Supreme Court

[PhDP]

I'm surprised nobody is talking about this, it's a major issue. We all know what will happen if McCain get elected president; the most liberal justices will be appointed by a pro-life president.

[Pangloss]

I'm surprised nobody is talking about this, it's a major issue. We all know what will happen if McCain get elected president; the most liberal justices will be appointed by a pro-life president.

 

So you would characterize the current court as too conservative? I certainly wouldn't say that the Bush administration would call it too conservative, given their recent decision regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees.

 

And while I have no particular qualms about Obama-appointed justices, I have no particular qualms about McCain-appointed ones either.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Pangloss

[doG]

I would characterize it as too Catholic so I would have qualms about any further Catholic appointments from either of them...

[ecoli]

It depends on if Roe v. Wade comes up again, and it most certainly will. You'd expect a McCain appointed judge would overturn the ruling... people were also afraid of that when Bush appointed judges (2 of them, right?).

[Sisyphus]

I would characterize it as too Catholic so I would have qualms about any further Catholic appointments from either of them...

 

What do you see as the disadvantages of being "too Catholic?"

[ecoli]

I would characterize it as too Catholic so I would have qualms about any further Catholic appointments from either of them...

Obviously, there's no such thing as "too Jewish"

[Pangloss]

It depends on if Roe v. Wade comes up again, and it most certainly will. You'd expect a McCain appointed judge would overturn the ruling... people were also afraid of that when Bush appointed judges (2 of them, right?).

 

There's no particular reason to think that Roe v. Wade will come up again, and there's also no particular reason to think that a McCain-appointed judge would overturn the ruling.

 

Both of the current-Bush-appointed Justices stated during confirmation that they considered the issue a settled matter of law. No challenges to Roe v. Wade have been accepted by the Court since they sat.

 

In fact, 7 of the 9 current Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (excepting only the two Clinton appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer), and, aside from perhaps Ginsburg, the justices most likely to be replaced during the next administration were all Republican appointees.

 

None of the nine were on the court when Roe v Wade passed. Seven of them have been there since the '90s. And yet Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land.

 

So... why are we afraid of Roe v Wade being overturned, exactly?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Pangloss

[doG]

What do you see as the disadvantages of being "too Catholic?"

 

Well, the first example that comes to mind was the Roe v Wade case which was really a case about privacy, not abortion. If it happened again I would want the case decided on the merits of the privacy issue and not the underlying abortion issue which a majority of Catholics might give an elevated consideration to based on their pro-life beliefs. Not that they would, but they might.

 

Obviously, there's no such thing as "too Jewish"

 

I am opposed to a majority of any faith on the court.

[ecoli]

So... why are we afraid of Roe v Wade being overturned, exactly?

I'm not, and not even convinced that it belongs on the books. it's just that, like you pointed out, I wouldn't want to have a supreme court packed in any particular partisan direction.

[bascule]

I certainly wouldn't say that the Bush administration would call it too conservative, given their recent decision regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees.

 

Since when is habeas corpus a liberal / conservative issue? Are you saying liberals are de facto libertarians and conservatives are de facto authoritarians? I think Stalin would disagree...

[Pangloss]

Since when is habeas corpus a liberal / conservative issue? Are you saying liberals are de facto libertarians and conservatives are de facto authoritarians? I think Stalin would disagree...

 

Ah yes, the old "when they agree with me they're only being logical, it's when they disagree with me that they're being partisan" argument, the fast friend of unilateralism everywhere.

 

------------------

 

I'm still waiting for Phil to defend his assertion that "we all know" that McCain will pack the court with conservatives, and that only a pro-life president is acceptable because he would pack the court with liberal justices.

 

We all know what will happen if McCain get elected president; the most liberal justices will be appointed by a pro-life president.

[bascule]

Ah yes, the old "when they agree with me they're only being logical, it's when they disagree with me that they're being partisan" argument, the fast friend of unilateralism everywhere.

 

Uhh, habeas corpus isn't so much an issue of "logic" as an essential civil liberty (perhaps the most essential civil liberty) and one I'd hope you as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" would respect.

 

And do you even have precedent for claiming I'm a hypocrite, or is that more of your typical bluster?

[Mr Skeptic]

I sure hope they select supreme court justices that know how to speak English. Having read the Constitution, some of their rulings are rather funny (and very scary).

 

Anyhow, I'm surprised that it took them so long to figure out that suspending habeas corpus is unconstitutional and makes judges obsolete.

[Pangloss]

Uhh, habeas corpus isn't so much an issue of "logic" as an essential civil liberty (perhaps the most essential civil liberty) and one I'd hope you as a self-proclaimed "libertarian" would respect.

 

And do you even have precedent for claiming I'm a hypocrite, or is that more of your typical bluster?

 

I'll answer that. I happen to agree with the Court's decision, but I think my assessment of your reply was spot on. If you were being objective you would note that if the court were so partisan toward the Bush administration then it would NOT have given that decision, and instead supported the Bush administration's position regardless of what the Constitution says.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Obviously, there's no such thing as "too Jewish"

 

Taggart: I got it! I know how we can run everyone out of Rock Ridge.

