Ah yes, the wrong 'temperament'. It was so indecorous of her to tell that guy his county was still full of racists. That comment really shows that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. Scalia's statement about how horrible sodomy is and history proving that the states are completely within their rights to ban it was so insightful and such an accurate summation of the Constitution.
This court is very collegial. They are friend's outside of the court, and under Roberts, I understand that the Justices actually meet to discuss the cases again instead of using their clerks as go betweens (something which has not happened in years). If anyone isn't collegial, it's Sotomayor, who I continue to think does not have the right temperament to be a Justice. It's a shame Obama didn't pick someone else of Kagan's caliber.
Fuck collegiality.
I don't give one shit if the Justices are friends or if they're one step away from breaking out the razors. What I do give a shit about is that they are trustworthy and avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. The fact that you see the former as more important than the latter is a large part of why the legal profession is widely disrespected.
I don't know enough about Thomas to see if there's a special meaning, but in general, oral argument is pretty terrible compared to written.
you know how he could try to improve it? by participating at all
Thomas speaking isn't going to make oral arguments any less theater that doesn't actually change anyone's mind.
Thomas not speaking during a required part of the process, even if it's not considered the most influential part, does not come off like "oh what a rebel taking a stand against oral arguments! gosh I respect that guy who never talks or contributes in any meaningful way!"
If Thomas was an opinion writing machine, that argument would have weight. As it is, he doesn't do much in the supposedly important part of his job other than say "Me too!" a lot.
And this is in a position where he can have his clerks write for him, so long as he takes the time to give them direction.
That is not true at all. He writes opinions and he writes dissents. He just isn't a big believer in writing an additional opinion where he can sign on to someone else's, and Scalia ALWAYS wants to write a dissent so. . .
Ah yes, the wrong 'temperament'. It was so indecorous of her to tell that guy his county was still full of racists. That comment really shows that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. Scalia's statement about how horrible sodomy is and history proving that the states are completely within their rights to ban it was so insightful and such an accurate summation of the Constitution.
I have a lot of respect for the law student who publicly asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife.
I don't know enough about Thomas to see if there's a special meaning, but in general, oral argument is pretty terrible compared to written.
you know how he could try to improve it? by participating at all
Thomas speaking isn't going to make oral arguments any less theater that doesn't actually change anyone's mind.
Thomas not speaking during a required part of the process, even if it's not considered the most influential part, does not come off like "oh what a rebel taking a stand against oral arguments! gosh I respect that guy who never talks or contributes in any meaningful way!"
If Thomas was an opinion writing machine, that argument would have weight. As it is, he doesn't do much in the supposedly important part of his job other than say "Me too!" a lot.
And this is in a position where he can have his clerks write for him, so long as he takes the time to give them direction.
That is not true at all. He writes opinions and he writes dissents. He just isn't a big believer in writing an additional opinion where he can sign on to someone else's, and Scalia ALWAYS wants to write a dissent so. . .
So in short, he doesn't want to do his fucking job.
This court is very collegial. They are friend's outside of the court, and under Roberts, I understand that the Justices actually meet to discuss the cases again instead of using their clerks as go betweens (something which has not happened in years). If anyone isn't collegial, it's Sotomayor, who I continue to think does not have the right temperament to be a Justice. It's a shame Obama didn't pick someone else of Kagan's caliber.
Fuck collegiality.
I don't give one shit if the Justices are friends or if they're one step away from breaking out the razors. What I do give a shit about is that they are trustworthy and avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. The fact that you see the former as more important than the latter is a large part of why the legal profession is widely disrespected.
I care about getting well reasoned legal opinions that follow from precedent. The law is a collaborative field in general, and the questions that the Justices face are very difficult by definition. I think that having them actually talk about their views instead of only having their clerks talk to each other is a tremendous positive development. That only works if the Justices respect each other inspite of their different views. Sotomayor is the only current justice who can't put those differences aside.
I also can't stand the way that she very clearly leads with policy arguments and then looks for law to fill it in. It was bad when O'Connor did it, and it's possibly even worse now.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't know enough about Thomas to see if there's a special meaning, but in general, oral argument is pretty terrible compared to written.
you know how he could try to improve it? by participating at all
Thomas speaking isn't going to make oral arguments any less theater that doesn't actually change anyone's mind.
