Jump to content

U.s. Supreme Court Nomination


Judge Sonia Sotomayor  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Good choice or not?

    • Good
      12
    • Not
      21
  2. 2. Will she get in?

    • Yes
      31
    • No
      2


Recommended Posts

During her 80% overturned decisions career she said this:So at least we will have shorter election ballots what with her desire to allow judges to make policy.But ulitmately what does this say about Obama. He lacked so much experience that his supporteres ( you know who you are ) were stuck having to point to his Harvard legal mind and his great knowledge of the constitution.When deciding who should be on the SC he goes 100% political.Guess his motives trump his intergrity....again
or he felt that after becoming the first black president after 43 white guys that we should mix it up on the supreme court too. She is perfectly qualified (her resume is basically the same as most of the other SC judges, liberal or conservative) and brings MUCH MUCH needed diversity to a court that supposedly speaks for all Americans.This was a great pick and I cant wait to see the GOP shoot themselves in the foot opposing her.It just happens to be a perfect political pick as well. Sometimes, you get a win-win.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

or he felt that after becoming the first black president after 43 white guys that we should mix it up on the supreme court too. She is perfectly qualified (her resume is basically the same as most of the other SC judges, liberal or conservative) and brings MUCH MUCH needed diversity to a court that supposedly speaks for all Americans.This was a great pick and I cant wait to see the GOP shoot themselves in the foot opposing her.It just happens to be a perfect political pick as well. Sometimes, you get a win-win.
Republicans hardly ever squawk about democrat president's SC picks. You must have the confused them with the way democrats act when a conservative judge is placed for nomination. Then the lies, character assasinations, fabrications and sheer irratinoal behavior begins.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the lies, character assasinations, fabrications and sheer irratinoal behavior begins.
when did this ever not apply to something in politicssighgetting more depressed here
Link to post
Share on other sites
During her 80% overturned decisions career she said this:So at least we will have shorter election ballots what with her desire to allow judges to make policy.But ulitmately what does this say about Obama. He lacked so much experience that his supporteres ( you know who you are ) were stuck having to point to his Harvard legal mind and his great knowledge of the constitution.When deciding who should be on the SC he goes 100% political.Guess his motives trump his intergrity....again
In a common law system, this is what happens, it's what makes the supreme court such an important institution. I don't really get how you can criticise her for saying that, maybe it's not the most intelligent thing to say, but it's the truth, judges MAKE law. Maybe you were implying something else or whatever, but stating that judges make law isn't exactly a revolution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In a common law system, this is what happens, it's what makes the supreme court such an important institution. I don't really get how you can criticise her for saying that, maybe it's not the most intelligent thing to say, but it's the truth, judges MAKE law. Maybe you were implying something else or whatever, but stating that judges make law isn't exactly a revolution.
When they rule your way, they are just enforcing the law as it should be.When they rule the other guy's way, they are activist judges making law.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When they rule your way, they are just enforcing the law as it should be.When they rule the other guy's way, they are activist judges making law.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDk2M...DhjOTkwMGQwZmU=A lot of people have been saying, “You can’t be an impartial judge. We are all full of biases. There is no such thing as impartiality in judging. This is just an impossible ideal.” People say the same thing about journalism, too: “Bias is baked in the cake. You can do nothing about it. You gotta be who you are. It’s just human nature.” Baloney. I think that the problem is not ability — the ability to be fair, neutral, objective. I think the problem is volition: Too many people just don’t want to be fair, neutral, and objective. They make no effort.Let me tell you a story — which takes place at an Upper East Side dinner party. This was a few years ago, and I was with some nice New York liberals. The Texas sodomy ruling had just come down from the Supreme Court. And everyone was pleased as punch that the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down.I said I admired Justice Thomas’s dissent. He said, in brief, that, if he were a Texas legislator, he would oppose that law, and vote to rescind it. But he was a justice of the Supreme Court. And his job was to determine whether the Constitution permitted a state to make such a law. He found that it did — so . . . His personal opinion of the Texas law had nothing to do with it.And the people in the room looked at me like I was from outer space. It’s not that they disagreed with me; it’s not that they were hostile to me. They were just stunned by what I had to say. Why, if you’ve got power, you’ve got to use it for good! You’ve got to strike down bad laws! You’ve got to get the desired result! What’s the point of getting the appointment and donning the black robe if you’re not going to strike blows for justice?They could not conceive that an impartial, disinterested reading of the Constitution is justice. Process, in general, is trashed in contemporary America.By the way, I am an opinion journalist (as you know), and have always worked for opinion journals. I have never been employed as a just-the-facts-ma’am reporter. But I have