WTF is a THOUGHT CRIMES BILL????????

[jillian]

Ideological difference are not partisanship. Partisanship means you adhere to what the "party" wants, regardless of ideology. Ideological difference have always existed on the Court and are expected to reflect the varying ideologies of Presidents who appoint the Justices. There's nothing wrong with ideological difference. There is a lot wrong with partisanship.

As for the Court being capable of anything, I haven't seen much evidence for that kind of alarmism. One of the most egregious cases to be decided in some time was Kelo and the conservatives on the Court (plus O'Connor) got that one right.

Actually, I hate the result in Kelo. But it was consistent with all the zoning decisions since Euclid.

Interestingly, the one decision that was unanimous recently had to do with the way political parties in NY pick their judicial candidates. In that regard, the court agreed that politicos can pick anyone they want to put on their tickets.

You can call it "ideology" or partisanship, but in theory a Justice is supposed to be apolitical once he or she is appointed. It's the reason for the lifetime appointments. I'd also say it's pretty partisan when a justice who goes duckhunting with someone who will benefit from the results of a litigation won't recuse himself.

 

[Steerpike]

and risk the same labels David Souter recieved? Ideology and partisanship seem to be birds of a feather when scalia, thomas, roberts and alito flock together.

I don't think that's the case. If it were, then the converse would be true of the other Justices. I expect ideologies to be joined in opinion more often than not.

Actually I think Roberts is quite good and was an excellent choice for a nomination. I don't Alito was as good a choice. Scalia is a bright guy, but I'd be more impressed with this 'textualist' approach if he applied it all the time, rather than when he wants to reach a certain result. Thomas is hit and miss. I think he's been ok at times, way off at other times (like in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).

 

[nibor]

I don't think this piece of legislation can be truely assessed without concreet definition in terms............................

 

[Shogun]

It seems to me that being inconsistent according to desired result is a clear form of partisanship. I would be hard pressed to remember the last thing non-republican Scalia wrote an opinion supporting. Indeed, it's not like the liberal side gets to evade partisan accusations even when O'conner bounced back and forth. In fact, id day the nomination of Alito as a sub for Harriet Myers, in light of Priscilla Owen and Janice Brown, is pretty indicative of what is EXPECTED out of republican nominations. Hell, these are the people who are expected to eventually overturn RvW. Do you think Roberts would have been nominated if he failed that litmeus test when asked by republicans behind closed doors?

Again, there is a reason David Souter ate as much crow as he did from conservatives. It would be nice if they didn't rule according to party affiliation but there is a reason why nominating a justice is such a big deal when considering presidential candidates.

 

[nibor]

Another KENT STATE, RUBY RIDGE, OR WACO are totally unacceptable/unexceptable........................especially as they fly the Mexican flag above ours in this country or put our financial future in the hands of fucking COMMUNISTS AND MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[nibor]

Storm trooper tactics...................against the American population which is what this bill perpetrates down the road..................more braindead Janet Reno like solutions to a very complex set of problems that we are going to experience being on the road that we are on.....................

 

[jillian]

Storm trooper tactics...................against the American population which is what this bill perpetrates down the road..................more braindead Janet Reno like solutions to a very complex set of problems that we are going to experience being on the road that we are on.....................

why don't you address *this* issue.

I figure David Koresh deserves at least as much blame for Waco as Janet Reno.

 

[nibor]

No way no how dear, they could've taken Koresh out any time they wanted to.....................but burned up a bunch of innocent children in that blow show...................

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It seems to me that being inconsistent according to desired result is a clear form of partisanship. I would be hard pressed to remember the last thing non-republican Scalia wrote an opinion supporting. Indeed, it's not like the liberal side gets to evade partisan accusations even when O'conner bounced back and forth. In fact, id day the nomination of Alito as a sub for Harriet Myers, in light of Priscilla Owen and Janice Brown, is pretty indicative of what is EXPECTED out of republican nominations. Hell, these are the people who are expected to eventually overturn RvW. Do you think Roberts would have been nominated if he failed that litmeus test when asked by republicans behind closed doors?

