StreetScooby 5 #26 July 15, 2009 Quote I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine. +1We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #27 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAfter 233 years you'd think we already have all the laws we'd ever need. I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine. Hm. Interesting idea, there, John. I say we start by striking Newton's laws, and work our way from there. Tomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. I'm afraid they pre-date 1776, so you'd need to go to higher authority than Congress.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #28 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf the so-called "best" 9 legal minds in the country come up with or 'interpret' a 5 to 4 vote on any law - then doesn't it seem that the law is crap? Perhaps in some cases but not necessarily. Quotethe goal of law should be to get as close to 'right or wrong' as we can. When we have "laws" that require art funding, or naming libraries, or fuzzy and contradictory applications of racism for the sake of non-racism, etc, then it's easy to see why it's so hard to do. Seems to me – & this may reflect my perspective – one of the problems arises with new technology. Law is rarely prospective. (And I don't think it should be in most cases.) E.g., do libel or slander laws apply to the internet? Can genes be patented? Shoul human cloning be legal? Does using IR constitute reasonable search or not? Is it legal to use MRI to search for "terrorist intentions" of people boarding planes? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #29 July 15, 2009 Quote Quote After 233 years you'd think we already have all the laws we'd ever need. I bet 90% of them could be struck from the books and we'd still get on just fine. Hm. Interesting idea, there, John. I say we start by striking Newton's laws, and work our way from there. Tomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. Every couple months I have someone come to me earnestly asserting that we need to regulate nanotechnology. (Who is "we" varies, from US EPA to new international arms control treaty.) A good portion of the time, the basis for their arguments are grey goo, self-assembling nanobots, or molecular manufacturing, a la Michael Crichton's fiction novel Prey. Depending on how patient or tired I'm feeling, some days I respond that we already have the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well as Reynolds Number limitations (effect on inertia on viscous flow in a fluid, like air) that effectively do create limitations. We don't need to legislate the laws of thermodynamics ... even if some might oppose on ideological grounds. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 July 15, 2009 QuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #31 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? She was obviously extremely well prepped, and is saying pretty much exactly what she thinks people want to hear in order to confirm her. Whether she actually believes those things, or will act like that once on the court, I have my doubts.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #32 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? She was obviously extremely well prepped, and is saying pretty much exactly what she thinks people want to hear in order to confirm her. Whether she actually believes those things, or will act like that once on the court, I have my doubts. There have been several justices over the years whose behavior once on the SC surprised people, and usually dismayed their proponents. Souter is just the most recent example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? She was obviously extremely well prepped, and is saying pretty much exactly what she thinks people want to hear in order to confirm her. Whether she actually believes those things, or will act like that once on the court, I have my doubts. There have been several justices over the years whose behavior once on the SC surprised people, and usually dismayed their proponents. Souter is just the most recent example. So there's still hope she'll just rubber stamp crazy left wing philosophy once she gets in? thank goodness - I was a bit worried ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 18 #34 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote "In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor said. "The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congresss intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court." Congresses intent. That leaves alot of wiggle room, IMO, especially with a debt-o-crat congress. Any comments? Hi Scoobe, 'Ya an' da people in He2xLL want icewater!!!!!SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 July 16, 2009 QuoteTomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. Just stop using Euclidean geometry.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #36 July 16, 2009 QuoteScalia may be smarter. Ginsburg has quite a bit of admiration for him. He may be one of the brightest legal minds we ever had. His theory of being an Originalist has quite bit in common with Jefferson and Adams thinking. Nonsense. Scalia is a horse's ass. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #37 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? She was obviously extremely well prepped, and is saying pretty much exactly what she thinks people want to hear in order to confirm her. Whether she actually believes those things, or will act like that once on the court, I have my doubts. There have been several justices over the years whose behavior once on the SC surprised people, and usually dismayed their proponents. Souter is just the most recent example. So there's still hope she'll just rubber stamp crazy left wing philosophy once she gets in? thank goodness - I was a bit worried And it'll be perfectly acceptable since the time tested argument "they did it too" is working overtime lately. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #38 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteLike GHW Bush and Souter, eh? Is it killing you that the more interviews she has, the more and more she's trying to sound like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia? She was obviously extremely well prepped, and is saying pretty much exactly what she thinks people want to hear in order to confirm her. Whether she actually believes those things, or will act like that once on the court, I have my doubts. While you might be right, I distinctly remember thinking the very same thing during Roberts's, and especially Alito's, confirmation hearings. We're probably both right: Article comparing the three nominees' respective confirmation testimony Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #39 July 16, 2009 SC Nomination hearings are basically just a dog and pony show nowadays. From both sides.