RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Justice Kennedy to Retire
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
the most swamp-elite resume


Trump's entire list was dictated by conservative special interest groups. His "drain the swamp" is about as real as Obama's "change we can believe in".



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
the most swamp-elite resume


Trump's entire list was dictated by conservative special interest groups. His "drain the swamp" is about as real as Obama's "change we can believe in".



I love how you do that. Wink



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 386



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 2:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Barrett has 1 more year of experience than Harriet Miers.


Roe v Wade is the Federalist's #1 detail of their list that Trump is using.
Roe v Wade is Trump's #1 topic relating to the Supreme Court.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 4:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump should consider nominating a 32 year old. That worked out brilliantly in the past.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/07/18 8:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Trump should consider nominating a 32 year old. That worked out brilliantly in the past.


That is, Joseph Story.

I'll never forget the awe I felt the first time I entered the Harvard law library and saw the statue of Story in the lobby. Someone I had only read in dry legal opinions was right in front of me, and had probably personally sat for the sculpture in that Valhalla of the law. Sort of like the baseball kid from the sticks finally getting to Yankee Stadium and seeing a statue of Lou Gehrig.

GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/08/18 7:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The big reveal is now only 25 hours away, for those who care.

The tea leaves and chicken bones have been relatively quiet about Amy Barrett and have been up and down about Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge over the past few days, but those seem to be the final three. Trump surely has made his decision by now and communicated it to the winner, but secrecy seems to have been maintained. The alleged leaks and rumors are wildly inconsistent.

Having watched these nominations since the '50's, I honestly have to say that I never hear any concern about the viability of Roe except during those times when a Republican president is making a nomination. And that concern, mostly faux, quickly dissipates after confirmation.

I count 13 Supreme Court nominations by Republican presidents since Roe was decided in 1973, 10 of whom were confirmed. Yet Roe stands. It was really challenged seriously only once over the past 45 years, in Casey in 1992. Casey modified but upheld Roe in a 5-4 decision in which all five upholding Justices (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Blackmun and Stevens) were Republican president appointees.

Nevertheless, we'll have the usual Democrat resist-at-all-costs, freak-out show obsessing on abortion no matter who Trump's nominee is, as Senator Hatch documents in his Deseret News op-ed.

And in which he refers to the unknown nominee as "her" and "she"!!!???
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/09/18 2:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The current illegitimate Prez already was allowed 1 illegit SC appt. Now that he's being investigated for what amounts to being a traitor, no further appts to any court bench should be made by him, unless and until he is exonerated by said investigation.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/09/18 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
The current illegitimate Prez already was allowed 1 illegit SC appt. Now that he's being investigated for what amounts to being a traitor, no further appts to any court bench should be made by him, unless and until he is exonerated by said investigation.


Yes, because "guilty until proven innocent" is the American way.

Oh, and Laughing at anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton saying being under investigation makes someone an illegitimate president.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/09/18 11:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
The current illegitimate Prez already was allowed 1 illegit SC appt. Now that he's being investigated for what amounts to being a traitor, no further appts to any court bench should be made by him, unless and until he is exonerated by said investigation.


Yes, because "guilty until proven innocent" is the American way.

Oh, and Laughing at anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton saying being under investigation makes someone an illegitimate president.



Another episode of the never-ending false equivalence series, "both sides do it".

I didn't say Trump is illegit "because he's under investigation".

How many GOP-led investigations was HRC under, for how many years, for how many millions of dollars? And how many indictments or guilty pleas were had in all those years? (I appreciate your HRC hatred kinda fucks up your perspective here.)

Mueller, a lifelong Republican, already has multiple guilty pleas and nearly 20 indictments in about 1.5 yrs. And more will come down the road.

