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 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4950



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 1:17 pm    ::: Justice Kennedy to Retire Reply Reply with quote

July 31.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/27/justice-kennedy-retiring-opening-supreme-court-seat/952716001/



_________________
neverthless she persisted
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 1:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hope he enjoys his retirement. Great news all around! Even more so if RBG decides to follow suit.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Gorsuch Was More 'Liberal' Than Kennedy This Term

http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho

Quote:
Justice Kennedy did not join the Court's liberal bloc in a single 5–4 decision in the entire 2017–2018 term



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 2:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And the country is even more fucked for years to come.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14425
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 3:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Looking at recent cases (marriage equality, affirmative action, abortion restrictions) in which Kennedy has been the 5th vote clearly show that his retirement does matter. Even if it didn't, Gorsuch is 31 years younger than Kennedy. That matters a lot.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10757
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: 06/27/18 4:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Indeed, the Apes will tighten their grip on the Planet.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 9:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I dunno....I still say that the departure of the Fat Fuck, Scalia, was the best thing that could have happened in my lifetime. Now, though? Who knowz?

The few moderate senate Republicans (Flake, Collins, etc.) can make their marks in history by aligning with Righteousness, if/when it comes to that. McCain did it on the Health Care Reform....maybe some others will finally grow spines and handle this like Real American Leaders.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 10:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
And the country is even more fucked for years to come.


If we have the opportunity, we need to not be above seating more judges. There isn’t a rule that states SCOTUS has nine. We need to start beating Republicans at their own bullshit or our country will end up going way backwards.

Collins said she won’t back any justice that won’t support Roe V Wade, I’d guess Murkowski is the same..but who knows if they can stay strong (again).



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
There isn’t a rule that states SCOTUS has nine.


Actually, there is. The Judiciary Act of 1869 stipulates that the Supreme Court be made up of the chief justice and eight associate justices.

FDR had a better than 75% majority in both the house and the senate when he tried packing the court in 1937 and couldn't get it done. There is zero chance such a bill could get through congress now.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 11:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
mercfan3 wrote:
There isn’t a rule that states SCOTUS has nine.


Actually, there is. The Judiciary Act of 1869 stipulates that the Supreme Court be made up of the chief justice and eight associate justices.

FDR had a better than 75% majority in both the house and the senate when he tried packing the court in 1937 and couldn't get it done. There is zero chance such a bill could get through congress now.


Should have been more specific. The number has been left up to congress.

I’m not sure the political climate during FDR’s years are applicable to the political climate today.

Although I am surprised Republicans haven’t already tried it.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14425
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/27/18 11:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
And the country is even more fucked for years to come.


If we have the opportunity, we need to not be above seating more judges. There isn’t a rule that states SCOTUS has nine. We need to start beating Republicans at their own bullshit or our country will end up going way backwards.

Collins said she won’t back any justice that won’t support Roe V Wade, I’d guess Murkowski is the same..but who knows if they can stay strong (again).


I won't hold my breath. Both Collins and Murkowski have repeatedly voted for judges who vow to overturn Roe v Wade.

Further, why would either believe anything that any nominee says. The nominee will say what he needs to (obviously a he) and then do whatever. Remember, Gorsuch refused to answer virtually any question during confirmation hearings.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 8:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
And the country is even more fucked for years to come.


The Court isn’t self-starting institution that decides whatever it wants. The real problem is that the federal government has claimed too much power (including criminal code) making too many things into literally federal cases.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Assessing Justice Kennedy's Legacy

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/27/assessing-justice-kennedys-legacy

Quote:
Against these major positives, Kennedy also gave us three massive clunkers, where he cast key votes in favor of terrible results: Kelo v. City of New London, Gonzales v. Raich, and - most recently - the travel ban case.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
I still say that the departure of the Fat Fuck, Scalia, was the best thing that could have happened in my lifetime

Rolling Eyes Someone whom you have never met died and that's the greatest thing to ever happen in your life?




Last edited by Stonington_QB on 06/28/18 9:22 am; edited 2 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 9:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


It wasn't a Mexican judge, it was an American judge.

There was massive indignation at the idea that a judge would be biased based on his race or heritage, in the absence of any evidence of such bias relating to the specific judge in question.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Howee wrote:
I still say that the departure of the Fat Fuck, Scalia, was the best thing that could have happened in my lifetime

Rolling Eyes Someone whom you have never met died and that's the greatest thing to ever happen in your life?

You always jump to (wrong) conclusions, donchya? How do you know I never met him? And I didn't say "ever". It was The Court's Finest Moment in my lifetime thus far.
VERY "First Class". Rolling Eyes



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



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/28/18 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Another perspective:

Good Riddance, Justice Kennedy

Quote:
Again and again, Kennedy made rulings that aggrandized the power of the Court and of himself as its swing justice. No justice, right or left, was more willing to substitute his judgment for that of elected officials and voters. No justice was less willing to tie himself down to clear rules or a legal philosophy that would constrain him in future cases, let alone rules or a philosophy that bore a plausible relation to the Constitution. We moved toward a system of government no Founder intended, in which his whim determined policy on a vast range of issues.


The left wing, which is no longer remotely liberal, will present no reasoned analysis of any of Trump's nominees, but will reflexively raise the same decades-old scare tactic against any and all of them: they will ban abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion, abortion. And likely remove all legal protections from racial minorities, women and LGBTQ's. When, in fact, all 25 judges on Trump's list, collectively, have probably participated in only a tiny handful of peripheral cases in those areas. 99% of what all judges work on are boring nuts and bolts legal issues, not big social or cultural controversies.

I do not understand the factual predicate upon which someone above would say, "Both Collins and Murkowski have repeatedly voted for judges who vow to overturn Roe v Wade." I'm not aware of any Supreme Court nominee (or nominee for any other federal court) who has ever said they would vote to overturn Roe (or any other case) -- not even Robert Bork, who, while critical of the extra-constitutional rationale of Roe, like many scholars, never said he would buck precedent.

