Sen. Reid on the Retirement of Justice O’Connor

[Connecticutter]

I was actually surprised by the marijuana case, but it had the right legal principles behind it from what I can tell. You can call it anti-democratic if you wish, but from what I have been informed, it was also correct.

I read that they justified the medical marijuana case by pointing to the clause in the constitution that says the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. So if drugs were going across state boarders, sure - but I think that now interstate commerce has been expanded to apply to within-state commerce as well, which basically eliminates much of the need for the states.
What is your impression?

 

[Connecticutter]

The "liberals" on the court are two people. Do you mean the liberals and the moderates? Look to my last post to see the break down of the court.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have used the word liberal. I wouldn't mind having a lot of liberals on the court so long as they follow the constitution. Even though I might not always agree with what the law of the land says, its a problem when judges try to take the place of legislators. Call this an activist judge - which can be liberal, conservatative, or anything else.

 

[ShamMol]

I read that they justified the medical marijuana case by pointing to the clause in the constitution that says the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. So if drugs were going across state boarders, sure - but I think that now interstate commerce has been expanded to apply to within-state commerce as well, which basically eliminates much of the need for the states.
What is your impression?

The theory behind it, I haven't read the decision yet (shoudl probably get on it), I think would be straight up theory. The theory would be that there is a governmental interest, an overriding interest. And with that interest comes a responsibility. Now you are saying where the hell is he going with this. I'll get there. Within their state is a distict commerce that is usually thought of as seperate from other states, but nowadays, it has become much more intertwined. And this entwinement enable the court, in theory to say that one state's commerce affected the other. Just my guess, but I guess I shoudl read the case-just listening to my bosses talk about it and they seemed to agree...should try and understand all the jargon for myself.

This may be a case where the justices overreached and will reverse later.

 

[Imudman]

And what over riding government interest would that be? Interest in what? I'm willing to bet that interest is dollar bills going across state lines, and purchasing stuff they don't want the dollars to purchase...

 

[Stinger]

No, he means not extreme. He means moderate (which this country is). He means doesn't want to overturn civil liberties put in place before because of ideaology. That is what he means.

Like upholding the right to property? Like Scalia and Thomas who uphold the consitution?

I don't kid myself, I know there will be a fight, but it is a damn good one to have, especially considering the people that are being put up (according to CNN, there are quite a few possibilities already).

How about a fight that is announced even before a nomination is made, is that a good fight?

 

[Stinger]

What most people see is a bunch of liberals on the court. Am I wrong. Well, that just isn't true, over 80% of those on the court are likely conservative to moderate. How did I arrive at this number? Well, we can assume that the 75% of all those on the court who were appointed by republicans are moderate or conservative. And of the 25% left, we can at least presume to say that 20% of those are moderate (which is low, but hey, who cares).

No we can't assume based on who appointed them we can look at their decissions on the bench though and see that conservative to liberal is about even.

That means that there is a decidely staucher side to the conservatives on the court that will always vote a certain way no matter waht. How is that for dangerous.

Staunch: firm and steadfast; true. So what is so bad about voting a certain way if that certain way is by accordance with the constitution?

O'Connor was conservative,

On some issues.

but at least she had a mind of her own.

And whose mind does Scalia have?

Justices who are conservative apparently aren't allowed that.

Well you just said that O'Conner was conservative and had a mind of her own.

Hell, even if it was a liberal, I wouldn't want a record that showed his or her voting a certain way all the time.

So it is better to vote "different ways" than to vote according to your principles even when those principles are based on the constitution? Different is better. ROFL what folly.

I want someone who looks at the facts and says this is the right outcome in accordance with these facts.

What if those facts always lead you to the same "way" to vote? You just said above that voting "differently" was better.

But that apparently isn't allowed anymore. Sad.

What about the liberals who always vote the same way, are they sad too?

 

[Stinger]

I'd take any conservative that's willing to uphold Roe v Wade.

I asked about your property, will you take any liberal who will allow government to take your property so someone else can have it?

Come ON! Ok, pretend that there was a democrat president and congress, the republicans would be fighting now too.

I don't have to pretend, we have had that and no the Republicans respected the sepreation of powers and the constitution as opposed to the Democrats who even before a name has been announced have declared war and had declared that the Constitution doesn't say the SENATE will advise and consent but now have convinced the ignornat that it really says DEMOCRATS will advise and consent.

 

[ShamMol]

No we can't assume based on who appointed them we can look at their decissions on the bench though and see that conservative to liberal is about even.

That just isn't true. But please link me and show me where all courts are 50-50, I would love to see that. The fact is that 75% of all the court is conservative to conservatively-moderate.

Staunch: firm and steadfast; true. So what is so bad about voting a certain way if that certain way is by accordance with the constitution?

The problem is they don't care as long as it gets to the outcome they want. that is the difference between those conservatives and o'connor and kennedy.

On some issues.

On the vast majoriy, but she didn't base her decisions on principle, but on fact. She basically differed in maybe 10% of her cases...

