The DnD Sanctuary

Whether one had a positive or negative view regarding Justice Antonin Scalia's decisions while on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Americans in this forum, as do Americans all across America, stand in respectful mourning at Judge Scalia's passing at the age of 79.

In the coming days there will be countless heated political debates, amongst not only Americans, but all those that have an opinion on who should succeed Judge Scalia, & how he or she should be picked, regarding the actual presidential nomination, selection, & Senate approval of Judge Scalia's eventual successor.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:  [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint.......Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.........


Q:  What role(s) should the United States Senate play in considering Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, & How should the Senate go about fulfilling it's Constitutional Obligations of "Advice & Consent" in this matter?

The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005.  The reasons for the rejections vary, and include incompetence, inexperience, and impropriety.  Most of the rejections, however, reflect in part, or even primarily, a difference between the President and the Senate over whether the nominated justice represents the right ideological choice.........

 

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/senateconfirm.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/senateconfirm.html)

What Say You.........   

Well I was starting to get fed up with repeated news here about him on our different news programmes. indeed I double-checked to ensure that we were not another new star on the Stars and Stripes. US influence is getting ridiculous! And anyway considering he was a President Reagan man I groan.

I believe that the President, any President, has the right .....as stated in the Constitution.....to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, & we should all expect that this nominee will get deep scrutiny on all relative aspects of their lives, their history on the bench (if any), their experiences, & yes....their politics.


Personally I would hope that any nominee to the Supreme Court also, like Judge Scalia, have originalist  &  textualist  positions, not because we must replace like for like, but because we should embrace these values because they are right.

Interpretations of the Constitution should rely on on the original intentions of the founding fathers.....the principals they based their document on, & not on some new & modern interpretations, because their ideas might be considered 'old fashioned' or have somehow 'seen their day.'

To that end, IMHO, I feel that the Senate must strive to adhere to Judge Scalia's values when he is replaced, & not merely rubber stamp a presidential nomination because he is the President's choice.

To that end, IMHO, I feel that the Senate must strive to adhere to Judge Scalia's values when he is replaced, & not merely rubber stamp a presidential nomination because he is the President's choice.

:lol: Let me guess that you're a Republican. :devil:

And anyway considering he was a President Reagan man I groan.

Allow me to groan along with you.

Nobody will be selected until after the upcoming election.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-weekend-full-episode-feb-14-2016/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-weekend-full-episode-feb-14-2016/)

Considering his values of late have racism, homophobia and judical activism; let's hope his replacement doesn't share them. He should have been impeached long ago.

Sang, you're delusional… And a thoroughgoing ideologue, to boot! :) What would he have been impeached for? Not being a Liberal/Progressive?

That clearly was a "the king[maker] is dead" event. You can spot a succession event by how the usual long-winded eulogies about the deceased's love of children and dogs are largely foregone for the more urgent matter of succession.

I liked Hillary Clinton's impromptu trolling of nominating Obama for Supreme Court Justice. It would probably be among the last candidates a President Clinton would pick, but for Candidate Clinton to "endorse" it was very House of Cards (the US version).

I find electoral processes intriguing. I have earlier compared the election to the (then 9, now 7 member) Politburo Standing Committee in China to a Papal election. It is more far fetched to compare the election of a Supreme Court Justice, there is no conclave, but the chance of white smoke seems slight.

I am in a matter of principle a wee bit concerned that there is a very long tradition of appointing "conservative" or "liberal" people to high positions in a legal system as per this thread. It seems an uneasy way of an important matter such as law and order, etc, rather than just experience.

I am in a matter of principle a wee bit concerned that there is a very long tradition of appointing "conservative" or "liberal" people to high positions in a legal system as per this thread. It seems an uneasy way of an important matter such as law and order, etc, rather than just experience.

Behind the "conservative" and "liberal" tags there are issues and laws.

I know that you're not comfortable when "queers" are at issue. I recall your using that term.

Were you in a post where you had to rule on the continuing position of a gay man in a teaching position where young children were present, how might you rule?
==============
Remembering Scalia.

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

Well I was starting to get fed up with repeated news here about him on our different news programmes. indeed I double-checked to ensure that we were not another new star on the Stars and Stripes. US influence is getting ridiculous! And anyway considering he was a President Reagan man I groan.

You've been drafted into our cultural empire.




Regarding the SCOTUS business, I'd wager that Obama will nominate that Indian-American judge by next Wednesday. It is the ultimate political chess move. He is apparently a moderate (though as Bush 43 learned, when they get on the Court, they'll do as they please), who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013.

Mitch McConnell has of course, vowed to essentially filibuster until January 21, 2017, but party leaders will likely tell him to budge within 3 months of it.

I send my condolences to the Scalia family and am somewhat saddened to see a fellow American pass away.

However, I for one am glad to see the sole remaining legacy of The Great Pretender removed from the judicial process. I absolutely loathed his rampant Dominionism and judicial activism. Loved that he clearly revealed and articulated his various positions and the fire that came with them, but on some issues, I feel his votes have contributed to the decline of American prestige.

Regarding the SCOTUS business, I'd wager that Obama will nominate that Indian-American judge by next Wednesday.

He should. It's funny to watch GOPers heads explode :lol: That person could well be the best qualified nominee in SCOTUS history, but the GOP will still rant about political correctness or some other idiocy because that's the stupid shit they do.

Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2016-02-14, 19:04:25

To that end, IMHO, I feel that the Senate must strive to adhere to Judge Scalia's values when he is replaced, & not merely rubber stamp a presidential nomination because he is the President's choice.

:lol: Let me guess that you're a Republican. :devil:

They'd have a collective freakout if he proposed to replace the broken coffee maker in the break room.

(though as Bush 43 learned, when they get on the Court, they'll do as they please)

That's the whole point of lifetime appointments. They should do their job without having to worry about the next election cycle, who they piss off etc.

Are you referring to the three-fer: Indian, African American female? :)

In 2012, she sent a letter to 100 mobile app developers asking them to comply with California law with respect to privacy issues. If any developer of an application that could be used by a Californian does not display a privacy policy statement when their application is installed they are breaking California law and could be fined $2,500 for every download. This law affects any developer anywhere in the world if their app is used by a Californian.

Kamila Harris is more ambitious than you know, Sang.

But perhaps your meant Srikanth Srinivasan?

Are you referring to the three-fer: Indian, African American female? :)

Quote

In 2012, she sent a letter to 100 mobile app developers asking them to comply with California law with respect to privacy issues. If any developer of an application that could be used by a Californian does not display a privacy policy statement when their application is installed they are breaking California law and could be fined $2,500 for every download. This law affects any developer anywhere in the world if their app is used by a Californian.

Kamila Harris is more ambitious than you know, Sang.

But perhaps your meant Srikanth Srinivasan?

I meant S.S.  :yes:

Sorry, for the mis-attribution…

I suspect President Obama will be disappointed, this time: The "precedent" for waiting until after the election are pretty well established.

Firstly jimbro,I was not in the kind of position on the city education corner regarding teachers. As a lay magistrate (unpaid) I ruled ruled on law not on the person's sexual matter. Not much of a strong point from you really as you studiously ignored my view on the tradition you DO have over there of  appointing judges on the 2 district traditions and these have been referred to time after time on the media so why do you studiously ignore that? Trying toi use my view on queers is a poor effort. Face the truth.

An interesting (…appalling, from my point of view) tactic the Obama administration may use -which might circumvent strong opposition in the Senate- is outlined here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/15/an-obama-recess-appointment-double-whammy-strategy/)…

In fact SCOTUS justices are appointed in a president's final year. The Senate Republicans are just trying to delay the appointment under the delusion that any of their boys won't get crushed by Bernie or Hillary in an electoral college landslide.

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DzOMUsOObS6En1YHG_GmdCeG0Zs=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6042269/Supreme%20Court%20nominations.png)

Sorry, for the mis-attribution…

I suspect President Obama will be disappointed, this time: The "precedent" for waiting until after the election are pretty well established.

The statement I saw from lawyers pretty much within minutes of I learned he had died (see my succession comments), that the "rule" is last six months of term.

Yes, jax. But the Democrats changed it, decades ago…
The most devious tack I've seen is this:

If I was advising the Pres., I would advise him to nominate Cruz, because I think that a Trump/Rubio vs. Hillary is a contest the Democrats can win (not that Cruz is such [a] scary opponent, it’s just that this way the GOP is locked into nominating Trump.) By taking Cruz out of the running, I would sacrifice one Supreme Court seat but I would gain another four (maybe 8 years) in the Oval Office, which will mean appointing more Supreme Court Justices.

(This was a comment at the Volokh site…) A further one was:

Take a look at what ideological Senate Republicans may be guarding against, and you might see possibilities Democrats ought to consider. One question is, why announce the shut-down of the confirmation process, instead of letting it go forward and rejecting the nominee?

A possibility Republicans may fear is that if they vet a nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy, Breyer and Ginsburg might choose to resign immediately, creating two more vacancies for Obama to fill. How might that play out politically?

Suppose Obama nominated 3 centrists, all to the right of Kagan and Sotomayor. But he chose them for judicial temperament, and freedom from ideological attachments—nominees with no discernible connection to either Democratic Party ideology, or to movement conservatism. And suppose those nominees were all young, 50 years old, give or take. Maybe an Hispanic, an Asian-American, and a white protestant. 

If the pendency of those nominees became a huge focus in the upcoming political campaign—and why would it not—how could movement conservatives respond? By mumbling, and trying to run out the clock? While Democratic presidential candidates and senate candidates trumpeted in support of Obama's moderation, and praised his statesmanlike attempt to put partisanship aside? Democrats could campaign to heal the polarization in Washington—making claims which would reap credibility in proportion to the outsized political gesture such appointments would signal. 

In political terms, that would create an existential threat for movement conservatism. It could deprive the right wing, not just for now, but for decades, of the Supreme Court oxygen it has been angling for, and needs to survive. If Obama and the Democrats could pull it off, they might succeed in recasting Washington politics in a less contentious mold. 

A moment of that sort may be hovering near. Seems like it might be worth pondering how to make it happen. Some alliance among less-ideological Ds and Rs, maybe?

The quote "If Obama and the Democrats could pull it off, they might succeed in recasting Washington politics in a less contentious mold" strikes me as absurd! But I take it seriously, because that's how the Left works…

jax, have you any insights you'd like to share? :)

Given that Obama has 11 months left that should leave several months of political theatre. Obamas promise of taking his time should add to that. I find it unlikely any candidate or president won't have a very short shortlist. Had they only had the same diligence for ambassadors...

I read that Obama can nominate himself....
Or even better, to trade his future nomination for his support to the next president, meaning the Hillary woman to nominate him when she's president.
It seems that both options would be not seen for the first time.

What a circus.

I read that Obama can nominate himself....
Or even better, to trade his future nomination for his support to the next president, meaning the Hillary woman to nominate him when she's president.
It seems that both options would be not seen for the first time.

What a circus.

Plot twist: he could even nominate Joe Biden.   :insane: :eyes:

[glow=green,2,300]Has anybody heard of the[/glow] [glow=black,2,300]Thurmond Rule[/glow]?


Source:     WIKIPEDIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule)    

The Thurmond Rule is a rule of thumb in the United States Senate that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the months leading up to presidential elections.[1]. The term originated with former Senator Strom Thurmond's opposition to President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in June 1968.

The specifics of the rule vary among sources. Thurmond himself said that no lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.[2] In the last year of George W. Bush's second term, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein suggested that nominees that are not confirmed by June of that year would not be confirmed at all,[2] while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated the rule as meaning "judicial nominations do not advance in the Senate in the latter part of a presidential election year without the support of Senate leaders and top lawmakers on the Judiciary committee."[3]

[glow=green,2,300]
What say you?[/glow]

A rule of thumb is not a law or principle. This particular rule seems to be without wording and application, so it's not even a rule of thumb.

That it wouldn't be applicable to Obama,  who has 11 months left. Otherwise Supreme Court Justices would have to refrain from dying in leap years, every fourth year after all, until 2400.

There is another tradition,  if I get this right,  that a late term nominee should be a moderate,  a more widely palatable candidate.  But if the Republican claim ahead of time they will  block a candidate,  any candidate,  there would be less incentives to do so. They also run the real risk of a President Clinton, an intransigent Senate might even make that more likely, and her candidate might not be so moderate.

I would think it was a mistake by the Republicans to blow so hard up against the process. A candidate could be rejected for a number of reasons, like the length of the fingernails. That would be a rejection of Obama's candidate,  not the process. The  Senate is also up for election, and the electorate might not judge the judge the same way.

Senate elections are staggered, three cohorts. So, only 34 seats are on the line — 24 of them Republican, this time. That means, among other things, that the Republican electorate will take a dim view of their majority Senators caving again…
Whether you know it or not, jax, Obama thinks the "Manchurian Candidate" was a moderate! :)

But -if on the off chance the President actually nominated a principled Constitutionalist- the Senate could confirm such a nominee. Why does anyone discount that? Just because they said they wouldn't?

But -if on the off chance the President actually nominated a principled Constitutionalist- the Senate could confirm such a nominee. Why does anyone discount that? Just because they said they wouldn't?

Who discounts that? Does any non-politician have a reason to care about whoever gets appointed?

I don't know why either side of the aisle is bothering with this asinine facade. Judicial activism will happen any way one looks at it.
Scalia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.


At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......  :worried:

"the illegally-running lipless Canadian"…? :) Your level of sophistication has reverted to its norm! Go Ole Miss!

If only Jefferson Davis were running, huh?

lia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.


At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......   :worried:

Well yeah, except the President isn't a lame duck until after the election. Until then filling judicial vacancies, including the SCOTUS, is his job according to this little thing called the constitution.

"the illegally-running lipless Canadian"…? :) Your level of sophistication has reverted to its norm! Go Ole Miss!

If only Jefferson Davis were running, huh?

What you are doing, it's there and I see it:

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2016-02-18, 18:04:45

lia was well known for his judicial activism.

The Conservative side is holding out hope that the illegally-running lipless Canadian wins so he can thump his bible and his own personal version of Jesus into everyone's face for 4 years, all the while, nominating a Justice that would enact the Christian version of Sharia Law with his/her rulings.

The Liberal sides wants to go ahead and do the damn thing because:

1. The Constitution says that it is for the President to do (lame duck year or not) and the Senate to confirm or deny.

2. They too want a judicial activist on the Court. Roe v Wade is their most lasting legacy of judicial activism.


At the end of the day, the average American is screwed either way. No one in DC or a various state capitals gives a good damn about us.

Que sera, sera.......   :worried:

Well yeah, except the President isn't a lame duck until after the election. Until then filling judicial vacancies, including the SCOTUS, is his job according to this little thing called the constitution.

In general in my lifetime, the last two years of a two-term President are lame duck years. Obama has gone out of his way to reverse this trend, true, with his use of executive orders. It should be noted I wasn't disagreeing with your last part, rather just making the statement that judicial activism will come regardless of who is confirmed (which is what the Conservative side has been lamenting, ironically enough).

(which is what the Conservative side has been lamenting, ironically enough).

I don't find it ironic. It's like they''re "constutitionalists"  on the parts they like, and ignore the rest. Hypocrites to the rotten core, especially Mitch McConnell opposing nominating a Supreme Court Justice in the final year....

No, Rebel, the thread is not derailed. Only the juvenile rhetoric… :)

Two points: One, the Republicans do control the Senate and have the means to prevent an Obama nominee from being appointed to "replace" Justice Scalia. Two, were the Democrats in a similar position, they'd do the same.

@Sang: You and Howie are always going on about "hypocrisy"… I wonder why? :)

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama :troll:

Well Colonel it has taken you some time but you are in the same corner as myself and it will NOT make any difference who wins. As for the legal matter being discussed it is not too impressive a system in itself and this  stuff about political leanings is not a very healthy one re the Supreme Court. Emigrate!

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama  :troll:

:) You know, Colonel…I think that could actually happen! (Strange times.) :)

Of course, Howie, you don't understand the importance of writing things down… :)

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama :troll:

Sorry, but the black SC seat is not vacant.

Well Oakdale you lot wrote down a Constitution and have been fighting over the damn thing since then and still doing so. Your Gestapo, oops, giant security apparatus ignores it when suits.  Get some fresh air.

Because in Britain there are no squabbles about the exact meaning of your unwritten constitution? It's just human nature to find some agreement along with disagreement even among equally educated and informed people, Howie. If there wasn't that's more terrifying than a disagreement, such the specter of a totalitarian government punishing all those that disagree. You don't have that enforcing conformity across the UK, do you?

Well Oakdale you lot wrote down a Constitution and have been fighting over the damn thing since then and still doing so. Your Gestapo, oops, giant security apparatus ignores it when suits.  Get some fresh air.

Sadly, that's too often true. The constitution is helpful if you have the money to hire good lawyers and to initiate and afford to fight for your rights in court.

If some lone hacker stole the Pentagon papers then I'm sure the result would have been different. It was the NY Times which had the $$$ resources to fight up the judicial ladder.

Then we have the typical Joe Blow who lacks $$$ resources. A 16 year old, accused of stealing a backpack and held in jail for three years until the charges were dropped. So much for speedy trail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html

He's not an exceptional case. Many are held for years without trial. Some for over 5 years.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Rikers-Island-Bronx-DA-Trial-Delays-I-Team-365824861.html

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-02-19, 17:38:35

I have a better idea. Elect Sanders as President so he can nominate Obama  :troll:

:) You know, Colonel…I think that could actually happen! (Strange times.) :)

Of course, Howie, you don't understand the importance of writing things down… :)

Your dementia is playing up again my dear Californian friend. That's Sang you are responding to, not me.  :)

Your dementia is playing up again my dear Californian friend. That's Sang you are responding to, not me.   :)

Could be... :)

For those few who can stand it, here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/?postshare=6851455856239788&tid=ss_fb-bottom)'s another tribute — from a (still) liberal law clerk of his… She measures the man the way men should be measured, I think.