Roe has now reached 45 years of precedential status, and I don't see any court overturning it at this point. I can only think of four sitting Justices who have voted against Roe or have expressed in judicial opinions a preference to overrule it: Byron White (retired 1993), William Rhenquist (died 2005), Antonin Scalia (died 2016), and Clarence Thomas (still on the Court). I believe the most that would happen with another textualist-originalist Justice on the Court will be some tinkering with regulatory laws that have plagued Roe since it was decided, simply because it's the most ambiguous, controversial, divisive and murderous decision ever issued by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell (same sex marriage) will never be overruled because it's not ambiguous, will not be plagued by all sorts of continuous regulations and restrictions, and will not kill over a million babies every year.

While Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Hardiman seem like the early front runners from Trump's 25 -- although I personally am intrigued by Thomas Lee (the brother of Senator Mike Lee, who is also on the list) -- Trump may go with a woman for political reasons, perhaps including influence on Senators Collins and Murkowski. In that case, the front runners may be Amy Coney Barrett, Allison Eid and Joan Larsen.

Larsen won me over with this humorous and poignant tribute to Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4583403/michigan-supreme-court-justice-joan-larsen-honoring-justice-antonin-scalia
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/18 1:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump said yesterday that he's narrowed his short list to five candidates including two women.

From conservative and even left wing commentators, I sense a movement in favor of Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old mother of seven and avowed Roman Catholic, who has been a judge on a federal Circuit Court for a year after a career primarly as a Notre Dame law professor. She, like Joan Larsen, is a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.

This conservative commentator begins his article with another critical swipe at Justice Kennedy:

Quote:
The mental relief that one will never again have to read an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy is enough to satisfy for weeks. Just be glad for this, I’m telling myself. We never have to hear this man explain that his job is to “impose order on a disordered reality.” In an America of 300 million people, the likelihood of finding a new justice with Kennedy’s self-regard is near zero. After all, Donald Trump is unlikely to appoint himself.


The author then makes the case that Barrett will be a great candidate, not only because of her credentials and gender, but because the Democrat senators will nationally embarrass themselves when they cannot control their irresistible impulses to attack Barrett's Christian religion, especially given that she's a fecund and apparently conservative woman.

This religious attack is exactly what Senators Feinstein, Durbin and Franken did during her Circuit Court confirmation hearings -- see YouTube -- eliciting strong censures from the presidents of Notre Dame, Catholic University and Princeton, among many others. The Constitution (Art. VI, Cl. 3) specifically commands that there shall be "no religious test" for any federal office. Nevertheless, in their uncontrollable obsession to paint Barrett as anti-abortion, the Dems, says the author, will yet again attack her purported religious beliefs because they have no real bullets in their guns.

Evangelical groups also seem to be rooting for Barrett, also because they perceive her to have pro-life beliefs. See, e.g., HERE.

However, as I cautioned about the solid precedential strength of Roe in my previous post above, Barrett HERSELF has said that she does not believe the Supreme Court will change the core abortion rights of Roe and Casey, but at most will become more amenable to some restrictions. You can watch her saying this in a 2016 interview at 37:30 – 39:05 of this YouTube video (a researched-by-me detail you are unlikely to see in the superficial media):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7yjTEdZ81lI" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

On the left wing hand, uber-liberal Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, the aging dean of the constitutional law professoriat in the USA, also believes Barrett will be the choice, tweeting:

Quote:
I’ll be surprised if Amy Coney Barrett isn’t Trump’s nominee. The youngest on the short list (46), she was confirmed to CA7 last year 55-43, with Dems Manchin, Donnelly and Kaine all voting to confirm her. And her opposition to abortion seems more personal than jurisprudential.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/18 2:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The Constitution (Art. VI, Cl. 3) specifically commands that there shall be "no religious test" for any federal office


Given that, one might expect there to have been more variety of religious beliefs among justices



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10757
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: 07/02/18 8:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Kennedy's son lent Trump billions via Deutsche Bank, thus Kennedy would have had to recuse himself from any cases, which will surely come, involving Traitor Trump.

The reason for his retirement now crystal clear.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-kennedy-son-loaned-president-trump-over-a-billion-dollars-2018-6



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Kennedy's son lent Trump billions via Deutsche Bank, thus Kennedy would have had to recuse himself from any cases, which will surely come, involving Traitor Trump.

The reason for his retirement now crystal clear.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-kennedy-son-loaned-president-trump-over-a-billion-dollars-2018-6


Quote:
The Times article describes an unusually close relationship between Anthony Kennedy and Trump and a "quiet campaign" from the White House to encourage Kennedy to retire. Trump has praised Kennedy and his work, though it has included decisions on hot-button issues such as abortion, marriage equality, and the death penalty that many conservatives disagreed with.


Shocking.



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



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 5:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


It wasn't a Mexican judge, it was an American judge.

There was massive indignation at the idea that a judge would be biased based on his race or heritage, in the absence of any evidence of such bias relating to the specific judge in question.


OK, Mexican-American judge. There were polls showing that 85% of Hispanics had an unfavorable opinion of Trump. And the judge was a Mexican-American Hispanic who belonged to a Latino law group that gave a college scholarship to an illegal alien. The odds he had an unfavorable opinion of him were likely higher than 85%.

How could there be evidence in this regard? When is the last time he tried a case in which the defendent was viewed unfavorably by 85% of Hispanics?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 5:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


It wasn't a Mexican judge, it was an American judge.

There was massive indignation at the idea that a judge would be biased based on his race or heritage, in the absence of any evidence of such bias relating to the specific judge in question.


OK, Mexican-American judge. There were polls showing that 85% of Hispanics had an unfavorable opinion of Trump. And the judge was a Mexican-American Hispanic who belonged to a Latino law group that gave a college scholarship to an illegal alien. The odds he had an unfavorable opinion of him were likely higher than 85%.

How could there be evidence in this regard? When is the last time he tried a case in which the defendent was viewed unfavorably by 85% of Hispanics?


