TomatoPie wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:But to narrow the discussion somewhat. Please tell me:

1) How in your view, supporting the approach to the Constitution yesterday, the Patriot Act can be held Constitutional in light of the 4th Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches without warrant.

2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/. How is this Constitutional? Please read this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews.

On the larger issue, such taxpayer funding comes nowhere close to "establishment of religion," by which our founders clearly meant that the government shall not direct the citizens in choice of worship.

I can't debate you on the logic used by the court to reject the case; I concede it's out of my league. But I do know that the four liberal judges have been willing time and time again to disregard the Constitution in order to further the causes they favor; Judge Roberts, not so.

dajafi wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:The school segregation ruling is a complete disgrace. The Court rests its decision on distinguishing from Grutter v. Bollinger. They claim that Grutter is different because in a University setting there is a specialized need for a diverse student body. Of course, the entire thrust of the Brown decision is that scientifically it is shown that it is most important to expose children to diversity in their formative years. At least Scalia's opinions are legally sound and reasoned.

It's amazing how with it Stevens remains. You could argue that his brief personal dissent was mostly the work of law clerks but I doubt law clerks would have disagreed with C.J. Roberts in such a paternalistic and at times patronizing manner.

Justice Breyer's dissent is actually quite moving. He points out what to me is the most inherent flaw of the Chief's reasoning which is that while the state has to show a compelling interest, remedying past effects of discrimination qualifies. That is of course, the essence of Brown and its progeny. The de facto, de jure distinction, to me, is inapplicable in the race discrimination arena. The question is whether there is state action, not only state legal action.

If I were in the habit of regular prayer, Stevens' good health and abiding with it-ness would be way high up on the list.

4. One of the disturbing things about the court's sharp right turn is how much power it removes from citizens. This week, we learned that: unless there's a court order, school districts shouldn't try to integrate the schools; citizens don't have standing to sue the government; and students need to be seen and not heard. In other words, the impression is that unless you are a corporation, shut [...] up and don't start trouble. But if you are a corporation? Then you can [tamper] with the electoral process and make sure that no one can buy your products at a discount. The Roberts court: Money talks...and that's about it.

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:But I do know that the four liberal judges have been willing time and time again to disregard the Constitution in order to further the causes they favor; Judge Roberts, not so.

This is a "nyah nyah, I know you are but what am I" response, way below the finely argued post kimbatiste made taking the opposite view. You're better than that, TP.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:But I do know that the four liberal judges have been willing time and time again to disregard the Constitution in order to further the causes they favor; Judge Roberts, not so.

This is a "nyah nyah, I know you are but what am I" response, way below the finely argued post kimbatiste made taking the opposite view. You're better than that, TP.

In my post, I conceded that I have not studied the constitutional issues around that decision, and in doing so acknowledge KB's finely argued post. It's not nyah nyah, it's merely my honest reaction that, having seen and evaluated many decisions by the four liberal judges, I am gonna trust Roberts' view over theirs. I don't expect to persuade anybody by that, I'm just telling you where I'm at and how I got there. I'd be a better man to do the research to allow me to make a more fully reasoned rebuttal that is up to KB's post.

phdave wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:But I do know that the four liberal judges have been willing time and time again to disregard the Constitution in order to further the causes they favor; Judge Roberts, not so.

This is a "nyah nyah, I know you are but what am I" response, way below the finely argued post kimbatiste made taking the opposite view. You're better than that, TP.

In my post, I conceded that I have not studied the constitutional issues around that decision, and in doing so acknowledge KB's finely argued post. It's not nyah nyah, it's merely my honest reaction that, having seen and evaluated many decisions by the four liberal judges, I am gonna trust Roberts' view over theirs. I don't expect to persuade anybody by that, I'm just telling you where I'm at and how I got there. I'd be a better man to do the research to allow me to make a more fully reasoned rebuttal that is up to KB's post.

Can you at least give an example of a time that they disregarded the constitution (in your opinion) that helped you come to this generalization?