Besides, what's the hurry? Let Trump pick after he's exonerated.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/10/18 8:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Brett Kavanuagh is the pick

He has demonstrated a particularly narrow view of the 4th Amendment, even relative to other Republican judges. He dissented in US v Jones, in which the rest of the panel concluded that attaching a GPS to someone's car without their knowledge constituted a search and thus required a warrant. The Supreme Court later unanimously agreed with the majority.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/10/18 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It appears Kennedy leveraged his retirement so that Kavenaugh, a Kennedy clerk who has written (despite being a major player in the Clinton impeachment) that a sitting President is above the law, would replace him.

Remember, Kennedy's son worked at Deutsche Bank, which loaned Trump billions, and may be a subject in the Mueller probe.

This shit is beyond mob dirty.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/10/18 2:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Brett Kavanuagh is the pick

He has demonstrated a particularly narrow view of the 4th Amendment, even relative to other Republican judges. He dissented in US v Jones, in which the rest of the panel concluded that attaching a GPS to someone's car without their knowledge constituted a search and thus required a warrant. The Supreme Court later unanimously agreed with the majority.


As a Supreme Court junkie, I'd be very interested in what source you found this tidbit in, pilight. It's an example of something that looks like the product of informed legal research, when in fact it's a very misleading distortion of what Kavanaugh actually said in the case and how he influenced the later Supreme Court decision.

At the Circuit Court level, the Fourth Amendment vehicle tracking device issue was decided in favor of Jones by a three judge panel, of which Kavanaugh was not a part. Before petitioning the Supreme Court, the goverment tried a procedure called a petition for rehearing en banc, which is a request for all nine members of the Circuit Court to rehear the case (a "do over"). In a 5-4 decision, the full Circuit Court decided not to rehear the case. Kavanaugh and three other judges dissented, not on the merits of the Fourth Amendment GPS tracking issue, but simply on the issue of whether the case should be reheard at all.

Kavanaugh thought the case should be re-reviewed because, in his view, the three judge panel decision did not adequately evaluate some of the government's arguments and did not fully address the applicability of prior Supreme Court precedents about vehicle tracking devices and the decisions of other Circuit Courts on that subject. Regarding the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue, Kavanaugh simply said: "That is not to say, however, that I think the Government necessarily would prevail in this case." He was expressing no view on the Fourth Amendment issue, but was simply arguing that the case had sufficient loose ends that it would benefit from a fuller re-examination.

The Supreme Court, which takes only about 3% of the cases petitioned to it, agreed with Kavanaugh that the case merited review, which is evidenced by their exercise of discretion to themselves review the case in full. In the end, on the Fourth Amendment merits, the Supreme Court ended up distinguishing their prior precedents and clarifying the confusion in the various different Circuit Courts about tracking devices on cars (in a ruling that still favored Jones).

Kavanaugh's dissent clearly influenced the Supreme Court to take the case. That's the sign of a highly respected lower court judge.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11103
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/18 3:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Glenn, given your (apparent) background and (admittedly) far more vast knowledge on the dealings of The Court, I'd be most interested in hearing your perspectives, subjective and objective, on why the Court should/should not overturn Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, Citizens United, or any other *hot button* topic.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/18 9:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Brett Kavanuagh is the pick


All criminals should be able to select a judge who has expressed that criminals are above the law.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6721



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/18 5:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
I didn't say Trump is illegit "because he's under investigation".


Why did you say it?

Quote:

Mueller, a lifelong Republican, already has multiple guilty pleas and nearly 20 indictments in about 1.5 yrs. And more will come down the road.


How do you know more will come down the road?

Meuller indicted Flynn and Papadopolous for lying to the FBI about their contacts with Russians.

He indicted Manafort and Gates for money laundering and tax evasion that took place before they worked on the Trump campaign.

And he indicted 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 election.

Talking about 20 Mueller indictments is misleading as it suggests they are all shown to be related to Trump's campaign colluding with the Russians on the 2016 presidential race.