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #40 July 16, 2009 QuoteI desire race to have no place in American law. Period. I agree that that would be ideal.QuoteRacial discrimination is despicable, be it in intent or effect. So here is the nub of the problem in the real world. Racism does exist, unfortunately. Given that there will be situations where some people will refuse to hire/rent or sell property/ etc to other people based on their race (or religion, or gender), should the law just ignore that sort of discrimination and allow it to occur without consequences (which would be the effect of having no laws at all that consider race in any manner)? On the other hand, if we say that discrimination in the workplace/housing/education is so unacceptable that we we need to have laws prohibiting such practices, then the law also has to establish standards and tests to determine when discrimination has occurred. That necessarily requires comparisons between races (or other categories) to see if hiring practices, for example, are "race-neutral". I can't see how you could have legal prohibitions against racist hiring practices while at the same time telling the courts that they can't even consider the racial makeup of groups that are/are not hired (or promoted). How else could you ever demonstrate that racial discrimination was in fact happening? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #41 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteScalia may be smarter. Ginsburg has quite a bit of admiration for him. He may be one of the brightest legal minds we ever had. His theory of being an Originalist has quite bit in common with Jefferson and Adams thinking. Nonsense. Scalia is a horse's ass. Is that what you would call some sort of evidence refuting his intellect as a jurist? Are you actually smarter than he is? More accomplished? More experienced? Understand the Constitution better? Better read? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #42 July 16, 2009 Ever read To Kill A Mockingbird? It is precisely because people are unequal that the law must provide the one place where all are treated equally.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #43 July 16, 2009 Ooh! I'll play! >>Nonsense. Scalia is a horse's ass. >>Is that what you would call some sort of evidence refuting his intellect as a jurist? Being a horse's ass has nothing to do with raw intellect. Now, as to his intellect as a jurist per se, I'm frequently offended by what I consider to be his deliberate intellectual dishonesty by using his ability to craft brilliant after-the-fact rationalizations to advance the agenda of his personal ideology, under the pretext of legal reasoning. This guy's got some serious talent. The part of him that is deliberately intellectually dishonest so as to use his power as a SCOTUS justice to advance his personal ideology is the part that's a horse's ass. Do all judges do that to some extent? Sure. But Scalia raises it to a fine art. >Are you actually smarter than he is? Eh, probably not, but I think I've got game; at least I hope I do. Anyhow, that doesn't make me unqualified to critically analyze him. Or to recognize when he's being a horse's ass. >More accomplished? Not yet; he's over 20 years older than I am. I'm quite pleased with my accomplishments at this stage of my life. But of course, that's a red herring: if one is qualified to critically analyze him, then one is qualified, one's "accomplishments" notwithstanding. Oh, and don't be overly enamored with his current status as a SCOTUS justice. He's as accomplished as any other exceptionally bright lawyer, but really not more than that. And there are a lot of exceptionally bright lawyers in the world, and in the US. His career in the judiciary is based on politics every bit as much as on merit. >More experienced? See above. >Understand the Constitution better? I think I understand it as well as he does. When I see opinions that he writes that I think are dead wrong, then at those times I think my understanding is better. >Better read? Another red herring, but I'll bite. I'll bet I'm pretty close to as well read as he was when he was my age, and I doubt that I'm drastically less well-read than he is now. I've certainly read enough to recognize when he's being a horse's ass. One final word, since your post was not directed at me: I don't think a person has to be nearly as well-educated or accomplished as Scalia is to be qualified to recognize when he's being a horse's ass. And that's the real point. That was fun. Thanks for playing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #44 July 17, 2009 Thank you sir; you saved me a lot of typing and said it better than I would have . Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #45 July 17, 2009 Interesting quote from SC confirmation hearing: Quote"There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology and record." - Senator Barack Obama, confirmation hearing of Justice Samuel Alito -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #46 July 17, 2009 Quote Interesting quote from SC confirmation hearing: Quote "There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology and record." - Senator Barack Obama, confirmation hearing of Justice Samuel Alito Really, now, Tom. You act like you've caught Obama in some sort of intellectual inconsistency. You haven't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #47 July 17, 2009 I wasn't acting like anything. I read that quote in the CNN article this morning and found it interesting. I thought about making a new thread for it, but figured it sort of fit into this one. I wasn't making an argument at all. Just posting the quote.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 July 17, 2009 Quote Thank you sir; you saved me a lot of typing and said it better than I would have . Ok, so the basic gist was "I don't like his decisions so I think he's a horse's ass" - that pretty much cover it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #49 July 17, 2009 OK, fine then. Then-Sen. Obama was just making the same basic point that all scholars of American government understand: When the Framers of the Constitution, after much debate on either side, drafted the sections providing that the President appoints the Cabinet and the Federal judiciary, but that those appointments are subject to the approval or disapproval ("advise and consent") of the Senate, they did so fully understanding that the Senate is a very political institution, and not just a "human resources department". In other words, the Framers very much intended that the confirmation process would include not just the nominees' "qualifications", but also the very political considerations of their personal ideologies and politics. So yes, by very definition, that aspect of the investigation is fair game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #50 July 17, 2009 Serious, but random, question: If you could put one person on the SCOTUS (without having to worry about confirmation hearings), who would it be? I'll go first: I'd either pick Robert Levy or Chip Mellor.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
