Continuing on "activist judges"
I posted this to get to the heart of the matter on Sotomayor and the lively discussion regarding her nomination.
I think it would behoove all of us to properly define what exactly an "activist judge" is. I would define an activist judge as one who does not follow the law and legal precedent when making a legal determination. Rather, such a judge would substitute what they think the law should be rather than what it is. However, there is a caveat.
A judge on the Supreme Court need not follow precedent, as bad precedent needs to be overturned. A district court or appeals court judge does need to follow any precedent, regardless of how wrong that precedent is. IIRC, Gonzalez v. Carhart was a model for how judges should act: district and appeals courts struck down the law banning partial birth abortion based on precedent and the law. The Supreme Court then changed the precedent.
Please offer up your own definitions of an activist judge and whether or not you'd agree that courts inferior to the Supreme Court are beholden to bad precedent.
- stinerman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
The only consistant definition
of "activist judge" is one who makes rulings that conservatives don't like.
*ducks*
This gavel kills fascists
Why don't we talk about "activist" legislators or executives? Because, as with judges, the direct exertion of political force on the populace is part of the job. We expect Congress to write laws dictating our actions' legality, and we expect the Executive to execute those laws. Judges "grade" the work of both, and that's a huge part of democracy -- voting is just a small, first step.
What's most important about democracy is that the needs of the people be met by the government, and those often runs in direct conflict with the will of the people. Without a strongly activist judicial branch, we have no democracy, only mob rule -- the polar opposite of democracy.
Fascists may state that judges are there only to apply the law, but they don't know what they're talking about (as usual). These people have little room for a power structure that assumes innocence of the part of the accused, while at the same time assuming the government is in the wrong. But this is the proper role of the judicial branch in a democracy, indeed, a role that defines a nation as a democracy to begin with. The more power we put in the hands of Congress and the Executive, the more fascist we be become -- that is, the more we have mob rule, with majorities unjustly dominating minorities. Fascist governments by definition always have high popular support, after all, but their high popular support in no way makes their actions democratic.
We would do well to write a new Constitution empowering the Judicial branch somewhat more. Obviously we could do a better job of it now than the Founders did, as their reality had little in common with our own (gays did not exist in the public sphere, for instance, and the medical industry had not even been imagined), and anyway the Founders would spin in their graves if they knew how much people deferred to their original draft. But for the time being, until we realize that our fate is ultimately only in our own hands, and not history's, the best solution is an increased deference to the judicial branch expressed by voting for far more liberal politicans than we have now, or we risk our nation's demise due to conservatism's drag back to pre-Revolution ethos.
Fortunately, everyone seems to be turning liberal, so we can be optimistic. Hopefully the honorless accusations of "socialism" will continue unabated, along with the "teabagging" and such. Conservatives are driving away voters in droves, as next year's election will show. But the struggle for the progess of our great Nation will take constant vigilance, and even with an ultra-liberal President at the helm -- one originating from the counterculture, no less! -- we still have lots of work to do.
You sure you're a conservative?
Interesting perspective.
I disagree on fascist governments enjoying popular support. Most do, in the beginning. The unification under one set of objectives is initially inspiring. But then people start to perceive what its like to live under fascist government, with its unresponsiveness and increasingly arbitrary exertions of authority. Fascist regimes can only endure by becoming increasingly repressive.
I do not share your level of faith in the judiciary, mainly because judges are picked and confirmed by the same executive and legistative branches whose power they need to curtail. As for a constitutional convention, it simply can't happen for the same reasons amendments seldom get passed anymore: the bar is too high. All you need is 34 dissenting senators, or 155 house members, or 13 state legislatures
to kill any amendment proposed by either Congress or 2/3 of the states. Any meaningful amendment would assuredly have that many critters opposing it.
We have to make do with what we have.
Not necessarily.
Yes, but judges are appointed for life, ostensibly, to overcome this very issue. In fact, many Supreme Court Justices have changed their political stripes over time.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Notice my hedge
in saying "level of faith". Plenty of judges do perform their constitutional arbitrator roles well, although they often lack the powers of enforcement to make their rulings meaningful (as in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld).
A few of them rule as predictably as Alabama condo developers in 80% Republican districts who bought their house seat would vote. They might give themselves cover on minor issues such as flag burning, but they only represent a check on the power of the party that didn't appoint them.
Oh yeah, and as far as I can tell they're always appointed by Republican presidents.
Newt takes my advice
decides to be objective about Sotomayor's record.
The biggest question is, How will Rush react?
Poor Newt:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32114
Newt wants blind justice, but is very concerned by the Presidents assertion, "No group has benefited more from impartial Justice than the less fortunate."
Newt worries: "With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this."
I'm only half stupid
Newt can read polls.
He loves to come out, guns blazing. Then he reads the polls and retreats into a pseudo-apology. (And one has to enjoy Newt's apparent lack of self-awareness in suggesting that he is not as smart as most Americans because he was lured to "come out swininging" by an intellectually superior Obama.)
What a coward. Can't even stand up for his own words.
I bet the loud-mouthed drug addict doesn't apologize. Of course, that grotesque beast doesn;t plan to run for public office like the Newtster.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I've missed you CLC
Yeah I wonder what Rush will have to say?
My guess is he will ignore it and rave on about 'so friendly' with muslims.
I'm only half stupid
I think it's enjoyable to watch the rudderless ship...
... that is the current GOP be carried, to and fro, with the whims of folks like the loud-mouthed drug addict and the supposed intellectual giant of the right, little Newtster.
There is absolutely zero leadership in the GOP at present, so every big mouth gets an opportunity to pop off wiothout regard to consequences. When the xenophobic, racist Pat Buchanan resurfaces as a voice of the Republican Party, you know things are out of control.
I must say, I'm getting a big kick out of all of this.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
It is amusing
They say they don't believe in racism, yet it's all they ever talk about..... scary muslims, scary latinas, scary women, scary worthless lazy poor people (read criminals).
The GOP says tax cuts for the rich will make the poor wealthy cause you know they really really care about the working class.
I'm only half stupid
When Newt says:
He should be referencing Republican attempts to paint themselves as "friend to the little guy."
Which reminds me...
Did someone put Joe the Plumber out to pasture?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
He put himself out to pasture
He chose to un-join the club.