Thomas not speaking during a required part of the process, even if it's not considered the most influential part, does not come off like "oh what a rebel taking a stand against oral arguments! gosh I respect that guy who never talks or contributes in any meaningful way!"
If Thomas was an opinion writing machine, that argument would have weight. As it is, he doesn't do much in the supposedly important part of his job other than say "Me too!" a lot.
And this is in a position where he can have his clerks write for him, so long as he takes the time to give them direction.
That is not true at all. He writes opinions and he writes dissents. He just isn't a big believer in writing an additional opinion where he can sign on to someone else's, and Scalia ALWAYS wants to write a dissent so. . .
So in short, he doesn't want to do his fucking job.
Multiple dissents are a relatively recent development, and under the Roberts court I believe that they are becoming somewhat less common again. I regard this as a good development, because when the voices of the justices are isolated, they give a view of an institution which is unstable.
Um so you've been to these meetings where Sotomayor was being a real bitch or something? Or are you just basing it on the most recent oral argument?
I'm basing it on everything that I have heard about her from people who do appellate litigation. I don't know any of the current Justices, and only one former Justice, but I don't know that Justice well (only spoken a few times).
Ok so those people don't really know either, assuming they litigate things and don't attend the meetings of the Justices.
I don't really give a shit how they collaborate or don't, but your picture of her as some kind of unfriendly non team player seems to be pretty much based on nothing (except the fact you don't like her).
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Ok so those people don't really know either, assuming they litigate things and don't attend the meetings of the Justices.
I don't really give a shit how they collaborate or don't, but your picture of her as some kind of unfriendly non team player seems to be pretty much based on nothing (except the fact you don't like her).
Fair enough. I never hear about her hanging out with Scalia (everyone hangs out with Scalia) but I don't really know other than what she does in oral arguments. That said, no one but the clerks knows what happens, and I will probably never know a current clerk again (too far out of law school).
I also can't stand the way that she very clearly leads with policy arguments and then looks for law to fill it in.
ahahahaha
ahahaha
the champion of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas castigates someone for trying to make policy?
that argument is so rich it can bankroll its own Republican candidate in 2015
Whether you agree or disagree with their philosophies, all three of them do have clearly defined judicial philosophies (Alito less so). Sotomayor does not, but she is on record talking about how important her background is to her decision making. Maybe given time she will develop more of a coherent viewpoint, but right now it doesn't look good.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Roberts was using a misleading statistic to attack the VRA? Say it ain't so!
According to the census figures, a larger percentage of blacks voted in Mississippi than whites, one percentage point more.
But political scientists caution against drawing sweeping conclusions from the census survey or using it to compare states. The black population in nearly one-fourth of states surveyed in 2010 was so small that it was not possible to make statistically reliable comparisons. And the margin of error for nearly another quarter of the states, including Massachusetts, was in the double digits.
"The margin of error is huge," said Michael P. McDonald, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University who specializes in American elections. "They're not reliable numbers." [...]
When scrutinizing voter turnout numbers, political scientists said it is imperative to look at those figures in the context of the election being held. Was it a national, state, or local election? Was it a midterm election? Did the candidates heavily court voters within communities of color? And what is the make-up of the black community, citizens registered to vote or immigrants who have not become citizens? Otherwise, the numbers exist in isolation, analysts said.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
I also can't stand the way that she very clearly leads with policy arguments and then looks for law to fill it in.
ahahahaha
ahahaha
the champion of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas castigates someone for trying to make policy?
that argument is so rich it can bankroll its own Republican candidate in 2015
Whether you agree or disagree with their philosophies, all three of them do have clearly defined judicial philosophies (Alito less so). Sotomayor does not, but she is on record talking about how important her background is to her decision making. Maybe given time she will develop more of a coherent viewpoint, but right now it doesn't look good.
"Say what you want about National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. "
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
That's the job. The job is not to figure out what you think the answer to a particular question should be under just laws. It is to figure out what answer the law compels, and in some cases, conflicts between laws may compel that one law be struck down. These are not arbitrations. . .
