Democrats versus Republicans

[craigimass]

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

"Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole"

"Every time the Supreme Court defines another right in the Constitution it reduces the scope of democratic debate."

“The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech,”

“You can make an exception without the sky falling,”

“Let the cancer patients suffer.”

"For one thing, it is virtually impossible to find a judge who does not have preconceptions about the law.”

"“It would be in the best interest of many children to take them away from their parents and give them to someone else. ”

Hon. Judge Scalia (all above).

Now, using a bit of thought, if it is impossible to find a judge without preconceptions about the law - where would those preconceptions have come from? You guessed it - life experience. People are not born with preconceptions about the law.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

"Legislation from the bench" is the talking point being discussed. It is a silly statement, akin to me saying "breathing from a human being". In other words, it is obvious that high court judges MAKE LAW....not by writing it, but by their interpretation of it.

See my last post - what you just said is akin to saying "When a foreign leader comes to the United States and speaks, it is obvious that the interpreter MAKES SPEECHES, not by deciding what is being said, but by translating it into English".

I don't know where some get the idea that judges are automatons, but it surely seems true. As a matter of fact, judges can be the most political people on the planet, as they usually rise through the ranks based on party affiliation.

That's because it's not the Supreme Court's job to decide what the law is, it is their job to interpret what the law is, so yeah, if we could computerize it we would, but it isn't always clear so we do need someone who can think to figure out what was intended, especially since Congress writes laws that conflict with one another and conflict with the Constitution on occasion. But the Court isn't supposed to make NEW stuff up, they're just supposed to try to figure out what the hell Congress was talking about when it said something and then tell the rest of us their understanding of it.

Although I am certain that many here cannot understand nuance, they DO end up making law - or at least interpreting it which ends up being the SAME THING.

When you said that I heard, "When a foreign leader comes to the United States and makes a speech, the interpreter DOES end up making a speech, or at least translating it to English, which ends up being the SAME THING", which is a pretty silly thing to say.

Words have nuance. There is no SCIENCE in law. You and I can disagree on the meaning of ONE WORD or a SENTENCE. Now, take MILLIONS OF WORDS and let's interpret the meaning. That is what judges and lawyers do.

Yes, lawyers do use the word of the law to get around the intent sometimes, but most of us know what was intended if we look at it with an honest heart. Judges have a tough job figuring out what Congress intended, they shouldn't make it any tougher by trying to invent new stuff along the way, which isn't their job.

Once again, we would not need people to do it if it was that easy. But I suppose perhaps we could get 9 "easy" buttons from Staples for the bench holders.

The job of the Supreme Court is made much easier by just sticking to their job, which I think most of them do.

As to the current pick, I know nothing about her except that she was originally appointed to high court by BUSH. I'm honestly not even going to listen to all the pros or cons because I know where it all comes from...usually corporate media. I did hear that she is VERY pro-business, having made numerous decisions which affirm that corporations are people and have similar rights. That would put her firmly in the mainstream, although against my own personal beliefs. Then again, I'm not under the impression that the appointment has to satisfy you or I or anyone else except perhaps the Senate.

This is a whole different topic, but if we can't have corporations which are legal entities, who the hell is someone supposed to sue if they are damaged by a corporation, 100,000 share holders ???? Who is supposed to back a warranty, 100,000 share holders ???? Who is supposed to enter into a contract with a labor union, 100,000 share holders ????

[PBzeer]

Funny how craig repeatedly admits to knowing nothing about those he agrees with, yet has a storehouse of info, quotes and anecdotes on those he disagrees with. Why, it's almost like he has some favorite web site that provides him with ....... talking points

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

Here are the only theories I can come up with for why the administration and the Congress are currently trying to ride roughshod over bond holders in favor of GM's UAW workers. I only have a few theories, I really can't think of any other reasons for it ...

1. Maybe by threatening GM bond holders the administration hopes that they will soften bond holders up for a last minute deal. The theory here is that by scaring the hell out of GM bond holders they will be more willing to negotiate right before GM goes into bankruptcy, that they will give a little more, and that a deal will get done. There is some merit to this, GM bond holders have a very strong claim against the company, you basically would have to threaten them with total loss to get them to deal - but this plan would have a huge flaw and that is that GM bond holders are a very diverse group and they work slowly, you can't wait until the last minute to offer them a deal unless you are planning to extend things by giving GM more money to carry it through a for a few more months.

And the winner is ... 1. soften GM bond holders up for a last minute deal.

