Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

No offense Dave, but I never said the CO Supreme Court is biased!   I called out Rod for his endless bullshit allegations that the SCOTUS is biased and unethical.  Personally, I think the Colorado Supreme Court got this one wrong, but I do not think they are biased in the political sense.  I hope you understand my point, this is important to me.   

This may be subtle, but bear with me - I disagree with all sorts of opinions Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote over her long career, so I arguably disagree with her legal bias.  I have never and I would never accuse her of political bias.  i.e. bending the law to her political point of view.  

Rod makes these accusations all the time.  He slanders Clarence Thomas on a near daily basis and it is wrong, unseemly, and ignorant.  Rod does not just disagree with Thomas as a matter of law.  Rod goes further and accuses him of political bias and unethical behaviors.   I sincerely hope that everyone understands this distinction.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Wake me up when you can find one instance, one single instance where Thomas changed or modified his well known legal principles in return for gifts, outside influences or any other consideration other than his legal principles.   

Also, since you think Thomas ought to recuse himself because of his wife's politics, I presume that you think Biden should step down because his only living son is guilty of many criminal acts?   

If Thomas's rich friend (or a business he controls) ever has a case before the Supreme Court, I would expect Thomas to recuse himself.   You on the other hand expect recusal from any case that has politically conservative ramifications.  This is a standard you do not apply to the liberals on the Court.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Way over 1/2 of the population approved of the Dred Scott decision.   That has no bearing whatsoever on whether Dred Scott was right or wrong.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

I want to try to make a point before the holidays start to roll in earnest (my kids are arriving this evening).   

1.  Judges have legal/philosophical biases - to the extent "bias" is a loaded word, it would be better to say that judges have core legal philosophies.  Some judges have legal philosophies that are aligned with conservative political thought, like a rather strict adherence to the words of the Constitution, and strict enforcement of the separation of powers.   This is why a Judge with a "conservative" legal philosophy  would oppose Roe v. Wade - it is an example of the Court taking over the job of the legislature, since there is no authority expressly in the Constitution for the Court determining health care.   On the other hand, Some Judges have liberal legal philosophies.  These justices might be less concerned about the literal words of the Constitution or the intent of long-dead framers.   A Judge with a liberal judicial philosophy would interpret the Constitution in the context of the needs of modern society - so a liberal Judge would favor Roe v. Wade because the law had been developing for a long time in the direction of a woman's right to choose being legally superior to the state's right to regulate abortion, but only earlier in pregnancy.   

2.  In my view there is nothing wrong or immoral with either judicial philosophy.  Both schools of thought are defensible.  Richard obviously thinks that liberal judicial philosophies are invalid, corrupt, and unequivocally illegitimate.   He is wrong.  Anyone who thinks great legal minds like RGB, Warren, or now Justice Brown-Jackson held/hold judicial philosophies that are invalid, corrupt, and unequivocally illegitimate is just being foolish.   These are brilliant Justices with great minds and long careers.  I have accused you of the same fallacy with respect to conservative judicial philosophies - at least when you argue that Thomas's decisions are invalid, corrupt, and unequivocally illegitimate.  To my knowledge, Thomas has never made a decision that was inconsistent with his core judicial philosophy.  Politics have nothing to do with it.

3.  I wish the Court would adopt a stronger ethics code, but I do not think Thomas needs to recuse himself from an election case because his wife is an activist.  If his rich friends have a case before the Court, he must recuse himself.   Sotomayor should think about this too.

4.  Justices have political biases too - but I do not think you can cite an example of a modern Supreme Court Justice rendering a decision that contradicts their core judicial philosophy because of political bias.

5.  It aggravates me when people like the MAGA crowd you cited argue that the CO Supreme Court acted out of clear and obvious political bias to render as you put it well, "a bogus  and politically motivated decision"  This instance obviously aggravates you too.

6.  If the US Supreme Court overturns the CO Supreme Court, I will bet everything I own that the left will argue loud and stridently that this was a "a bogus  and politically motivated decision"  Are you going to be joining the left in that argument?  On what basis?  I think you will join in with the "bogus  and politically motivated decision" crowd, and that aggravates me too.  

7.  Here is the point - I think it is BS, to argue that any of these decisions are "bogus  and politically motivated."   The justices on both courts have a great deal of integrity.  These are close cases where both sides have defensible arguments.  The different decisions (assuming The Supremes overturn Colorado) are the result of different judicial philosophies, not some overt political bias in either case.

That's about the best I can do on this issue.  Have a happy holiday! - Jim