Any case that is brought to the supreme court can be heard by the surpreme court if they so desire to do so. That help?
No, because you're wrong. The Supreme Court is not a court of general jurisdiction. Sorry you don't understand the US legal system.
Yes they find things that are broken - how a case was handeled, and an improper ruling was given - but they do need to know the case
Every law school student in the country can do that by the end of their first year. The Supreme Court only concerns itself with, 1. does the appellant have standing to bring the case, and 2. the constitutional issue. Period. The only way a procedural point will get in that court is if it raises a Due Process issue - and then the Court only concerns itself with the Due Process constitutional issue. The Supreme Court appellate review power is limited, by the Constitution, to "cases and controversies" arising out of federal law or the Constitution. That's it. Period. If you can't understand how the court system in this country works, there really is no further point in discussing it. You certainly haven't demonstrated any reasonable knowledge of it thus far.
That's very nice pop constitutional history, but it's not accurate.
The President has plenary power, some say exclusive power, to appoint. The Senate's advice and consent is mandatory, not a puff on the paper - Senate advise and consent was designed as a check on the President's power to appoint. Art II, Sec 2, cl. 2 - "The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . .."
The problem is when Senate action rises to the level of a Sep. of Powers issue, when its advise and consent role becomes an appointment power itself.
The Constitution explicitly spells out the situations where a 2/3 supermajority is required. Filibustering of Appointment Power nominees is not constitutional. I'm sorry you don't understand that. I would recommend reading:
Michael Gerhardt, The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (2000)
&
John O. McGinnis, The President, the Senate, the Constitution and the Confirmation Process: A Reply to Professors Strauss and Sunstein, 71 Tex. L. Rev. 633 (1993)
I'm a law student that has clerked for a federal judge. *I* beg to differ.
You are wrong here...The Supreme Court takes whatever case they want to take, and it can be as trivial as they fancy
Um, no. The US Supreme Court is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court outline the kind of disputes they will take in all but the most exceptional circumstances - I practically wrote the Rule verbatim.
Secondly, appellate courts (and especially the Supreme Court) do not review factual findings, and the Supreme Court has never taken a case raised solely on a point of procedural error. It's not what they do.
The prosecutor that Delay is moaning about being "partisan" has pursued most of his cases against politicians against Democratic politicians
You've proven yourself to be an unserious interloper. Really, what was the point of bringing up Delay in a discussion about this nomination? Just repeating what received political wisdom has dropped in your empty lap/brain?
Which was my entire point. I suspect that if Ms. Meirs was still a registered Democrat, some here that ascribe the works of Satan to her would be far more comfortable with her nomination. That's just shallow, uninformed and naive political hackery.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law
Which as a lawyer she is more than qualified for. You are mistaken if you think that judges are encyclopedias of the law. They have clerks and take briefs from the parties for a reason - to research the law before making a decision.
She will also not need to know the intricacies of the Federal Rules, which she no doubt knows in any case as a trial lawyer, maybe better than most federal judges. The Supreme Court doesn't take cases on trivial points of procedure. They take cases to resolve 1. conflicts in constitutional or federal statutory interpretation among the federal circuits, 2. interpretations of federal statutory or constitutional law by state courts, or 3. issues of broad and far reaching constitutional concern. Ie - "the big picture". You don't have to have a trial or appellate court judge background to evaluate those issues.
My post about the Microsoft/Republican lobbyist/government connection is undeniably on the topic of Bush's Supreme Court nominee's past Microsoft lawyering
You do know that she was a registered Democrat when she tried that case, right?
Requiring that a controversial vote have a 2/3 majority must be simply idiotic! I mean, think of agendas that could be pushed without it
Whatever you think about it, requiring a 2/3 vote to get a nomination up or down vote on the Senate floor is probably unconstitutional. The Constitution spells out what requires 2/3 votes, and the Senate's "consent" power isn't one of them. The filibuster unconstitutionally hinders an Executive constitutional prerogative. Like it or not, it is abuse of Senate power.
Why? The Supreme Court is not a trial court. It's not even an ordinary appellate court. It's not like a SCOTUS justice needs to know the ins-and-outs of the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure like the back of her hand. As a trial lawyer for several decades, she has more than all the knowledge of court function that is necessary for a Justice. She won't be ruling on this or that motion, or admissibility of evidence, or any of that crap.
Your (accurate) argument implies, if it applies, that our new Supreme Court nominee is a professional liar
No, it means that her job as a lawyer is to see all sides of an issue, and zealously argue the position of her client. It requires some objectivity, something one will never find on Slashdot.
