Obama's Supreme Court Pick is.........

[Tech_Esq]

What should it have been, a right wingnut activist judge like Bush's appointees?

Except none of them were and as a Lawyer you know damn well that is true. You are a liar, a fraud and a PARTISAN hack troll.

Scalia and Thomas are two of the most activist judges ever on the bench in terms of ignoring stare decisis and implementing their own philosophical agenda. So please tell it to someone who doesn't know any better.

So screw you... and you calling anyone a partisan hack is really kind of funny.

I have the feeling we could go round and round on this one. Assuming en arguendo that you are correct in your description of Scalia and Thomas as "activist," then what is their true obligation as jurists?

If you feel that the case was wrongly decided in the first place, do you have an obligation as a judge to follow stare decisis or should you review and overturn the bad law?

Picking on one of my pet cases United States v. Darby Lumber Co., in my estimation, this case was wrongly decided and overturned a line of Supreme Court cases that was fleshing out and giving body to the 10th Amendment which, as we can see now, is badly needed to bring balance to Federalism.

If a case, say one where the states are arguing that the federal mandates issued by Congress that are so much at issue recently, were to challenge the holding in Darby, are you saying that Scalia and Thomas would be wrong to revisit whether the holding in Darby was correct in the first place?

The question, for Scalia and Thomas, is always was the case decided within the Constitution, or by some other reason. In the Darby case, it was decided by a dubious construction of the commerce clause and a desire by some justices to see Roosevelt's New Deal policies legitimated. Should this be the law of the land 70 years later? The new construction of the commerce clause under Wicker and Darby allows for Congress to justify absolutely anything by using the commerce clause. This was plainly not what the founders intended in the Constitution. So, should the court correct it? Or, blindly follow stare decisis?

The fact that originalists could be considered activist tells you how far we've come from the Constitution. I don't view a return to the strictures of the Constitution as a bad thing.

 

[Yurt]

Apparently Willow thinks so. Well, only when it fits her pov.

Do you think that she ruled correctly in the firefighter case?

so you don't think it is the court's duty to rule based on empathy?

i am not familiar with all the facts in that case...

I think the court has a duty to rule based on a large number of considerations.

are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to be a wuss and dance around it...let me know either way so i don't waste any more time with you

 

[Chris]

no,, just pointing out the lengths he went to to succeed. only to have a racist tell him because he is white it dosen't matter.. that is all..

A racist, huh? She was actually just following the law there. Or do you think she should have followed what she thought instead?

yes, a racist..

Yes, and white people are sick and tired of being hasselled by THE MAN!!!

 

[Yurt]

a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn't lived that life.

 

[WillowTree]

A racist, huh? She was actually just following the law there. Or do you think she should have followed what she thought instead?

yes, a racist..

Yes, and white people are sick and tired of being hasselled by THE MAN!!!

I don't follow your meaning!

 

[Nik]

so you don't think it is the court's duty to rule based on empathy?

i am not familiar with all the facts in that case...

I think the court has a duty to rule based on a large number of considerations.

are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to be a wuss and dance around it...let me know either way so i don't waste any more time with you

Thats a question that one writes a book about. I'm not going to write a half assed page long explanation so you can attempt to pull it apart.

 

[Yurt]

I think the court has a duty to rule based on a large number of considerations.

are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to be a wuss and dance around it...let me know either way so i don't waste any more time with you

Thats a question that one writes a book about. I'm not going to write a half assed page long explanation so you can attempt to pull it apart.

thanks wuss...you can claim willow believes that, but yet you can't form your own opinion of the matter for fear it will be torn apart....

wimp

 

[WillowTree]

are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to be a wuss and dance around it...let me know either way so i don't waste any more time with you

Thats a question that one writes a book about. I'm not going to write a half assed page long explanation so you can attempt to pull it apart.

thanks wuss...you can claim willow believes that, but yet you can't form your own opinion of the matter for fear it will be torn apart....

wimp

 

[Nik]

are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to be a wuss and dance around it...let me know either way so i don't waste any more time with you

Thats a question that one writes a book about. I'm not going to write a half assed page long explanation so you can attempt to pull it apart.

thanks wuss...you can claim willow believes that, but yet you can't form your own opinion of the matter for fear it will be torn apart....

wimp

What exactly does what I think about it have to do with my pointing out hypocrisy on her part again?

