Slashdot Mirror
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."
After all we have a president without any experience in governing or managing.
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.
Living With a Nerd
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.
Other justices have corporate law backgrounds...
That explains a lot.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
spiffmastercow said "...I don't know a single democrat who wants to ban guns." So Daly in Chicago is not a Democrat?
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.
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?
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.
I am officially gone from
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Sorry, this story is "Stuff that Matters". You wanted this story.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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...
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.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amazing how fast that one dropped out of the right wing lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive
"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".
www.eFax.com are spammers
....the law isn't clear, and the Constitution almost never is...
Congress shall make no law...
That's pretty fucking clear to me.
I've got your sig, right here.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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.
Got the city to build a new stadium
So he had practice ripping off the public to line his pockets.
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.
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?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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."
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*.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
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.
Stop Koolaid Politics
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.
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.
-Nick
My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
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.
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.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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).
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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.
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!
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?
"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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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).
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
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.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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".
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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...
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.
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.
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.
I am officially gone from
If a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man then they aren't being treated equally.
Play Command HQ online
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
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.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
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.