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You know what I think undermines the court? One of the justices directly benefiting from a ruling they make. Oh, and then the wife calling the woman her husband once sexually harassed and demanding an apology so that the fucking Washington media would cover that, instead of her husband's corruption.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
That's the job. The job is not to figure out what you think the answer to a particular question should be under just laws. It is to figure out what answer the law compels, and in some cases, conflicts between laws may compel that one law be struck down. These are not arbitrations. . .
Just to be clear, you think a judge's duty, specifically at the Supreme Court level, has no relationship with justice?
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
That's the job. The job is not to figure out what you think the answer to a particular question should be under just laws. It is to figure out what answer the law compels, and in some cases, conflicts between laws may compel that one law be struck down. These are not arbitrations. . .
I wish I could resurrect Anatole France so he could beat you with a loaf of bread.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
All the justices' opinions are shaped by their life experience. The only difference here is that you are treating "white" and "male" as the unbiased default.
I spoke with a federal district judge who remarked his own surprise at realizing that the law is inextricably entwined with the practical considerations of real life.
He was similarly shocked by the extent to which many of those problems could virtually never be properly analyzed in a formulaic, academic manner.
And this from a George W. Bush appointee, no less.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
We are not robots. And its hilarious you are attacking Sotomayor for using her life experiences and championing Scalia as some dispasionate defender of the strict law. I mean damn.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You know what I think undermines the court? One of the justices directly benefiting from a ruling they make. Oh, and then the wife calling the woman her husband once sexually harassed and demanding an apology so that the fucking Washington media would cover that, instead of her husband's corruption.
Or that the only reason he is on the court is because of a deal which prevented the testimony of another woman he had sexually harassed from being heard.
Or that a former Chief Justice made his bones in the GOP by denying the vote to minorities.
Put another way, I think that Sotomayor is toxic to the court's legitimacy, because she gives the impression that she works off of what she thinks is "right" and then backfills. O'Connor did the same thing. There is no Justice I would fear writing an opinion on a technical matter like my area of the law more than Sotomayor, because who knows if she will even care about the words on the page. Unconscionable. Contrast Kagan, who has gone on record about deciding cases she thought were "wrong" because the law compelled that "wrong" answer. That is the job.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
That's the job. The job is not to figure out what you think the answer to a particular question should be under just laws. It is to figure out what answer the law compels, and in some cases, conflicts between laws may compel that one law be struck down. These are not arbitrations. . .
Just to be clear, you think a judge's duty, specifically at the Supreme Court level, has no relationship with justice?
I think that the supreme court's obligation is to society as a whole, in making sure that we understand the laws and our obligations/rights under them. Decisions that emphasize the law tend to help in this regard. Decisions that emphasize the equities of the case leave us with a situation where we don't know what the law means going forward until the courts weigh in each time.
Remember, SKFM views property laws as so important that he thinks vandalism should carry jail time. You're not going to get him to err on the side of compassion, or consider that justice requires mercy as well.
Roberts was using a misleading statistic to attack the VRA? Say it ain't so!
According to the census figures, a larger percentage of blacks voted in Mississippi than whites, one percentage point more.
But political scientists caution against drawing sweeping conclusions from the census survey or using it to compare states. The black population in nearly one-fourth of states surveyed in 2010 was so small that it was not possible to make statistically reliable comparisons. And the margin of error for nearly another quarter of the states, including Massachusetts, was in the double digits.
"The margin of error is huge," said Michael P. McDonald, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University who specializes in American elections. "They're not reliable numbers." [...]
When scrutinizing voter turnout numbers, political scientists said it is imperative to look at those figures in the context of the election being held. Was it a national, state, or local election? Was it a midterm election? Did the candidates heavily court voters within communities of color? And what is the make-up of the black community, citizens registered to vote or immigrants who have not become citizens? Otherwise, the numbers exist in isolation, analysts said.
I'd hazard a guess that there are actually enough black people in Mississippi that it didn't face the same issues that, say, Massachusetts faced in finding enough people in the sample to draw a conclusion. Your argument implies that Mississippi is one of those "1/4 of states" whose black population is too small to make a reliable comparison of black and white voter turnouts. Rather, I'm pretty sure that these margins of error dont apply to the statistic actually being cited. It would seem that the original point was quite valid: census figures in Mississippi, a state with a large enough black population that such statistics can be meaningful, has a higher balck voter turnout than they do white, which does call into question why the state should be subject to different rules about federal oversight than other states when it comes to voting laws, if the justification for such disparity is to prevent voter suppression of blacks in favor of whites. It isn't "case closed," but it is a valid point, and I would be more likely to accuse you and Mr. McDonald of trying to wield misleading and inapplicable data than I would Roberts.
