Politicizing the supreme court

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:29 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48832.html

Basically it says the supreme court is malleable to public opinion and that today's court may not want to be judged by history as having lost the faith of the american people.

I think there are valid issues here, but recognize it for what it is... an attempt to become a self fulfilling prophecy at worst and to turn America against the supreme court at best.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html

Article about Clarence Thomas' wife and how her political activity along partisian lines is inappropriate. I wonder, should we start hearing questions about supreme court nominees' significant others at future confirmation hearings?

Another conservative woman being attacked for her ideals. If it was a liberal judge's wife supporting environmentalism, she would be celebrated.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:43 pm

kiryan wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48832.html

Basically it says the supreme court is malleable to public opinion and that today's court may not want to be judged by history as having lost the faith of the american people.

I think there are valid issues here, but recognize it for what it is... an attempt to become a self fulfilling prophecy at worst and to turn America against the supreme court at best.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html

Article about Clarence Thomas' wife and how her political activity along partisian lines is inappropriate. I wonder, should we start hearing questions about supreme court nominees' significant others at future confirmation hearings?

Another conservative woman being attacked for her ideals. If it was a liberal judge's wife supporting environmentalism, she would be celebrated.


On the second point, most definitely. I think it would be unrealistic to think that a person's spouse's ideals and political leanings are entirely separate from their own. For instance, if my wife dislikes racism, and I vote for a racist policy, I'm not getting laid. Eventually, you vote too many times opposing her, and you wind up with a cheating wife/husband, a loveless marriage due to loss of respect, or divorce. And, since humanity is geared towards self-serving action, and I think most people are aware of the reality of marital dynamics, I highly doubt that any judge or politician have made decisions exclusively independent of their spouse.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:40 pm

So you think that we should take into account the spouse of a potential judge. How about when running for public office? How about when applying for a job? Should we look at their kids too? How about close family? I find that this goes against everything I understand to be inherent in being an American. That a man will be judged on his own actions and has inherent rights because he is an individual.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Botef » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:59 pm

When it comes to running for office I'd say analyzing a candidates spouse/family is already a fairly routine affair.
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'
// Post Count +1
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:01 am

Botef wrote:When it comes to running for office I'd say analyzing a candidates spouse/family is already a fairly routine affair.

I'm aware that you're addressing elected political offices with your comment, but I wanted to pull us back to the justices for a moment.

SCOTUS justices are not elected, rather, they are appointed. They also cannot be removed by any routine process.

That's the issue. If a judge is unable to be a fair judge, at the SCOTUS level, they would have to remove themselves - and that's not a situation that's ideal for the people. It's well understood that justice's spouses are supposed to maintain the same level of decorum as the justices are.

Improper influence at the Supreme Court is a major issue, especially if a justice refuses to recuse or remove themelves. It is precisely due to the tenure of SCOTUS justices that they must do everything they can to maintain the appearance of being capable of being a fair justice.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Ragorn » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:29 pm

I don't have a problem with a politically active spouse. However, if an issue championed by the spouse comes up before the course, I expect the justice to recuse himself.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:21 am

Will you be expecting kagan to recuse herself when healthcare law comes to the supreme court?
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:54 am

kiryan wrote:Will you be expecting kagan to recuse herself when healthcare law comes to the supreme court?

The way the British expect a sunny year without much rain.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:47 pm

kiryan wrote:Will you be expecting kagan to recuse herself when healthcare law comes to the supreme court?

Nope :) What's good for Scalia is good for Kagan.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:11 pm

Isn't it intellectually dishonest and morally inconsistent to advocate a judge recuse themselves when their spouse's activities suggest a conflict of interest, but not against one who has a clear direct conflict of interest on what will probably be one of the most significant and far reaching cases of our

Are you really prepared to accept the label of hippocrite? Come on in, the waters fine.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Kindi » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:36 pm

ppl who call other ppl hypocrites are hypocrites
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:49 pm

kiryan wrote:Isn't it intellectually dishonest and morally inconsistent to advocate a judge recuse themselves when their spouse's activities suggest a conflict of interest, but not against one who has a clear direct conflict of interest on what will probably be one of the most significant and far reaching cases of our

Are you really prepared to accept the label of hippocrite? Come on in, the waters fine.

Elena Kagan doesn't have a clear and direct conflict of interest. Your assertion is purely partisan :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:44 pm

lol...

No clear conflict of interest?

She was Obama's TOP lawyer to the supreme court. One of his top legal advisors while the law was being considered and passed... and the legality of the law was never discussed with her? She never offered an opinion on it?

She doesn't have a conflict of interest in that she was employed by the guy who pushed the law through? She was promoted to one a position at the pinnacle of the legal world by this same man. And consider that this man undoubtedly knew it would eventually come before the court?

but you want to worry about what political party and lobbying efforts a judge's wife is involved in when considering a nomination/recusal?


bhahahbhabhahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahah
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:53 pm

kiryan wrote:lol...

No clear conflict of interest?

She was Obama's TOP lawyer to the supreme court. One of his top legal advisors while the law was being considered and passed... and the legality of the law was never discussed with her?


So all you're saying is that she already formed an opinion on the law. That's not a conflict of interest. She's just done her homework ahead of time.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:05 pm

No Sarvis, I'm saying she has a clear conflict of interest in that the law she will be asked to decide will be the same one championed by the man who put her in the position.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:10 pm

Sounds like she has a very thorough understanding of the law and case precedent. I'm glad she's seated in a position where she can use her extensive knowledge to the benefit of the nation.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:47 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:lol...

No clear conflict of interest?

She was Obama's TOP lawyer to the supreme court. One of his top legal advisors while the law was being considered and passed... and the legality of the law was never discussed with her?


So all you're saying is that she already formed an opinion on the law. That's not a conflict of interest. She's just done her homework ahead of time.

So, Sarvis appears to be OK with putting Cheney as the chairman of the committee to determine what can be deemed as torture.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:41 pm

kiryan wrote:No Sarvis, I'm saying she has a clear conflict of interest in that the law she will be asked to decide will be the same one championed by the man who put her in the position.


The worst you can say is that she already decided when she chose to help Obama with that law in the first place.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:11 pm

Certainly not the worst, but certainly that bias could also be considered grounds for recusal. The fact that Elena Kagan has only worked for Democratic administrations also bias's her against the GOP (who are bringing the case).

but I'm glad to hear you see no problem. I'd guess you also have no problem with a businessman who puts 100k into a judge's election then hears cases involving said businessman. No conflict of interest there.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Politicizing the supreme court

Postby Ragorn » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:03 pm

I would absolutely have a problem with that, and your hypothetical situation has no bearing on Elena Kagan.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests