he returned at age 30, he'd be eligible to be president at age 44? I don't think so. In reality "natural born citizen" is one of the most ill defined phrases in the entire document.

I think when it comes to the marriage issue we have to step back and really wonder why the hell the state is defining our relationships in the first place. And then determine that question later :P

I agree with the sentiment, but states have been recognizing and awarding benefits to marriage since before this nation's founding, and I don't think it's about to change any time soon. With that in mind, it seems "clear" to me that the full faith and credit clause mandates all states to recognize all marriages legally granted by any state, the federal defense of marriage act notwithstanding. On the other hand, I'm afraid I'm in the minority on that position, so maybe it isn't as "clear" as it ought to be.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Grond]

I'd comment that most systems of rules state that more specific rules have precedence.

Ah, but most systems of rules also state that later rules take precedence over earlier rules. So while the Copyright Clause is arguably more specific than the First Amendment, it's also earlier in time. So the tension remains.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[bolthole]

If the Constitution is so clear, we'd only ever have unanimous decisions.

It IS clear, but the problem is we have lawyers telling us what it means.

Example of the problem of lawyers: When a lawyer can give the finger to common sense by arguing about "what the definition of is, is".. and then the rest of the lawyers commend him on his amazing legalese daring... this should be an indication that lawyers and politics need to be kept far, far apart.
And damn straight a bunch of 9 lawyers, should not be deciding the political issues of this country!

Power to the PEOPLE, not the lawyers!

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[stewbacca]

Well said. The Constitution does have some gray area, and times have changed which provides additional challenges (any soldiers come demanding quartering lately?).

However, most people's opinion about what the Constitution says is what's wrong, not the Constitution itself. We've done a pretty good job at amending the dumb stuff out, and rectifying social unjustices.

I heard some dumb lady (anti-gay marriage) say that we need to read the Constitution, becaues nowhere in it does it allow gays to get married! Well with that completely ignorant world-view I'd like to suggest to that stupid woman that nowhere in the Constitution does it say heterosexuals are allowed to get married. Unless, of course, you want to talk about the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part, which I'm pretty sure doesn't say *for heterosexuals only* in small print.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only vague if you don't understand punctuation. There is nothing ambiguous about "shall not be infringed"

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Idiomatick]

That isn't vague at all. The people should be allowed to form militias with tanks and guns and missile launchers w/e. Unfortunately this is stupid, the founding father's weren't infallible nor psychic. I hate that many American's treat the constitution the same way they treat the bible. It is thought ending and dangerous.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[BitZtream]

those guilty of certain types of crimes forfeit it

Actually they don't. The forfeit their standard citizenship, AND the rights that go with it and end up with a reduced set of rights because they are no longer considered proper citizens.

They can also get them back after some time being out of prison and having a clean record.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[nixed3]

I'm just gonna hijack your conversation here because my perspective on law school and lawyering seems like it could be relevant.

I have an undergraduate degree (B.S.) in Biochemistry/Molecular Biology. I applied to law school after becoming disillusioned by watching my biochemistry mentor do his incredibly slow, boring, tedious work. I took a business law class that I really liked, said, what the hell, took the LSAT, earned my J.D. and now three years later I just took the Florida Bar. (I get my results back sometime late September).

Law school is nothing like I expected, and it's nothing like most people expect. In my experience, the first year of law school can basically be described as academic hazing. All your classes are as early as possible and you have a mandatory, huge courseload. Professors call on you and try to put you on the spot in front of your peers. They assign you hundreds of pages of reading monotonous, tedious, boring opinions. The second and third year is different, because you get to choose more specific courses, but for the most part you're still doing the same kind of work.

My point is, what you learn in law school is how to read legal arguments written by judges over the last two hundred years and absorb it. Most of the time you're not actually learning the "law," (the "precedents" you spoke of in the GP) because the "law" for each subject can probably be summarized in a short 30-200 page outline for each (which is, indeed, what you acquire when you study for the Bar exam). Law school itself teaches you how to read, write, think, and argue almost all issues in both ways. Law school also gives you a perspective on how to write and form legal arguments based on defining a specific issue and then breaking up that issue into it's component elements, and then thoroughly analyzing each component element with relevant authority, precedent, policy, and other forms of persuasive arguing. I know it sounds fairly simple as described here, but trust me when I say it really can take months if not years to acquire a knack for it.

Obviously I'm biased, having just taken a bar exam and hoping that I can soon call myself a lawyer, but I do not think it's a good idea to have non-lawyers on the Supreme Court. The reason I say this is because to understand how to form a legal opinion, you need an understanding of how to form legal arguments in the first place. You also need a deep, solid understanding of how the government works on all levels, which mandates that you must understand the monstrous, chaotic beast that is Constitutional Law in itself. That alone could consume your entire life. What was suggested earlier:

But having 5-7 lawyers/judges to provide the structure and training to guide debate, and 2-4 non-lawyers to provide different viewpoints is fairly safe.

just doesn't work in practice, because when they would speak about "their opinion" on the matter, it wouldn't be based in any type of legal foundation. It would simply be a layperson's opinion on the matter.

One of the most interesting things for me nowadays is explaining certain legal concepts to my non-lawyer peers. Most of the time, they wind up convoluting things that don't bear on a particular issue and they form arguments that aren't "legally" relevant just because they feel like it's the right thing to do. There's a place for that, but it's not something you want to invite behind a judge's bench.

I will conceded one definite point: the fact that law school teaches you to argue issues both ways means that lawyers (and judges) can easily construe a statute or one of it's provisions, phrases, clauses, or whatever in anyway that would best benefit their own self beliefs. And THAT is a problem. But by the same token, many times you need that kind of balance in order to provide an objective viewpoint.

IMO, what would be best for the Supreme Court are intelligent lawyers with a well-rounded education, who are

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[easterberry]

Thank you, that was brilliantly said and far more elegant and detailed than what I was trying to get across. I feel it would have been better responded to my opponent instead of the person already on your side but I am glad to hear from someone who actually went all the way in the field and I really hope the other side reads this.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[RightSaidFred99]

believe that it implies nothing at all for those who don't happen to be in a "well regulated Militia

Small nitpick, there is no valid argument for a native English speaker who knows what the word "parenthetical" means to believe this.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Anonymous Coward]

If the constitution is clear in its intent, then why have nine judges interpreting its meaning? Surely only one would be needed.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Chowderbags]

The 14th amendment came long after the founders died, and many federal, state, and local laws are stupid and should be struck down. Regardless, a person should have absolute right over their own body and the processes within it. Telling someone they can't get an abortion means abrogating that persons right to control their own body. (Yes, I recognize that that should also apply to drugs. I support legalizing drugs too.)

The problem with asking "what did the founders do" is that many of the commonly done things in early America would be horrifying today. It was legal to beat criminal suspects until they confessed. There was rampant racism (even in the north). States didn't have to recognize the bill of rights. The first amendment didn't stop things like the Alien and Sedition Act (making any criticism of the president illegal).

Don't hold the founders on some pedestal of perfection. They were flawed men trying to make a government that was slightly less flawed than governments coming before it (both in terms of the Articles of Confederation and their former British government). We can look to them for guidance, but we shouldn't be completely beholden to their will.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Chowderbags]

There have been quite a few monarchies lasting for far longer. Andorra was a monarchy for over 700 years. Japan can trace it's emperor back to 4th century AD (albeit with waxing and waning levels of actual power). Egypt alone has had several period of unbroken government with a longer time frame than that (1000 years, and 2 500 year periods). Venice was an independent republic for 1070 years (and only fell after Napoleon conquered it). We've done decently, but I'm reminded of the first half of the saying "Americans think 100 years is a long time ago. Europeans think 100 kilometers is a long way away".

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[SETIGuy]

You forgot "Does the supreme court have the power to strike down laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?"

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[Slime-dogg]

Personally, I'd be happy with a few more non-judges (ideally a couple non-lawyers) on the Court (not a majority, but two or three), just to provide a touch of humanity.

I agree that a human touch is good (cf. Dred Scott), but I disagree about having non-lawyers on the court. I think we can all appreciate a decision maker who knows the rules, and knows when to break them. But putting someone in there who doesn't even know the rules is going to be more harmful than helpful. To put it another way, it's the responsibility of the elected legislature to come up with laws. The court should show wisdom in striking down laws that violate our Constitution (our core national values). But if we have a court that makes stuff up as it goes along, then we have ironically sacrificed the democratic element of our government for a pure tyranny of (unelected) judges.

I think that's the point. Our system, as it stands, has an overabundance of rules. There's also a kind of corruption that happens to those who have had too much exposure to the internals of the court. As was stated, most of the cases that go before SCOTUS have no legal precedent. There's little reason for a familiarity with "the rules," with one exception. They should be intimately familiar with the US Constitution and amendments, because their job is based upon deciding whether laws, or other cases, fall within those guidelines.

The last thing I need is a set of judges who de-prioritize the constitution, and either follow their political leanings or prior legal experience to enact judgments. That isn't their job.

Re:Lack of judicial experience used to be common

[GooberToo]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see what's so confusing about it. Its very clear and easy to read. The real confusion stems from the fact that people have been confused by other people's readings, where they have worn tinted glasses while reading and teaching. And I will point out, readings which fly in the face of history.

Hell, you need only look at well known history to properly understand the power provided by proper reading of the US Constitution. States are specifically granted the power of militia. In other words, its not a power ceded to the federal government; contrary to what you're constantly told. The Constitution clearly makes that known. The people have the right to bear arms; otherwise, they would have left it as a role for militia only. In either case, their rights shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That's all very clear. Historically this is completely accurate. And historically, militia frequently owned and even maintained the most powerful military weapons in their homes. And don't get me stated on the privately owned trading companies who welded the great naval power of their time.

So with any reasonable reading the only ambiguity which exists is, must you be a member of a militia to have access to all available weaponry? According to clear reading of, "shall not be infringed", the answer is clearly, "no!" Only that if you wish to have a standing "army", you can be regulated by the state, for the good of the state.

Our forefathers specifically understood revolution may be required. They understood no matter what they wrote, its potential for corruption always exists. Accordingly, as they knew all too well, the possibilities of revolution always exists. You can never assure that if you prevent the citizenry (which is a militia - "citizen army") from rivaling federal forces. Its very clearly their intent both militia and the citizenry are to be properly equipped; albeit with the militia being regulated. In other words, they don't want armed, "thugs", but they do want armed citizens capable of contributing as a militia.

Accordingly, the vast majority of state laws, in accordance with history and many writings of our forefathers, not to mention the US Constitution, are absolutely unconstitutional. I have no doubt many of our forefathers would spit in the face of representatives from states like New York, DC, and California. Laws like theirs are the definition of empowering tyranny.