So you're saying Mexican-Americans are incapable of being unbiased judges.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10757
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: 07/02/18 6:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
Kennedy's son lent Trump billions via Deutsche Bank, thus Kennedy would have had to recuse himself from any cases, which will surely come, involving Traitor Trump.

The reason for his retirement now crystal clear.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-kennedy-son-loaned-president-trump-over-a-billion-dollars-2018-6


Quote:
The Times article describes an unusually close relationship between Anthony Kennedy and Trump and a "quiet campaign" from the White House to encourage Kennedy to retire. Trump has praised Kennedy and his work, though it has included decisions on hot-button issues such as abortion, marriage equality, and the death penalty that many conservatives disagreed with.


Shocking.


This fucker is soooo dirty....i'm shocked people turn a blind eye to it, even for whatever single-issue Trump gives them a boner on.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 8:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump interviewed four candidates today. He's certainly on track to make his announcement next Monday, the ninth. He wants to project unflinchingly prepared decisiveness.

The ionosphere is aflutter mainly about Amy Barrett. Several commentators are recommending her. There is one each for Brett Kavanaugh and Senator Mike Lee. I won't bother linking the articles.

Senator Schumer has volleyed forth a tweet storm specifically against Barrett and no one else. He claims she will overrule Roe, declare Obamacare unconstitutional, and that she opposes the doctrine of stare decisis. Ignoring for the moment the politicized nonsense in these claims, the tweets indicate to me that Barrett is the candidate he fears will draw the most support.

Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Trump interviewed four candidates today. He's certainly on track to make his announcement next Monday, the ninth. He wants to project unflinchingly prepared decisiveness.

The ionosphere is aflutter mainly about Amy Barrett. Several commentators are recommending her. There is one each for Brett Kavanaugh and Senator Mike Lee. I won't bother linking the articles.

Senator Schumer has volleyed forth a tweet storm specifically against Barrett and no one else. He claims she will overrule Roe, declare Obamacare unconstitutional, and that she opposes the doctrine of stare decisis. Ignoring for the moment the politicized nonsense in these claims, the tweets indicate to me that Barrett is the candidate he fears will draw the most support.



Oh, my. From that pic, I'd surmise Trump MUST pick her....she's a *babe*.



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



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 9:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Trump interviewed four candidates today. He's certainly on track to make his announcement next Monday, the ninth. He wants to project unflinchingly prepared decisiveness.

The ionosphere is aflutter mainly about Amy Barrett. Several commentators are recommending her. There is one each for Brett Kavanaugh and Senator Mike Lee. I won't bother linking the articles.

Senator Schumer has volleyed forth a tweet storm specifically against Barrett and no one else. He claims she will overrule Roe, declare Obamacare unconstitutional, and that she opposes the doctrine of stare decisis. Ignoring for the moment the politicized nonsense in these claims, the tweets indicate to me that Barrett is the candidate he fears will draw the most support.



Oh, my. From that pic, I'd surmise Trump MUST pick her....she's a *babe*.


Yeah, if he doesn't offer her a seat on the Supreme Court, he might offer her a seat on his lap.

But never fear, she's married and a good Catholic girl.

The Donald might have better luck with this unmarried threesome, who are all much more liberal than Amy.

pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 9:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Roe has now reached 45 years of precedential status, and I don't see any court overturning it at this point


The court just overturned a 40+ year old precedent in Janus v. AFSME.

It's very easy to think Trump is interested in Roe v Wade being overturned. He campaigned on leaving abortion up to the states. He chose a running mate who promised abortion in the US will end in our time.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 9:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Yeah, if he doesn't offer her a seat on the Supreme Court, he might offer her a seat on his lap.

But never fear, she's married and a good Catholic girl.


That's never stopped him before



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


I would love to know Donald might be locked up in a room with these three women. For a whole weekend. Or more. Like the 9-5 scenario Lily, Jane and Dolly pulled. But, my overactive fantasy life is growing darker. I must cease and desist.



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



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 10:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Roe has now reached 45 years of precedential status, and I don't see any court overturning it at this point


The court just overturned a 40+ year old precedent in Janus v. AFSME.

It's very easy to think Trump is interested in Roe v Wade being overturned. He campaigned on leaving abortion up to the states. He chose a running mate who promised abortion in the US will end in our time.


Yes, and the case that was overruled by Janus, in a 5-4 decision that included Kennedy, had been decided 9-0. Janus was quite unusual in that respect. Horizontal stare decisis is a customary practice but not an ironclad rule. Plessy was overruled by Brown after almost 60 years as a precedent.

There's no doubt that a very large percentage of the country would like Roe to be overruled, likely including Trump. Roe has caused more division in this country than any case since Dred Scott -- and for a much longer time -- and it is the singular reason why Supreme Court nominations have been so bitterly partisan and hostile for 40 years.

However, no one can really know whether a "conservative" justice would vote to overrule Roe at this point, even if that justice personally opposes abortion for religious or moral reasons. That's because justices take very seriously the reliance interests that society builds up around Supreme Court rulings, increasingly over time. That's why I (and apparently Barrett, from her interviews as a professor) don't believe Roe will be overruled, even though I am one who thinks it was completely wrong when originally decided. A lot of constitutional conservatives who follow the Supreme Court feel that way, as do a lot of Roman Catholics.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/02/18 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
There's no doubt that a very large percentage of the country would like Roe to be overruled, likely including Trump.

Trump? ONLY cuz it's the juiciest of Red Meat loins he can dangle to his base. I genuinely believe that man's probably created CAUSE for/paid for more abortions than you could imagine.

GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of constitutional conservatives who follow the Supreme Court feel that way, as do a lot of Roman Catholics.


"Constitutional Conservatives". Is that 'code' for Good Christians? Cuz we Real Americans are sick and tired of "Religion" infringing upon our lives. You don't believe in abortions? Don't. Get. One. It's NOT a religious matter.

