Front Office Football Central - Let the Obama Supreme Court rumors begin (Sotomayor is selected)......

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - Let the Obama Supreme Court rumors begin (Sotomayor is selected)...... (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=70526)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2034232)

my problem with them is 100% ideological TBH.

:+1:

Additionally, I'm disappointed that both are clearly ideologues. Alito I knew would be this way (like Scalia), but I had hoped Roberts would be more of an even-handed professional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2034232)

my problem with them is 100% ideological TBH.

and I think we all know my politics. I'm also not sure i'm 100% sold on this Sotomayor-lady FWIW though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2035038)

:+1:

Additionally, I'm disappointed that both are clearly ideologues. Alito I knew would be this way (like Scalia), but I had hoped Roberts would be more of an even-handed professional.

What ideology and opinions are you talking about?

But what written opinions or ideologies of theirs do you find so objectionable? (To the point where you actually think they shouldn't have gotten confirmed).

And what type of (realistic) candidate SHOULD Bush have appointed, where you would have been OK with confirmation? Or would you just have opposed any Bush nominee? Which goes back to my original point, would you have a problem with Republicans putting up a fight against Obama's picks, not based on qualifications, but strictly based on who was doing the appointing?

Harriet Miers was obviously a disaster and offensive to everyone, but I don't see the huge problem with Roberts and Alito (other than who appointed them).

Yeeeah... that was very... unspecific ;)

Oh sorry, I don't think they shouldn't have gotten confirmed. Sorry if I gave that impression. Both Alito and Roberts were certainly qualified, and Bush winning two elections gives him the right to nominate justices that fit his worldview. I wish it was otherwise, but that's how things go, and I'm sure a lot of people felt the same about Clinton's nominees.

Ideally, the confirmation process only exists to keep the Harriet Mierss off the bench. There's really no doubt about the actual qualifications of Roberts, Alito, or Sotomayor. Sotomayor wouldn't be my pick, but Obama's the president, it's his call unless he basically abuses that right like Bush did with Miers.

I think that's the intention anyway, and the only thing that makes me back off that at all is the fact that the SCOTUS is far more powerful than was originally intended. As long as the power is used for whatever an individual perceives as "good", it's not a problem, but just imagine 9 supreme court justices you disagree with and the power they could throw around.

Now there's a post with which I can agree, molson.

I was particularly incensed by Alito's dissent (joined by Roberts & Scalia) in Wyeth v. Levine, part of which is, frankly, factually incorrect. Alito states that Wyeth could not have had a stronger warning in their label when, in fact, Wyeth could have specifically warned against the method of administration that was mis-used, causing the injury. In fact, it appears likely that clinical evidence supporting a claim that IV Push is often mis-administered may exist, which greatly, greatly weakens this argument.

Frankly, the dissent read to me like Alito trying to find a reason to protect a corporate entity - a purely ideological stance, not based in a rational view of the case itself.

I could say the same about Alito's dissent on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - it reads like someone trying to find any justification for the trials as originally constructed. It reads like something you'd get from Bush's White House Counsel.

Actually, I don't think Scalia is an ideologue. He will break from the conservatives on certain issues, usually with free speech, but also on some death penalty cases (I really like his opinion in Ring v. Arizona), and he usually writes strong opinions to back up his reasoning. I really like reading his stuff. He's often compared to Thomas because they often vote together, but they're really different. Thomas is a terrible writer and seems to have a set agenda.

I still think it's too early to tell, but I think Alito will be more like Scalia than Thomas. However, I can understand why people didn't want him confirmed, because he was the most notable pro-life justice ever nominated. He even voted to uphold the PA abortion law that required spousal notification.