America is the only country in the world, where poor people vote to the right.
IMHO it's all due to a never ending messaging campaign that has turned real moral values upside down. When did the words 'social justice' or equality become synonymous with evil?
I'm only half stupid
That isn't true
It is a common assumption that poor people "vote to the right".
Source
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Who makes this assumption?
With whom?
My assumption, based on left-wing dogma, is that the minorities are mostly poor. It is also my assumption, based on left-wing dogma, that minorities vote mostly Democrat. Combining these two leads to the exact opposite conclusion that poor people "vote to the right".
Your data seems to comfirm my ananlysis. So who's making this false assumption (other than ML, of course)?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Or based on known facts, more
Or based on known facts, more devoted religious people have, on average a lower education.
Lower Education generally leads to lower income.
And the Republican Party routinely trumpets up their religiosity and stuff about secular people voting for the Democrats...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YfajJFIdB0c/SZlq3yYVB4I/AAAAAAAAAIM/XIe8kpb45b...
http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/educational-attainment-by-inco...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Please substantiate this premise ...
I'm skeptical. Show me (a) anything that demonstrates that this is even true, and (b) anything that demonstrates that an substantial portion of the population actively believes this.
Now there's a completely definitive plot if I ever saw one. Even so, the best you could infer from this is that poor people are more religious. That's not a particular surprise, nor is it the same as saying that they are uneducated.
Also not surprising. I fail to see how either of these say anything about the political voting patterns of any of these people.
Regardless, I actually asked WHO not WHY. Do you know who believes this, and how do you know that is what they believe?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4close enough Believe in the
close enough
http://schumpeterscentury.blogspot.com/2009/02/importance-of-religion-in...
I think that's as close a line you can expect from any scatter plot.
And the perception that the less educated are poor and that the less education are more devoted/strictly interpret their text coupled with the GOP's grasp on the religious right...could give way to the meme that the poor vote those on the right.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What Brutus said
The assumption is:
Religious people are stupid. Religious people vote Republican. Poor people are stupid. Therefore poor people vote Republican.
The logic is sound. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I believe I asked WHO not WHY.
Who is it that is believing this garbage, and how do you know that is what they believe? Not that I mean to pick on you, stiney, since you seem to have your head on straight (on this point at least). Perhaps I should be asking ML?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who?
People who don't understand logic apparently. I believe it is all anecdotal speculation.
I wonder what the numbers are if you control for race. Obviously many Black Americans are poor and vote overwhelmingly Democratic, which could "distort" the numbers. The caracture of the poor cracker who likes his Bible inerrant, his guns loaded, and his fags lynched might be closer to the truth than I'd have previously believed.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ack Charts!
I hate charts, with all those statistics and numbers and things. :-)
( Isn't that how we got into this financial meltdown with cleverly placed numbers? --kidding--)
I wonder if this last election was an anomaly, due to the prolonged and unbearable suffering of the lower middle class during the Bush years.
I would be curious to see a graph from 06 and 04. (01 obviously doesn't count since Bush was appointed by activist judges.)
I'm only half stupid
Please substantiate this claim ...
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Poor people voting Republican
I think the perception of this comes from the whole (misleading) red state / blue state meme. If you look at a list of all the states
ranked by percentage of population in poverty, the poorest states tend to be "red states" and the richest states tend to be "blue states." This really says nothing at all about the individual voting habits of rich vs. poor people, of course, but I think it does create the perception of poor people voting to the right.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's a better answer than what I said
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Alas, I must agree with you on this point ...
but the rest? Not so much.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No surprise.
While I am getting a great deal of personal enjoyment out of the lack of leadership in the GOP (and the resulting plethora of spoken stupidity from the likes of the loud-mouthed drug addict, Newt the Genius, and Pat Buchanan), you find it disheartening.
Completely understandable.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Speaking of rudderless ships ...
How do you feel about Obama and the Democrat leadership basically vindicating almost every controversial Bush era policy under the sun?
Obama reserves the right to use it in emergencies, so Bush is vindicated on using it after 9/11.
Obama plans to keep doing it, so Bush is vindicated.
Democrat Congress says no way by refusing to fund it, so Bush is vindicated.
Obama is using the DOJ to support the program and has never gone on record (that I know of) as shutting the program down, so Bush is vindicated.
For your reading pleasure I have been maintaining an informal list of how Obama = Bush, or worse: Again we find that Obama is worse than Bush.
:)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think your thought process here is simplistic.
(As usual.)
Obama said we won't torture any more. Bush said that, too, but he was lying. I also think that, eventually, Cheney will be prosecuted.
Obama is seeking to change the way military trials are held. We'll see how that plays out..
He will close Gitmo. Your cliam is without merit.
The wiretap program is a mess. I will give him a little time to work on that one.
All that being said, one would think you'd be overjoyed with Obama if you truly believed he was carrying on Bush's policies. Yet, you persist in your aparent dislike of all things Obama.
Go figure.
So who is/are the emerging leader(s) for the GOP?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Who says I dislike all things Obama?
Didn't I just provide an entire list of things I agree with? You even seem to recognize that I would like them and yet you try to turn this into a knee jerk response that I just hate Obama? Come on, actually read the threads. :)
Well the Gitmo detainees think Obama is worse than Bush: Obama is worse than Bush on torture.
Ha, That's funny. Making cosmetic changes is all it takes for you to turn into an apologist for the practice.
He is still holding people who have ALREADY been cleared for release. He plans to hold others indefinitely without taking any action whatsoever, thus denying them habeas corpus. He has suspended for months now all action on the trials for the rest. Yea, that sounds a lot different than Bush, eh?
This is hilarious to watch. He basically shot his mouth off during the campaign and is not able to deliver on anything of substance for the most controversial aspects of the Bush era (at least in liberal opinion) and reality is now forcing him to continue to adopt the Bush era policies one after another. Hilarious.
Ha. Yea. He may close Gitmo over the objections of the Democrats in Congress, but to what actual end? Simply to continue business as usual someplace else? Is that what the electorate meant by closing Gitmo? Merely to close the location? Somehow I find that to be a dubious position. Is that what you support?
What's he going to do with the detainees currently housed there if he closes the place?
He's already working on it: Obama is worse than Bush on wiretapping.