But you could also read the NY Times piece about the Senate majority leader's motives… (The problem with its analysis is that a great majority of conservative Republicans agree with it. :( Still, that's McConnell's fault, in'it?)
Were I allowed to ask a question at the next Republican potential nominees' debate, I'd ask each (but especially Trump…) to name 5 potential nominees of theirs…
(I suspect Trump would try to remember Snow White's dwarfs. :) )

I wasn't able to find that story, but I did find http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html]Supreme Court Nominees Considered
in Election Years Are Usually Confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html) The article notes "Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year."   The graph below the brief article reveals just how far back nominating justices in the last year of a president's final term goes. No, Oakdale, it didn't start with the Democrats. It started with the Federalists - George Washington to be exact. The only thing unusual about this is the GOP's behavior. Their disregard of the constitution isn't unusual, however :(

I wasn't able to find that story […]

It's here (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-picking-this-fight.html?ref=opinion&_r=0). (Your link provides nothing, other than meaningless statistics. And I didn't say it "started" with the Democrats… But you're funny that way! :) )
Try Prof. Volokh's latest post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/22/dealing-with-supreme-court-vacancies-do-the-other-partys-recent-statements-and-actions-matter/)… Then, perhaps, you'll understand. I doubt it; but there's a chance. :)

Politics matters…

This is too good not to post… :) Ten tweets (https://storify.com/StevenJDuffield/whelan-on-scalia-strategy?utm_campaign=&utm_source=t.co&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_a0vRz).

Weird that a graph of what presidents did nominate someone for the SCOTUS in the last year of the term is "statistics." Some of them knew it was their last term and others didn't. Again, what it does show is this is not at all unusual. I see Volokh is invoking Biden, perhaps as an attempt to show hypocrisy on the Democrat's part because his readers don't realize 1) His not a Democrat anymore 2) Even if he was that's just one person's opinion just as there Republicans such as Jeb Bush who said that he probably would nominate. Regardless, what's going on with the Senate Republicans is an obvious political ploy in the hope that a Republican will get elected. There are no deep principles involved and one that could cost the GOP the Senate (especially now that some senators are idiotic enough to say they'll block anyone the president nominates.)

Weird that a graph of what presidents did nominate someone for the SCOTUS in the last year of the term is "statistics."

Weird, that someone supposedly educated beyond kindergarten thinks that uniformitarianism applies to such a human activity as politics… But you think how you were taught to think! :)

Let me put it simply, in fact so simply that even you can understand it:
The constitution requires the Congress to make a political choice. Given the current makeup of the Congress, that choice has been made.
You don't like it.
Whatever you don't like is wrong…
Thus, not giving Obama a third (liberal) appointment to the Supreme Court is — well, in your opinion, wrong; and you don't like it.
But there's no logic that gets you what you want: Another liberal Obama appointee to the Supreme Court.
That is what you want, isn't it?

You're assuming the new appointee will be liberal. Than again, you do have a low threshhold of what you consider liberal and by your personal definition the majority of the population is. Fact is there's a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President is obliged to attempt to fill it, which is his duty according the Constitution. The Constitution overrides the GOP's partisan bullshit now has it has when the SCOTUS had to overturn the GOP's other unconstitutional crap. End of story. 

Now about that the nominee will be liberal. At the head of the Obama's short list is Sri Srinivasan, widely view as a moderate. But by your standards he's probably a socialist :rolleyes: But a highly qualified, moderate appointee such as Srinivasan will serve to make the Republican senators' antics seem even more ridiculous. The President is playing chess. The GOPers aren't even playing checkers; they're playing tick-tack-toe.

The GOP -for once!- is playing politics, when it matters.

Fact is there's a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President is obliged to attempt to fill it, which is his duty according the Constitution.

Agreed! Where in the constitution does it say Congress should or must accommodate the president?
Is it written somewhere that whatever the president attempts is to be obliged, by the other two branches of government? Obama himself has told us that he is neither Emperor nor King… However much you regret and dislike it, he's correct.
Of course, he's also told us he "has a phone and a pen"… And you don't have a problem with that!

You're assuming the new appointee nominee will be liberal.

Of course… (BTW: Your -and Obama's- idea of "moderate" is an "I have never been a member of the Communist Party (wink-wink, nod-nod)" sort of candidate.

The plain fact of the matter is that Obama hasn't the votes to install another Supreme Court justice…

But if Bernie or Hillary wins… Well, you get what you want. And, I'd wager, what you deserve…
The president is playing tiddly-winks! He has no other options.

One question I'd ask: Have you ever read the constitution? If so, why? (Yes, questions often lead to more questions… :) )

The GOP -for once!- is playing politics, when it matters.

:cheers: When don't political parties play politics? :beer:

That "Supreme Court" must not be what around here we understand by Supreme Court for sure.
When institutions are consolidated, there's no place for one man show.

:cheers:  When don't political parties play politics?  :beer:

When they play CYA, to save their seats, it doesn't much matter — except to them and their cronies. I suppose you can call that politics, too.
But when the stakes are the make-up of the Supreme Court for at least a generation, politics is more important than politicking… No? :)

Agreed! Where in the constitution does it say Congress should or must accommodate the president?
Is it written somewhere that whatever the president attempts is to be obliged, by the other two branches of government? Obama himself has told us that he is neither Emperor nor King… However much you regret and dislike it, he's correct.

In this case, the problem is not Obama. It's the Senate claiming they'll refuse to even go through the hearings to confirm or deny his nominee (or in the case of some, automatically deny.) This is the potential to blow up in their faces in at least a couple ways. Obama can nominate some that's so obviously qualified and politically moderate that they'll have to cave - AFTER getting the word out that Obama shouldn't. Plain old obstructionism could cost them seats in swing states and thus control of the Senate.

Meanwhile, the irony is that when justices get appointed they often go their own, party independent way. So an Obama appointee is liable to rule the same as a Trump, Cruz or Rubio more often than not regardless.  If by miracle the GOP presidential nominee gets elected, do you guys somehow think Roe v. Wade will somehow get overturned still, or that equal marriage will be? That's right, all this drama that carries the risk senators losing their seat come November is liable to be for nothing.

Plain old obstructionism could cost them seats in swing states and thus control of the Senate.

As always, you presume your side's victory and then "generously" offer a slightly less onerous alternative…

That's right, all this drama that carries the risk [of] senators losing their seat come November is liable to be for nothing.

That's why I said that -this time- politics was being played, for the right reasons!
But your presumption that it will be for nothing is just your way of saying: "I want what I want! Everyone else be damned!"

Senators losing their seats is a tragedy…? :) You're an odd duck, Sang!
But I think the Democrat Party is close to being on its last gasp… (How else to explain the poll numbers of Bernie Sanders? :) )

Perhaps this The Hill article on The GOP’s SCOTUS mega-mistake (http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/269604-brent-budowsky-the-gops-scotus-mega-mistake) can explain to you better than I'm bothered to.

It would be a catastrophic political mistake for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP leaders in Congress, not to mention Republicans running for president, to campaign until Election Day on a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court — one that could dramatically increase the chances that Democrats win the presidential election and make sweeping gains in the 2016 congressional elections.

The article goes into detail why, of course.

Democrats will charge, and a large majority of independent and moderate voters will agree, that Republicans have taken their politics of obstruction to the draconian extreme of a two-term government shutdown of the Supreme Court. Democrats will charge, with good reason and strong chances of success, that the GOP Supreme Court shutdown scheme embodies everything Americans dislike about Washington and everything that brings Congress to such high levels of public disrepute that, according to RealClearPolitics, more than three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress.

....

The biggest losers of the GOP Supreme Court scheme will be Republican senators and candidates running in New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states in which close elections could well be tipped to Democrats by a roused Democratic base and outraged moderate and independent voters, who will conclude that the Republican Senate itself represents everything they detest about the partisanship and dysfunction of Washington.

Yup, hardly playing politics for the right reasons - unless that reason is the GOP committing suicide.

[…] a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court […]

In other words, unless there's a liberal majority, the Supreme Court has been "shut down"? Of course, you think so. But I don't. A majority opinion -out of eight Justices- shouldn't be so difficult, should it? :)
(And, of course, you know why it is!)

The Supreme Court is in nowise "shut down"… Only the ideological divide is up-ended; and I'm not sure -yet- that that's a bad thing… Only a 5 to 3 majority will prevail! Is that such a bad thing?

Or do you -like Howie- prefer a "wider" democracy…? :) (Of course, you don't! And neither does he… But can you be honest about it?)

Eight Justices are enough, aren't they? Or does the "system" require one more, to break a tie -of opinion and argumentation- so that partisans can go on to the next "issue"?

I think you truly believe that eight are not enough: One on your side should rule…!

Why?!

If the GOP scheme were to prevail, McConnell and Republicans would undermine the court not only for the remainder for its current term but for its next term as well. Even when the court convenes on the first Monday of October 2016 for its next term, the GOP-imposed judicial havoc could continue until well into 2017, or whenever the new president nominates, Senate Judiciary Committee considers and the full Senate votes to confirm a nominee for the vacant seat.

Is the lapse of 5/4 decisions such a hardship? Really…?
Oh, well: Politics is a risky business! (You think it shouldn't be? :) Explain, please! Should you not:)
Democracy is, then, obviously not something that means much — to you.
(But, of course, I knew that already. :) You just want what you want… Please explain how it's anything else that motivates your "views," in case you'd not be branded as what you are!)

Let me put it so that even you can understand: At a certain point -electoral politics be damned!- the country's at stake!

Do you really believe there are any on your side who feel this way?

The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution. There seems to be a kind of attitude of a vengeance. Too many people in jail and that recent case of a man kept in solitary confinement for 43 damn years? And all those pictures we often see of a prisoner not just in handcuffs but chains and feet shackled. How old fashioned and out of the past which is disgraceful.

The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution.

Really? Bolshevik or Menshevik? Perhaps we should adopt Stalin's methods…? :) But, seriously, RJ, what do you mean? (Of course, I know that you really have no idea… :) You are an exceedingly shallow thinker!)

First, law evolves along with society. As yet, the psychological sciences haven't done much to make "rehabilitation" very practical. (A Clockwork Orange is fiction, you know?) Second, the type of crimes we'd -most of us- want curtailed, and punished, are much as they've always been. Third, the force needed to curtail and punish such crimes is only mitigated by a certain willingness to not do so… (Others suffer. Law-abiding others, usually. You're okay with that?)
You seem to want to talk about the "hoodlum in the street" as the sin qua non of the citizenry! Perhaps, in Glasgow, that is the case…  I myself don't think that hoodlums are a necessary component of the body politic. (But you want a "wide" democracy, still, I'm sure! Our thugs, thieves and highwaymen deserve representation, too, eh? :) ) I'll grant that civil society and its laws need to be plain, consistent and none too onerous…
(That's a conservative position that even you can't reject! Or can you?)
Well, sir, that is just a description of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is tasked with. And Justice Scalia was a wise, learned and conscientious practitioner of his craft: Constitutional interpretation.
You, of course, have a problem with that! :) Do tell us why…

The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution.

Go to it! Your Scotland is where you should concentrate your efforts; and I wish you luck! :)
Or did you mean something else? (It's often hard to tell, what with your knuckle-typing, your general ignorance of grammar and spelling, your ridiculous animosity for the U.S. (and others…) and your naivete…) So: What kind of "revolution" would you like? :)

I promote you: Queen for a Day! Proclamate away, old sod. :)

Here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/24/charges-against-rick-perry-dismissed-by-texas-high-court-on-constitutional-grounds/)'s another example of judicial sanity…  It's long and "involved" but easy to understand.

Don't we need judges who can and will make such decisions? Or do we just want apparatchiks? :)

Well I would share the attempt to show me as ignorant as based on the hard fact that you know little about democracy, rights, sense but living where you do one can make allowances. Could almost feel sorry for you but there are millions like you over there so it is a national problem!  :up:

A Responsibility I Take Seriously

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.  It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make.  Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly.  It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum.  And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified.  He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity.  I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law.  I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear.  There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.  That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.  It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times.  That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

A sterling record.  A deep respect for the judiciary’s role.  An understanding of the way the world really works.  That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court.  And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
(source (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/))

Full strength? :) No wonder this man never published an academic paper in his field — constitutional law!

Full strength? :) No wonder this man never published an academic paper in his field — constitutional law!

I'm not impressed with Obama's constitutional law credentials.

The reality is that he was a "Senior Lecturer". A position given to the elite, like politicians, judges, artists (Senior Lecturer in the Humanities). Its like the giving of honorary degrees.

Its the "elite" taking care of each other. A real professor is expected to do academic research, submit academic papers and have them published. You won't see any under Obama's name.

Its like when his wife was taken care of. Before he became US senator Michelle was paid $122,000 a year. Two months after Obama elevation to US senator Michelle was  promoted and her salary bumped to $317,000. Such coincidental timing and such a large bump.

How many of you here had your salary almost tripled with one promotion?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-09-27/news/0609270216_1_greenville-hospital-system-university-of-chicago-hospitals-michelle-obama

ps - many hospitals are dependent upon Federal largesse.

Two months after Obama elevation to US senator Michelle was  promoted and her salary bumped to $317,000. Such coincidental timing and such a large bump.

In fact, Mrs. Obama’s income in 2006, a year after her promotion, had decreased to $273,618. And for 2007 (the year she actually started working part-time), her income was $103,633, according to the couple’s tax return for that year. She took an "unpaid leave of absence to work on her husband’s presidential campaign" in 2008, but still received $62,709 from the hospital. However, Easton noted that her final reported salary "consists of accumulated but unused vacation time plus the final payout from a supplemental executive retirement plan."
Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.

Aren't we getting more than a little "off topic"?
There are two questions:
Must the Supreme Court be fully manned? (You Feminazis will forgive the term, I trust!) And does the Constitution require it to be so?
These are questions that require political resolution… Or acceptance. (Some reading ability would be helpful; but, since believers in the "living constitution" don't actually believe in words that have definite meanings…)
I'm for the latter.

But, perhaps, everyone who's interested agrees with me? :) (What are the chances?)

Groan. That constitution always comes up to be argued over.

Who would-a thunk it? :) The constitution and the Supreme Court are somewhat related…

Who would-a thunk it? :) The constitution and the Supreme Court are somewhat related…

"Quit you like men: be wrong"

 8)

RJ, your constitution is pretty much what your judges say it is. Ours is becoming much the same thing…
I don't want that. As far as I can tell, you do; you'd like to see the U.S. become as loopy as your country is: How many places accept and accede to Shari'a in the UK? :(

Why?

Ah but you are trying to make excuses by trying to include us Oakdale! Our judges are appointed in experience and a gradual promotion to different levels and such. Your country uses politic to appoint and that is unfortunately a head shaking way. We exist as a democracy without a written constitution while your folk argue and fight over one yet we have a generally well run State, democracy and generally. Unfortunately many of your courts will get into a deep furrow of arguing over tiny,tiny things. From time to time over the years some of your judges have been fought over by the political class and that detracts from the way of doing things and a pity as some have been well bruised by such doings. The 2 systems are very different and here less than shows. In many countries the Muslim lot do run Sharia stuff from back rooms and you may find that happens in your own but they will never be legal and certainly not here. Can see your local t but trying to equate 2 very different systems  in the legal frame is not the way. We must be the only country without a constitution but the point is we have not fell apart like some countries and that our judges are not dumped on us by politics is a boon.

Given that Obama has 11 months left that should leave several months of political theatre. Obamas promise of taking his time should add to that. I find it unlikely any candidate or president won't have a very short shortlist. Had they only had the same diligence for ambassadors...

Sweden to get new US envoy after 9-month wait (http://www.thelocal.se/20160304/sweden-ambassador-azita-raji)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelocal.se%2Fuserdata%2Fimages%2Farticle%2Fw468%2F0fbcbaa23d146d6f349dbc489386b09c6682687dbab8b96babbeb995db8bc568.jpg&hash=d7289d971a67548f4af9c053d8252818" rel="cached" data-hash="d7289d971a67548f4af9c053d8252818" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.thelocal.se/userdata/images/article/w468/0fbcbaa23d146d6f349dbc489386b09c6682687dbab8b96babbeb995db8bc568.jpg)

The US Senate confirmed the appointment last month of former JP Morgan banker Azita Raji as its new ambassador to Sweden, after presidential hopeful Ted Cruz ended his senate blockade on “political nominees”.  ...

Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, began his blockage last summer, sending a letter to President Obama warning of plans “to block all nominees for the Department of State and hold any legislation that reauthorizes funds for the Department of State,” unless he received assurances on what described as the "catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal".

Sweden has been without a US ambassador since Mark Brzezinski ended his four-year stint in Stockholm at the start of July to take up a post as Executive Director of the US government's Arctic Executive Steering Committee.

Raji’s Iranian background will be welcomed by Sweden’s 63,828 Swedish Iranians, who have become one of the country’s most successful immigrant groups since fleeing Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with several prominent MPs, writers, musicians, sportspeople and scientists. ...


In neighbouring Norway the ambassador's office sat empty for more than 900 days. Oslo finally expects to welcome the new US Ambassador, Samuel Heins, next week.

Yay, after a mere three years wait, Norway will finally have a US ambassador until the next election.

Well the appointment of that ambassador is perfectly in line with the corporate controllers.  :cheers:

Why would the U.S. need an ambassador to Norway…? (Are they going to side with the Germans, again? :) )
What difference does Norway make, in the modern world?
Indeed, what difference does Europe make…?

What difference does the replacement of Justice Antonin Scalia make to us here?
I know what it means to me. And I know what it means to our Democrats. What I don't understand is what difference it makes to Brits and Europeans…

Anyone care to explain it to me? :) (You can be honest: No one reads this…)

Now deosn't that reply typical of the ridiculous stance that unfortunately makes the country look stupid? I will tell you what your country has done with it's size, Oakdale. created wars, deposed people leaving a mess, fully practiced modern imperialism and when sown people in your mindset start looking into the past elsewhere because your mind cannot cope. If you do not appreciate small countries that shows an arrogance and snidey attitude of aloofness and ignorance.

On the subject of the replacement judge making no difference here or in Europe a teenager could work that one out simply. But what you equally choose to suitably bypass is that those judges are controlled by the political masters and put in vi a political dimension. Sad.

I will tell you what your country has done with it's size, Oakdale. created wars, deposed people leaving a mess, fully practiced modern imperialism

Who taught us? :) It's not just a case of the pot calling the kettle black… Yours is a chamber pot…

On the subject of the replacement judge making no difference here or in Europe a teenager could work that one out simply […]

And yet you can't? :) I'm not surprised!

Typical. You try to drift into the past somewhere else and totally avoid the modern imperialism your country is hooked on. When the obvious does not suit you hermit book status then look to somewhere else rather than face the truth. Your judges are publicly footered about with by the politicians and traditionally appointed in political standing. Why do you ignore the obvious?

Howie, why do you pretend to understand things that you obviously haven't the intellect to even faintly grasp? :) You're not fooling anybody…

Why would the U.S. need an ambassador to Norway…? (Are they going to side with the Germans, again? :) )
What difference does Norway make, in the modern world?
Indeed, what difference does Europe make…?