I sincerely hope these Good Christian/Constitutional Conservatives live long enough to have a Muslim Majority ruling our land, so they could feel the joy of having circumcision, hijabs, et. al., imposed on them, to reflect the religious values of The Majority. But then....THAT wouldn't be "Constitutional", would it....? Laughing



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



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10757
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: 07/03/18 8:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
There's no doubt that a very large percentage of the country would like Roe to be overruled, likely including Trump.

Trump? ONLY cuz it's the juiciest of Red Meat loins he can dangle to his base. I genuinely believe that man's probably created CAUSE for/paid for more abortions than you could imagine.

GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of constitutional conservatives who follow the Supreme Court feel that way, as do a lot of Roman Catholics.


"Constitutional Conservatives". Is that 'code' for Good Christians? Cuz we Real Americans are sick and tired of "Religion" infringing upon our lives. You don't believe in abortions? Don't. Get. One. It's NOT a religious matter.

I sincerely hope these Good Christian/Constitutional Conservatives live long enough to have a Muslim Majority ruling our land, so they could feel the joy of having circumcision, hijabs, et. al., imposed on them, to reflect the religious values of The Majority. But then....THAT wouldn't be "Constitutional", would it....? Laughing



Yes, as Vic Morrow went from Nazi soldier to Jew prisoner in the Twilight Zone movie. (IIRC)

That, I think, is the crux of the current support for TrumpFascism- fear of the non-white, non-"Christian".

Snowflakes all.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


It wasn't a Mexican judge, it was an American judge.

There was massive indignation at the idea that a judge would be biased based on his race or heritage, in the absence of any evidence of such bias relating to the specific judge in question.


OK, Mexican-American judge. There were polls showing that 85% of Hispanics had an unfavorable opinion of Trump. And the judge was a Mexican-American Hispanic who belonged to a Latino law group that gave a college scholarship to an illegal alien. The odds he had an unfavorable opinion of him were likely higher than 85%.

How could there be evidence in this regard? When is the last time he tried a case in which the defendent was viewed unfavorably by 85% of Hispanics?


So you're saying Mexican-Americans are incapable of being unbiased judges.


This was the notion that commentators indignantly stated on CNN night after night - how dare Trump suggest that the judge couldn’t put aside his personal bias. And yet, when we have a Supreme Court opening both sides will talk about how one or the other has a chance to nominate a judge who will make decisions for 40 years that are influenced by their personal bias.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 11:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
When Trump said he couldn't get a fair trial from a Mexican judge, there was massive indignation from both sides at the idea that a judge would be biased and not just follow the law.


It wasn't a Mexican judge, it was an American judge.

There was massive indignation at the idea that a judge would be biased based on his race or heritage, in the absence of any evidence of such bias relating to the specific judge in question.


OK, Mexican-American judge. There were polls showing that 85% of Hispanics had an unfavorable opinion of Trump. And the judge was a Mexican-American Hispanic who belonged to a Latino law group that gave a college scholarship to an illegal alien. The odds he had an unfavorable opinion of him were likely higher than 85%.

How could there be evidence in this regard? When is the last time he tried a case in which the defendent was viewed unfavorably by 85% of Hispanics?


So you're saying Mexican-Americans are incapable of being unbiased judges.


This was the notion that commentators indignantly stated on CNN night after night - how dare Trump suggest that the judge couldn’t put aside his personal bias. And yet, when we have a Supreme Court opening both sides will talk about how one or the other has a chance to nominate a judge who will make decisions for 40 years that are influenced by their personal bias.


Even if he was biased and couldn't set it aside, would that be any less fair than having a judge who viewed Trump's politics favorably? Or is this bias only unacceptable because he has Mexican ancestry?



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 11:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
There's no doubt that a very large percentage of the country would like Roe to be overruled, likely including Trump.

Trump? ONLY cuz it's the juiciest of Red Meat loins he can dangle to his base. I genuinely believe that man's probably created CAUSE for/paid for more abortions than you could imagine.


Yeah, I think Trump had no opposition to abortion until he ran for president in the party where you can get traction from that position.

Quote:

GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of constitutional conservatives who follow the Supreme Court feel that way, as do a lot of Roman Catholics.


"Constitutional Conservatives". Is that 'code' for Good Christians? Cuz we Real Americans are sick and tired of "Religion" infringing upon our lives. You don't believe in abortions? Don't. Get. One. It's NOT a religious matter.


Don’t they just consider it murder? I would bet it is not mentioned in the Bible.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/18 1:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:


This was the notion that commentators indignantly stated on CNN night after night - how dare Trump suggest that the judge couldn’t put aside his personal bias. And yet, when we have a Supreme Court opening both sides will talk about how one or the other has a chance to nominate a judge who will make decisions for 40 years that are influenced by their personal bias.

You are conflating two completely different issues here.

1) The issue of "bias" as in personal feelings on an issue. A judge is expected to be able to put these aside and weigh a case simply upon it's merits. Judges are not robots. They will like and/or dislike individuals and lawyers involved in cases in front of them all the time. There is nothing wrong with this. What they are expected to do is not allow these feelings to cloud their judgement, and if they feel so strongly on an issue that they cannot, then they are expected to recuse themselves.

What pissed people off about the Trump thing was not that he felt the judge might not like him, but that simply because he was of Mexican heritage he would not be able to do his job (ie: he would not be a professional and put his personal feelings aside like all judges do every single day). This is a serious accusation against a judge, and to make it without any evidence of actual ethical lapses, only the man's ethnicity, was beyond the pale.

2) The issue of "bias" as to how the constitution should be interpreted. This is a bias/belief that is not actually expected to be set aside. There are multiple philosophical camps as to what criteria should be used when interpreting the constitution. There is the more conservative "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation who believe that the constitution was set in stone the day it was ratified. They feel that unless it was specifically outlined in the text, with how that text would have been understood by the average person at that time of ratification, it is not a constitutional issue. They feel that it is not the court's job to reinterpret the constitution for cultural and philosophical changes, as that is what the amendment process is for.

