Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison, plus five months of home detention and a $30,000 fine for lying to federal authorities investigating her sale of stock in a friend's company.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
W.....a.............t....................e........................................r

skeks is a leftie. he was being sarcastic

Really? Shit.

Atticus, goddammit, send me a new scorecard. Mine's so outdated it still has Hank as "undecided."

[sgtclub]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/415308|top|07-15-2004::23:47|reuters.html

eta: That link's not working for me, but I think this story on Reuters is the same one. -- T.S.

This seems just stupid to me. The Saudis are finally beginning to cooperate. These people are so fucking childish.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Atticus, goddammit, send me a new scorecard. Mine's so outdated it still has Hank as "undecided."

"undecided" or "unclear"

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/415308|top|07-15-2004::23:47|reuters.html

This seems just stupid to me. The Saudis are finally beginning to cooperate. These people are so fucking childish.

My "fools in the legislature" quote works in a hell of a lot of situations.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ah. OK, I understand your point now. Thanks.

Re: blocking judicial nominations, yes. It's unsavory, and as I recall, both sides have done it over the last dozen years without particular remorse or regret. Reading (say) Hatch's comments then and now is both amusing and depressing.

As for the rest of it, I don't agree with your point, though.

It's not the same thing -- with abortion, proponents did take it to the Court, where they would either win, or lose. That's the way courts are supposed to work, and as a matter of process, I don't think it's gaming anything.

Today's GOP, by stripping away Fed Jur., wants to keep proponents from going to court AT ALL, and that strikes me as, you know, different.

I sense a riposte of something along the lines of "a-HA! But the liberals packed the courts with liberal, sissified judges! THAT's how they gamed it!" Well, not so much, no. See my prior post re: the realities of the new cliche of "judicial activism." Its sell-by date was circa 1969.

Gattigap

We litigators* should all be able to agree that going to court and losing is one thing -- hey, it happens -- but that not permitting litigation is another -- it's so inhumane it should be outlawed in the Geneva Convention or something, not that that would stop the Republicans.

* eta: Or litigatrixes, as the case may be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"undecided" or "unclear"

We keep telling Gatti that it doesn't work when you try to erase crayon marks, but he says it doesn't matter in the kind of work he does. The moral of the story is that you can't tell a corporate lawyer anything.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap

It's not the same thing -- with abortion, proponents did take it to the Court, where they would either win, or lose. That's the way courts are supposed to work, and as a matter of process, I don't think it's gaming anything.

Today's GOP, by stripping away Fed Jur., wants to keep proponents from going to court AT ALL, and that strikes me as, you know, different.

I sense a riposte of something along the lines of "a-HA! But the liberals packed the courts with liberal, sissified judges! THAT's how they gamed it!" Well, not so much, no. See my prior post re: the realities of the new cliche of "judicial activism." Its sell-by date was circa 1969.

Gattigap

That is how it is supposed to work if you have judges playing fair. I believe many of the judges on both sides are results oriented, and back fill rationale from there. This is more likely to be the case for leftist judges because they are more likely not to be strict constutionists, but it exists on both sides to a degree. I see these judges as part of the gaming of the system, and the GOP response, while short sided, as the logical next move.

eta: This is why I respect White's decision in Bowers. The result sucks but I appreciate what he was trying to do re judicial tyranny.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We keep telling Gatti that it doesn't work when you try to erase crayon marks, but he says it doesn't matter in the kind of work he does. The moral of the story is that you can't tell a corporate lawyer anything.

Gatti's a corporate lawyer? I didn't think we had any lefties in our ranks. Gonna have to make some calls re this.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We keep telling Gatti that it doesn't work when you try to erase crayon marks, but he says it doesn't matter in the kind of work he does. The moral of the story is that you can't tell a corporate lawyer anything.

Enough years of receiving term sheets from clients written in Brick Red #32 on the back of a bar napkin - with instructions not to add any language that does not ALSO fit on the same side of same napkin - eventually wears you down. What can I say?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Gatti's a corporate lawyer? I didn't think we had any lefties in our ranks. Gonna have to make some calls re this.

You mean you couldn't tell from the shallowness of my arguments?

I always thought that was a dead giveaway for us.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is how it is supposed to work if you have judges playing fair. I believe many of the judges on both sides are results oriented, and back fill rationale from there. This is more likely to be the case for leftist judges because they are more likely not to be strict constutionists, but it exists on both sides to a degree.

But see Bush v. Gore.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
But see Bush v. Gore.

7-2

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
7-2

Depends on how you look at it. Judging by the results, I'd say 5-4.

" Many Republicans describe the opinion as 7 to 2, which would make the decision appear less political. “I hope if you’re writing a piece on this,” says James Baker, “you will undertake to report accurately that the United States Supreme Court’s decision was 7 to 2 on constitutionality. . . . It’s amazing to me how many people like to report this as a so-called 5 to 4 political . . . decision of the United States Supreme Court.”
The Court may have divided 7 to 2 on constitutional analysis, but when it came to remedy—the decision to stop Florida’s recounts—the old, familiar fault lines emerged. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy decided that by December 12 time had run out for the Florida recounts, leaving Bush as the victor. For Democrats the decision to stop the recounts was more important than constitutional analysis.
“The fact that the Court kind of split on the question of doctrine 7 to 2 wasn’t really that interesting to us, compared to a 5 to 4 decision that said, Thou shall not count,” says Klain."

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/was..._2003/bush.cfm

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
7-2

And Bush would have won on the recount. But why trip over facts.