Again, there is a reason David Souter ate as much crow as he did from conservatives. It would be nice if they didn't rule according to party affiliation but there is a reason why nominating a justice is such a big deal when considering presidential candidates.

And of course you don't include the Dem choices or the libeerals on the bench right?

 

[Steerpike]

It seems to me that being inconsistent according to desired result is a clear form of partisanship. I would be hard pressed to remember the last thing non-republican Scalia wrote an opinion supporting.

But Jillian was talking about the Justices Bush appointed. Scalia isn't one of them.

As for Scalia, he ruled against the GOP in 2006 when they tried to get DeLay's name off the ballot in Texas, and that was a situation where the entire decision fell to Scalia.

 

[jillian]

But Jillian was talking about the Justices Bush appointed. Scalia isn't one of them.

Actually, I called it "Bush's Court". And certainly it has the composition he wanted, including Scalia and Thomas. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

 

[Steerpike]

You can call it "ideology" or partisanship, but in theory a Justice is supposed to be apolitical once he or she is appointed. It's the reason for the lifetime appointments.

No, ideology is equivalent to judicial philosophy. No Justice is supposed to abandoned all judicial philosophy when taking the bench. If they did, they couldn't make any decisions. Any Justice ever on the Court (or any where else for that matter) makes decisions according to ideology - the ones you like, the ones I like, and all the ones in between - if they are doing their job right. At least, that's how I'm using ideology here.

For example, strict constructionism is an ideology. So it textualism. So is looking outside of statutes to try and ascertain legislative intent.

Maybe 'ideology' is too charged a word. It's judicial ideology. Theories of jurisprudence. Justices appointed by a conservative are more likely to have one kind of jurisprudence than Justices appointed by a liberal, and vice versa.

 

[jillian]

No, ideology is equivalent to judicial philosophy. No Justice is supposed to abandoned all judicial philosophy when taking the bench. If they did, they couldn't make any decisions. Any Justice ever on the Court (or any where else for that matter) makes decisions according to ideology - the ones you like, the ones I like, and all the ones in between - if they are doing their job right. At least, that's how I'm using ideology here.

For example, strict constructionism is an ideology. So it textualism. So is looking outside of statutes to try and ascertain legislative intent.

Maybe 'ideology' is too charged a word. It's judicial ideology. Theories of jurisprudence. Justices appointed by a conservative are more likely to have one kind of jurisprudence than Justices appointed by a liberal, and vice versa.

I understand what you're saying. But we also know that each of those "judicial philosophies" effectuates a political philosophy. For example, the pretense that the Constitution is supposed to be literally construed is intended to effectuate "conservative" ideology and is a direct response to the line of privacy cases that resulted in Roe v Wade. It's also an effort to return to some sort of "states' rights type of scenario, despite the fact that advancements in civil rights, equality and the like only occurred because of the Supreme Court's more expansive cases. So, again, we can call it anything we want, but these people were appointed because of their politics (and I won't say it's only the right, it isn't).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

why don't you address *this* issue.

I figure David Koresh deserves at least as much blame for Waco as Janet Reno.

The simple fact is Koresh was never a threat. The local sheriff had him down to his office EVERY time he had a complaint. No guns drawn, no shooting, no siege, AND no dead children.

The ATF fucked up, they wanted a BIG raid to impress the Country because the DEA was getting all the coverage at the time.

Do I think Reno or Clinton had anything to do with the initial raid? NOT at all. It was a retarded decision by idiots for points. They planned it poorly, executed it even worse and left the FBI holding the dirty after effects.

However there NEVER was a reason to assault the compound. No one was trying to get out and in fact if they had, that would have been a BETTER result, easier to track one or two people down then attack a house full of kids with armed adults WAITING to die in JUST such an attack, The Branch Davidians were NO threat to any of their neighbors or any American anywhere at all.

Now remind us who decided to assault a compound FULL of children, with the knowledge the armed adults wanted to die in such an assault and with further knowledge the compound was rigged to be destroyed ( if we are to believe the FBI about why and how the fire started, they insist the Davidians set it up and that they know this from BEFORE the assault)

Now go off on a tangent and claim child abuse... a claim NEVER made until AFTER the siege began and most likely a political ploy to get the American people off the fact there never was a reason for the raid to begin with. Further not a reason to assault that compound and kill those kids.

