What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Why can't people be conflicted about certain things? In some things I am way left of center and others I am centrist or slightly to the right. Also a perfectly good 'liberal' idea may hve been corrupted to the point that the programs that initially addressed it are so messed up someone might not support them even if the founding idea was OK. I see someone who has a fluid mind about subjects but is not as expert as Kepler in expressing them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

leswp1 said:
Why can't people be conflicted about certain things? In some things I am way left of center and others I am centrist or slightly to the right. Also a perfectly good 'liberal' idea may hve been corrupted to the point that the programs that initially addressed it are so messed up someone might not support them even if the founding idea was OK. I see someone who has a fluid mind about subjects but is not as expert as Kepler in expressing them.
Click to expand...

Have I got a youtube clip for you. :) (not embedded b/c nsfw language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIA4__0DIXE
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Reading some of he other posts by FF, I do. What exactly do you think he was trying to convey?
Click to expand...

individual liberty, free markets, "we are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights" as you noted, priceless definitions 4 - 9 capture it perfectly. like Kepler if he were skeptical about the limits of government power.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If it harms no one, do it.
Protect the weak from the strong.

Think these would work?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Plante26 said:
I don't doubt that to a certain extent. I also don't doubt that they'd be appalled that the federal government has grown to the size it has, wields as much power as it does and has amassed as much debt as it has.
Click to expand...
True, but they would also be appalled by a lot of Modernity. They'd hate the universal franchise: they would wonder how on earth we can expose the future of the nation to the mere whim and opinion of people who don't own an acre or a barn owl. And before the conservatives get too self-congratulatory, they'd hate capitalism. They felt the nation was a balanced organism that had natural boundaries -- in the same way that government should be delimited, so should business. Even a proto-industrial financier like Hamilton would hate that the only God left in America is the almighty dollar. Finally and most tellingly, consumerism would leave them more disgusted than the most radical modern environmentalist.

If you were born after 1900 the odds are very good that the Founders would not understand most of your values, and those they did understand they would loath.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

FreshFish said:
Interesting, there is a lawsuit pending against Obama's so-called "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate technically was not in recess), and over 40 Senators have joined the suit by filing an amicus brief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/senate-republicans-obama-recess-appointments_n_1432468.html
Click to expand...

Sure. That's a reflection of how screwed up Washington is. They pass a law then the party that's ticked about it passing refuses too allow an appointment to the position that needs to be filled to run the agency, basically neutering the law.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" is the new "troubling"
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

FreshFish said:
Interesting, there is a lawsuit pending against Obama's so-called "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate technically was not in recess), and over 40 Senators have joined the suit by filing an amicus brief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/senate-republicans-obama-recess-appointments_n_1432468.html
Click to expand...

I predict the suit goes no where. I think it was Truman who made recess appointments in the split second the Congress was adjourned. This is less egregious than that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
I predict the suit goes no where. I think it was Truman who made recess appointments in the split second the Congress was adjourned. This is less egregious than that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not....that was secondary, the primary item of interest was that it was not the Senators who filed the suit, they merely filed an amicus brief to the original suit, which was from a private business who was adversely affected by the ruling that only was possible because of the supposedly unconstitutional appointments. Not sure that the Senators themselves would have had "standing" to file any suit on their own. There have been a surprising number of 9 - 0 rulings this year, primarily because of cut-and-dried procedural issues. It is my understanding that technically Congress was not adjourned.....most recess appointments happen when most Reps and Sens are out of town, and these particular appointments were made while most of them were still in DC. We'll see....if you give me odds, I'll probably take the bet....my $5 to your $12.50? and the vote is at least 6 - 3?

It's funny, one side always says it's the obstructionist Senate, while the other side always says it's the stubbornness of the President for not choosing a mutually-acceptable candidate. After all, Roberts and Alito received Democratic votes to confirm, and Sotomayor got Republican votes to confirm as well. Heck, Scalia was confirmed 97-0.

Even something "less egregious" than an unconstitutional appointment may still be unconstitutional in its own merits; one does not generally offer up as a defense, "well, maybe I did assault someone, but at least I didn't kill hiim." or pick a less extreme analogy if you want.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
"Interesting" is the new "troubling"
Click to expand...
"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like." ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like." ;)
Click to expand...

My someone is testy. Did I forget to genuflect properly?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

FreshFish said:
Even something "less egregious" than an unconstitutional appointment may still be unconstitutional in its own merits; one does not generally offer up as a defense, "well, maybe I did assault someone, but at least I didn't kill hiim." or pick a less extreme analogy if you want.
Click to expand...

No, but one often offers up "John Doe did Y and received no penalty. I did Y or something less than Y, so I should also receive no penalty." Call it what you will, stare decisis, legal precedent, common law, judicial restraint - there's all sorts of reasons not to expect anything different than before.

This is especially so when it comes to political questions. SCOTUS rarely if ever gets involved in questions of pure politics, which this surely is. If it didn't strike it down 50 years ago, it isn't going to now, either.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Does that take into account concurring opinions?
Click to expand...

No, because concurrances, like dissents, really don't mean anything when it comes down to it unless it's the rare 4-1-4 split.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like." ;)
Click to expand...

That's an *ahem* interesting take on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top