On the other hand there is the more liberal "living document" camp that feels that it is the court's responsibility to take into considerations our philosophical, scientific, and technological advances to make sure the rights remain relevant to today's world. They feel that the amendment process is for extreme changes of the over arching rights, not for the simply the advancement of time, as change is constant and continually amending the constitution to reflect these changes would be overly-burdensome and not at all realistic.

Depending on how the constitution is read, and what a judge feels the role of the court is, significantly different decisions can be reached. It is this interpretation that presidents and Congress are obsessed with. This has nothing at all to do with what Trump was accusing the Mexican-American judge with.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/04/18 12:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

Even if he was biased and couldn't set it aside, would that be any less fair than having a judge who viewed Trump's politics favorably? Or is this bias only unacceptable because he has Mexican ancestry?


It's a good point that bias can go either way. It is up to the prosecution and defense to weed out jurors in a case, and I see it as reasonable for them to weed out judges as well. Trump should have been able to reject this judge the same way that his attorney could have rejected a juror (if this was a jury trial) who was president of La Raza. But people went nuts with the idea that judges could be removed for bias. The only things they tolerate are a judge recusing themselves for a limited amount of things, like blood or marriage relation to a defendant or litigant.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/04/18 1:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
tfan wrote:


This was the notion that commentators indignantly stated on CNN night after night - how dare Trump suggest that the judge couldn’t put aside his personal bias. And yet, when we have a Supreme Court opening both sides will talk about how one or the other has a chance to nominate a judge who will make decisions for 40 years that are influenced by their personal bias.

You are conflating two completely different issues here.

1) The issue of "bias" as in personal feelings on an issue. A judge is expected to be able to put these aside and weigh a case simply upon it's merits. Judges are not robots. They will like and/or dislike individuals and lawyers involved in cases in front of them all the time. There is nothing wrong with this. What they are expected to do is not allow these feelings to cloud their judgement, and if they feel so strongly on an issue that they cannot, then they are expected to recuse themselves.


You see court decisions get reversed on appeal, then go up another level and get reversed again, then go to the supreme court and get reversed one more time (not sure how many levels it takes to get to the Supreme Court) and the Supreme Court decision could be 5-4. What is going on there if not the bias of the judges involved at each level?

Quote:

What pissed people off about the Trump thing was not that he felt the judge might not like him, but that simply because he was of Mexican heritage he would not be able to do his job (ie: he would not be a professional and put his personal feelings aside like all judges do every single day). This is a serious accusation against a judge, and to make it without any evidence of actual ethical lapses, only the man's ethnicity, was beyond the pale.


As I pointed out, polls had 85% of Hispanic Americans (which includes non-Mexican heritage which should have a lower percentage making the Mexican heritage higher than 85%) as having a negative opinion of Trump. It wasn't "solely because of his ethnicity" it was "solely because of his ethnicity which has been scientifically shown to be biased against Trump"'. I credit Trump for not going with the convenient claim by the judicial branch that judges put aside their bias. Convenient since it allows them to have fewer judges than if defendants/litigants/prosecutors were able to reject them.

Quote:

2) The issue of "bias" as to how the constitution should be interpreted. This is a bias/belief that is not actually expected to be set aside. There are multiple philosophical camps as to what criteria should be used when interpreting the constitution. There is the more conservative "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation who believe that the constitution was set in stone the day it was ratified. They feel that unless it was specifically outlined in the text, with how that text would have been understood by the average person at that time of ratification, it is not a constitutional issue. They feel that it is not the court's job to reinterpret the constitution for cultural and philosophical changes, as that is what the amendment process is for.

On the other hand there is the more liberal "living document" camp that feels that it is the court's responsibility to take into considerations our philosophical, scientific, and technological advances to make sure the rights remain relevant to today's world. They feel that the amendment process is for extreme changes of the over arching rights, not for the simply the advancement of time, as change is constant and continually amending the constitution to reflect these changes would be overly-burdensome and not at all realistic.

Depending on how the constitution is read, and what a judge feels the role of the court is, significantly different decisions can be reached. It is this interpretation that presidents and Congress are obsessed with. This has nothing at all to do with what Trump was accusing the Mexican-American judge with.


"reinterpret the constitution for cultural and philosophical changes" sounds to me as "if it's not in the constitution just use your judgement (which will reflect your bias)". And for the other side, anyone who claims they are making all their decisions on modern cases based only on what they read in the 7,600 word constitution is being untruthful.

Also, the Supreme Court judges's decision have been shown to correlate along party lines - that is, the judges appointed by Democrats tend to agree with each other, and same for the Republicans.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7071
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/04/18 3:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't know how many times people have to tell you the same thing, but you keep going back to the same argument that actually has nothing to do with the issue.

So demographic trends suggest Hispanic people tend to dislike Trump. No one is debating this, so you going back to the well and harping on it like it means something is pointless.

The issue is:

1) If 85% of people dislike Trump, that still means that 15% don't. At no time did Trump show any evidence that this judge was one of the 85%. 15% of a population is millions upon millions of people. It cannot simply be assumed that this fellow believed any one way. Sure, we could use the numbers to make a probability statement, but probability statements are not good enough to demand someone be removed (a major doing).

But, even more importantly, and the key to why people are pissed and why the issue behind point 1 doesn't matter:

2) There is zero evidence that even if he absolutely hated Trump that he would not be professional and do his damn job the same way judges always do them when they dislike the person appearing before them. The issue is people are saying that because he is of a certain heritage he would be unable to do the basic function that his job requires. To demand his removal there needed to be evidence that he not only disliked Trump, but that dislike would translate into his actions on the bench.

You suggest that bias is the basis for rulings being overturned, but that is extremely off base. First of all, you need to put overturned rulings in perspective: very, very few rulings are actually ever overturned. Judges make rulings every day and it is a rarity that one of those rulings is actually overturned. Secondly, when a ruling is overturned it almost always has to do with a complicated constitutional issue. Almost never is bias believed to have been involved. What it is is that constitutional law is a complex and difficult subject, and trial judges don't have the time or resources during a trial to consider all the angles of every constitutional question that is raised. That means very occasionally something can be missed or some angle not considered. That is what the appeals court is for.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/04/18 8:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If it's a serious question as to what a "constitutional conservative" is, I'll try to give a meaning. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs but solely with legal beliefs.