At the end of the day, ask yourself a very simply question. Why would they make illegal the very actions and equipment they knew would one day be required again; the very actions and equipment they, themselves used? The answer is obvious unless you're an anti-gun, crackpot. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

To be anti-gun is the literal definition of, "Un-American."

Thanks, Slashdot

[Megaweapon]

Yesterday's news about politics on a geek website. Where do I pay????

Re:Thanks, Slashdot

[carp3_noct3m]

Because the politics of the largest global hegemony (though rapidly declining) has no effect on nerds right? I mean, if you hide in your basement, and you can't see them, then that means they can't see you!

So that's why!

[AnonymousClown]

Other justices have corporate law backgrounds...

That explains a lot.

Re:So that's why!

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Re:So that's why!

[hedwards]

Like how increasing your tax base by using eminent domain to seize private property would be consider as reasonable. Or how corporations have first amendment rights.

Re:So that's why!

[tnk1]

I hear most people on Slashdot also work for corporations. Those corporations actually PAY them right there, out in the open. This is clearly why Slashdot has a very corporate-leaning bias and you never ever read anything critical of a corporation here. Why does no one else notice this obvious source of bias!

Re:So that's why!

[khallow]

Like how increasing your tax base by using eminent domain to seize private property would be consider as reasonable. Or how corporations have first amendment rights.

Equating abusive eminent domain with the fair exercise of a fundamental right is disinenuous.

Re:So that's why!

[khallow]

Equating abusive eminent domain with the fair exercise of a fundamental right is disingenuous.

FIFM.

Re:So that's why!

[RightSaidFred99]

Or how corporations have first amendment rights

Yes, of course they do. A corporation is a group of people. People have first amendment rights, and they aren't stripped when they group together under the label of a "corporation". This is simple stuff, it amuses me the anti-corporate brigade make this out like it's just soooooo craaaaaazy!

Re:So that's why!

[shutdown -p now]

Corporation isn't "just people". If it were, then those people would be individually liable for everything the corporation does, but they're not - and that is because corporation is a legal entity very much separate from the people that form it, and can exist even without all those people.

Re:So that's why!

[Bartles]

The first amendment doesn't grant anybody rights. It recognizes that people have always had those rights. You are looking at it incorrectly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The 1st amendment limits the ability of the government to make laws restricting freedom of speech, whatever that speech may be. It never makes the claim that speech must come from an individual. It recognizes speech regardless of where it comes from.

Re:Does it matter?

[dr.newton]

You realize that the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't really have anything to do with voting right?

Or voting left, for that matter.

Re:Does it matter?

[polar red]

hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good shouting-match !

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've already forgotten their involvement with determining the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election?

Re:Does it matter?

[SargentDU]

spiffmastercow said "...I don't know a single democrat who wants to ban guns." So Daly in Chicago is not a Democrat?

Now comes the hard part

[dkleinsc]

Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.

The problem is that nowadays presidents aim to nominate people with as little documentation of what they really think as they can get away with. Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.

Re:Now comes the hard part

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.

Sounds like you think just like she does. She openly derided the process as "vapid and hollow"

Re:Now comes the hard part

[tophermeyer]

Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.

Me too. It just would have been nice to get that before we offered her the lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the country...

Re:Now comes the hard part

[bolthole]

Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.

oh come on now, she's given plenty of examples of displaying "how she really thinks".

She's a classic, way-left liberal, with all the expected stances thereof on abortion, gay rights, and the rest of them. Even if she had not given plenty of examples to support that (which for "some reason", typical mainstream media does not seem to have mentioned), there's this to consider:
If she werent, Obama would never have nominated her.

Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[kingduct]

You know, SCOTUS just sounds dirty every time I see it.

Re:Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[DragonWriter]

Well "the Supreme Court" is ambiguous, since there are lots of Supreme Courts. Several countries have them, and most US states have them as the highest court of appeals in the state court system (and New York has "Supreme Court" as, oddly enough, a lower court.)

SCOTUS -- or the longer "U.S. Supreme Court" or "Supreme Court of the United States" avoid the ambiguity associated with just syaing "the Supreme Court".

Re:Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[Schadrach]

Maybe that's the cause of all the confusion -- politicians use a similar acronym for the Constitution of the United States -- COTUS -- and misread it as "COITUS" and think that they're *SUPPOSED* to be fucking it!

Re:Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[morgan_greywolf]

You know, Supreme Court of the United States, as opposed to, say, the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (SCOTUK!), or state supreme courts... Helps avoid confusion.

Re:Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we assume it is the Supreme Court of the US unless otherwise specified. They do that with my state all the time. (Washington)

Re:Can we just call it the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous Coward]

We could always call it the Harvard Law Alum Club instead.
At least it would be more accurate.

News For Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an old story about a procedural vote where the outcome was totally expected. This is news for nerds??

Slashdot really has fallen down thru the years, and now making it up with political and flamebait drivel is just driving them further down.

Re:Does it matter?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

There are branches of the Democratic party that believe in blanket bans, but they're quite small. You may not have encountered them due to living in the wrong part of the country (East coast democrats tend to be more anti-gun, while many otherwise bleeding heart West coast dems have enough of a libertarian streak to drop that aspect of the platform). Most of the party believes in more gun control, though definitions vary (it could mean more rigorous checking and sales monitoring, or they could be in favor of banning specific types of weapons). Personally, I'm mostly a Democrat by affiliation (the issues I tend to disagree on are ones where the Republicans either agree, or pretend to disagree while continuing to pass legislation in favor of it), and while I believe in gun control, it's *way* down on my list of priorities.

I'd rep you if I had an account :)

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important qualifications for a Supreme Court justice are:
  * knowledge of the Constitution and the history of law in the United States
  * the ability to speak and write and (during a case) ask cogent questions about the law

In a country where most judges are either locally-elected or political appointees, "previous judicial experience" is a bit of a red herring. Kagan, having been an author and professor and dean at a prestigious law school, has all of the qualifications she needs to sit on the Court.

Re:Does it matter?

[natehoy]

Voting is all masturbation anyway. It gives you a rush and a warm feeling but in the end you're only screwing yourself.

Does it really matter which hand you use?

What a bs writeup...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slant the news much, do we?

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/10/kagan-has-appropriate-experience-for-a-seat-on-the-supreme-court.html

40 SC justices had no prior judicial experience. Why don't you at least be honest on your writeup and explain why you REALLY don't like her instead of some made up proxy bs.

I read

[kikito]

SCROTUS.

Sorry.

Re:I read

[Anonymous Coward]

... So did I so I thought I'd just check the comments section for other people with the same level of humour as myself!

Re:I read

[Anonymous Coward]

A wrinkly sack of lawyers?

Re:I read

[jgtg32a]

Same thing

Good cop, Bad cop

[spun]

Both cops work for the same department. Both want the same thing out of you. Neither one is your friend. It's a negotiating tactic. Their boss wants something from you, so one of them is going to offer you a cup of coffee and a donut, then while he's out of the room getting it, the other one is going to bash your face in. When the friendly guy comes back with the coffee and the donut, he's going to apologize for his partner and explain to you that he has little control over his 'crazy' partner, and for everyone's sake, you'd better just play along.

Sure, one guy gives you some crappy coffee and a stale donut while the other guy gives you a chair to the face, but they are both working for the same rich asshole, trying to get the same thing from you: your cheap and silent obedience.

Re:Does it matter?

[Wyatt Earp]

No, I'm ignoring a one time aberration. Supreme Court deciding on the Presidential Election or months of chaos without a president, I think they did the right thing.

LOALS WITHIN [mt]

[Anonymous Coward]

good thing she is on the SCOTUS

she'll never get close to a mans SCROTUS!

Re:Does it matter?

[spiffmastercow]

He (she?) might be, but I don't know him. Nor do I really care. I'm not a democrat, though I do subscribe to the idea that the only thing worse than a democrat is a republican. Both parties act only in the interest of being elected/reelected, and there's almost no one in congress who is even interested in doing something to make our country better.

If you want my personal political beliefs, I believe that I should be supreme ruler of the country, so that I could run it like a game of Civilization.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darkness404]

The problem with Democrat's views on gun control is because they all ban the stupidest thing. Take for example the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons, first off, what the hell is an "assault" weapon, its basically a weapon that -looks- dangerous. Somehow, a "dangerous" .22 simi-auto was banned because it looked dangerous but yet a revolver shooting a more powerful bullet wouldn't be banned? Aside from constitutional and practical questions, the guns democrats are banning is as laughable as banning a mustang with a top speed of 90 MPH because it looks fast to cut down on speeding while allowing people to keep a mini-van with a top speed of 120 MPH as legal.

SCOTUS celebrates diversity

[Phizzle]

by adding one more Harward law school person to the hive mind - oh yeah we are going to have "diversity" coming out of our SCOTUS now

Two words: Sammy Sosa

[rsborg]

Dubya actually did pretty well by the Texas Rangers

He traded Sammy Sosa. Nuff said.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Shakrai]

That proves nothing. Sports teams trade away good players all the time. Sometimes they do it because they are rebuilding and need younger players even if they are less experienced. Other times they do it because they can't afford to keep them and would rather get something in a trade than let them go to free agency. Occasionally they even do it to finance a Broadway play, though that one might not have been the best idea in the world.... ;)

Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[conspirator57]

Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.

Maybe not, but there is a preponderance of other evidence supporting that claim.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Kreigaffe]

And was that before or after Sosa started using steroids?

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Anonymous Coward]

And occasionally they are the Pittsburgh Pirates with a phobia of winning.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

Maybe not, but there is a preponderance of other evidence supporting that claim.

I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that GWB is smarter than 95% of the people claiming he's an idiot. Measured by way of accomplishment or IQ, he's done a hell of a lot more than the basement dwellers on Slashdot have.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Nimey]

Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[10101001 10101001]

An idiot savant is still an idiot. If anything, they're often the most frightening. They're often easy to manipulate into doing horrible things, people blindly trust them for their intelligence, and they lack the normal emotional reaction to things for people to comprehend when they should stop trusting in them.

But, yes, let's pretend it's all a matter of how well one does on an IQ test.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Anonymous Coward]

> Point is, you can't say GWB was an idiot just because he traded Sammy Sosa.

And why would you want to, given the wealth of other reasons?

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[mldi]

So.... Chelsea Clinton 2040?

C'mon... being born into a rich family or even having daddy as president doesn't automatically get you into a seat of power. It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance.

I'd agree with GP, he can't be a complete idiot. He managed to become leader of a super power after all. Twice.

Even if I had a president as a father, I don't think I could accomplish that myself. So, I guess, give credit where credit is due (and blame where blame is due).

