The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Is not affecting them the same as thing as not caring about it though? I can think of a few judges rulings that didn't affect me one bit, but I still didn't like the ruling.

But if it didn't affect them, why make that the single reason to oust them?

Put another way, the judges could've batted .999 (obviously they didn't in reality, but this is a hypothetical), but because of one decision, they should be ousted? If we held everyone to that standard no one would be employed anywhere.

As my boss put it, who in their right mind would want to be a judge in Iowa anymore. Make one unpopular decision and out you go.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

But if it didn't affect them, why make that the single reason to oust them?

Put another way, the judges could've batted .999 (obviously they didn't in reality, but this is a hypothetical), but because of one decision, they should be ousted? If we held everyone to that standard no one would be employed anywhere.

As my boss put it, who in their right mind would want to be a judge in Iowa anymore. Make one unpopular decision and out you go.

No, I agree with your larger point about how it's dumb that they got voted out.

What I'm saying is, even though a judge's ruling doesn't effect me, that doesn't mean it was a good ruling. Or a bad ruling for that matter.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Here's what I don't get. 92% of Iowans in a poll said that gay marriage had no impact on them personally whatsoever.

Yet 55% of them voted out the 3 supreme court justices up for retention solely because of the gay marriage ruling. (ok, take out the 10% nutjobs who vote no on judges every year just for the hell of it, and the 2% who might have had some legitimate grievances, and that's still 40-45% who said gay marriage doesn't affect them, but still voted to oust the judges because of that ruling).

What the F?

Link on the 92% poll number? Sounds fishy. Maybe it's in how the poll question was worded.

That said, kudos to Iowans for sending a message that activist judges can't always get away with remaking our country in their image without consequences. Hey, if judges are on the ballot, which they are in at least some states, then it's fair game to vote on them the way you wish.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

No, I agree with your larger point about how it's dumb that they got voted out.

What I'm saying is, even though a judge's ruling doesn't effect me, that doesn't mean it was a good ruling. Or a bad ruling for that matter.

Right, but even if we assume it was a bad ruling, I'm still struggling with the logic of "I will use this one decision which has no effect on me as the sole grounds to oust the judges. I don't care about any of the other decisions which may or may not actually affect me; this one is it."

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Link on the 92% poll number? Sounds fishy. Maybe it's in how the poll question was worded.

That said, kudos to Iowans for sending a message that activist judges can't always get away with remaking our country in their image without consequences. Hey, if judges are on the ballot, which they are in at least some states, then it's fair game to vote on them the way you wish.

If you really want to follow that line, Bob, then you can't complain about California money interfering in Arizona elections ever again.

Also, activist judge = judge I disagree with. Gotcha.

At least the judges can take comfort in the fact that society will ultimately side with them through natural attrition (i.e., old people dying).

The same clause of the state constitution was used to give slaves their freedom (Iowa wouldn't send runaway slaves back to their owners), women the right to vote, and other forms of civil rights well before such rights were federally recognized. Guess we should try to overturn those activist jduges, too.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If you really want to follow that line, Bob, then you can't complain about California money interfering in Arizona elections ever again.

Also, activist judge = judge I disagree with. Gotcha.

At least the judges can take comfort in the fact that society will ultimately side with them through natural attrition (i.e., old people dying).

The same clause of the state constitution was used to give slaves their freedom (Iowa wouldn't send runaway slaves back to their owners), women the right to vote, and other forms of civil rights well before such rights were federally recognized. Guess we should try to overturn those activist jduges, too.

yah, you got me. Wow, so much fail in one relatively short posting. But entirely expected. Seriously, there's so much spurious logic and reasoning, I'm impressed you packed it into just a handful of sentences. Although on the other hand you trot out the same tired, discredited arguments I've debunked a number of times before.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

yah, you got me. Wow, so much fail in one relatively short posting. But entirely expected. Seriously, there's so much spurious logic and reasoning, I'm impressed you packed it into just a handful of sentences. Although on the other hand you trot out the same tired, discredited arguments I've debunked a number of times before.

I didn't realize you were such a scholar of Iowa's Constitution, let alone had debunked arguments based on the laws contained within it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I didn't realize you were such a scholar of Iowa's Constitution, let alone had debunked arguments based on the laws contained within it.

Never said I was. But one doesn't need to be to applaud Iowa residents' use of the established voting process to choose whether to retain judges or not. And in my opinion to do it in a very good way.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Never said I was. But one doesn't need to be to applaud Iowa residents' use of the established voting process to choose whether to retain judges or not. And in my opinion to do it in a very good way.

You approve of using one decision out of 600 or so (more if you count attorney discipline matters) over a 6-year term as the basis to determine a judge's worth? Really?

I guess my only response to that is, thank god for lifetime appointments for the Federal judges.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Yes I have a vested interest in this as part of the legal system, but it still irks me to no end the arguments I read about this.

"Judicial Activists" - I've met numerous judges of all political persuasions. The only time the really applies is when the judges are angling to keep their job/get a better one, which, I guess now may happen more often in Iowa as judges look over their shoulder. The switches in the SCOTUS's decisions post FDR's court packing plan is probably the most apt scenario, here, capped by the Wickard decision in 1942. Otherise, they do their best to decide what intentionally generic Constitutional clauses really say. If the clauses weren't so open to interpretation, they wouldn't have lasted 200+ years.

"They don't listen to the will of the people" - Well, no ****, sherlock. Go take 10th grade civics again. Judges aren't supposed to be beholden to the people by design; the other 2 branches of gov't are the people's representatives. The judiciary is the check on the legislature and the executive. It's beholden to the law, not the masses.

"Now we can ban same sex marriage again" - no, you can't. It was ruled unconstitutional. It's still unconstitutional regardless of Tuesday's vote. You want to fix it, draft a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that, though.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You approve of using one decision out of 600 or so (more if you count attorney discipline matters) over a 6-year term as the basis to determine a judge's worth? Really?

I guess my only response to that is, thank god for lifetime appointments for the Federal judges.

Well, with one decision that was so bad, it's certainly possible that they have botched other ones, or maybe they just haven't had any controversial ones like this before, so they are just showing their true activist colors. I didn't realize you were the board expert on Iowa judge performance metrics.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Yes I have a vested interest in this as part of the legal system, but it still irks me to no end the arguments I read about this.

"Judicial Activists" - I've met numerous judges of all political persuasions. The only time the really applies is when the judges are angling to keep their job/get a better one, which, I guess now may happen more often in Iowa as judges look over their shoulder. The switches in the SCOTUS's decisions post FDR's court packing plan is probably the most apt scenario, here, capped by the Wickard decision in 1942. Otherise, they do their best to decide what an intentionally generic Constitution really says.

"They don't listen to the will of the people" - Well, no ****, sherlock. Go take 10th grade civics again. Judges aren't supposed to be beholden to the people by design; the other 2 branches of gov't are the people's representatives. The judiciary is the check on the legislature and the executive. It's beholden to the law, not the masses.

"Now we can ban same sex marriage again" - no, you can't. It was ruled unconstitutional. It's still unconstitutional regardless of Tuesday's vote. You want to fix it, draft a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that, though.

This whole, let's pretend that judges don't let their personal views and biases enter into how they rule on cases is just silly and denies basic human nature. You probably think the media you listen to is just telling you the full unvarnished truth also. Sure, some judges are better at minimizing the influence their personal views have on how they rule, but it's not by chance that certain presidents appoint certain judges and other presidents appoint other judges, with judges just happening to usually (except for a Republican appointment here and there) vote the same way on things as the President who appointed them generally sees things. I suggest taking off the rose-colored glasses.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well, with one decision that was so bad, it's certainly possible that they have botched other ones, or maybe they just haven't had any controversial ones like this before, so they are just showing their true activist colors. I didn't realize you were the board expert on Iowa judge performance metrics.

"Activist" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This whole, let's pretend that judges don't let their personal views and biases enter into how they rule on cases is just silly and denies basic human nature. You probably think the media you listen to is just telling you the full unvarnished truth also. Sure, some judges are better at minimizing the influence their personal views have on how they rule, but it's not by chance that certain presidents appoint certain judges and other presidents appoint other judges, with judges just happening to usually (except for a Republican appointment here and there) vote the same way on things as the President who appointed them generally sees things. I suggest taking off the rose-colored glasses.

So, in a 7-0 opinion here, were all 7 being activists? Were the district court judges affirmed also activists? Does it matter to you they're picked by a non-partisan judicial committee, made up of 1/2 lawyers, 1/2 lay people?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Activist" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Oh, I'm sure you have the right definition and I have the wrong definition. That's clear from this thread.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Oh, I'm sure you have the right definition and I have the wrong definition. That's clear from this thread.

And it's clear someone's never seen The Princess Bride.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

And it's clear someone's never seen The Princess Bride.

Wrong. Just don't have the movie memorized, as apparently you do.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Wrong. Just don't have the movie memorized, as apparently you do.

That was a pretty easy quote, as movie quotes go, though.

BTW, screw the movie. Memorize the book. "Life is pain, Princess. Anybody who tells you different is selling something."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

That was a pretty easy quote, as movie quotes go, though.

BTW, screw the movie. Memorize the book. "Life is pain, Princess. Anybody who tells you different is selling something."

I concede that I'm not great on movie quotes. It's a stain on my life I will have to live with.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I concede that I'm not great on movie quotes. It's a stain on my life I will have to live with.

I've seen you nail Gary Cooper movies, though.