What difference does the replacement of Justice Antonin Scalia make to us here?
I know what it means to me. And I know what it means to our Democrats. What I don't understand is what difference it makes to Brits and Europeans…

Anyone care to explain it to me? :) (You can be honest: No one reads this…)

Side with the Germans? That was a confusing aside. Northern Europeans tend to be overall aligned in the global scale of things, and Germany is a top trade partner, but politically Germany is not Norway's significant other. Britain (and their former colonies) might be, and Sweden certainly is. To Sweden Russia is historically the significant other.

In the same global scale of things Norway doesn't matter much. It only has 0.07% of the world's population. That is even slightly less than Scotland (or the state of Minnesota), though probably not for long. Norway's population is 5.01 megapeople and Scotland has 5.36 megapeople. However half a century ago Scotland had the same population as now, just a couple townfulls less, while Norway at the time had between 3½ and 4 megapeople. The USA, with 326 megapeople and 4.4% of the world's population, is obviously more important to the world.

50 years back the USA had 195 megapeople, while China had ¾ gigapeople and India ½ gigapeople, out of a a population of 3.3 gigapeople. In other words China had nearly a quarter of the world's population and India nearly a sixth. Today both countries have around a sixth of the world's population (18% and 16.6% respectively). The difference is that neither country mattered then, now China matters, and soon India matters.

Does diplomacy matter? Of course it does. It won't change the powers in the world, but it can change how they are marshalled. Do embassies matter? Can they be replaced by a web page and up-in-the-clouds spying? The answers seem to be yes and no respectively, subject to regular reevaluation. Do US ambassadors matter? That is an open question, maybe they don't, in which case embassies may be better off without them.

Do US supreme justices matter? To the outside world not a lot. They rarely constrain presidents in their foreign policy. When Scalia died it got a mention in European media, primarily as something to make the US presidential elections more interesting. Practically all articles are on Donald Trump anyway, with a little on Clinton vs Sanders, for balance's sake.

Obviously the Supreme Court matter more to the people living there. If the ambassadorship matters little, more time and attention should be taken for court openings. If an ambassador needs 3 years, I would think 15 years deliberations should be about appropriate for a new Justice.

I will let the Oakdale corporate Republican brained waffle on.  Yes in real terms there has been a modest increase in the Scott population but I would think that is due to the immigration side. Not yet like the mess there is down in England but the indigenous family rations have declined for some time as in the rest of GB and across Europe.

Yes in real terms there has been a modest increase in the Scott population but I would think that is due to the immigration side.

The immigration side will lead to a new Scottish flag.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Flasjan%2Fimages%2F2%2F25%2FISLAM_FLAG_GIF.gif%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20121114172215&hash=8658bb527785e502eb0acb8d9f86518b" rel="cached" data-hash="8658bb527785e502eb0acb8d9f86518b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/lasjan/images/2/25/ISLAM_FLAG_GIF.gif/revision/latest?cb=20121114172215)

The Mexican flag will no doubt be in a high position in the ex-colonies before the wall goes up (mind you the existing fence isn't a stop) . As for Caledonia ending up inder that rag one must remember that I live there. Nuff said.  :happy:

Taking about walls.

President Reagan said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall."

And now we have "lets build a wall."

Jochie, there's a difference between telling people they can't leave and telling people there are rules they need to follow to come in…

BTW: Howie, do you not want to procreate with the available stock, or are you poof? :) (I'm sorry, already, for this comment. But I'm sorrier for your acceptance of your country's decline…) What the heck happened, boy-o?!

You really cannot see much from your hermit corner can you Oakdale?? The widespread US poverty, interference with the rights and freedom of your people and the imperial military industry. What a dear, oh dear insult you are to thinking and progressive minded ex-colonists!

It's the "progressive minded ex-colonists" -as you call them- who've given us the current mess… Certainly, a great many so-called conservatives helped. But, on the part of the progressives, it was the goal! (You've heard of Alinsky? — Wait! Who am I asking? :) )

Well Oakdale I would say that both parties are to blame as they get power but the statistics that are negative do not essentially change unfortunately. Such a crying shame.

The Mexican flag will no doubt be in a high position in the ex-colonies before the wall goes up (mind you the existing fence isn't a stop) .

I once suggested that we build simple towers every 300 to 500 yards or so, & install hired sharpshooters to man them.

As an incentive, place a per head bounty on anyone & everyone that attempts to cross into the USA illegally.  And yes, that's everyone.....no restrictions.

I guarantee that within weeks the illegal immigration problem will slow to a mere trickle, if that, compared to today's rate.

Remember, no one has a right of entry into the USA without being previously given a specific legal permission, via the proper channels, to do so........period.

Antonin Scalia was the best friend of creationism, but still creationism (Intelligent Design theory) lost in courts and now Scalia is dead. So Supreme Court judges are irrelevant. Doesn't matter who replaces him.

Antonin Scalia was the best friend of creationism, but still creationism (Intelligent Design theory) lost in courts and now Scalia is dead. So Supreme Court judges are irrelevant. Doesn't matter who replaces him.

Is RT the only news source you get? :)

Please give me even one credible source for your "Scalia was the best friend of creationism" claim… (Merely saying that he was Catholic won't do, ersi. How about something that Scalia himself wrote? :) ) I'll wait…
———————————————————————————————————
p.s.,
It's good to see that your logic remains non sequitur-oriented.

You have a nerve regarding that RT comment after all so many of yours are hooked on that Fox stuff.

RJ, you probably watch Fox News more than I do… :) But let's see if ersi can come up with any cites…
Patience is a virtue!

Merely saying that he was Catholic won't do, ersi.

Since when ersi said that such a nobody nonexistant ignorant idiot, like you, was a Catholic?
Merely posting imbecilities doesn't give you any credit at a civilized european forum dear Oakdale.

Could you be a little more incoherent, Bel? :)
Justice Scalia was a Catholic. ersi claimed that he was a "friend of creationism" and Intelligent Design Theory (…I'd dispute the appellation "theory," because it doesn't provide testable predictions; but that's another topic.) — which "has lost in [the] courts" and, hence, his replacement is beside the point!
Do you (…can you follow that logic?!)
If so, please explain it to me…

First, creationism and Intelligent Design are not matters for any American court. Nor is Neo-Darwinism or any other form of the Theory of Evolution. We don't "settle" matters of philosophy and science by judicial fiat; that's not their ambit.
Antonin Scalia certainly understood that!

Second —until I see specific cites showing otherwise— I'll keep my original estimation of J. Scalia: a good judge and committed constitutionalist. That is to say, I doubt he'd let his religious feelings trump his scholarly understanding of the law… (Not to say he wouldn't say where traditional morality had been transgressed!)

Third, just because someone has died doesn't mean their life and works disappear… There's history, you know! (Are double-negatives so common in Portuguese? How are they interpreted? Try using elementary logic, or struggle to use Venn Diagrams or the syllogistic…)

Fourth, I don't have a fourth point. Kinda like you didn't have a first one! But, in your defense, neither did ersi…! :)
——————————————————————————————————
(This was added while I was typing…)

Merely posting imbecilities doesn't give you any credit at a civilized european forum dear Oakdale.

There's an obvious retort —that I won't use!— but your so-called "civilization" seems to be coming apart at all of its seams…
Is everything you can't understand imbecilic, Bel? :)

Could you be a little more incoherent, Bel? :)
Justice Scalia was a Catholic. ersi claimed that he was a "friend of creationism" and Intelligent Design Theory (…I'd dispute the appellation "theory," because it doesn't provide testable predictions; but that's another topic.) — which "has lost in [the] courts" and, hence, his replacement is beside the point!
Do you (…can you follow that logic?!)
If so, please explain it to me…

First, creationism and Intelligent Design are not matters for any American court. Nor is Neo-Darwinism or any other form of the Theory of Evolution. We don't "settle" matters of philosophy and science by judicial fiat; that's not their ambit.
Antonin Scalia certainly understood that!

Second —until I see specific cites showing otherwise— I'll keep my original estimation of J. Scalia: a good judge and committed constitutionalist. That is to say, I doubt he'd let his religious feelings trump his scholarly understanding of the law… (Not to say he wouldn't say where traditional morality had been transgressed!)

Third, just because someone has died doesn't mean their life and works disappear… There's history, you know! (Are double-negatives so common in Portuguese? How are they interpreted? Try using elementary logic, or struggle to use Venn Diagrams or the syllogistic…)

Fourth, I don't have a fourth point. Kinda like you didn't have a first one! But, in your defense, neither did ersi…! :)

Merely posting imbecilities doesn't give you any credit at a civilized european forum dear Oakdale. No one gives a fuck about your "judge" and even less to your "supreme court" or your "constitution".
You say your litle judge is a Catholic and that ersi call him a creationist...  well, ersi is not a Catholic and why do I should care about it? ask ersi and don't bother me.
Let the peace be with you American.

And yet you take the time to re-post… Must be pretty boring, in Portugal, eh? :) (Aren't you tending to your vegetable garden? You don't have serfs anymore, do you?)

When you say "let the peace be with you" you apparently mean take insults lying down? Your "intellect" seems to have become much the same as that of Donald J. Trump: 8th grade schoolyard…

Or have you decided to just be a Troll? :)

And yet you take the time to re-post…

Noblesse oblige dear ignorant.

 ;)

"Noblesse oblige"…? Don't you mean presumptuous twaddle? :)

How about something that Scalia himself wrote?

He wrote this:

...reference to "creation" is not convincing evidence of religious purpose. [...] We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth. ...to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.  Indeed, it is not even to posit the "unmoved mover" hypothesized by Aristotle and other notably nonfundamentalist philosophers. [Etc.]

In other words, creation is not religion or philosophy. It's science by virtue of being used in phrase "creation science".

Now, I don't deny creation science. I deny Scalia's shallow, illogical and anti-scientific notion of creation science. I also deny his denial of creation as a religious or philosophical concept. It's true that Scalia was not writing for the purpose of doing religion, philosophy, or science, but in light of what he wrote, he was not making any sense in terms of a legal judgement either. He was writing nonsense. That's all I have to say about Scalia.

Creation science can be science in the sense that "flood science" or "Noah's ark science" is science. It's more likely to end up a pseudoscience, even though not necessarily. In linear empirical terms, the problem with investigating these matters is that the evidence cancels itself out. Since the flood was meant to be utterly destructive, I don't expect to find much evidence for the flood or any antediluvian stuff, just like we don't find either forest or fire a while after a forest fire. And creation is as far antediluvian as it gets. This is the difficulty of this kind of science, logically. If one has more optimistic expectations, then one lacks common sense, which is not a good sign regardless if one is doing science, philosophy, religion or law.

You might have read more of Scalia's dissent…rather than quote-mining! :)

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy.  But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point.  Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed.  The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.
(II A ¶5)

Your characterization of Scalia's view is inapt, ersi. And an inept attempt show bias (or worse…) on Scalia's part.

Actually, Scalia's attempt to present himself impartial is inept. He was dissenting, if you remember...

He was dissenting from the majority's opinion, and he stated his reasoning. You don't understand how that works?

BTW: If you-all don't want to read the opinion, the paragraph ersi excerpted (and mangled…) reads

    The Act's reference to "creation" is not convincing evidence of religious purpose.  The Act defines creation science as "scientific evidenc[e]," § 17:286.3(2) (emphasis added), and Senator Keith and his witnesses repeatedly stressed that the subject can and should be presented without religious content.  See supra, at 623.  We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth.  See n. 4, supra.   Creation science, its proponents insist, no more must explain whence life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate materials from which it says life evolved.  But even if that were not so, to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.  Indeed, it is not even to posit the "unmoved mover" hypothesized by Aristotle and other notably nonfundamentalist philosophers.  Senator Keith suggested this when he referred to "a creator however you define a creator."  1 App. E-280 (emphasis added).
(II B ¶5)

A man in North Caroline was stopped by a police car as the driver had a faulty tail light. As the policeman checked the situation he said he would have to arrest the man as there was a warrant outstanding. Seems the stopped man had not returned a video 14 years earlier! Kind of stretching the law a wee bit isn't it? And the shop the video came from is long closed!

Howie, what has this to do with replacing J. Scalia? :)

But, what the heck, why don't you provide a link to the story… (Note that -even in North Carolina- it seems unlikely that a warrant could be issued for failure to return a video. That's civil small-claims and collection agency stuff; not law enforcement.)

Ah, never mind. I'll do it myself: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/entertainment/arrest-for-14-year-late-video/index.html

BTW: Have you anything to say about replacing J. Scalia? :)
——————————————————————————————————————
Also of note is the first paragraph of section III, citing C.J. Rehnquist's dissent from the majority opinion (in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)), concerning the infamous "wall of separation" and LEMON's three-prong test…
(Ted Cruz -ten years later- clerked for Rehnquist… Think he might have learned a thing or two? :) )
——————————————————————————————————————–
Ya got anything else, ersi?

You asked for what Scalia himself had written concerning his creation-friendliness. That's what he has written - dissenting creation-friendly opinions. Are you saying that the majority opinion was deluded in judging that creation is a religious thing? By what stretch of imagination is creation not a religious thing?

The original Act (Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) says "Existing library acquisition funds shall be used to purchase nonreligious library books as are necessary to give balanced treatment to the creation-science model and the evolution-science model." This is the only place in the Act where religion is mentioned. Now, does this statement conjure nonreligious creation-science textbooks into existence? Do you know any? Have you read them?

The original Act also says "This Subpart is enacted for the purposes of protecting academic freedom." Do you believe this statement? On what grounds? What kind of science is creation-science so that it deserves academic freedom protected to it by a law? What other science has received such attention from legislators? Should legislators be listing sciences that deserve academic freedom?

Now, back to my original point. There was a verdict on the Act. Scalia dissented from the majority opinion by protecting the Act. You quoted that he said "But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point." Do you believe his dissenting opinion actually conveys impartiality and the majority opinion was partial? On what grounds?

You have no answers to any of these questions.

A man in North Caroline was stopped by a police car as the driver had a faulty tail light. As the policeman checked the situation he said he would have to arrest the man as there was a warrant outstanding. Seems the stopped man had not returned a video 14 years earlier! Kind of stretching the law a wee bit isn't it? And the shop the video came from is long closed!

Equally relevant to this thread is that I just had a blueberry bagel with whipped cream cheese. It was delicious and I'd give it four stars. The bagel toasted a little more would have pushed it to five :)

From what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on arrest warrants in the US even if the crime itself is past the statute of limitations. Although I'm not quite sure what that would mean in practice. To me it suggests you'd be arrested, transferred to the police station, and "immediately"(i.e., after some obligatory bureaucratic processing) released.

From what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on arrest warrants in the US even if the crime itself is past the statute of limitations. Although I'm not quite sure what that would mean in practice. To me it suggests you'd be arrested, transferred to the police station, and "immediately"(i.e., after some obligatory bureaucratic processing) released.

Possibly so, if the police actually follows the procedures as supposed to.

So many questions (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1767.msg53468#msg53468), ersi! :) What you really want to ask is, why don't I agree with the libs on the courts…

That one I can answer: As Rehnquist and Scalia didn't tire of saying, our higher courts have become anti-religion; and the precedent that supports this is both a-historical and illogical.

We can start with the "wall of separation," if you'd like. (It would help if you knew something of the U.S. constitution, and the tradition of law it stems from. :) )
But if you only want "your side" to win, why bother? The law doesn't matter; legal reasoning is beside the point.
If the only question you'll consider is How can I keep "the other side" from winning… Well, that's your choice. But I'd say a Supreme Court Justice shouldn't operate that way. Of course, you disagree — with anyone who disagrees with you! That's what you do, and -as far as I can tell- that's your ambit… :)
—————————————————————————————————
Regarding the matter Howie brought up, I still don't understand how a civil matter results in an arrest warrant… Can someone explain it to me?

What you really want to ask is, why don't I agree with the libs on the courts…

No, I was really asking what I asked. Are you saying the majority opinion in Edwards vs. Aguillard was produced by those evil libs? Had they no right for it? Why? How? And the dissenting opinion was right how and why?

That one I can answer: As Rehnquist and Scalia didn't tire of saying, our higher courts have become anti-religion; and the precedent that supports this is both a-historical and illogical.

They can say whatever they want. My question is why it should matter, why it should be considered right or true or better than the majority opinion.

Anyway, you have basically admitted by now that Scalia was ideologically predisposed to scribble whatever he scribbled, so there, he was lying when he said his personal opinion didn't matter (or shouldn't). He was religiously invested in the creationist cause, and his babble about creation as science was pure bunkum. You have not shown in what way one could understand his writing as anything other than sheer nonsense.

Since you atrociously failed to answer my questions, here are some of them again:
How is it sensible to say that creation is science? How is it sensible to say that creation is not religion or philosophy? What creation science textbooks have you read? Can you list some creation science textbooks (appropriately nonreligious of course) that you actually have there over the pond? Is it a good idea that legislators make their pick of sciences that deserve academic freedom? Why?

Anyway, you have basically admitted by now that Scalia was ideologically predisposed to scribble whatever he scribbled, so there, he was lying when he said his personal opinion didn't matter (or shouldn't). He was religiously invested in the creationist cause, and his babble about creation as science was pure bunkum. You have not shown in what way one could understand his writing as anything other than sheer nonsense.

I can see how you'd take it that way… In fact, knowing you, I can't see how you'd take it any other way! :)

Where -I ask you- in the U.S. constitution does it prescribe animosity to religious feelings or principles? In the 1st amendment? In Thom. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, twelve years later? In the 14th amendment's eventual "incorporation" doctrine?
More importantly, where does that animosity get its authority — to override legislative acts?

(I'd have been against "the Act," for other than legal reasons… But that's not what courts here are supposed to do.)

It had not been implemented; it had harmed no one. It (the case) was a then-becoming-common attack on religion… Or anything that might counter such attacks.
As Scalia said (from the second sentence on of his dissent… :) ):

The Louisiana legislators who passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Balanced Treatment Act), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 17:286.1-17:286.7 (West 1982), each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution, (1) were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve.  Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators," 778 F.2d 225, 227 (CA5 1985) (Gee, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it.  I dissent.

But since you have opinions that preclude impartiality or opinions that you disagree with, you attack the motives of anyone with whom you disagree… Let us hope you never become any kind of judge! :)
Your "gut feeling" is not something that our Supreme Court should pay attention to, ersi!

Feel free to argue against Creation Science! I'll not only be there with you, but I'll do a better job. I know more, about biology and logic (and the logic of science) and rhetoric.

