Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

In the case that pissed off the white supremacists, she originally ruled for them, and then entered judgment against them only after the case was reversed and remanded by the appellate court.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

If anything, that sounds like it was written by club/spanky's people. "When drawing up congressional districts, states should be allowed to ignore geography and make obscure districts of mostly minorities (ie, racial gerrymandering)"

eta my top person was Breyer, I think, then Stevens. Maybe vice-versa.

Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

It was an IP case. Jeeeeezus.

How would you like to be her daughter, knowing you had very likely been in the house with the bodies of your father and grandmother?

Sounds like they should have gone after the appellate judges. Not that I wish they would have or anything.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Renquist
Scalia
Kennedy
Thomas
O'Connor
Breyer
Ginsburg
Souter
Stevens

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

She's probably an activist, given that Clinton appointed her and she worked full time for left-wing organizations before becoming a judge. If she is an activist, it's possible some right-wing wacko other than the white power dude killed her. Activist judges have many wacko enemies who believe their activities are an affront to God, racism, &c, &c.

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

After all, she was an Episcopalian Jew, or married to an Episcopalian Jew.

If she were an activist, wouldn't you think she'd have ruled against the white supremacists in the first place?

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

It's hard to say. Activist liberal judges sometimes are sticklers on business issues, and only indulge their activist tendencies on what they purport to be civil rights issues. Anyway, the activist judges should take this as a reminder that being appointed for life doesn't mean for very long, if you get yourself killed.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Breyer
Ginsburg
O'Connor
Souter
Kennedy
Stevens
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

I guessed Ginsburg would be number 1. I could have guessed that Scalia and Thomas would be the last two (tho not necessarily in that order).

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

that's right! You were the one bothered by an educated vocabulary.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

O'Connor
Kennedy
Rehnquist
Breyer
Ginsberg
Souter
Scalia
Thomas

The first and last two don't surprise me. I was a little surprised that the Chief was 3rd.

S_A_M

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

So you think it all turned on her answer to the "capitol" punishment question? Hmmm.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

She has been bothered since he used plebiscite

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

The real activists now are the conservatives. Get with it. It's not like lefties are trying to bring back Lochner or anything.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Ginsburg
Stevens
Breyer
Souter
O'Connor
Kennedy
Rhenquist
Scalia
Thomas

Shocking, all around.

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

Our takeover isn't complete until International Shoe gets tossed aside.

Go Figure
 

Ginsburg
Breyer
Souter
O'Conner
Scalia
Kennedy
Rehnquist
Stevens
Thomas

Go Figure
 

You've gotta be kidding me. I'm revoking my proxy, Eugene McCarthy.

Go Figure
 

Ginsburg
Scalia
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
O'Connor
Stevens
Rehnquist

#2 seems a bit out of place.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Woah -

O'Connor
Kennedy
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas
Ginsberg
Breyer
Souter
Stevens

BR(How did some of you manage to get Scalia and Thomas in any order other than one after the other?)C

eta: SAM, you're missing one

Go Figure
 

#1: Breyer
#2: Souter
#3: Ginsburg
#4: O'Connor
#5: Scalia
#6: Stevens
#7: Thomas
#8: Kennedy
#9: Rehnquist

How come no polygamy questions?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Ginsberg
O'Connor
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Steven
Rehnquist
ScaliaThomas

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

What scary telling is that all the lefties end in Scalia Thomas. You have no variation or individual opinion between yourselves. When you have meetings can you order lunch for each other?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I agreed with Scalia on the flag burning thing. I would have thought that would have bumped him up on the list a little.

Charlton Heston's Stones
 

I'm not very religious, but isn't there something in the Ten Commandments about not worshipping idols and not using the Lord's name in vain?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

#1 Breyer
#2 Ginsberg
#3 Souter
#4 O'Connor
#5 Kennedy
#6 Stevens
#7 Rehnquist
#8 Scalia
#9 Thomas

So, what's for lunch today, Shapey?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I am similar, yet different. No lunch for me.

