rehmwa

that can't be real.... there are SO MANY things wrong there ... 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

Similar to those that like to bash gun owners and their rights immediately following a big kill. They're towering over their opponents while the bodies are still warm and laying on the ground. very true - however, I think Wendy has commented to that point on those threads also..... ... 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

After he was out of office, Pres, Eisenhower said that his biggest mistake as president was selecting Gov. Earl Warren as Chief Justice. He thought he was getting a 'somewhat' conservative Republican. Warren turned out to be one of the most liberal judges on the SC ever. yep - and a judge should be neither. yet Ike was trying to 'stack' it based on a hope that Warren would vote in a biased way... ... 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

oh crap - I didn't realize it was just a jar of peanuts......that is much worse - my brain 'auto-filled' the word "contains" in there... here's a photo of a jar from my work desk from May of 2015), I labeled it as a joke...... you'll enjoy it ... 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

I read her weekly column, but yeah....the snark is THICK! I call her more a bitchy cheerleader for the right. It's really not that long of a weekly column and sometimes I like it...but many times it's like she can't think of anything useful to argue about and belabors some meaningless event that no one cares or ought to care about. I read one of her books and it was mediocre good for awhile but at least topical, but the entire last chapter was pretty much "democrats, I hates them, I hates them, I hates them.......for about 5 pages" I won't touch another book. It was worse than a Whoopie Goldberg 'comedy' skit, or Al Franken's radio show (for an analogy for the 'other' team). Just don't need that kind of vitriol from anybody on any side on any topic ... 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

Stating people are individuals and need to be treated as such is now a 'micro-aggression' MLK is rolling over in his grave ... 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

This, sir, borders on treating people as individuals. I believe statements, today, about treating people as individuals is now considered a "Micro-aggression" - an HR person will be by shortly to provide sensitivity and multi-cultural re-training ....I'm here to help.... ... 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

Considering the population needs to be warned that if one is allergic to peanuts, one should not eat peanuts. I am not sure how that same population can be responsible enough to own guns en masse. You have a point - the warning could simply read "Allergy warning - contains peanuts" or even "Contains peanuts" (should really be sufficient) I like this one "Allergy warning - Contains Peanuts - you know who you are" ... 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

it's very short sided and prejudiced to tie lack of impartiality to only religious affiliation and not political and social preferences also (all of which demonstrate goofy amounts of bias and selfishness to slanted and intrusive philosophies) - anyway the results will speak for themselves or not as the background of the judge is less important than a track record of impartiality your post just seems to be two things: 1 - a gratuitous opportunity to hack on religion - common in SC 2 - assumption that 'activist' judging is acceptable. if one has issues with laws they perceive to be founded on religious beliefs that aren't also applicable in a secular sense, then your real beef absolutely needs to be with the legislature first. Then judicial second. ... 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

Alito has not been at all hesitant to let his political views be known, and he has been openly rude to Obama during a SOTU address. How much outrage do you feel about Alito? Show me some similar comments and I'll gladly rant in a similar fashion, this is just today's perfectly visible example - surely you see I'm talking about the philosophy of how a judge conducts the job, not about the partisanality of the specific comments. I'm even noting in my comments that I suspect this is not isolated to just one justice - or at least the conditions are in place to imply that is would be very possible for any justice to cross a similar line. thanks for actually reading my comments, I'm too weary to deal with Billvon strawmanning my stuff and trying to claim I'm taking positions I haven't ... 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

If you already think that's how the Justices work then it doesn't really matter if they voice their opinions or not, does it? I 'THINK' that presidents and confirmation committees do their best to try to get biased judges in place that match their own philosophies....and voters encourage that.... But how each judge handles it?.....I guess that's pretty much on an individual basis and I can hope for the best - or even still try to expect it. But certainly you are catching my cynicism of the whole process loud and clear..... ... 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

True, though the job of a SC judge is the interpret the Constitution in most cases. This interpretation is almost by definition subjective. The question becomes, does their interpretation lead their political and personal leanings, or do their political and personal leanings guide their interpretation. In my opinion neither of the above it true and in practice a combination of both is what happens in practice. Not sure any other outcome is really even avoidable. I agree. But I really hope neither case: 1 - does their interpretation lead their political and personal leanings - harmless, judges can evolve their personal philosophies like anyone - this is an interesting take in that a judge that evolves in line WITH the law, is actually embracing a personal philosophy that's consistent with law - is that a perfect judge? or one that would be too restrictive and close minded? I'd be skeptical of an individual that is 'personally' defined soley by the choices of legislatures (they write the laws) past and present.....seems a bit robotic. Fine for the job, but not for the person...again, the ability to keep the two separate is key, now, not just for the conduct of duty, but also for the personal growth of the judge as a person 2 - do their political and personal leanings guide their interpretation - please for love of the people NO, NO, NO (but exactly what every president desires when they make their nominations) #2 is what judges must avoid - One can still hope that the more positive philosophy (only the original legal intent of the writers of the law guides their interpretation, and the judges are able to suspend their personal philosophies/leaning for the sake of doing the job as intended) is in practice rather than your two options. I find the biggest issue is legislatures writing vague and subjective laws in the first place that can't stand on their own. That opens the doors to judges being able to twist the meanings any way they choose - that's why original intent is so important. For laws from long ago subject to long periods of change, but even new ones. (seriously, one of the biggest failures of government in recent times is the Legislature failing to own their responsibilities - weak and cosmetic laws with not teeth lead to abuse of powers of the other two branches - excessive and inappropriate executive orders, and judicial activism both are attempts by the other two branches to do the job that the third branch is ignoring....) And one can still try to hold these people to that standard (even if I'm cynical that we won't get people of that caliber because of bias is demanded from the nomination and confirmation processes). ... 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