The LEMON test is broken and incoherent… That you don't see that is understandable; your whole experience is with authoritarian fiat!

You're complaint seems to be "How dare he disagree with a long-established majority?" We don't do things that way here —too often.

Do you remember Lysenko-ism? Were you taught about it? :)

Where -I ask you- in the U.S. constitution does it prescribe animosity to religious feelings or principles? In the 1st amendment? In Thom. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, twelve years later? In the 14th amendment's eventual "incorporation" doctrine? More importantly, where does that animosity get its authority — to override legislative acts?

To try to make this even remotely relevant: How was the majority opinion guided by animosity towards religious feelings or principles? And, if the original debated Act was expressing religious feelings or principles that one could have animosity towards, then why on earth was Scalia persistently off topic, in fact babbling about something absolutely irrelevant?

Thanks for moving things so far that I can rest my case.

As Scalia continued:

Had requirements of the Balanced Treatment Act that are not apparent on its face been clarified by an interpretation of the Louisiana Supreme Court, or by the manner of its implementation, the Act might well be found unconstitutional; but the question of its constitutionality cannot rightly be disposed of on the gallop, by impugning the motives of its supporters.

Of course, you disagree…
Heresy must be punished! :)

I'm not talking about heresy. The point is that the Act, as you nicely acknowledge and admit, was religious. At the same time, the Act itself babbles about "academic freedom" and makes its best to cover up its own religiosity. Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. So, he is acting like a total wacko nut, completely unhinged from any sense of reality. I have no problem with him being religious. The problem is that he is irrational and not fit to be a judge in a court.

In no way are the Act or Scalia supporting your intepretation of them. If you go by what they actually say, that is. If you don't go by that, then anything goes. You are about as good as Scalia in this respect.

Edit: You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious. At the same time, the Act itself says its purpose is academic freedom. So, if I personally were a judge, I would overturn this Act for its own obvious hypocrisy. No hard feelings towards religion or anything. It would be aversion towards legislated hypocrisy and coverup guiding me, not animosity towards religion. Religious laws should be openly religious. This particular law was a mockery of common sense and dignity.

Of course, now you probably say that your Constitution doesn't preclude legislators cooking up any idiocy they feel like. Because it's a free country or something. Good. Stay there.

Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.

No, sir! Scalia's whole point is that it is not the court's job to decide matters of "science" or "religion"… It's job is to decide matters of law! (Is that concept too abstruse for you…? :) )
The 1st amendment's requirements about religion are pretty short; but their history is pretty-well documented. If you care nothing for that, I understand: That's how you roll! :)
Scalia (among others) thought and often said that the Supreme Court routinely got religious freedom issues wrong — and he made (…well, to me!) cogent arguments for that case.

You've said that legislatures shouldn't legislate "science". I'd agree; but our constitution doesn't forbid it. Still, requiring the teaching of "competing" theories isn't quite legislating "science"… What you likely mean is: You want ID or Creation Science to be ruled out of bounds, to be verboten — because it doesn't agree with your views. (Some would still like to see neo-Darwinism in the same boat! Scalia would agree (and did) that that shouldn't happen.)

Scalia was clear in stating that nothing had yet happened! It was purely a matter of interests taking the long view positioning themselves… The act had not been implemented… (Was this an example of a "trigger warning"? An example of "speech" being used to inhibit speech, rather than argue against it?) He thought that was bad for the law and bad for the country. (Obviously, horrible considerations for a judge to make! :) )

Since the LA Supreme Court hadn't had the case, Scalia's argument was the only reasonable one: Send it back! It's not ripe… (That's a term of "art," ersi. You'll need to know such things, if you persist in posting about SCOTUS topics.)

I've tried to engage you about 1st and 14th amendment issues regarding the establishment clause and the free exercise clause… But you won't "play" — you'd rather exhibit your ignorance, and call names…
Hell, you might be another Trump! :) Same way of reasoning! (But your English is better…! :) )

You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious.

No; it assumes that those with the animosity presumed it to be… That's how they roll!

At the same time, the Act itself says its purpose is academic freedom. So, if I personally were a judge, I would overturn this Act for its own obvious hypocrisy.

Because anyone who doesn't agree with you, about how to do things in a democracy, is wrong? A liar? A hypocrite? (You're another Howie, then! But you might merely be another Stalin… :) You won't be.)

No hard feelings towards religion or anything. It would be aversion towards legislated hypocrisy and coverup guiding me, not animosity towards religion.

Well, Solon, let's see what sort of society you engender… :) You seem unable to see your own hypocrisies, ersi…
What are you doing, nowadays? :)

You're out of your depth, here — for sure!

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.

No, sir! Scalia's whole point is that it is not the court's job to decide matters of "science" or "religion"… It's job is to decide matters of law! (Is that concept too abstruse for you…? :) )

I understand well what you mean. I would also understand it if Scalia had said it, but he never did. Now, I of course noticed him being caught up in various legal technicalities, but inasmuch as the issue really was either religiousness or animosity towards religion, he should have been addressing what really mattered, right? Because as it is now, he allowed the majority completely get away with their animosity.

Of course, you have not yet shown any shred of evidence for the alleged animosity, and I don't expect you to. Your case was lost from the beginning, so I should not be hard on you. If you think your case is not lost, then proceed with proof in the order of relevance.

The 1st amendment's requirements about religion are pretty short; but their history is pretty-well documented.

How does this statement of yours jibe with the following:

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious.

No; it assumes that those with the animosity presumed it to be…

???

Now, either the alleged animosity was actually justified or it was merely presumed. If it was merely presumed, then prove it. If proven as merely presumed, then SCOTUS evidently decides cases based on mere presumptions. But if you are unable to prove that the alleged animosity was merely presumed, then you are yourself operating purely based on assumptions. Like Scalia.

You've said that legislatures shouldn't legislate "science". I'd agree. But requiring the teaching of "competing" theories isn't quite legislating "science"…

Let me get this straight. You are saying that requiring the teaching of competing theories isn't quite legislating science. Are you really saying this? This is as straightforwardly legislating science as it gets.

Moreover, let's look at the substance of the matter. Which competing theories were set side by side? Are they equally theories? Equally scientific? If yes, how did the legislators determine this? If they did not determine this, then why are they legislating this? "For the purposes of protecting academic freedom"? They are legislating academic freedom why? This "isn't quite legislating science" how?

Besides, you put "competing" in quotes. Where are you quoting from? Not from the Act at any rate.

What you likely mean is: You want ID or Creation Science to be ruled out of bounds, to be verboten — because it doesn't agree with your views. (Some would still like to see neo-Darwinism in the same boat! Scalia would agree (and did) that that shouldn't happen.)

What you likely mean is that you are a reactionary wingnut who sees the lib phantoms where there are none.

Scalia was clear in stating that nothing had yet happened!

Okay. And, it's quite clear, if we have common sense, that nothing good to academic freedom could have happened, given the Act. The Act could not be furthering its stated purpose by any stretch of the imagination. But your imagination probably beats mine.

I've tried to engage you about 1st and 14th amendment issues regarding the establishment clause and the free exercise clause… But you won't "play" — you'd rather exhibit your ignorance, and call names…

First you have to show how they are relevant. Let's see, 1st Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This can be relevant if the Act is about religion. The Act says it's about academic freedom rather, and about "nonreligious library books". So, either the Act is lying (in which case it must be overturned) or the Amendment is inapplicable. Which way is it? Your call.

Because anyone who doesn't agree with you, about how to do things in a democracy, is wrong? A liar? A hypocrite?

Sorry, but this never was about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about having relevance or not, being true to the stated purpose or not. The Act is not true to its stated purpose.

In your kind of democracy, legislators are free to cook up any law they want - because it's a free country. Well, they are actually doing this. Enjoy it.

You're out of your depth, here — for sure!

You mean you have dragged me down to your level and now beating me with experience?

1st Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This can be relevant if the Act is about religion. The Act says it's about academic freedom rather, and about "nonreligious library books". So, either the Act is lying (in which case it must be overturned) or the Amendment is inapplicable. Which way is it? Your call.

I'm tired, so I'll start with this:
It's been rejected as an unacceptably religiously denigrated statute… But that's okay, nowadays; has been for more than 50 years…
Not everyone is okay with that.
And you think that's just "wrong"!

In your kind of democracy, legislators are free to cook up any law they want - because it's a free country.

They are! And if there's good reason to deem those laws unconstitutional, they'll be struck down.
Unless "democrats" rule — for democrats, the "will" of the "people" is what matters! Goals and plans! Of course, they'd kill all of the people to get what they want!
(Estonia has some experience with this ideology.)

I'm tired,...

What follows this, makes no sense at all. Try again. Take your time.

Edit: Remember the point - show how 1st Amendment is relevant here and helps your case. To me it is self-evident that if 1st Amendment is relevant here, it doesn't help your case at all. But let's first see you show how it is relevant.

And if there's good reason to deem those laws unconstitutional, they'll be struck down.

Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not. Because the Constitution naturally foresaw and provided for everything, right? Nevermind that Scalia, whenever there was a case concerning matters close to his heart, he always listened to his heart - while referring to the Constitution, because this makes it technically look better. But when the libs do the exact same thing, they are evil!

So, basically you think that the job of SCOTUS was to judge if the Act was constitutional or not. To make it simple, I repeat again one of my earlier questions another way: The majority opinion was wrong/misguided/carried by animosity as shown by the fact that it says (or fails to consider)...

Of course, they'd kill all of the people to get what they want!
(Estonia has some experience with this ideology.)

You mean Soviets were liberals? And liberals are like Soviets? How about the current government of Estonia? Liberals too, because Estonia is experiencing heavier population loss now than ever before in history?

This is as clear as it gets that "libs" is just a curse word for you. You should stop cussing.

I take it Oakdale that you are a visitor to planet Earth?

Every thread on a forum always drifts as well you damn know so no hermit brain thinking please. The mention I made is part of the tradition therefore and shows how silly the legal world can be.

Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not.

Since the law was struck down because it was unconstitutional (the stated reason…), that is indeed the only question: The Supreme Court is not a second legislative branch of government here; at least, it wasn't intended to be… That Scalia recognized this and argued strongly for it is to his credit, I think.
I take it you have an "ends justify means" philosophy of law, and believe that law is just politics by other means?

I find this curious:

Because the Constitution naturally foresaw and provided for everything, right?

No; because as Chief Justice Marshall said, a long time ago, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"

ersi, I think you confuse wisdom and fad… :)

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 02:20:32

Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not.

Since the law was struck down because it was unconstitutional (the stated reason…), that is indeed the only question: The Supreme Court is not a second legislative branch of government here; at least, it wasn't intended to be… That Scalia recognized this and argued strongly for it is to his credit, I think.

You still haven't answered if the majority opinion somehow deviates from this. You have been going on and on about religion and certain amendments, giving the impression that religious freedom matters or something like that. Such interpretation of yours goes against what Scalia expressly says: He strongly argues that the Act has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. So, you are intently misreading Scalia.

How about the majority opinion? Can we have your misreading of that too? Thus far you have been just praising Scalia. How about identifying what is wrong with the majority opinion, if anything? 

I take it you have an "ends justify means" philosophy of law, and believe that law is just politics by other means?

That's why it's quite frustrating to talk to you. You are happy to conjure up some of your liberal stereotype phantom and then deal with that, instead of with the actual argument presented to you.

In my philosophy of law, there are ends and means. Both have to be appropriate. The end or purpose has to be identified as good and proper, and the way to get there should proceed as agreed.

ersi, I think you confuse wisdom and fad… :)

You fail at answers, as always. Instead of answering my actual questions, you imagined that my real question was something like why don't you agree with liberals. This is the hallmark of a reactionary wingnut: Avoid agreeing with liberals at all costs. You are doing occasionally pretty well in this area. Not so well in any other area, such as in defining what a liberal is and what it does and why one should not agree with it.

We're going to have to go back quite a ways to get to the nub of the problem, the difference of opinion, that has led to two paths of interpretation of the religious restrictions and religious freedoms "enshrined" in the 1st amendment…
The most common trope used by the side not favored by Scalia is President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists). Are you familiar with it? That "wall of separation" became a battlement, a rampart from which to defend against religion in 1947, with Hugo Black's majority decision (5-4!) in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
He wrote:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Do you not see problems with this formulation?
First, the second term of art in "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another" is obviously wrong: By such reasoning the teaching of America's Declaration of Independence should be -at least!- censored…
But J. Black misunderstands the matter even more egregiously: Second, the case is about public assistance for ferrying school children to school. All the children whose parents received such assistance are dependents of tax-payers. But some attended "religious" schools… So, J. Black (and the complainer) think they should not receive such public assistance! Whence the origin of the court's switch from the 1st amendment's clear language to an animosity to religion.
By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?
Such has continued almost unabated since then. Bizarre "technicalities" used to harass anyone who practices any religion… (Well, not "any" really: Only Christians. :( ) There's a long established "cottage industry" devoted to frustrating and disenfranchising Christians…)

It is this proclivity that J. Scalia (and, earlier, C.J. Rehnquist) wrote against, as being a-historical and illogical: The 1st amendment's guarantee of both religious freedom and disestablishment precludes this sort of dispute… In other words, school children -if granted funds to go to and from school- cannot be discriminated against, because they attend "religious" schools.
The funds are granted to tax-payers who have school-aged children attending school.
What more is there to be considered? :)
Surely, their religion shouldn't be an issue: Should Jews or Mohammedans or Hindus not get the aid? American Indians? (You get the point, I hope…) But, if not, I'll make it explicit:
Adherence to a religion hasn't yet been made (…except via court decisions!) a crime punishable by second-class citizenship…

The majority opinion buys into trope wholeheartedly, proclaiming that the majorities of both legislative branches of Louisiana are liars… On what basis, I'd ask?

You'd make the case about the "wisdom" of the law, and its effects. But that's not what this case was concerned about. Or was it? :)
You take this to be politics!
Specifically, I'd ask, where in our jurisprudence is that an acceptable "tactic" for appeals courts?

The case that caught your attention involves what I'd agree is a lame attempt to keep debate about evolution, as a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design… Should children be taught "both sides of the issue"?
What about your No has any support from the 1st amendment?

Nothing, except the animosity to religion evidenced by more than 50 years of activist judges…
No wonder you seek to denigrate Scalia!

(You'd be happier in 18th century France! :) Right up until they lopped off your head! :) )

By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?

And what right-wingnut blog told you this? Clearly the author was on Oxycontin, aka hillybilly heroin. Black was arguing that taxpayer funds could be used to transport children to parochial schools, as long the the funds didn't favor one religion over another. Here's (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1) a non-dumbass account of what happened and the full majority and dissenting opinions. In this you'll note Black said in very simple language Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools." Therefore, your question to Ersi is invalid and appears to be based on misunderstanding of Black's opinion. The First Amendment (and Black's reasoning) would mean that a person could NOT be denied public assistance on the grounds that he's a Christian of any denomination, a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, some weird sect that worships cabbages or an atheist.

There's a long established "cottage industry" devoted to frustrating and disenfranchising Christians…)

Not at all. Problematically, the Christians have been having their members of congress do blatantly unconstitutional things at the state, local and Federal levels. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard they were trying  to shoe-horn in religious instruction under the guise of science, even though creation "science" has failed to produce any empirical data and thus doesn't qualify as science. While it is true that we don't want the government choosing what's science, you're overlooking that creation "science" only takes into account the teaching of the three Abrahamic religions, but not those of other major religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism and is therefore advancing a religious agenda. However, like the Judeo-christian account of creation, the other religion's account lack an empirical foundation and still have no place in science class.

And what right-wingnut blog told you this?

Why do you persist with this silly projection, Sang? :)
If a grant for transport to and from school can be denied to attendees of Parochial school… Surely, you have enough familiarity with logic to extrapolate? (Black himself did… Or didn't you read the opinion you linked to? :) )

The only reason Black gives in his opinion for the discrimination is that the students attend a school that does teach religion, as well… Even you gleaned that!
(And he rightly rejects that, upon 1st amendment grounds.)
It's the section where he writes

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
(emphasis added)

This is so over-the-top!
And it led to what we've had for more than 50 years now: A constitutional jurisprudence that is frequently hostile to Christianity…

(Ain't it funny, how dicta takes over, after a while? :( )

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

How does this become "No tax monies can go to believers…" even though they've paid into themselves?
You and I both saw it happen! (Of course, I saw more of it… I'm older than you! :) ) So, I'll tell you: "Support" became "benefit in any way" — guess why?
You'll find many more cites to this particular part of this decision by other court opinions than any other! And you'll see -if you can but look- that nary a one distinguishes the opinion itself… Which is what would happen, if your contention is correct.
—————————————————————————————
BTW: The "big bang" theory of the origin of our universe would be deemed "religious" by your definition… Should we have to stop teaching it? :)
—————————————————————————————
This article (https://dndsanctuary.eu/No matter what the future holds, Everson will be remembered by church-state separation advocates as a seminal case, important for its clear explanation of the scope and meaning of the First Amendment's religious freedom provisions. Had subsequent courts embraced the Everson formula, church-state relations in America might look quite different. Vouchers and other forms of tax aid to religious schools would not have been upheld, and "faith-based" initiatives would be dead in the water.) is likely more to your liking… But it can't help but make my point: The decision was ignored, and some of its rationale was adopted. Gee! I don't know; that seems — kinda, valley-girlish… :)

(Thanks, for pointing me to this… I'd only read court opinions and drawn my own conclusions: It's nice to know that I'm actually "in the game". I'm not a lawyer, you know? :) )

We're going to have to go back quite a ways to get to the nub of the problem, the difference of opinion, that has led to two paths of interpretation...

So, the nub of the problem is that you have two camps of interpretation. I suggest that the real problem is that in such a situation you pick your camp and get entrenched in it without any regard to the issue at hand. The real problem is this:

By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?

Of course it looks unreasonable to deny Food Stamps from adherents of religion. But you see, I asked you the very same question about another issue - does the Act look reasonable in any way at all? Are legislators free to cook up any silly law they want? Since you didn't even address the issue of its constitutionality (i.e. if the majority opinion was wrongly based/justified/reasoned somehow), your answer is clearly - yes, as long as it's your camp doing it; the libs should be blocked from doing the same. Thanks for being so clear for a change.

And it led to what we've had for more than 50 years now: A constitutional jurisprudence that is frequently hostile to Christianity…

And it never occurs to you that 1) the religious right declared "culture war" on the rest of us - not the other way around 2) What they've been attempting to do really is unconstitutional.