I am thrilled with the policy decisions thus far, not only because the completely vindicate Bush but because they show how faux the outrage from the Democrats actually was during the Bush years. :)
Sarah Palin! You go girl! :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We agree.
Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party.
You'll be able to hold your next convention in the George Washington Middle School auditorium. But you'll have to wait until the all-school assembly ends at 2:45.
P.S. Glad to hear you're an Obama fan.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No problem. I like all manner of comedian. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sarah Palin certainly qualifies...
... even if inadvertently.
.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yea, that was pretty funny.
Hey, what's your impression of Biden? Should they let him keep talking or lock him up some place?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who cares?
He's Vice President.
But he certainly has done far less damage to this country as Vice President than that sick sociopath, Dick Cheney.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well, do you buy into the theory that he was selected ...
to make Obama look smarter? (About 2 minutes in.)
So, are you planning to stick around for a while to be my pinata, or are you going to slink back to your DailyKos crib / safe house? :)
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who knows?
And who cares?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Are you speaking for yourself?
Or equally brain powered brainiacs everywhere? I would have thought someone with your brain power would have an inquiring mind. Your rhetorical questions seem to suggest otherwise. Hmmm.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Inquiring mind on what subject?
A Saturday Night Live skit about Bush and Cheney?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sure, why not?
I mean comics make some of the best political comments. Look at Obama, he's a comic and he makes political comments all the time.
Are you saying that SNL doesn't do political commentary? Or Colbert? Or the Daily Show? Geeze, man, keep up with the times, will ya? There's a new face on the political climate and its all about getting laughs ...
... even at the White House these days.
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush was a comedian's dream.
And our nation;s nightmare.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
What?
I thought Cheney was? Which goal post are you aiming for here? :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, but here's the point, CheneysLoveChild:
It's true that Obama didn't initiate torture, the wars, etc., he's affectively allowed Bush's policies to continue by refusing to release the torture photos, by not standing up to the Republicans regarding the Stimulus package, and the fact that, instead of starting the process of pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as he promised, he's continuing to carry out, escalate and expand the war into Afghanistan, and possibly into Pakistan. Obama's health-care reform plan is also quite poor, as he's very much against single payment. Having said all of the above, the fact that Obama voted for the FISA Bill and the continued funding for our war on Iraq while he was still a Senator should've sounded an alarm.
You won't believe
me, but as I mentioned before the best thing Republicans could do is support the President on something. Working with this popular President to accomplish something would help the GOP to be seen as something other than the knee jerk and childish party of "no".
I'm only half stupid
You have Rush
as your steady GOP rudder.
Take heart. He won't back down. He will keep calling Sotomayor a racist. He is the solid unswerving backbone of your conservative base.
I'm only half stupid
Does Rush like Sarah Palin?
I don't remember if he likes her or if he thinks she's an idiot. GoRight likes Sarah Palin. Figures. They are a match in brain power (or lack thereof).
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Brain power?
I'm the one providing actual references for things like facts. You just resort to ad hominem attacks. Yea, that takes brain power. Pfft.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My, my, you are very sensitive!
I said you and Sarah Palin have equivalent brain power! One would think you'd be overjoyed at such a flattering comparison!
And now you suggest that making such a comparison is <i>ad hominem</i>?
What an insult to Sarah Palin! Keep this up and you won't receive your "Sarah Palin Pin-Up Calendar" reserved for those who contribute $500 or more to her PAC!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Heh.
It was actually the "(or lack thereof)" that was the ad hominem. No real surprise that oyu misunderstood. But if you don't think you are bright enough to respond substantively to some one of equal brain power to Sarah Palin, well I guess I understand. A man has know his limitations.* :P
--------------------------------------------------
* Quote from Dirty Harry. (Not Reid, of course.)
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's an open-ended question.
Note the use of "or." There is nothing ad hominem about that.
Sarah Palin is your hero. I thought you'd be pleased to have your intellectual capabilities compared to hers.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sure, I don't have a problem with it.
Like I said, you seem to be the one scared to wade into the brain power pool with any real substance. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm overwhelmed by your genius...
... of constantly moving the goalposts.
Having an "intellectual" discussion with you is like trying to carry water without a bucket.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Goal posts? We've got goal posts in this conversation?
I was totally unaware. Well please, tell me, what are these goal posts and how exactly have I been moving them?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your general form of discussion.
When you are proven incorrect, you change the subject or the parameters of the discussion.
It gets boring after a while...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You can't just claim I am moving the goal posts.
If I am moving them, please state (a) what they are, (b) where they started at, (c) where they ended up at, and (d) how I somehow moved them from (b) to (c).
Seriously, where in this thread have I done what you claim? Where have you proven me incorrect in this thread on any topic? Where is there even a point that CAN be proven one way or the other in this thread?
Stop being cryptic and obtuse and assert your point and supporting evidence directly.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do Americans support Affirmative Action?
Not so much, actually.
Other interesting breakdowns found within.
Does this say anything about whether her ruling in Ricci should be considered "activist" in nature?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She's going to be confirmed.
I love a good debate, but when all is said and done, she will be on the Supreme Court, the rantings of Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich and the loud-mouthed drug addict notwithstanding.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I tend to agree ...
although I am seeing some slide in support though as people actually get to know her positions and rulings.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"I am seeing some slide in support..."
Among your friends?
The latest AP Poll:
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0Xdc_4-lZIUAsa-HqPD9kU3MR-QD98INTA80
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Typical.
You think one poll establishes a direction? Pfft. Even so, the article is clearly being loose with the numbers when they say "half". Half if you want to let them round up. How many are needed for confirmation again? I haven't checked, but barely half isn't exactly strong numbers.
See the following for a view of how her numbers have changed over the past week:
So like I said, confirmation is likely but support is dropping.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4From your own link:
Good lord, read your own links. Those thinking she will be confirmed actually went up. And the same number think her confirmation is "very likely."
The swing in the "support" numbers is simply the "coming home" of conservatives.
You can cry and moan all you want, but she'll be on the Supreme Court soon. I hope the loud-mouthed drug addict and Pat Buchanan and intellectual giant, Newt Gingrich, keep up their attacks. It's all good for Dems..
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Why what do you mean?
