U S Supreme Court - all related issues - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-14-2010, 05:11 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Very good chance Obama will name replacement for Ginsburg too.

So we will have 3 of the most liberal Judges changed out.

2 of them, for what most will describe as less liberal than their predecessors.

If he noms a middle of the road type for Ginsburg the court will be fairly conservative for a very long time.



Scalia should be the next to go, he is getting old and pretty fat, he must have some health issues.

If Obama can get a second term, maybe he can name his replacement.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:16 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Very good chance Obama will name replacement for Ginsburg too.

So we will have 3 of the most liberal Judges changed out.

2 of them, for what most will describe as less liberal than their predecessors.
Justice Stevens said that since he was named to the Supreme Court, and mind you this was 35 years ago, each and every justice named to the Supreme Court after him, with the sole exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been more conservative than the justice that preceded him or her.

And conservative hypocrites yell and scream every time there is a nomination process so you'd think they're facing unbearable persecution.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be replaced by Pamela Karlan when the time comes. One of the sharpest legal minds in the country, perhaps the sharpest. Also a brilliant constitutional expert.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:26 PM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:47 AM
If Ginsburg can hang on until 2013 and the Dems keep a solid hold on the Senate.


Maybe we can have a Good win?




44 - Goodwin Liu's controversial judicial nomination approved by Senate committee

he could reign for 50 years.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:27 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Another excellent choice.

Though I don't think she'll be replaced by a man.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:34 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Really?

O'Connor was replaced by a man.

And we have 2 women replacing men?

I think 3 women nominations in a row from Obama would be more unusual.

I also think a Goodwin nom is unlikely because they are always worried about the next election, even if it is only mid-terms.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 05:48 PM   #66
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:47 AM
seems to me, though, that it's less important as to how far left a judge is and more important that they are persuasive to the justices who are to the right of them. so if someone comes along and is super left, but can't get Kennedy to listen to him/her, then what good are they when it comes to these 5-4 decisions?

Kagan's apparent strength is how she is universally beloved by everyone. though she may be to the right of JPS, perhaps she'll be more persuasive>

it also seems as if she's all but confirmed. all the non-insane GOP Senators have said she's perfectly qualified.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2010, 06:56 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Really?

O'Connor was replaced by a man.
By W not Obama. And Sandra Day O'Connor is not Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Two women out of 9 would be bad enough. But replacing Ginsburg in particular, a woman who stands on the right side of history when it comes to issues of women's equality, with a man, no matter how liberal, just comes with all sorts of terrible optics.

I would not support 2/9 being women, that is completely absurd in a nation where most law students are now female and where there is NO SHORTAGE of qualified females to be named to the court. It would be unequal and it would be inequitable.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2010, 08:55 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:47 AM
I'm really not trying to be mean with this but it's been bugging me for a week who this nominee reminds me of. I finally thought of it.




__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2010, 09:24 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:47 AM
what S C nominees look like is of little relevance


Clarence Thomas looked like a black man.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2010, 09:58 AM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
what S C nominees look like is of little relevance
Unless they're female
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 02:58 PM   #71
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Unless they're female
That dude Kagan is female? Really?
__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 03:31 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberBeaver View Post
That dude Kagan is female? Really?


does a lady cut her hair like that, not get married, and play softball?

i think you have your answer.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 03:35 PM   #73
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Ahhhh, of course! How could I not put all those pieces together!

It would be great if she got confirmed, and then on her first day, ripped off that little wig and it turned out to be Al Gore. Looks kinda like him.
__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 07:06 PM   #74
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Sully nails the whole gay thing:


Quote:
They Still Don't Get It
19 MAY 2010 03:31 PM

Drum objects to asking public figures about their sex lives. So do I. I have zero interest - less than zero, actually - in Elena Kagan's sex life or lack of it. I do have an interest in someone's public identity. And how many times can I say this before my straight friends get it? Being gay is not about your sex life. It's about a core element of your identity, one that no gay person can bypass or ignore.

Lane Wallace makes a similar category error here:

Quote:
In short, while a potential justice's personal life or sexual orientation can certainly influence her innate understanding and experience in the world, it is no more relevant than thousands of other factors in her life experience.
This is a sentence that could only be written by a straight person.

This is what a gay person must go through to get to adulthood: he or she must figure out she's different at varying ages, but usually, clearly by mid-adolescence. The dating question looms, as does the marriage question. What do you do? Many gay kids pretend to be straight for a while (mercifully fewer than in the past); many come out and begin the difficult pursuit of love and intimacy and, in some states, marriage; others make a strategic decision to lie about themselves or to construct a public persona drained of any emotional or relationship content so they always avoid the question. At every stage of this evolution, the gay person is made deeply aware of his or her marginalized status as a citizen and as a human being. Few identities expose as much how the law can oppress, stigmatize and alienate.

With all due respect, this is more relevant than "thousands of other factors" in someone's life. This experience, certainly for someone of my generation and older, cannot but be formative, whether it is repressed, engaged, hidden or run from. To remain closeted requires a massive use of emotional and psychological resources to distract, dissociate, lie, euphemize, cover, appease. It requires deception every day.

This question is not about someone's sexual preferences - by which I mean, whether you like your partners tall, short, hairy, buxom, skinny, fat, whatever, and what you might like to do with them. It's about your emotional core and the integrity with which you have lived your life. It matters if a Supreme Court Justice has lived his life as a convenient careerist lie. It tells us a lot about him. And for gay people who have had to make these choices, and risked a huge amount to do so, it is somewhat offensive to be told this experience is just not that big a deal.

Really? You try it.


also touches on the idiocy of DADT. imagine going to work and not being able to talk about your spouse, your kids, your vacation with your spouse, your date on friday, where you had dinner on saturday ... it's all about not having to lie, every day.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 10:07 AM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 1, 2010; 3:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.

In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday - over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.

The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. "Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn't want to talk to police?" said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.

This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision - it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix - requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody - the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer - and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.

For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."

"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."

Sotomayor called that reasoning "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation."

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen 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 08:47 AM.


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