You're so wrong, ersi!
"By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?" As usual, you aren't paying attention: He was saying exactly the opposite; and he ruled that way. He happened to mention it, in passing…
Likewise, his remarks about taxes and the 1st amendment have been blown out of proportion: Dicta has become dogma!

And it never occurs to you that 1) the religious right declared "culture war" on the rest of us - not the other way around 2) What they've been attempting to do really is unconstitutional.

No, that didn't occur to me… I was there!
But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history… :)

Dicta has become dogma!

Yes. "The libs are wrong whatever the issue" is your dicta and dogma.

You're a legal scholar? :) Well, compared to you — I am!
(For someone who continually harps on the necessity to define terms, you seem awfully lax about the understanding of common words… Indeed, you twist and turn them however it suits! You're the Donald Trump of Estonia… At least, intellectually!
Have you actually built buildings? :) )

But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history…

No, I was there to watch them pull some of the crap. :) I do find your arguments incoherent You choose to underline "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa." You're in favor of low taxes and smaller government, yet doing those things would require additional taxes to support religion and getting expanding the government into religion.

You also say silly things like " "No tax monies can go to believers…" even though they've paid into themselves?" What about non-believers in a particular denomination or religion having to pay for the activities of a church/Mosque/Synagogue they don't believe in. Why should a Catholic or Protestant have to pay for a Mormon child's religious instruction in a school run by that sect? Or a Jew having to pay for Muslim's religious instruction? Yes, I've seen a Muslim school here, since unlike you, I go out of the house.  You can't tell me you want your tax dollars funding a Muslim's religious instruction through additional taxes. But that's what this argument would require. Since you're claiming that it's tax money "they've paid into themselves" , the best thing is for those believers to do would be to donate the money directly to the religious school and cut out the government middle-man. That school in New Jersey could have held a fund raiser and used the proceeds to purchase a van or bus to pick the kids up, and the donors could write it off their taxes and no government aid would be required.

Tell you what. I'll move to California just so I can open a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster school just so I can replace actual science class with the "theory" that the FSM created the world and make your tax dollars pay for it. :yes: This way money will go to believers, just not in the religion that you hoped it would. :) We'll be sure to claim "sincere belief" and cry "oppression" if the money is denied and then waste plenty of taxpayer money fighting the case up to the SCOTUS, all the while knowing the outcome will be against us. :) The key will be rising as big of stink as possible about nothing. We'll open a little spaghetti restaurant next to the school just to claim not to cater to Christian weddings, even though we won't cater at all (that's what Memories Pizza did. They said they won't cater to same sex weddings, but they actually didn't even cater...:faint: )

Creationism? Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Ah... the good old days! :rolleyes:

Who the fuck is that antonini scala? a barber turned barbieri turned american opera politician?
Wau, the way of the imigrant, the way of the American, up to the pseudo social scale top.
No patience.

You're a legal scholar? :) Well, compared to you — I am!

Sure you are, compared to anyone here. Law people are absolutely the most despicable, a notch stronger in the rank of depravity compared to economists and politicians. Economists have an excuse because their science is academically twisted. Politicians have an excuse because some of them used to be common folks before being corrupted by power. Law people have no excuse. They know they should know and do better, and their discipline sort of teaches them how, but after graduation they still do the opposite.

But really, I don't think you are that bad. You are more of a politician: MUST. DISAGREE. WITH. LIBS.

You have an amazing ability to view the world around you by preconception. But when you want to say I'm wrong you only have your "you're a conservative" trope! :)

But when you want to say I'm wrong you only have your "you're a conservative" trope!

And what's your trope? "You're a liberal socialist!" even if the person in question isn't particularly liberal and far from a socialist. I can't speak for Ersi, but I noted some time ago that according to polls, my opinions are pretty much centrist (and provided the links to demonstrate this). It's just that the "conservative" crazy train has gone off the rails on right side of the tracks and appears to not have much concept of the constitution anymore. Creation "science" taught in schools as science? Ridiculous by both academic and constitutional standards. I also see that you're unable to answer why you want additional taxes to transport pupils to parochial schools. You have no answers for anything, just snark and trolling.

I also see that you're unable to answer why you want additional taxes to transport pupils to parochial schools.

I didn't say I wanted taxes to provide transport; the New Jersey state legislature did… And one guy sued, because he was miffed that parochial school students weren't discriminated against!
At any rate, J. Black reached the right decision. (You agree with him, right?)
But the dicta has become more important than the decision…

I didn't say I wanted taxes to provide transport; the New Jersey state legislature did…

You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.

You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.

In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!
(Alternately, when the legislature drafted the bill they totaled up all the taxpayers and then subtracted out those who sent their kids to parochial school… Nah!)
You just have your "opinion" and you'll grasp at any partisan straw to support it!

Tell me, one, why any extra taxation would have been required? And, two, why the fellow sued?

(It never fails to surprise me, how some people can see what's in other people's heart! Still, I think at the level of the Supreme Court that the Ouija board should be put away… :) That is a reference to the LA "creation" case, I mention; I wouldn't want you to get more confused.)

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-30, 19:16:28

You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.

In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!

All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.

For example, the govt of Estonia thought for a while it a good idea to prop up private schools (because several prominent members of their party operate private schools in different parts of the country), to force extant school buses, school meal providers and even public school teachers to service them whenever the private schools present an application for such. This turned out a bad idea when Tallinn city mayor (always at quarrel with the govt of Estonia) began using this regulation to move half of the education network in the city to a private basis - formally out of the city's budget, but with a direct cost to the govt. When the national govt understood the situation, the regulation was overturned, of course.

Did the regulation care about citizens?

All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.

In this case, no distinction was made…in the law.
The complaint was that material support was thereby given to religious schools. As I've mentioned before, by that reasoning, Food Stamps should be denied to Catholic schoolchildren…

As always, you misunderstand how things work here. But I appreciate the insight into Estonian democracy! :)

In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!

What the fuck are you babbling incoherently about? Do you even know? I'll bet you forgot that my own sister went to Catholic school. Of course, we handled the transportation issue ourselves since it was the family's decision to send her there instead of public school.   Of course, that silliness of yours was an attempt to dodge the issue that money to transport children has to come from somewhere. The other question is why I even bothered answering your gibberish.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-30, 21:21:53

All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.

In this case, no distinction was made…in the law.
The complaint was that material support was thereby given to religious schools. As I've mentioned before, by that reasoning, Food Stamps should be denied to Catholic schoolchildren…

As always, you misunderstand how things work here. But I appreciate the insight into Estonian democracy! :)

News in general and threads on this forum provide a good overview how things work over there. Some glance at your laws, court cases, appeals and, most insightfully, your comments on everything clearly tell that things don't work over there.

For example: This last point was about school transportation. You made a direct and immediate connection to being a citizen. Marvellous.

I begin to understand how you manage to interpret Scalia as saying things he never said. Scalia said that creation is science and you conclude - he is upholding constitutional religious freedoms. Awesome stuff :)

This last point was about school transportation. You made a direct and immediate connection to being a citizen. Marvellous.

I grant you, I should have said taxpayer…
Perhaps if you'd learn to cuss, sputter and fume like Sang you'd better understand! :) (You see, it's okay to discriminate against those you disagree with… That's what government is for, isn't it?)

I'll bet you forgot that my own sister went to Catholic school. Of course, we handled the transportation issue ourselves since it was the family's decision to send her there instead of public school.

You'd win that bet! Can't say that I ever knew… Did she go to parochial school in mid-40s New Jersey? If not, I don't see the relevance.
But, again, I'll ask: Do you agree with J. Black's decision in Everson?
Or do you just accept the dicta, because it can be used in ways you approve of?

The other question is why I even bothered answering your gibberish.

Because…I'm one of the few people left who bother to take you seriously! :)

Take him seriously? Hope that is subtle humour dear man?!

Take him seriously? Hope that is subtle humour dear man?!

How in the world would you know? :)

When he argues, I refer to his argument. When he rants, I scoff. (You yourself are all scoff… :) That's all you know, besides what you misunderstand from your telly!)

BTW: Do you, Howie, think Hugo Black decided Everson v. School Board correctly? :)

But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history… :)

Revisionist history? I love that term. :)
You know, history is and always was written by the victors. First priority is and always was to put the victors in a favorable light and to legitimate their actions. The truth was never a high priority in case it was a priority at all. So far humans didn't change since the invention of hieroglyphics.
In our modern civilized world however, we went a step further.
The 'truth' becomes standardized now and woe to he who dares to question that 'truth'. Any historian who doesn't comply will be demonized and is ripe for a job as a dishwasher. Wikipedia doesn't make any exception and you'll often find the same bullshit on its sites no matter which language you'll check.

So I wonder which history did you learn?
The 'truthful' one or that of the victors? :)

You see, it's okay to discriminate against those you disagree with… That's what government is for, isn't it?)

Especially if you have a "sincere religious belief." :yes: The right-wing branch of Christianity is not discriminated against in this country. At all. Right now they're just being crybaby bitches. Not being allowed to discriminate does not amount to being discriminated against, no matter how many bathtubs full of tears you fill even though nobody wrong you. In fact, you'll be amazed at what people get away with on account of religion. For instance, the Amish are allowed to stop their children's education after completing the eighth grade because of religion. America has among the highest levels of religious freedom in the world and nobody is trying to change that. It's just that the Religious Right cannot impose it's version of morality on everyone else through laws that flagrantly violate the first and fourteenth amendment. It really is that simple, so quit crying crocodile tears about christians supposed being discriminated against, especially since I see no evidence of Christianity in you.

In fact, you'll be amazed at what people get away with on account of religion. For instance, the Amish are allowed to stop their children's education after completing the eighth grade because of religion.

I confess, I didn't know that… (Might it have something to do with an agrarian lifestyle?)  But is there any actual evidence that "education" beyond the 8th grade is beneficial? :)
I'd offer you and me and some others as cases in point…

BTW: Please explain to me why particular photographers and bakers should be required -on pain of penury- to perform acts they find distasteful?
Some kind of spite, I think.
Also, would you require Muslims to go against haram? You know, in the name of multi-culturalism? (I suspect not. But I know the reason for the answer, anyway: Guess!)

It's just that the Religious Right cannot impose it's version of morality on everyone else through laws that flagrantly violate the first and fourteenth amendment. It really is that simple, so quit crying crocodile tears about christians supposed being discriminated against, especially since I see no evidence of Christianity in you.

I'm sorry that I have to revert to an old trope — but you continue to tempt me while you think you're taunting me:
When will you learn to spell simple English? :) "Its" is the possessive pronoun; "it's" is the contraction of "it is". And yet a mere 16 years of education didn't teach you that…
Perhaps you need a PhD to learn what 6th graders used to know!

I can understand why you see no "evidence of Christianity" in me: You don't know what Christianity is. But that's okay: I lapsed more than 40 years ago… :)
And I'm not particularly keen to promote Christianity, or any other religion. Then again, with one exception, I'd not disfavor any.

What Scalia did on the court was argue for a kind of fidelity to the constitution that offends you, personally. Those old white guys, mostly slave-owners, were — not you!
OMG: the iniquity!
He believed in the rights of individuals. You don't. (At least, you frequently argue that some groups must be "disestablished"… :) ) Why?

In fact, you'll be amazed at what people get away with on account of religion. For instance, the Amish are allowed to stop their children's education after completing the eighth grade because of religion.

Is everybody else required to continue their education beyond eighth grade?

It varies from state to state, ersi. (Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html)'s the list.)

The list doesn't answer my question. It doesn't say what eighth grade is in each state. It lists some compulsory ages from 16 to 18. As I see, nobody is required to continue their education after a certain age, so the Amish exception to allow children to stop education after eighth grade is just a nonsense wacko erratic law, disconnected from all reality, as it happens over there time and again.

You're hopelessly pedantic, ersi… But perhaps that's the only real advantage of an education "beyond 8th grade"!? :)
As far as I know -and I've seen no evidence to refute it- no law anywhere ever effectively required actual education, only "time served". There are, here (as elsewhere, I'm sure) minimum requirements for graduation/certification… But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; and while you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink.

You're getting better at your Howie-isms!

There are, here (as elsewhere, I'm sure) minimum requirements for graduation/certification...

Correct. And when the minimum is the eighth grade, then the permission for the Amish to stop educating themselves beyond the eighth grade is just empty nonsense. A law without a meaning. A law without any awareness of what it regulates. A legal system without a system.

[…] the permission for the Amish to stop educating themselves beyond the eighth grade is just empty nonsense […]

Oh! I get it: Only government schools provide "education"… Might not a better word be "indoctrination"? :)
A legal system that you don't understand, although it's many centuries old, is "without a system"? Your Soviet masters trained you well!

You -at least- seem to be ready for subjugation, again. How do most of your countrymen feel? (Of course, you can tell me "feeling" doesn't matter… Except you've repeatedly shown that -for you- that's all that does! :) Your pretensions to rationality are quite amusing!)

But let's try something else, ersi: Title IX cases… (Of course, you can say — Why? By the same token, I'd say why do you bother about this topic? I know. Would you tell the others?)

If the majority and the Obama administration are right that a boy who identifies as female has a right under Title IX to use the girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities, then it would be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to bar a boy who identifies as male from having the same access. After all, the difference between the two biological males is that they have different gender identities. How could one of the males be allowed to use the girls’ facilities and the other be barred from doing so if Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity?
In short, the Department of Education’s 1975 regulation (which is still operative) is incompatible with a reading of Title IX that would extend its bar on sex discrimination to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, for such a ruling would nullify the very protection that regulation recognizes or provides.
(Ed Whelan, from a newsletter I subscribe to… :)

Of course, logic means nothing (I'll wait, until you can cast an argument in syllogisms… :) ); and tradition means nothing. All that really matters is political correctness and the weird way progressives go about their way of achieving and maintaining power…

But since you know nothing about our system of law — indeed, you denigrate it as not really a system — what are you talking about?

We are (the U.S. and NATO) pledged to defend Estonia, if it is attacked. I'd like to say, "Except for ersi…" But the U.S. constitution forbids such, as a "bill of attainder." (I'm sure you think it a mere trifle! :) I don't: I understand the history of such.) But you'd be okay with such? :)
I suspect you would. That's the world you know…

Oh! I get it: Only government schools provide "education"… Might not a better word be "indoctrination"? :)

No, you are not getting it. To be fair, I knew you wouldn't, so it's all cool.

A legal system that you don't understand, although it's many centuries old, is "without a system"?

I understand very well how case law system compares to civil law system. Case law serves its purpose when your outside relations consist of dividing and conquering and internal relations aim to mislead and disorientate, like Germanics contra Rome, Vikings contra Europe, and UK/US contra the rest of the world. Works fine for what it's meant for. I just disagree with such a purpose. Civil law, on the other hand, aims to define a culture and civilisation.

But let's try something else, ersi: Title IX cases… (Of course, you can say — Why? By the same token, I'd say why do you bother about this topic? I know. Would you tell the others?)

Quote

If the majority and the Obama administration are right that a boy who identifies as female has a right under Title IX to use the girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities, then it would be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to bar a boy who identifies as male from having the same access. After all, the difference between the two biological males is that they have different gender identities. How could one of the males be allowed to use the girls’ facilities and the other be barred from doing so if Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity?
In short, the Department of Education’s 1975 regulation (which is still operative) is incompatible with a reading of Title IX that would extend its bar on sex discrimination to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, for such a ruling would nullify the very protection that regulation recognizes or provides.
(Ed Whelan, from a newsletter I subscribe to… :)

Of course, logic means nothing (I'll wait, until you can cast an argument in syllogisms… :) ); and tradition means nothing. All that really matters is political correctness and the weird way progressives go about their way of achieving and maintaining power…

Do you have a question? Or are you trying to make a point?

A question should end in a question mark. Your incoherence in parentheses - "Of course, you can say — Why? By the same token, I'd say why do you bother about this topic? I know. Would you tell the others?" - has no identifiable relation to anything. The best to be said about it is that you are drunk. And your best is just too bad.

But if you are making a point, then you should definitely drop incoherence outside the parentheses. As it is, there is no point to be found.

We are (the U.S. and NATO) pledged to defend Estonia, if it is attacked.

For now, Estonia has defended the U.S. (and NATO) by contributing to the toppling of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq (W. appealed to NATO charter article 5). In return, the U.S. has kept pushing Putin's buttons, never solved a conflict in the Baltic region militarily or economically, just kept intensifying them. Thank you very much for making my point for me.

I understand the history of such.

We all know that you think you understand something. For a change, prove it.

Case law serves its purpose when your outside relations consist of dividing and conquering and internal relations aim to mislead and disorientate […]

Is it cynical ignorance or ignorant cynicism? :) ersi, why do you think everyone should be regimented? :) A personal affliction, perhaps? You can only be happy if everyone else is equally unhappy?

For now, Estonia has defended the U.S. (and NATO) by contributing to the toppling of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq (W. appealed to NATO charter article 5).

That's rather disingenuous.
(See, for example, this (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#top)…):

The 9/11 terrorist attacks
The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the very first time in its history.
An act of solidarity
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

Excuse me, miss, your slip is showing… :)

Is it cynical ignorance or ignorant cynicism? :) ersi, why do you think everyone should be regimented? :)

Where did I say or even hint or imply that everyone should be regimented? Must be abject cynicism on your part.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-25, 23:33:45

For now, Estonia has defended the U.S. (and NATO) by contributing to the toppling of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq (W. appealed to NATO charter article 5).

That's rather disingenuous.
(See, for example, this (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#top)…):

Quote

The 9/11 terrorist attacks
The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the very first time in its history.
An act of solidarity
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

Excuse me, miss, your slip is showing… :)

So, your impression is that the Article 5 was invoked without U.S. pressure and that everybody agreed without question? False on both accounts. Eventually, the invadors of Afghanistan and Iraq were "alliance" (a W. rhetorical term that didn't mean NATO because he couldn't get NATO backing). Also, invoking Article 5 when the enemy was not a country or an entity like that totally ruined the point of invoking Article 5. The enemies were not considered soldiers but "enemy combattants" to evade procedures of war subject to international law. This is how the U.S. rapidly squandered all sympathy it had immediately after the 9/11 attacks and had to proceed by overriding force, because there was no sane argument or point left. This may not be the common perception over there. You may think that NATO was unanimous and everybody saw it as their divine inalienable right to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, only W. and Blair were unanimous to their bitter ends.

Moreover, you only responded to what I said in the parentheses, while ignoring what's outside parentheses. You thought that by repudiating a marginal note^[1] you thoroughly overthrow all I said? This is the thinking of a demoagogue. In fact, you didn't even respond because you didn't manage to identify the point I was making.

I take Oakdale knows nothing of the Singing Revolution? The reason he has to belittle Estonians is a lack of self-esteem, so he has to get some virtue of being a citizen of a large and powerful country.
 

It doesn't say what eighth grade is in each state.

8th grade is ~14 years old, depending on the pupil's birthday. You're usually 17 or 18 when you graduate secondary school in the US, probably similar to Estonia.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-25, 13:18:02

It doesn't say what eighth grade is in each state.

8th grade is ~14 years old, depending on the pupil's birthday. You're usually 17 or 18 when you graduate secondary school in the US, probably similar to Estonia.

Right, this is similar to Estonia. What is different though is that the school compulsion ends here when you finish primary school. Looks like you over there have to continue to the secondary school (except the Amish). Oakdale must find this inalienably right and free.

What is different though is that the school compulsion ends here when you finish primary school.

Once you've mastered the three Rs (Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmatic :) ) you can go on by yourself, if you want to.

Looks like you over there have to continue to the secondary school (except the Amish).

Yup! Libs (ours, not yours…) or Progressives -as I'd call them- fought hard for that!
I suspect the purpose was to preclude any majority of young people who could and would think for themselves… Because our masters in government know what's best, and they don't have time to explain or argue! (I'm sure you're familiar with that attitude?!)

I'd agree, the U.S. (and NATO) haven't much helped the Baltic states… (The fiasco in the mid '90s certainly didn't help! I never understood how Bosnia had anything to do with U.S. national interests. Russia, however, had legitimate interests…) At any rate, your lapse of logic is typical: Anything that isn't irrefutably proven false must be true! So, the U.S. (and, likely, G.W. himself…) twisted enough arms to make the meek and mild European in NATO invoke Article 5!
Or do you go so far as to call them spineless? :) What's your military experience, ersi? Were you, like Howie a Boy Scout? 

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-27, 00:33:24

Looks like you over there have to continue to the secondary school (except the Amish).

Yup! Libs (ours, not yours…) or Progressives -as I'd call them- fought hard for that!
I suspect the purpose was to preclude any majority of young people who could and would think for themselves… Because our masters in government know what's best, and they don't have time to explain or argue! (I'm sure you're familiar with that attitude?!)

Yes, I'm familiar with the attitude that when you go to (public) school you inevitably stop thinking for yourself. I don't know where people get this. People should grow a spine and think for themselves, not go along with attitudes. For most people, school actually helps to grow a spine, because you have to put up with lots of crap - and since it's crap that everybody must put up with in life in general, it's a good exercise for you to do it too.

I'd agree, the U.S. (and NATO) haven't much helped the Baltic states…

Good. I also agree with this, because this is what I said, while you said something about U.S. having helped us a lot. It's the other way around - the Baltic states have helped the U.S. when the U.S. cried for help even though they didn't really need any. They just needed accomplices.

So, the U.S. (and, likely, G.W. himself…) twisted enough arms to make the meek and mild European in NATO invoke Article 5!
Or do you go so far as to call them spineless? :)

Yes, I do. You don't?

What's your military experience, ersi? Were you, like Howie a Boy Scout? 

What difference does it make to the main point?

We've gotten pretty far afield from the topic…
Is it (as it seems) your contention that the whole tradition of Anglo-Saxon law is deficient? If that is so, you have no point to make — beyond snark.

Haha. Drifting from a topic was a tradition on Opera and continues here!

And the U.S. is bad, very bad! :)

Still not the topic. :P

For RJ, it's the only topic! :)

Ah no, immigration is another one to be sure. I think most of us probably aren't too displeased by the latest developments (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=163.msg61338#msg61338) in that matter.

Perhaps some would like to read this (https://www.aei.org/publication/whose-constitution-is-it-anyway/)…
(Refer back to the Gay Marriage thread.)

She is by no means alone on the Supreme Court. Six of that Court’s nine members have either written or joined in opinions citing foreign authorities. The most astonishing, or risible, so far was Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion arguing that he found “useful” in interpreting our Constitution decisions by the Privy Council of Jamaica, and the Supreme Courts of India and Zimbabwe. Jamaica and India are far-fetched enough. But Zimbabwe–the country devastated by the blood-stained dictator Robert Mugabe! We might as well learn our constitutional law from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

This is pretty silly. A court's opinion is a well-argued document. Regardless whether one agrees with the verdict reached, one would certainly hope that court decisions from other countries will be found useful. The whole article is disastrous in not linking to anything. Lawrence v. Texas (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html), the citing of a European court was to counter a relevant claim; it didn't just come out of the blue. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/815.html) I think it's also useful to look at what it actually said:

The authors of the Eighth Amendment drafted a categorical prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, but they made no attempt to define the contours of that category. They delegated that task to future generations of judges who have been guided by the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion) (Warren, C. J.). 4 In performing that task the [487 U.S. 815, 822]  Court has reviewed the work product of state legislatures and sentencing juries, 5 and has carefully considered the reasons why a civilized society may accept or reject the death penalty in certain types of cases. Thus, in confronting the question whether the youth of the defendant - more specifically, the fact that he was less than 16 years old at the time of his offense - is a sufficient reason for denying the State the power to sentence him to death, we first review relevant legislative enactments, 6 then refer to jury determinations, 7 and [487 U.S. 815, 823]  finally explain why these indicators of contemporary standards of decency confirm our judgment that such a young person is not capable of acting with the degree of culpability that can justify the ultimate penalty. 8 

By this point, I give the article a failing grade.

What these courts are doing closely resembles Belgium’s concept of “universal jurisdiction,” under which its courts were asserting the authority to try criminally people involved in actions that have no connection to Belgium. A Belgian court tried and convicted Rwandan nuns for their actions during a massacre in Rwanda. The Belgian Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon may be tried after he leaves office for alleged war crimes in Lebanon 20 years earlier when he was head of Israel’s army. Since massacres by Arabs are not prosecuted, it is difficult to disagree with Israelis who see anti-Semitism as an explanation for the difference. That is to be expected.

This was repealed in '02 or '03. Oh, but I only now noticed the article was published in '03, not '16. That excuses some of its worst offenses, but the ridiculous premise remains. The American legal system was founded on the customs of European colonists, primarily following and standardizing into English common law. These were adapted into their current American form, such as the constitution that defines the relationship between the branches of government. Incidentally, iirc Louisiana never adopted common law, but stuck with its French legal system. Courts and judges have always made policy (to a certain degree) by interpreting and applying the law. Such interpretation has never been a myopic US-only affair. Robert Bork may dislike it, but it stinks of recency illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_illusion).

Robert Bork's article is arguing by innuendo, assumption, and impression, not by rational points. He never says what he wants and what he is aiming at. He only expresses disgust and horror. For example,

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a recent speech said that decisions of other countries’ courts could be persuasive authority in American courts. At a time when 30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is internationally derived, she said, “no institution of government can afford to ignore the rest of the world.”

She is by no means alone on the Supreme Court. Six of that Court’s nine members have either written or joined in opinions citing foreign authorities. The most astonishing, or risible, so far was Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion arguing that he found “useful” in interpreting our Constitution decisions by the Privy Council of Jamaica, and the Supreme Courts of India and Zimbabwe.

Bork doesn't say that he disagrees, much less why he disagrees. He simply assumes that the notion that the legal decisions of different countries may be usefully compared is cringe-worthy and that everybody self-evidently sees it his way. He goes on to foment panic by ad hominem: Zimbabwe has a dictator, therefore reference to foreign legal documents is astonishing or risible.

"We might as well learn our constitutional law from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Fidel Castro’s Cuba." As if reference to foreign legal documents were the same thing as learning domestic constitutional law. He might as well say that reference to foreign legal documents is the same thing as adopting them to replace the local constitution, because this is what he really seems to have in mind.

In reality, the same way as an individual must inevitably interact with society and arrive at a comprehension what's good in it and what's not, similarly a country is situated in the world and has a relative standard vis-a-vis the rest of the world. What matters is the good and the standard. There's nothing to do about the interaction and the situation; those are a given by virtue of living in this world.
Bork has something to say about bias. "International law in its higher reaches is usually heavily biased and political. As the Muslim populations of continental European nations rapidly increase, it is also to be expected that biased rulings will run heavily against Israel and the U.S." So, when something is against Israel or U.S., then it's biased, nevermind which actions of Israel or U.S. we are talking about. Europeans make biased decisions because they have Muslim population (as if U.S. didn't have Muslim population).

Bork doesn't like the concept of universal jurisdiction, not even when it's manifest where it's meant to be manifest, namely in international law. I can agree with Bork that it's silly when a country like Belgium has an unchecked concept of universal jurisdiction, but it's astonishing that he fails to notice the unchecked concept of universal jurisdiction in live action in U.S. behaviour all over the world. Wherever the U.S. chooses to look, they see "interests" that must be "protected" with heavy weaponry, never realising that for the rest of the world this is the same thing as aggression, attack, war against other countries randomly. And it's funny how American constitution only applies to American citizens while the citizens of other countries can, within the borders of U.S., be treated like vermin. Luckily this last treatment is steadily being applied to American citizens themselves, so they are gradually having some taste of their own legal system, if it be called a system.

It's amazing how parochial cosmopolitans can be… :)

Speaking of International Law

“The sovereign is he who decides on the exception”
- Carl Schmitt, Nazi Germany’s chief jurist

- After World War II, the U.S. used its triumph to help create the United Nations, push for the adoption of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ratify the Geneva Conventions for humanitarian treatment in war.
- Not only did the U.S. play a crucial role in writing the new rules for that community, but it almost immediately began breaking them.

source (https://www.thenation.com/article/you-must-follow-international-law-unless-youre-america/)

Wikipedia gives more dates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) :yikes:  — but, of course, they don't meet your criterion… :)

Breaking news: Supreme Court reverses reasoning, says "back alley" abortions required by "right" to privacy!
(Thomas' dissent (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf) begins at page 48 -PDF numbering.)

A fellow who was for eight years a local radio host has an interesting take on Judge Posner's recent comments regarding studying the constitution… (The podcast (https://thedavebowmanshow.com/2016/07/01/if-it-feels-good-make-it-a-law/) is what I recommend.)

And — since you all didn't like Bork's take on Ginsburg's "philosophy" of "international jurisprudence" — here (http://eppc.org/publications/alien-justice/)'s Ed Wheland's take… :)

For those who haven't yet lost interest, here's a recent post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/09/did-originalism-lead-to-donald-trump/) referencing Posner's take — at the Volokh Conspiracy. (Have fun!)

I guess I would need to read Posner's entire article because I'm not sure what Trumpism has to do with the constitution besides using it as toilet paper. I see Trumpism's genesis in groups such as the Tea Party; you you those folks with teabags hanging from their hats and unread pock copies of the constitution in their shirt pockets, where everybody can see them.

Yeah, you probably would, Sang — but you won't… BTW: Eric is the son of Richard Posner! (The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.)
You might consider (although I don't expect you to…) that executive over-reach —during GW's and BO's administrations— and congress' failure to use its legitimate powers led to the rise of Trump. But we'll see what we see in early November.
You, of course, can continue to follow the weekly polls… It's what you do. That, and make unfounded predictions — while casting outrageous aspersions.
(I'll bet you still think the Supreme Court gave GW his 2000 victory… :) )

while casting outrageous aspersions.

Wow, and you don't even see the irony...

Once someone posted a voting paper so I could see how elections are in the USA.
Americans votes for everything, since firemen to police sergeants. Even to supreme court judges.

That's not a democracy, that's kindergarten.

Americans votes for everything, since firemen to police sergeants.

You're delusional, Bel…

Wow, and you don't even see the irony...

Do you mean that the Supreme Court didn't give the presidency to GW? :) You now believe this? Since when?
Let me remind you: The rules in place at the time of the election are "set in stone"… Unless you're Al Gore! But even Al realized that his ploys couldn't survive scrutiny, despite the connivance of the Florida Supreme Court.
And every other tally showed that GW won, fair and square.
That -I think- is what bothers you the most! :)
Your "meme" doesn't hold up… Bad for you, huh! :)

Belfrager has a fair point in the mental side. A supreme Court that is harried about on politics rather than law. Farcical and that system over there as bad as the political side.

RJ, some states have retention elections and/or recall elections for state supreme court justices… As usual, you know just enough to rile yourself! :)

Nice try Oak but you legal thing is a terrible joke and like an  expensive theatre show. So you choose to overlook the obvious. What is the prison population - 2.3 million? For heavens sake. Then all those people on death row sometimes not just for months but damn years. Even a decade. How can a country claiming so much operate like that. Oh and throw in a whole series of execution styles. What an expensive razzmatazz passing for a legal world.

you[r] legal thing is a terrible joke […]

Perhaps not not guilty… Unproven, then! :)
Let's face it squarely, RJ: You think everything American deserves your dis-approbation. That's just how you are…

(Of course, this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom) is a much more rational —and long-standing— system! :) 2005 was such a long time ago! And the EU is — Oopsie! You're leaving that, aren't you? :)
Perhaps the "joke" you refer to — is on you?!

But I still think Mortimer's Rumpole stories better than Gardner's and Grisham's oeuvre put together…)

Oakdale you lot and your country make it so easy to have a laugh and in a more formal way a global hypocrisy. Guff about law and order and a police force mad as a brush, courts that are like Hollywood farce. All the wide-scale organisations to spy on Americans costing billions and overlapping each other! Poverty, crime, injustice and you boast about principles?! The court system is unfortunately part of the overall farce about way the country is very unfortunately run. Indeed I would dare to say it looks like a farce and an entertainment more than anything else. And I would remind that your supreme court lot of judges are the source of political nonsense so hardly surprising courts lack dignity and quality.

hardly surprising courts lack dignity and quality

Ah! You mean our justices don't wear ermine robes and wigs… Yes, I'd agree, very undignified. :)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Legal_Service_for_Wales_2013_%2852%29.JPG/250px-Legal_Service_for_Wales_2013_%2852%29.JPG)

And dear not very subtle smart alec man,  our courts are in sheer practice more formal and mature than the show business style stuff you are stuck with boy!  :D

But in yours, they get to play dress-up… :)

But a better system.  :happy:

Then why do you keep changing it… Hm! :)

Perhaps you haven't yet figured out how to do it right? (Maybe you could learn — nah! You're a prejudiced Scot with no education, and I suspect — given your recent posts about your country's leadership — that you'll die believing what you imbibed as a toddler: Your father's prejudices.
So much for a "wider" democracy! :) (Isn't that what you meant by the term?)

But I'll grant we're approaching a crisis here in the U.S. We could become another Britain…!

If you don't like our laws and how we apply them, stay in your own God-damned country, Howie!

You do not have the intellectual capacity to post about the topic of this thread. And you do have the moral turpitude to continue to do so…

You do not have the intellectual capacity to post about the topic of this thread

Wow such an intellectual thread. The judge is dead, replace the judge, never the world saw anything so deep.
Deeply American.

Salazar's dead — just replace him… It's not important, eh? :) Bel, you're becoming another Howie, brothers under the skin!

Bel, you're becoming another Howie, brothers under the skin!

For long that you have nothing to say.
I don't like it but can do nothing about.

As usual Oakdale talk nonsense and being a hermit here mistakenly feels he is an intellectual. On the comment on America becoming like Britain can i say that would be constructive as it would be a move to democracy and not just a name of such. As for legal stuff the ex-colonies can keep their amusing system.

As for legal stuff the ex-colonies can keep their amusing system.

How very white of you! :)

Generous to a fault!

Faulty, to put it generously… :)

That could also be taken by you praising yourself by mistake.......

“The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and … judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.” …
(source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/23/judge-rejects-claim-that-allowing-guns-on-campus-violates-the-constitution/?utm_term=.1f7d0b2d7591))

This refers to Vance v. Bradley (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/93/case.html …)…
Contitutional law in the U.S. needs the likes of a Scalia; but others preceded him. I hope others will follow his example.

But, of course, Scotland has no need of such! Local custom is enough for RJ — yet he rejects any other "locality": Glasgow encompasses the world! :)
An odd stance…but RJ is -shall we say- unbalanced?

Being a Yank OakdaleFTL I will enlighten you even further about the legal system here. Feel I need to you as you folk tend to be dumb and blank about outside nutjobland  :eyes: .

There are two legal systems in operation in Great Britain. One for England, Wales, Ulster. Scotland has always had a separate legal tradition and was legally agreed when the Union of Parliaments was confirmed in 1707. One of the differences was in decisions and not just guilty or not guilty as we also have a third one of not proven. Our legal tradition is more positive than what passes in the dreamland over the pond. Full of big money, showmanship and trivia leaning so try sticking to the original thread line rather than wander into stuff you don't know dear hermit. politics are far too involved in what passes for a legal thing in the USA. Hey, maybe that is why you only have 2.3 million in jails?! So maybe we should stick to the show that passes for a court tradition over there.  :headbang:

Sorry if I don't read every post about such world wide important matter.
Has the judge been already substituted? Are you all happy?
Good.

No, Bel, we're still "terribly inconvenienced" by only having eight Justices on our Supreme Court… :)

@Howie: I usually don't like resorting to stereotypes, but you, sir, are so cheap you don't even pay attention!

Call me what you will mentally redneck hermit as I don't mind you trying to subtly devilish. Only default is you don't have the experience to be, well, subtle..... :rolleyes:

No, Bel, we're still "terribly inconvenienced" by only having eight Justices on our Supreme Court...  :)

Just eight?? I believe we have more "jobs for the boys" than that at the Supreme Court.
Very useful thing the supreme court.
It happens to be below the constitutional court.

Basically clowns, clowns at the top of the circus.

You seem, Bel, to have the same myopia that Howie has: What you're familiar with (and its comfortable terms) must be the only "correct" arrangement… :)

Ah-ha, trying to skip Belfrager's equal view of the joke that passes for a legal system in the ex-colonies.  :D

He's as ignorant as you… So, of course, you applaud him! :)

Cannot blame you in a sense getting nippy due to the farce of a law process you have over there. It's a show farce so will make allowances for you.

due to the farce of a law process you have over there

Is there anywhere other than Glasgow that isn't farcical to you, RJ? :(

Yes there is - much that is outside of nutjobland!

You never out-grew the schoolyard mentality, did you, RJ? :) Perhaps if you'd spent more time in class — but, no, it wouldn't have helped you! Name-calling and taunts are all you know; and, of course, your prejudices, which will last forever… I'm sure there are many more like you, where you come from.

