Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Man, I am not comfortable with this. Correct me if I am wrong, but the core job of the Supreme Court is to test whether something is constitutional or not, no? You implies that constitutionality cant really be determined because it depends on the viewpoint of the Justice. That implies the Constitution cant really be followed as a standard. Shouldnt it be that regardless of your political persuasion, a Justice that is legally qualified should come to the same conclusion consistently on any given issue?

Russ, I agree with your commentary and so do various legal scholars, some of whom characterize the conservatives on SCOTUS as in engaging in "Cafeteria Originalism" in that they demonstrate a pattern of selectively applying their interpretations of the constitution when they choose to do so.

"In essence, the debate hinges on whether the Court's conservative majority consistently applies originalism or selectively employs it to achieve politically conservative results, leading to accusations of inconsistency from critics and defense of principled application from supporters."  

"Inconsistent Application: The court has struck down laws based on originalist grounds (abortion, gun rights) but critics point to cases where originalist reasoning seems absent or downplayed, such as when limiting presidential immunity or agency power, suggesting a political bias."

AI/.   https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-courts-originalism-doesnt-have-much-do-history
        https://history.stanford.edu/news/why-supreme-court-obsessed-originalism#:~:text=While%20judicial%20originalists%20continue%20to,the%20lodestar%20of%20our%20law.

JB: "Russ, if I want to send you a bazooka for Christmas, I cannot.  Why not? The second amendment does not expressly prohibit the sale or gifting of bazookas! "

True, but that's because Clarence Thomas' "originalist" interpretation means that since a bazooka wasn't an historical standard firearm in 1776, it can be regulated but if it were an historical standard back then, then feel free to order and ship and that would be just spiffy with Clarence...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I agree with this.   My point is that the majority opinions are well reasoned, legally sound, and totally legit, even if one agrees with the minority.  That is why charges of hackery from either side are so offensive.   Pundits who push the false “hack court” narrative are the true shills.

Also, and this is obvious, but one big reason to win elections is to have the opportunity to appoint qualified justices who have a legal philosophy you agree with.   Rod’s argument that Thomas or Kavanaugh etc. are not qualified is pure partisan BS.

"Rod’s argument that Thomas or Kavanaugh etc. are not qualified is pure partisan BS."

When SCOTUS reviews the cases before it with the same rigor as the courts before it, particularly those decided in the shadow docket, then I'll give more deference to the legal competence of the majority who preside in it...

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I’m assuming that this was addressed to Rod, not me.

i would just say there is a huge difference between competing views of the law, versus a philosophical bias on what the Constitution represents. Again, you are basically implying the blind scales of justice are neither blind nor just on contentious issues.

Nice, Russ...


If you and Jim don't think either Sammy or Clarence are political in either their views or their rulings, so be it.

That said, Thomas has openly advocated for multiple cases, generally regarded as precedent, to be brought before the conservative court to be reheard:

"...particularly those based on "substantive due process," inviting challenges to rights for contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas), and same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) after the Roe v. Wade overturning. He also advocates re-examining civil rights statutes like Section 1983 and First Amendment protections for libel (New York Times v. Sullivan). "  AI

Additionally his ethical constructs are, to say the least, shaped and reflective of "conservative" influences:   

1. Luxury vacations from billionaire benefactors.
2. Selling mother's home to Crow.
3. Private school tuition from Crow.
4. The Ginni Thomas texts non-recusal
5.  Secret contracting payments for Ginni Thomas
6. The mysterious luxury RV loan.
7. Thomas hinted he would quit as largesse began.

https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022846/a-running-list-of-clarence-thomas-scandals

Now the last I looked, Russ, justices were supposed to be objective and aren't supposed to advocate for cases to be brought before them for review. Additionally, potential ethical issues like loans and luxury vacations are supposed to be acknowledged and listed by the jurist before hand and not after they're uncovered by investigative reporters. 

As for Alito:    "Justice Alito complains, but the evidence is clear: This Supreme Court was built by dark money"
"Alito wants us to believe everything is going great at the Supreme Court. And so it is — for big Republican donors"
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/op-eds/justice-alito-complains-but-the-evidence-is-clear-this-supreme-court-was-built-by-dark-money/

We won't revisit the upside down flag issue in front of his own home, you know, the one he said he didn't see... you and Jim Brown probably buy that, too...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod and Dave actually.  They used shill and hack earlier in the thread, if memory serves.

I think the Court is extremely just.  In your opinion was one of the Warren Court or the Roberts Court "neither blind nor just" on the Constitutional issues decided in Roe and Dobbs?  They certainly disagree with each other.  Please answer this, it means a lot to me.  

I don't understand your following statement at all:  "I would just say there is a huge difference between competing views of the law, versus a philosophical bias on what the Constitution represents."  That is a distinction without any difference in my view.  Maybe you could explain further?

Actually, it was Dave but I agreed with his use of "shill" so I guess I'm in the same camp. That said, there's a reason Trump's favorites are Alito and Thomas and it's naive to believe that's based upon their judicial independence....

Originally Posted by James Brown

No, it’s based upon their view of the law, to quote Russ.   A view of the law that Trump prefers over Sotomayor’s view of the law, for example.   Why is such a simple concept so hard for you?

Over the years I’ve asked you to cite one case, any case, where Thomas voted in a manner inconsistent with his core view of the law.   At best you might cite an article from a liberal who despises Thomas’s view of the law, but you never have and probably never will find me a case where Thomas ruled inconsistently with his core view of the law.  

That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like you don’t like Thomas’s entirely legitimate and strongly held view of the law, so you resort to feebly libeling him as a shill.  A lame attempt at guilt by association.

Trump prefers them because they are what they are: conservative activists and not jurists.  Since Thomas, for example, seldom, if ever, explains his opinions or even bothers to ask questions during legal arguments brought before the court, we don't kno what his "core view of the law" is although a notable exception to that is his decision in the Bruen case and one in which his requirement of an "historical standard" was/is so inane that SCOTUS felt compelled to issue "guidance" for lower courts. Despite that, the ruling was/is so off the rails that courts still struggle with the meaning of it to this very day. 

Thomas' "core view of the law"!? How about him advocating for cases considered to be precedent to be yet again brought before the court? He's already made up his mind on these cases and wants them overturned before he's ever heard the case! Alito is no better....

Happy holidays to all! 

(Even to SCOTUS!)

Not to be a grinch but Trump took calls from kids and he told one he stopped a "bad Santa from infiltrating the US"!...
He told another who asked about a lump of coal and Trump told him he's bringing "big beautiful coal" back...
Another kid told him he wanted an IPad and Trump told him he must a be "high IQ kid"....

CNN:

"Supreme court signals it will give Trump More Control of Government".

"The high court appears ready to side with President Donald Trump on the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Liberal justices warned today that backing Trump could “destroy the structure of government” as conservatives tried to tamp down fears."

Uh, huh, give Trump even more control of government as if we haven't seen enough. The cons already gave him, for all intents and purposes, virtual blanket immunity and now this!

It can end well:   

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Wednesday shared an AI-generated video depicting President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller in handcuffs."

"The video shows the three sitting on a step outside, their hands behind their backs, as the text, “It’s cuffing season,” appears onscreen. It then transitions to the backseat of a car when Trump, Hegseth and Miller raise their cuffed hands to their faces and they start to cry."


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5643618-trump-handcuffs-newsom-ai-video/

PS: Trump and company don't want Maduro in Venezuela, they want Chevron...