I'm sure I've heard that the ISS was supposed to have a more equatorial orbit, but when Russia came on board the orbit was tilted to give them easier access to it
I understood the Russians objected to a higher orbit that the US could use as a staging base for a Mars mission. Sore losers.
We should make our engineering programs easier and more glamorous so that more people can hack it
I blame our primary and secondary school systems, which have been seriously dumbed down over the past 20 years. Academics have taken a back seat to teaching fads that emphasize self esteem and "collaborative learning". Makes lazy, bored kids that can't deal with academic rigor. Teaching Johnny that it's not the answer that counts, its the effort, is not conducive to producing engineers of any sort you would want.
Send your kids to private school, or home school them. Public school education in America is fundamentally broken. And the colleges have been forced to dumb down so they don't fail half their classes.
By putting the CEVs permanently in orbit, and putting permanent tankers in orbit, you reduce overall cost. You put the infrastructure up ONCE, and reuse. The rest is crew and supplies, and extra goodies like moon base infrastructure.
This is really the most unimaginative proposal NASA could come up with. $104 billion for Apollo II? Come on.
More attention should be paid toward colonizing Venus instead
We could do both in one shot. Venus' atmosphere is too thick - a runaway CO2 greenhouse. Mars' atmosphere is too thin - and too cold.
In the future, we could "mine" the atmosphere of Venus, and "seed" the atmosphere of Mars. Thin one, thicken the other. Either approach takes centuries.
I've travelled extensively in Europe, especially the most crowded nation - Germany.
Most people, including most Europeans I've had the opportunity to have good conversations with, like to have (perish the thought) their own private yards. Most of my European friends who have been to the US, especially those who have visited the American West, marvel at our great open spaces.
European cities are a tumult of buildings piled on top of each other, "homes" squeezed into rowhouses. Many Germans wish they could afford to go live in the Bavarian countryside, with a little cottage and yard with a garden - "like the English".
Traffic is a fact of life for Americans - but that's due to the relatively low population density and high personal home ownership rate. Something most of the Europeans I've talked to can only dream about.
The US is dependent on its space assets, domestic and military. The vulnerability of those assets are an asymmetric threat. Powers that could not defeat the US military on the ground could exploit anti-space weapons to cripple the US by disrupting communications, GPS, and imaging systems.
The Chinese have already thought about this. Don't think others haven't as well. The probability of a great power conflict with the US from any corner is pretty low, but the military has to think about and plan for any eventuality. Yes, space weapons to protect US (and allied) space assets is at least called for.
Belief in creationism and ID is not reserved to "conservative Christians". I assure you that liberal fundamentalist Christians are just as nutty on creationism and ID. And yes, there are liberal fundamentalist Christians.
Second:
"Equal time" for creationism in public schools, or anything that smacks of religion for that matter, has been held a violation of the Establishment Clause by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. As the court said, it is irrelevant whether they dress it up as a "philosophy or science", it is religion and invalid. Creationists haven't won in the courts since the Skopes trial at the beginning of the 20th century, and the TN supreme court was so embarrassed they vacated the fine. ID will get quashed. There is a case pending in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District, that is putting ID to the judicial test.
Well, Journalists are supposed to be protected from such things to protect anonymous source
No they aren't. Some states have "shield laws", but there is no reporters' privilege to withhold sources. So sayeth the US Supreme Court, repeatedly. Reporters are not immune from generally applicable laws, period.
This whole "story" is an exercise in stupidity. Reporters don't have the privilege to withhold pertinent information from a criminal investigation, and asking how they can do so is asking how they can break the law. Lawyers and doctors are not so privileged as to be able to withhold their privileged client information, and journalists aren't qualified to so much as shine their shoes.
Slashdot Mirror
Any case that is brought to the supreme court can be heard by the surpreme court if they so desire to do so. That help?
No, because you're wrong. The Supreme Court is not a court of general jurisdiction. Sorry you don't understand the US legal system.
Yes they find things that are broken - how a case was handeled, and an improper ruling was given - but they do need to know the case
Every law school student in the country can do that by the end of their first year. The Supreme Court only concerns itself with, 1. does the appellant have standing to bring the case, and 2. the constitutional issue. Period. The only way a procedural point will get in that court is if it raises a Due Process issue - and then the Court only concerns itself with the Due Process constitutional issue. The Supreme Court appellate review power is limited, by the Constitution, to "cases and controversies" arising out of federal law or the Constitution. That's it. Period. If you can't understand how the court system in this country works, there really is no further point in discussing it. You certainly haven't demonstrated any reasonable knowledge of it thus far.
