Any that inconveniently disprove his case.
No True Scotsman = Only “Major” Cases
My standard is who does the decision directly affect? And how many are there?
Brown v Board of Education - affected every black person with a school age child
Roe v Wade - affected every woman who was pregnant
Miranda, Gideon, Mapp - affected every person who was arrested
These were major decisions that affected millions.
Texas v Johnson - affected people that wanted to burn the American flag
Kyllo v. United States - affected people whose houses were searched by thermal imaging
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - affected American citizens being detained as illegal enemy combatants
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association - affected the manufacturers of violent video games
These were minor decisions that affected hundreds at most. Maybe thousands if you include the players of those violent video games. But you can’t claim they had a broad social impact.
Interesting analysis. Brown affected all Black parents, even the ones whose children did not go to segregated schools, but Hamdi affected only those citizens detained.
How about this: Brown affected every black person, period and Hamdi affected every citizen, period. Hamdi was a hugely important case that sharply delineated presidential authority at a time when the country was bitterly divided over this issue.
May I use this in my sig, with proper attribution, of course?
OK, let’s try it in reverse.
An investor sues a company. He claims the company lied about pending government approval for a new product, and that caused the stock price to be artificially high.
The courts below split on the issue of whether the investor could prove his loss just by showing the inflated price existed, or whether he had a higher burden of proof.
Which is the right wing position? Which way did Scalia rule? Which way did Ginsburg rule?
By all means.
I don’t think pulling out Kyllo means anything, given Scalia’s position on Caballes (and by extension, given Souter’s dissent, Place.) Kyllo, as ruled, basically was about what this infrared technology could reveal to an officer. Of course, it reveals the exact same thing as a dog barking in Place, which doesn’t count because the officer isn’t a dog. So fine, make a computer program which looks for signatures of contraband, rather than have an officer monitor it. Make sure you have a speaker so the computer can “bark.”
That said I don’t think any of the Justices are biased in the way people are suggesting, even though I really disagree with them in particular cases.
I don’t think cases being “major” or “minor” are relevant to whether a justice is being political or not.
Only those in segregated schools. On the other hand, it affected the white kids in those schools too.
Only those who might want an abortion.
Well, and anyone who might be arrested, meaning everyone.
These were major decisions that affected millions.
No, it affected everyone, because everyone could want to. Fundamental rights are for everyone, even if we don’t use them in a particular way. And this case reaffirmed that “speech” doesn’t have to be the act of speaking.
Anyone’s house COULD be searched that way. It affects all Americans.
You don’t see how that’s a MAJOR case, important to American history, even though it impacts just a few?
And anyone who may want to buy one.
Yes, they had a broad social impact.
Please, you’re just making things up. I said direct effect and that’s a completely reasonable standard.
You have the freedom to burn a flag. Have you ever burned one? If not, then Texas v Johnson had no direct effect on you. There was never a law against wanting to burn a flag or thinking about burning a flag. You only broke the law if you actually burned a flag.
Personally neither decision affected me. I’m not black so I never personally had to face the problem of segregation. And I’ve never been an illegal enemy combatant so I’ve never had to face the problem of being detained as one.
You have to hold to some reasonable standard. Otherwise, you can justify anything by a hypothetical possibility however improbable it might be.
How?
Says you.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I may want to burn a flag someday. I Know I want to live in a country where flag-burning isn’t criminalized.
Do you think accused criminals should have no rights, simply because you haven’t been accused (yet)? Or that you shouldn’t care about the right to privacy unless you’re doing something wrong or to be ashamed of in private? Do you think only women should care about abortion - that it doesn’t affect men, or that men shouldn’t care about the plight of women? Do you think we shouldn’t give a damn about anyone but ourselves, or that the fate of others doesn’t, or couldn’t, affect us in the future?
You sound like the people who responded to complaints about Bush-era spying on Americans said “if you aren’t committing a crime, you have nothing to worry about if they spy on you.”
You’ve got this completely wrong.
Well, that’s debatable, but it’s downright shocking that you seem to think that caring about segregation is only a concern for black people. How self-centered can you get?
Segregation was wrong, and it was something all Americans should want to end, including whites.
If I may just interject, here…
Ahem…
ISSUE THE FUCKING RULING ALREADY!!!
I hate waiting.
I thought they ruled that torture was unconstitutional!
There’s a difference between caring about a problem and being directly affected by that problem.
That should be pretty obvious.
You are saying that a guy who is 75 years old and is guaranteed a six figure salaried job for life, with a comfortable pension when he retires, is terrified of crossing those who are giving him “marching orders”?
This whole argument of conservative/liberal justices ruling according to politics is absurd. The fact that a justice can be described as conservative/liberal tells you the thought process when presented with the facts of the case. Then the natural proclivities of a conservative mind will lead to (big surprise here) a conservative result.
The fact that it can be shown that Scalia has reached a liberal result in many cases is evidence to me that he is fully capable of putting his feelings aside when the circumstances dictate.
I think they should release the results, NCAA bracket style. Have a two hour special withe commentary and lead ins. In the first hour, give away some obvious results. First in: Thomas votes to strike down the law in its entirety!!! 1-0 against! Commercials.
Then we get to Breyer, Alito, Scalia, and Kagan. The first hour ends and it’s 3-2 to overturn! Stay tuned for the exciting final hour!
The next hour starts with singing and dancing and then announces Roberts and Ginsburg making it 4-3 to overturn! With a half an hour left, Sotomayor votes to uphold! 4-4! The tension builds! Stay tuned for the conclusion that will shape the nation! How will Justice Kennedy vote???
Then as the hour concludes, Justice Kennedy’s vote is about to be read and fade to black… Tune in next week for the exciting season finale of: Health Care!!!
I remember a year or two ago someone pointed out how arduous the process was when we can pretty safely say we know 8/9 votes. They said, “Lets just save the government however many millions of dollars. Someone get Kennedy’s cell number and just ask him what he thinks for Og’s sake.”
Does Scalia get phone calls telling him how to vote? Of course not. But his sympathies lie with the business wing of the Republican Party. Their corporate masters tell them how to spin the party line, Scalia picks up on this and votes accordingly. Sure, he’ll vote for what may be construed as the liberal position on some minor issues, but anything that affects the corporate bottom line- he’ll toe the corporate line. We all knew a year ago how the vote would go: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were automatic votes against. Roberts will certainly vote against except that if Stevens votes for, he may join him only to avoid a 5-4 decision and to write the opinion.
The days where we could look up to the Justices as impartial arbiters is long behind us.
I think it’s a pointless distinction though.
We’re all affected by segregation, for instance, even whites.
We’re all potentially affected by many issues, such as the rights of accused criminals, since anyone can be accused of a crime.
And we should all care about the rights, and plight, of everyone. It affects us more than we realize. It sets legal precedents that could affect us directly someday. And its about right and wrong.