1 Ginsburg
2 O'Connor
3. Breyer
4. Souter
5. Kennedy
6. Scalia
7. Stevens
8. Thomas
9. Rehnquist

aV

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I learned from the tv that you can just scrape the mayo off on the side of the table. You'll be fine.

Go Figure
 

Are you speaking in general terms, or are you referring to your list?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

No difference between O'Connor & Ginsberg?

OK. All that proves is that Scalia and Thomas are "out of the mainstream."

Establish this, Antonin.
 

In a piece about the oral argument yesterday in a pair of cases about the public display of the Ten Commandments, Dahlia Lithwick suggests that Scalia is the only justice on the court being honest about the issues. Scalia said: "When someone walks by the commandments, they are not studying the text. They are acknowledging that the government derives its authority from God."

Points for honesty, but can someone explain to me where this leaves the Establishment Clause? The view that "the government derives its authority from God" is a belief, not a "fact" (as Scalia reportedly said in the newspaper account I read). It's certainly not verifiable (right Hank?). Is Scalia's view that the Establishment Clause allows government to promote Christianity in a relatively generic way, but not to promote one sectarian view over another? Meanwhile, those whose religions does not lend their imprimatur to the government (Buddhists, say) are supposed to go pound sand -- the First Amendment doesn't extend to them? Scalia may be honest, but I don't get it.

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

You are fucking idiot. She was appointed by Clinton but she was a respected magistrate before that and well regarded on both sides of the aisle. There is no rationale that justifies or mitigates what happened here and your post is a shitstain effourt that implies that there is. The only right minded result here is that her families killers are caught, over 18 and executed and before that brutally gangraped in prison.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

Why do you equate a belief in god with Christianity or religion?

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I sure as shit ain't getting into this chestnut with you- why don't you go back to old threads and argue this with Fluffy or not me or whoever engaged you back- you're a mod- you can still edit to make snappy new comebacks!

Meanwhile, I don't see how "In God We Trust" or "God save this Court" is okay but a dumb statute is different. Hell you might walk into court not knowing what the statute is, in Court you will hear "God save." Throw it all out or relax. I don't care.

I post now only to clarify my position on your junk science posts. I posit that if Scalia was a scientist, and constitutional analysis a science, your ilk would not question "the government derives its authority from God." That you do question what he said takes it out of the range of what I complained about. You don't need to verify to listen to a theory, but don't tell me its true unless you question.

You can question Scalia- fine- go forward with your commentary. You cannot question your scientists? Then STFU.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I think I was referring more specifically to the view that government derives its authority from God. That's not necessarily Christian -- I think Islam takes the same view -- but there are other religions that see things differently.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

If only I were snappier.

Maybe the difference is that putting "In God We Trust" on money is almost devoid of meaning at this point. Certainly, I doubt we would be doing it if not for tradition and/or the desire of religious people to get the government to endorse their views.

(1) Huh?
(2) I have no ilk, though I have eaten elk, and it is tasty.
(3) Constitutional analysis is not and never will be a science.
(4) I find the idea that government derives its authority from God bordering on bizarre. It derives its authority from the consent of the governed and -- in our case -- the Constitution.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

and this is different than a statute with 10 commandments, right?



your crude attempt at insulting me implied that I disregard your global warming stuff since it was not verifiable. I merely point out that I just want you to question it. If there are gaps- okay, but you should acknowledge them. You cite global warming studies for the same reason Roy moore wants the 10 commandments to stay- no offense.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

Yes. Though if that Dahila Lithwick piece establishes anything, it is that line-drawing is hard.

I don't know what you inferred, but I didn't imply anything like that.

Moore wants the 10 commandments to stay because he's worried about climate change? Huh. That's a new one on me.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

Hadn't thought of it that way- but yeah that is why he's worried ultimately.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I don't follow your argument at all, but this was very funny.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I am also curious about the argument that the 10 Commandments are an important part of our legal heritage. Has this been traced, or do we just take this as a given?