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

[Modbert]

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.

His idea of the Constitution mind you. And I don't think anyone said that the left leaning judges are impartial while Scalia is not. You're attempting to start a fight over a argument nobody made.

 

[Yurt]

how dare scalia have his own idea of what the constitution means

 

[Political Junky]

how dare scalia have his own idea of what the constitution means

I heard a con say, just yesterday, that the Scrotus shouldn't act on feelings, but on the facts.

 

[jillian]

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

McCain/Feingold was an appropriate campaign finance reform bill. Nothing unconstitutional about it...at least not with any court that was worth its salt.

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

Well, judges don't hear cases that affect their friends and cronies. they recuse. You can disagree all you want, but Scalia had no business hearing that case. And arriving at a decision that they specifically say has no value as precedent was such a divergance from court practice that it should have made bells go off everywhere...even for people who like the result.

If they thought they were really correct, why is Bush v Gore specifically held to apply to NO OTHER CASE ever?

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...

Roberts is better than scalia and thomas. but you would take 9 of him because the results are results you agree with.

what do you think it means to use the Constitution to determine the case? The constitution is only one part of what determines the case. We have 200 years of caselaw and statutes that are also supposed to be used to determine the case.

And Ledbetter was construction of a statute. For political reasons they purposely misconstrued the statute of limitations issue to make it virtually impossible to prosecute claims for disparate treatment of women.

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...

Happy to discuss these things, House. Always a pleasure.

 

[jillian]

how dare scalia have his own idea of what the constitution means

you mean how dare he make it up as he goes along?

well, yeah.. that's what stare decisis is for.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

Thats a lot of money.