Nope, we're angry because in one case fundamental rights are being taken away, and in the other, the very nature of democracy is being perverted. That one party happens to be anti-democracy in both cases is why we don't belong to that party.
If the Court says "it no longer makes sense for some states to be subject to federal oversight of their voter laws, while other states aren't," no one's fundamental rights are being taken away.
And the fact that you and so many others falsely believe that "hey, the government isn't allowed to censor political ads because they don't like who aired them" is perverting democracy... is just so disheartening to me. This is precisely what the First Amendment was written for. It was my job to decide that I had no interest in seeing the Hillary movie, not the government's job to decide that for me. There really isn't much more of a clear issue of free speech than that. There is no free speech if we don't uphold that. The people individually decide what political discussions are ok and what political discussions are bad for this country. The government never, ever gets to enforce that.
And the intent of my original statement was that it's frustrating that so many people aren't able to look beyond current political issues and recognize that it won't necessarily always be your party favored by these laws and the other party harmed by them. That's part of why the issue does need to be about proper judgment of the law, not just whatever sounds like the best outcome right now. The law needs to find a way to do what's right in the right manner of doing it, not just whatever is the most convenient and benefits your side right now.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If you get unjust results from your laws, then you have the wrong laws, and should change them. Enforcing them to the letter is the only way that I can see to get the legislature to actually do that. Justices who rely on legislative history to find a way out of the bad result just enable the problem, imo.
SKFM, we've seen quite clearly that there's no way to force Congress to do their jobs. Interpreting the law to hurt as many people as possible isn't going to do any good.
And the fact that you and so many others falsely believe that "hey, the government isn't allowed to censor political ads because they don't like who aired them" is perverting democracy... is just so disheartening to me.
Please stop misstating CU. The problem was not that the government didn't like the people behind "Hillary: The Movie". The issue was that the people who made it did so by way of an organization incorporated such that it was not allowed to spend money on political advertising in any way in the three months before an election.
Posts
Fuck collegiality.
I don't give one shit if the Justices are friends or if they're one step away from breaking out the razors. What I do give a shit about is that they are trustworthy and avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. The fact that you see the former as more important than the latter is a large part of why the legal profession is widely disrespected.
That is not true at all. He writes opinions and he writes dissents. He just isn't a big believer in writing an additional opinion where he can sign on to someone else's, and Scalia ALWAYS wants to write a dissent so. . .
I have a lot of respect for the law student who publicly asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife.
So in short, he doesn't want to do his fucking job.
I care about getting well reasoned legal opinions that follow from precedent. The law is a collaborative field in general, and the questions that the Justices face are very difficult by definition. I think that having them actually talk about their views instead of only having their clerks talk to each other is a tremendous positive development. That only works if the Justices respect each other inspite of their different views. Sotomayor is the only current justice who can't put those differences aside.
I also can't stand the way that she very clearly leads with policy arguments and then looks for law to fill it in. It was bad when O'Connor did it, and it's possibly even worse now.
Multiple dissents are a relatively recent development, and under the Roberts court I believe that they are becoming somewhat less common again. I regard this as a good development, because when the voices of the justices are isolated, they give a view of an institution which is unstable.
I'm basing it on everything that I have heard about her from people who do appellate litigation. I don't know any of the current Justices, and only one former Justice, but I don't know that Justice well (only spoken a few times).
I don't really give a shit how they collaborate or don't, but your picture of her as some kind of unfriendly non team player seems to be pretty much based on nothing (except the fact you don't like her).
ahahaha
the champion of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas castigates someone for trying to make policy?
that argument is so rich it can bankroll its own Republican candidate in 2015
Fair enough. I never hear about her hanging out with Scalia (everyone hangs out with Scalia) but I don't really know other than what she does in oral arguments. That said, no one but the clerks knows what happens, and I will probably never know a current clerk again (too far out of law school).