On the one hand, it's a way to be more specific than the general and somewhat ambiguous political term "conservative". A conservative can be someone who adheres to all or just some of the following conservative viewpoints: social conservatism, sexual conservatism, fiscal conservatism, economic conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, military conservatism, environmental conservatism, and/or constitutional conservatism.

On the more specific hand, constitutional conservatism refers to how a citizen or judge sees the power relationships under the Constitution as among: (a) individual citizens vs. the government, (b) the three branches of the federal government vs. each other, and (c) the federal government vs. the states. In particular, a constitutional conservative would be in favor of the Constitution being interpreted as follows:

-- The words of the Constitution should be construed in accordance with the reasonable public textual meaning of those words as of the original time when they were democratically ratified by the people of the United States, and in accordance with long-established democratic traditions of the people of the United States. (This is called "textualism" and "originalism".)

-- Judges, with humility and restraint, should simply interpret the words as democratically enacted by the people, and not impose their own subjective views, values or philosophies as to whether those words result in wise or foolish results or good or bad policies.

-- Judges should defer to the Executive and Congressional branches of the federal government, and the the legislatures of the state governments, as the policy-making arms of goverment. The role of the judicial system is not to make social, political or cultural policy.

-- Judges should recognize that Constitutional legal power is limited in its delegation to the federal government, and that state governments hold the balance of all legal powers.

-- Judges should strictly enforce personal rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution -- such as freedom of religion and expression, and various rights in criminal trials.

-- Judges should not find or otherwise invent rights in the Constitution that are not clearly supported by the textual words or are otherwise clear from long-established democratic traditions in existence at the time the Constitutional words were ratified -- such as rights to abortion, same sex marriage, homosexual sodomy, freedom from the death penalty, rights to suicide or assisted suicide, or a right to die. These all may be wise or desirable policies, but a constitutional conservative wants them to be established by democratic vote of the people via their legislative representatives, not by the judicial fiat of five out of nine lawyers in a building in Washington, D.C.

As a very gross generalization, a "constitutional liberal" will interpret any slight (or made up) ambiguity in the words of the Constitution so as to comport with that judge's personal and subjective values and policy preferences. Such personal and subjective values and policy preferences will, of course, be different from judge to judge at any given time, will change with different judges over time, and can even change within the same judge over time.

Excessive constitutional liberalism will inevitably result -- to a constitutional conservative -- in an unpredictably evolving Constitution that will eventually cease to have any fixed or enduring meaning to restrain governments, and especially judges, from essentially becoming tyrannical.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11188
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/05/18 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thank you for this explanation. It helps.

But some of these points raise more questions:
GlennMacGrady wrote:

1-- Judges, with humility and restraint, should simply interpret the words as democratically enacted by the people, and not impose their own subjective views, values or philosophies as to whether those words result in wise or foolish results or good or bad policies.

2-- Judges should not find or otherwise invent rights in the Constitution that are not clearly supported by the textual words or are otherwise clear from long-established democratic traditions in existence at the time the Constitutional words were ratified -- such as rights to abortion, same sex marriage, homosexual sodomy (not heterosexual sodomy?) , freedom from the death penalty, rights to suicide or assisted suicide, or a right to die. These all may be wise or desirable policies, but a constitutional conservative wants them to be established by democratic vote of the people via their legislative representatives, not by the judicial fiat of five out of nine lawyers in a building in Washington, D.C.

3. Excessive constitutional liberalism will inevitably result -- to a constitutional conservative -- in an unpredictably evolving Constitution that will eventually cease to have any fixed or enduring meaning to restrain governments, and especially judges, from essentially becoming tyrannical.

1. While this first point I reference is a noble one, I cannot see how decisions in the case of "Citizens United", for example, met this standard. Or the 2000 election. The utter impartiality this standard implies seems virtually impossible.

2. Yet, again....those 5 judges CAN and DO make the ultimate decisions.

3. Certainly, the Constitution MUST "evolve"; the authors knew of no such things as abortions, gay marriages, or corporate campaign finance. And if "Conservatives" had their way in overturning Roe v. Wade....is it not "tyrannical" for those judges to impose their interpretation on millions of females?



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



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/05/18 4:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:

Even if he was biased and couldn't set it aside, would that be any less fair than having a judge who viewed Trump's politics favorably? Or is this bias only unacceptable because he has Mexican ancestry?


It's a good point that bias can go either way. It is up to the prosecution and defense to weed out jurors in a case, and I see it as reasonable for them to weed out judges as well. Trump should have been able to reject this judge the same way that his attorney could have rejected a juror (if this was a jury trial) who was president of La Raza. But people went nuts with the idea that judges could be removed for bias. The only things they tolerate are a judge recusing themselves for a limited amount of things, like blood or marriage relation to a defendant or litigant.


Judges are professionals. They're supposed to be able to set aside their personal politics and rule based on what the law says. Professionals in all kinds of businesses set aside their personal feelings every day. Jurors are people pulled off the street. They can't be expected to meet the same standards.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 12:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
I don't know how many times people have to tell you the same thing, but you keep going back to the same argument that actually has nothing to do with the issue.


I am not sure what the issue is you are referring to - is it 40 years of biased judging on the Supreme Court, or a Mexican heritage judge having or not having bias when judging Trump? The latter issue was almost universally judged as "will have no bias" but I can't get on board with "he is expected to AND WILL put aside his bias" as what will happen - no matter how many times it is presented as gospel. An opinion of the multitude of CNN commentators and others, is just that, an opinion. The police are also not expected to have bias and go through a very thorough screening process prior to becoming police. But I don't hear "he couldn't have been biased against the criminal because he is a professional paid not to be biased" being said when they get accused of bias.

