SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WANTED (Only Liberals Need Apply)

Pocono Joe

Liberal activism is alive and well, and at work again. President Obama made the following statement, when he announced Justice Souter’s retirement, in regards to his choice for replacement:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.

I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

Once again, the Left is trying to have supreme court justices do what the Legislature can’t or won’t do through votes.

Obama is supposed to be seeking someone who will uphold the rule of law by deciding cases impartially, based only on the law and the facts before him. A Constitutionalist... Nothing else!

I think Carol Platt Liebau, a former constitutional law professor, said it best in an editorial when she stated: "There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be blind to the race, gender, finances, politics – and every other "empathy"-eliciting – characteristic of those who seek it in good faith. Apparently, it’s too much to hope that figuratively, at least, President Obama’s justice will be, too."

Oh yeah... one example of Justice Souter's "empathy" and adherence to our Constitution: Eminent Domain.

murfie

Funny, the the majority of judges that backed Eminent Domain, Kelo v. City of New London case were Republican appointed judges. Notably Scalia who is known for being conservative.

Every president picks a judge who's view match closely to their own its nothing new, Bush did it, so will Obama.

Pocono Joe

Fuzzy History? On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.

murfie

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Fuzzy History? On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.

I stand corrected, this is a case of read before you type!

It still stands that every president will pick the judge that matches their political view, Obama wont be any different. I agree with you that it should be constitutionally based with no political interferences but that's not the way it works

Pocono Joe

murfie wrote: »

I stand corrected, this is a case of read before you type!

Been there... Done that.

(no yeahbuts allowed )

DrumSteve

pocono joe... every time i read a post from you i get the feeling your that bloke from george hooks programme... mikey graham(i think thats his name) :-P

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Liberal activism is alive and well, and at work again.

So what famous "liberal" Judge did the Bush regime consider appointing?

Isn't it a fact that the sitting US President picks the one that suits him the best?

Overheal

too much soapboxing for my taste but if we really stuck to the letter of the law we only have the right to Bear Arms



I mean it would be deadly to snap a bison's neck but those must get fierce sweaty in august.

Talk about the cold hard facts, but then when it comes to the 2nd ammendment theyre just like "YOU KNOW WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT."

Double Standards. Ahaha.

I could think of a dozen other fantastic examples where the right has completely ignored the letter of the law, but I get a feeling Blue Lagoon is already on the case

edit: And if we have the right to bear arms doesnt that leave the door wide open for gene manipulation? Hell yes.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

So what famous "liberal" Judge did the Bush regime consider appointing?

SOUTER... gotcha!

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

SOUTER... gotcha!

Could be worse

sceptre

Pocono Joe wrote: »

SOUTER... gotcha!

Was there anyone on the planet who expected Souter to be liberal before he was appointed then?

Pocono Joe

sceptre wrote: »

Was there anyone on the planet who expected Souter to be liberal before he was appointed then?

Ahhhhh... On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. :rolleyes:

Pocono Joe

DrumSteve wrote: »

pocono joe... every time i read a post from you i get the feeling your that bloke from george hooks programme... mikey graham(i think thats his name) :-P

This Mikey Graham guy sounds like a handsome, intelligent, well-versed, witty, humble, kind and understanding individual. Might be a touch delusional though.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

SOUTER... gotcha!

...was reading only yesterday how he turned out to be 'a bit different' than what they thought he would be.....

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

...was reading only yesterday how he turned out to be 'a bit different' than what they thought he would be.....

Yeah... The "gotcha" comment works on so many levels.

jank

Justice is supposed to be blind isnt it?
So the GOP appoint a conservative judge that doesnt quite work out the way they hoped. LOL! Remember you saying that justice is supposed to be blind......maybe he was doing just that and not bowing to the cat calls of the right?

Or is it justice is blind so long its MY type of justice.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v47/ai_17374429/

Pocono Joe

jank wrote: »

Justice is supposed to be blind isnt it?
So the GOP appoint a conservative judge that doesnt quite work out the way they hoped. LOL! Remember you saying that justice is supposed to be blind......maybe he was doing just that and not bowing to the cat calls of the right?

Or is it justice is blind so long its MY type of justice.

jank... man you’ve been extra angry as of late.

What do I believe? I believe only Constitutionalist judges, not Ideologues (Liberals and Conservatives), should be nominated to the US Supreme Court. Consitutionalist judges honor the Framers' concept of federalism and resist the temptation to impose federal policy on the states in derogation of states' rights on other issues.

Thus, the Judicial branch of our government is not and should not be a policy-making branch (as the Democrats believe), but rather as a law-interpreting institution. Judicial picks should be those who will honor the Constitution, not compensate for either of a party’s failure to control the other two branches - the Executive and Legislature.