done such reporting — and, you know, it’s not very hard. You just have to want to do it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDk2M...DhjOTkwMGQwZmU=A lot of people have been saying, "You can't be an impartial judge. We are all full of biases. There is no such thing as impartiality in judging. This is just an impossible ideal." People say the same thing about journalism, too: "Bias is baked in the cake. You can do nothing about it. You gotta be who you are. It's just human nature." Baloney. I think that the problem is not ability — the ability to be fair, neutral, objective. I think the problem is volition: Too many people just don't want to be fair, neutral, and objective. They make no effort.Let me tell you a story — which takes place at an Upper East Side dinner party. This was a few years ago, and I was with some nice New York liberals. The Texas sodomy ruling had just come down from the Supreme Court. And everyone was pleased as punch that the Texas anti-sodomy law was struck down.I said I admired Justice Thomas's dissent. He said, in brief, that, if he were a Texas legislator, he would oppose that law, and vote to rescind it. But he was a justice of the Supreme Court. And his job was to determine whether the Constitution permitted a state to make such a law. He found that it did — so . . . His personal opinion of the Texas law had nothing to do with it.And the people in the room looked at me like I was from outer space. It's not that they disagreed with me; it's not that they were hostile to me. They were just stunned by what I had to say. Why, if you've got power, you've got to use it for good! You've got to strike down bad laws! You've got to get the desired result! What's the point of getting the appointment and donning the black robe if you're not going to strike blows for justice?They could not conceive that an impartial, disinterested reading of the Constitution is justice. Process, in general, is trashed in contemporary America.By the way, I am an opinion journalist (as you know), and have always worked for opinion journals. I have never been employed as a just-the-facts-ma'am reporter. But I have done such reporting — and, you know, it's not very hard. You just have to want to do it.
Yes, and this is why Sotomeyer's statements are so dangerous. She doesn't seem to believe in process and rule-of-law, she seems to believe in getting results that are "fair" in light of history. But one thing that history has taught us is that if we ignore rule of law, the results will become increasingly unfair over time. Her infamous firefighter case that is before the Supreme Court is an example of that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I said I admired Justice Thomas’s dissent. He said, in brief, that, if he were a Texas legislator, he would oppose that law, and vote to rescind it. But he was a justice of the Supreme Court. And his job was to determine whether the Constitution permitted a state to make such a law. He found that it did — so . . . His personal opinion of the Texas law had nothing to do with it.And the people in the room looked at me like I was from outer space. It’s not that they disagreed with me; it’s not that they were hostile to me. They were just stunned by what I had to say. Why, if you’ve got power, you’ve got to use it for good! You’ve got to strike down bad laws! You’ve got to get the desired result! What’s the point of getting the appointment and donning the black robe if you’re not going to strike blows for justice?
But this is exactly the point. The question is whether or not the right to privacy extends to such a case or whether the state is correct in making such a law. Of course the dissenter believes that the state IS right in making the law, that's WHY he dissented. Similarly, those who upheld the opinion believed that the state COULDN'T make such a law. Hence, they voted it down.It's incorrect to think that this is a case of activism vs status quo. It's about interpretations of the constitution. And this is exactly why being "impartial" is an impossibility for a supreme court judge. Everything is a judgment call. Everything is an interpretation. If it was a simple yet or no, it would never have made it up to the supreme court. Thomas isn't correct simply because he says that states can make this law, that's just his legal opinion. More people had different legal opinions and believed that they couldn't make such a law. That's why it's no longer a law.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans hardly ever squawk about democrat president's SC picks. You must have the confused them with the way democrats act when a conservative judge is placed for nomination. Then the lies, character assasinations, fabrications and sheer irratinoal behavior begins.
not this time.....http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090602/pl_politico/23212There is going to be a huge rift between the Republicans who know they cant win (politically and otherwise) by opposing her.......and the "base" who wants some action.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But this is exactly the point. The question is whether or not the right to privacy extends to such a case or whether the state is correct in making such a law. Of course the dissenter believes that the state IS right in making the law, that's WHY he dissented. Similarly, those who upheld the opinion believed that the state COULDN'T make such a law. Hence, they voted it down.It's incorrect to think that this is a case of activism vs status quo. It's about interpretations of the constitution. And this is exactly why being "impartial" is an impossibility for a supreme court judge. Everything is a judgment call. Everything is an interpretation. If it was a simple yet or no, it would never have made it up to the supreme court. Thomas isn't correct simply because he says that states can make this law, that's just his legal opinion. More people had different legal opinions and believed that they couldn't make such a law. That's why it's no longer a law.
