It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:46 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:37 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2542
Res Ipsa and honorentheos want me to believe that our Supreme Court Justices are brilliant, but so far I haven't been impressed. It is sad to be living in the 21st century because science is slowly progressing and Citizens United is eating us alive.

Quote:
If we consider the number of cases decided by single vote majorities to be a fair proxy for a Court’s polarization, it becomes easy to see that our current Court is by and large the most partisan in years. In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2 percent of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20 percent of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. In the past, the party of the appointing President did not predict a justice’s votes. Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. In the 2014–2015 term, virtually every 5–4 decision the Court gave out was split perfectly along party lines. This, combined with the increase in 5–4 decisions, is an indicator of just how partisan the Supreme Court has become.


https://stanfordpolitics.org/2016/01/07 ... eme-court/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 7353
Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 3647
Location: The Yukon Hotel - 1187 Hunterwasser Los Angeles
Who else does one go to for advice on the Supreme Court but Rick Perry?

Seriously, Rick Perry had an interesting idea. From his old campaign website:

Quote:
A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.


Personally I think it's a good idea. I originally read about it at the New Yorker.

_________________
"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart."
- Donald Trump
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 10154
Location: Your mother's purse
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Res Ipsa and honorentheos want me to believe that our Supreme Court Justices are brilliant, but so far I haven't been impressed. It is sad to be living in the 21st century because science is slowly progressing and Citizens United is eating us alive.

Quote:
If we consider the number of cases decided by single vote majorities to be a fair proxy for a Court’s polarization, it becomes easy to see that our current Court is by and large the most partisan in years. In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2 percent of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20 percent of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. In the past, the party of the appointing President did not predict a justice’s votes. Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. In the 2014–2015 term, virtually every 5–4 decision the Court gave out was split perfectly along party lines. This, combined with the increase in 5–4 decisions, is an indicator of just how partisan the Supreme Court has become.

https://stanfordpolitics.org/2016/01/07 ... eme-court/

the point here seems to be completely misinterpreted.

From 1801 to 1940 clearly the court was just partisan...single minded as it were....no diversity of opinion, etc. Now with 5-4 decisions on the rise we see a court that is more bi-partisan....diverse in opinion...independently minded, etc..

me, i prefer the latter - the melting pot only works when it is hot....and i prefer that over homogenization....the Stepford Wives are always unanimous.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:31 am 
God

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am
Posts: 4329
Location: California
MeDotOrg wrote:
Who else does one go to for advice on the Supreme Court but Rick Perry?

Seriously, Rick Perry had an interesting idea. From his old campaign website:

Quote:
A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.


Personally I think it's a good idea. I originally read about it at the New Yorker.

I like that idea!

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 7353
MeDotOrg wrote:
Who else does one go to for advice on the Supreme Court but Rick Perry?

Seriously, Rick Perry had an interesting idea. From his old campaign website:

Quote:
A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.


Personally I think it's a good idea. I originally read about it at the New Yorker.

This is where my streaks of conservatism come in, where the tradition of the court has been precisely to be distant from the moods of the people. Our current court culture is largely an influence of hyper-partisanship becoming the norm first in the house and now the senate. With the McConnell move to block Obama from making an appointment for over a year before an election, we've seen this realized explicitly in the courts. But I don't think the solution is to abandon the court to majority rule anymore than the solution to ill-fitting shoes that are leading to back problems is to not walk as much.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 6957
Location: On walkabout
subgenius wrote:
the point here seems to be completely misinterpreted.

From 1801 to 1940 clearly the court was just partisan...single minded as it were....no diversity of opinion, etc.
Now with 5-4 decisions on the rise we see a court that is more bi-partisan....diverse in opinion...independently minded, etc..

me, i prefer the latter - the melting pot only works when it is hot....and i prefer that over homogenization....the Stepford Wives are always unanimous.


I think that's a good point, Sub. There was a fairly long stretch where there the judicial philosophy of the Justices was fairly uniform. I also prefer having Justicies of diverse judicial philosophy -- after all, how can we evaluate ideas if they are never raised?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 6957
Location: On walkabout
honorentheos wrote:
This is where my streaks of conservatism come in, where the tradition of the court has been precisely to be distant from the moods of the people. Our current court culture is largely an influence of hyper-partisanship becoming the norm first in the house and now the senate. With the McConnell move to block Obama from making an appointment for over a year before an election, we've seen this realized explicitly in the courts. But I don't think the solution is to abandon the court to majority rule anymore than the solution to ill-fitting shoes that are leading to back problems is to not walk as much.


I think there is always a tendency to offer "fixes" to the system when it produces results that the proponent of change disagrees with. Structurally, I think the Supreme Court is a conservative institution, in that it lags public opinion. That, in my opinion, is a good thing. The House can flip from one political extreme to another every two years. The executive branch every four, and the Senate every six. The Supreme Court changes more slowly, with doctrines like stare decisis also acting to dampen the rate of change.

