Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

This is How You SCOTUS

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,849
I saw this, too, Monnie. It seems that, despite the ruling that ended up going against President Obama on immigration, the Court is tending to lean left without replacing Justice Scalia. Of course it serves the Republicans right for ignoring their Constituional duty to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but I would rather have an intact Supreme Court.

AGBF
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
17,986
AGBF|1467055598|4048899 said:
I saw this, too, Monnie. It seems that, despite the ruling that ended up going against President Obama on immigration, the Court is tending to lean left without replacing Justice Scalia. Of course it serves the Republicans right for ignoring their Constituional duty to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but I would rather have an intact Supreme Court.

AGBF
I rarely speak negatively about one party or the other (or 3rd or 4th parties) but I just can't hold back any longer: What a bunch of babies! Do your jobs! :angryfire: I mean, their tactics are the same as a toddler's, and I say that because I have experienced every childish trick in the book for the past couple years!
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,615
I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
17,986
packrat|1467059332|4048930 said:
I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.
Shhhh! Don't let people know you don't know everything there is to know about everything! Gah! :silenced: :angel:
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,615
monarch64|1467059455|4048933 said:
packrat|1467059332|4048930 said:
I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.
Shhhh! Don't let people know you don't know everything there is to know about everything! Gah! :silenced: :angel:

Ha that'll learn me! How dare I not know everything about everything everywhere and everyplace!
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,849
The on-line version of the editorial in, "The New York Times" this morning is announced with this blurb,

"The Supreme Court saw Texas’ dishonest anti-abortion law for what it is: an effort to end legal abortion."

People who want to read the editorial can click on the link. It was so succinct. I had to quote it.

Deb :read:
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
42,018
Thank goodness for rational thinking for once. :appl: :appl: :appl:

OMG what we women have to go through to just have the right to do with our own bodies as we please. Darn all the people who think they should have control over our reproductive rights. Makes me so angry!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono:
 

ame

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
10,763

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
17,986
missy|1467113340|4049132 said:
Thank goodness for rational thinking for once. :appl: :appl: :appl:

OMG what we women have to go through to just have the right to do with our own bodies as we please. Darn all the people who think they should have control over our reproductive rights. Makes me so angry!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono:
Yes, rational thought for sure! Favorite hashtag from yesterday: #NotoriousRBG :bigsmile: (Ruth Bader Ginsburg/Notorious B.I.G.)

It makes me angry, too, Missy, that people are unable (or do not want) to think critically and cannot see past their own force-fed beliefs to logic out that they are not in control of anyone else's body but their own. But I understand it. Most public schools do not teach critical thinking skills. They teach dates and events and propaganda, and conveniently leave out lots of things. And educating people means you might empower them to make their own decisions based on free will. Then where would that leave your social and military structure??? It's all such a total house of cards (the name of that series is so apropos.)
 

minousbijoux

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
12,451
I want you all to know that I love everything about this thread - I started to +1 to Monnie's first post, then read the second post and wanted to +1, then read the third and so on and so on. Every single comment, remark, observation and link is so dead on.

Love you all!
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,241
While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,849
redwood66|1467229808|4049801 said:
While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."
Was he talking about assault rifles or other high tech long guns (this is for the benefit of Packrat and other purists)? I cannot imagine any other reason why anyone would say such a thing. It is clearly imbecilic.

Deb :read:
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
AGBF|1467233013|4049823 said:
redwood66|1467229808|4049801 said:
While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."
Was he talking about assault rifles or other high tech long guns (this is for the benefit of Packrat and other purists)? I cannot imagine any other reason why anyone would say such a thing. It is clearly imbecilic.

Deb :read:
The entirety of Posner's response on Slate:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practical_experience.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top

Regarding your posting, Akhil:

I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to accept advice from law professors on administrative issues, such as whether to have opinions in tie cases and whether to identify the justices voting for or against cert. The court is understandably likely to think that law professors are not in a position to advise on such issues. I also think there's a growing gap between judges (including the Supreme Court justices) and the academy, which judges tend to think is increasingly distant from the actual practice of law, staffed as it increasingly is with refugees from other disciplines—the graduate students in classics, and history, and anthropology, and so on who upon discovering there were very few well-paying positions in such fields nowadays decided to go to law school and afterward had no time to practice law before getting a law-teaching job.

I think law schools should be hiring a higher percentage of lawyers with significant practical experience. I think, for example, of Benjamin Kaplan at Harvard Law School, who went into law-teaching after 14 years in practice. There used to be many like that; there are many fewer now, especially at the leading law schools.

On a different subject, I worry that law professors are too respectful of the Supreme Court, in part perhaps because they don't want to spoil the chances of their students to obtain Supreme Court clerkships. I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir. The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them; the last real star, Robert Jackson, died more than 60 years ago. I regard the posthumous encomia for Scalia as absurd. Especially those of Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Justice Elena Kagan.


And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

Dick Posner
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Quarter Century Anniversary Upgrade
    Quarter Century Anniversary Upgrade
    Diamonds and the Movies – Watchlist (Part 1)
    Diamonds and the Movies – Watchlist (Part 1)
    Something Blue
    Something Blue

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top