Typical Yank in falling back with that routine stuff yourself boy. Not surprised with what so many have to stick over the water! :hat:

Howie, your understanding of our judicial traditions is much akin to your understanding of the English language… :)

Like Belfrager said, the Constitutional Court is above the Supreme Court… (Because we all live in Portugal!). Of course, he's being an idiot! But that's your forte! (You could sue him in your country, where the truth of an accusation is no defense against slander! The mere desire to harm someone's reputation is enough… In print, it's called libel.)
You wouldn't know that, RJ: You've never actually managed to say anything "in print"… :) But it does seem that you've finally learned to use spell-check… I doubt you'll live long enough to grasp grammar, since you have no desire to do so.

Justice Scalia is, sort-of, the topic of this thread; and, as usual, you know little or nothing about it.
Understandably: What written words mean has always flummoxed you!

I saw this yesterday, but it's still there today… So, I guess it's for real: Harvard's Caselaw Access Project (http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2016/08/30/harvard-law-digitized-case-law)!
(Quite a resource, for those who can -and will- read… :) It, obviously, won't mean much to those who won't; nor do I expect it to mean much to those who think American law is a silly topic. But they should already have stopped reading this… Perhaps they should stick to tweets? :) )

You are doing a dance Oaky because if you let your mind think of it what passes for a legal world over there is an entertainment an farce. The Supreme bunch are a political lot and that alone tells you  the farcical side.

RJ, why do you persist on displaying your ignorance…? I'd guess it's LDS; but not everyone would agree. :) (Does the "L" stand for limp or little? :)

Why do you think courts anywhere aren't political? Brain-washed is what you are. (And yet you still have a dirty little mind! Apparently, the term is not to be taken literally… :) )

The Supreme bunch are a political lot and that alone tells you  the farcical side.

And since when has your supreme court not been politicians from the House of Lords, eh? :) (I don't expect you to know; nor care: You're an ignorant fellow who deserves his Scotsman's right to remain such! Is that just for Glaswegians, btw? :) )

The Lords situation was replaced by the Supreme Court started by that Yankee fan,  Tony Blair. They ARE legal people.

They were politicians… But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that your system is or was wrong; it's just different from mine. Different culture, different history — if it works, for you, I can live with that.
Were it not for you mindless (…read "unexplained") animosity towards the U.S., I wouldn't have brought it up…

Is there anything about your "wider" democracy that you do like? I mean, other than the sound of it… :)

Yes I am right that your supreme judges are picked on political grounds and tht is morally not principally right.

It was and is good enough for your lot… But we, being independent, have to adhere to some higher (imaginary) standard? :)

Howie, your courts work well enough for you. Likewise, our courts work well enough for us. (Mind you, boy, we don't keep changing them to suit the political winds — ours are just buffeted by such! But we're younger, and more vigorous!) Each of our systems has its problems; as do all others. You seem uninterested in ameliorating problems…
You're just an old lady who, having lost her husband, feels free to nag everyone else.

If you'd shown any understanding of our judiciary, I'd have cut you some slack. But your ignorance apparently knows no bounds. (I think that's the result of two-parts incapacity and one-part laziness… But it could be different proportions.)

Likewise, our courts work well enough for us

I specially like the part when you find innocent a man you've just sent to death.
On a more laughing note, I also appreciate your "deals", justice turned into a business show.

Younger and vigorous proves dash all in practice when you see the way things are run even after two plus centuries!

I specially like the part when you find innocent a man you've just sent to death.

Well, we never burnt people at the stake… Of course, you don't cite the case. But your history is known to all!
You -of course- are a perfect society, and have never made mistakes! That's why you rule the world! :)

We've come far from the original topic… But you have sidled up to Howie, haven't you? (Is it the fault of the U.S. that Portugal is a basket-case? :) Who else could you blame? You've tried to blame Germany; but the one country you've ignored is — Portugal. One wonders why…?)

Too young a place for burnings Oakdale but you still dealt with so-called witches didn't you and lots of blacks got burned to death well into the 20th century. F or a would-be civilised country you were still doing public executions up until before the 2nd World War. And still today gassing, electric burning, poisoning and shooting to death.

Ooh! You're so civilized! That's why -on your example to the contrary- we outlawed "cruel and unusual" punishment… The GB forte, remember? :)

So, now, you don't even put murderous scum to death? How enlightened! Yet you let little girls be raped, so as not to "offend" another's "culture"… It went on for almost 20 years, RJ! And you still shrug it off, because it was in England and not Scotland? What if it turns out, it was in Scotland, too? How would you know?
That's not the most interesting question, which would be "Why should you care?"
You're not interested, anyway. Police — coppers become social workers, become multi-culti ambassadors; and you're fine with it… Indeed, you're smug!
You only want to flog the U.S., which is typical of you.
I'd say you can get down off your high-horse… But, in the interest of accuracy, I'd say get off your hobby-horse.
You're still a little boy who never had to grow up… (Should I call you Pan? :) )

Your problem with Scalia is that he was an American. My problem with you is that you're a Howie, who shames his kin. A foul-tempered ignorant ill-educated bilious galoot, and a tea-totaler to boot! Which is to say, a poor excuse for a man…

To get back to the topic…

Why must Scalia be replaced before the next president is inaugurated? Are there really pressing questions before the Supreme Court that need to be decided, on a contentious 5-4 basis? Is 5-3 that difficult? :) (Some know why it is… :(  But those who do won't say so: They only have their political goals.)
Of course, I'd like to see someone of Scalia's caliber and honesty replace him; someone for whom the original intent of the founders was an important consideration. I'm not hopeful that we'll get that…
There are "parties" that will fight tooth and nail to prevent it!

Clearly this position won't be filled until President Clinton, so it's not the case it must be filled.

Last there was any interest in the subject, you were asking this group of international advisors what would be proper, and you got an answer. In the bigger scale of things it doesn't matter.

Clearly this position won't be filled until President Clinton, so it's not the case it must be filled.

I appreciate your reply, jax; it's perfectly in keeping with European "values"… :)

I actually think Trump is going to win…

I don't think I was "asking this group of international advisors what would be proper". (Mind you, I didn't start the thread…) Since almost all of "them" reject the primacy of the U.S. Constitution, their opinions mean little in this context. And "proper" is an odd word to use… Don't you reject any form of absolute morality? :) (In fact, you've argued against even the most common-place forms, e.g., alms…
Charity begins at home. Is that perhaps why you've been such a wanderer? (Sorry to make this sort-of personal, but I really thought your original topic about this deserved a much more thorough exploration… Perhaps I've piqued your interest?)

Primacy of the US Constitution relative to what? We would agree that it doesn't apply outside US jurisdiction and its primacy within that jurisdiction. What is the issue?

We might agree as well to "May the best justice win!" (in this case in the US Supreme Court), and most of us have no dog in that race, but we may have insufferable reservoirs of wisdom ready to shower on the receptacles of legal affairs. 

Ideally the race condition should be non-partisan, so that the court wouldn't have to settle for the sub-best but party-compatible justice. Relative to such high ideals the talk of a partisan 4-by-4 is a let-down. Actually a politicised selection process can work fine, but a partisan vetting process should lead to on average better candidates than without the vetting. For getting justices that seems to be the case, I am less convinced for the case of ambassadors.

In Norway, by comparison, Supreme Court Justice is a job you apply for. Retirement age is 70 (though a justice might resign earlier). In many aspects the Norwegian (1814) constitution is quite heavily inspired by the US (1787) constitution, back then the latter was new, hip, and modern.

Here's an example of (U.S.) legal reasoning that touches upon some contentious issues, including general perceptions of the not-a-lawyer public: (as I'd put it) Why Clinton failed the DC bar exam (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439804/clintons-e-mail-scandal-stinkier-stinkier-documents-destroyed-after-subpoena?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202016-09-08&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives) — she's incompetent. That is, she pretends to be a lawyer the same way she'd pretend to be President… :)
For those of you who missed it, she doesn't believe in the rule of law…

Now we can get down to solidifying that list of Conservative, non-activist  judges.......The Donald will probably be nominating 4 or 5 of them over the next 4 years....... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/dancetd3.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yahoo.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/dancetd3.gif) ........so[glow=blue,2,300] THE SECOND AMENDMENT ... THE PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS WILL NOT BE INFRINGED FOR AT LEAST 2 GENERATIONS!!  [/glow]

Well what is "left" in the ex-colonies amounts to little in practice and I would remind you smiley that the Clinto faction actully polled more votes!So keep up the tradition and ensure that the people shot to death are kept up in the 5-figures. Should be easy.

Now we can get down to solidifying that list of Conservative, non-activist  judges.......The Donald will probably be nominating 4 or 5 of them over the next 4 years...

Ginsberg would live to be a hundred, to keep her seat on the Supreme Court from The Donald's clutches! :)
Breyer and Kennedy are old, but tenacious.
Thomas is a young 68!
I'd bet no more than two appointments for the Trump administration

It might help for all of you to know that Trump dyes his hair. Let me also suggest a nice candidate for the Court.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcp91279.biography.com%2FBRAND_BIO_Bio-Shorts_Pope-Francis-Mini-Biography_0_172238_SF_HD_768x432-16x9.jpg&hash=e026e77646e0623638427349a45acfc0" rel="cached" data-hash="e026e77646e0623638427349a45acfc0" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cp91279.biography.com/BRAND_BIO_Bio-Shorts_Pope-Francis-Mini-Biography_0_172238_SF_HD_768x432-16x9.jpg)

Let me also suggest a nice candidate for the Court.

The "Who am I to judge?" pope for judge?

Yeah right jimbro! He would probably want to dismiss the charges against many of his predecessors to give an impression of a moral basis.  ???  :D

He might even forgive the Scots who rejected Christ, in favor of a monarch who's pecker didn't shoot straight…!

But I suppose you could blame it on in-breeding? Nah!

Scots who avoided Christ? Eh? Seeing you are a Yank and will naturally no little I would state that the Protestant Reformation in Scotland was totally different from England and Henry 8th. Ours was by the people and people flooded to it. My ancestors fought for it hence there is that Howie monument south of Glasgow. Indeed in the 17th century over a quarter of a million signed a religious petition in an Edinburgh kirk-yard and in those day a might band of spiritual heroes. Nice of you to try to be a big spoon man in-between putting the glass to one side but thanks for the opportunity to tell the truth.

Actually, RJ, I would "no" much… But you can't avoid your bloody history, a truth you continue to ignore; your contention seems to be that, if other nations have transgressed, yours is not to be questioned.

BTW: Protestantism is only another form of Judaism… :)

Bloody history? You lot are not very old a country but just look how bloody you lot have been. More killed in the Civil War than in WW2? You heaved troops right up to the calling of the 1918 truce in WW1 and was disgraceful. Wars since the 2nd WW so we don't need any history lessons from you lot. And that attempt at Protestantism and Jews? However in reasonableness I make allowances for you being an American.

As for law and such in the ex-colonies it is a general farce anyway. Sentences going into a hundred years and plus. Some 2.3 million in jails and more of a sense of revenge than much else in decisions.

Is the f***ing judge already been substituted ??

Nope! (I don't see the need for your foul language, though.) Scalia's "seat" is a euphemism for our continued ideological dialogue: Most Dems think that ideology is all that matters (…if you're flush! Power to the Important People!) Republicans generally believe our traditional institutions matter more.
I'm pretty sure you have such factions in your country…? :)

(I don't see the need for your foul language, though.)

I don't like judges.
Even less those that wakes up, have breakfast and sends people to death.

I don't know that Scalia ever did… But that's how prejudice works: You start with animosity, progress to unfounded belief and, then, generalize! :)
You'd have made a bad judge… (Better the criminals just kill each other, and whoever else gets in their way; and the cops sometimes shoot them. Much more "civilized," eh? The old "let God sort 'em out" theory of justice"! )

Well Belfrager just as well you are a distance away as I was a magistrate for 12 years.

I was a magistrate for 12 years

One wonders if that why the position was abolished… :)

I suppose Americans are very much worried abut a constitucional judge. Not the kind that sends people to executions but the kind that allows the others for doing it. No different from China.
F**ck both.

As for Rjhowie "The Magistrate", don't make me laugh.

I'd watch that show. The only question is whether he's the good Magistrate frustrated by business interests or the evil Magistrate in bed with the mob. Or perhaps the seemingly boring Magistrate who dresses up at night to fight crime?

Daft Yank, oops I mean Oakdale. It wasn't abolished.  :devil:

Thought it was, in 1994... :) Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable…

To get back to Scalia: This City Journal piece (http://www.city-journal.org/html/scalias-final-vote-14861.html) is "interesting"!
The finale:

Trump promised to appoint Scalia’s successor from an outstanding list of judges. This promise gave comfort to all parts of the Republican coalition, not least because Scalia had made the importance of the Supreme Court so obvious to them all. It is a tribute to Scalia’s intellect and style that even in death, he may well have elected a president of the United States.

Sang, this one's for you: “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,” the late Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent in the Court’s 2015 gay-marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges."

"A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,"

That's nice. Who said this was to be the case? But in republican fashion, the SCOTUS and lower courts were always to vet the popular fashions for constitutionality. Of course, your man Trump hasn't even read the document....

Neither have you, Sang.  Or, if you have, you've not understood it…

Can you explain to me how the federal government has any express power to deal with marriage or abortion? Or gay sex? It's the progressive impulse that makes people think that government must control everything…
Again, I call that ideology fascist! (You have a dictionary, right? :) )

......... I call that ideology fascist! (You have a dictionary, right?  :)  )

Nonsense, Smiley… You know he doesn't understand "discouraging" words! :) In his world, it's either total victory or abject terror. And, for those with whom he disagrees, the reverse.

I'd still prefer the ideal of federalism, states as laboratories of democracy.

Here's an interesting case (http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D12-12/C:15-2477:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1876856:S:0&mc_cid=f73d90512c&mc_eid=71fdd0c053) I ran across recently… (Only the wonkish should read it! :) )

But for those who aren't wonkish about law but are about logic there's a simple solution: If the evidence isn't sufficient to convict on "the preponderance" it can't be sufficient to convict on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
You syllogism users correct me, if I'm wrong? :)

Of course, lawyers don't use logic, if they can avoid it!

BTW: I think Scalia would have applauded this decision… And so should his replacement. Even Rush Limbaugh says "words mean something!" :)

You cannot expect sense from Smiley, OakdaleFTL. After all he supports a neo-Marxist cause (not his emblem!).

You cannot expect sense from Smiley, OakdaleFTL […]

You misunderstood the exchange, RJ! But that's understandible: It was in English. :)

Still, you -like most "progressives" I've met- pick an opinion of an opponent to demonize, and forever after ignore their arguments! It's enough that you've found a demonizing opinion… And your intellect needs nothing more.

Smiley has indeed shown more than sympathy for the IRA… But that hardly justifies your enmity: As usual, you were a bystander.

A Yank moaning to me about the English language the way you lot mispronounce so much of it??

As for me being unfair to Smiley's stance on the SF being unfair?  A long history of murder, bloodshed and evil and where did much of the money to exercise the evil - the good ole US of A.  There are a great many people in the Republic of Ireland too who have no time for the terrorists. as well Those who were voted in as MP's refuse to sit in Westminster so their constituencies have no representation but that lot get the money, eh?  They are also very left wing so how can a corporate mind like him be thinking they are so wonderful.You gave have overdone it this time you plonker.

.......A long history of murder, bloodshed and evil and where did much of the money to exercise the evil - the good ole US of A.

Gladly & Proudly ........ A long history of patriotism, bloodshed and resistance and where did much of the money to exercise the resistance ........... with my personal hands on support, & bulging pocket ...... along with millions of my generous Irish-American Brothers & Sisters ....... back then, to present day. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)

Fear not RJ, I still support SF in their continuing quest for a unified Ireland, & I don't care ..... as I've said numerous times before ..... I don't particularly care what their politics or economics are.........bottom line they are for a Unified Ireland for the Irish ..... Socialists ......... who cares ...... willing to forcibly purge all loyalists that pledge allegiance to the crusty bitch once & for all, & besides I don't have to live with their politics or economic results .......... that's theirs to decide ...... it's called Freedom of Choice for a United Ireland.

That said  ---  back in topic:
I firmly believe that President Trump will submit a strong Conservative Constitutionalist for Scalia's replacement.

Pro-Life (Anti-Abortion), Pro-Second Amendment (Pro-Guns, Liberty, & Self-Defense),
& turn Progressive Liberalism out on it's ear for decades to come. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)

You are doing a kid on there Smiley! The SF apart from being a murderous bunch of mental midgets are very leftist which YOU aren't so you fall back on an excuse re yourself.  The old out of date stance on a united Ireland is history even in the Republic and that is why that ountry re-did it's Constitution and dropped the claim to the ulster Counties.  SF will never be in power in either north or south Ireland so wail away boy and babble on!  The majority of people in the South have come in a great deal with improvements in education pushing the control of the men in black out of political control and so on. The modernisation and improvement south of the Border is constructive and  the changes have sometime been a slap in the face for your outmoded dribble. It must be about ten years ago now that the Irish Government donated a large 6-figure donation to the 50 Orange Lodges they have there as the people in them are regarded in their communities as a small population. Change days indeed. Former President McAleese visited the Order's HQ in Belfast and the impressive museum and culture centre and good for her. She also visited halls in the South as President so dear man you are living in the past.

So out of date man do wax away in your Irish-American dreamboat as a united country is not going to happen!  :hat:  :down:

Thought you might like this (http://takimag.com/article/dna_despair_kathy_shaidle), RJ! :) There's no Scotland anymore…

Well Oakdale if the country was 100% SNP it wouldn't bother me!  :D

Yours or mine? :)

Yours as you are a nationalistic emotional lot.

Any (gentleman's) bets on how long it takes Gorsuch to be confirmed?

I'd wager less than a week. (I think he's a good choice.)

Was that the one who in some bizarre twist-around didn't seem to recognize that you need to change the law to change the outcome of court cases testing said law?

Can you be more obscure, Frenzie?
Cite a case, an opinion — or a European newsrag article!

Mind you, I follow such judges' progress. Sorsuch's ten years on the 10th Circuit are on record. To what do you refer?

I'll admit that for onlookers that was obscure, but I'd think you'd remember your own posts better than I — especially when it was merely a few days ago (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2527.msg69562#msg69562). :P

But I'll take the opportunity to post this link to a 2005 article by our most-likely next Supreme Court Justice: Liberals 'N' Lawsuits (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6).

This was an op-ed piece published before he became a judge.
Do you have an argument that refutes his contention, that liberals in America resort to "lawfare" frequently, to avoid legislative tussles?