Hedley Lamarr: How?

Taggart: We'll kill the first born male child in every household.

Hedley Lamarr: [after some intrigued consideration] ... Too Jewish.

 

- from Blazing Saddles

[Sisyphus]

Well, the first example that comes to mind was the Roe v Wade case which was really a case about privacy, not abortion. If it happened again I would want the case decided on the merits of the privacy issue and not the underlying abortion issue which a majority of Catholics might give an elevated consideration to based on their pro-life beliefs. Not that they would, but they might.

 

So really you just want judges who will address the issue at hand and not let religious belief take turn them into legislators. I don't think having too many judges who are of a particular belief is a problem, as long as they can keep it separate. And as for judges who can't keep it separate, one is too many, regardless of what religion it happens to be.

[john5746]

And as for judges who can't keep it separate, one is too many, regardless of what religion it happens to be.

 

Amen!

 

err....um....I mean Right On!

[doG]

So really you just want judges who will address the issue at hand and not let religious belief take turn them into legislators. I don't think having too many judges who are of a particular belief is a problem, as long as they can keep it separate. And as for judges who can't keep it separate, one is too many, regardless of what religion it happens to be.

 

Can people of faith, that are true to their faith, keep such issues separate and still be true to their faith? If a decision is a hair splitting issue should such a justice err on the side of faith or the rule of law? There are many cases where faith is an obstacle to rational thinking and rational thinking should take precedence on the highest bench in the land.

[ParanoiA]

Can people of faith, that are true to their faith, keep such issues separate and still be true to their faith? If a decision is a hair splitting issue should such a justice err on the side of faith or the rule of law? There are many cases where faith is an obstacle to rational thinking and rational thinking should take precedence on the highest bench in the land.

 

Absolutely. In fact, didn't we bring this up in previous political discussions? It would seem that virtually any religious individual is in conflict between the interests of his/her god and his/her countrymen. In principle, it would suggest we should demand secular legislators, only, no matter the branch.

 

Unless of course these individuals were willing to claim their country comes before their god. Otherwise, aren't we basically endorsing god over ourselves when we elect these religious devotees into office, or get appointed? We can't really pretend as if their doctrine doesn't enumerate god's reverence over ourselves.

[Pangloss]

Today that Bush-packed, partisan conservative Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to one of the conservative movement's greatest causes: capital punishment. The court banned the death penalty for cases of rape involving a child.

[doG]

Today that Bush-packed, partisan conservative Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to one of the conservative movement's greatest causes: capital punishment. The court banned the death penalty for cases of rape involving a child.

 

Bush-packed? With only 2 Bush nominees on the court that would seem to be a misrepresentation of the court's actual composition.

[bascule]

Bush-packed? With only 2 Bush nominees on the court that would seem to be a misrepresentation of the court's actual composition.

 

That would be Pangloss strawmanning his opponents

[foodchain]

Can people of faith, that are true to their faith, keep such issues separate and still be true to their faith? If a decision is a hair splitting issue should such a justice err on the side of faith or the rule of law? There are many cases where faith is an obstacle to rational thinking and rational thinking should take precedence on the highest bench in the land.

 

 

The separation of church and state is noted in plain text and is easy to read. To sum it up, law, which our government is a system of and enforcer of such, can make no law in support or against religious institution or institutions if you want. Its global basically then as a variable if I can word such in such a way. No law to be made in support or against religion, means no law that deals with religion. so marriage is I would say in breech of such, but hey, who cares if the dubya gives tax money lawfully to religious groups and even makes statements surrounding war about direction from above, its only governmental law and religion.

Edited June 25, 2008 by foodchain
fixed two errors

[john5746]

The separation of church and state is noted in plain text and is easy to read. To sum it up, law, which our government is a system of and enforcer of such, can make no law in support or against religious institution or institutions if you want.

 

They must read that as a specific religion, because tax free status obviously helps support religious organizations.

 

As for the rape case, well I would like to see the guy dead myself. Maybe castration could be a compromise.

[ParanoiA]

The separation of church and state is noted in plain text and is easy to read. To sum it up, law, which our government is a system of and enforcer of such, can make no law in support or against religious institution or institutions if you want. Its global basically then as a variable if I can word such in such a way. No law to be made in support or against religion, means no law that deals with religion. so marriage is I would say in breech of such, but hey, who cares if the dubya gives tax money lawfully to religious groups and even makes statements surrounding war about direction from above, its only governmental law and religion.

 

Don't forget Israel. I suppose we'd protect Israel anyway, but I wonder how much of the religious angle contributes to our feirce support of them. Marriage really doesn't count since that's about legally recognizing a partnership, not about god.

 

As for the rape case, well I would like to see the guy dead myself. Maybe castration could be a compromise.

 

I'm really surprised we don't see more cases of fathers doing the dirty work for the executioners. I guess they've gotten good at preventing that sort of thing. I have a hard time imagining anything short of that resolution, no matter how impossible it may seem to pull off successfully.