Most notable pro-life judge? I'd imagine that those who wanted to overturn Roe may fall there (then again, not everyone who thinks Roe was wrongly decided is necessarily pro-life... I'm pro-choice, but I strongly disagree with Roe - I'm not a substantive due process guy)

The problem I have with Scalia (aside from the obvious ideological differences), is that he makes a big deal about originalism but doesn't hesitate to deviate from this when he wants to save something that matters to him personally. Also, his inability to recuse himself from cases where he has a clear conflict of interest is annoying. Lastly, he seems more intent in preserving Executive power and independence than Legislative power and independence, which kind of goes back to my first point.

As for Thomas - he acts as if he was appointed to the court to vote on his own views, regardless of existing case law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2035117)

I meant from a confirmation standpoint. Alito heard the circuit court level of Planned Parenthood vs. PA. It was known how he felt on Roe. He even voted to uphold the spousal notification law, which is as extreme as it gets.

With other nominees, it was strongly suspected, but there were no actual rulings. And sometimes it turned out they weren't (Kennedy, Souter).

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2035093)

First, I agreed with Thomas' comments on that case (which gave loose support to Stevens' majority). Still, I think it is very reasonable to make the dissent Alito wrote. IMO, Stevens' majority was pretty sloppy. He was basically saying that even though Wyeth had a warning for IV Push that matched the FDA's requirement, they should have changed its label without FDA’s pre-approval after receiving information regarding the risk of inproper injection. The problem with that logic is that Wyeth proposed a label change with a stronger warning in that late 80s that was rejected by the FDA (as a result of its own testing).

So, while I think there is some culpability to Wyeth, I think the majority opinion was worse than Alito's dissent. To essentially tell a company that after you met the FDA's requirement, even tried to make a more stringent warning and had it rejected by the FDA, they should have then gone around the FDA to make sure people knew risks not fully validated by the FDA seems pretty weak. Had Stevens made the majority read more like Thomas' opinion, I think the dissent would have been different.

Quote:

I could say the same about Alito's dissent on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - it reads like someone trying to find any justification for the trials as originally constructed. It reads like something you'd get from Bush's White House Counsel.

From what I recall, that was a jurisdiction question. It seems you are starting from a desired result and working back to justify in both these cases - as opposed to looking at the existing precedents and legal definitions independent of whether the decision will be "correct". In the Wyeth example, I think the overall decision should have favored with Levine. However, there were a lot of legal reaches were made by Stevens in that decision and I don't have an issue with a supreme court judge noting those in a dissent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2035145)

As for Thomas - he acts as if he was appointed to the court to vote on his own views, regardless of existing case law.

IIRC he kinda was. It was no secret he was big into "natural law". He was kind of a counterweight to Bork, who adamantly wasn't into natural law (at least on the bench), which helped derail him.

Since JPhillips posted Rod "Crunchy Con" Dreher's comments about Sotomayor's "wise Latina" speech, I thought I'd post this take by Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy.

hxxp://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243483882

Quote:

After some consideration, I have decided that Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice" deserves more extensive analysis than I gave it in a previous post. I still believe that the speech shows that Sotomayor thinks that judges can often legitimately base decisions in part on their racial or ethnic backgrounds. I especially think that that interpretation is by far the most plausible reading of Sotomayor's statement that she hopes that ""a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

However, it would be foolish to overlook the fact that many people, including serious commentators such as University of Texas lawprof Frank Cross and Reason's Kerry Howley believe that the relevant part of the speech is actually innocuous. I can't ignore the possibility that the speech is unclear, or that I just got it wrong. At this point, however, I still think that my initial interpretation was largely correct, and in this post I will try to explain why. For convenience, here is the entirety of the paragraph where the "wise Latina woman" sentence occurs:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

I. Is Sotomayor's Claim Limited to Discrimination Cases?

Some of my critics, including Cross, argue that this passage merely means that a Latina judge will, on average, do better than white males in deciding discrimination cases (perhaps because of her greater personal experience with discrimination). The first sentence of the next paragraph does in fact state that we should "not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society." However, it seems unlikely that Sotomayor's claim really is limited to such cases. After all, she made it in explicit response to Justice O'Connor's far more general statement that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." If Sotomayor meant to say that O'Connor's argument is correct the vast majority of the time with the exception of discrimination cases, it is strange that she gives no hint of that. Moreover, in an earlier part of the speech, Sotomayor denies that the goal of transcending one's race in judicial decisionmaking "is possible in all or even in most cases." That suggests that she believes her argument to have much broader application than merely to discrimination cases.