qft. this is why this is such a nonsense, made-up issue. Judges may not write laws but they decide if laws are good or bad. So, by default, they are a huge part of making law. Also, lol, at all these people who think "interpreting the Constitution" is some cut and dried thing. It ain't. You could write several textbooks on the different ways/approaches that can be used for statutory construction (look it up on wiki for a glimpse) and all legal scholars have their opinion as to which way is best. You are trying to interpret a document that is over 200 years old and contradicts itself sometimes. That is why judges often disagree over how to best interpret it. Judicial Activism is at best a misnomer and at worst something conservatives made up because it sounds good on TV.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But this is exactly the point. The question is whether or not the right to privacy extends to such a case or whether the state is correct in making such a law. Of course the dissenter believes that the state IS right in making the law, that's WHY he dissented. Similarly, those who upheld the opinion believed that the state COULDN'T make such a law. Hence, they voted it down.It's incorrect to think that this is a case of activism vs status quo. It's about interpretations of the constitution. And this is exactly why being "impartial" is an impossibility for a supreme court judge. Everything is a judgment call. Everything is an interpretation. If it was a simple yet or no, it would never have made it up to the supreme court. Thomas isn't correct simply because he says that states can make this law, that's just his legal opinion. More people had different legal opinions and believed that they couldn't make such a law. That's why it's no longer a law.
In many cases, this is true, but there are also many cases where there is a clear answer. For example, the current interpretation of the commerce clause is clearly just a made-up, activist judge version of the law. The current interpretation, which is that "everything is justifiable under the commerce clause" has no historical or theoretical support, it was just invented to get the result the judges wanted.The same can be said for the second amendment. You can read the historical record of the people who wrote the Constitution, and the evidence is overwhelming that it means what it says: the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. The "militia" they were referring to is "people rising up". The judges who say "maybe it's OK because the phrase could be parsed differently" are just plain activist judges who are twisting words to get the result they want.I agree that the case you refer to is a competing interests case -- privacy vs states rights. The framers expected states to be laboratories of democracy, but clearly also expected courts to protect our most basic rights. Nobody knows where the line between these competing interests *should* be. But there are enough cases where the founders were clear and the wording of the constitution is clear that many of the complaints about activist judges are justified.
Link to post
Share on other sites
qft. this is why this is such a nonsense, made-up issue. Judges may not write laws but they decide if laws are good or bad. So, by default, they are a huge part of making law. Also, lol, at all these people who think "interpreting the Constitution" is some cut and dried thing. It ain't. You could write several textbooks on the different ways/approaches that can be used for statutory construction (look it up on wiki for a glimpse) and all legal scholars have their opinion as to which way is best. You are trying to interpret a document that is over 200 years old and contradicts itself sometimes. That is why judges often disagree over how to best interpret it. Judicial Activism is at best a misnomer and at worst something conservatives made up because it sounds good on TV.
You know this is probably the exact rationalization used by judges like Sotomeyer. They simple take where they stand on the issue and try to work their way backward to justify why their view is the right one. And the Constitution? pffft. just a 200 year old document written by dead white men that contradicts it self. Stupid thing!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
You know this is probably the exact rationalization used by judges like Sotomeyer. They simple take where they stand on the issue and try to work their way backward to rationalize why their view is the right one. And the Constitution? pffft. just a 200 year old document written by dead white men that contradicts it self. Stupid thing!!
lol. Is Scalia rationalizing to get to his views? He doesn't just take his conservative viewpoint and figure out a way to interpret the Constitution to justify it? But Sotomayor does because she doesnt think like you right? I am not sure how pointing out that the Constitution is horribly difficult to interpret (and that there are differing opinions on the ways to interpret it) = the constitution is stupid and to be ignored. Thats not what I said. Thats not even close to what I said. Typical conservative drivel....if you agree with me you are interpreting, if you disagree with me you are rationalizing and being an activist (and you even twisted it to try and act like I think the Constitution is a stupid, old document. Classic crazy republican tactic. agree with me or you hate America/the troops/the Constitution. great stuff, sir.) :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
lol. Is Scalia rationalizing to get to his views? He doesn't just take his conservative viewpoint and figure out a way to interpret the Constitution to justify it? But Sotomayor does because she doesnt think like you right?