Last edited by tfan on 07/13/18 6:23 am; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6721



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/18 6:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:

What do you do for a living? (Rhetorical)

Does your race, gender, ethnicity, religion or political beliefs affect the way you do your job? (also rhetorical)

Do you treat the people you deal with at work differently based on their race, gender, religion, ethnicity or political beliefs? (Also rhetorical)

If the answer to the above questions is No, why wouldn't a judge who has sworn an oath of objectivity not be able to do the same thing in the pursuit of law and the justice system.


If people don't apply bias in their jobs, why are the police always accused of it and national organizations formed to combat it? Why do we have laws that require organizations to hire people of the same racial percentage as the general population? Don't those laws suggest that the government didn't see the hiring ratios they wanted?

Quote:
Also I think I convoluted my argument with too many examples so let's keep it to the closest possible example

Trump said he could not get a fair trial because a poll said 85% or people of Mexican heritage had a negative opinion of him,

So if Obama was on trial and there was a poll that said 85% of white, male, Christans over 60 had a negative opinion of him, and his judge was a white. male Christian over 60 do you think Obama could claim he couldn't get a fair trial from that judge based on his ethnic and religious heritage? How do you think that would be received by say fox News, or Christian leaders? Or white men in general?


I would be cool with Obama being allowed to remove a white Christian judge if polls showed that judge was likely to be biased against him. Fox News and Christian leaders might protest, but it probably wouldn't be as over-the-top as the criticism I saw on CNN towards Trump. Columbian-American Maria Cardona claimed (and it went unchallenged) that Trump was saying that her children should never be judges.

Quote:
In terms of the supreme court decisions that are 5-4 votes like the travel ban are not a result of the judges race, gender or ethnic heritage, it is the result of their philosophical approach to the law, the fact that the decisions go along party lines is because the judges are selected by Presidents based on that philosophical approach to the law. In this case the judges who upheld the ban agreed it was with the scope of presidential executive orders to make a ban based on specific Nation of origin for security reasons, while the judges who were against saw it as a specific ban based on a religious litmus test which in their view was unconstitutional.


Did the 5 Republican-appointed judges rule in favor of Obama in any cases due to their views on presidential executive orders? I don't think you correctly characterized the view of the dissenters. They did the same thing as the lower level judges who ruled against the travel ban - they focused on what Trump said during the campaign, rather than the executive order - which matched the countries that the Obama administration had had some specific action or restriction about. I suspect that if Obama had made this travel ban they would have sounded like the 5 Republicans.

Quote:

And Kennedy the conservative judge often voted against what the President who selected him may have assumed his approach to be. Kennedy was selected by a Republican President but came out in support of cases that uphold Roe vs Wade, Affirmative Action and Same Sex Marriage, which is positive proof that judges make their decisions based on their interpretation of the law and are not beholdent to a political ideology.


It shows that judges don't always go with their party. But to show that their decisions are independent of their party, the decisions of the judges would need to have similar correlation with any other judge. But that isn't the case. The Democratic-appointees tend to agree with each other, as do the Republican-appointees.

Quote:
Returning to the topic of Kennedy's retirement. People aren't scared that Trump will select a judge that will do his bidding, people are scared that Trump will select a judge whose interpretation of the law in upcoming cases could undo Marriage Equality Rights, Abortion Rights and the like. But the judge will not be making the decision based on his or her gender, religion, Ethnic heritage or any specific demographic they belong to. A bias in legal interpretation is not the same as a cultural, religious, racial or ethnic bias because someone belongs to a certain group.


Is it possible that "allowed biases" just provides cover for the biases judges are supposed to suppress ?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/18 7:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
If people don't apply bias in their jobs, why are the police always accused of it and national organizations formed to combat it?


Police generally have very little training or expertise. They're not vetted the way judges (especially federal judges) are. They don't have years of education about the law like judges do.

It really is harder to get a cosmetology license than to become a cop.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6721



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/18 7:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
If people don't apply bias in their jobs, why are the police always accused of it and national organizations formed to combat it?