That's very nice pop constitutional history, but it's not accurate.
."
The President has plenary power, some say exclusive power, to appoint. The Senate's advice and consent is mandatory, not a puff on the paper - Senate advise and consent was designed as a check on the President's power to appoint. Art II, Sec 2, cl. 2 - "The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . .
The problem is when Senate action rises to the level of a Sep. of Powers issue, when its advise and consent role becomes an appointment power itself.
The Constitution explicitly spells out the situations where a 2/3 supermajority is required. Filibustering of Appointment Power nominees is not constitutional. I'm sorry you don't understand that. I would recommend reading:
Michael Gerhardt, The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (2000)
&
John O. McGinnis, The President, the Senate, the Constitution and the Confirmation Process: A Reply to Professors Strauss and Sunstein, 71 Tex. L. Rev. 633 (1993)
which said she will need EXPERIENCE as a judge
And why can't you understand that she WON'T?
I beg to differ
I'm a law student that has clerked for a federal judge. *I* beg to differ.
You are wrong here...The Supreme Court takes whatever case they want to take, and it can be as trivial as they fancy
Um, no. The US Supreme Court is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court outline the kind of disputes they will take in all but the most exceptional circumstances - I practically wrote the Rule verbatim.
Secondly, appellate courts (and especially the Supreme Court) do not review factual findings, and the Supreme Court has never taken a case raised solely on a point of procedural error. It's not what they do.
The prosecutor that Delay is moaning about being "partisan" has pursued most of his cases against politicians against Democratic politicians
You've proven yourself to be an unserious interloper. Really, what was the point of bringing up Delay in a discussion about this nomination? Just repeating what received political wisdom has dropped in your empty lap/brain?
Don't read too deep into party affiliation
Which was my entire point. I suspect that if Ms. Meirs was still a registered Democrat, some here that ascribe the works of Satan to her would be far more comfortable with her nomination. That's just shallow, uninformed and naive political hackery.
according to Senate rules
Which would be a violation of Separation of Powers. Senate rules do not trump the Constitutional prerogatives of the Executive.
As a scotus, she will need to know the in's and out's of the law
Which as a lawyer she is more than qualified for. You are mistaken if you think that judges are encyclopedias of the law. They have clerks and take briefs from the parties for a reason - to research the law before making a decision.
She will also not need to know the intricacies of the Federal Rules, which she no doubt knows in any case as a trial lawyer, maybe better than most federal judges. The Supreme Court doesn't take cases on trivial points of procedure. They take cases to resolve 1. conflicts in constitutional or federal statutory interpretation among the federal circuits, 2. interpretations of federal statutory or constitutional law by state courts, or 3. issues of broad and far reaching constitutional concern. Ie - "the big picture". You don't have to have a trial or appellate court judge background to evaluate those issues.
My post about the Microsoft/Republican lobbyist/government connection is undeniably on the topic of Bush's Supreme Court nominee's past Microsoft lawyering
You do know that she was a registered Democrat when she tried that case, right?
Oh, the world isn't so clear cut anymore eh?
Requiring that a controversial vote have a 2/3 majority must be simply idiotic! I mean, think of agendas that could be pushed without it
Whatever you think about it, requiring a 2/3 vote to get a nomination up or down vote on the Senate floor is probably unconstitutional. The Constitution spells out what requires 2/3 votes, and the Senate's "consent" power isn't one of them. The filibuster unconstitutionally hinders an Executive constitutional prerogative. Like it or not, it is abuse of Senate power.
yea some judge-court experience is necessary
Why? The Supreme Court is not a trial court. It's not even an ordinary appellate court. It's not like a SCOTUS justice needs to know the ins-and-outs of the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure like the back of her hand. As a trial lawyer for several decades, she has more than all the knowledge of court function that is necessary for a Justice. She won't be ruling on this or that motion, or admissibility of evidence, or any of that crap.
Your (accurate) argument implies, if it applies, that our new Supreme Court nominee is a professional liar
No, it means that her job as a lawyer is to see all sides of an issue, and zealously argue the position of her client. It requires some objectivity, something one will never find on Slashdot.
Jedi apparently have a bit of future sense
:)
Didn't save em from getting knifed in the back by a bunch of stormtroopers, did it? Prescience, what's it good for?
I'm sure I've heard that the ISS was supposed to have a more equatorial orbit, but when Russia came on board the orbit was tilted to give them easier access to it
I understood the Russians objected to a higher orbit that the US could use as a staging base for a Mars mission. Sore losers.
