05-28-2009, 10:29 AM | #101 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
05-28-2009, 10:32 AM | #102 | ||
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Quote:
What ideology and opinions are you talking about? |
||
05-28-2009, 10:39 AM | #103 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Roberts & Alito.
|
05-28-2009, 10:42 AM | #104 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
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). Last edited by molson : 05-28-2009 at 10:50 AM. |
05-28-2009, 10:45 AM | #105 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Yeeeah... that was very... unspecific
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
05-28-2009, 10:48 AM | #106 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
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.
|
05-28-2009, 10:53 AM | #107 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
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. Last edited by molson : 05-28-2009 at 10:56 AM. |
05-28-2009, 11:08 AM | #108 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Now there's a post with which I can agree, molson.
|
05-28-2009, 11:18 AM | #109 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
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. |
05-28-2009, 11:27 AM | #110 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner Last edited by larrymcg421 : 05-28-2009 at 11:42 AM. |
05-28-2009, 11:30 AM | #111 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
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)
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
05-28-2009, 11:50 AM | #112 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
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. |
05-28-2009, 12:04 PM | #113 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
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).
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
05-28-2009, 12:04 PM | #114 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
05-28-2009, 01:08 PM | #115 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
05-28-2009, 01:30 PM | #116 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
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:
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
05-28-2009, 02:03 PM | #117 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
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. |
||
05-28-2009, 05:00 PM | #118 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
I really hate the term "reverse discrimination."
|
06-02-2009, 09:26 AM | #119 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
I killed the thread.
|
06-02-2009, 11:22 AM | #120 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
It wasn't a real impressive thread anyway. |
06-29-2009, 09:51 AM | #121 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
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 |
06-29-2009, 10:04 AM | #122 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Dirty
|
I'm so confused, but not by the actual case...the article posted reads:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Commish of the United Baseball League (OOTP 6.5) |
|
06-29-2009, 10:27 AM | #123 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by Mizzou B-ball fan : 06-29-2009 at 10:28 AM. |
|
06-29-2009, 10:35 AM | #124 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
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...
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
06-29-2009, 10:50 AM | #125 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-29-2009, 11:04 AM | #126 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-29-2009, 12:47 PM | #127 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
07-13-2009, 07:21 AM | #128 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Hearings begin today. I'm sure there will be plenty of live feeds available.
|
07-13-2009, 08:38 AM | #129 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
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. Last edited by albionmoonlight : 07-13-2009 at 08:39 AM. |
07-13-2009, 09:14 AM | #130 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
07-13-2009, 09:21 AM | #131 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
07-13-2009, 09:28 AM | #132 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
I'm sick of the talking point that someone being a judge is akin to being a sports referee or umpire.
__________________
FBCB / FPB3 Mods |
07-13-2009, 10:20 AM | #133 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
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.
|
07-13-2009, 10:21 AM | #134 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Like Obama's votes against confirming Alito and Roberts?
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
07-13-2009, 10:26 AM | #135 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
07-13-2009, 10:31 AM | #136 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
I think that definitely depends on where you define "center".
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
07-13-2009, 10:34 AM | #137 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
|
07-13-2009, 10:41 AM | #138 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Yep, because as I said earlier: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POL: Alito Debate Quote:
But nice try Cam. You almost had me!
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
07-13-2009, 10:46 AM | #139 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Um, no. It's not like constructionists believe the 14th Amendment is somehow invalid.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
07-13-2009, 10:47 AM | #140 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner Last edited by larrymcg421 : 07-13-2009 at 10:48 AM. |
|
07-13-2009, 10:53 AM | #141 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
07-13-2009, 10:54 AM | #142 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
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!
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
07-13-2009, 10:55 AM | #143 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
So, basically, it's just like any other nomination? SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
07-13-2009, 10:58 AM | #144 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
07-13-2009, 11:04 AM | #145 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Sorry, I missed the "yep" amidst the condescension and smuggery.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
07-13-2009, 11:05 AM | #146 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
07-13-2009, 11:08 AM | #147 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
|
07-13-2009, 11:09 AM | #148 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Serious question. Will any decision the Supreme Court makes in the coming years have any impact on our daily lives?
|
07-13-2009, 11:10 AM | #149 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
07-13-2009, 11:22 AM | #150 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
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.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|