Even if Sotomayor's claim really is limited to discrimination claims, it is still deeply problematic. It is wrong to assume that a judge belonging to a group that is often victimized by a particular type of injustice will be generally superior in deciding cases that address it. Are white male judges generally superior in hearing reverse discrimination cases such as the one Sotomayor decided in Ricci v. DeStefano? Are judges who own real estate better qualified to hear takings claims? Perhaps judges who own businesses are the ones best qualified to hear claims asserting that an economic regulation is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. A judge belonging to a group victimized by a particular type of injustice might be less likely to reject similar claims that have merit. On the other hand, she might also be excessively prone to accept claims that should be rejected or to ignore important interests on the other side of the case. Which effect dominates the other will probably vary from judge to judge and from case to case. In any event, we will likely be better off if judges assess discrimination cases and other claims as objectively as possible, while seeking to minimize the impact of their own personal racial or ethnic backgrounds.

II. Did Sotomayor Merely intend to Recognize the Impact of Judges' Racial Backgrounds on their Decisions, Without Embracing it?

Other critics, including Howley, argue that Sotomayor merely meant to recognize the commmon sense point that judges' decisions are sometime affected by their racial backgrounds, without claiming that this is a good thing. In one part of the speech, Sotomayor does indeed state the following:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

However, in the very next sentence Sotomayor said that "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society." This suggests that it isn't necessarily a good idea for judges to strive to "transcend . . . personal sympathies and prejudices." In combination with the above-quoted statement about the supposed superiority of Latina judges over white male ones in deciding many cases, it seems that Sotomayor believes that judges not only take account of their racial background in making decisions, but are often justified in doing so. Perhaps Sotomayor also believes that judicial transcendance of personal sympathies and prejudices is a desirable goal; but since in her view it is probably impossible to achieve in a large number of cases, it will often be a "disservice" to pursue it at the expense of denying the special insights that might sometimes be had by relying on those "prejudices" after all. That doesn't mean that Sotomayor believes that a judge's race or gender is a useful resource in all cases or that impartiality is completely worthless. After all, she said that the "wise Latina" judge is likely to do better "more often than not," not that she will have an advantage across the board. However, it's clear that she does believe that race and gender are useful guides to judicial decisionmaking in at least a large number of situations.

In addition, if Sotomayor really did merely mean to say that judges sometimes wrongly take account of their personal background in deciding cases, there would have been no need to dwell on such an obvious point at great length - one that hardly any serious commentator disagrees with. The real question - the one she actually tried to address - is how we should react to this state of affairs. One approach - the one I think best - is to try to appoint judges who will ignore their own racial backgrounds as much as possible and to strive to promote that as a norm for all judges to follow. Sotomayor's approach, by contrast, is to endorse reliance on personal background in at least some cases, and to urge minority judges to offset the "personal sympathies and prejudices" of their white colleagues with their own.

Finally, I think it's telling that hardly any one would defend a similar statement made by a white male judge. As legal columnist Stuart Taylor puts it:

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" — and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences" [as Sotomayor did later in her speech].

I don't think that Sotomayor is a "racist and a sexist," nor do I think she should be "banished from polite society." However, her statement does show that she believes that judges should often base decisions in part on their personal racial and gender backgrounds. If a white male judge had said something similar, few would deny that such (or something much worse) was the import of his words. Sotomayor's speech should be judged by the same standards.