By definition a conservative would try hardest to interpret according to the original document.
I am not sure how pointing out that the Constitution is horribly difficult to interpret (and that there are differing opinions on the ways to interpret it) = the constitution is stupid and to be ignored. Thats not what I said. Thats not even close to what I said. Typical conservative drivel....if you agree with me you are interpreting, if you disagree with me you are rationalizing and being an activist (and you even twisted it to try and act like I think the Constitution is a stupid, old document. Classic crazy republican tactic. agree with me or you hate America/the troops/the Constitution. great stuff, sir.) :club:
Come ON Cane!!, you basically said it was impossibe, so why bother. I can almost see a law proffessor, not worthy enough to roll Jefferson's tabacco, teaching you this garbage. That being said, I would trust you to try and do the right thing if you were on the high court and I am sure there are many others (liberal like you) out there who would. I don't know that this women is one of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
By definition a conservative would try hardest to interpret according to the original document. Come ON Cane!!, you basically said it was impossibe, so why bother. I can almost see a law proffessor, not worthy enough to roll Jefferson's tabacco, teaching you this garbage. That being said, I would trust you to try and do the right thing if you were on the high court and I am sure there are many others (liberal like you) out there who would. I don't know that this women is one of them.
what is your experience with the law, constitutional or otherwise?
Link to post
Share on other sites
By definition a conservative would try hardest to interpret according to the original document. Come ON Cane!!, you basically said it was impossibe, so why bother. I can almost see a law proffessor, not worthy enough to roll Jefferson's tabacco, teaching you this garbage. That being said, I would trust you to try and do the right thing if you were on the high court and I am sure there are many others (liberal like you) out there who would. I don't know that this women is one of them.
That is not what I said.....I said it is very difficult.....but that doesnt mean I said not to bother. What I pointed out is that this inherent difficulty (plus the fact that the Constitution can evolve through amendments.....a great feature since even ben Franklin could not have foreseen things like the internet) has led to a long list of literature and debate over how to best interpret the Constitution and what kinds of ways we should interpret the Constitution. (search: Statutory Construction on wikipedia for a good overview)Considering this, it is no surprise that many great legal minds from the same schools (the resumes of all 9 justices are remarkably similar with the Ivy League prominently involved) will come to a variety of different conclusions on how to best interpret the Constitution on controversial issues. It should be expected...just as a judge's background will probably influence that as well (which Sotomayor admitted as has Scalia in the past, btw.) I think we need a justice who went to night law school while they worked or a state school instead of another ivy leaguer. That would also be some needed diversity. Sotomayor is more than qualified though and if this is really THE court of the American people then I think Obama is right to appoint the most qualified female minority (assuming one is properly qualified for the SC which Sotomayor clearly is judging by her resume). The Supreme Court, in its history, has been anything BUT representative of the demographics of America.The theory is that conservatives would try harder to stick to the original document but, surprisingly, it is not always the case. It is true of the abortion issue. But not as much as you would think. All justices use the statutory "tools" that we have. Luckily, we have a lot of the writings of the framers of the Constitution which helps with figuring out the "framer's intent" when they wrote the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution is not that long and is just not comprehensive enough to cover all (or even most) subjects directly. So, we have to interpret which is difficult.Edit: I would never get picked to the high court. I am too moderate (and not smart enough and not hardworking enough....but thats beside the point). Presidents pick justices who will vote how they want them too. Every now and then, you get a judge who almost dupes the President (like Souter with Bush I). Or you get a guy like Anthony Kennedy who Reagan appointed.....he seemed conservative but turned out to be the only moderate on the court. Most presidential picks are people like Sotomayor who are not moderate. They are picked for a reason....to please their constituents. Roberts and Alito vote conservative on 99.9% of issues. That figure is really not an exaggeration. I am sure Sotomayor will vote liberal close to that often (though, to be honest, her record shows that she is more of a 80/20 judge and she has never ruled on abortion ever). I dont like it but thats the way it is.....and since there is a solid (and young) 4 person conservative bloc on the SC.....I dont know if Obama had a choice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
what is your experience with the law, constitutional or otherwise?