We should make our engineering programs easier and more glamorous so that more people can hack it
I blame our primary and secondary school systems, which have been seriously dumbed down over the past 20 years. Academics have taken a back seat to teaching fads that emphasize self esteem and "collaborative learning". Makes lazy, bored kids that can't deal with academic rigor. Teaching Johnny that it's not the answer that counts, its the effort, is not conducive to producing engineers of any sort you would want.
Send your kids to private school, or home school them. Public school education in America is fundamentally broken. And the colleges have been forced to dumb down so they don't fail half their classes.
Note to all the Rutan freaks out there: if you can do this was less than $60 billion, feel free to try. Even better, volunteer to be a test pilot...
I'm sure he could.
http://transformspace.com/
By putting the CEVs permanently in orbit, and putting permanent tankers in orbit, you reduce overall cost. You put the infrastructure up ONCE, and reuse. The rest is crew and supplies, and extra goodies like moon base infrastructure.
This is really the most unimaginative proposal NASA could come up with. $104 billion for Apollo II? Come on.
"Punish" those who patent software?
Most braindead childish idea I've read in a long time. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What's next? Foot stamping?
Mars does not have a magnetosphere so our terraformed atmosphere would only have a life of about ten million years before evaporating
10 million? Good enough for human use.
More attention should be paid toward colonizing Venus instead
We could do both in one shot. Venus' atmosphere is too thick - a runaway CO2 greenhouse. Mars' atmosphere is too thin - and too cold.
In the future, we could "mine" the atmosphere of Venus, and "seed" the atmosphere of Mars. Thin one, thicken the other. Either approach takes centuries.
I've travelled extensively in Europe, especially the most crowded nation - Germany.
Most people, including most Europeans I've had the opportunity to have good conversations with, like to have (perish the thought) their own private yards. Most of my European friends who have been to the US, especially those who have visited the American West, marvel at our great open spaces.
European cities are a tumult of buildings piled on top of each other, "homes" squeezed into rowhouses. Many Germans wish they could afford to go live in the Bavarian countryside, with a little cottage and yard with a garden - "like the English".
Traffic is a fact of life for Americans - but that's due to the relatively low population density and high personal home ownership rate. Something most of the Europeans I've talked to can only dream about.
Europe has smaller cars, but it also has more sensible living conditions
More sensible = higher population density = crowded
Dude you're posting to Slashdot, if you plan on working in IT chances are pretty good you NEVER HAVE TO RIGHT ANYTHING!
Thank goodness too - pens don't have spell check. It's "WRITE" not "RIGHT" for future reference.
The US is dependent on its space assets, domestic and military. The vulnerability of those assets are an asymmetric threat. Powers that could not defeat the US military on the ground could exploit anti-space weapons to cripple the US by disrupting communications, GPS, and imaging systems.
The Chinese have already thought about this. Don't think others haven't as well. The probability of a great power conflict with the US from any corner is pretty low, but the military has to think about and plan for any eventuality. Yes, space weapons to protect US (and allied) space assets is at least called for.
First, nitpicks:
Belief in creationism and ID is not reserved to "conservative Christians". I assure you that liberal fundamentalist Christians are just as nutty on creationism and ID. And yes, there are liberal fundamentalist Christians.
Second:
"Equal time" for creationism in public schools, or anything that smacks of religion for that matter, has been held a violation of the Establishment Clause by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard. As the court said, it is irrelevant whether they dress it up as a "philosophy or science", it is religion and invalid. Creationists haven't won in the courts since the Skopes trial at the beginning of the 20th century, and the TN supreme court was so embarrassed they vacated the fine. ID will get quashed. There is a case pending in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District, that is putting ID to the judicial test.
Well, Journalists are supposed to be protected from such things to protect anonymous source
No they aren't. Some states have "shield laws", but there is no reporters' privilege to withhold sources. So sayeth the US Supreme Court, repeatedly. Reporters are not immune from generally applicable laws, period.
This whole "story" is an exercise in stupidity. Reporters don't have the privilege to withhold pertinent information from a criminal investigation, and asking how they can do so is asking how they can break the law. Lawyers and doctors are not so privileged as to be able to withhold their privileged client information, and journalists aren't qualified to so much as shine their shoes.
Orwell is respected by the Right, his socialist credentials notwithstanding, because he wasn't a Useful Idiot
Bravo. Orwell needs quoting on Slashdot more often.
Readers should check out Christopher Hitchens, that old Trotskyist, who is another great writer that isn't a "Useful Idiot", and calls it like it is.