I already said her confirmation is likely. Go back and read my reply to your post at the top. I said so from the very beginning. That doesn't mean her support is growing ... or even holding even. You do understand that likelyhood of confirmation and level of support are two different things, right?
With the Democrat controlled Congress public support for her could be literally zero and she would still be likely to be confirmed.
Now go back and read the quote I provided, as opposed the misdirection you tried to supply. Actual support for her confirmation is dropping just like I said.
I thought I remembered you being better at this. I guess all that time at DailyKos has made your thinking and fact checking weak. You probably never had to actually back up your statements over there, eh? Remember, practice makes perfect! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, even yours! :)
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Support isn't dropping.
Positions are hardening.
That's all that is. It will level off and stay there.
Now, we can debate the rest of the nonsense, but she will be confirmed primarily because Repubicans in the Senate will be too frightened to stand in her way for fear of further cementing their pitiful political predicament.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Good lord, you cannot admit the plain and simple facts ...
... even when you have been beat over the head with them.
One week ago her support was at 45%. This week her support is at 41%. Going from 45% to 41% support for confirmation is a clear and undeniable reduction in support. I don't know where you went to school, but even in the liberal indoctrination centers we call school today 41% is still less than 45%.
One week ago those opposed to her confirmation was at 29%. This week her opposition is at 36%. Going from 29% to 36% is an increase in opposition. An increase in opposition is also an indicator of weakening support.
So, again, as I have said throughout, her support is dropping even though her likelihood of confirmation remains high.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hardening of numbers.
To be expected, if you know anything at all about polling.
Republicans who initally were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt have listened to the loud-mouthed drug addict, Newt and Buchanan and decided, "She doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt."
You need to learn more about how polling works.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You need to learn more about how actual numbers work.
Regardless of how or why they got there, how is 41% NOT less than 45%?
What does someone's reason for changing from "support" to "not support" have to do with the validity of my assertion that they actually have changed?
Let us recap:
GoRight: Support for Sotomayer has been dropping.
CLC: No it hasn't, she is at 50%.
GoRight: But last week she was at 45% support and now she is at 41% support.
CLC: Read your own links, GoRight, 88% think she is likely to be confirmed.
GoRight: Level of support and likelyhood of confirmation are two different things.
CLC: You don't understand polling, GoRight, that's just hardening of the numbers.
Does anyone else understand that doublespeak of his?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not really
Because it does not interest me.
However, I will say that if this was posted:
Let us recap:
CLC: Support for Sotomayer has been dropping.
GoRight: No it hasn't, she is at 50%.
CLC: But last week she was at 45% support and now she is at 41% support.
GoRight: Read your own links, CLC, 88% think she is likely to be confirmed.
CLC: Level of support and likelyhood of confirmation are two different things.
GoRight: You don't understand polling, CLC, that's just hardening of the numbers.
I wouldn't have been any wiser.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Umm, OK. I hear you are a math major.
So maybe you can help me out here. I'll put it in the form of a word problem (all math majors like word problems):
Last week a poll showed that Sonia Sotomayor's support was at 45% (i.e. 45% of the respondants stated that they supported her nomination). This week the same poll showed that Sonia Sotomayor's support was at 41% (i.e. 41% of the respondants stated that they supported her nomination). Based on this data, is Sonia Sotomayor's level of support (a) going up, (b) staying the same, or (c) going down?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This one hates them
It would depend on the margin of error of the poll. This could be random error. It would also depend if the poll was a binary choice (approve or do not approve).
However, it seems that her support has diminished, given what you have said.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Margin of error = +-1.8%.
How about now?
Oh, and here are the oppose numbers:
Does that show (a) increased support, (b) unchanged support, or (c) decreased support?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You seem to both be right
Sotomayor's support is down and there is a "hardening effect" at work. As more people know about her, the more likely the people in the undecided column will break one way or the other.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Does this "hardening effect" ...
somehow make 41% NOT less than 45%? If so, please explain how. If not, what is the relevance of this "hardening effect" to the statement that "her support is dropping"?
Note: Not trying to pick on your stiney, but you seem to have accepted the position of mediator/translator. Thanks for your efforts here.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We aim to please
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
From today's NY Times story:
Oh, gee, really, John?
In a lot of ways, I wish they would filibuster. It would further lock in their electoral losses.
Which is why they won't do it. Even the loud-mouthed drug addict knows that. But he doesn't have to stop carrying on about it because he has nothing at stake, personally, and he knows his faux tough guy rhetoric is a hit with his audience.
Same goes for Newt, basically, though he did have to back off calling Sotomayor a "racist" today. Maybe he really is going to run for president in 2012. That would be great.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No
What it does do is to provide some justification for ruling opposite to what Sotomayor ruled. Since I don't have a problem per se with activist judges, I think that if the tone of the nation has become such that affirmative action laws should perhaps be reconsidered, then it would not be entirely unreasonable for a judge to rule against the word of the law – make an activist judgement, in other words – by deciding for Ricci. That would have been an activist decision, and perhaps a reasonable one.
I think it is fairly humorous on one level, that it is almost certainly the more "conservative" Americans who think the Ricci decision was incorrect. Those same people who tend to rail against activist judges are saying they think she should have been an activist judge!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The ruling IS activist ...
even though it supports the Connecticut Statutes as you have shown, at least IMHO. I agree that this current situation does put the standard Conservative argument regarding "activist judges" in a bit of a bind, though. Hence my question.
I guess that this means that on a National Scale the Connecticut Laws themselves should be considered Activist Laws. While they are laws they obviously grew out of an activist sentiment that originated within the Executive and Judicial branches of government at all levels. But even that leaves the Conservative position in a bind because it is also an example of the principle "If you don't like the current law, work to change it." Obviously Affirmative Action supporters in Connecticut did just that.
Regardless, I still disagree with the notion that certain groups should be given preferential treatment in hiring decisions and, in my opinion at least, any rulings that act to promote that notion are activist in nature on some societal level, even if not on a strictly legal one.
The relevant question now becomes, was Sotomayor simply forced (by the Connecticut Statutes) into making this ruling even though she disagreed with it on principle, or did she also support it in principle? If she ruled against her principles as an act of upholding the rule of law, then fine she did the right thing even though it was the wrong thing on a societal level. If, however, she was enthusiastic about being able to make such a ruling as a means of solidifying and promoting her existing biases then I'm not so inclined to remove the notion of her being an "activist" on this topic. This point will never be resolved as we cannot truly know what she thinks.
