Sandra Day O'Connor speaks out against SCOTUS' Citizens United decision

[Modbert]

I think all justices vote in accordance with their 'philosophies'. Can those be considered political? I suppose sometimes. But some are more political than others.

Some, like scalia, don't even try to appear impartial.

This.

Of course, philosophies are going to turn into political ideas at times. It's human nature. And Scalia being impartial is as likely as me going on a hunting trip with Cheney.

 

[Dr.House]

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

House, haven't you figured out trolling only results in problems that can't always be solved at the end of the hour episodes?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Political Junky]

I don't know if this in the article, but in one district a judge raised $14,000 million for his campaign. I see something wrong in that.

That'll be chump change when corporations from any country can finance US campaigns.

 

[Modbert]

WTF are you talking about?

To sit there and believe Scalia is not impartial is trolling. If the guy ran on the GOP ticket tomorrow, he'd be likely to win. The cases that Jillian cited are examples of that.

 

[elvis]

WTF are you talking about?

To sit there and believe Scalia is not impartial is trolling. If the guy ran on the GOP ticket tomorrow, he'd be likely to win. The cases that Jillian cited are examples of that.

and Breyer, stevens, and ginsberg would have less success than scalia?

 

[jillian]

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

you mean aside from the one that came down the other day?

and Ledbetter?

and Heller?

and bush v gore?

What did he state in those cases that was specifically political or ideological in nature?

I don't agree with your assessment at all...

I respect decisions made when the Constitution is used to determine standing, even if I disagree with the outcome...

which of those cases used the Constitution to determine standing?

the decision the other day, i won't go into. it's already been addressed on this board. but it's a disgusting ruling.

ledbetter perverted and undermined the requirement that women not be discriminated against in regards to same pay for same work. it intentionally misapplied the requirements of the statute for purely political purposes.

heller... the result may or not be correct... but it went far further than the case required and the questions raised in breyer's dissent, which were far more in accordance with constitutional construction, were never answered.

bush v gore? why don't we start with the fact that the most hack judge in the most hack court should have recused when a case involving his hunting buddy came before him.

one of my proudest days was getting admitted to practice before the supreme court. this court is perverting the constitution for generations.

 

[Modbert]

and Breyer, stevens, and ginsberg would have less success than scalia?

What do you mean? If they ran on the GOP ticket?

 

[elvis]

and Breyer, stevens, and ginsberg would have less success than scalia?

What do you mean? If they ran on the GOP ticket?

no. you don't get off that easy. if they ran on a dem ticket.

 

[Modbert]

no. you don't get off that easy. if they ran on a dem ticket.

I'm sure some of them would do better than the others. Ginsburg would be interesting, but I think she would be too old to run probably and her health isn't the greatest. So I doubt she would run.

Breyer vs Scalia would be hilarious. I think it depends on who he runs against.

Stevens would win, but again he's too old to run. He's 89.

 

[Brubricker]

SCOTUS is no place for justices who believe their political and ideological beliefs should be consulted when ruling Constitutional cases...

.......meaning that none of the current nine are fit to hold the job.

 

[Dr.House]

WTF are you talking about?

To sit there and believe Scalia is not impartial is trolling. If the guy ran on the GOP ticket tomorrow, he'd be likely to win. The cases that Jillian cited are examples of that.

Trolling? Give me a fucking break....

She cited cases and not examples... I would like to know what decisions Scalia made that he supposedly used his political ideologies when deciding Constitutional cases...

I don't believe that he has and I would welcome actual words from Scalia that we can debate the claims that you and Jillian have made...

 

[Modbert]

Trolling? Give me a fucking break.... .

I was joking about the trolling part. You seem to not catch the references.

But I think it's clear and apparent about Scalia, just like the others. They're all impartial to a point and Scalia is one of the most vocal ones about where he stands.

 

[rdean]

WTF are you talking about?

To sit there and believe Scalia is not impartial is trolling. If the guy ran on the GOP ticket tomorrow, he'd be likely to win. The cases that Jillian cited are examples of that.

Trolling? Give me a fucking break....

She cited cases and not examples... I would like to know what decisions Scalia made that he supposedly used his political ideologies when deciding Constitutional cases...

I don't believe that he has and I would welcome actual words from Scalia that we can debate the claims that you and Jillian have made...

The ostensible wall separating church and state is not inviolable, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd at the University of Virginia School of Law on Thursday.
The judicial system, he argued, has too often gone overboard in its interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which forbids any “law respecting an Establishment of Religion.”

Scalia: Church, state not always separate | Charlottesville Daily Progress

-------------------

In 2003, the court struck down a Texas law criminalizing same-sex sodomy. In his dissent, Scalia noted that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

Does Antonin Scalia hate gays? - Los Angeles Times

----------------------

Religion? Tradition as law?

Glad I could help.

-------------------

 

[Dr.House]

you mean aside from the one that came down the other day?

and Ledbetter?

and Heller?

and bush v gore?

What did he state in those cases that was specifically political or ideological in nature?

I don't agree with your assessment at all...

