Sandra O'Connor Resigns - Democrats Will Find "Extraordinary Circumstances"

[Debaser]

@Diogenes the Cynic

…and the legislature was told that it had to draft a law…

So you admit that the court told the legislature that it needed to draft a law. How can this not meet my claim of an example of a court “legislating” from the bench?

Just admit it. You know I’m right. Even though you like the decision that doesn’t make it not legislating from the bench. If the court told the legislature they needed to pass a law banning gay marriage this would be an example of it also. Either way it’s outside their authority. Matters like this should be left to the voters and those who represent them.

[Scott_Plaid]

Debaser, That’s not the way it works. You made the extraordinary claim. It’s up to you to back it up. Everyone agrees the act exists. No argument there. However, it is rather extraordinary to claim this has not been debated before, and the other side has not already been proven.

[Ravenman]

First, Bush pressing his luck on a hard-line conservative after striking out on Social Security privitization, having his tax reform effort founder, and being raked over the coals daily on Iraq would be simply dumb politics. His political capital is getting low, and I don’t see the logic in pressing for a Scalia/Thomas clone. It would likely mean a brusing confirmation battle in which neither Democrats nor Republicans will come out winners in the public’s eye. If Rehnquist also retires, I think Bush would have a freer hand in nominating a more conservative justice.

And as far as the agreement in the Senate goes, let us remember that the 14 who signed it ALLOWED filibusters in extraordinary circumstances, and the 7 Republicans pledged to oppose the nuclear option unless a filibuster was conducted under NON-extraordinary circumstances. If Bush fails to make a good-faith effort at consulting the Senate, as all of the 14 Senators asked him to do, then it would seem that Republican Senators would be bound by this agreement to let the filibuster chips fall where they may.

All I can say is thank God that the 14 Senators, pretty much to a man, are not cut from the same cloth that made judicial nominations a contentious political football in the first place. This makes me think that the odds are very good that there will not be a filibuster at all.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Debaser

So you admit that the court told the legislature that it needed to draft a law. How can this not meet my claim of an example of a court “legislating” from the bench?

Just admit it. You know I’m right. Even though you like the decision that doesn’t make it not legislating from the bench. If the court told the legislature they needed to pass a law banning gay marriage this would be an example of it also. Either way it’s outside their authority. Matters like this should be left to the voters and those who represent them.

Because you’re not right. The Legislature also had the option of outlawing marriage for everyone. It wasn’t the COURT that required them to write an equal law for homosexuals, it was their CONSTITUTION that required it. The court was just telling them what their own constitution mandated for them.

[Debaser]

@Scott Plaid

Debaser, That’s not the way it works. You made the extraordinary claim. It’s up to you to back it up. Everyone agrees the act exists. No argument there. However, it is rather extraordinary to claim this has not been debated before, and the other side has not already been proven.

No. I did not. I questioned a claim made by Maureen.

I’ve never said it hasn’t been debated before, or that it doesn’t exist. Don’t be silly.

What is certainly not true is that anything has been “proven”.

Maureen, you’ve made four posts to this thread since I’ve asked for you to back up your claim. Put up or shut up.

[Debaser]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Because you’re not right. The Legislature also had the option of outlawing marriage for everyone. It wasn’t the COURT that required them to write an equal law for homosexuals, it was their CONSTITUTION that required it. The court was just telling them what their own constitution mandated for them.

You admit that the court told the legislature it needed to draft a law, yet deny that the court was “legislating”.

The constitution obviously doesn’t require it. It’s never been there in the couple of hundred years since it’s existed. It’s new. Pass a new law. Don’t try and twist a constitution to mean things that it doesn’t.

[Syntropy]

Okey dokey.
How about this?
Or this?
Or, just for shits n giggles, how about obtaining private information and health records without a warrant or just cause constitutes illegal search and seizure and is unlawful under the constitution? But please, open a new thread to do it, as we should be talking about, um, I dunno, the OP?

[Gfactor]

@Debaser

Sure. Can you clarify, though. Do you want a case that I agree with the outcome, but not the process? Or disagree with the outcome but agree with the process, etc?

Actually, I’d like one of each.

Originally Posted by debaser
However, it’s clear that this isn’t nearly as much of a problem as liberals legislating from the bench.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gfactor
Cite?

I’ve given several examples.

Of conservative judicial legislation being less of a problem? Where?

You want me to provide a cite that something does not exist? Are you new here?

There is a great law review article that takes up the Maroon Book’s invitation to creative citation form by suggesting some new legal citation sentences. One of my favorites is for this precise situation: Trust me, I looked it up.

OTOH, I don’t think you get a free pass on cites just because you make a negative assertion. For instance, I could say “nobody has proven that Bill Frist isn’t a necrophiliac.” Should that pass without comment?