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA v. DALE on Jun 28, 2000:

Held:
(Rehnquist, joined by O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, & Thomas)
Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. An intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire [is an] unconstitutional burden.

Dissent:
(Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer)
New Jersey “prides itself on judging each individual by his or her merits” and on being “in the vanguard in the fight to eradicate the cancer of unlawful discrimination of all types from our society.” Since 1945, it has had a law against discrimination. The law broadly protects the opportunity of all persons to obtain the advantages and privileges “of any place of public accommodation.”

dajafi wrote:Roberts is a really contemptible jurist. Again and again, he's spoken about seeking consensus and respecting precedent, in the tradition of John Marshall. I forget who said it, but the quote was something like "He can be a great Chief Justice, or he can be a right-wing hack. He can't do both."

Seems like Roberts has made his choice, and I suspect one result--beyond the damage he's doing to our laws and our society--will be that the confirmation process is going to get even more debased. Any Democrat who believes the sort of lies Roberts spouted at his hearings will face an enraged activist base, and understandably so.

A Cautious Right Turn
The Supremes were most united on business cases.

Saturday, June 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

A Supreme Court Justice once told us never to underestimate the difference even a single new Justice can have on the nine-member body. We certainly learned that lesson this year, the Court's first full term with Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Court has moved notably back to the center, but its alleged new "conservatism" is more in temperament than politics.

You wouldn't know this from the horror masks brandished on the political left, which is reacting as if the Court had laid waste to a generation of precedents. .... Such hyperbole is best understood as Democratic base mobilization for the 2008 election.

The truth is that the High Court went out of its way not to overturn precedents. This is in part due to the jump-ball jurisprudence of Anthony Kennedy, who found himself on the winning side of all 24 5-4 decisions this term. ....

But incrementalism was also the way of Chief Justice John Roberts, sometimes even when Justice Kennedy would have gone further. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Chief's majority 5-4 opinion shied away from overturning the Court's 2003 ruling on the Constitutionality of campaign finance reform laws in McConnell v. FEC. That 2003 majority was hardly some "super-duper precedent" of long standing, yet the Chief Justice courted the scorn of Antonin Scalia, whose concurrence would have declared the entire Rube Goldberg structure of the McCain-Feingold statute to be an unconstitutional abridgement of political speech.

The Chief Justice's caution, we should add, is markedly different from the liberal majority's penchant for overturning precedents when it had the votes in recent years. Recall Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and created a potential legal framework for gay marriage, and Roper v. Simmons, which in 2005 outlawed the juvenile death penalty and overturned 20 state laws.

.....

The good news is that the Court did set clearer rules this year on several notable business cases, which united Justices on both the right and left in solid majorities reining in class-action lawsuits, employment law and patents.

In Credit Suisse First Boston v. Billing earlier this month, a seven-Justice majority dismissed an antitrust claim against investment banks from the days of the hi-tech bubble that would have been a tort lawyer's dream. And in the antitrust case of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, seven Justices dismissed the idea that the mere suggestion of a conspiracy was enough to bring charges of anti-consumer collusion. The press is calling these "pro-business" rulings, but it's more accurate to say they were about restoring business confidence in the rule of law and setting limits on the tort bar and activist judges.

President Bush has had a rough second term, but on their record so far he made the right choices in picking Justices Roberts and Alito. Liberal interest groups and their media echoes may shout about a "radical" Court and "resegregation." But the new Justices ruled very much as they advertised in their confirmation hearings, with Chief Justice Roberts relatively more inclined to uphold precedent than Justice Alito.

....

dajafi wrote:I don't read "OpinionJournal" pieces, as I can get the same sense from the guy dressed in much less expensive clothes pushing the cart with the "End is Nigh" cardboard sign... Roberts is a well-mannered extremist, so I'm not surprised that the well-mannered extremists whose preference would be to use the poor for organ harvesting support his extremism.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:I don't read "OpinionJournal" pieces, as I can get the same sense from the guy dressed in much less expensive clothes pushing the cart with the "End is Nigh" cardboard sign... Roberts is a well-mannered extremist, so I'm not surprised that the well-mannered extremists whose preference would be to use the poor for organ harvesting support his extremism.