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Nimey]

Family ties (especially if one's family is as politically influential as the Bushes) will open doors that wouldn't otherwise be available.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

But, yes, let's pretend it's all a matter of how well one does on an IQ test.

Which is why I stuck achievement in there. You are right, it's not about performance on an IQ test...presumably a lot of the basement dwellers on Slashdot would do quite well on that account, while accomplishing very little productive in their lives, at least at present.

Bush, like him or hate him, does have a body of accomplishment that is better than the vast majority of people out there. He didn't get elected President because his daddy was President. He was actually an effective and popular governor of Texas. And he got to be governor of Texas by defeating Ann Richards. His daddy didn't do that for him either.

There is certainly a lot of truth that a lot of doors were opened up for GWB due to who his father was, and if you take the same guy, and plop him into a lower middle class pedigree, the outcome would have been far different. Them's the breaks. We don't like in a perfect meritocracy. Those don't actually exist.

And as far as the job he did as President...I think Obama is finding out just how hard that job is. Because Bush fucked up things less in 8 years than Obama did his first year in.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[mldi]

Read my whole post. I didn't say it wouldn't open doors, I just said it doesn't roll out the red carpet and march you right up to the top without any effort whatsoever. That's ridiculous.

"It definitely doesn't hurt, but you have to do some things on your own if you want to accomplish anything of significance. "

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[modmans2ndcoming]

The Clintons were not rich until after Bill's presidency.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[10101001 10101001]

Which is why I stuck achievement in there. You are right, it's not about performance on an IQ test...presumably a lot of the basement dwellers on Slashdot would do quite well on that account, while accomplishing very little productive in their lives, at least at present.

And the problem with achievement is that achievement isn't necessarily productive or wholly worthwhile. Look at Mao, for example. On the one hand, he did radically propel China forward into being a strongly developing country. On the other hand, his clear lack of experience and overconfidence in the ability to micromanage such a large country resulted in massive famine and strife.

Bush, like him or hate him, does have a body of accomplishment that is better than the vast majority of people out there. He didn't get elected President because his daddy was President. He was actually an effective and popular governor of Texas. And he got to be governor of Texas by defeating Ann Richards. His daddy didn't do that for him either.

No, what did that for him was a collection of individuals who have done the same thing for countless other individuals (including Bush's father). Bush was a face and a personality and while he certainly shaped the campaigns that gained him Governorship and Presidentship--and he certainly exercised significant power when elected--, he was far from "the decider" or in a position where most people weren't sheltered even if he made grossly large mistakes in procedure. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish something extraordinary, but I'd almost argue that getting a PhD is a greater achievement because it's less based upon a popularity contest and more on actual ability. Certainly, that's not the basis for Bush being elected.

There is certainly a lot of truth that a lot of doors were opened up for GWB due to who his father was, and if you take the same guy, and plop him into a lower middle class pedigree, the outcome would have been far different. Them's the breaks. We don't like in a perfect meritocracy. Those don't actually exist.

Rather true. Nor do I believe that the President's job is to necessarily have achieved a lot otherwise. It's, in many ways, to listen to the will of the people, listen to the counsel of his Cabinet, and to have enough humility and humanity to not think himself wiser or more important than millions or billions of people which his decisions (or those of others he chooses to follow) will effect. My problem, then, is Bush seemed both overly arrogant in convictions that seemed less of his own design and more of those around him with a willingness to forfeit the life and freedom of many under some banner of protecting the US. To that end, he achieved a lot in gaining power for the Presidency to carry out those actions, but I don't think on balance that was a good achievement.

And as far as the job he did as President...I think Obama is finding out just how hard that job is. Because Bush fucked up things less in 8 years than Obama did his first year in.

I'm curious of what you speak in this regard. I would definitely say that Obama has certainly been in the news more and did more in the first year than Bush did (well, prior to 9/11). Beyond that, I'm not sure where you've actually pragmatically seen what any of Bush or Obama has done to you. And ideologically, Bush authorized or was otherwise reasonably culpable for authorizing a number of horrible things (warrantless wiretapping, kidnapping, torture, and indefinite imprisonment); Obama isn't much better, continuing about half the mentioned practices. In any case, I'd love to hear an elaboration.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Shakrai]

Most of us "basement dwellers" don't count the head of the CIA or a President of the United States as a parent, nor were we born into very rich families.

You still can't dismiss the man's accomplishments on that basis. Paris Hilton was born into a richer family than GWB but I don't think it's terribly likely that we'll be seeing her as a Governor or POTUS anytime soon.....

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Nimey]

Psh. The reason he got elected is because the GOP base as a body will mindlessly rally around whoever is chosen by the elites as their candidate; those people see politics as a sport and want nothing more than their team to win and the other team to lose.

He would have been chosen by the party elite because
    * family connections
    * rich white fundamentalist Christian
    * easily manipulated (see also: Dick Cheney)

The previous is /not/ an endorsement of the Other Team, btw.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

Ah, a reasonable discussion on Slashdot, what am I to do.

And the problem with achievement is that achievement isn't necessarily productive or wholly worthwhile. Look at Mao, for example. On the one hand, he did radically propel China forward into being a strongly developing country. On the other hand, his clear lack of experience and overconfidence in the ability to micromanage such a large country resulted in massive famine and strife.

In comparison to Mao, I think Bush was not all that different than Clinton and his father before him...largely a maintainer of the status quo. He certainly was not the transformative character that Mao was and Obama apparently is trying to be.

No, what did that for him was a collection of individuals who have done the same thing for countless other individuals (including Bush's father). Bush was a face and a personality and while he certainly shaped the campaigns that gained him Governorship and Presidentship--and he certainly exercised significant power when elected--, he was far from "the decider" or in a position where most people weren't sheltered even if he made grossly large mistakes in procedure. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish something extraordinary, but I'd almost argue that getting a PhD is a greater achievement because it's less based upon a popularity contest and more on actual ability. Certainly, that's not the basis for Bush being elected.

All Presidents are figureheads to a large degree, by virtue of the demands of the office. Where they influence things is in the people that they appoint to run the country. Sure, GWB filled his cabinet and the rest of the administration with retreads from prior administrations, but these were people largely with a decent amount of policy experience within the mainstream of society. For all of the rancor that was thrown there way, people like Ashcroft really were not that bad. When push came to shove, Ashcroft defended the Constitution.

I'm curious of what you speak in this regard. I would definitely say that Obama has certainly been in the news more and did more in the first year than Bush did (well, prior to 9/11). Beyond that, I'm not sure where you've actually pragmatically seen what any of Bush or Obama has done to you. And ideologically, Bush authorized or was otherwise reasonably culpable for authorizing a number of horrible things (warrantless wiretapping, kidnapping, torture, and indefinite imprisonment); Obama isn't much better, continuing about half the mentioned practices. In any case, I'd love to hear an elaboration.

The economy would be a good start. Obama took a structural $450 billion a year deficit under Bush (which was hardly anything to be proud about) and has turned it into a structural $1.4 trillion annual deficit. This is simply unrecoverable without severe austerity. It ends in ruination. At the end of Obama's term, we will have doubled the national debt at the same time that Social Security and Medicare goes into the red. In my opinion, this is what you get when you nominate a bunch of socialist and marxist retreads to your cabinet. They really have no clue on how to run an economy. Turbo Tax Timmy couldn't even balance his own taxes correctly, but now he's running the Treasury Department trying to fix the entire economy (Turbo Tax Timmy is a good example of where academic achievement doesn't necessarily confer real world success and achievement). Obama's mismanagement of the economy is almost enough for me to really believe he's an adherent of the Cloward-Piven strategy of collapsing the system to bring on socialism at the national level.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

Forgot one other point about Bush (and by extension, Obama). It's easy to be a critic and laugh about how dumb Bush or Obama are is because one constantly fumbles words in a speech or because the other can't give a speech without reading it from a teleprompter. In short, people that make assessments of Presidents based on their perceived intelligence are idiots themselves. It's like the town retard calling the someone else stupid. They should probably look in the mirror before opening their mouth, but it's pile on day, and everyone in the left bought into the "Bush is dumb" meme (which, funny enough, is the meme trotted out for just about every Republican President back to Eisenhower with the possible exception of Tricky Dick).

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Anonymous Coward]

You still can't dismiss the man's accomplishments on that basis. Paris Hilton was born into a richer family than GWB but I don't think it's terribly likely that we'll be seeing her as a Governor or POTUS anytime soon.....

Okay, I'm willing to give GWB that much: he's not as useless as Paris Hilton.

That would make a great epitaph.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Nimey]

ROFL. Well done, sir.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[shutdown -p now]

Measured by way of accomplishment or IQ, he's done a hell of a lot more than the basement dwellers on Slashdot have.

Well, yes. Not many Slashdot basement dwellers can start two pointless wars they can't really win.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[10101001 10101001]

The economy would be a good start.

With all due respect, the US President doesn't run the US economy. At best, he and Congress have the power to effect the economy. To that end, the major ways that the US Government can effect the economy is either positive growth (low federal interest on loans, lower taxes, and/or more spending) or negative growth (high federal interest on loans, higher taxes, and/or lower spending) with some ambiguity if there's a worry of long-term solvency. To that end, the stimulus bill would, if anything, be a positive growth action. Yes, it can lead to long-term solvency concerns which leads to..

Obama took a structural $450 billion a year deficit under Bush (which was hardly anything to be proud about) and has turned it into a structural $1.4 trillion annual deficit.

Two points. One, while the structural annual deficit might have been those figures, the actual debt changes for Bush's years were closer to ~620 billion a year (the federal debt increased from ~$5.7 billion to ~$10.7 billion from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009). Two, this difference is a major problem precisely because it was the sort of emergency spending (on Iraq and Afghanistan) that should be accounted for in an annual budget instead of hidden to make a very large problem seem less big.

This is simply unrecoverable without severe austerity. It ends in ruination.

I hate to break it to you, but we were already there. Economy recessions are an inevitable thing requiring large government spending (unemployment insurance costs doubling, minimally, if unemployment doubles) with decreasing revenue (obviously, less workers equals less taxes). Reasonably, one should save up for "a rainy day", not spend beyond one's means for..well..decades. Simply put, our federal budget has for ages been fixed on the idea that the GDP will grow by ~2%/year, so it's okay to incur 2% more national debt because the ratio allows equal effectiveness in paying off the debt each year through tax increases.

But, as you note, increasing taxes dramatically and decreasing spending could lead to ruination. The real truth, of course, is we could engage in such large tax increases (a lot of other countries have higher taxes and haven't been ruined for it). It's just political suicide, the people in general don't want it, and it's likely to not be done until absolutely necessary. That's where the real risk lies.

At the end of Obama's term, we will have doubled the national debt at the same time that Social Security and Medicare goes into the red. In my opinion, this is what you get when you nominate a bunch of socialist and marxist retreads to your cabinet.