I respect decisions made when the Constitution is used to determine standing, even if I disagree with the outcome...

which of those cases used the Constitution to determine standing?

You are the one who claimed they weren't... Me doing your homework is not how this normally works...

the decision the other day, i won't go into. it's already been addressed on this board. but it's a disgusting ruling.

I respectfully disagree... McCain/Feingold was disgusting (Constitutionally), yes...

ledbetter perverted and undermined the requirement that women not be discriminated against in regards to same pay for same work. it intentionally misapplied the requirements of the statute for purely political purposes.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it...

heller... the result may or not be correct... but it went far further than the case required and the questions raised in breyer's dissent, which were far more in accordance with constitutional construction, were never answered.

Again, your opinion...

bush v gore? why don't we start with the fact that the most hack judge in the most hack court should have recused when a case involving his hunting buddy came before him.

Been argued many times... I respectfully disagree...

one of my proudest days was getting admitted to practice before the supreme court. this court is perverting the constitution for generations.[/QUOTE]

Roberts is one of the most respectful justices on the bench... I would take 9 of him any day... I may not always agree with the decisions, but I would be content knowing that the Constitution was being used to determine the case and whether it had any buiness being in front of the SCOTUS to begin with...

If you want to discuss this some other day, when I have time to research cases and hear your side and such, let me know... I like Constitutional issues, but right now life doesn't allow me more than just coming here to be entertained... I hope you understand...

 

[goldcatt]

WTF are you talking about?

To sit there and believe Scalia is not impartial is trolling. If the guy ran on the GOP ticket tomorrow, he'd be likely to win. The cases that Jillian cited are examples of that.

Trolling? Give me a fucking break....

She cited cases and not examples... I would like to know what decisions Scalia made that he supposedly used his political ideologies when deciding Constitutional cases...

I don't believe that he has and I would welcome actual words from Scalia that we can debate the claims that you and Jillian have made...

His vote and his written opinions for the majority, concurrence or dissent in those or any number of other cases don't count as his words from which you can determine his position and the basis of his decisions? Who knew?

Of course you could go look it up and read his words for yourself, but that's too much effort and requires independent thought. Or you could ask for any one of us who disagrees with you to copy and post quotations, but then we'd be accused of selectively choosing them to support our own "side". See how that trolling thing comes into play here?

And you wonder why nobody wants to play Catch-22 with you.

 

[Annie]

I don't know if this in the article, but in one district a judge raised $14,000 million for his campaign. I see something wrong in that.

Since SCOTUS rules on Citizens? Wow!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People with vaginas, even wise Latina ones, should not serve on SCOTUS.

This isn't your Founding Fathers Federal Government, the Federal Government consumes and dispenses $3.5 TRILLION ANNUALLY

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Conservative courts...

The gift that keeps on giving

I bet you did not mind the 5-4 decision in Roe Vs Wade did you?

 

[editec]

Retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last week's Supreme Court decision striking down restrictions on corporate spending in elections will energize an "arms race" in judicial elections and be a "problem for maintaining an independent judiciary."

Since leaving the court in 2006, O'Connor has campaigned against the election of state and local judges, and she said Tuesday that "increasingly expensive and negative campaigns for judicial office erode both the impartiality of the judiciary and the public perception of them."

O'Connor lent her voice to the reverberations from the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned two of the court's precedents and swept away decades of restrictions on how corporations and other special interest groups could spend their general treasuries on behalf of candidates.

.......

O'Connor confined her remarks about the decision to the affect it will have on the overwhelming number of states and localities that elect judges. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

"In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon," O'Connor said at a symposium at Georgetown Law Center. She noted that each election cycle brings new spending records, especially in state supreme court races that have become special-interest battlegrounds.

.......

The symposium at Georgetown, sponsored with the Aspen Institute, looked at the fallout from Citizens United and a case the court decided last year, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. In Caperton, the court decided 5 to 4 that a West Virginia supreme court justice whose candidacy was aided by millions of dollars from a coal mining executive should have recused himself when the executive had a case before the court.

"I think these two cases should be a warning to states that continue to choose their judges through popular elections," O'Connor said.

She said the escalating campaigns will only make the judiciary more susceptible to special interests.

"I think today we can anticipate that labor unions and trial lawyers, for instance, might have the financial means to win one particular state judicial election, and maybe tobacco firms and energy companies have enough to win the next," she said. "And if both sides unleash their campaign spending monies without restrictions, then I think mutually assured destruction is the most likely outcome."

O'Connor: Corporate campaign funds could affect judiciary - washingtonpost.com

She's absolutely right.

Another anti-democratic decision by a Supreme Court which clearly hates the people and the vestages of democracy that remain in this national political system.

NO corporation be it a union or a private corporation or the lapdog groups they support should have the right to put a penny into our political system.

 

[Yurt]

it is laughable that jillian and the troll dogbert claim only scalia is not impartial and that he votes, not based on the constitution, but on his politics....

anyone who has read just a few of his decisions, concurrances or dissents will easily see that scalia is extremely knowledge on the constitution. it is partisan hackery to claim he is not and that the other judges, who lean left, are always impartial and don't vote with their politics.