 

[WillowTree]

Thats a question that one writes a book about. I'm not going to write a half assed page long explanation so you can attempt to pull it apart.

thanks wuss...you can claim willow believes that, but yet you can't form your own opinion of the matter for fear it will be torn apart....

wimp

What exactly does what I think about it have to do with my pointing out hypocrisy on her part again?

you haven't even proved hypocrisy on my part bobo..

 

[Tech_Esq]

I read all this.. so,, is she saying it is okay now to be a racist?

It appears so! Note its not the KKK racist, rather the leftist acceptance of setting aside incidents where whites are openly being discriminated against! Her ruling in the firefighter case was horrendous! Justice was not blind that day, she would have made the majority on the Plessy v. Ferguson case proud (the case of the famous Harlan dissent!).

So you think Title VII is illegal? You think thats what she should have said there? Because under Title VII, the results of the test they administered are clearly illegal.

Bet the Supreme Court disagrees with you. We'll see shortly.

 

[Nik]

thanks wuss...you can claim willow believes that, but yet you can't form your own opinion of the matter for fear it will be torn apart....

wimp

What exactly does what I think about it have to do with my pointing out hypocrisy on her part again?

you haven't even proved hypocrisy on my part bobo..

Right...your just blasting her for being empathetic...while also blasting her for not caring about poor ol dyslexic Frank Ricci who worked so hard.....

 

[Ravi]

What exactly does what I think about it have to do with my pointing out hypocrisy on her part again?

you haven't even proved hypocrisy on my part bobo..

Right...your just blasting her for being empathetic...while also blasting her for not caring about poor ol dyslexic Frank Ricci who worked so hard.....

Willow is a mass of conflicting hypocrisies.

 

[Tech_Esq]

A racist, huh? She was actually just following the law there. Or do you think she should have followed what she thought instead?

yes, a racist..

Because she ruled according to what the law said?

Why are you so in support of judicial activism ?

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

 

[Nik]

It appears so! Note its not the KKK racist, rather the leftist acceptance of setting aside incidents where whites are openly being discriminated against! Her ruling in the firefighter case was horrendous! Justice was not blind that day, she would have made the majority on the Plessy v. Ferguson case proud (the case of the famous Harlan dissent!).

So you think Title VII is illegal? You think thats what she should have said there? Because under Title VII, the results of the test they administered are clearly illegal.

Bet the Supreme Court disagrees with you. We'll see shortly.

They may well disagree with me about the case. But surely you know that the fact that he was dyslexic will come into it. Despite conservatives cries that empathy is a terrible evil thing.

 

[Nik]

yes, a racist..

Because she ruled according to what the law said?

Why are you so in support of judicial activism ?

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you think Title VII is illegal? You think thats what she should have said there? Because under Title VII, the results of the test they administered are clearly illegal.

Bet the Supreme Court disagrees with you. We'll see shortly.

They may well disagree with me about the case. But surely you know that the fact that he was dyslexic will come into it. Despite conservatives cries that empathy is a terrible evil thing.

Why is that counselor? Is that the best argument you can come up with for the white firefighters? Is that the one you would rest your case on when arguing to the court?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because she ruled according to what the law said?

Why are you so in support of judicial activism ?

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

Pretend it's an essay test. Is that an answer that would suffice at your school?

 

[WillowTree]

you haven't even proved hypocrisy on my part bobo..

Right...your just blasting her for being empathetic...while also blasting her for not caring about poor ol dyslexic Frank Ricci who worked so hard.....

Willow is a mass of conflicting hypocrisies.

sure I am Ravi,, want to take a shot at why the black firefighter could not study, prepare and pass this test when a dyslexic could??? I'm trying my damndest to find out why black firemen could not do what whites and hispanics could do..

 

[WillowTree]

Because she ruled according to what the law said?

Why are you so in support of judicial activism ?

Care to advance why you think the case was correctly decided?

Because the results of the test were clearly contrary to Title VII.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html






why were the results clearly contrary to the civil rights act???? what was in the test that was unfair to black people?