So, even though the narrowly defined term "activist judge" may not be on display in the Ricci case (I have yet to look into other cases), the more broadly defined term "activist" may still be applicable.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In other words...
...corph was right. :P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
How do you get that from what I actually said?
I guess if you actually want to claim that the word NOT in that statement doesn't actually mean anything, then sure, corph was right. But I find it interesting how much liberty you have to take with the phrase "in other words" for your jab to ring true.
I will give you the same line that my dad used to use when some lawyer tried to "in other words" him into saying something:
No, my statement was unique in the English language and there ARE no other words to accurately express my exact meaning.
Even the statement you directly quote denies that the term "activist judge" is applicable in this case. How else do you interpret the phrase "even if not on a strictly legal one" when applied to the definition of the phrase "activist judge"?
:P
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Insofar as the firefighters
Insofar as the firefighters case, there is a history of some test being tailored or created, just to make sure an otherwise qualified non-white didn't get the position.
It's not always like Title IX
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Are you asserting that the test ...
was actually designed and intended to be discriminatory? If so would you support taking legal action against the department in question for having done so?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If it was
I would support legal action. It almost certainly wasn't.
As with the Michigan affirmative action policy that Bush appealed to the SCOTUS on, an extremely revealing piece of evidence was that the minorities who got special consideration performed as well as students as the white ones for whom the bar was higher.
If that applies to this case too, their can only be two explanations:
1. There is a cultural bias built in to the test (probably unintentional), or
2. The test is a very poor predictor of future performance.
I believe it's most likely the second. Exhaustive studies have showed that IQ tests basically measure one important skill: the ability to take IQ tests.
If, on the other hand, the test did measure abilities critical to being an effective firefighter, then it should stand. Either way, reviewing the test itself is the right way to go.
Well if the test was not biased ...
... then the results should stand and Sotomayor's decision, while based on statute, was none the less the wrong decision (from a societal fairness perspective, not a legal one). And being the wrong decision it just points back to the fact the these Affirmative Action laws are "wrong" if they are forcing the "wrong" outcomes in decisions like these. Perhaps this is the real lesson coming out of the Ricci case, these Affirmative Action laws need to be repealed in order to preserve the fairness that society can and should demand.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Opinions on AA aside...
"Designed and intended to be discriminatory" is not the same thing as "biased." The test may very well have been biased without any intention for it to be so on the part of the designers of the test. This is actually the most likely scenario, IMHO.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Of course.
I never claimed it was either one, Brutus did, or at least I took his commen to mean that he was. Being unsure what he meant I took the rather bold step of actually asking him what he meant. I'm not sure I have gotten an actual answer on that point.
But we have two independent vairables as work here: intent and bias. This seems to create four total possibilities:
My question is, what should be the desired outcome in each of these cases?
Case 1 seems obvious, throw out the test and start the prosecutions.
Case 4 also seems obvious, keep the test and those preparing it.
Case 2 is less obvious, first how would you even know but if you somehow managed to figure it out there was no harm done. Let the test stand and throw the morons out.
Case 3 is the least obvious to me. There is some incentive to throw out the test because it was biased, but without any intent to be so I don't see how throwing out the results can result in any inherent fairness to those who spent time preparing. It also depends in some measure on how it is that we care clasifying the test as being "biased" and to what extent it was "biased". So it's not a slam dunk here in my mind that we should throw out the results. Your mileage may certainly vary.
So, Brutus, corph, and SL, which case are we in and what is your recommended result? How does that stack up against the result the Sotomayor supported?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4IMO
I would need to know in what manner the test was biased in order to form such an opinion. I've heard academics theorize that almost any test given in "standard English" (midwestern dialect) is biased against Blacks because a large amount of them speak AAVE
(ebonics) and have a lesser understanding of the test.
I have a serious problem with that. Yes, I just so happen to speak "General American" English because I'm from the Midwest, but if I didn't, I'd still expect to speak and learn to speak proper Engish.
Part of the problem here is the assertion that if you can't understand the test, it is biased against you. No, that just means you don't have very good reading comprehension skills, which all tests test for.
And while I'm on this stream-of-consciousness post, I'll take the time to state that class-based affirmative action would be much better at helping get us past racism (reverse or otherwise). Barack Obama's children do not need assistance getting in to college or getting a job. However, plenty of poor Whites, Blacks, Native Americans, etc. do.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
More likely (I hope)
I'm guessing many of these minority applicants may have fallen behind academically because their high schools had shitty teachers, poor funding and they were more worried about not getting beaten up than mastering algebra. Doesn't mean those applicants aren't as resourceful and quick-learning as the white applicants and that they won't make just as good firefighters.
Of course, where does that stop? You can't excuse every type of weaker performance based on socioeconomic forces. I believe the only way out (other than changing laws basing school funding on property taxes) is more innovative and insightful test questions.
there's another scenario
The test wasn't biased but wasn't relevant. It could have asked questions that the black applicants by happenstance did poorly on (weak crop; nothing to do with race) but that weren't good questions in that they did not measure firefighter ability.
An absurd example for case 3
would be asking a bunch of hockey trivia questions as opposed to basketball ones.
I would guess many questions involved some kind of academic problems about flammable gas concentrations or something that socioeconomically advantaged (disproportionately white) students would have an easier time answering (because of social forces dating back to high school) but that have little or no bearing on actually fighting fires.
I would take a long, hard look at the test and make sure the questions and/or trials were highly relevant to the everyday tasks of a firefighter and not some multiple-choice claptrap format I recognized from suburban high school AP tests.
OK, but do we have any reason to assume that the test ...
... was actually asking a bunch of irrelevant questions? You seem perfectly willing to assume that there was no ill-intent, are you not also willing to assume that the test was actually relevant to the task at hand? I fail to see why you would suspect they would be asking thing that don't have any bearing on the job. If you do suspect that they would/did, why?
Even so, this only adds one additional binary variable to the mix. That would boil down to the following:
Relevant = TRUE
Same as above.
Relevant = FALSE
Case 1: Throw out the test. Fire the morons who wrote it.