Sorry, but they're not socialist or marxist. They're almost entirely Clinton retreaders (just as Bush had heavy Bush Sr retreading).

They really have no clue on how to run an economy.

Again, they only influence the economy.

Turbo Tax Timmy couldn't even balance his own taxes correctly, but now he's running the Treasury Department trying to fix the entire economy (Turbo Tax Timmy is a good example of where academic achievement doesn't necessarily confer real world success and achievement).

That's the fundamental issue. Everyone seems to have heavy debt and simply cutting spending by people (ie, cutting their unemployment insurance) risks having a negative ripple effect in the economy. The long-term goal, of course, is to fix the system (federal interest loans should never have been so high, spending so great, or taxes so low). But, that's a shift that taxes years if not decades for the economy to absorb the change instead of freaking out when billions or trillions of money flows shift or disappear.

Obama's mismanagement of the economy is almost enough for me to really believe he's an adherent of the Cl

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Eunuchswear]

or because the other can't give a speech without reading it from a teleprompter.

Funny how some nitwits on the right bitch about this when it's the sainted Ronnie who was the first "read it from the teleprompter" pres.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Eunuchswear]

Okay, I'm willing to give GWB that much: he's not as useless as Paris Hilton.

what, you didn't see Paris Hilton demolishing McCain?

(Serious Announcer) He's the oldest celebrity in the world.

Like super-old.

Old enough to remember when dancing was a sin, and beer was served in a bucket.

But, is he ready to lead?

(Paris Hilton) Hey, America I'm Paris Hilton and I'm a celebrity, too.

Only I'm not from the olden days and I'm not promising change like that other guy.

I'm just hot.

But then that wrinkly white haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I'm running for president.

So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude, and I want America to know that I'm like totally ready to lead.

And now I want to present my energy policy for America, just as soon as I finish reading this article on where I can fly to to get the best tan. (Reads magazine)

Oh, Maui. Love's it. (Puts magazine aside)

OK, so here's my energy policy:

Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency, and Mccain wants offshore drilling.

Well why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates ideas?

We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid & electric cars.

That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved! I'll see you at the debates, bitches.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pick out a vice-president. I'm thinking Rihanna.

I'll see you at the White House.

Oh, and I might paint it pink. I hope that's cool with you guys.

Bye. (Blows kiss)

I'm Paris Hilton and I approved this message 'cause I think it's totally hot.

Nothing special, but you can't claim GWB ever made a better speach. And she looks better in a bikini.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

Ronnie didn't use it for every damn speech though. Reagan, as opposed to Obama, really was a gifted public speaker, especially in his governor days.

I certainly am not in the "Obama is dumb" crowd, but his oratory prowess has been grossly overstated. Cult of personality more than capability in this case.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Eunuchswear]

Ronnie may have given good speech.

But, fuck, try asking him a question.

The only person who could fuck up an interview worse than Ronnie is Palin.

Re:Two words: Sammy Sosa

[Xonstantine]

The only person who could fuck up an interview worse than Ronnie is Palin.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Biden has them both beat.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness for that.. Lieberman is worse than Cheney. The bad thing is that he's still in the senate, with way too much power.. He's supposed to represent Connecticut, not Israel..

Next Up...

[Low Ranked Craig]

Pre-med student made Surgeon General of the US.

Re:Next Up...

[blair1q]

More like highly-regarded medical scientist being made Surgeon General.

It's far better to have a procedurally unpracticed constitutional scholar for once than the sequence of long-time political hacks we got from the other side.

Re:Next Up...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there!

two words: unitary executive

[taxman_10m]

Amazing how fast that one dropped out of the right wing lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive

Re:two words: unitary executive

[Bartles]

I think you misunderstand the concept of the Unitary Executive. Basically the theory holds that the entire power of the executive branch is vested in one person, the President. That is an entirely separate issue from what those powers may be,

That is also why it is a weenie cop out when the president ducks responsibility for things. For instance, Vilsack fired Sherrod, I had nothing to do with it.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it does affect the counting of votes - at least in Florida.

We need a process like that for /.

[blair1q]

Seriously. This story is way off-topic and it's showing up here almost 24 hours after the fact.

Slashdot's article-selection system has been getting more and more stupid as time goes on.

We need a little constitutional reform.

Re:We need a process like that for /.

[mcgrew]

So get your ass over to the firehose and vote.

Re:We need a process like that for /.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, there are a lot of legal things going on in the Technology business, arguably at a constant. And there is the fact that she's been in the focus of many of the articles here, although you might argue that just proves stated bad article selection system......

Re:We need a process like that for /.

[blair1q]

Every time I do that it backfires and proves that unless I make noise my vote won't make a difference.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you admit you know nothing about politicians or the politics you pretend to discuss and yet hate republicans. I think that the parties themselves aren't the problem as much as you. And I do mean you personally.

But...

[rgviza]

She has almost no court experience, but she _did_ stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Still About Republicans

[Doc Ruby]

36 Republicans and one Democrat tried to block Kagan's appointment. The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE), who represents the (Omaha) insurance industry (which also is the Credit Default Swap industry) and routinely votes with Republicans, especially in filibusters that prevent a simple majority vote that would usually pass.

You can see each of the Republicans give their reasons for voting against Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court, and judge for yourself whether those are either the real reasons, or good ones.

Re:Still About Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent informative. excellent link.

Re:Still About Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about heightened partisanship rather than which specific party is in the opposition at the moment.

The two Justices nominated by Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan) were confirmed 68-31 and 63-37 respectively.
The two Justices nominated by Bush 43 (Roberts and Alito) were confirmed 78-22 and 58-42 respectively.

Compare this against some of the Justices who were nominated earlier--Scalia (98-0), Kennedy (97-0), Ginsburg (96-3)...

It seems that the more recently-appointed Justices have been facing more and more opposition. Of course, the reason for this depends on your perspective--obviously, $my_party's nominees are being opposed for political reasons, but $other_party is trying to push through more and more controversial nominees that it's my duty to oppose.

(Thomas is more of an outlier, but he had a prominent scandal during his confirmation hearings that isn't really comparable to any of the other sitting Justices.)

Re:Still About Republicans

[gandhi_2]

Yeah, you are right.

Thinking that a Supreme Court justice (who is supposed to determine if things are in keeping with the US Constitution) should uphold free speech....well that's downright stupid.

The USA was built on the Free Enterprise System. For better or worse, it is THE system of free people. This woman lamented the supposed reduction in socialism (her words).

How about I come over and redistribute your property to myself?

Re:Still About Republicans

[Hatta]

The Democrat is Ben Nelson (D-NE)

God damnit, I've got to give that mother fucker another call.

Re:Still About Republicans

[RightSaidFred99]

I should go back some time and figure out when SlashDot became a bastion of smug left wing douches. Didn't used to be this way. The Republican party has its issues with obstructionists and religious whackos, but the ideals they're _supposed_ to uphold are closer to the libertarianish views SlashDot used to hold.

Now every time there's a political story I know exactly what to expect...

+5 Insightful

Blah blah... Bush..blah blah... Right wing whackos...

+5 Insightful

Blah blah... Corporations..blah blah...Blah blah......

+5 Insightful

Blah blah... Works better in Europe..blah blah...Right wing nuts afraid of socialism...Blah blah......

Like clockwork. I don't know if nerd demographics are changing or what, but it's a pronounced change over the last 5-6 years.

Re:Still About Republicans

[shutdown -p now]

I should go back some time and figure out when SlashDot became a bastion of smug left wing douches. Didn't used to be this way. The Republican party has its issues with obstructionists and religious whackos, but the ideals they're _supposed_ to uphold are closer to the libertarianish views SlashDot used to hold ... . I don't know if nerd demographics are changing or what, but it's a pronounced change over the last 5-6 years

5-6 years ago I was a libertarian (and posting as such on Slashdot). Today, I'm a social democrat. You know what changed in the meantime?

I grew up and started to earn serious money with my own labor.

Looking back at it, in retrospect, I find it funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it) that a lot of libertarian hotheads on the forums were from a similar demographic - mostly college students, and the majority of them from relatively poor families, which would be significantly worse off in a truly libertarian society.

Re:Still About Republicans

[Bartles]

No he actually only votes with republicans after realizing the mistake he made with healthcare and the cornhusker kickback. Since he is up for re-election soon, he needs to act like he actually represents his constituents not his party's ideology.

Re:Still About Republicans

[RightSaidFred99]

I grew up to, but I didn't regress in my political views, I simply refined them. Even back then I laughed at the "Durr, the roads and everything else should be private!" brigade, and I still do.

The problem with social democrats is socialism (even "socialism-light") does not work. It's almost as ridiculous as big-L Libertarianism. Looking at the debt the West has racked up over the last century or so should make it readily apparent that a large social apparatus is unsustainable and that we can't all have the same standard of living.

Even from a practical perspective, I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living and that of my family greatly so some welfare mother can spit out 5 kids and have a slightly better standard of living.

Re:Still About Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the debt the West has racked up over the last century or so should make it readily apparent that a large social apparatus is unsustainable and that we can't all have the same standard of living.

Even from a practical perspective, I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living and that of my family greatly so some welfare mother can spit out 5 kids and have a slightly better standard of living.

But a welfare state doesn't have to be that. It has its excesses, sure, and I agree that we did see some of that. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

By the way, just to remind, the "classic" Soviet socialism had the following mission statement: "whoever does not work, does not eat". The other side of it was that everyone was guaranteed a job, though. Not to say it's a shining example of how things should be done, but socialism doesn't have to be all rosy.

And we aren't even talking about true socialism - as in, collective ownership of means of production. My take on welfare state is simple - society has an ethical imperative to guarantee some minimal standard of living to its members, that corresponds to the overall well-being of the society. This means that, as all of us together get richer, our poor should be better off. This should not mean that we take everything from those who are rich and split between those who are poor (at some arbitrary dividing line).

This also means that welfare has to be cut down in times when the entire society is on economic downturn - and that is the painful side of it for some - but it's also the only logical one.

A question to you, then. You say that you're "not willing to sacrifice my standard of living and that of my family greatly". This implies that you would be willing to sacrifice it for the designated goal up to a certain, specific, amount. So, then, what is that amount, and doesn't it effectively mean support of some limited form of a welfare state from you?

Re:Still About Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, being rational I am for a very limited welfare state. Meaning basically you get a roof over your head and food on the table - that's it. I think "the projects" is the goal, not section 8 housing and "dignified" EBT cards you can go spend on twinkies and designer clothing.

Re:Does it matter?

[hedwards]

No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.

Re:Does it matter?

[hedwards]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.

