Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I haven't read all of your posts yet as I started here, but this confirms that the Supreme Court does in fact have a political bent, which may be a practical fallout of our system of government, but I also believe it is not in the spirit of the original drafters of the Constitution - even if they knew this would probably be the likely outcome.

This is why I went into science and not letters 

Of course.  The Warren Court was liberal and the Roberts court is conservative.  The point I am trying to make is that these are legitimate scholarly judicial philosophies, not hackery, and not slimy political deference like the Rs in Congress  who kiss Trump's arrogant ass.

This was the case in the 1780s too, the founders were well aware of it.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"While California Gov. Gavin Newsom has stolen much of the attention in Democratic conversations about the next presidential race, another governor is quietly garnering some buzz among strategists and top Democratic donors: Andy Beshear."

"The Kentucky governor has been able to win elections in a fiercely red state as a measured, moderate Democrat. He’s not a brash, in-your-face kind of politician, and that’s the appeal, Democrats say."

“For those craving normalcy, he is their answer,” said John Morgan, a Democratic donor and injury lawyer, who recently met with Beshear and found him to be impressive."  “He has won 3 times in a very red state,” Morgan said. “He knows the path.”


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5655174-beshear-moderate-democrat-presidential-race/


Gavin Newsom's California:   "Why California could be contending with $5 gas next year".  "California drivers already pay 50% more than the rest of the nation, about $4.32 per gallon."     https://www.aol.com/articles/why-california-could-contending-5-160101186.html

Try running a national candidate with that kind of a record and see how far that takes you....

I don't know much about Beshear, but he sounds like my kind of Democrat!  I bet the left flank of the Democratic party kills his chances.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Of course.  The Warren Court was liberal and the Roberts court is conservative.  The point I am trying to make is that these are legitimate scholarly judicial philosophies, not hackery, and not slimy political deference like the Rs in Congress who kiss Trump's arrogant ass.

This was the case in the 1780s too, the founders were well aware of it.

I want to make one more point about politics and the Court.  Let's talk about Roe and Dobbs. 

As you all know, in Roe a liberal 1973 Supreme Court opinion that controversially overturned each and every state law banning abortion, or even restricting it much in the first and second trimesters.  We all also know that many liberals and Democrats  supported a woman's right to chose in 1973 while many conservatives and Republicans opposed abortion under most any circumstance. 

Now think about this carefully - Do you all think that the Warren Court was shilling for the left when they decided Roe?  Do you all think the majority in the Warren Court were political hacks beholden to Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey?  I certainly hope you do not!  

But how then did the Warren Court decide Roe?  Take my word for it or read the Constitution if you like, but there is no right to abortion expressly stated in the Constitution, and there is no express "right to privacy" enshrined in the the bill of rights.  Nonetheless, the Warren Court expanded the new "right to privacy" they had earlier created in a contraceptive case to include the right to most elective abortions.  They deemed the right to privacy to be in the "penumbra" of the expressly stated Bill of Rights.  Many scholars deemed this to be a huge reach at the time, others applauded the decision.  This is a very liberal judicial philosophy at work.  The Warren Court overturned many dozens of duly passed state statutes based entirely upon their conclusion that a new right to privacy rendered those state statutes unconstitutional.  Unconstitutional because of a new right to privacy, which they deemed inherent in the Constitution, even though it is not mentioned in the document itself, and not even mentioned in the Constitution's drafting history.  The liberals argued that the right to privacy had to be there to make the Constitution work.

Some Republicans no doubt argued that the Warren Court majority were a bunch of political hacks, shilling for the Democrats.  I disagree.  I think the Warren Court decided Roe based upon the application of their deeply held judicial philosophies that valued individual rights (i.e. the right to privacy and a Woman's right to choose) over the anti-abortion sentiment of the State legislatures.  I personally think they overstepped their authority, although I think I understand their reasoning.  Russ, I hope you are reading this because it is a great example of an issue where legal minds were sharply divided, and the result was based upon the majorities' judicial philosophy.  It is hopeless to suggest that all well-trained legal minds would agree on the scope of the Constitution on this issue.

Times change.  When Dobbs was decided in 2022 a strong majority of the Court (6-3) returned to the pre-1972 law.  Specifically they overturned Roe and empowered states to set their own abortion policies. The majority opinion stated the Constitution simply does not confer a right to abortion.  The Court stated it was returning the issue to elected representatives and the people.  They did this because there is not a "right to privacy" and a subsequent right to choose enshrined in the Constitution.  The basis for Roe is literally "not there" if you read the document.  Therefore the Court had no authority to overturn a duly passed state statute restricting abortion.  This is a very conservative legal position.  Of course it has nothing to do with shilling for Republicans or political hackery.

When asked if the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to choose (subject to some limitations of course) a justice like Thomas would probably say something like: 'No, and it never did, there is no text guaranteeing privacy or reproductive rights in the Constitution and it is therefore up to the States to regulate the issue as they see fit.'  On the contrary, if one asked Ruth Bader Ginsberg the same question, I would expect her to say something like:  'Of course the Constitution protects a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices because  without that right - the rights enumerated in the Bill or Rights are ephemeral, and not granted to women at all'.