And whose mind does Scalia have?

His own. Scary thought. He doesn't base anything on fact. Read his opinions. He cares more about founders intent and bashing his own colleagues than the individual case at hand.

Well you just said that O'Conner was conservative and had a mind of her own.

As I said earlier. You have your three big ones who don't change and your two moderate ones who actually think.

So it is better to vote "different ways" than to vote according to your principles even when those principles are based on the constitution? Different is better. ROFL what folly.

Principles have no place in the courtroom. Base decisions on fact.

What if those facts always lead you to the same "way" to vote? You just said above that voting "differently" was better.

I would be shocked to find that true. These three just find things tha support their side and ignore everything else. O'Connor showed that to find the right outcome was easy, but the three didn't always...agree with her on what was easy.

What about the liberals who always vote the same way, are they sad too?

Yes.

 

[Connecticutter]

Principles have no place in the courtroom. Base decisions on fact.

Maybe I'm just lost, but I have no idea what you're getting at here. Each case has certain facts, which you find out over the course of the hearings. Then you use legal principles to make a decision.

Once you have the facts, they must be processed to form a decision. The algorithm one uses to process the facts are based on their principles. How can you then say principles have no place in the courtroom?

 

[ShamMol]

Maybe I'm just lost, but I have no idea what you're getting at here. Each case has certain facts, which you find out over the course of the hearings. Then you use legal principles to make a decision.

Once you have the facts, they must be processed to form a decision. The algorithm one uses to process the facts are based on their principles. How can you then say principles have no place in the courtroom?

Ah, you mean legal principles. I beg forgiveness. Usually, when people speak of that it is in reference to idealogy. That is what has no place in teh court room. Judges should decide based on fact and common law.

The ABA states that jurists should rule "based on the law and the facts of that particular case"

 

[Connecticutter]

Ah, you mean legal principles. I beg forgiveness. Usually, when people speak of that it is in reference to idealogy. That is what has no place in teh court room. Judges should decide based on fact and common law.

The ABA states that jurists should rule "based on the law and the facts of that particular case"

Okay, I agree - and if people would stick to these standards, it wouldn't matter who is a liberal and who is a conservative. If you want to change the law, you should work with the legislative branch, unless a law is passed which is unconstitutional and therefore must be superceded by constitutional law.

 

[ShamMol]

Okay, I agree - and if people would stick to these standards, it wouldn't matter who is a liberal and who is a conservative. If you want to change the law, you should work with the legislative branch, unless a law is passed which is unconstitutional and therefore must be superceded by constitutional law.

Well, that is basically what they do. They can't literally legislate from the bench. What they can do is interpret what is meant by the law (say if holy scriptures means the bible only or all holy scrips...check out that fun Cali case). They also rule things unconstitutional or hold up existing law.

 

[GPS_Flex]

How did I arrive at this number? Well, we can assume that the 75% of all those on the court who were appointed by republicans are moderate or conservative. And of the 25% left, we can at least presume to say that 20% of those are moderate (which is low, but hey, who cares).

Is this what you call statistics ShamMol? I ask for a simple explanation for a simple quote and you tell me “I already addressed that issue” and it turns out this is how you addressed the statement?

Do you think me such a simpleton ShamMol? Is this how you do statistics?

Why won’t you just answer the question?

 

[ShamMol]

Is this what you call statistics ShamMol? I ask for a simple explanation for a simple quote and you tell me “I already addressed that issue” and it turns out this is how you addressed the statement?

Do you think me such a simpleton ShamMol? Is this how you do statistics?

Why won’t you just answer the question?

I did adress the issue. You just chose not to look at all of what I posted in that quote. Here, let me repost your answer because it answers your question, though probably not as directly as you would like. "Hell, even if it was a liberal, I wouldn't want a record that showed his or her voting a certain way all the time. I want someone who looks at the facts and says this is the right outcome in accordance with these facts. But that apparently isn't allowed anymore. Sad." Basically, the point is that Reid is looking for someone like O'Connor who will look at the facts in each case, apply case law and then decide, not someone like Scalia who has decided beforehand. Happy now?

And those numbers are accurate. It is safe to assume that 75% of the courts are conservative or moderately conservative considering they were appointed by Republican presidents. You want to somehow dispute that? And of the 25% left, let's say 80% of them are staunch liberals. That still meants that 80% of the court is either moderate or conservative. And you want to then proceed to tell me the court system is controlled by liberals? I think not. That would place the vast majority of them within your constitutional mainstream (aka the one to your liking).

Oh, and let me add more posts answering your original question-"
… whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream.. "

Actually, it is relevant to what Reid said because I want someone who will come up with the right outcome in accordance with the facts and common law. But my problem now is that there are so many people pushing for their specific idealogies on the court when that isn't what it should be about. What it should be about is the right decision in the right case. That is what is important. Not overturning Roe or stuff like that. If it gets overturned and it is for the right reasons, fine. I will deal with it and still advocate for a constitutional amm, etc. I think you get my point-The judicial branch is not meant for politics.