Oh that's an easy one

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Karma to burn, karma to burn. Anyway that's easy, because neither the Pubs nor the Dems actually believe in free speech. They believe in Ford Speech, IE the right to say whatever you want as long as they agree with you. (For those that care I call it that because it's just like the saying about what color model-T you can get.)

Re:Does it matter?

[Skuld-Chan]

There are republicans who support gun control too - look up James Brady.

Re:Does it matter?

[WillAdams]

Never heard of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/gregory_kane/Kane-Chicago-mayors-comments-wound-gun-control-advocacy-95833474.html

William

hmmm

[thatskinnyguy]

The President of the United States can nominate any citizen regardless of legal expertise. With enough hard work and study of the Constitution they would be protecting, anyone could do it in theory.

Where the theory breaks down is in practice. The SCOTUS docket is so jam packed with cases requiring complex inturpretation of both law and Constitution, a strong judicial background would definitely help.

Re:hmmm

[tophermeyer]

Yeah but their law clerks are absolutely top notch. I have read a lot of concern that the SCOTUS is understaffed, that there aren't enough clerks to fully research case law, but they are there and they are very bright. A Judicial background would definitely help, but they should have enough competent staff to advise them on precedents and such.

at least she didn't put a pubic hair on a coke can

[NoBozo99]

nuf said.

Obama's Harriet Miers

[Experiment 626]

George W. Bush appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he goes out and finds a better qualified candidate.

Barrack Obama appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he laughs in their faces and pushes her through confirmation anyway.

Well, he did say he was going to "change" things.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[kikito]

Yeah. Now the president takes decisions.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[irving47]

mod parent up.
That's what I've been thinking for the past month or so.
Are there other factors I'm overlooking? Seriously. I just remember they wailed on Miers because she was a "normal" lawyer or judge...

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Yunzil]

George W. Bush appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he goes out and finds a better qualified candidate.

Barrack Obama appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he laughs in their faces and pushes her through confirmation anyway.

Protip: The opposition to Harriet Miers wasn't due to her lack of judicial experience.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[LordBoreal51]

Are you kidding? Don't even try to portray Harriet Miers as a fair analogue. She was White House Counsel, marred by repeated criticisms of her legal competence. Elena Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicitor General, and clerked for Thurgood Marshall, among others. That is *not* a fair comparison.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Anonymous Coward]

Miers was yet another Bush "yes man", chosen explicitly for her loyalty to the Decider, as Bush had a long history of doing.

False equivalence.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[UnknowingFool]

George W. Bush appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he goes out and finds a better qualified candidate.
Barrack Obama appoints some woman with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and when people express concerns about her lack of qualifications, he laughs in their faces and pushes her through confirmation anyway.

Harriet Myers:

• 1970-1972 Law Clerk for US District Judge Joe Estes
• 1972-2001 Private practice
• 1986 President of Dallas Bar Association
• 1989-1991 Dallas City Council
• 1992 Head of State Bar of Texas
• 1995-2000 Texas Lottery Commission
• 2001-2003 Assistant to the President
• 2003-2004 Deputy Chief of Staff
• 2004-2007 White House Counsel

Elena Kagan:

• 1987-1988 Law Clerk to US District Judge
• 1988-1991 Law Clerk to SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall
• 1991-1995 Associate Law Professor, University of Chicago
• 1995-1999 Associate White House Counsel
• 1999-2003 Law Professor, Havard
• 2003-2009 Dean of Law School, Harvard
• 2009-2010 US Solictor General
• 2010- SCOTUS Associate Justice

While it is true tha both women have no experience as a judge, Kagan has much more experience in academia and in government as a lawyer. In my opinion, she's more qualified than Miers. Before her nomination, Miers spent a total of 2 years as a lawyer for the government and no time in academia. Kagan spent 5 years as a government lawyer with 14 years of academia. Kagan also spent 3 years clerking for Thurgood Marshall.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[twoallbeefpatties]

Bush appoints a fairly moderate conservative to the bench with Miers. His opponents, the Dems, figure she's not a terrible ideologue and don't raise too much of a fuss about it. His base, the Republicans, go apopleptic for not appointing a true conservative judge. Bush changes his mind.

Obama appoints a fairly moderate liberal with Kagan. His base, the Dems, argue about it a bit, and several progressives call for a more far left candidate, but they generally go along with her in the end. His opponents, the Republicans, spread rumors of her secret far-left activist plans and hide their displeasure for her liberal political views by accusing her of not having enough "experience." Obama finds no reason to switch Kagan out for someone else.

You want Kagan to lose the nomination? Get Obama's base angry about it, not his opponents, who are going to mostly oppose anyone he nominates anyway.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[parkmonster]

On this occasion, Obama got a Supreme Court justice through; on that occasion, Bush didn't. So what? Bush had no problems pushing through Supreme Court nominees, he just didn't get that one. Conversely, Obama has hardly had all his nominees rubberstamped. Bush was able to push through a really expansive program (vastly expensive war in Iraq, giant entitlement increases, giant tax cuts for the wealthy, money funneled directly from government to churches, the PATRIOT act, etc.) and Obama has had really significant opposition that has prevented most of his agenda from going anywhere. It is hardly as though some illegitimate force was preventing Bush from getting everything he wanted, or is allowing Obama to occasionally win single battles on occasion. Presidents win some and lose some. I find the suggestion very odd that Obama has somehow used wrong or illegal means to get a Supreme Court justice through. Is it fascist for the President to nominate people to the Supreme Court? Is it only fascist when they are Democrats?

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[parkmonster]

I fail to understand how Obama's getting this nominee through entails that it was unfair for Bush not to get every single nominee through. Do you really mean to say that the candidates are exactly the same and that the process has favored Obama in some illegitimate way? Really?

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and he's doing just that. So, deal with it.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Attila Dimedici]

Neither is the opposition to Kagan.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Anonymous Coward]

What disqualifies Kagan is her hatred of Capitalism and love of Socialism.

You can't be a Socialist and be an American. If you think you can, then you have no idea what being an American is.

Simple as that.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.random.org/coins/?num=1&cur=20-novelty.decision-maker

That's all the judging I need.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[BitZtream]

Please don't say 'Dean of Harvard Law School' like that is impressive.

Its not, for a multitude of reasons, but lets just stop it without an argument by pointing out that she held a Administrative dean, not a scholarly one.

She really has practically no experience hearing trials and thats the job we're talking about here, not being someones clerk, not making sure school supplies get ordered on time and that there are enough chairs in the room so some pompus ass can preach at students for hours on end.

I don't really hold that against her, it could very well be an advantage, but more importantly ...

I'm not delusional about her qualifications or experience nor am I a lunatic fanboy.

Be realistic ... you have no idea what so ever how good she will be or which way she'll go on things and no one will until she does it.

Comparisons are not supposed to be fair, but judging someone based on no real evidence is just silly.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[BitZtream]

much more experience in academia and in government as a lawyer.

I realize it might not be obvious at first glance but um ... I think we probably need a little less of both those things in our court justices. Neither are impressive when you think about it, but are just fields full of corruption and power struggles to who can make the most money.

Re:Obama's Harriet Miers

[UnknowingFool]

For a position of SCOTUS Justice, I'd think you'd want someone who is familiar with Constitutional Law. There are only a handful of ways a lawyer gets experience dealing with Constitutional law. One is as a government lawyer at the higher levels like US Solicitor General or part of White House Counsel. The other is in academia. The last is working for a firm that specializes in it.

"fields full of corruption and power struggles to who can make the most money."

Isn't that a rather biased and somewhat untrue statement? I don't know about you but I don't know anyone who goes into government work for the money unless you're working as a contractor. I don't many civil servants that make more than their counterparts in the private sector, especially as a lawyer. Also while academia pays well, it does not pay nearly as well as the private sector.

Re:Does it matter?

[spiffmastercow]

Since when does "I'm not familiar with a local politician of an area 1000 miles from where I live" equate to "I know nothing about about politics"? My guess is you only know about him because Fox News did a story on him.
I'm familiar with the Republican platform and the Democratic (lack of) platform. Both groups are worthless for different reasons. The Republicans are hypocrites who play off peoples' prejudices in order to win elections, so that they can pocket money from corporate "donations" and rape the country. The Democrats are hypocrites play on people's compassion and reason so that they can win elections, so that they can pocket money from labor organizations and generally do nothing in hopes that it will help them retain their position.

Re:Does it matter?

[apparently]

What the shit are you babbling about?

No, I'm ignoring a one time aberration. Supreme Court deciding on the Presidential Election or months of chaos without a president, I think they did the right thing.

20th Amendment, motherfucker, do you speak it?

"and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

Yeah, the US would've been in "chaos" and without a president if Congress extended Clinton's term by a month or two in order to let Florida complete a vote count.

Re:Does it matter?

[Stargoat]

But the election of the president does. It's a rare SC Justice that turns out not as the president who appoints them intended.

Re:Does it matter?

[Darkness404]

One needs only to look at the viewpoints of various founding fathers to see why that one fails and why the proper interpretation is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Meaning that because a well regulated Militia is needed for the security, people must have the right to bear arms in order to form a Militia to secure a free state. Without the right to bear arms, it becomes impossible to create a Militia.

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."

Alexander Hamilton

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Thomas Paine

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."

James Monroe

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."

George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson


If the right to bear arms meant as you thought it meant, why would the people who wrote the Constitution and served the country in its earliest days have this opinion which strongly suggests the right for every free man to keep and bear arms to defend the country from internal tyranny?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed.

Time to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The militia bit was an example, not a requirement. Here's an oversimplified modern re-write you should be able to understand:

"It's nice to have people around who know how to handle weapons, so don't take people's guns away."

No Experience?

[mjperson]

I wish people would stop this "Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard" = *No experience* nonsense.

The woman knows more about the constitution, how's it's been applied/ignored in the past, how the courts have dealt with it since the country was founded, and what's actually written in judicial opinions than most of the judges in the federal court system. One doesn't teach Constitutional Law at places like Chicago and Harvard without being at the top of the game. Hell, some of the students at these places come into classes knowing more constitutional law than most judges.

I know it's fashionable to write places like Harvard off as "the elitist left" and other such nonsense, but seriously, you don't teach there unless you are a major expert in the field. Saying she has no experience is just plain stupid.
 

Re:No Experience?

[parkmonster]

I don't see anything to suggest that this objection isn't just the lowest-hanging fruit for people who simply can't accept anyone being nominated to the Supreme Court if they aren't basically Republican, or if the president is a Democrat or "isn't one of us."

Re:Does it matter?

[Kreigaffe]

You must not know any democrats, then.

Re:Does it matter?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Your kidding of course, I think Democrats, as well as any sane person would see that banning a fully automatic weapon, designed to kill people (not deer or other game), has little or no place in a modern urban setting. Now in a rural setting, with crazy neighbors that want to trespass on your property and maybe hunt your game, sure, mow them down.