Quote:

So demographic trends suggest Hispanic people tend to dislike Trump. No one is debating this, so you going back to the well and harping on it like it means something is pointless.


It is not more pointless than you claiming it doesn't mean something. It is an opinion on either side.

Quote:
The issue is:

1) If 85% of people dislike Trump, that still means that 15% don't. At no time did Trump show any evidence that this judge was one of the 85%. 15% of a population is millions upon millions of people. It cannot simply be assumed that this fellow believed any one way. Sure, we could use the numbers to make a probability statement, but probability statements are not good enough to demand someone be removed (a major doing).



I disagree, prosecutors and defense attorneys should have the opportunity to remove at least one judge, and probability is a great reason to remove them. Neither the judge or the prosecution proved that he was unbiased. The system allows selection/rejection of jurors and it should allow at least one rejection by both sides with regard to judges.

Quote:

But, even more importantly, and the key to why people are pissed and why the issue behind point 1 doesn't matter:

2) There is zero evidence that even if he absolutely hated Trump that he would not be professional and do his damn job the same way judges always do them when they dislike the person appearing before them. The issue is people are saying that because he is of a certain heritage he would be unable to do the basic function that his job requires. To demand his removal there needed to be evidence that he not only disliked Trump, but that dislike would translate into his actions on the bench.



He is of a "certain heritage" that almost unanimously doesn't like Trump. How would a study, should one be or have been carried out, quantify a particular judge's dislike or like for a particular defendant? How would it decide what the punishment judgement should have been to see if the judge's judgement/sentence reflected their quantified bias? Judges can't make too many gross violations of justice as their are subject to recall (at least in some jurisdictions), but within a certain range of judgements and sentences they can let their bias run free. We see from decisions being over-turned - and the judge who got over-turned not being admonished - that there is a lot of leeway.

Quote:
You suggest that bias is the basis for rulings being overturned, but that is extremely off base. First of all, you need to put overturned rulings in perspective: very, very few rulings are actually ever overturned. Judges make rulings every day and it is a rarity that one of those rulings is actually overturned. Secondly, when a ruling is overturned it almost always has to do with a complicated constitutional issue. Almost never is bias believed to have been involved. What it is is that constitutional law is a complex and difficult subject, and trial judges don't have the time or resources during a trial to consider all the angles of every constitutional question that is raised. That means very occasionally something can be missed or some angle not considered. That is what the appeals court is for.


I raised two issues that reflect bias, one being overrulings of cases. But these are not just reversals of an initial trial, the appeals court can reverse and then get reversed again at a higher level. Presumably both of the higher levels that disagreed had the time and the resources to study the issue and yet they still disagree. The other issue showing bias is how panels of judges will disagree. The Supreme Court can disagree 5-4 and other variations, but lower level panels will disagree 2-1. It is notable that the Supreme Court's two most common decisions are 9-0, followed by 5-4. The Slate article I linked says:

Quote:
Why? Many of the court’s cases don’t divide along ideological lines. The justices probably don’t bother to express their disagreements in cases when less is at stake ideologically. They don’t care, or they think that the (false) appearance of agreement enhances the court’s image. When a case does raises ideologically charged questions, the justices split along the predictable lines.




Last edited by tfan on 07/06/18 3:10 am; edited 6 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



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

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:

Even if he was biased and couldn't set it aside, would that be any less fair than having a judge who viewed Trump's politics favorably? Or is this bias only unacceptable because he has Mexican ancestry?


It's a good point that bias can go either way. It is up to the prosecution and defense to weed out jurors in a case, and I see it as reasonable for them to weed out judges as well. Trump should have been able to reject this judge the same way that his attorney could have rejected a juror (if this was a jury trial) who was president of La Raza. But people went nuts with the idea that judges could be removed for bias. The only things they tolerate are a judge recusing themselves for a limited amount of things, like blood or marriage relation to a defendant or litigant.


Judges are professionals. They're supposed to be able to set aside their personal politics and rule based on what the law says. Professionals in all kinds of businesses set aside their personal feelings every day. Jurors are people pulled off the street. They can't be expected to meet the same standards.


"supposed to be able". It is nice to have that as a goal, but I don't think that it will be the result. But they are still limited in what they can do. They can't sentence someone to "time-served" for murdering a family without ramifications, or similarly they can't say someone is not guilty who is on video robbing a bank.

If judges put aside their personal politics and rule based on what the law says - why do Democrats and Republicans go nuts every time there is a Supreme Court appointment? And why are the two most common Supreme Court judgements 9-0 followed by 5-4, with 5-4 being the difference on the court as to which party nominated them?


Quote:
When the Republican-appointed justices and the Democratic-appointed justices divide 5–4, we suspect that they are not doing law but politics.


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4722



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 2:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Judges look at the facts of a case and come to a verdict based on those facts and those facts alone, that is the point of being a judge and having a legal system.

By the logic that certain groups with biases towards other groups or individuals can't fairly judge based on the facts of the case presented because the individual belongs to a certain group is absurd.

80% a women are likely to believe a female accuser of rape does that mean a female judge is invalid from judging a rape case.

80% of African American have a negative view of white police officers does that mean an African American Judge can't judge a police brutality trial if the police are white and the victim is black.

Vice versa 80% whites tend have a positive opinion of the police and a negative opinion of criminals or accused criminals claiming police brutality would that eliminate a white judge in that case.

You're a Neo Nazi on trial for failure to make child support payments does your lawyer get to claim its an unfair trial if the judge is Jewish.

Almost everyone has a negative opinion of White Supremacists does that mean only other white supremacists can be judges in a case where a white supremacist is the defendant.

You're Pastor Fred Phelps on trial for insurance Fraud does that mean you have the right to demand a new judge if it turns out your judge is Gay?

So you are an accused and convicted child molester who has served his time, you are released you find yourself facing another trial related to child molesting, who isn't going to have a negative opinion of a proven child molester still someone has to try that case.

You're Hilary Clinton you are brought to trial for a crime, it polls out that before your trial 80% of republicans believe you are a criminal does that mean no republican judges can try her?

