The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1934 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 93, 94, 95, 96, 97  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun November 04, 2018 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm
Posts: 37925
simple schoolboy wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Then he probably shouldn’t be on the SC huh


Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.

Not the point but nice joke attempt

_________________
lennytheweedwhacker wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
What's going on in here

a lot of hurt


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun November 04, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 9732
just because one super dubious accuser appears to be false doesn't mean that the two more credible ones are

i don't want to rehash the whole last 60 days but it's not just the penis-related issues that make him an embarrassment to this country

it's his terrible haircut

_________________
Pollster Rights for All


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun November 04, 2018 7:49 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1442
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Then he probably shouldn’t be on the SC huh


Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.

Not the point but nice joke attempt


Would you care to elaborate on this?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 Profile

Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm
Posts: 24630
Location: Different mountains than Strat.
this is concerning

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... r_Breaking


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 08, 2013 10:23 pm
Posts: 1870
man she seemed so spry


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 3409
tragabigzanda wrote:

Oh man.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 9681
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
One of the sweet things that happened yesterday, was the NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan). One democrat ran against two republicans and won. Now NC has a liberal leaning supreme court. 8-)

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Tue February 12, 2013 5:03 pm
Posts: 3315
B wrote:
NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)

I fail to see how this is in any way positive.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am
Posts: 22365
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

_________________
durdencommatyler wrote:
dimejinky-the Han Solo of RM.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 3409
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 9681
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
--- wrote:
B wrote:
NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)

I fail to see how this is in any way positive.


What's positive is that it backfired on them. They figured the racists hard working Americans that occupy most of my state were accidentally voting for liberal judges, so they labelled them so everyone would know who to vote for. But the first election saw two Republicans split the vote in a competition with a Democrat, so they elected a Democrat onto the court.

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am
Posts: 22365
4/5 wrote:
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."



But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

_________________
durdencommatyler wrote:
dimejinky-the Han Solo of RM.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 3409
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."



But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am
Posts: 22365
4/5 wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."



But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.



So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?

That whole system flat out sucks

_________________
durdencommatyler wrote:
dimejinky-the Han Solo of RM.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 3409
Getting the job is the political part, yes. Once they have the job it isn't supposed to be political anymore. Not overtly, at least.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 34582
Location: Donkeys live a long time.
I wonder how they are gonna rule with this civil asset forfeiture thing later this month.

_________________
Death is coming. Eat trash. Be free.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Washington State
Probably expand it because why the hell not.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 34582
Location: Donkeys live a long time.
Probably.

But maybe I can get my grandpappy's compound back from the feds.

_________________
Death is coming. Eat trash. Be free.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 9681
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Jesus, my phone actually notified me about RBG's fall. She needs to stop fucking around!

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu November 08, 2018 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Tue February 12, 2013 5:03 pm
Posts: 3315
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
4/5 wrote:
I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.

dimejinky99 wrote:
I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."



But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.



So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?

That whole system flat out sucks

The system is just fine. There are both horizontal (the legislative and executive branches) and vertical (competing claims to jurisdictional supremacy) checks on the judicial branch that continue to work well enough, though certainly not as optimally as some might prefer.

Following nomination, all SCOTUS nominees have to be confirmed by a majority in the Senate. This process has become nakedly partisan in a way that just wasn't the case until about thirty years ago. Antonin Scalia, paragon of the right's more constrained and "originalist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 98-0 in 1986. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paragon of the left's more expansive and "purposivist" method of Constitutional interpretation, was confirmed 96-3 in 1993.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1934 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 93, 94, 95, 96, 97  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Joesanity, Simple Torture, theplatypus and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Thu November 15, 2018 5:26 pm