supreme court justice

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
rpuck
Black Carver
Posts: 284
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 13:07
Location: Where The Streets Have No Name

supreme court justice

Post by rpuck »

President Bush will replace at least one supreme court justice and quite possibly three or four this presidential term. What does people think about this. Would they be happy if he apointed a strict constructionist. Or would people be happy to se him appoint a liberal justice who see's penumbra's in the constitution. He has saild that clarence thomas is his favorate justice he was apointed by his father George H. W. Bush and is a strict constructionist, this tends to suggest that the president will attempt to push through a juge that has the same values a Justice Thomas. Although the democrats might try to filabuster to block the nomination of a Constructionist. Fyi a filabuster proof senate is 60 senators one way or another assuming no one crosses party lines.
Image
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Suprem Court Appointees

Post by tirolerpeter »

rpuck...a "Strict Constructionist" would be fine. Guys like Thomas and Scalia strictly construct their decisions to fit their "neocon" views. Thomas is a black man who hates that fact that he is black, and Scalia thinks we should all be reciting the Ten Commandments (his version of course) each morning. Of course, he also does not see a conflict of interest when he accepts "perks" from corporate entities. I'm sure George will choose nominees who "strictly" are willing to kiss his butt, and kick yours if they disagree with you!
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Suprem Court Appointees

Post by Bubba »

tirolerpeter wrote:...Of course, he also does not see a conflict of interest when he accepts "perks" from corporate entities...
Example please?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court Nominees

Post by tirolerpeter »

Scalia and VP Cheney flew to the upper mid-west (I think MI or MN) to go duck hunting a few months ago. They were flown for free on a corporate jet, not at either personal or government expense. Also, this was shortly before Scalia was to participate in a vote regarding a public interest suit asking that the VP be required to reveal the names of the individuals representing Energy Companies that had met with him while he was heading the Energy Task Force charged with developing the administration's national energy policies shortly after Bush took office. This definitely had the "appearance of impropriety."
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Nominees

Post by BigKahuna13 »

tirolerpeter wrote:Scalia and VP Cheney flew to the upper mid-west (I think MI or MN) to go duck hunting a few months ago. They were flown for free on a corporate jet, not at either personal or government expense. Also, this was shortly before Scalia was to participate in a vote regarding a public interest suit asking that the VP be required to reveal the names of the individuals representing Energy Companies that had met with him while he was heading the Energy Task Force charged with developing the administration's national energy policies shortly after Bush took office. This definitely had the "appearance of impropriety."
I kind of remember that incident, did the corporation that flew Scalia duck hunting have business before the court? And didn't Scalia recuse himself from case regarding the VP? I remember there being talk that he was going to, but I don't recall if he did or not.

His politics aside, Scalia has a first rate legal mind and he is a strict constructionist.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Post by Bubba »

Yes, Scalia and the VP went hunting together when Scalia was going to be hearing a case later that year that was related to Cheney's Energy Task Force. That's what led to the charge of impropriety. The fact that they may have flown on a corporate jet had nothing to do with that charge. In fact, I was unaware that they'd flown on a private jet and have trouble believing that they did since Cheney has access to government jets for all his transportation needs. I'd have to see that documented somewhere before I accept it as fact.

Scalia did not recuse himself and said that they're friends and there was nothing improper about the trip. I assume that as a trained lawyer and jurist, he knows better than to discuss a pending matter and, from my experience with people who sit in judicial or quasi-judicial roles (i.e. regulators) they refrain from ex parte conversations religiously.

One should keep in mind that until very recent times, Supreme Court justices, the president and congressmen very oftened met informally at social occasions and many used to have weekly card games in the White House. Nobody ever claimed that was improper when Roosevelt did it, or others at a later date, so in some respects the complaints about Scalia and Cheney were political rather than real.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court Nominees

Post by tirolerpeter »

As Bubba noted, Scalia did not recuse himself from the case involving the VP. However, he and the VP did get the use of a private corporate jet. Check the newspaper files and you will see that it was widely reported and the propriety of it was openly discussed. Also, had Nedow (the "under god" case) not publicly requested Scalia recuse himself, he would no doubt have stayed involved in the case. He is a very religious (or at least advocate of religion) person who thinks we should all think as he does. As it turned out the issue was moot since the SC ducked the whole thing by ruling that Newdow did not have standing since he was not the custodial parent. Nice feint!
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Supreme Court Nominees

Post by Bubba »

tirolerpeter wrote:As Bubba noted, Scalia did not recuse himself from the case involving the VP. However, he and the VP did get the use of a private corporate jet. Check the newspaper files and you will see that it was widely reported and the propriety of it was openly discussed. Also, had Nedow (the "under god" case) not publicly requested Scalia recuse himself, he would no doubt have stayed involved in the case. He is a very religious (or at least advocate of religion) person who thinks we should all think as he does. As it turned out the issue was moot since the SC ducked the whole thing by ruling that Newdow did not have standing since he was not the custodial parent. Nice feint!
Save me the research and post a link to articles about the jet.