So, I'm also inclined not to rush in to change the Constitution in response to current events. The one event that gives me pause is McConnell's theft of a seat that should have been fulfilled by Obama. That kind of manipulation of the system is damaging, and may warrant changes to prevent similar abuses in the future.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15534
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 6957
Location: On walkabout
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc


Yeah, I have really mixed feelings on that. On the one hand, I see the appeal of giving them a taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, an eye for an eye and we're all blind. Every overreach by either side has been justified by some prior overreach. if we just tear down norm after norm after norm, where are we going to end up?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:22 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13666
If you let one side destroy norms around political forbearance, and demand the other uphold them, what you are going to get is enduring authoritarian control by the former over the latter.

At this point the Democrats would be incredibly foolish if they didn’t plan on packing the courts if given the opening. They should have no fear of retaliation left.

Democrats should try to bring them to their knees to force a peace. The alternative literally is an incremental loss of liberal democracy at this point. We’re living through it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:38 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15534
Res Ipsa wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc


Yeah, I have really mixed feelings on that. On the one hand, I see the appeal of giving them a taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, an eye for an eye and we're all blind. Every overreach by either side has been justified by some prior overreach. if we just tear down norm after norm after norm, where are we going to end up?


Amendments to the Constitution?

I guess my feeling is the GoP is so incredibly torpid with regard to our democracy they've allowed a walking conflict of interest to muck up our Presidency, deny a Supreme Court nomination its due, throw us into insane debt through inane wars, so on and so forth. It just doesn't end. The days any sort of notion we could be bipartisan are over.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:41 am 
Bishop

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:45 pm
Posts: 487
EAllusion wrote:
If you let one side destroy norms around political forbearance, and demand the other uphold them, what you are going to get is enduring authoritarian control by the former over the latter.

At this point the Democrats would be incredibly foolish if they didn’t plan on packing the courts if given the opening. They should have no fear of retaliation left.

Democrats should try to bring them to their knees to force a peace. The alternative literally is an incremental loss of liberal democracy at this point. We’re living through it.


Bingo. Norms have been destroyed already. They interpret anything else as "establishment" and "political correctness."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:09 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12773
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
honorentheos wrote:
Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.

Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.

_________________
One of my friends said, in all seriousness, "I think the brethren hate the missionaries."

--Runtu, 06-29-2018


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12492
Location: On the imaginary axis
Dr. Shades wrote:
honorentheos wrote:
Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.

Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.


I think it's clear (I add some punctuation to make it evident how I read it):

'Arguing 'partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence' seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon [sc. 'Gordian'] knots with ease, whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.'

Since 'ease' can't make rulings, it is obvious that it is the 'authoritarian leaders' not the ease of cutting knots that is referred to by 'whose'

Could be more elegant, certainly. But did you really have any doubt what that sentence meant? What else could it have meant?

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 10154
Location: Your mother's purse
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

The Democrats are not that politically savvy.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15534
Chap wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.


I think it's clear (I add some punctuation to make it evident how I read it):

'Arguing 'partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence' seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon [sc. 'Gordian'] knots with ease, whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.'

Since 'ease' can't make rulings, it is obvious that it is the 'authoritarian leaders' not the ease of cutting knots that is referred to by 'whose'

Could be more elegant, certainly. But did you really have any doubt what that sentence meant? What else could it have meant?


I'm with Dr. Shades on this one. It's a word salad.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:46 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13666
subgenius wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

The Democrats are not that politically savvy.


Like many people who are ethically challenged, you confuse will to do something with savvy to do it. "You're just not smart enough to lie like me." No, subs, some people are just more ethical. The Democrats mostly need to be encouraged to be more politically shameless, not more savvy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5020
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc


Quote:
Bernstein also noted that a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court's business.


The Democrats have done stuff like this in the past. How do you like Harry Reid's abolishment of the filibuster now?

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15534
ajax18 wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc


Quote:
Bernstein also noted that a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court's business.


The Democrats have done stuff like this in the past. How do you like Harry Reid's abolishment of the filibuster now?


Do you, uh, know what a Senate resolution is and can you explain to me how one passed in 1960 with regard to Eisenhower had any ____ ing thing to do with the Merrick Garland debacle?

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 4988
EAllusion wrote:
subgenius wrote:
The Democrats are not that politically savvy.


Like many people who are ethically challenged, you confuse will to do something with savvy to do it. "You're just not smart enough to lie like me." No, subs, some people are just more ethical. The Democrats mostly need to be encouraged to be more politically shameless, not more savvy.

It’s is noted how often subs’ rationalization above is used by those so often claiming a higher moral ground than their political opponents.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group