See the thread I just started, and comment there, before I'm banned. Fraid not. It might have a giant pile of really good discussion material, but since it leads with what's become a terribly derogatory term that's likely unnecessary to any good discussion (other than shock value) - I won't take the effort or even start. It shuts down discussion with the lead. Not because of being close minded about the potential content. But more for respect in how we talk about each other. Much like hanging at the bonfire at the DZ at night, if a conversation turns to people being pissy at or about each other, I don't argue, I just walk away and find another group. ... 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

^^^ sounds about right - convict on these actions and he loses his right to own that particularly piece of property and those like it. Responsible gun owners need to stand up and say, "HERE, this is a perfect example of an individual that has demonstrated through his personal actions that he cannot own firearms....period" at the same time, any anti-gun fanatic that wants to use this as a rationale to pre-emptively disarm those that own responsibly....well, nevermind, it's likely already happening ... 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

that's how it 'should' be - they should ignore their personal prejudices and interpret the law according to its original intent. But the system is set up to put just the opposite into those positions - so decisions might not be on a 'whim', but might actively be very twisted to their personal positions and prejudices the ONLY "litmus" test a judge should have is objectivity and ability to disregard their political and personal leanings in favor of doing the job right - too bad that's the opposite of the nomination and approval process I'm grateful she walked her comments back upon reflection - I'm sure she figured it out on her own. I'm sure the other justices just as likely 'advised' her on it too. ... 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

The appearance of justice is very important. You don't want "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". So yes, it is very much about the appearance. This is true, but, I do think it's deeper even. I think the measure of a 'judge', is their ability to be objective in the presence of their real biases - 'despite' their biases. Not that they have no biases. no one is perfectly without bias.... So if a judge can't control herself enough to keep from even talking about it, then one has to question their ability to control their biases in the conduct of their duty. (i.e., if you can't even ACT objective, how can you suspend your prejudices to do the job objectively?) How do you even set the standard for all other judges even? (It's hard enough when a SC judge seems to be nominated with the absolute HOPE that they will be biased....instead of their legal purity) ... 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

Nicely done in the spirit of Speaker's Corner - as the domain of the strawman/insult/PA. The only comment remotely of that type that has so far been ACTUALLY made and not just hypothesized is as follows: "Does the situation require her to remain impartial no matter how buffoonish a demagogue the potential candidate might be?" We can agree with the comments. However, still note how absolutely wrong it is for a justice to do that. And the justices all agree with that (including Ruth). Where the hell is Jerry, he 'gets' this stuff like no one else did. ... 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

paged through the comments - I don't see any outrage from anyone. Lot's of agreements, but I only paged down a bit. I saw a couple comments like yours or people jumping to that result......methinks very premature. edit: nevermind, Gowlerk beat me to the comment ... 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

best quote of the year ... 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

Accurate? ... 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

the point of age aside (though it may very well be part of the issue) - she's clearly lost her judgment (in terms of her role as a justice). Public appearance of total loss of political objectivity is a legitimate reason to insist on retirement. It's sad. (of course she is very partisan in execution of the job, but in that case she can at least cover than in terms of judicial opinions, etc in a professional way) Even if one agrees with her comments, as a judge, she now would have to recuse herself from anything that has to do with this election. And if Trump were to win, she'd have to recuse herself from any case involving the exec branch. Imagine if Thomas or someone were to publicly make the same comments about Hillary..... our top leaders talking about leaving a sinking ship....this is just terrible ... 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

my apologies (but he started it) ... 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

seriously, now you are looking objectively at each individual situation and trying to assess each based on what facts you know so far - instead of lumping them all together and spitting out bumper sticker rhetoric. Next thing you know, you'll start treating people as individuals instead of members of a stereotype of a demographically defined PC dictionary or even change your mind as new information comes to light..... HOW DARE YOU SIR!! ... 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

That's the theory, but I think it would gain votes easily ... 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

it's called Speaker's Corner ... 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