Remind us how many times in the past TANKS were used to resolve stable under control hostage situations with no threat to the hostages except from the police?

Then remind us why Reno ordered ARMED men to later seize a 5 year old from his family that was neither armed nor had ever failed to produce the child when ordered ( In Florida, remember that one?) Two examples of Reno and a total disregard for law and order and the rights of our citizens.

And explain again how that LANDMARK decision about Abortion was not an idealogical one made by Liberals with no basis in law or the Constitution.

Cry all you want. Your ignorant claims are the partisan ones.

 

[Steerpike]

I understand what you're saying. But we also know that each of those "judicial philosophies" effectuates a political philosophy. For example, the pretense that the Constitution is supposed to be literally construed is intended to effectuate "conservative" ideology and is a direct response to the line of privacy cases that resulted in Roe v Wade. It's also an effort to return to some sort of "states' rights type of scenario, despite the fact that advancements in civil rights, equality and the like only occurred because of the Supreme Court's more expansive cases. So, again, we can call it anything we want, but these people were appointed because of their politics (and I won't say it's only the right, it isn't).

Constructionism goes all the way back to Jefferson. He argued against a National Bank in 1791 and said "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

He argued, essentially, that strict construction of the Constitution did not give the Congress this power. Constructionists have been around ever since.

I don't think Constructionism is invalid as a judicial philosophy, but I think it is many times impractical as the country has changed in the past couple of centuries or so.

I don't agree with the idea that anyone who wants, for example, to overturn Roe v. Wade has some kind of evil political bent that works against the Constitution. I am pro-choice, and my opinion is that Roe ought to stand. But I recognize that there are some very good Constitutional arguments as to why it should not. The opinion itself is a mess.

If I were a strict Constructionist, I'd want the issue sent back to the States. I'm not and I don't. I think as times changes there has to be some degree of flexibility in the document. The interpretation of the Constitution from 1791 wouldn't work for us today.

But I think you have to admit that if you read the Constitution in any way resembling the intent at the time it was written, there's no way you get Roe out of it.

I'm more for the living document school of thought, but I can understand the constructionist view. Once you open the door to "living document" you've got to be damn careful what all you let in.

 

[mattskramer]

The simple fact is Koresh was never a threat. The local sheriff had him down to his office EVERY time he had a complaint. No guns drawn, no shooting, no siege, AND no dead children.

The ATF fucked up, they wanted a BIG raid to impress the Country because the DEA was getting all the coverage at the time.

Do I think Reno or Clinton had anything to do with the initial raid? NOT at all. It was a retarded decision by idiots for points. They planned it poorly, executed it even worse and left the FBI holding the dirty after effects.

However there NEVER was a reason to assault the compound. No one was trying to get out and in fact if they had, that would have been a BETTER result, easier to track one or two people down then attack a house full of kids with armed adults WAITING to die in JUST such an attack, The Branch Davidians were NO threat to any of their neighbors or any American anywhere at all.

I think that we are pretty much in agreement here. I think of it as that old unilateral cowboy itchy-trigger-finger mentality. Koresh could have been picked up at any time. If he and his people refused to leave, all we would have needed to to was put up a fence and leave a few guards. We could have waited them out. The assault was not necessary.

 

[Paulie]

As soon as the law passes I suspect it will go RIGHT to Federal Court. It is a violation of our rights under the Constitution.

Just like Patriot Act 1 & 2, Military Commissions Act of 2006, and John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007?

All unconstitutional. Where was the Federal court THEN?

 

[nibor]

Here we go.......................another perfectly good discussion..............turned into a feminist shit throwing match...............

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just like Patriot Act 1 & 2, Military Commissions Act of 2006, and John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007?

All unconstitutional. Where was the Federal court THEN?

They are NOT unconstitutional and not even close to the same. They do NOT violate anyones rights under the Constitution. Further the Patriot act is historically proven to be acceptable by past actions of Congress in similar times and the Constitution allows for extra actions in a time of War or conflict.

I do not know the 2007 act though, but unless it pays for a military ( other than the Navy) past two years I do not see how it is unconstitutional either.