Case 2: Throw out the test. Fire the morons who wrote it.
Case 3: Throw out the test. Fire the morons who wrote it.
Case 4: Throw out the test. Fire the morons who wrote it.
So which case are you asserting we are actually in with Sotomayor? Can we tell simply by the resulting stats which case we are in?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know.
Thing is, even if the test were fair and relevant, Sotomayor's ruling wasn't to throw out the test. It simply declined to intervene w/ respect to what the city council did.
If the test was fair and relevant, I don't believe the city council should have thrown it out. But even that doesn't mean Sotomayor should have ordered the test results to stand; that would mean substituting her judgment for the city council's on the validity of the test. The burden would be high for the plaintiff to show that white applicants were being actively discriminated against by the city council's decision. Either way, there is no reason to suspect that whatever Sotomayor feels about affirmative action affected her ruling. And isn't that the important point of contention?
Replies ...
OK, we are agreed on that point. Now, how do you feel about their (presumably) using the race based statistics on the outcome as primary basis of determining that the test was, presumably, "not fair"?
From the narrow perspective of the generally recognized definition of being an "activist judge", that is AN important point of
contentionconsideration. It is not, however, the ONLY important point of consideration.I have already accepted and acknowledged to SL that the Ricci case is not an example of Sotomayor being an "activist judge". What more must I say on that one point?
As for the subsequent discussion I am not advocating any particular position, per se, I am merely thinking about the topic of Sotomayor's nomination and what else we should consider beyond that one single point.
In these other areas I haven't really formulated a "position" on which to "advocate". I'm just talking to see what others think.
I don't know why this should be the case. I would actually assert the reverse. Barring any evidence that the test was either unfair or not relevant the results should have stood. I have not read the details of the case. Did the city present any such evidence other than the race based statistical outcome?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's a question of relevant authority
or maybe jurisdiction is the right term. Basically, the city council can use any criteria they want in selecting firefighters as long as it doesn't violate any laws. That they changed their test criteria is not relevant unless the new criteria is discriminatory in some way.
The plaintiffs must show that:
a) they were harmed by the new test;
b) the city council did something wrong;
c) that something caused the harm.
Assuming they can satisfy a) and c), I don't see how you can show b) unless you ignore precedent upholding affirmative action as constitutional.
Give me some examples of how the test would be biased...
...It was about firefighting, it was in english, I mean?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
It seems that they may have used unfamiliar words ...
like "fire" rather than the Ebonics counterpart. Perhaps the solution is to offer all tests in both an English version and an Ebonics version? And a Spanish version? And a ????
The only alternative would be to only use words that these languages have in common. :)
I do have a pertinent question, though. Presumably most of these people have attended public schools under the control of the DOE. Is this not proof that those schools are doing an inadequate job of teaching English despite their being under the control of the Teachers Unions?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ok here:
I'm not touching racial stereotypes with a ten-foot pole, but here's an example of a geographic one:
Q.23 Where is a domestic oil-based fire most likely to start?
a) The stove
b) The side of a clapboard house
c) The furnace
d) The garage
The answer is: b) (surprise!*) because so many morons overfill their turkey frier on thanksgiving or forget to thaw the bird first. People from states where more fried food is consumed
might be more likely to know the answer to that. See: not intentional, but if the test could be biased in favor of southerners, why not white people in general?
*No idea if this is actually true. Doesn't matter.
How does this change anything?
If that is where most domestic oil-based fires start and it is important (i.e. relevant to the job) to know such a fact, regardless of where you grew up you are expected to know the information, no?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Because other questions
could have been just as relevant and not have the same cultural bias.
If the content is relevant ...
then how can they ever ask about it on a test if there is an inherent cultural bias?
Doesn't your position sort of imply that the test writers are not allowed to ask relevant questions if there is any chance of cultural bias? What if these topics are so relevant (i.e. important to the job) that leaving them off actually degrades the value provided by the testing in the first place and actually might put people at risk?
From my perspective there is most likely a defined set of material that these people are supposed to know and they are most likely informed about what the material is up front. So to say that the people who are supposed to be familiar with said material don't actually have to know it (or at least be tested on it) because of cultural issues seems somehow not quite right.
In other words, if the point you described above was actually quite important to know and understand then you have to be able to ask about it on the tests. But by your argument you can't. So how do you resolve such a situation?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well yeah
Pretty much, although without the qualifier "any chance". Every effort should be made to ask questions that are:
a) Revealing in terms of disparities of answers
b) Relevant to the job
c) Fair in terms of assessing ability independantly of background.
Not saying it's easy to do. Getting feedback from veteran firefighters would probably be the best way to do it. If it's done properly, the kind of situation that arose simply shouldn't happen outside of random chance.
That very well may be
However Judges aren't supposed to decided based on fairness (unless they're some sort of namby-pampy "living constitution" activist judge).
Take it up with Congress...unless you want your judges legislating from the bench.
*golf clap*
Wow, that took way too long. Glad you figured it out now. How this reflects poorly on Sotomayor, I don't have a clue. She did exactly what a proper conservative judge would do: she "rigidly applied the law with no regard for its intent". Just like Bender
did.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
However Judges aren't
Which is of course why I included "wrong decision (from a societal fairness perspective, not a legal one)". So we are agreed from the perspective of being "a judge", but not "society". My statement here does NOT assert that she would have been wrong in a legal sense, only a greater societal one.
And taken in context (as opposed to out of context like you have done) it should be obvious that I was not faulting her for having ruled in line with the legalities but rather was exploring the larger societal picture, and noting that how she felt about the ruling she actually made would still matter in that larger context.
This is still relevant because it goes to whether her personal views are activist in nature, or not, regardless of whether she actually goes against legal precedent in rulings. This remains significant because it can influence which cases she pushes to have accepted, or not, which can certainly still be used by an activist to shape over-all precedent even if she avoids being an "activist judge" in the normal sense of the term.
Which is of course exactly why I said, "Perhaps this is the real lesson coming out of the Ricci case, these Affirmative Action laws need to be repealed in order to preserve the fairness that society can and should demand."
I fail to understand how you could have missed that since it was the very next sentence, and furthermore how you might have misinterpreted it to mean anything other than what you said.