I would have cut Sotomayor more slack if the statements in question had been off the cuff remarks rather than part of a prepared speech delivered as a keynote address at a conference; the speech was also published in a law journal in 2002, at which point Sotomayor could have removed or clarified any part of her remarks that didn't really reflect her considered views. I would also be willing to ignore the speech if she had repudiated it at any time in the past eight years. I will even give her the benefit of the doubt if she repudiates the more problematic parts of the speech now (perhaps at her confirmation hearings). We have all sometimes made mistaken statements that we admit to be wrong in retrospect. But until that happens, I can't avoid the conclusion that the speech reveals a troubling element of Sotomayor's view of judging.

UPDATE: Frank Cross authorized me to post the following from e-mails he sent me clarifying his position:

I didn't mean the statement was innocuous. Just that it was limited to the discrimination context. I think it is objectionable in that context as well. Though not outrageously so, as I suspect it is a common psychological feeling for anyone that they are right and others wrong . . .

I think she was talking about the discrimination context, I think it's wrong to say that a Latina woman would make a "better" decision than a white male in this context, but I think it is right to think that a panel including diversity would make a better decision in this context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2035159)

The problem with that logic is that Wyeth proposed a label change with a stronger warning in that late 80s that was rejected by the FDA (as a result of its own testing).

Footnote 1 in the Vermont Supreme Court ruling juxtaposes the approved text and rejected text. As you can see, even the rejected text doesn't contraindicate any form of intravenous injection generally, and doesn't mention a particular method of IV administration (such as IV push), specifically.

As David Frederick pointed out in a response to Souter, there's evidence (referenced in an amicus brief by Dr. Budhwani) that in the 80s and 90s Wyeth had access to data (or should have had access to data) that more specifically showed the heightened dangers of using IV push as a method of administration.

It's important to note, however, that Wyeth's defense mostly centered around the idea that FDA Approval absolves them of all liabilities regarding their drug (assuming they provided all factual information to the FDA, of course, for a counter-example see Vytorin, Avandia, Vioxx). I read the majority opinion as saying that primary responsibility resides with the manufacturer and thus FDA Approval doesn't absolve them of responsibility, which may be exposed by individual cases at the state level. Given that the FDA clearly doesn't have the manpower to do extensive clinical trials on every drug, and synthesize the data in a variety of ways to uncover these issues, it's the common sense decision that had to be arrived at.

Which brings us back to the incident itself and its relative lack of warning in the label. While the label is clear that administration by IV methods carries risk, and then delineates what the risk entails in the case of extravasation (where the needle leaves the intended artery or vein and injects into a vein or artery or surrounding muscle tissue - essentially where it shouldn't go) it doesn't go to the length of saying that certain IV techniques, such as IV Push, represent an even enhanced risk of extravasation, and shouldn't be used. In fact, the label says that IV methods can be safe if done carefully.

The consensus in the medical community seems to be that the extravasation risks associated with IV Push are so clear, and the adverse effects of the introduction of Phenergan when introduced to arterial blood so horrible, that it's common sense that one wouldn't use IV Push. So one would assume that the technician who did use this technique (and even ignored the fact that Ms. Levine suffered pain during the push) was clearly too ill-trained to notice that subtlety. Given this it seems the common sense solution would be to contraindicate against IV push in the label, so as to avoid this scenario, and, as I said earlier, there appears to be evidence that Wyeth knew, or should have known, that the higher incidence of extravasation with IV push probably merited this kind of contraindication. Since the updated label the FDA rejected didn't go into this, there's no real indication that the FDA would have rejected such a clear contraindication if Wyeth brought it to them.

Quote:

Ironically, that's exactly what I thought Alito did in that decision. His dissent essentially reads as "since the Executive is a properly constituted authority, the legal construction of the trials meets that requirement, therefore they're OK" which is, in my opinion, a narrow legal view that ignored the much more important context of the question at hand itself.

I really hate the term "reverse discrimination."

I killed the thread. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2039903)

I killed the thread. :(

It wasn't a real impressive thread anyway.

