Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court War Ahead
#21
(03-14-2016, 07:51 PM)Palladin Wrote: Scalia never saw a federal power or surveillance ability he disliked...

You taint Scalia's life. He was the strongest Originalist on the court, and his decisions and reports are taught in Law Schools and support the Constitution. Your post suggest you listen to those in Huffington Post and other Leftwing sites that tried to dirty Scalia as soon as he died. They said what you did about Heller and Boumediene v. Bush. In Heller, he struck down the D.C. ban on hand guns, and in so doing cast aside the key 1939 precedent of United States v. Miller, which rejected the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment in Heller. In Boumediene each Gitmo detainee will get a meaningful hearing, not the sham process of "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" that the administration hoped to use. Not the full-bore code of Citizenship legal status, just fair judicial review with the habeus corpus thrown in. Understand, Habeus Corpus is not in the Bill of Rights. It precedes it in the body of the Constitution.

It is evident that those wishing to hurt Scalia's legacy would search out controversial cases - but Scalia was definitely one of the good guys.
Reply
#22
That's not true. Thomas is far and away the Originalist. After all, he's the only true Liberal on the court. Here's what I mean.

Just take 1995's "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. In this one Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides. And note that while Scalia was a true Federalist, Justice Thomas was and still is, an Anti-Federalist, i.e. a Liberal of the true fashion.

Here's his concurring comments on the decision.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#23
Scalia's life is whatever it was.

Scalia was a statist of the first order. if someone says they are into original intent, apparently that's all you need to assume they mean it.

I don't, I go by what they do and Scalia never met a security or authority law, rule or regulation he did not support that gave the federal state more power over your life.

You could post evidence where I am wrong. I'll admit it.
Reply
#24
(03-15-2016, 03:48 PM)John L Wrote: That's not true. Thomas is far and away the Originalist. After all, he's the only true Liberal on the court. Here's what I mean.

Just take 1995's "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. In this one Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides. And note that while Scalia was a true Federalist, Justice Thomas was and still is, an Anti-Federalist, i.e. a Liberal of the true fashion.

Here's his concurring comments on the decision.

The problem with States outlawing anonymous printed statements also involves habeus corpus, which Scalia was proud to defend. Remember there were two rights put in the body of the Constitution because they were considered too important to be part of an added-on Bill of Rights. They were Habeus Corpus and trial by a jury of peers. The British courts treated a litigated person as guilty, and who had to prove one's own innocence. Habeus Corpus compelled an accuser to face the accused. How does one do that if the accuser is anonymous?

BTW, Thomas always has the clearest and most common-sense opinions.
Reply
#25
What, if I am ask, does "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission" have to do with habeas corpus?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#26
Quote:U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

The case, Utah v. Strieff, was occasioned when police stopped Salt Lake City man Edward Strieff on leaving a house suspected to quarter drug activity. The state of Utah concedes the initial stop was illegal, as the officers in question had no probable cause to seize and search Strieff.

During the course of the stop, officers discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a small traffic violation, and methamphetamine in his pocket. The Court was asked to decide whether the exclusionary rule — which prohibits police and prosecutors from using evidence obtained illegally — applies when an officer learns during an illegal stop that there is a warrant for an individual’s arrest, and finds additional contraband while executing the arrest on said warrant.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito.

With Scalia gone, and a 4-4 split - the Progressives are trying to get through many bills passed with a 5-4 majority which can be backed out because Scalia died before the cases were finalized.

Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

Quote:...The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated,’” she continued. “They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.