So I guess what it boils down to is your bald assertion that “There’s no conservative equivilent of the 7th circuit court of appeals,” somehow shifts the burden of proof to others. I say that there is no proof that the assertion is true, and you made the claim, so the burden lies with you.

It’s great that you want to help out the other posters in attacking me. It’s not often that somebody comes along such as myself to actually offer a conservative opinion, and you want to get some shots in before I’m overwhelmed by the mob. That’s cool. However, please try and put a little more substance into it than simply asking for “cite” over and over again. At least ask for cites of things that are possible, or that I haven’t already given.

So by questioning your arguments and asking upon what you rely for them, I’m attacking you? Maybe the mob is after you because you make arguments that are unsupported and then get defensive when people call you on them?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

OK. Justice O’Connor has resigned.

I predict that the Democrats - specifically, the seven Democrats that signed the accord concerning judicial nominations - will find “extraordinary circumstances” in President Bush’s nominee, no matter who it is.

I’m not real familiar with the Circuit Court of Appeals benches out there. But I’ll give you the name of a conservative from another venue that the Dems wouldn’t do that with: Sen. Lindsey Graham.

He’s solidly conservative, and a very principled one, hence hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid. And because of that, there’s no way Bush will ever nominate him for anything important.

Bricker, you’d have a much better idea than I of who the judicial equivalents of Lindsey Graham are these days. But there’s no doubt that they exist. The Dems will not declare “extraordinary circumstances” with such a person, if nominated.

The problem is, “President Bush’s nominee, no matter who it is,” will surely be selected from a very narrow universe of politically correct and reliable candidates - conservatives with an independent streak need not apply. It’s right and fitting that they all be considered “extraordinary circumstances.”

[Debaser]

@Maureen

Okey dokey.
How about this?
Or this?

Are you going to actually make any arguments, or just post cites with no explination all day?

The first cite says that a phrase from the act “expert advice or assistance” is too vague. Oh, the horror! A vague phrase. That certainly proves that we have less constitutional protections than we did five years ago. :rolleyes:

The second one might actually have more substance to it, but the article doesn’t get into much detail.

In any case, you still aren’t any closer to actually backing up your claim.

Or, just for shits n giggles, how about obtaining private information and health records without a warrant or just cause constitutes illegal search and seizure and is unlawful under the constitution?

Cite?

But please, open a new thread to do it, as we should be talking about, um, I dunno, the OP?

You brought it up. This hijack is entirely your doing. Not only have you insisted that we have less constitutional protections than we did five years ago due to the Patriot act, you’ve claimed I’m living in a vacuume because I don’t agree with you. All I’m doing is calling you on this. Don’t blame me just for calling you on your bullshit. If you can’t back up your claims than don’t make them in the first place.

[Syntropy]

I claimed the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and infringes upon our rights. You claim you’ve read the Patriot Act and it’s fine. While I realize your opinion should be enough to assuage every civil rights group in the country, it would appear they didn’t get that memo. It would also appear that two federal courts agree with me, and not you. But I breathlessly await your ruling, your honor. Where can I find it?

Oh, and vacuum doesn’t require that superflous e.

[Scott_Plaid]

Gfactor’s posts makes good points. You don’t answer any of them. How does that make you look?

[Gfactor]

@Debaser

There’s no conservative equivilent of the 7th circuit court of appeals.

Might as well address this on the merits, too.

1. The 7th Ciruit is the most conservative court when it comes to partisan matters, according to this study (pdf), which is summarized here.
2. The 4th Circuit is thought to be the most conservative Circuit court overall, and is known for its radically conservative opinions. E.g., http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/31/132667.html
3. I realize that the citations regarding the 7th Circuit are from liberal sources. Maybe you could come up with a contrary citation or two that are from mainstream publications.

[Debaser]

@Gfactor

Actually, I’d like one of each.

OK.

Agree with outcome, disagree with process: Roe v Wade (Abortion).

I’m pro-choice, but the constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion. It’s not a matter for the SCOTUS to decide. Each state gets to make it’s own laws on this issue, unless a constitutional ammendment is passed. This is the way this should have been handled back in the 70’s, IMO. A constitutional ammendment legalizing abortions. A woman’s right to choose would be much safer today if it wasn’t dependant on the whims of nine individuals who answer to no one.

Disagree with the outcome, agree with process: McCain Feingold (Camapaign Finance Reform).

The elected representatives in the house and senate passed this awful bill. Then the stinker of a bill wasn’t veto’d by the president, as it should have been. When it went to the SCOTUS, I thought for sure they would not allow it. Unfortunately, they did. This law is clearly in violation of the first ammendment. However, it did go through all the right processes and the SCOTUS wasn’t out of line to rule on it in the first place.