And I know most (if not all here, except maybe for sceptre) would not agree with me, but Thomas, Scalia and Roberts fit the mold of Constitutionalist Judges.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role"

(Obama quote).

Wasn't this the Republican conservative position years ago, before such things as the Bush-Cheney illegal wiretapping of millions of innocent US American phone and email communications, or holding people for years without due process, or torturing them without regard to international laws like the Geneva Convention (which the USA used to respect under more conservative leadership)?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role" (Obama quote).

Apparently... Words, Just Words.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Apparently... Words, Just Words.

Geeee, I thought EXECUTIVE ORDERS were actions, not just words? Actions not just words which for some reason the Republicans (and the sympathesizers of the Party of No) continue to ignore while they remain in their STATE OF DENIAL for having LOST the presidency, LOST the US Senate, LOST the US House, and now cannot stack the US Supreme Court (the subject of this OP). Is Obama today illegally wiretapping millions of innocent US American phone and email communications like Bush-Cheney, or is he now torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention which the USA used to respect, or is he renditioning people (fancy word for kidnapping) and holding persons for years without due process? Or is he attempting to reverse these illegal and immoral policies with EXECUTIVE ORDERS followed by action, huh?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Geeee, I thought EXECUTIVE ORDERS were actions, not just words?

It’s not an executive order. Look at his later statements regarding his preference for the Supreme Court… they pretty much contradict that statement of his you referenced.

Actions not just words which for some reason the Republicans (and the sympathesizers of the Party of No) continue to ignore while they remain in their STATE OF DENIAL for having LOST the presidency, LOST the US Senate, LOST the US House, and now cannot stack the US Supreme Court (the subject of this OP).

Your opinion is just that... your opinion.

Is Obama today illegally wiretapping millions of innocent US American phone and email communications like Bush-Cheney

Yes. Review Jewel v. NSA

or is he now torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention which the USA used to respect, or is he renditioning people (fancy word for kidnapping) and holding persons for years without due process?

The U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No

Or is he attempting to reverse these illegal and immoral policies with EXECUTIVE ORDERS followed by action, huh?

An opinion thinly displayed as a question. (Yawn)

Black Swan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

LOST the presidency, LOST the US Senate, LOST the US House, and now cannot stack the US Supreme Court (the subject of this OP).

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Your opinion is just that... your opinion.

Opinion? It's not my opinion but a fact that the Republicans LOST the presidency, LOST control the US Senate, and LOST control the US House?

LostinKildare

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No

Please stop bleating this nonsense.

Those actions have been regarded as torture historically both internationally and by our own government. And it is just absurd to suggest that they weren't torture when that advice was given, as if legal advice has any bearing on the legality/illegality of an act.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Thus, the Judicial branch of our government is not and should not be a policy-making branch (as the Democrats believe), but rather as a law-interpreting institution. Judicial picks should be those who will honor the Constitution, not compensate for either of a party’s failure to control the other two branches - the Executive and Legislature.

But the Republican party pick judges to do just that. Its part of US political life. Are you taking the piss?

Overheal

I think at this point the Judiciary has spoken, History has spoken, and the International Community and our International Agreements have spoken.

Can we please get a Forum Charter-Lock on considering Torture as anything less than?

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No

What would you expect the Bush-Cheney run US Dept of Justice to say?:rolleyes:

The Republicans of the past used to honour the nation's international agreements? The USA not only signed the Geneva Convention, but also prosecuted and sentenced Nazis immediately following WWII citing it in the Nuremberg Trials as grounds for conviction?

Geneva Convention, Article 17... "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Waterboarding qualifies as both "physical" and "mental torture," as well as a "form of coercion" that was "inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind?" Certainly you would agree that it's "unpleasant" treatment?

Who qualifies as "prisoners of war?"
Geneva Convention, Article 4:

"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements..."

It strongly appears that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were qualified as "prisoners of war" by the above Geneva Convention definition?

The United States of American signed the Geneva Convention and has used it to prosecute offenders since its enactment into international law. Under Bush-Cheney the USA was in violation of the Geneva Convention as pertains to torture. When Obama took office, he has taken actions to bring the USA into compliance with those laws against torture.

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

Can we please get a Forum Charter-Lock on considering Torture as anything less than?

LostinKildare wrote: »

Please stop bleating this nonsense.

No! As far more knowledgeable individuals than us continue the debate on this complex issue, why do you feel a need to shut it down here? Or do you think we need to subscribe to the culture of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050502884.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/06/sorry_history_is_just_not_that_simple_96356.html

LostinKildare

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No! As far more knowledgeable individuals than us continue the debate on this complex issue, why do you feel a need to shut it down here? Or do you think we need to subscribe to the culture of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith?