Just another case of the fruit of the tree defense. A guy is definitely guilty, but the all-Holy technicality is more important than justice. Even in this, Sotomayor uses it to champion Black Lives Matter. She lost 5-3, but still wants to roil the water.
Reply
#27
Which one do you want to delete Bill?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#28
[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-11-07-at-6.39.21-AM.png...C427&ssl=1]


Now, here's something that Jackasses may want to invest their future ability in which to regain control of the Supreme Court.  Personally, I find this to be quite scary.  Shock

New 'Ginsborg' proposed after recent fall

Quote:...........A KeepOurRuth.org spokesperson held a press conference this morning with the following statement about the procedure's purpose and potential benefits. "We all know she's been a bit wobbly the last few years, but we need her on the Supreme Court. Since we can't possibly pass most of our revolutionary ideas in Congress, we need like-minded jurists in the courts to force those ideas on a grateful public. We've been doing that at the Federal Judiciary level for decades, but the Supreme Court is like a weapon of mass destruction for this type of stuff. They can really put a smack-down on all this ‘rule of law’ nonsense if properly staffed. A Ginsburg Cyborg could stay on the court indefinitely as long as spare parts are available."

The spokesperson went on to say, "We're also looking at the same procedure for other prominent but decrepit stalwarts of our causes. I won't say who is next, but don't be surprised if someday you see 'I'm Still With Her: 3016' bumper stickers on the flying car hovering in front of you."

[Image: Ginsborg_GInsburg_Eternal_Justice.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#29
Oh Boy! I'm looking forward to watching the next Supreme Court Nominee process. The Senate Judiciary Committee is getting a new chairman, and he is not putting up with any schist. The Jackasses had better learn to be gneiss. S13

BOOM! Bulldog Lindsey Graham Just Got A New Job and Dems Are MORTIFIED


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#30
Quote:...........Since we can't possibly pass most of our revolutionary ideas in Congress, we need like-minded jurists in the courts to force those ideas on a grateful public. We've been doing that at the Federal Judiciary level for decades, but the Supreme Court is like a weapon of mass destruction for this type of stuff. They can really put a smack-down on all this ‘rule of law’ nonsense ...


Yeah, can't have any of that "rule of law" stuff. Better to have "rule of what I think"!

Yikes!
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#31
This ought to really get Progressive Juices stirred up: Trump is in the process of changing the 9th Circus Court.  

The Implications are HUGE!

Quote:Trump Nominations Begin to Remake the Liberal 9th Circuit

President Donald Trump is moving to make over the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has delivered some of the most stinging judicial setbacks to his agenda.

Trump announced three nominations this week to the San Francisco-based appeals court, which covers California, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and the eastern part of Washington state. Earlier this month, the president renominated two other judges for the 9th Circuit.

“We’re very happy to have these extraordinary nominees,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, told The Daily Signal. “It doesn’t change the [9th Circuit] majority to Republican nominees. But when we are talking about future three-judge panels, the odds are a lot better.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will oversee the confirmation process for the nominees and said he hopes for bipartisanship.

“I’m very supportive of the nominees submitted by President Trump to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,” Graham said in a prepared statement.

“These are highly qualified nominees and I am hopeful they will receive wide bipartisan support,” Graham said. “These nominations continue a trend by the Trump administration of selecting highly qualified men and women to serve on the federal bench.”

For the 9th Circuit, Trump announced his intent Wednesday to nominate Daniel A. Bress, 39, a lawyer with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Daniel P. Collins, a former associate deputy U.S. attorney general who now is in private practice; and Kenneth Kiyul Lee, 44, a former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, also now in private practice. All three men are from California.

Bress and Collins both clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Trump initially nominated Collins last year.

Trump nominated last year, and this month renominated, Federal Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, 53, of Arizona, and Eric D. Miller, 44, of Washington state, a partner in the law firm of Perkins Coie who works in its Seattle office.

Trump initially also nominated Patrick Bumatay, 40, a federal prosecutor in California and former Justice Department lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, to the 9th Circuit.

But on Wednesday, Trump instead nominated Bumatay as a judge on a lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The 9th Circuit has six vacancies—three in California and one each in Arizona, Oregon, and Washington. Filling these vacancies would bring the balance to 13 judges appointed by Republican presidents and 16 appointed by Democratic presidents.

The liberal 9th Circuit—sometimes called the “9th Circus” by conservatives—is among the appeals courts whose decisions are most overturned by the Supreme Court. However, some contend the court has become more moderate in recent years.