Now the offer is 10% share plus 15% in deeply discounted warrants giving the administration about 75% ownership while it infuses another 30+ billion $us, a much better deal than the bond holders were originally getting. The administration also backed off of its threats and requirements that 90% of bond holders accept the deal, now they are just using the threat that if bond holders don't accept the deal they're going to get pushed around in bankruptcy court and end up being left with the tattered remains of whatever the new GM doesn't take with it. The last thing the administration wants at this point is for GM to fail, they've already tipped their hand. Score one for bond holders.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Funny how craig repeatedly admits to knowing nothing about those he agrees with, yet has a storehouse of info, quotes and anecdotes on those he disagrees with. Why, it's almost like he has some favorite web site that provides him with ....... talking points

Why, here is some more for you - from Mr. Scalia.

All I want to know is if you think these statements would disqualify him for the Supreme court.

"Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well"
"In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed"

Those are quotes from actual court opinions, as opposed to a video grab from a discussion with law students - which is what some of you are trying to paint onto the current nominee.

Oh, here is Justice Alito:
"ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

So, my boys, riddle me that - honestly!

Rather than worry about what web sites I look at, please give me your regarded opinion relating to those statements. They could not be more clear, could they?

I don't care in the least if this nominee or another gets in. However, it would seem a bit of "do as I say, not as I do" is at work here.

If you complained about Scalia and Alito, then my apologies are in order. If you didn't...well, I'll let you figure that one out.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by craigimass

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

See the following follow up re: this Scalia attributed quote:
Barry Miller: Widely published Scalia quote re: “innocence” is inaccurate. We have to agree. Scalia didn’t really ever say: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”
What Scalia did say was:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

Quite a bit different...stating the actual law...and neither agreeing or disagreeing with it...merely ceding it to the Executive Branch or Legislature.
Oh...and not even a mention of the death penalty.

You really ought to check your facts and sources before posting as they all smack of stuff pulled out of context to look bad.

Here's what Scalia ACTUALLY had to say about the death penalty.

Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.

If I subscribed to the proposition that I am authorized (indeed, I suppose compelled) to intuit and impose our “maturing” society’s “evolving standards of decency,” this essay would be a preview of my next vote in a death penalty case. As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul–wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse–thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court’s approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.

More here:.............God's Justice and Ours [Antonin Scalia on capital punishment]

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by craigimass

"Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well"
"In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed"

Again...you miss the crucial LEGAL issue...the word STATE. The state laws, judges and constitutions are QUITE different than the feds and judges in state courts have very different situations than Supreme Court Justices. That many state judges are ELECTED and campaign on ISSUES alone give proof to the notion that they are political representatives of their population.
This says NOTHING about the temperment needed to be a justice of the Supreme Court and is a completely accurate statement of FACT about state judicial systems.
*********

As to the Alito quote...HOW CONVENIENT that you left out the VERY NEXT LINE of that testimony. Could you be trying to spin it??

"And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result."

[PBzeer]

Cam - you fail to realize, that Alito and Scalia just don't have that "richness of experience" of people like Sotomayor, or ...... Miguel Estrada (a story every bit as "compelling" as Sotomayor's) who the Dems blocked at the Circuit Court level for fear he would become a Supreme Court pick.

Plus, as usual, rather than defend the Sotomayor pick, craig goes off on ad homenium attacks on conservatives, by spouting talking points from the lefty blogsphere (that he claims to be unaware of).

[US27inKS]

When I first saw this post I thought that surely these are a bunch of quotes taken completely out of context. So, starting at the top, I tried to do a little research to find the rest of the text. I did a google search for the "factual evidence" quote, but only came up with that same quote repeated over and over on anti death penalty web sites, but not the rest of what he said or wrote.. Until I came across this web site Federal Review It's a good article, read the whole thing. You might learn something.

Quotes without context are worthless. I can do the same for Obama if you wish.

Originally Posted by craigimass

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

"Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole"

"Every time the Supreme Court defines another right in the Constitution it reduces the scope of democratic debate."

“The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech,”

“You can make an exception without the sky falling,”

“Let the cancer patients suffer.”

"For one thing, it is virtually impossible to find a judge who does not have preconceptions about the law.”

"“It would be in the best interest of many children to take them away from their parents and give them to someone else. ”

Hon. Judge Scalia (all above).

Now, using a bit of thought, if it is impossible to find a judge without preconceptions about the law - where would those preconceptions have come from? You guessed it - life experience. People are not born with preconceptions about the law.

[US27inKS]

This made me laugh.