Or if you don't like the FBI or the ATF because they want you to register your Still and make hooch that won't kill people or make them blind, well they don't deserve to live.

Or if you find a person of another faith, not a Christian faith like Islam (wait they worship the same Jewish God too, so not them), that wants to not recognize your right to beat up Gays (most recently on Statten Island). Well you need a little extra fire power to keep the world safe for us gun totting Christian White folks.

So, sorry, what was your argument for the acceptibility of not banning Assualt Weapons in the U.S.?

Re:Does it matter?

[Kreigaffe]

Gun legislation from democrats makes about as much sense as internet legislation from elderly senators -- that is, none, because they have absolutely no knowledge about what they're babbling. It only makes sense to other people who are equally clueless.

I still remember all the hyperbole going on in the news leading up to the Brady Bill about semi-automatic weapons being the ones where you pull the trigger and they go "BANGBANGBANGBANG". I can't remember the exact news outlets, unfortunately, but I heard it several times. Just goes to show you, when you have an agenda to push, who needs a fucking dictionary? When you're just trying to rally people to a cause they know nothing about, facts are really irrelevant.

Re:Does it matter?

[JesseMcDonald]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, the need for militias is merely the justification for guaranteeing that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One absolutely does not need to be part of a militia to have and exercise that right.

Anyway, the 2nd amendment is completely redundant, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to prohibit ownership or non-aggressive use of any kind of weapon in the first place. Given that they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they would certainly need one to ban guns (or drugs or anything else not specifically mentioned among their enumerated powers).

Err What? (Re:Obama's Harriet Miers)

[EXTomar]

There maybe faults with Kagan but "no judicial experience" is kind of disengenious. She has a pretty extensive record being a clerk for a couple of judges including for Marshall. She has an extensive record in academia including Harvard Law. She has some record being Solicitor General. Kagan appears to have spent a lot of time in and around the Supreme Court of the United States. While never being a judge at state or federal levels that isn't a requirement for the job where Kagan appears to be familiar with constituional law and qualified to comment on constitutional questions.

Harriet Miers on the other hand is by profession a personal attorney with a corporate law background and doesn't appear to have any more of a constitutional background than being an advisor to the President. Worse still being a direct council to Bush means there could and would be direct conflicts of interest and previliage in some instances.

There are legitamate complaints about Kagan but she is heads and shoulders above qualifications on constitional law, history, and even procedures than Miers.

Re:Err What? (Re:Obama's Harriet Miers)

[rhomp2002]

And when she as solicitor general tried a case at the SCOTUS she was so bad even the justices commented on what a lousy case she ran and how bad she was. Now she is on the court and we are stuck with her. As to Harriet Miers, she had years of experience as a successful lawyer and also was elected as president of the state Bar Association. Kagan couldn't even put together a case to go to court. Big difference. Miers was far more qualified than Kagan. Why Zero picked her rather than one of the other possibilities mentioned at the time who were far more qualified is a mystery.

Re:eh - Can you cite confirmable instances?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually,

Can you cite specific instances of congress being racially motivated to go against Obama based on race ALONE?

Or are you just gratuitously playing the race card as so many others do to ANYONE who dare oppose this president?

Can you provide links of the examples while he is sitting president?

Re:Does it matter?

[tophermeyer]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed.

Time to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The militia bit was an example, not a requirement. Here's an oversimplified modern re-write you should be able to understand:

"It's nice to have people around who know how to handle weapons, so don't take people's guns away."

I'm just gonna go ahead and quote you so the people filtering out by score will see this point. You are exactly correct.

The wording of the amendment implies that the presence of well regulated militias is a function of an armed citizenry. Seeing as how well regulated militias are better than non regulated militias (i.e. street gangs), we ought to make sure our law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves.

That's not even a really conservative reading of the amendment. A really conservative reading of the amendment would be that it not only gives us the right to be armed, but requires us to maintain militias. Which until the Militia Act of 1903 (which created the national guard) was exactly how most people interpreted it.

As a job candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

She might be qualified, but is she the best person for the job who might sit on the bench for 30+ years? I doubt that very much.

Re:As a job candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she's not a right-wing Republican, right?

Re:As a job candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Nothing wrong with that.

Re:As a job candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Props for honesty.

Other justices pushed by Shrub had

[Anonymous Coward]

Other justices pushed by Shrub had no experience either.

The WaPo didn't complain. IIRC it thought that it was a good idea to get new thought in, uncluttered by "experience".

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does "I'm not familiar with a local politician of an area 1000 miles from where I live" equate to "I know nothing about about politics"? My guess is you only know about him because Fox News did a story on him.

Different AC posting here (preserving mod points).

I'm not from, or in, the US, but even *I* know the name of the Mayor of Chicago, the US's "Second City". Fuck, man, diversify your news input.

Re:Does it matter?

[ArcherB]

No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.

Um, actually, independent recounts have shown that GWB truly did win the election. The problem was that Democrats wanted to keep changing the rules and recounting until Gore won, also know as "trying to steal the election". All the Supreme Court did was stop the endless recounts.

Re:Does it matter?

[Attila Dimedici]

If the Supreme Court had not stepped in, the election would have been decided by Congress. Considering the makeup of the Congress in 2000, that means that Congress would have decided that George W. Bush was the next President.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court should have ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter of Florida's electors should have been decided by the Florida legislature (the Constitution rest all authority for deciding how a state's electors are chosen on the state legislatures). Or alternatively, they could have ruled that in one of several different ways that said that no Electoral College majority was determined so the election gets decided by Congress. In either of those cases the result would have been that George W. Bush ended up President.
The only possible way that Al Gore would have ended up President is if the recount was continued selectively in such a way as to guarantee that only Al Gore got additional votes. Several news organizations (most of which favored Al Gore), ran their own recount after the election and determined that George W. Bush won the Florida election.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only possible way that Al Gore would have ended up President is if the recount was continued selectively in such a way as to guarantee that only Al Gore got additional votes. Several news organizations (most of which favored Al Gore), ran their own recount after the election and determined that George W. Bush won the Florida election.

What's it like living in opposite-land, where made-up-shit passes for fact?

Re:Does it matter?

[ArcherB]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You could read this two ways:
1) You can keep and bear arms if you are a member of a well regulated militia. (as you said)
2) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Since the government has spent a lot of time cracking down on militias, I'd say that negates #1, leaving us with #2, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed.

"ripping off the public"

[DesScorp]

Got the city to build a new stadium

So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer that relied on federal subsidies. JFK's family not only made money from illicit activities, they maintained their fortune with sweet favors from the government.

I think cities that foot the bill for stadium owners are downright stupid, but it's not as if Bush was the only one to get that kind of deal. All of them do. And you make it sound like he's the only one that's ever profited from stupid government policies.

Re:"ripping off the public"

[geekoid]

Wow, comparing farm subsidies to a rich guy who bilked the public to sponsor his hobby. Yeah, those are the same thing~

Of course, you are doing the same crap everyone who has no real way to defend Bush: Point out other people that did wrong things to, as if that matters to the topic at hand.

Re:"ripping off the public"

[lgw]

Wow, comparing farm subsidies to a rich guy who bilked the public to sponsor his hobby. Yeah, those are the same thing~

Yes, those are pretty much the same thing. If you haven't really looked into what a farce ag subsidies are, well, you're probably better off not knowing. I'd say it's the most embarassing corruption we've ever had at the federal level that survived more than one president.

You know, much as I hate the taxes, ordinary people benefit from new stadium construction and regularly vote for it. There's something inherently demcratic about it.

Re:Does it matter?

[Caball]

You mean like how Al the assh*le Franken got elected?

Re:Does it matter?

[BassMan449]

The 2nd Amendment was meant as protection from the states banning guns. The 10th amendment gives the states the power to do anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Without the 2nd Amendment, the states would be within their power to completely ban all firearms. You are correct that the Feds don't have that ability, but the flipside of that is that if they don't the states do.

Re:Does it matter?

[jgtg32a]

A militia is whoever shows up

Re:Does it matter?

[ChristopherBurg]

Actually the second amendment has two portions. It reads as:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So we first have a part stating a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. If you look into United Stats code you'll find the definition of a militia:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So any male between the ages of 17 and 45 are legally part of the unorganized militia. This comes from the fact that in the beginning of this country there was no standing army as it was thought of as a threat to liberty. Our system here was akin to what Switzerland has to this day.

Going by only the first part, the preamble, of the amendment would still allow for every male between the ages of 17 and 45 to possess arms. But the second part of the amendment specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of a well regulated militia but specifically mentions the people. If you look at writings from our founding fathers you'll note that they believed in the right of every American to bear arms not just those in the militia.

Re:Does it matter?

[bigstrat2003]

Why the hell should anyone give two shits about the mayor of a city they have nothing to do with? You make no sense.

Re:Does it matter?

[JesseMcDonald]

With very few exceptions, the US Constitution is not intended to limit what individual states can do. That's why each state has its own constitution governing its own behavior. Personally, I'm opposed to states limiting gun ownership, but I wouldn't go about enforcing that by granting even greater power to the federal government to override state laws. That approach is ultimately self-destructive; power must be curtailed from the top down, not concentrated upward. Or, to put it another way, if one permits the federal government to micromanage the states, it becomes difficult to argue against the states micromanaging their citizens in turn.

Wrong

[geekoid]

Oh please.

"represented the government by arguing for the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting corporations and unions from spending funds from their general treasuries to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates. "

It's about political advertising and power. It's about not allowing corporation to buy up all there air time, or pamphletting every parking lot if disingenuous statement, like yours.

AND it only applies to item created using money from there general treasuries. It is not, and was never, about banning books.

Re:Wrong

[Shakrai]

It's about not allowing corporation to buy up all there air time, or pamphletting every parking lot if disingenuous statement, like yours.

Even if they were doing that (which they aren't...), so what? There isn't a fairness clause in the 1st amendment. We also live in the information age -- there are untold numbers of media sources that are available for consumption. It would be quite impossible for any one entity to dominate them all.

Re:Does it matter?

[LanMan04]

Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, the need for militias is merely the justification for guaranteeing that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One absolutely does not need to be part of a militia to have and exercise that right.

"Merely the justification"? No offense, but when the justification for something ceases to exist, that thing is no longer justifiable.

Re:Does it matter?

[painandgreed]

Anyway, the 2nd amendment is completely redundant, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to prohibit ownership or non-aggressive use of any kind of weapon in the first place. Given that they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they would certainly need one to ban guns (or drugs or anything else not specifically mentioned among their enumerated powers).

These days, they'd just use the interstate commerce clause like everything else as somebody with a gun might be able to affect interstate commerce.