Just touched on Criminal Law and few other cases during college. No formal education.
That is not what I said.....I said it is very difficult.....but that doesnt mean I said not to bother. What I pointed out is that this inherent difficulty (plus the fact that the Constitution can evolve through amendments.....a great feature since even ben Franklin could not have foreseen things like the internet) has led to a long list of literature and debate over how to best interpret the Constitution and what kinds of ways we should interpret the Constitution. (search: Statutory Construction on wikipedia for a good overview)Considering this, it is no surprise that many great legal minds from the same schools (the resumes of all 9 justices are remarkably similar with the Ivy League prominently involved) will come to a variety of different conclusions on how to best interpret the Constitution on controversial issues. It should be expected...just as a judge's background will probably influence that as well (which Sotomayor admitted as has Scalia in the past, btw.) I think we need a justice who went to night law school while they worked or a state school instead of another ivy leaguer. That would also be some needed diversity. Sotomayor is more than qualified though and if this is really THE court of the American people then I think Obama is right to appoint the most qualified female minority (assuming one is properly qualified for the SC which Sotomayor clearly is judging by her resume). The Supreme Court, in its history, has been anything BUT representative of the demographics of America.The theory is that conservatives would try harder to stick to the original document but, surprisingly, it is not always the case. It is true of the abortion issue. But not as much as you would think. All justices use the statutory "tools" that we have. Luckily, we have a lot of the writings of the framers of the Constitution which helps with figuring out the "framer's intent" when they wrote the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution is not that long and is just not comprehensive enough to cover all (or even most) subjects directly. So, we have to interpret which is difficult.Edit: I would never get picked to the high court. I am too moderate (and not smart enough and not hardworking enough....but thats beside the point). Presidents pick justices who will vote how they want them too. Every now and then, you get a judge who almost dupes the President (like Souter with Bush I). Or you get a guy like Anthony Kennedy who Reagan appointed.....he seemed conservative but turned out to be the only moderate on the court. Most presidential picks are people like Sotomayor who are not moderate. They are picked for a reason....to please their constituents. Roberts and Alito vote conservative on 99.9% of issues. That figure is really not an exaggeration. I am sure Sotomayor will vote liberal close to that often (though, to be honest, her record shows that she is more of a 80/20 judge and she has never ruled on abortion ever). I dont like it but thats the way it is.....and since there is a solid (and young) 4 person conservative bloc on the SC.....I dont know if Obama had a choice.
Question, you have mentioned different ways to interpret the constitution and statutory tools, these are two different things correct? When you talk about statutory tools, you mean case law from past rulings, federalist papers, ect? Wouldn't it be desirable to have someone who interpreted the constitution the same way all the time. I understand that you said there are many, many different ways to interpret. I am asking in your opinion, would you prefer someone who is going to consistently apply his/her reason, interpretation style to every case, or would you prefer someone to use the most convenient interpretation style to get to the ruling they want to get to. I am fairly certain I would prefer the former rather than the ladder. Can you understand what I am asking? I know it is kind of a ramble.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just touched on Criminal Law and few other cases during college. No formal education. Question, you have mentioned different ways to interpret the constitution and statutory tools, these are two different things correct? When you talk about statutory tools, you mean case law from past rulings, federalist papers, ect? Wouldn't it be desirable to have someone who interpreted the constitution the same way all the time. I understand that you said there are many, many different ways to interpret. I am asking in your opinion, would you prefer someone who is going to consistently apply his/her reason, interpretation style to every case, or would you prefer someone to use the most convenient interpretation style to get to the ruling they want to get to. I am fairly certain I would prefer the former rather than the ladder. Can you understand what I am asking? I know it is kind of a ramble.
The problem is there is no "best" way to interpret. Most judges only use one or two styles......like an umpire I like the consistency. I do agree that a judge that switches styles a lot to fit their decision is not a good thing (of the justices on the SC right now I would say Breyer and Thomas do this the most).But I cant know which is the best way. So I prefer consistency.Statutory tools are not just case law. Case law and past rulings and framer's intent (federalist papers, etc) are some statutory tools. There are others and these are methods used to interpret. Some tools are as simple as actually looking at the language of the Constitution (and if a word is vague, some judges will literally quote the dictionary when explaining how and why they interpreted a word of phrase a certain way). Some are as abstract as "interpreting in light of fundamental values" (which begs the question what are fundamental values which many would disagree on of course). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_construction (check out the parts entitled: textual canons, substantive canons and deference canons especially)
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Warning, the following contains inflammatory statements that may enrage the reader*I think it's time you got over your constitution. It's a 200 year old document that does not have some underlying godly significance in all situations. The writers could not have hoped to imagine the world as it is today, yet it's a cornerstone of the political system and will probably continue to be so in the future. It's like the bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is there is no "best" way to interpret. Most judges only use one or two styles......like an umpire I like the consistency. I do agree that a judge that switches styles a lot to fit their decision is not a good thing (of the justices on the SC right now I would say Breyer and Thomas do this the most).