But surely you understand that he was speaking as a citizen, not as a judge? Or do you not make such distinctions? :)

He has a long record; he's authored many opinions. You must be -to express such an opinion as that of your previous post- ignorant of them all.
Is that typical of European politics?

You seem to think judges should be super legislators… If that's what your country wants, okay; it's your country. We have a different tradition, one which Gorsuch knows well and appreciates.
He's well qualified to be a justice of our Supreme Court.

He'd probably not be acceptable for any European court… Sobeit!

Do you have an argument that refutes his contention, that liberals in America resort to "lawfare" frequently, to avoid legislative tussles?

The very idea of "liberals" somehow concocting court cases with the intent of getting their case blown up to the supreme court level already disproves it. The idea itself is preposterous. If you have to wait a decade before a case is decided in your favor, and you might lose, how happy are you actually going to be that your family from Turkey is finally allowed to join you in the Netherlands?^[1]

From a European perspective Americans are ridiculously litigious people, and the fact that supposedly more liberals are involved in some cases (why? republicans don't care about their rights? are these just cases the person in question dislikes?) is no more than another aspect of that litigiousness. If "liberals" keep winning those damned court cases, you ought to change the law. He's got things backwards. And a judge shouldn't much care if an idea happens to be "liberal" or "republican" in the first place. A judge should care about the law. Compare my stance (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=439.msg68347#msg68347) on the recent verdict against Wilders, even though I disagree with the law in question. The court is no space for such politicizing.

He has a long record; he's authored many opinions. You must be -to express such an opinion as that of your previous post- ignorant of them all.
Is that typical of European politics?

I gave my opinion of your presentation of the man — not of the man himself, of whom I am indeed mostly ignorant.

Gorsuch was seated on the 10th Circuit Court (…just below our Supreme Court) in 2006. He received a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate, including such arch-conservatives as Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama and Harry Reid… :)

No comments? :) I'm not surprised…

I shouldn't think you need a European to point out that:

a) Any kind of vote on the 10th Circuit, whether recorded or voice, is not a long-time tradition but has only been around since opposition against Clinton.
b) In spite of that, those votes were virtually always uncontentious until the Obama years, behold (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZBVLKgywBxW4K6KJoQxWIZP4BktAlQTS1rnm1xZW8I/).

But you asked for it, so hereby.

You missed the point entirely, Frenzie: People who were required to do due diligence voted for him in 2006 and now oppose him for…? Hm. They don't say; they can't… Because it's just anti-Trump rhetoric — likely for the purpose of raising money for the next election cycle.
(Every pol needs cash, lots of it!)

Do you remember the flurry of nominations that required Reid to invoke the "nuclear" option, doing away with the 60-vote cloture rule in the Senate, to let Obama "pack" the 5th Circuit? :)
It worked. But now the Democrats are not only stuck with it; the Republicans have the votes to go "nuclear" again, allowing a mere majority to install a Supreme Court Justice over the objections of the minority party…

Gorsuch was acceptable in 2006. What in his record on the 10 Circuit Court alters that opinion? Unless there's some scandal, nothing.
If need be, the Senate will change its rules again, and the Democrats will have lost the fight they set up.

On the bright side: Gorsuch will be an outstanding justice, faithful to the constitution and the law.

Surely, you don't think the Democrats are opposed to that? :)

You missed the point entirely, Frenzie: People who were required to do due diligence voted for him in 2006 and now oppose him for...? Hm. They don't say; they can't... Because it's just anti-Trump rhetoric -- likely for the purpose of raising money for the next election cycle.

Clearly "due diligence" means something different, if only in degree but possibly also in criteria, depending on the position in question. The point is that you're presenting something utterly unremarkable as if it were telling of something.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513388263/evaluating-the-qualifications-of-neil-gorsuch

Source:      POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/ted-cruz-cpac-supreme-court-seat-235316)     

Sen. Ted Cruz suggested Thursday that another seat on the U.S. Supreme Court will open up this summer, though he offered nothing to explain this premonition.

On stage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Cruz also predicted that such a vacancy would prompt liberals to “go full Armageddon meltdown.”

“I think we’ll have another Supreme Court vacancy this summer,” said Cruz, a Texas Republican who fought against President Donald Trump for the GOP nomination last year. “If that happens, as much as the left is crazy now, they will go full Armageddon meltdown.”

Cruz isn’t the first person to note that Democrats will probably fight harder if Trump has the chance to nominate a second justice to the Court. He has already nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat, but given that both are conservatives, Gorsuch would not change the Court’s ideological balance if he were confirmed. A replacement of regular swing voter Anthony Kennedy or one of the liberals on the bench, meanwhile, would substantively change its direction.

Cruz also isn't the first to suggest that another seat could open up before Trump leaves office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of the Court's liberal wing, is 83; Kennedy is 80. And President Barack Obama appointed two justices over his first term.

Still, Cruz’s remark prompted some snark on Twitter as users wondered whether he was hinting at a justice’s retirement plans or, more darkly, implying that one of the sitting justices might die.

How Conservative will the Supreme Court get?

[glow=black,2,300]Very Conservative, or Extremely Conservative[/glow]......WOW....how the worm has turned since last October when we were petrified at the mere thought that the Left might get 2-3 nominations,
& President Shillary Slick Willy was going to pick 'em!      (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/laughing024.gif)

Any (gentleman's) bets on how long it takes Gorsuch to be confirmed?

I'd wager less than a week. (I think he's a good choice.)

As usual, I have no idea how long it will take. Why do you think he's a good choice?
=======
What do you think of the mooted claim of a $54 billion increase in defense spending?

Of course, you throw in the proposed increase in defense spending… Yeah, I think it's needed; the navy needs more ships, the army needs more men; the air force needs to better understand its mission — which is to say: If close air support ain't it then that needs to be given back to the army (and marines). The mission is important; if the air force wants only the mission of air superiority, we can give it to them — and cut them out of the real war-fighting.

But your main point was about Gorsuch…

Why do you think he's[Gorsuch] a good choice?

Are you really that unaware?
(You're old enough that I can give you a pass… Do you want it? :) )

Dear Martian: You don't understand us Earthlings! On your planet there are only Democrats, and Hillary won! :)

What do you think of the mooted claim of a $54 billion increase in defense spending?

"Defence spending"?
I'd call it what it is - war spending.
US  Budgetary  Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2016/us-budgetary-costs-wars-through-2016-479-trillion-and-counting)

Quote from: Mr. Tennessee on 2017-02-27, 12:12:02

Why do you think he's[Gorsuch] a good choice?

Are you really that unaware?
(You're old enough that I can give you a pass… Do you want it? :) )

Dear Martian: You don't understand us Earthlings! On your planet there are only Democrats, and Hillary won! :)

So the point of appointing Gorsuch was that on your planet there are Republicans and Trump won. And that's why Gorsuch was appointed. And that's a good thing, because when Democrats appoint judges, they are partisan. It's bad to be partisan and that's why Democrats are bad. Right?

Another Martian speaks… :)

Gorsuch is a textualist whose understanding of the position to which he's nominated is non-political and non-legislative. He is conservative, but his job —as he sees it (rightly, I think)—doesn't involve policy: Judicial activism won't be a problem from him. So, the leftists can relax…

Another Martian speaks… :)

Is that worse than Plutonian?

Gorsuch is a textualist whose understanding of the position to which he's nominated is non-political and non-legislative. He is conservative, but his job —as he sees it (rightly, I think)—doesn't involve policy: Judicial activism won't be a problem from him.

And how do you ensure that these assumptions of yours have any more value than your "I think" opinions have had formerly?

So, the leftists can relax…

So, it's a partisan thing for you exactly as I said.

Not exactly: The two "sacraments" of the leftists are abortion on demand and gay marriage… These seem quite safe from a Justice Gorsuch. :)
Another -lesser- rite is the continued opposition to voter ID requirements. That's more open to question. It could well be that such will become a federalism issue in coming terms…

The two "sacraments" of the leftists are abortion on demand and gay marriage...

I know a better definition of Leftists, the children of nobody desperately trying to be someone.
It suits you very well by the way.

I always thought the two "sacraments" of the rightists are anti-abortion ant anti-gay marriage. Well... that's just a point of view.
(BTW, two things you can't stop by law regulation. Hence... irrelevancies.)

I always thought the two "sacraments" of the rightists are anti-abortion ant anti-gay marriage. Well... that's just a point of view.
(BTW, two things you can't stop by law regulation. Hence... irrelevancies.)

Actually, gay marriage can easily be stopped by law. Why do you think gay marriage only became an issue with regard to legalisation? Without legalisation, it doesn't even exist!

Abortion is a bit different. With or without legalisation, it exists, but it's more costly for the parties involved when illegal.

I mean, their concern is about legalizing gay partnership - and calling it "marriage". Partnerships won't be stopped, but how they are handled is about names.

(BTW, two things you can't stop by law regulation. Hence... irrelevancies.)

Dutch policies have been extremely effective at reducing abortion rates by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Don't confuse policies that are essentially just rephrased ideology with evidence-based policies actually aimed at solving problems.

I mean, their concern is about legalizing gay partnership - and calling it "marriage". Partnerships won't be stopped, but how they are handled is about names.

It's a lot more than names. There's hospital visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, immigration, etc., etc.

There's hospital visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, immigration, etc., etc.

Which is why that "sacrament" was really the US constitution. Denying those benefits (and many others) to same-sex couples was found to be against equal protection of the law. This is unlikely to change no matter how many appointees to SCOTUS Trump picks.

It's true, such "rights" are unlikely to change. I don't think they should either. But they surely didn't require constitutional protection.
Drama queens never stop performing… :)

Laws and regulations — nah, Sang, you'll never understand; you want someone who agrees with you to be able to tell everyone else what to do.

Some of us think that that is not the job of the judiciary.

ABA Committee Unanimously Awards Gorsuch Its ‘Strongest Affirmative Endorsement’
By Ed Whelan — March 10, 2017
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously awarded Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch its highest rating of “Well Qualified.”
Here’s the Committee’s fuller explanation (emphasis added) of what “Well Qualified” means for a Supreme Court nominee:

To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement.

The "usual suspects" have not commented… :)

Mind you: When a Democrat calls for a "mainstream" candidate, they mean a progressive social-justice warrior who will ignore the Constitution whenever their "feelings" are challenged…
Because -you know- Democrats are "the good guys/gals/glyphs"!

Welcome, Justice Gorsuch! (Premature, I know! But a little gloating seems appropriate…)

Well, better late than never.......Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, solidifying a 5 to 4 Conservative Supreme Court.

Pssssst.......Hint: She's of failing health........Rumor has it we will be watching the Senate vote on President Trump's second Conservative Supreme Court Justice Nominee around about the same time next year, maybe much sooner.........Stay tuned!

Fascinating. A terrorist supporter here waxing on mature democratic politics?! :faint:

Fascinating. A terrorist supporter here waxing on mature democratic politics?!  :faint:

Forgive me from reminding you: SF is one of those few people left who thinks he has reason to resent genocide and political oppression.
Hasn't Great Britain's "success" taught him anything?

I'll grant you that Sam Adams (…not the current brewer!) was a terrorist.  If you didn't know, he's the one who orchestrated the Boston Tea Party…

I'll await your ABO with some glee… (It's bound to come, sooner or later: Given how many busybodies you house in your country.)

The time will come when you'll have appreciated the writing down of your constitution… Well, not you; your heirs. (Certainly not your hairs!)

SF is one of those few people left who thinks he has reason to resent genocide and political oppression.

Then we have a very different idea of what "thinks" means. Funny to have people around with no common vocabulary to communicate with.

You can read French but you can't understand English? Do you not know what Britain did to the Irish? (Soviet schools taught a lot , of propaganda. Did you buy it all? :) ) "Uncle Joe" was very nice to those in Georgia… But, for some, it fell down the "memory hole".

Were the IRA a terrorist organization? Certainly. Should the British government have pursued them with all the legal means available (and perhaps others…)? Of course.
I never contributed to the cause, because they were terrorists. Others made different choices.

ersi, your knowledge of history is deficient.

You can read French but you can't understand English?

We are not talking about English, not the language anyway.

E.g.

ersi, your knowledge of history is deficient.

Is history English or does it belong to English? You seem to assume yes. That's what makes you incomprehensible. You are from a different planet, dude.

So Oakdale doesn't feel lonely he is not the only one from another planet! Dude/ (groan)

Is history English or does it belong to English? You seem to assume yes. That's what makes you incomprehensible. You are from a different planet, dude.

I can understand why you'd know next to nothing about the history between England, Scotland and Ireland. (As I suspect you can -if you'd try- understand why SF and I would know more…) What makes me "incomprehensible" to you is that I don't subscribe to your biases and I don't think ersi is the center of the universe! :)

Howie criticizes Smileyfaze for supporting (…yeah, he probably did) the IRA way back when. I refer to a way-way back when that you seem to be unaware of; Howie, of course, knows about it — but, as an Orangeman, he's -well, orange: Equal parts red and yellow. So he doesn't say anything. (But does he ever? :) ) And you want me to believe that you're unaware of all of this?
Great Britain killed a great many Irish, for fun and profit. The tables turned a while ago, and things have got better.

What has all this to do with replacing Justice Scalia?

Quote from: ersi on 2017-04-19, 22:26:01

Is history English or does it belong to English? You seem to assume yes. That's what makes you incomprehensible. You are from a different planet, dude.

I can understand why you'd know next to nothing about the history between England, Scotland and Ireland. (As I suspect you can -if you'd try- understand why SF and I would know more…) What makes me "incomprehensible" to you is that I don't subscribe to your biases and I don't think ersi is the center of the universe! :)

I know history just fine, including the history of British conquests and adventures everywhere. And I know that these have no relation to someone called "Uncle Joe" and to the comprehension of English language, because history can be studied in any language. You evidently don't care to explain the supposed relation either, so you remain on that different planet of yours.

"Uncle Joe" was Josef Stalin — you might have heard of him?
History can, indeed, be studied in any language… But Soviet-style propaganda has been used throughout most of my life; yours, too. (Yes: I'd say America has done much the same thing. Radio Free Europe, and some nefarious CIA stuff…)

You agree with Howie that Smileyfaze's support of the IRA puts him "outside the pale"…? (I did so myself, when it mattered. I didn't support -in any way- the IRA. But I did support some of their "issues"…)

In what way does this exchange relate to Justice Gorsuch's nomination (and confirmation)?
Was Scalia an ardent Irish nationalist?
————————————————————————
Since you don't care to keep to a topic (Howie really only has one topic…and we all know what that is!), I have a question for you:

What do you think Estonia is trending towards? And do you like it? :)

Britain killed for pleasure and profit, Oakdale? You old religion has came back and a load of old cobblers.. May I remind due to your lack of history (when it doesn't suit you) that there was an attempted revolution in Ireland in the 17th century when large numbers of non RC's were done to death and at Portadown the river did in fact flow red. In 1797 there was another attempt and the rebels carried black flags with a white cross and the initials MWS. That stood for murder without sin. Thankfully my newly founded organisation two years earlier became Militiamen and helped the army put the terrible antics down. The RC Church had made it plain at the time that such a declaration was fine!

As for the potato famine that was no thing conjured up by the British Government  at all. May I also inform that there was a similar thing happened in the north of Scotland as well but rarely mentioned due to the carped propaganda about Ireland. The problem in Ireland were far too many large families too when the incident of the famine occurred and not in a modern society like now. The Church did not help as producing big families in such a society was standardly demanded. The famine also affected many people who supported the British corner too by the way.  With too large a population and a restricted food situation one cannot use the thinking of 21st century stuff to back then and it has been politically corrupted.  Ireland today is a far better place due to education and reducing the power of a certain church that used to control everything but has been pushed back. And the stupidity of saying that the modern terrorism is more justified and right is not just stupid but painfully ignorant. Even a former Irish Prime Minister John Brutin has came out and said on tv that there was no (damn) need for that stupid 1916 Easter Rising. We had already said at Westminster that there would be a government for Dublin but the 1st World war had broken out delaying that.

And Scalia's ouvre is — well, just another excuse for you to rail against the U.S.… You don't have the intellectual means to say anything against Justice Scalia; so, you do what leftists always do: Throw their own shit against the wall, and call it a stain on their opponent's visage!
About WW I, our president at the time was Wilson; he had the least esteem among constitutionalists… Do you remember what he did to Britain— that is, before it was "Great"? Naw. That's just silly. I must have meant after it was Great… :)
That, I think, is your real problem with the U.S.: Your country used to be great. but due to circumstances it no longer is…

Still, I wonder: What do you have to say about Scalia's replacement? (Or had you forgot what the topic of this thread was about? :) — Oops! Silly me! Every thread is about how bad America is, for the likes of you! :) )

About American "justice", now we have double executions per day.... by the reason that the stock of lethal product reaches the end of validity date...

I wonder what the UN is waiting for expulsing such barbarians from the civilized comunity.

I wonder what the UN is waiting for expulsing such barbarians from the civilized comunity.

As always, wondering who else will pay the bills… :)

Americans are brainwashed into thinking they have a wonderful country but as i have listed the truth the honest picture is a disgrace.

Every thread is about how bad America is, for the likes of you! :)

Q.E.D.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2017-04-26, 08:49:08

Every thread is about how bad America is, for the likes of you! :)

Q.E.D.

Oakdale is right.
Not because America is not bad, but because he's being the only one defending it.

A forum can't be about twenty massacring one.

Quote from: Barulheira on 2017-04-28, 15:13:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2017-04-26, 08:49:08

Every thread is about how bad America is, for the likes of you! :)

Q.E.D.

Oakdale is right.
Not because America is not bad, but because he's being the only one defending it.

A forum can't be about twenty massacring one.

Well, it looks like the Trump appointed replacement to Justice Scalia has made his standing known on any issues regarding the Second Amendment, even though the SCOTUS has decided to ignore this particular issue/case for the time being:



Source:      NRA-ILA (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170630/supreme-court-declines-to-take-carry-case-but-gorsuch-casts-a-solidly-pro-gun-vote)     

Gun owners received disappointing news on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that effectively let stand California’s “may-issue” permitting regime. The upshot of this decision is that law-abiding Californians in many areas of the state will be effectively denied the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

But there was a silver lining to this development as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch – President Trump’s pick to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia – came out strongly in favor of the Second Amendment by joining a dissent from the court’s decision penned by Second Amendment stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch’s participation in the dissent confirmed that he, unlike so many of his colleagues in the federal judiciary, is indeed prepared to take the Second Amendment seriously........continued

(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bravomore.gif) Bravo Justice Gorsuch, Bravo!    (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Doubleup.gif)