Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


Remaining silent means during orals means nothing to me. Really, is anyone's mind changed during oral arguments? Or is it just an opportunity for the judges to (a) show how smart they are or (b) get their kicks?

There was an interesting observation in a Post article about Roberts that some of the more aggressive questioning in recent years may be a result of Rehnquist's very streamlined conferences, during which he apparently discouraged extended discussion and debate of the cases. As a result, justices used oral argument as an outlet/alternative way to debate the merits. The article suggested that Roberts might run things a bit differently.

As for oral argument, I don't think you're right. While some judges use if for kicks or to show off, I think it can, especially in close cases (which most in the S. Ct. are) get at the things counsel for either side may have omitted.

I will admit, however, that oral argument is not always useful, although at least when I clerked (for ct. app.) the judges would sometimes just shut down the argument once it was clear one side didn't have an argument. (I recall one case where after the criminal defendant/appellant's lawyer argued, the U.S. Att'y stood up, gave a 2 minute introduction, and one of the judges said "Mr. __, I think we have a pretty good handle on this case, so if there is anything you think you haven't covered in the brief, we'd be happy to hear it." He thanked the court and waived the rest of his time. Affirmed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, how about William Bennett?

• "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, . . . [although that is] an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

I would like to see a cite, but, if true, obviously the Legacy of Bobby Byrd lives. This is what happens when the dims make the conscience of their Party a Klan Kleagle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The damage was caused by Kennedy, Biden and assorted other dimwits when they first Borked. Thomas was just an effect of that cause.

Yeh, we really shoulda confirmed Bork. What we need today is a Judge who writes a book talking about how the govt should be allowed to have broad powers to censor the media. Truly patriotic. God Bless America and all... Right in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. I think it was Franklin, or maybe Paine, who said “Without the power to muzzle the miscreant mouths of those who’d disagree with her, the Republic is nothing!”* Maybe I have that wrong...

* Stuff that one in your pie-hole, Safire.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I would like to see a cite, but, if true, obviously the Legacy of Bobby Byrd lives. This is what happens when the dims make the conscience of their Party a Klan Kleagle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html

you'd actually have to dig down for the story on Fox, because they give prominence to his subsequent explanation. Anyway, fair and balanced indeed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I would like to see a cite, but, if true, obviously the Legacy of Bobby Byrd lives. This is what happens when the dims make the conscience of their Party a Klan Kleagle.

Dude, that horse is not even a bag of drying bones anymore. Put the whip away - you’re swinging blindly into the air like a retarded child trying to pick an airplane out of the sky with a whiffle bat.

But it is kinda funny you keep beating on that old coot. That you think anyone even pays attention to the historic (and widely, repeatedly self-denounced) racist politics of a nonagenarian from West Virginia shows you lack the basic understanding of politics required to post coherently on the topic.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If he were a liberal, you would be accused of being a racist.

Apologies if my attempt at a joke strikes anyone this way.

But I think Clarence Thomas, ironically, would agree that to call an intellectual light weight anything other than an intellectual light weight because he is black would be the height of racism.

The man adheres to an original intent kind of jurisprudence that is difficult to reconcile with the real world; it is an ivory tower way of reading the constitution that disregards the fundamental changes, such as the development of the widespread use of corporations that has been much discussed on this board over the last week or two, that requires the development of judicial thinking. Indeed, in my mind it is a virtual rejection of the very legal tradition of English common law that the founders were focused on preserving.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I would like to see a cite, but, if true, obviously the Legacy of Bobby Byrd lives. This is what happens when the dims make the conscience of their Party a Klan Kleagle.

Happy to oblige.

I don't think Repubs spend too much time checking out what Byrd is doing. This is closer to the legacy of Jessie Helms.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Happy to oblige.

I don't think Repubs spend too much time checking out what Byrd is doing. This is closer to the legacy of Jessie Helms.

He does sort of have a point. Hell, if every fetus were aborted, I'm sure crime would go way down in the future.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think the Contracts clause gets you much of anywhere for substantive due process. That's focused on ex post changes to teh terms of contracts, not ex ante limitations upon them.