Bite me, a-hole.Glad you can finally read.Oops, I guess not. Go back and try again. Oh, and excuse me for explaining the rationale for my conclusions, dufus. Don't feel any obligation to read my posts.
I'll assume this is a typo rather than a moron statement, but just to be clear ALL judges should be applying the law WITH regard to it's intent. That's their whole frackin' job. It's the ones that "apply the law" with "no regard for its intent" that I actually worry about. They are the activist judges. :P
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4To come full circle
Her decision in Ricci should be a reason why conservatives should like her.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
OK, I agree with that narrow statement.
In the sense that the Ricci case is NOT an example of "judicial activism".
But there are other aspects to the person that might still be relevant and fair game for consideration. Making this decision should not be based on that one dimension or that one example alone, correct?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4By the way, did you see that even the loud-mouthed...
... drug addict has flip-flopped on Sotomayor:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23290.html
Just like that other blowhard, Newt.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
LOL. Not so.
I actually listen to the show. Rush explicitly denies having reversed on the racist point, and for good reason ... he didn't reverse himself.
The part that this completely ignores is that his statement of possible support was made in the context of Sotomayor possibly being pro-life and having nothing to do with "reversing himself" the racist meme whatsoever. Nice fact checking.
It is truly humerous because Rush was watching and playing comments from the news media in real time based on how they were taking him out of context on statements made in that same show just minutes prior.
What was that you keep harping on about with goal posts?
What's with you people and your obsession with only looking at one aspect of any topic? I thought the Democrats were the ones who were supposed to be all about nuanced positions with lots of grey areas. Are you now moving that goal post as well?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh-heh..
The flip-flopping, oud-mouthed drug addict changes his position but then says he didn't and you believe him. All while he takes potshots at the other so-called genius of the right, Newt.
This is great stuff. The drug addict is a parody of himself.
But I must say, I'm enjoying watching these hypocritical, loud-mouthed jackasses go after one another. It's great theater.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Pfft, you are but a gnat.
I don't have to believe his denial. I listened to his statements first hand as he made them. I fully understood what they meant and I concur with his denial of having reversed himself on the issue of Sotomayor's racism. He did not.
If you believe that he recanted on Sotomayor being racist, provide a transcript of his actual statements and highlight as much. Barring that your position amounts to just so much hot air ... a common occurrence with you.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Impending crickets?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4....
There's a history of some test designed to get whites positions.
The firefighters test seems to be illegal per se when the test result in one group greatly benefiting over another group by having the test. idk, I didn't read the decision of the precedent Sotomayor was following, but most AA laws seem to be that way.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
T'would be interesting
to see the test itself.
No such thing
There is no such thing as an activist law. There are only constitutional laws and unconstitutional laws. Statutes designed to promote diversity in the workplace are constitutional given certain parameters. See Regents v. Bakke
for a limiting case.
This reminds me of the unfortunate use of the term "unconstitutional". All too often, when someone says that a law is unconstitutional, what they are really saying is that, yes, the majority wants X to be law, but I don't like X so X must somehow be repugnant to the Constitution, which protects my minority rights.
You're redefining words here to move the goalposts. "Activist" doesn't mean "a decision I don't agree with". It is a well defined term among those on the right. At least it was. As others here have discovered, "activist" now means "a decision I don't agree with".
I don't like the outcome in Ricci, but given the precedent, it was the legally correct decision to make. Again, talk to the SCOTUS to get that fixed, not Appeals Court judges. A truly activist decision would to ignore case law, precedent, and statute by ruling for Ricci.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Again ...
I have never claimed that Sotomayor's ruling in Ricci was the act of an "activist judge." If you think I have show me where or STFU (i.e. stop putting words in my mouth).
I am not redefining anything, unless you wish to posit the absurd assertion that "activist judge" = "activist" in a general societal sense. They are clearly not the same term. Actually, you are the one moving the goal posts as it were from "activist judge" to just "activist". Why are you trying to co-opt an obviously broader term and shoe horn it into the definition conservatives use for "activist judges"?
So, after having decided to not call Ricci the act of an "activist judge", the fact that I wish to explore a broader aspect of whether Sotomayor still has other broader "activist" tendencies is a problem how?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Caught red-handed.
I feel for you. I really do.
You must keep a posthole digger strapped to your back at all times so you can move the goalposts at a moment's notice.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Bzzz, bzzz, little gnat.
What, pray tell, are you talking about?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, it doesn't
Because popular opinion doesn't change the meaning of the law.
A quote you might enjoy:
Sotomayor made the correct decision based on law and precedent. I happen to think the precedent is wrong, but that's for our mutual friend Scalia to fix, not her.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Fine, I was only asking the question. Are you OK with that?
And where did I say she should have ruled against the law or precedent? Can I not explore a larger context without you falling into the self-imposed trap of making false assumption about what I am saying?
And no, it is not even up to Scalia to fix either. He is bound by the same need to interpret the law according to its intent. Are you saying that Scalia can ignore the intent of the law? I certainly hope not.
It is up to us to explore the larger meanings like I am doing here so that we can recognize when the intent of the LAW is wrong, as well as recognize when we have Judges who seek to advance those same WRONG laws through precedent.*
---------------------------------------
* And before you get your panties in a wad, this statement does NOT say anything about Sotomayor specifically, it is a general statement. It does raise the question of how Sotomayor actually felt about making the ruling that she did on a law that we both seem to think is WRONG.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Awhile back actually
You had a cow over Ricci.
However this discussion is not productive and is in danger of ending up with a "50 Hitler Post".
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
He had a cow
over Affirmative Action which he claimed was equal to Judicial Activism.
He had a cow over Affirmative Action which he claimed was an executive order, therefore not law.
He had a cow because Sotomayor was bolstering an executive order which he claimed was judicial activism.
*scraches head*
Or maybe you can interpret this better than I can.
http://www.swordscrossed.org/diary/20090526/mid-week-open-thread#comment...
There are so many fallacies in this short statement you could write a collage thesis, so ripe with contradictions and untruths.
Of course the real cow was born when GR was proven wrong!!! =) Yet he still keeps beating this same dead horse, or cow, if you will. (inflection of humor and affection for GR's obdurateness.)
http://www.swordscrossed.org/diary/20090526/mid-week-open-thread#comment...