You're Obama, you are brought up on a charge of something, it turns out the judge in the case id a conservative, caucasian, Catholic, it polls out that 85% of conservative, caucasian Catholics have a negative opinion of Obama. So Obama say I can't get a fair trial from this conservative, caucasian, Catholic judge. How does that play out for you in the media?

The case in hand with Trump was about whether or not Trump university defrauded people, there will be judges from groups that like Trump and don't like Trump but to say that any judge would simply find Trump guilty or innocent based on the political leanings of the group they belong instead of the facts of the case is insulting.

If Trump the defendant should be able to get a judge removed from a case based on possible bias, do all criminal defendants get that same priviledge and claimants get the same option? Especially when taking into consideration an appeals process that already a built in buffer if any trial or judgement is viewed as unjust?




Last edited by J-Spoon on 07/06/18 3:07 am; edited 1 time in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 3:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:
Judges look at the facts of a case and come to a verdict based on those facts and those facts alone, that is the point of being a judge and having a legal system.

By the logic that certain groups with biases towards other groups or individuals can't fairly judge based on the facts of the case presented because the individual belongs to a certain group is absurd.


What about police - they are also professionals who must treat everyone fairly. Is Black Lives Matter being absurd when they accuse them of unequal treatment?

We just had a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court with regard to the travel ban from 6 countries (or the "Muslim ban" as judges who ruled against it call it). The 5-4 vote split along party lines - that is the Republican appointed judges voted to uphold it and the Democratic appointed judges voted to overturn it. Both presumably read the facts and those facts alone as they are judges and part of the legal system. And yet they had two different verdicts. Verdicts which matched whether they were from the political party of the administration who made the ban.

Quote:

80% a women are likely to believe a female accuser of rape does that mean a female judge is invalid from judging a rape case.

80% of African American have a negative view of white police officers does that mean an African American Judge can't judge a police brutality trial of the police are white and the victim is black.

Vice versa 80% whites tend have a positive opinion of the police and a negative opinion of criminal claiming police brutality would that eliminate a white judge in that case.


I think the elimination should be the choice of the prosecution and defense teams. We don't have access to as many judges as we do potential jurors, so they can't get unlimited "for cause" challenges or as high an amount of "no cause" challenges, but they should get at least one rejection. It doesn't have to be on demographics polling, it could also be on their record.

Quote:

Almost everyone has a negative opinion of White Supremacists does that mean only other white supremacists can be judges in a case where a white supremacist is the defendant.

So you are an accused and convicted child molester who has served his time, you are released you find yourself facing another trial related to child molesting, who isn't going to have a negative opinion of a proven child molester still someone has to try that case.


I don't see that "we can't find anyone not biased against this defendant" is a reason not to strive for that in other cases. As pilight pointed out, judges can be biased in favor of a defendant as well, so that is why defense and prosecution should get to reject.

Quote:

The case in hand with Trump was about whether or not Trump university defrauded people, there will be judges from groups that like Trump and don't like Trump but to say that any judge would simply find Trump guilty or innocent based on the political leanings of the group they belong instead of the facts of the case is insulting.


Insulting to who? Were they insulted by the recent travel ban decision which split along political leanings?


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4722



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 3:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
J-Spoon wrote:
Judges look at the facts of a case and come to a verdict based on those facts and those facts alone, that is the point of being a judge and having a legal system.

By the logic that certain groups with biases towards other groups or individuals can't fairly judge based on the facts of the case presented because the individual belongs to a certain group is absurd.


What about police - they are also professionals who must treat everyone fairly. Is Black Lives Matter being absurd when they accuse them of unequal treatment?

We just had a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court with regard to the travel ban from 6 countries (or the "Muslim ban" as judges who ruled against it call it). The 5-4 vote split along party lines - that is the Republican appointed judges voted to uphold it and the Democratic appointed judges voted to overturn it. Both presumably read the facts and those facts alone as they are judges and part of the legal system. And yet they had two different verdicts. Verdicts which matched whether they were from the political party of the administration who made the ban.

Quote:

80% a women are likely to believe a female accuser of rape does that mean a female judge is invalid from judging a rape case.

80% of African American have a negative view of white police officers does that mean an African American Judge can't judge a police brutality trial of the police are white and the victim is black.

Vice versa 80% whites tend have a positive opinion of the police and a negative opinion of criminal claiming police brutality would that eliminate a white judge in that case.


I think the elimination should be the choice of the prosecution and defense teams. We don't have access to as many judges as we do potential jurors, so they can't get unlimited "for cause" challenges or as high an amount of "no cause" challenges, but they should get at least one rejection. It doesn't have to be on demographics polling, it could also be on their record.

Quote:

Almost everyone has a negative opinion of White Supremacists does that mean only other white supremacists can be judges in a case where a white supremacist is the defendant.

So you are an accused and convicted child molester who has served his time, you are released you find yourself facing another trial related to child molesting, who isn't going to have a negative opinion of a proven child molester still someone has to try that case.


I don't see that "we can't find anyone not biased against this defendant" is a reason not to strive for that in other cases. As pilight pointed out, judges can be biased in favor of a defendant as well, so that is why defense and prosecution should get to reject.

Quote:

The case in hand with Trump was about whether or not Trump university defrauded people, there will be judges from groups that like Trump and don't like Trump but to say that any judge would simply find Trump guilty or innocent based on the political leanings of the group they belong instead of the facts of the case is insulting.


Insulting to who? Were they insulted by the recent travel ban decision which split along political leanings?


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.

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?

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 wgo upheld the ban agreed it was with the scope of presdential 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.

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.

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.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5082
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/06/18 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The tea leaves and chicken bones now seem to be favoring Brett Kavanaugh over Amy Barrett et al. Of the seven candidates interviewed by Trump, Kavanaugh has the most experience as a federal judge, 12 years, and the most swamp-elite resume (Yale, Yale Law, clerk for Kennedy, entire career in Wash. D.C.). However, at 53, he's the oldest.

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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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