Big ruling by the Supreme Court that could have implications on Sotomayor hearings. Reversal of her ruling in the white firefighters reverse discrimination suit. Certainly will bring her previous statements concerning race into play.

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

I'm so confused, but not by the actual case...the article posted reads:

Quote:

Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.

Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.

So 56 firefighters passed the exam, and the numbers they give were 41+22+18. Seems like 81 passed the exam. Also, if the split was 50/25/25 for whites/blacks/hispanics, why was it that 17 whites and 2 hispanics could expect promotion? It would seem that's a little off.

Finally, and maybe Ginsburg alluded to this, but would the city actually have to use those tests? Couldn't they just say they felt the test was only partly for promotion? I'm not sure this will have a major impact on Sotomayor (who I don't really care that much for) considering she and others upheld a prior ruling that 4 current justices upheld as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2060912)

If I read the decision correctly, it states that the 19 defendents were the highest scores on the test. So while there were minorities that passed the test, the best scores were from the white and hispanics group who was suing. I don't think that the best scores got the promotion.

In regards to using the test results as a partial measure, I think that might have been a good choice. It appears that the defense chose to argue that they were concerned that a lack of minorities would result in discrimination litigation. The majority of the court stated that you couldn't deny the firefighters those spots for that reason. They state that you can't use assumed litigation as a means to deny those qualified individuals their spots for promotion.

Full ruling text:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/07-1428.pdf

Why would the ruling impact Sotomayor at all? Souter voted with the dissenters (ie, the group Sotomayor would be with). So basically she'd be with Souter... who she's replacing...

The Republicans already backed away from strong criticism of her comments, and it's certainly doubtful they'll reopen that line of attack because of one 5-4 decision. They do not want to make this about race.

They'll still release more orders this afternoon. One of them is the decision whether to hear Troy Davis' death penalty appeal. They denied an earlier petition, so I'm not expecting them to hear this one, but there's always hope.

Having read the decisions:

The majority opinion goes out of its way to avoid criticizing the 2nd circuit's decision, and isn't even very critical of the lower district court opinion. Instead, Kennedy writes that it is up to SCOTUS to help guide lower courts in situations like this. Ginsburg's dissent also notes that the 2nd circuit ruling was in line with prior 2nd circuit precedent.

However, Alito's concurring opinion is very critical of the 2nd circuit and the district court, and also goes into some pretty weird areas where he blames it on an Al Sharpton-like pastor that has close ties to the mayor. It is notable that Kennedy and Roberts refused to join this opinion.

Hearings begin today. I'm sure there will be plenty of live feeds available.

Hearings start today.

IMHO, should be pretty boring. The extreme elements of both parties will use the opportunity to give some stump speeches about pet issues like race and abortion. She will have been coached well and won't give a straight answer to anything. Otherwise, she will accord herself well. Any senator who needs to stay on the good side of Hispanic voters will pull his/her punches. A few senators who do not will use the opportunity to try and revisit some culture war issues. And she will be confirmed--I'm guessing 70-30. I think that the GOP leadership won't want to have a vote that lets the Dems spin it going forward as "the GOP hates women and Hispanics."

Personally, since I care most about criminal defense issues, I am not that happy with the pick. I think that she will be a bit to the right of Souter on those issues, and I think that she will not join the, for lack of a better word, hypertechnical defendant rights opinions of Scalia et al. With a democratic president and senate, I was, personally, hoping for better. But, whatever. She's qualified, and she will be a fine justice.

I predict many questions about specific cases where her answers would violate judicial ethics. When she refuses to answer, she will be accused of dodging the questions. Whatever, she's clearly qualified, and any Republican has to admit that, so voting against her would be purely ideological.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2071399)

Personally, since I care most about criminal defense issues, I am not that happy with the pick. I think that she will be a bit to the right of Souter on those issues, and I think that she will not join the, for lack of a better word, hypertechnical defendant rights opinions of Scalia et al. With a democratic president and senate, I was, personally, hoping for better. But, whatever. She's qualified, and she will be a fine justice.