I would argue that Thomas does it the least of any of the judges. He tries to adhere to the strict "original intent" interpretation in every decision. I actually have trouble deciding what theory the other judges use, but it appears to be "a [liberal/conservative] got me the job, so I will make the [liberal/conservative] decision."
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue that Thomas does it the least of any of the judges. He tries to adhere to the strict "original intent" interpretation in every decision. I actually have trouble deciding what theory the other judges use, but it appears to be "a [liberal/conservative] got me the job, so I will make the [liberal/conservative] decision."
It is so impossible to figure out original intent for most of these modern cases that he usually ends up just making it up as he goes and saying he is relying on original intent. So I guess he likes one style.....but it is the style that lets him be all over the place.His opinion in the Ebay case a few years back is a good example.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans hardly ever squawk about democrat president's SC picks. You must have the confused them with the way democrats act when a conservative judge is placed for nomination. Then the lies, character assasinations, fabrications and sheer irratinoal behavior begins.
Not going to be true this time BG. Conservative leaders are pressuring the Republican Senators to filibuster the nomination.
By definition a conservative would try hardest to interpret according to the original document. Come ON Cane!!, you basically said it was impossibe, so why bother. I can almost see a law proffessor, not worthy enough to roll Jefferson's tabacco, teaching you this garbage. That being said, I would trust you to try and do the right thing if you were on the high court and I am sure there are many others (liberal like you) out there who would. I don't know that this women is one of them.
I think this woman might turn out to be quite a surprise for both you and President Obama. She has sided with Souter on just about all the issues he's voted on which makes her more moderate than either one of you might expect. As for interpreting the Constitution, you don't really believe that a person's upbringing doesn't bring to the table some innate bias' do you? A conservative might THINK he/she is interpreting the Constitution according to the original document. But unless you have some kind of insight into the mind of the writers, it's simply impossible to do more than just guess on something that's not spelled out in black and white. Which is the reason for most of the cases that get heard at the Supreme Court level.
Link to post
Share on other sites
His opinion in the Ebay case a few years back is a good example.
I had to look this up, it doesn't appear to be particularly significant. This appears to be one of those cases that is more about precedent than about the constitution. Ideas have built up over time, and the SC said "let's stick with the precedent from those cases."PS: I obviously had to take the quick course on this case, so I could be totally missing the point, but that's what it looks like from the summary I read.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to look this up, it doesn't appear to be particularly significant. This appears to be one of those cases that is more about precedent than about the constitution. Ideas have built up over time, and the SC said "let's stick with the precedent from those cases."PS: I obviously had to take the quick course on this case, so I could be totally missing the point, but that's what it looks like from the summary I read.
You would have to read his whole opinion. There was not a lot of precedent (because the internet is so new) or at least a lot of direct precedent. His thinking is really scattered. His opinion was not the majority opinion (it was either a concurrence or a dissent I believe) so it is not easy to find (I have it in a textbook). I would not waste your time....the Ebay case is pretty boring. He also does odd things all the time like using Brown v. Board of Education to justify a de facto re-segregation of schools in the Pacific Northwest. I am probably just biased....I dont like Thomas and think he has little to add. At least a guy like Alito is a genius. Scalia is pretty bad about being all over the place too (though every now and then he writes and opinion that is stunning in its brilliance). I mean I have trouble with a SC judge who goes on 60 minutes and says "torture is not a punishment" with a straight face to try and defend his opinions on enhanced interrogation. On a fundamental level, I find that kind of hubris and smugness infuriating. Now, I am rambling.For me, good justices= Alito, Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter mediocre justices= Stevens, Scalia (when he is not being evil) bad justices = Thomas, Breyer, Roberts (who is a useless figurehead that always votes one way and clearly wishes he had lived in the 1800s)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...