OTOH, I don’t think you get a free pass on cites just because you make a negative assertion. For instance, I could say “nobody has proven that Bill Frist isn’t a necrophiliac.” Should that pass without comment?

I’m not saying my statement should get me a “free pass” or that nobody can comment on it. You are free to agree or disagree with my claim.

The simple fact is that I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot provide a “cite” as requested. To disprove me all you need to is show me a court made up of conservatives that is as out of control with legislative attempts as the 9th CA Circuit Court. You wouldn’t be able to, because one doesn’t exist.

[Evil_Captor]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I see you’re one of those people who thinks that bribery is a form of “speech.”

Seriously, you can’t think of a worse violation of the 1st Amendment in the last century? I’m sure you can think of something if you try.

Oooh! Oooh! Let me try! How about the fact that it was illegal to provide information about birth control within the last century?

[Debaser]

@Scott Plaid

Gfactor’s posts makes good points. You don’t answer any of them. How does that make you look?

WTF? I can only type so fast. Gimme a break, eh? I’m trying to answer everybody’s points. You ever go to a conservative site where they outnumber you ten to one and try to keep up?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Debaser

You admit that the court told the legislature it needed to draft a law, yet deny that the court was “legislating”.

I may be wrong, but isn’t legislating the act of creating and/or passing new laws?

In this instance, I fail to see that the court created or passed a new law. Urging the legislature to create a new law is not the same as legislating. AFAIK, the court did not tell the legislature what law to pass. That is not legislating, it is rendering a decision and explaining why the decision came to be (and how to avoid it in the future).

That’s a part of a judge’s job.

[Scott_Plaid]

I’m trying to answer everybody’s points.

I guess not everyone hits preview before sending. (Hi, Bo!) Of course, there was a post between what he said and what you said, so I figured you must have decided not to answer him.

[Debaser]

@Gfactor

Might as well address this on the merits, too.

1. The 7th Ciruit is the most conservative court when it comes to partisan matters, according to this study (pdf), which is summarized here.
2. The 4th Circuit is thought to be the most conservative Circuit court overall, and is known for its radically conservative opinions. E.g., http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/31/132667.html
3. I realize that the citations regarding the 7th Circuit are from liberal sources. Maybe you could come up with a contrary citation or two that are from mainstream publications.

Shit. Sorry. My original statement contains a rather important (and embarrassing) typo. I of course meant the 9th circuit court of California, not the 7th.

Here is some info on the court:

cite

“Passage of this legislation is long overdue,” said Jeffrey Mazzella, the Center’s Executive Director. “Due to its massive size and tremendous workload, the current Ninth Circuit has become incredibly inept in its responsibility to effectively and efficiently administer justice. Simply put, it is currently the most burdened court in the nation. If you couple that with its merry band of activist judges, it’s no wonder why the Ninth Circuit is consistently and overwhelmingly the Circuit in greatest need of supervision by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit is by far the country’s largest federal circuit, serving approximately 54 million people in nine western states and two territories (stretching more than 1.3 million square miles, or nearly 40 percent of the United States). Nevertheless, despite the Ninth Circuit’s immense size, it takes up an even larger and disproportionate share of the U.S. Supreme Court’s time and oversight.

Specifically, according to a newly released study by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the Ninth Circuit, alone, accounted for nearly one third (31.5 percent, 81 of 257) of all written decisions issued by the Supreme Court during the last four terms in cases that arose from the federal appellate courts. More disturbing is the fact that the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in 60 of those cases (74.1 percent), 26 of which were unanimously reversed.

The efforts to split up the court have not been successful thus far, but the court is still out of control…

cite

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fared worse in the latest Supreme Court session than it has in the past five years.

The circuit’s reversal rate was 84 percent, the highest since the 1999-00 term.

Of the 19 9th Circuit cases that went to Washington, D.C., 16 were overturned, including two more Monday to end the term. In 10 of the 16 reversals, the vote was 9-0.

The activist judges at the 9th circuit are so out of control that even the liberal judges on the supreme court regularly overturn them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I forgot to add…I’m especially interested in seeing examples of liberal judges “legislating our rights away.”

@Debaster

Campaign Finance Reform. It’s the worst thing to happen to the first ammendment in the last century.

1. What has CFR to do with “legislating from the bench”? I don’t recall any federal or state court decision that mandates it.

2. The idea that CFR violates the First Amendment is fundamentally misconceived. Money is not “speech.” Democracies such as France and the UK have managed to ban the spending of any money on campaign advertising without infringing on anybody’s free-speech rights – at least, nobody, left, right or centrist, seriously complains that the system is muzzling them, so far as I have been able to determine from threads on the question (e.g., http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=223440; http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891). From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 311-313:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.