Re:Does it matter?

[Captain Centropyge]

The biggest issue is the definition of an "assault weapon" in general. A REAL assault weapon is a fully-automatic firearm used to launch an assault. As in war/battle. The term "assault weapon" gets tossed around an awful lot by idiots who don't understand what that term really means. And sure, you can buy a fully-automatic "assault weapon". If you don't mind the extensive background checks, paying for a permit, registering it, writing your local police chief for his blessing, and paying out the ass for the gun (full-auto weapons are EXPENSIVE!!). But to those looking to increase gun control, an "assault weapon" is just a gun that can hold more than 10 bullets and looks mean.

Guns were invented to kill or injure for food, protection, or war. This is true. But banning a gun because it looks mean, while allowing an equally dangerous firearm to be purchased because it's a "hunting rifle" makes no sense at all. Guns can be used for all kinds of things. Not everyone can afford separate firearms for every use, so they tend to be multitaskers. I use my shotgun for hunting as well as trap and skeet shooting. Who's to say you can't hunt for deer with an AR-15? (It might look kind of "bubba", but so what?) How is it any different than hunting with a magazine-fed, semi-automatic, wood-stocked "hunting" rifle? It's not. Just because one gun was originally designed for a particular purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't have other uses. AR-15's are used all the time in shooting competitions, as hunting guns, range guns, etc. Any lunatic could just as easily pick up a hunting rifle or pump shotgun and shoot a bunch of people.

So, why not ban semi-auto firearms all-together, while you're at it? They're basically all the same. They just look different on the outside. But banning all semi-auto firearms won't happen, so the gun control idiots just go after the easy-to-pick-on guns that "look mean".

Why people are so afraid of guns eludes me. I still say anyone who's afraid of a gun has never shot one. They're not scary or mysterious. They're just tools that can be dangerous when mishandled, just like lots of other things in this world (e.g. cars, heavy machinery, chemicals, lasers, alcohol/drugs, etc.). It's not the guns we need to worry about. Guns are very safe in the hands of someone who went through any type of firearm safety training. It's the idiots and criminals we have to be concerned about. And criminals don't have any want or need to obtain a gun through legal channels. So, all you'd get when you ban guns is a bunch of criminals with guns that no one can protect themselves from. And if you'd make safety training mandatory for gun buyers (particularly the idiots), this world would become a much safer place.

Re:Does it matter?

[modecx]

Seeing as how well regulated militias are better than non regulated militias (i.e. street gangs), we ought to make sure our law abiding citizens have a right to arm themselves.

"Well regulated" in context of the second amendment does not refer to 'restricted', more like disciplined, organized, resolute, and properly armed (with a standard firearm and accessories, as first described in the Militia Acts of 1792) In other words, if you have a body of people who are capable, trained and willing to work towards a common goal (under command) when called to a task, you have a militia.

An armed street gang really is a disparate idea to that of a militia--they're just a violence-prone mob. Overwhelmingly, we simply have a non-regulated quasi-militia: a bunch of guys with guns and non-standard equipment, who are of indeterminate proficiency, with little to no formal training. Better than nothing, but not really as capable as a formal militia.

Fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

The dems are cowardly, spiteful, self-centered little pussies who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves, but the republicans are cowardly, spiteful, self-centered assholes who sell out the country to make a quick buck for themselves.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Does it matter?

[dkleinsc]

If we accept the idea that weapons can't be banned to protect the citizenry from government tyranny, so I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?

Well, if you can't allow normal citizens to have nuclear weapons, surely you wouldn't mind them having a chemical or biological weapon?

Well, maybe a chemical or biological weapon is too dangerous. So how about a simple conventional bomb, maybe the size of a rental truck?

Ok, no conventional bombs. How about some hand grenades? How about M-16's? How about sniper rifles?

The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere between ok and not ok. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are fine, then we do run the risk of giving somebody the right to carry a nuke into Manhattan. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are evil, then you wind up not being able to carry a 2" knife. Presumably, somewhere in between is reasonably ground.

Yes, repeal the 17th.

[dmgxmichael]

The major reason to be rid of the 17th amendment is prior to its instatement Congress couldn't coerce the states. Now many Federal power grabs are backed by indirect forcing of the states to pass laws. For example, congress has no power to mandate seat belts. But it wants all the states to have such a law on the book and passes a Federal law that removes the federal highway funds of any state that fails to enact a seat belt law.

There are numerous other examples of this. It is bald, naked, coercion, and it is wrong. Repeal the 17th amendment and Congress would lose this power because all the Senators would know that the moment they passed a law telling the state legislators what to do they'd lose their seat.

The whole point of the senate was to have half the power of the Congress subject to the State's approval. State legislators are themselves career politicians - watching what Congress does is their job and livelihood. It isn't ours. We could care less about what Congress does day to day and don't have time to keep tabs on them.

Ironically, since the 17th amendment the roles of the House and Senate have reversed. State legislatures have used gerrymandering to control the House. This control isn't perfect - it certainly hasn't prevented coercion, but it has allowed them to influence the House more than they can the Senate. Senate seats have become competitive in most states where House seats almost never are do to Gerrymandering.

Want to fix the mess? Repeal the 17th amendment. Remove the right of districting from states and place it in the hands of a computer algorithm. Divide states into districts of 10 or less reps and use STB ballots to elect them. Elect the president with Instant Run off ballots. These measures would demolish the power of the parties (they'd persist, but in a highly weakened state). It would be nice to see this solution take effect, but too many people in power would lose power if it was ever enacted so it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

Re:Yes, repeal the 17th.

[Anonymous Coward]

What douchebaggery is this now?

> The whole point of the senate was to have half the power of the Congress subject to the State's approval.

*No*. The point of having both house and senate is that one body is proportional to the number of citizens in each state, and in the other every state is equal. It's a compromise, since having the entire legislature only based on one of those is susceptible to being gamed - all population based, and the large population states dominate; all equal and a coalition of small states can dominate a large number of people; both cases are democratic failure modes, since both cases basically result in a chunk of the country being removed from having any say in government.

Having the senate elected by state legislatures failed in two ways. First, the state governments were deadlocking on the appointment, leaving them unrepresented in the Senate for years at a time. Second, and probably more important, is that it removed the ability of the citizens to have full say in the federal government; laws need both houses to pass, so even if the House is properly representing the will of the people, if the Senate isn't, then the people are still screwed.

And of course, every corruption argument gets worse when you add extra layers between the people and the power; if every layer controls the layer above it, and one layer goes bad, then the people are far more fucked over than if the individual layers are all separately elected by the people. And it's clear that state governments can mess up (see the deadlocks above, for example, or the budget issues in recent years).

Re:Yes, repeal the 17th.

[DragonWriter]

The major reason to be rid of the 17th amendment is prior to its instatement Congress couldn't coerce the states.

Federal coercion of the states prior to the 17th Amendment was quite possible, as demonstrated quite dramatically in the period from 1861 to the end of Reconstruction.

I can't think of any post-17th Amendment example of federal coercion of the states that could compare to that, really; seat belt laws really don't come close.

Re:Yes, repeal the 17th.

[dmgxmichael]

Back up your claim and cite. The Civil War itself isn't a good example as it was a time of panic mode, but you'll note the amendment was forced into place immediately after the Civil War once the state right's supporters had been thoroughly discredited by the war.

But prior to the war you won't find an example of what you seek, though your free to look.

Another point I failed to make in the initial post - if the senate is directly elected then what's the point of it? Unite the houses into a single legislature and be done with it. Equal representation right? Why the Hell should Rhode Island have as much say on international matters as California? If the states are little more than provinces that exist at the whim of the Federal government and deserve no representation in Congress then there is no point.

Re:Yes, repeal the 17th.

[DragonWriter]

Back up your claim and cite

Please explain how the Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction can be viewed as anything other than federal coercion of several States.

but you'll note the amendment was forced into place immediately after the Civil War

The Civil War ended in 1865.
The 17th Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States in 1912 and ratified in 1913.

So it takes a particularly elastic concept of immediacy to suggest that the latter was forced into place immediately after the former.

Another point I failed to make in the initial post - if the senate is directly elected then what's the point of it?

It still serves its principal original purpose of apportioning part of the legislative (and presidential electoral, since the electoral college is apportioned by total congressional representation, not just representation in the House, as well as executive, since since certain executive acts and appointments are subject to the Senate's [not the Congress as a whole's] approval) equally among the States. In addition, the staggered six year terms, even without State appointment, produce a Senate that is, while popularly elected, still less moved by transitory popular mood than the House whose entire membership is elected every other year.

Unite the houses into a single legislature and be done with it.

Since a sufficiently large number of States would lose political power if that were done, its pretty much politically impossible to pass an Amendment that would abolish the Senate (which itself could be Constitutionally problematic, since it runs into one of the few express limits on the Amendment process) or even to substantially reduce its powers.

If the states are little more than provinces that exist at the whim of the Federal government and deserve no representation in Congress then there is no point.

The states' status as separate soveriegnties is in not eliminated by direct election of Senators. It is true that many changes in the US system of government in the past 220 or so years -- especially the adoption of the Constitution, and subsequently the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 23rd Amendments -- have transformed the United States in stages from a loose confederation barely more tightly held together than the modern UN with no direct accountability to its citizens into a directly-accountable government with a similar degree of legitimacy to its constituent states. OTOH, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Re:Does it matter?

[BassMan449]

I completely agree that the Constitution rarely limits what the states can do, but the 2nd Amendment is one of those instances. The simple man's reading of the Constitution is basically "here is what the feds can do and everything else is left to the states".

The exception to that is things in the Bill of Rights that enumerate things that no one can do. The 2nd amendment restricts what states can do with regard to gun ownership just like the 4th Amendment restricts what they can do in relation to searches.

Re:Does it matter?

[JesseMcDonald]

No offense, but when the justification for something ceases to exist, that thing is no longer justifiable.

No offense taken, but you're wrong. Removal of one justification does not necessarily make something unjustifiable. Note that most amendments do not state any justification at all; that does not make them invalid. So militias are no longer so major an issue as they were when the amendment was first written; so what? That does not invalidate the core of the amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where are we going?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, Kagan is in, I can live with that. She's biased to the 'left', I can live with that.

BUT for the qualifications off being apart of the SCOTUS, out of 300million people, is this the best quality we got? I mean compared this to Brandeis, Douglas, Marshall, McKinley....

Re:Does it matter?

[geekoid]

It's an interesting position he is in. It seems a large majority of people who line int he city want a hand gun ban. So it would seem to me he should do what the voters want him to do.

For the record, I don't personally know any democrats that favor a gun ban. I tried looking into this a few years ago, but there was too much 'all dems want gun control' crap from republicans to wade through to find any useful numbers.