Please think about this before you post that certain justices are shills or hacks.  At lease think about it if you want me to leave you alone!  Jim

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

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....

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.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I just don't like the idea that the highest court in the land is inherently a political body. I much prefer to think of our justice system as umpires that call balls and strikes - it should not matter what the background is of the umpire, batter, pitcher, or catcher in determining the outcome of a pitch or play. It's true that umpires get it wrong, but not because they have a different view of the rules.

Here is the rub: your metaphor is appealing but limited.  The existence of a pitch being a ball or strike has objective truth.  even though an umpire might get the call wrong, the rule itself is well defined and universally understood:

 https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/strike-zone

Virtually all issues of day to day justice are equally well defined:  Thou shall not kill.  Thou shall not steal.  The penalty for tax evasion is a fine of x plus a maximum jail sentence of y and so on.   This is 99.99% of what our courts (and Canada’s courts) do, every day of the year.

The Constitutional issues the Supreme Court addresses are not so clear, not at all.  For example, based on few of the points I’ve tried to make in this thread, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide these questions:

* Does the Constitution guarantee a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy even though a duly passed state statute prohibits abortion?

* Does the commerce clause give the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions?

* Does the commerce clause give the executive branch the authority to regulate industrial emissions at all?

* Does the Constitution grant the president immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed within the scope of executive authority?

* Does the Constitution grant the legislature immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of legislative authority?

* Is a campaign contribution from a union paid by union dues free speech protected under the First Amendment?

I could go on and on forever, but I think you get the point!  It would be wonderful if the work of the Supreme Court was as simple as calling balls and strikes!   It is not, indeed it is a lot more like defining the strike zone in the first instance, when the founding document establishing the game of baseball simply declares  that a strike zone must exist, with no further guidance.

I think both Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia are American heroes, even though they often disagreed on the core constitutional issues.

Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah to you and all my A-mart pals!  Jim

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

What is the chance for the redeployment of the ICE storm troopers to 'supervise' the all-important mid-term elections in November, with concentrations of them in contentious districts to 'ensure a fair vote'.

Dave

Hi Dave, replying to two of your threads here, but the odds of ICE “stormtroopers” being redeployed to swing districts to throw the election are the same as the odds of us capturing your PM and taking over Canada.    0% to any reasonable mind, >50% within your particularly paranoid bubble.   Please let’s remember to revisit this after the elections.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Don't be sorry, you never know if Richard will ever be healed 

Richard hates it when I say this, but I am far more conservative than he is.

It is CONSERVATIVE to oppose broad tariffs, LIBERALS have fought to impose them

It is CONSERVATIVE to oppose Russian aggression, LIBERALS have pussyfooted around Russia

It is CONSERVATIVE to support NATO and the post WW2 world order, LIBERALS oppose it

It is CONSERVATIVE to support free markets, LIBERALS oppose it

It is CONSERVATIVE to limit fed. gov. power, LIBERALS oppose it.

Richard, these are just a few examples of Trump acting like an unhinged LIBERAL. If you take off your partisan blinders and look at his words and actions, you would see that.

There is no conservative party anymore as Trump has totally destroyed it. The term conservative isn't very substantive today - I hope somehow that is restored in the future.

Finally, I voted against Trump because of his character, not because I support liberal policies. Many of my family and friends don't like Trump, but voted for him as the lesser evil, which I completely understand. We don't disagree on most issues, we simply disagree on the dangers of a man like Trump in power.

I have always said America can survive bad policies for a time, but it can't necessarily survive a bad leader.

👍🏼

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Regardless, you know who stops people without probable cause and demands their papers??? The fucking Gestapo.

Warrantless immigration stops are subject to abuse for sure, even though they are permitted by law only when the agent has reasonable suspicion that the detained person is here illegally.   Afterward there are deportation hearings observing the reduced level of due process afforded non citizens.  Sometimes there are deportations.   Beats being incinerated alive and then bulldozed into a mass grave right?

Do I like Trump’s political supercharging of this easily abused process?   Not at all.   Are congressional reforms needed?   You bet.  

Even so, you and Dave’s “jackbooted stormtrooper fucking Gestapo” comments make you both look like idiots.   Historically illiterate fools.   Write a short paragraph about the Gestapo’s actual enforcement from arrest to execution and get back to me.   And don’t play the “I was exaggerating to make a point” card unless you want me to start calling you Donald.   Both of you.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

 Thanks for helping me keep my eye on my meds.  Rheumatoid Arthritis is a bitch.

And special thanks for referring to me as 'young'.  Nice to hear as I approach completion of 3/4 of a century.

But, alas, you made no reference to:  "masked, racial profiling thugs, with no accountability or  training, who fly in the face of the 4th amendment with no warrants or probable cause".  Probably because one can only agree with my entirely accurate description of ICE and their actions since the Trump re-election.

Dave

No accountability?  Seriously?  Where the hell do you get your information?   Facebook?