In November, Trump bashed the appeals court, which was set to be the next court to hear a case on an administration immigration policy.

“It’s a disgrace what happens in the 9th Circuit,” Trump said in November, adding: “Every case [opposing administration policy] gets filed in the 9th Circuit. We get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court. Like the travel ban that we won. The 9th Circuit, we are going to have to look at that.”

Because it is the largest circuit court in the United States, some lawmakers have sought to break up the 9th Circuit into smaller circuits. But this would take an act of Congress.  

“It is no coincidence that litigants run to the 9th Circuit to challenge the president’s actions, where activist judges are more likely to apply a different standard of law,” Severino told The Daily Signal.

Trump’s nominees won’t change the composition of the court, since most of the vacancies on the court are a result of retiring Republican appointees, said Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. But filling the vacancies is a positive step for Trump, she said.

“As there are more vacancies on the 9th Circuit, the Trump administration will have more chances to put conservative jurists in place of liberal judicial activism that we have seen for decades,” Slattery told The Daily Signal. “It is the largest by far of all the circuit courts. There have been efforts to break it up, which judges have resisted.”

Currently, the 6th Circuit has the highest percentage of cases overturned by the Supreme Court, Slattery said, but the 9th Circuit hears the highest number of cases.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., released a joint statement opposing Trump’s nominations of Collins and Lee.

“We made clear our opposition to these individuals and told the White House we wanted to work together to come to consensus on a new package of nominees,” the two California Democrats said in a formal statement, adding:

Quote:In fact, we even identified candidates selected by the White House we could support to demonstrate our willingness to work cooperatively. Unfortunately, the White House is moving forward with three nominees to a circuit court who have no judicial experience. The White House’s decision to push these nominees fails to secure consensus on the circuit court.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board raised questions earlier this week about whether Trump was pulling his punches on nominees to the 9th Circuit by deferring to Feinstein and Harris. The Journal noted the two senators were in close contact with the new White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and wrote:

Quote:Ms. Feinstein and Ms. Harris requested ‘that the White House work with us to reach an agreement on a consensus package of nominees.’ The Democrats want to pick one name from the White House list, one from their own, and a third consensus nominee. …

The hope seems to be that a White House concession would somehow produce less resistance to Mr. Trump’s nominees. And this would be useful if the president gets the chance to replace, say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. It’s hard to believe someone could think this is plausible.  …

A concession to them now on nominees would rightly be seen as political weakness. It would concede influence that neither senator has earned and set a precedent for other Democrats who would demand similar consideration.

After reaction from several conservatives to the Journal editorial, the White House announced Trump’s intent to nominate the three men who weren’t previously judges to the 9th Circuit. Many expressed concern that the president’s staff, namely Cipollone, was working too closely with Democrats.

However, after the White House announced the nominations, the Republican National Lawyers Association applauded in a blog post.

“This was the first major test of new White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and he has passed with flying colors,” the GOP group said.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Supreme Court Now Considering ObamaCare John L 95 35,740 02-14-2016, 03:12 PM
Last Post: John L
  Supreme court:: a human embryo is not a person quadrat 18 5,425 05-07-2012, 02:18 AM
Last Post: John L
  marijuana, Federalism, and the Supreme Court John L 20 4,750 01-25-2011, 02:06 PM
Last Post: Huh...What?
  Elena Kagan is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Ron Lambert 102 27,142 08-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Barak Obama as a Supreme Court Justice? John L 2 795 02-18-2010, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Supreme court overturns campaign spending limits Huh...What? 6 1,446 01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Last Post: John L
  CA Supreme Court Takes Up Gay "Marriage" Ban ghoullio 0 764 11-20-2008, 01:33 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Supreme court powers over marriage rights Thaiquila 4 1,316 11-12-2008, 02:37 PM
Last Post: John L
  2nd Amendment Supreme Court ruling helps Obama scpg02 24 4,117 07-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  The impact of Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court John L 2 1,230 06-19-2007, 10:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)