But I will qualify this. If they two have shown both the traits that I want in a jurist, I will pick the one who leans more to my side just because that is human nature.

 

[GPS_Flex]

And those numbers are accurate. It is safe to assume that 75% of the courts are conservative or moderately conservative considering they were appointed by Republican presidents.

Your assumptions don’t meet a level of credibility worthy of serious consideration ShamMol. You assume too many things with this theory and the only thing that’s accurate in your analysis is the percentages of Supreme Court Judges appointed by one party or the other. History proves your assumptions to be incorrect and I dare say even you will admit to that fact if you press the issue.

The very foundation of your hypothesis is garbage ShamMol. Don’t you see that?

 

[ShamMol]

Your assumptions don’t meet a level of credibility worthy of serious consideration ShamMol. You assume too many things with this theory and the only thing that’s accurate in your analysis is the percentages of Supreme Court Judges appointed by one party or the other. History proves your assumptions to be incorrect and I dare say even you will admit to that fact if you press the issue.

The very foundation of your hypothesis is garbage ShamMol. Don’t you see that?

No, I am completely correct in saying the 75% of the courts have been appointed by the Republicans, which means that they are moderate or conservative. It is quite simple. I assume nothing other than the Senators in power wouldn't allow someone who wasn't one of those two through. On the bench, they are moderate at best.

If you want to talk about Kennedy or O'Connor, I think you will find that the majority of their rulings fall with the conservative and only when they saw fit did they break it (sparingly for O'connor who really only broke 9 times that were important and kennedy who is harraunged for three rulings). Their trend shows that they are conservative, conservatively-moderate, or moderate.

 

[Fantasea]

Harry Reid's fear is that a nominee in the mold of Thomas, Scalia, or Rehnquist will emerge, in which case he'll crank up a filibuster, in which case the sham alliance of the 'gang of fourteen' will collapse, in which case the nominee will be confirmed.

 

[ShamMol]

^No offense, but that isn't a responsible jurist in my opinion. The Gang of fourteen will collapse if Bush puts up a staunch conservative. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will completely end fillibusters, I predict three will break off while the others stubbornly stick to it.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I assume nothing other than the Senators in power wouldn't allow someone who wasn't one of those two through.

It is safe to assume that 75% of the courts are conservative or moderately conservative considering they were appointed by Republican presidents.

That’s a pretty big assumption ShamMol.

Your assumption doesn’t reflect the obvious divergence of the court from the beliefs of conservatives and it certainly doesn’t reflect the differences in opinions between the appointed Justices and their appointees except for the Democrats’ appointees.

If you would kindly explain why the voting records of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and O’Conner should be ignored and they should be considered conservatives or moderates solely based upon who appointed them, we might come to an agreement.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Harry Reid's fear is that a nominee in the mold of Thomas, Scalia, or Rehnquist will emerge, in which case he'll crank up a filibuster, in which case the sham alliance of the 'gang of fourteen' will collapse, in which case the nominee will be confirmed.

^No offense, but that isn't a responsible jurist in my opinion. The Gang of fourteen will collapse if Bush puts up a staunch conservative. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will completely end fillibusters, I predict three will break off while the others stubbornly stick to it.

Are you referring to Scalia, Rehnquist or Thomas when you say he “isn’t a responsible jurist”?

 

[Fantasea]

]^No offense,

None taken.

but that isn't a responsible jurist in my opinion.

That comes as no surprise.

The Gang of fourteen will collapse if Bush puts up a staunch conservative.

Unless Reid, Kennedy, or Schumer get to make the pick, there will be a filibuster.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will completely end fillibusters,

The Senate will revert to the time when judicial appointments were not filibustered.

I predict three will break off while the others stubbornly stick to it.

I suggest that you begin organizing a prayer vigil. That is, if you can find any libs who pray.

 

[cnredd]

organizing a prayer vigil. That is, if you can find any libs who pray.

"Dear God, help me get out of this Chappaquiddick thing...I promise I'll NEVER drink again..."

 

[Fantasea]

If you would kindly explain why the voting records of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and O’Conner should be ignored and they should be considered conservatives or moderates solely based upon who appointed them, we might come to an agreement.

This bunch turned out to be the antithesis of their former selves and shocked the Republicans beyond belief.

 

[Fantasea]

"Dear God, help me get out of this Chappaquiddick thing...I promise I'll NEVER drink again..."

Close. However, you missed a few words.

Dear God, help me get out of this Chappaquiddick thing...I promise not to drink any more (then under his breath with his fingers crossed) or any less.

:lol:

 

[cnredd]

Close. However, you missed a few words.

Dear God, help me get out of this Chappaquiddick thing...I promise not to drink any more (then under his breath with his fingers crossed) or any less.

:lol:

What does Ted Kennedy & Baywatch have in common?
They both pretend to save people from drowning.