You should read some stuff that gives you a more balanced POV. I know you as a bright and thoughtful guy, but on this topic you sound like you are reading from the DNC playbook. Break away from the NYT and the WaPo once in a while. It is extremist to think of Roberts as an extremist.

Your primary complaint seems to be that Roberts promised to honor precedent, but hasn't. But perhaps he takes a longer view than you are at the moment. Maybe for Roberts, precedent extends back further than the relatively recent time period of liberal activist courts ignoring prior precedent. Did you think he was pledging to honor the opinions of David Souter? And if judges were to rule in ways that only reinforce prior rulings, what is the point of having judges and new cases?

TomatoPie wrote: Break away from the NYT and the WaPo once in a while. It is extremist to think of Roberts as an extremist.

kimbatiste wrote:
On another note, it would be nice if you could refrain from continuous use phrases like liberal activist courts. Just say that you do not agree with specific decisions that others have made with specific reasons for why you believe their interpretation of the law or the Constitution is incorrect. We are all interested in honest conversation with intelligent people. If I wanted dismissive catchphrases to substitute for real debate of legitimate Constitutional differences, I would just get my legal analysis from Sean Hannity.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote: Break away from the NYT and the WaPo once in a while. It is extremist to think of Roberts as an extremist.

it's extremist - I prefer 'fringeist' - to imagine that the soon-to-be-fellating Rupert-Murdoch WSJ Opinion Journal staff's output is worth the paper you wipe your bum with.

You quote at length - I prefer ad nauseum - from that piffle, piffle you obviously spoon down eagerly, with both paws, then pompously suggest that someone else broaden their intellectual horizons.

Look. In. The. Mirror. Dooder.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote: Break away from the NYT and the WaPo once in a while. It is extremist to think of Roberts as an extremist.

it's extremist - I prefer 'fringeist' - to imagine that the soon-to-be-fellating Rupert-Murdoch WSJ Opinion Journal staff's output is worth the paper you wipe your bum with.

You quote at length - I prefer ad nauseum - from that piffle, piffle you obviously spoon down eagerly, with both paws, then pompously suggest that someone else broaden their intellectual horizons.

Look. In. The. Mirror. Dooder.

I understand that your appreciation of the WSJ differs from mine. You should know, though, that I get views from the left, too, because I read the Inky and the NYT.

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote: Break away from the NYT and the WaPo once in a while. It is extremist to think of Roberts as an extremist.

it's extremist - I prefer 'fringeist' - to imagine that the soon-to-be-fellating Rupert-Murdoch WSJ Opinion Journal staff's output is worth the paper you wipe your bum with.

You quote at length - I prefer ad nauseum - from that piffle, piffle you obviously spoon down eagerly, with both paws, then pompously suggest that someone else broaden their intellectual horizons.

Look. In. The. Mirror. Dooder.

I understand that your appreciation of the WSJ differs from mine. You should know, though, that I get views from the left, too, because I read the Inky and the NYT.

See, here's the problem. Those outlets--believe it or not (and I think you're ignoring the relentless drumbeat against Clinton and the endless defense of Judy Miller if you do believe it)--aren't explicitly ideological. They don't put a thumb on the scale; they don't coordinate with one side.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations -- the forerunner to today's United Nations -- to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism's march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament "like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day."

As was true of Bush and the Republicans before the 2006 midterm elections, Chamberlain and his Tories had a large majority in the Commons, and, as Macmillan noted, the prime minister tended to treat Parliament like a lapdog legislature, existing only to do his bidding. "I secretly feel he hates the House of Commons," wrote one of Chamberlain's most fervent parliamentary supporters. "Certainly he has a deep contempt for Parliamentary interference."

Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s...
...
Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.