Re:Does it matter?

[geekoid]

The militia, in the period this was written, meant a regulated group of men that culd eb called upon at a moments notice.

Because policing and a tending army wasn't really a 'job' like it is now.

"Meaning that because a well regulated Militia is needed for the security, people must have the right to bear arms in order to form a Militia to secure a free state. Without the right to bear arms, it becomes impossible to create a Militia."

AT that time, yeas. Now we have the Police, and the Military. So the idea of needing it to from a militia to defend against a neighbor state is.. quaint.

All that said, yes I believe people should be ably to bear arms for self defense. The stated reason in the constitution isn't really relevant any more.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the ends justify the means, right?

Who cares if (and that is still an "if") the end result would've been the same. SCOTUS overstepped its authority in a very real and unconstitutional way.

Re:Does it matter?

[spiffmastercow]

Or, more likely, you don't.

Re:Does it matter?

[Hatta]

You're right. Since we no longer have a free state, there's no need to secure it with a well regulated militia.

Re:Does it matter?

[kwbauer]

One, as pointed out earlier, the so-called "Ban on Assault Weapons" banned no such thing as such things had already been banned. "Assault weapons" (term derived from the Germans Sturmgewehr, are either fully automatic or selective fire (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto). Those were banned in either the 30s or the 60s by federal law. Banning a semi-auto long rifle because it has a bayonet mount but not banning another semi-auto long rifle of the same caliber because it does not have the bayonet mount does not really do much in the way of anything. As Sen. Hatch said, "He'll consider banning bayonet mounts when he starts reading about drive-by bayonettings."

Two, banning any personal weapon or firearm from citizens that the government might issue to soldiers or police goes against the thinking of many of the Founding Fathers.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting quote:
"Dwayne's bad chemicals made him take a loaded thirty-eight caliber revolver from under his pillow and stick it in his mouth. This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings."
Kurt Vonnegut

On the other side:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein

This is not a black and white issue. There are very good reasons ("bad chemicals" and easily offended people amongst many others) to regulate who should be allowed to own firearms and in what contexts they are allowed to bear them. I think it's appropriate to have a discussion about those issues and come to a reasonable compromise.

One of the big problems. of course, is that compromise implies open-mindedness and respect for the positions of others. There's not enough of either in our current political discourse.

It might surprise some of you to know that Richard Nixon, a slimy, race-baiting Republican created the EPA.

Lyndon Johnson, an admitted racist and Democrat (in his era the Dems were mostly opposed to ending the human rights tragedy we call segregation) pushed through the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the 13th amendment was ratified a hundred years earlier.

Why did they do these things? For political advantage, of course. At one time it was actually advantageous to do the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons (Kant is spinning in his grave, I know). The point is that we need thoughtful discourse and meaningful compromise -- without it, we get what we've got now.

How's the weather in oppositeland?

[toadlife]

from 1994-2006 (during which time that deficit reduction you mentioned occurred)

You appear to have your facts a little bit crossed up. The deficit reduction started in 1993 after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (aka "Deficit Reduction Act of 1993) was passed. Not one Republican voted for the bill, and Al Gore ended up having to cast the tie breaking vote to push it through.

The deficit immediately started to rise in 2002 after the Bush Tax cuts went into effect.

As for 2006, by the time the Democrats took control of congress the budget deficit has almost reached it peak under the Bush administration, so you are essentially blaming the Democratic congress for what happened before they took power.

As for Obama, he inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit from the Bush administration. I believe current projections have the deficit at 1.6 trillion, with Obama's contribution being largely the result of the stimulus.

Re:How's the weather in oppositeland?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe current projections have the deficit at 1.6 trillion, with Obama's contribution being largely the result of pork.

Fixed that for you :)

Re:How's the weather in oppositeland?

[toadlife]

I believe current projections have the deficit at 1.6 trillion, with Obama's contribution being largely the result of pork.

Fixed that for you :)

Economic stimulus is, by definition, pork. So yeah.

Sorry, mr-not-living-in-the-real-world:

[fyngyrz]

Um, yes, people overwhelmingly want it repealed [biased Rasmussen poll quoted]

um, No, they don't.

Re:Sorry, mr-not-living-in-the-real-world:

[VerumDicere]

Just thought I'd throw in another data point (sorry, PDF), for what it's worth. I'd also like to point out that among those who dislike the bill, there are some who dislike it because they don't think it goes far enough - however, some political commentators try to paint all dissatisfied people as being against any health care reform at all. It's just not that simple, even though we might wish it to be.

Re:birther nut job? Not so much

[Xonstantine]

I could really care less if Obama was born in the United States or not. He won with 53% of the vote, it pretty much settled any questions around his citizenship.

Re:Does it matter?

[JesseMcDonald]

I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?

This is a tiresomely common pseudo-argument against the 2nd Amendment, but the solution is quite simple. Anyone can possess, or even use, a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon or equivalent—but if you bring it within range of another person without their knowledge and permission it should be treated no differently than if you had pointed a gun in their face, as doing so places them under threat of eminent and irreversible harm. They would be entitled to respond in self-defense, lethally if necessary. Bringing such a weapon into a populated area without announcing one's intentions and somehow proving that the weapon is not a threat would thus be an effective form of suicide.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere between ok and not ok.

Not quite. All you need to do is require demonstrating proper storage, handling, and use of the weapon in question and you don't need a line (after all, plenty of private citizens are legally allowed to possess explosives and automatic weapons). By "demonstrate" I of course mean "fill out an endless stream of paperwork." If you jump through the right hoops, you can own just about anything, though the hoops aren't necessarily easy to get through and you still have the problem of actually getting the item...

Clever, but unconvincing theory

[DragonWriter]

Check the political climate back in 1912/1913. Woodrow Wilson had just come into power, the 16th Amendment (income tax) had just passed ratification by the skin of its teeth, and the progressives had all kinds of things they wanted to do at the federal level like eugenics/forced abortion/sterilization (never got much farther than the "talk about" stage in terms of national policy), the Federal Reserve system, prohibition, creating a new layer of government at the world level, etc but were worried about the states standing in their way (that is, they wanted to usurp power from the states).

So, they pushed for the popular election of Senators as a means of manipulating the people through propaganda to empower the people that favored big government.

The problem with this theory of the rationale for the 17th Amendment is that when the Congress proposed it, 29 states already had systems of direct election of Senators, and nearly enough state legislatures had passed demands for a Constitutional convention to adopt an amendment on the matter to make such a convention mandatory -- the Congressional action to formally propose the amendment was bowing to the manifest will of the States and attempting to exert some control of the specific language of the amendment and prevent it from drifting into other topics as well, since once a convention is called, there's no telling what it will produce (this is especially well illustrated by the results of the convention called to do a few quick nips and tucks on the corners of the Articles of Confederation.)

Re:Does it matter?

[RightSaidFred99]

English fail. Please go look up the word (and understand the concept behind) "parenthetical". Let me explain it to you with an example, as your English appears to be a little rusty.

Let's say I'm principal of a school and I say "Due to issues with students smuggling in drugs, backpacks will no longer be allowed."

Now, you tell me - does this mean if I'm a student and I'm not smuggling in drugs that I can go ahead and bring my backpack? No, of course not. The opening phrase is (here's that word again) "parenthetical".

Re:Does it matter?

[shutdown -p now]

from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed

Bullshit:

"... the activities the Amendment protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Re:Does it matter?

[shutdown -p now]

It's not just US Dems. This kind of weird thinking seems to be common to most gun control lobbies.

Take Canada, for example. The restrictions on ownership (I'm not touching on carry here) are:

- no handguns or short-barreled rifles
- no full auto
- magazine of no more than 5 rounds for semi-autos (with a few exceptions for rarities and such; e.g. 8-round Garands are specifically okay'd by name)

Now those have some objective justification, whether one agrees with it or not. The limitation on handguns clearly aims to prevent concealed carry. Restriction of full auto is obvious. Magazine size restriction is another side of the same coin.

Now here comes the bullshit:

- magazine restriction applies to centerfire guns only; no limit for rimfire semi-autos ... as if you can't kill a man with .22? and there are larger rimfire cartridges out there...

And the funniest bit. In addition to all restrictions above, there is also a list of restricted and forbidden firearms on which they're listed by name. That list is long, but it includes, for example:

- AK and any derivative (even Saiga-12 ends up here)
- AR-15 and any derivative
- FAL
- G3

Now if you look closely at the guns that are on the list, and also consider some similar guns which are not there, the only common point for listed guns are that they "look scary", which, in most cases, seems to boil down to merely having pistol grip!

For example, FAL is on the list, while the just-as-capable M14 (and variations, such as M1S) is not - the latter is only subject to semi-auto-only and 5-round mag restrictions. And, ironically, because Canada does not restrict Chinese firearm import the way US does, you can buy a Norinco M14 knock-off - of a very decent quality, from what I've heard about the models from the last few years - for $400. And meanwhile Saiga-12 is banned (as an AK derivative). It's insane.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without passing judgment on whether or not your implication is correct, I would submit that references to contrary information might be more persuasive.

Re:Does it matter?

[hkmwbz]

Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

Yeah, Scandinavia is such a horrid place.

Except that they are.

[ClioCJS]

You get to see your loved one when they are dying in the hospital. You don't get taxed when your spouse dies and the money has to transfer to you. It's not equal. And you're an asshole.

Re:Does it matter?

[ClioCJS]

Scandanavia isn't even a country. And they all have guns. Citizen owned (esp Norway). Unless I've gravely misunderstood you to the point of my own embarassment, or lost some context that you have, it seems to me that you've made no point whatsoever, and in fact have stated the oppositte of truth. How embarassing.

In fact, you seem so wrong I'm just going to assume I read your comment incorrectly.

Re:Does it matter?

[hkmwbz]

I never claimed that Scandinavia was a country. It's a collection of countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) with very strict gun laws, and very low violence and gun crime. The kind of guns you'll find in Scandinavia are intended for hunting, not for protecting yourself against burglars, rapists, or whatever. You are not allowed to carry a gun around just anywhere. If you do bring a gun in public, you can not carry it on your person, you need a valid reason for that (mainly transporting it to wherever you are going to go hunting).

Re:Does it matter?

[ClioCJS]

So basically, the law abiding are not deprived of them, as your initial comment falsely suggests.

Re:Does it matter?

[hkmwbz]

You are ignoring the context. Your quote was about how the government would cause horrid things to happen if the people didn't have weapons to defend against them. The people of Scandinavia do not have weapons to defend against the government, but to do hunting, and the laws are extremely strict.

Re:Does it matter?

[ClioCJS]

So where do I buy one of these hunting rifles that can't hurt government people?