I'm only half stupid
Perfect example of GoRight's typical style
... of argument. When he loses down one path, he moves the goalposts and argues something completely differemt..
Look at the thread further up where he asks for an example of his style of argumentation. In that very thread, he moves the discussion from the vacuum in GOP leadership to a discussion of Obama following Bush;'s policies.
Then he wonders why I think "discussing" issues with him is a waste of time...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And what, exactly, is the problem with looking at things
from multiple angles?
So you are saying that when discussing something like Affirmative Action, that we are only allowed to discuss or explore one possible angle, and that the rules are winner take all for the entire topic? Sorry, but that's total B.S. Can your brain not comprehend that all of these topics have multiple dimensions and aspects to them, and that there is NEVER a single argument to be made for anything?
And are you suggesting that if one such angle gets resolved, presumably by my somehow "losing" some point in your personal estimation, that all discussion must then cease and that we cannot follow the other dimensions that the discussion has uncovered?
This all just sounds like intellectual sour grapes to me. A prime example would be the fact they you can't even admit that 41% is obviously less than 45%. We were talking about the level of support for Sotomayor, for which I provided hard data, and when YOU obviously lost on that count all of a sudden it was all about "how polls work" and some lame-ass notion about "hardening of the numbers".
From my perspective that which you are accusing me of is actually a case of projection on your part. And it's not like I have to search to find an example, it is occuring in this very thread.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um, keep digging...
Good thing you have that posthole digger strapped to your back...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I fail to see your point.
They made a claim. I am challenging their claim. How is that moving goal posts? Or is my asking you what you meant supposedly moving them again somehow?
Am I not allowed to challenge unsubstantiated bald assertions? Is your standard of my having been "proven wrong" on some point merely that someone has made an unsubstantiated bald assertion?
Wow, that's some really rigorous standards for truth and fact that you have there. Apparently you don't actually try to ascertain facts at all, you are happy to simply listen for people who say things you want to hear and then simply declare them right! Pfft. Your standards are a joke and, of course, utterly self-serving.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What, my dear, are these "fallacies" of which you speak?
Please enumerate them so that we might examine them individually to ascertain the truth of the matter judiciously and objectively.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Take each word in your statement
If affirmative action is judicial activism, are you saying that the seperation of powers is being violated when the President issues an executive order?
If an executive order is not law, then how can it be overturned by an activist judge.
If affirmative action is judicial activism, does it then follow that judicial activism is affirmative action.
If the President issues an executive order to send out a special mission to rescue a captain kidnapped at sea, can an activist judge over turn the President's order, since you claim that judges can bolster or un-bolster executive orders?
Does a judge have the same power as the president if a judge is activist and can overturn an executive order?
Is a judge more activist or less activist if a judge overturns an an executive order.
I'm only half stupid
How would you answer each of these?
Sure. Since you want to view Executive Orders as being the same as Law, to the extent that Affirmative Action creates new Law from whole cloth then yes, the separation of powers are being violated. *
As I have said, Executive Orders (like Judicial Precedent) are constrained to comply with both the Constitution and duly enacted Laws of Congress. So unless the Executive Order does one of those two things the Judicial system has nothing to say about it. But if they do violate one of those it is the Courts who are charged with making that determination.
Activist judges can, by definition, create precedents which go against established precedent to do whatever they want. Whether that ends up holding up is another question. **
This is a meaningless question as far as I can tell. So I shall provide an equally meaningless answer: no.
Sure, why not? But as we have seen so many times in history, how do they intend to enforce their decision? Any such decision is unlikely to have any meaningful effect. Even so, that doesn't mean that they would be wrong.
For example, suppose the President's order explicitly included a directive to torture someone to gain information about how and where the Captain is being held. In that case the Court would be correct in over-turning the directive because it would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions which are a treaty to which the US is a signatory.
Absolutely not, by the very definition of the powers that each party retains. Their respective powers are completely different and separate from one another. Some might claim that their respective powers are comparable in terms of the force of Law under the Constitution, but I am not making any particular claims on that particular point (in this response).
Your question is, in effect, asking whether an Executive Order is the same thing as a Judicial Precedent. Given that perspective, like I said, the answer is emphatically no.
More or less activist than what? A judge that disregards existing precedent to further their own biased views? I would so no. They are basically equally activist because the effect of their activism is basically the same in either case, it seeks to shape Judicial Precedent for future decisions to meet their own personal desires. It doesn't matter where and for what purpose the case in question came before them.
----------------------------------------------------
* But remember, "I" am the one that claims Executive Orders are not Law ... in which case the answer is no.
** But remember, "I" am claiming that the Judiciary is bolstering Affirmative Action, not seeking to overturn it so your question is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Even so, the answer remains the same.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Where did I ever have a cow over Ricci?
I don't recall having done so. Please refresh my memory with a reference.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crickets.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I would expect them
That signifies that I'm done with this thread. If you are keeping score or something, chalk one up to you.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
He's a moving target.
Once his current argument gets shot down, he moves the goal posts and demands that you supply evidence to refute his new argument.
Read down the thread from top to bottom.
As I note below, GoRight has taken more positions than Madonna.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
See
Now that's funny.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Eh.
It's all funny.
To someone.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Can you substantiate your claim or not?
If not, kindly retract it.
And if anyone changed the discussion to whether or not I "had a cow over Ricci", it was you and not me. I didn't start that meme.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I will kindly retract whatever you like
I'm here to discuss the issues of the day with friends. I don't have any scoreboard next to my monitor regarding how many discussions I win (hence my rather strict adherence to the "blue line rule").
For future reference, if I didn't reply, you can consider that I have no response to your post and you have bested me in your match of wits.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
OK, fair enough.
But it's not a scorecard thing, I'm just trying to keep the record straight on where I do, or do not, have "cows". :)
Also, if you had actually thought I had a cow over Ricci, and I didn't think I had, I wanted to understand where the disconnect happened. Think of it as continuous dialogue improvement!
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Jeezuz...
You've had more positions than Madonna.
Every time one line of reasoning gets shot down, you move the goal posts.
Again.
And then demand that the person you are in discussion with come back with evidence for your new/latest position.
Funny, funny stuff..
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Stinerman is the one that changed topics ...
not me. Again with the faulty fact checking, CLC. Watch out, your low standards are showing again.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4