Now, the privileges and immunities clause both in Art. IV and the 14th amendment should get your somewhere, but, since slaughterhouse and Parrish, don't.

I think someone defending Lochner might also be willing to interpret the contracts clause in a pre-1950s manner. I believe the first decision that made clear the contracts clause was focused on ex post changes was Ogden v. Saunders, after the New Deal changes in outlook.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, that horse is not even a bag of drying bones anymore. Put the whip away - you’re swinging blindly into the air like a retarded child trying to pick an airplane out of the sky with a whiffle bat.

But it is kinda funny you keep beating on that old coot. That you think anyone even pays attention to the historic (and widely, repeatedly self-denounced) racist politics of a nonagenarian from West Virginia shows you lack the basic understanding of politics required to post coherently on the topic.

The fact the you can so easily dismiss Byrd's racism and the power he weilds in our country in part is illustrative of the voodoo that the dimwits use to perpetuate their racist planation politics to foster a permanent underclass delusionally beholden to their empty socialism. Sad.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Happy to oblige.

I don't think Repubs spend too much time checking out what Byrd is doing. This is closer to the legacy of Jessie Helms.

Cite please? I stand ready to see the words of Helms that sink to the vile level of Byrd's. Plus Byrd was a Kleagle and a Grand Cyclops in the Klan. Please cite to Helms' rank.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The fact the you can so easily dismiss Byrd's racism and the power he weilds in our country in part is illustrative of the voodoo that the dimwits use to perpetuate their racist planation politics to foster a permanent underclass delusionally beholden to their empty socialism. Sad.

I think I heard Coulter say the exact same thing last night on Fox. If you're going to quote, shouldn't you provide a link? Ty has deleted posters for lesser infractions, you know.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think I heard Coulter say the exact same thing last night on Fox. If you're going to quote, shouldn't you provide a link? Ty has deleted posters for lesser infractions, you know.

Speaking of which, has Landrieu been indicted yet?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Captain
Apologies if my attempt at a joke strikes anyone this way.

But I think Clarence Thomas, ironically, would agree that to call an intellectual light weight anything other than an intellectual light weight because he is black would be the height of racism.

The man adheres to an original intent kind of jurisprudence that is difficult to reconcile with the real world; it is an ivory tower way of reading the constitution that disregards the fundamental changes, such as the development of the widespread use of corporations that has been much discussed on this board over the last week or two, that requires the development of judicial thinking. Indeed, in my mind it is a virtual rejection of the very legal tradition of English common law that the founders were focused on preserving.

Calling it intellectual is generous. Its not intellectual at all; its political gimickry masked as a valid school of legal thinking. The Right figured out sometime ago that, since the Constitution was old, by necessity, it would not contain many of the rights progressives sought in present day society. The Right figured “Fuck, We can use the Constitution as a sword. But wait... we first have to address our critics who will make the logical argument that the Constitution was meant to adapt to times. The left and middle will offer really strong arguments - I mean, shit... the Founding Fathers were all progressive.” The Right sat down and created of whole cloth, not unlike Intelligent Design, the school of legal thought known as originalism, traditionalism, etc... as a cover to push its political agenda via the judiciary branch.

The problem with this “originalism” is that the Right is frequently hoist on its own petard. In those cases, it suddenly shifts, and finds all sorts of regulations in the Constitution barring behaviors it dislikes and allowing things it favors.

Of course the document was never intended to be read restrictively. Rehnquist was actually, IMO, a very good judge. He balanced the idiot literalists against the idiot progressives (who tend to find all sorts of entitlements in the Constitution). Notice how neither side had anything really good to say about him when he died? Thats the sign of a good judge, IMO.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Captain
Apologies if my attempt at a joke strikes anyone this way.

But I think Clarence Thomas, ironically, would agree that to call an intellectual light weight anything other than an intellectual light weight because he is black would be the height of racism.

I wasn't directing that at you per se, just making a point.

This is chicken/egg - he is called an intellectual light weight by many because he is a black conservative. If he was a liberal, I doubt he would be called this. Same if he was white - how many white conservative justices, other than perhaps Burger, were called lightweights?