U S Supreme Court - all related issues - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2010, 01:30 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
With Sotomayor, Obama did a fairly moderate pick and there was no real dust up.

I expect the same thing this time.


I kind of believe Harriet Miers, was a clever plan by W. Give them a scalp, and then replace a pro-choice woman Judge, with a rock solid, right to life, Conservative white male.

I don't see any chess-like moves necessary this time.



this is interesting,

Hillary Clinton, Supreme Court Nominee? White House Says 'No'

I'd like to see Obama put her on the Court on his way out the door.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 08:59 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I'd like to see Obama put her on the Court on his way out the door.
It would be great, but unfortunately she'd really be too old.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 09:48 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Looks like it is going to be a bit of a battle, just to get Goodwin Liu on the 9th Circuit.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 02:20 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
every bodys gay :?:

Elena Kagan 'Gay' Whisper Campaign Enrages Rights Groups

Isn't Souter gay?

Also, Sotomayor is a bit of a question mark.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 03:03 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:45 PM
[QUOTE=deep;6731844]Elena Kagan 'Gay' Whisper Campaign Enrages Rights Groups



Quote:
Isn't Souter gay?
this i have heard.


Quote:
Also, Sotomayor is a bit of a question mark.
she's gay in that weird, workaholic, mildly asexual, Condi Rice kind of way.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2010, 06:11 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
When I started this thread, my thoughts were that it could include Court Decisions, also

here is one handed down today

Quote:
Supreme Court strikes down animal-cruelty law
By DAVID G. SAVAGE

Dealing a setback to the animal rights movement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down on free-speech grounds an anti-cruelty law that made it a federal crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally wounded, killed or tortured.
It marked the second time this year that the high court wielded the First Amendment to toss out a law with popular support.

The 8-1 ruling overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold several dog-fighting videos to federal agents.

All the states have laws against animal cruelty, but a decade ago, Congress adopted the new measure to stop the Internet trafficking in videos that showed tiny animals being tortured and crushed. Lawmakers said hunting would be unaffected since it is legal. Moreover, the ban on animal-cruelty photos included an exemption for those that had "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

Nonetheless, the law was challenged as unconstitutional by prominent media groups, which said it threatened freedom of speech. The case arose when Robert Stevens, a promoter of pit bulls, was indicted and convicted for selling videos on his website that showed the dogs fighting each other or killing wild boar.

Government lawyers had defended the anti-cruelty law on the grounds that photos of animals being tortured, like pornography involving children, should be outside the protection of the First Amendment because the speech has little value and comes at a high cost to society.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, rejected as "startling and dangerous" the notion that the First Amendment protects only speech that is desirable or has social value. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts said.

He also said the law was too broad and could allow for prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.

Though enacted a decade ago, the law against animal-cruelty videos had been used rarely. It came under challenge recently when federal prosecutors turned it against the underground industry of dog fighting.

After Stevens was convicted of selling the dog-fighting videos, he appealed and argued the law was unconstitutional.

He won a preliminary ruling from a U.S. court of appeals in Philadelphia last year, and the high court agreed Tuesday the law must be voided. "We do not decide," Roberts said, "whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be unconstitutional," he wrote in U.S. v. Stevens.

Only Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented. He faulted the court for striking down "in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty - and in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of 'crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."

The Humane Society called the decision a disappointment, but its officials said they were heartened the court left the door open for a new law that was more targeted at "crush videos" and dog fighting.

Wayne Pacelle, the group's president, said the law could be revised to apply only to "cruel" killing or wounding of animals for purposes of entertainment. "Our attorneys are confident that we can narrowly tailor a new measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny," he said.

This is the high court's second notable free-speech ruling this year. In January, the court struck down the laws that prohibited corporations from spending money on election races. In that 5-4 decision, the court said restrictions on corporate political spending amounted to restrictions on free speech

I think the Court did the right thing here.

Once again, Alito shows he lets personal bias cloud his judgement.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 09:55 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 09:45 PM
^ I can't believe anyone wants to watch that sort of thing, it's beyond sick and disgusting to me. I don't care what the law is, there's no reason for that sort of thing to exist. Crush videos and fighting videos are completely depraved.

updated 5:15 p.m. ET, Wed., April 21, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies. Yet he said he won't enforce any abortion rights "litmus tests."

Obama said it is "very important to me" that his court choice take women's rights into account in interpreting the Constitution, his most expansive comments yet about how a woman's right to choose will factor into his decision.

He plans to choose someone to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens within "the next couple weeks," he told CNBC.

When asked if he could nominate someone who did not support a woman's right to choose, Obama said: "I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction."

He said he would not judge candidates on a single-issue abortion test.

"But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights," Obama said. "And that's going to be something that's very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity. And women are not exempt from that."

Such a detailed answer raised the question of whether Obama had, in fact, spelled out a fundamental test over abortion. The White House rejected that.

"I think a litmus test is when you say, will you ask a direct question about — do you believe this? Do you believe that?" White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think the president will ask any nominee discuss how they view the Constitution and the legal principles enshrined in it."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 02:41 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
^ I can't believe anyone wants to watch that sort of thing, it's beyond sick and disgusting to me. I don't care what the law is, there's no reason for that sort of thing to exist. Crush videos and fighting videos are completely depraved.

that is just it

we don't make up laws on what we want, what is icky or not.

That is what Alito, seems to do.
They need to write the law properly. There is already new legislation, hopefully properly written this time, making its way through congress.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 10:49 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep on April 10 View Post
It is pretty early to make any predictions, but here is mine:

Elena Kagan, and she gets around 66-69 votes to confirm.
She's the one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616...supreme_court/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050903489.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...upreme-court/1



looks like NBC News's Pete Williams broke the story and others are just reporting his announcement

it won't be official until I read it on Drudge

(I am still waiting for Obama's tweet)
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 11:08 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
With Sotomayor replacing Souter and Kragen replacing Stevens, the Court will be less liberal.

The only hope is that these two new members will be able to construct arguments that can sway Kennedy. I am not hopeful.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 11:25 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
With Sotomayor replacing Souter and Kragen replacing Stevens, the Court will be less liberal.


you think? with not one, not two, but three women, i am concerned that decisions will be more irrational and based on emotion, and often given to erratic changes in mood and emotional neediness. one day they're conservative, the next way liberal, what's a straight white guy to do to talk some sense into these ladies?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 11:37 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
yes, there is cause for concern
we will have a wise Latina and two Jewish women

will they remember to put America first?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 11:52 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
yes, there is cause for concern
we will have a wise Latina and two Jewish women

will they remember to put America first?


clearly, they'll have to set aside their (a)gend(a)er and/or religious or ethnic preferences and vote according to the laws.

that's a tall order. our last president knew that only a white man isn't burdened by his life experiences and can see clearly.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 02:57 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:45 PM
the Christofascist right is already calling her a lesbian.

seems like she probably is. who knows? i'd almost like it to come out and we can all discuss it. would love to see someone try to defend the point that being gay or lesbian automatically disqualifies you from SCOTUS.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2010, 03:13 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:45 PM
I feel the need to revise my original estimate of votes for her

I still say she gets on the court,

I now think she will get few (if any, except Lieberman) GOP votes, there is too much risk in voting for her, it is more politically savvy to vote no

just ask Bob Bennett of Utah.


there is enough political cover in saying a vote for solicitor general should not equate as approval for S C.

few solicitors general have any Judaical experience, most SC appointments have Judaical experience
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com