I liked the SC decision in the Pledge case. Why rule on something that controversial (and yet so trivial) when you don't have to.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court Nominees

Post by tirolerpeter »

Bubba... I will try to find and post the info on the use of the corporate jet by Scalia and Cheney.

Re your comment: "I liked the SC decision in the Pledge case. Why rule on something that controversial (and yet so trivial) when you don't have to."

(Not to change the thread discussion) I do not find the "under God" in the Pledge issue trivial. I am an atheist and find it offensive to be required to endure endless religious references inserted into what should be purely secular governmental matters. Yes, I also do think "In God We Trust" should not be on our money. Deists think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.." means only freedom of religion but not freedom FROM religion. I disagree with that and yet must endure endless religious references in daily life. If you are a believer, then enjoy your freedom to believe, but leave me alone about it.
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court

Post by tirolerpeter »

Bubba. Here is the link to the news story and Scalia's use of a corporate jet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/ ... 8582.shtml

Look in paragraph 12.
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Nominees

Post by BigKahuna13 »

tirolerpeter wrote:Bubba... I will try to find and post the info on the use of the corporate jet by Scalia and Cheney.

Re your comment: "I liked the SC decision in the Pledge case. Why rule on something that controversial (and yet so trivial) when you don't have to."

(Not to change the thread discussion) I do not find the "under God" in the Pledge issue trivial. I am an atheist and find it offensive to be required to endure endless religious references inserted into what should be purely secular governmental matters. Yes, I also do think "In God We Trust" should not be on our money. Deists think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.." means only freedom of religion but not freedom FROM religion. I disagree with that and yet must endure endless religious references in daily life. If you are a believer, then enjoy your freedom to believe, but leave me alone about it.
Article 1 of the Constitution doesn't guarantee you freedom from being offended.

Given that the word God is about as generic as you can get, I have a hard time seeing how "In God We Trust" constitutes the establishment of a state religion, which is what the founders were clearly worried about. Now if it said "In the Christian God We Trust", "In Yahweh We Trust", "In the Buddah We Trust" you might have a point. But it doesn't.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court/God Squad

Post by tirolerpeter »

You are so right Bubba. The constitution doesn't give me the "right not to be offended." So, why are "anti-_______" statements and pronouncements called "hate crimes." Before you jump on that, let me say that I have no desire to spout anti-religious words or sentiments, but I do want to be protected from the "hate crime" of deists who express criticism, contempt for, or opinions that non-deists can't possibly be moral. Also, I want everyone's children protected from everyone else's religious indoctrination; and that includes not letting persons like me try to dissuade the children of believers. I really don't go door to door and tell the good folks they are wrong, and need to be "saved." Deists just can't see that their slavish devotion to the notion of the existence of some sort of supreme being or creator that they have conjured up in their imaginations is something not everyone wants to have constantly pushed on them. Once again, the issue is not trivial when it intrudes on law making and public policy. I suggest you visit the web site of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
http://www.ffrf.org/ to get another view on matters of religion. Have a nice day.
SkiDork
Site Admin
Posts: 18288
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 01:02
Location: LI, NY / Killington, VT

Post by SkiDork »

actually that was Kahuna
tirolerpeter
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 39
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 07:57
Location: Smithtown, NY

Supreme Court, etc.

Post by tirolerpeter »

OK. I stand corrected. I now disagree with Bubba on the Pledge, and BigKahuna on the "right not to be offended."
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court/God Squad

Post by BigKahuna13 »

tirolerpeter wrote:You are so right Bubba. The constitution doesn't give me the "right not to be offended." So, why are "anti-_______" statements and pronouncements called "hate crimes." Before you jump on that, let me say that I have no desire to spout anti-religious words or sentiments, but I do want to be protected from the "hate crime" of deists who express criticism, contempt for, or opinions that non-deists can't possibly be moral. Also, I want everyone's children protected from everyone else's religious indoctrination; and that includes not letting persons like me try to dissuade the children of believers. I really don't go door to door and tell the good folks they are wrong, and need to be "saved." Deists just can't see that their slavish devotion to the notion of the existence of some sort of supreme being or creator that they have conjured up in their imaginations is something not everyone wants to have constantly pushed on them. Once again, the issue is not trivial when it intrudes on law making and public policy. I suggest you visit the web site of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
http://www.ffrf.org/ to get another view on matters of religion. Have a nice day.
That's okay, you can confuse me with Bubba. He's a handsome devil......

I actually agree with just about everything you said. I was merely pointing out that, in my non-Consititutional scholar opinion, there's probably no Constitutional prohibition against having the words "In God We Trust" on our money or the words "Under God" in the pledge. (for the record I don't think "Under God" belongs in the pledge either -- especially given the manner in which it was put in -- you just can't make it a separation of church and state issue).

Also agree wholeheartedly that religion has no place shaping of public policy. I'm a Catholic -- a piss-poor one to be sure, but a Catholic nonetheless -- and no one scares me more than people like John Ashcroft who want to impose their religious world view on everyone, the Constitution and my freedom be damned.

Will check out the link you posted when I get a chance. Thanks
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
Post Reply