I agree with you, but let's remember, no one expected Souter to be so supportive of defendant rights. Sotomayr is certainly to the left of what Souter was expected to be. At the very least, I think she will be willing to work with the liberal justices more, and at worst will be watering down some of their opinions instead of joining the conservatives.

I'm sick of the talking point that someone being a judge is akin to being a sports referee or umpire.

It's just an annoying song and dance. She isn't going to say anything crazy and it's mostly grandstanding for politicians to get their 10 second soundbyte on the cable news networks. Democrats will vote for her and there aren't enough dumb Republicans to fight the first hispanic nominee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2071420)

Like Obama's votes against confirming Alito and Roberts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071474)

Like Obama's votes against confirming Alito and Roberts?

Probably, although on the whole she's probably more towards then center than either Roberts (maybe) or Alito (definitely).

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2071482)

Probably, although on the whole she's probably more towards then center than either Roberts (maybe) or Alito (definitely).

I think that definitely depends on where you define "center". :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071474)

Like Obama's votes against confirming Alito and Roberts?

Don't you think it's a little tough for a black man to vote for a strict constructionist considering our history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071474)

Like Obama's votes against confirming Alito and Roberts?

Yep, because as I said earlier:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POL: Alito Debate

Quote:

Despite being a big pinko liberal, I'm going to have to defend Alito (and other justices). The confirmation process is a joke because a judge is asked so many questions that are completely inappropriate and if he answered them would make him prejudiced towards so many cases that they might hear.

Alito was clearly qualified. So were Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy. Thomas was not. O'Connor was not.

But nice try Cam. You almost had me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2071499)

Don't you think it's a little tough for a black man to vote for a strict constructionist considering our history?

Um, no. It's not like constructionists believe the 14th Amendment is somehow invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071490)

I think that definitely depends on where you define "center". :)

Of course, in a world where Kennedy is considered a centrist (or even leftist) partly because he wrote an opinion saying you can't put gays in jail for having sex in their own home, I would say the definition of the center is pretty screwed up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2071420)

sounds like the same as my disappointment when the last guy wouldnt answer questions. I imagine I will be equally disappointed when she doesnt and people will just tell me this is par for the course. I think it sucks and I hope she answers questions but I doubt she will. I think perhaps everyone on the committee should vote against her everytime she refuses to answer a question. That'd be nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2071512)

Yep, because as I said earlier:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POL: Alito Debate

But nice try Cam. You almost had me!

Oh drat! I was ----><---- this close to actually winning an argument on the internet. And I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for meddling ability to search the archives!

:)

I wasn't trying to "get you". It was an actual question. Nice job at avoiding answering it though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2071420)

So, basically, it's just like any other nomination?

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071541)

How did I avoid answering it? You asked the question and I said "yep", and showed a link from when I said that in the past. You didn't have to search the archives for that, it was in the very post you just responded to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2071553)

Sorry, I missed the "yep" amidst the condescension and smuggery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2071544)

So, basically, it's just like any other nomination?

SI

Exactly.

And I agree with her (and any other justices) decision not to answer questions that could prejudice future cases. Both parties have made a mockery of the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071529)

Um, no. It's not like constructionists believe the 14th Amendment is somehow invalid.

But they didn't believe that blacks had any rights before it.

Serious question. Will any decision the Supreme Court makes in the coming years have any impact on our daily lives?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2071529)

Um, no. It's not like constructionists believe the 14th Amendment is somehow invalid.

Then they're not really constructionists. I mean, do you think the authors of the 14th intended for it to be used for desegregation of schools, for interracial marriage? If not, then a constructionist would have to argue that Brown and Loving should be overturned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2071571)

But they didn't believe that blacks had any rights before it.

Are you trying to tell me that under the Constitution before the 14th Amendment blacks did have rights? I would hope that any judge nominated to the Supreme Court, regardless of their judicial philosophy, would at least have a solid grasp of history... including our flaws.