Police generally have very little training or expertise. They're not vetted the way judges (especially federal judges) are. They don't have years of education about the law like judges do.


It sounds like you are saying that some of the lawyers who want to be judges are biased, but that they don't get selected due to vetting. Seems like it would be hard to determine whether they are biased or not against a race, religion, class of society, or a political or economic viewpoint, as they would try and hide it. In the way that potential Supreme Court judges like Clarence Thomas (think he was the one) will tell senators that they have never in their life discussed Roe v Wade with someone and have no opinion on it.


Quote:
It really is harder to get a cosmetology license than to become a cop.


I found something that says cosmetology training is 9 to 15 months. If you count "partnership and observtion" my local police department has 10 months between when you are "hired" and when you are accepted as a full-fledged policemen. The 10 months start with a 26 week (976 hour) police academy you have to attend after passing some amount of tests and interviews. (years ago a security guard trying to be a cop told me that where he was applying one of their tests was a psychological test) After you get out of the police academy you have to go into 17 weeks of what they call field training. This requires 2 weeks of observing a mentor, 4 weeks working with the mentor, 4 weeks on another shift with another mentor, 4 weeks on the last remaining shift with another mentor, then back to the original shift for three weeks where the original mentor becomes a plain clothes observer and ultimately gives a decision as to whether the person continues on as a cop.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/18 8:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Quote:
It really is harder to get a cosmetology license than to become a cop.


I found something that says cosmetology training is 9 to 15 months. If you count "partnership and observtion" my local police department has 10 months between when you are "hired" and when you are accepted as a full-fledged policemen. The 10 months start with a 26 week (976 hour) police academy you have to attend after passing some amount of tests and interviews. (years ago a security guard trying to be a cop told me that where he was applying one of their tests was a psychological test) After you get out of the police academy you have to go into 17 weeks of what they call field training. This requires 2 weeks of observing a mentor, 4 weeks working with the mentor, 4 weeks on another shift with another mentor, 4 weeks on the last remaining shift with another mentor, then back to the original shift for three weeks where the original mentor becomes a plain clothes observer and ultimately gives a decision as to whether the person continues on as a cop.



That 9-15 months is just class time, equivalent to the 26 weeks (6 months) at the police academy. You also have to have OJT with a licensed cosmetologist, 1500 hours in my state. After that you have to pass two independently administered exams. Then you have to complete continuing education every year to keep the license.

Police academies do not require or even allow independent evaluations and no continuing education is required to maintain the position. 26 weeks is longer than most states require for police training. Here it's 11 weeks. If you've got a friend or relative on the force somewhere, you're basically guaranteed to pass and get hired unless you're a felon. Most forces don't have field training as extensive as 17 weeks and none is required by law.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/14/18 10:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan-

Reasons have been mentioned before.

--The Rep-led Crosscheck program, which targeted non-white voter rolls to eliminate voters who generally lean non-republican.


--Suspicious vote results in Detroit:

"According to Michigan election officials, the 70,000 ballots were counted in down-ballot voting, but it could not be determined whom those 70,000 voters had selected for president. So the votes were tossed out. Had Clinton received those 70,000 votes, she would have won the state of Michigan hands down.

When the recount was ordered shut-down, those (probably largely black) votes were, metaphorically speaking, flushed down the toilet and there is no longer a legal means to have them reviewed by human eyes and counted by hand. Without recounts in other states, we have no way of knowing if other large urban areas, where black people tend to reside, had a big pool of votes discarded because the voting machine allegedly could not determine who the voter intended to select. "

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/311099-skeptical-70000-black-voters-abstained-from


--Russian influence: See yesterday's indictments Wink



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11103
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/18/18 12:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Glenn, given your (apparent) background and (admittedly) far more vast knowledge on the dealings of The Court, I'd be most interested in hearing your perspectives, subjective and objective, on why the Court should/should not overturn Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, Citizens United, or any other *hot button* topic.


....and cue the *crickets*. Confused



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin