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!"

Kepler said:
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."
Click to expand...

That quote is in the movie, FWIW. (I think he says "Highness" instead of "Princess", but that's insignificant.)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So the out-of-state interest groups keep the heat on in Iowa, filing a Federal Suit saying the merit-based selection process violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and asking for a restraining order to slow the process of filling the 3 empty seats on the state Supreme Court.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101210/NEWS/12100348/Lawsuit-filed-over-justice-selection

The 4 Plaintiffs are nominally local, but the chief attorneys are from Terra Haute, Ind. They are the chief counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech (I've got no clue how this has anything to do with Free Speech).

The attorneys previously filed identical lawsuits in Alaska (shot down on motion to dismiss, and hammered by the 9th Circuit on appeal) and Kansas (again shot down on a motion to dismiss after the judge basically adopted the 9th Circuit's ruling).

Talk about forum shopping. They've lost in the 9th Circuit and are well on the path to losing in the 10th Circuit(Kansas) too, so now they're trying again in the 8th Circuit (Iowa).

It's also ironic that they'd rather use the Courts than amend the state constitutions. Surely they wouldn't be trying to find a proverbial "activist judge," would they?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I've been told no such judges exist. Maybe one of those urban myths.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
I've been told no such judges exist. Maybe one of those urban myths.
Click to expand...

Their existence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the inherent irony of a conservatively-backed group forum shopping in the hopes of finding one. Especially given the subject matter of the case at hand.

Edit: I shouldn't say conservatively-backed - I should say GOP-backed. These days there's a huge difference.

Comeon, Bob, even you have to laugh at the mental image of shysters from middle-of-nowhere Indiana crossing the country jousting at windmills.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Their existence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the inherent irony of a conservatively-backed group forum shopping in the hopes of finding one. Especially given the subject matter of the case at hand.

Edit: I shouldn't say conservatively-backed - I should say GOP-backed. These days there's a huge difference.

Comeon, Bob, even you have to laugh at the mental image of shysters from middle-of-nowhere Indiana crossing the country jousting at windmills.
Click to expand...
Your observation is yours, my observation is mine. No need to get in a snit.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This WSJ editorial describes the makeup of the panel like this:
According to the Des Moines Register, Iowa's nominating commission includes 12 Democrats, one Republican and one member whose affiliation is unknown.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem representative for a state like Iowa.

I know this case is about something a little different, the discussion reminded me of it though.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
This WSJ editorial describes the makeup of the panel like this:

That doesn't seem representative for a state like Iowa.
Click to expand...

It's made up of 7 members of the bar, 7 lay persons, and the senior-most member of the State Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice. All are appointed on a non-partisan basis.

The judicial commissions of 14 other states have the exact same makeup (1/2 lawyers, 1/2 laymen, + 1 judge).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
It's made up of 7 members of the bar, 7 lay persons, and the senior-most member of the State Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice. All are appointed on a non-partisan basis.

The judicial commissions of 14 other states have the exact same makeup (1/2 lawyers, 1/2 laymen, + 1 judge).
Click to expand...

So... When they say there's 12 Democrats, where do they get those numbers from?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
So... When they say there's 12 Democrats, where do they get those numbers from?
Click to expand...

Things that are labeled non-partisan aren't always non-partisan. Don't know the specifics on this one, but sounds fishy from those numbers.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
So... When they say there's 12 Democrats, where do they get those numbers from?
Click to expand...

Probably voter registration records.

Bob Gray said:
Things that are labeled non-partisan aren't always non-partisan. Don't know the specifics on this one, but sounds fishy from those numbers.
Click to expand...

Fishy? Are you saying there aren't 7 lawyers, 7 lay people, and a judge on there? Are you saying there's been shenanigans? Or is it just the numbers are skewed, so there must be something wrong?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Probably voter registration records.

Fishy? Are you saying there aren't 7 lawyers, 7 lay people, and a judge on there? Are you saying there's been shenanigans? Or is it just the numbers are skewed, so there must be something wrong?
Click to expand...
Don't be purposely obtuse. Saying something sounds fishy means that, no, there could be something wrong, but no, it isn't that there must be something wrong. I guess you don't know what the word fishy means. And no, I don't suppose you would find it strange that one political party has 12 of 14 members, while the other party only has one, in a state where neither dominates (even though statistically, it's not very likely). And it happens to be a state that has a big controversy about a certain ruling. Maybe a coincidence, but some of us have enquiring minds that see possible connections between things.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Probably voter registration records.
Click to expand...

Right. So again, how is a panel with 12 Democrats on it representative of Iowa?

And like I've said before, I'm not really taking issue with your original point about forum shopping and all that. I'm saying that these people might just have a legitimate gripe-if not a legal one.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

And the hits just keep on coming; this one from the left.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...WS05/Suit-Judicial-retention-vote-was-illegal

They want the retention vote nullified and consequently keep the judges in place, because the Constitution requires a "separate ballot" for judicial retention elections.,

This one's going to go about as far as the federal suit, in my opinion. Guess we'll see on Monday, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
They want the retention vote nullified and consequently keep the judges in place, because the Constitution requires a "separate ballot" for judicial retention elections.,

This one's going to go about as far as the federal suit, in my opinion. Guess we'll see on Monday, though.
Click to expand...

I don't know what sort of precedent there is on this one, nor if "separate ballot" has a legal definition somewhat distinct from the plain reading of the term, but a layman's view suggests that it has legs. I wouldn't characterize it as separate if it was rolled into the general election.

That having been said, it's not like it was a partisan election where a straight-ticket vote would catch the judges as collateral. I may not particularly care for how the Iowa electorate voted, but I think it's impossible to argue that it wasn't the intent of the voters to kick out the judges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top