You must be thinking of some other Supreme Court.
Whether you agree or disagree with their philosophies, all three of them do have clearly defined judicial philosophies (Alito less so). Sotomayor does not, but she is on record talking about how important her background is to her decision making. Maybe given time she will develop more of a coherent viewpoint, but right now it doesn't look good.
So, you're just very concerned about how some people you made up might feel if a person behaves how you've decided they might based on the fact that you don't like them and do like other people who have the same observable behavior.
I mean here let me try
"I'm just concerned that Scalia really undermines the legitimacy of the court, because it's pretty obvious he's touching himself under his robes while mumbling nonsense whenever he writes an opinion. Unconscionable."
Such an esteemed head of the court Roberts is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Except that Sotomayor actually talks to the press about how her life experiences shape her views of justice. It's also just a feeling that I think comes across in her writing, much like O'Connor. No sitting justice talks about their own life as much as she does.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Say what you want about National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. "
Not a winning argument, methinks.
Yes, it's easy to see the law as some dispassionate, bloodless thing when you were never beaten with it.
That's the job. The job is not to figure out what you think the answer to a particular question should be under just laws. It is to figure out what answer the law compels, and in some cases, conflicts between laws may compel that one law be struck down. These are not arbitrations. . .
Just to be clear, you think a judge's duty, specifically at the Supreme Court level, has no relationship with justice?
I wish I could resurrect Anatole France so he could beat you with a loaf of bread.
All the justices' opinions are shaped by their life experience. The only difference here is that you are treating "white" and "male" as the unbiased default.
He was similarly shocked by the extent to which many of those problems could virtually never be properly analyzed in a formulaic, academic manner.
And this from a George W. Bush appointee, no less.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Or that the only reason he is on the court is because of a deal which prevented the testimony of another woman he had sexually harassed from being heard.
Or that a former Chief Justice made his bones in the GOP by denying the vote to minorities.
Not in her official capacity, and to be blunt, Justices can almost never speak outside it.
I think that the supreme court's obligation is to society as a whole, in making sure that we understand the laws and our obligations/rights under them. Decisions that emphasize the law tend to help in this regard. Decisions that emphasize the equities of the case leave us with a situation where we don't know what the law means going forward until the courts weigh in each time.
I'd hazard a guess that there are actually enough black people in Mississippi that it didn't face the same issues that, say, Massachusetts faced in finding enough people in the sample to draw a conclusion. Your argument implies that Mississippi is one of those "1/4 of states" whose black population is too small to make a reliable comparison of black and white voter turnouts. Rather, I'm pretty sure that these margins of error dont apply to the statistic actually being cited. It would seem that the original point was quite valid: census figures in Mississippi, a state with a large enough black population that such statistics can be meaningful, has a higher balck voter turnout than they do white, which does call into question why the state should be subject to different rules about federal oversight than other states when it comes to voting laws, if the justification for such disparity is to prevent voter suppression of blacks in favor of whites. It isn't "case closed," but it is a valid point, and I would be more likely to accuse you and Mr. McDonald of trying to wield misleading and inapplicable data than I would Roberts.
Which is, as I understand, the issue being considered.
If the Court says "it no longer makes sense for some states to be subject to federal oversight of their voter laws, while other states aren't," no one's fundamental rights are being taken away.
And the fact that you and so many others falsely believe that "hey, the government isn't allowed to censor political ads because they don't like who aired them" is perverting democracy... is just so disheartening to me. This is precisely what the First Amendment was written for. It was my job to decide that I had no interest in seeing the Hillary movie, not the government's job to decide that for me. There really isn't much more of a clear issue of free speech than that. There is no free speech if we don't uphold that. The people individually decide what political discussions are ok and what political discussions are bad for this country. The government never, ever gets to enforce that.
And the intent of my original statement was that it's frustrating that so many people aren't able to look beyond current political issues and recognize that it won't necessarily always be your party favored by these laws and the other party harmed by them. That's part of why the issue does need to be about proper judgment of the law, not just whatever sounds like the best outcome right now. The law needs to find a way to do what's right in the right manner of doing it, not just whatever is the most convenient and benefits your side right now.