I didn't call for shutting down debate. Will you actually engage in debate? You parrot conservative talking points but seem to be unwilling to defend them.

I said that this statement of yours is nonsense:

The U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No

I wrote:

Those actions have been regarded as torture historically both internationally and by our own government. And it is just absurd to suggest that they weren't torture when that advice was given, as if legal advice has any bearing on the legality/illegality of an act.

The two links you provided are stories about whether/how prosecutions might proceed; they do not address the specific claims you made:

(1) that the advice was "based upon the best legal reasoning"; and

(2) that the acts weren't torture "when that advice was given"

If you really believe what you said, then defend it.

Pocono Joe

LostinKildare wrote: »

I didn't call for shutting down debate. Will you actually engage in debate? You parrot conservative talking points but seem to be unwilling to defend them.

I said that this statement of yours is nonsense:

Claiming "nonsence" does not serve itself useful for debate. And it was actually a recent statement by justice lawyers (I believe) that I read. I have already taken part in the discussion of enhanced interrogation measures, so don’t assume. As I have stated, the discussion on what constitutes torture has already been done here, and I find no reason to go through it again in other threads (it pretty much just becomes a pissing match). Nobody’s opinion changed from the debate that took place (including mine). Look back through this section and you will find the thread. You are welcome to dig up that old thread, read mine and other's comments, and add to it if you so wish.

I believe Rush Limbaugh is interviewing Andrew McCarthy today about waterboarding and other methods. I don't get to listen to him, but hopefully there will be a transcript of the exchange tomorrow. You may also want to give it a read.

LostinKildare

Ah, so you will not defend it. I don't recall that you did in Torture Memos either. That's grand, I won't expect real debate then.

Pocono Joe

Lost... my bad! I did not realize that the topic I mentioned had been dropped from the US Politics forum. Here it is if you wish to review and add to it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055467562&highlight=torture

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Claiming "nonsence" does not serve itself useful for debate. And it was actually a recent statement by justice lawyers (I believe) that I read. I have already taken part in the discussion of enhanced interrogation measures, so don’t assume. As I have stated, the discussion on what constitutes torture has already been done here, and I find no reason to go through it again in other threads (it pretty much just becomes a pissing match). Nobody’s opinion changed from the debate that took place (including mine). Look back through this section and you will find the thread. You are welcome to dig up that old thread, read mine and other's comments, and add to it if you so wish.

Yeah, we went through the debate, and I had thought we all had come under the conclusion it was illegal, until you dragged it out from an unholy grave again.

I've used the Truman angle myself only insofar to say that these people will never get prosecuted. Fine. Alberto Gonzalez can live on a thousand acre ranch in montana for all I care. But you're going after the situation still saying we shouldnt reverse those judgement calls now, to close gitmo.

I'm not about the witch hunt; the policy change would be fine for me.

I believe Rush Limbaugh is interviewing Andrew McCarthy today about waterboarding and other methods. I don't get to listen to him, but hopefully there will be a transcript of the exchange tomorrow. You may also want to give it a read.

I turned him off this morning as soon as he got into yet another spiel about how the White House is picking on him because he is god's gift to - well I don't know to what, because I turned it off.

"They are attacking me (you can hear the rage-filled tears in his eyes) Because I am THE ONLY ONE THAT RABLABUSHUBURU <insert Huttian dialect here>"

LostinKildare

Okay, I read through that old thread. Of course there is nothing there that speaks to your claim

LostinKildare wrote: »

(1) that the advice was "based upon the best legal reasoning"

and how could there be, since the thread predates the release of the memos that lay bare that legal reasoning?

Many legal critics have charged that the legal analysis in the memos is grossly self-serving and simply reaches the conclusion that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted reached. Certainly, it's obvious even to a layperson that they ignored legal precedent -- both domestic and international -- and included no discussion of international law that binds the U.S. So again, why do the memos contain "the best legal reasoning"?

As for the other point I've challenged you on,

(2) that the acts weren't torture "when that advice was given"

as far as I can see you don't make any argument at all that waterboarding and the other acts weren't torture in 2002. If you have made a defense of this statement, I don't think it was in that thread. So please just face the argument now, or don't. But don't send me on another fruitless search in an old thread.

Perhaps the most educative post in that thread was number 70, by Ludo in response to one of yours:

In other words, you made it up! No point in discussing things rationally with you really. This is the second time in this thread alone you have done this. . . . This ends my input in this thread as there is no point in continuing beating my head against an ever moving wall.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Claiming "nonsence" does not serve itself useful for debate. And it was actually a recent statement by justice lawyers (I believe) that I read. I have already taken part in the discussion of enhanced interrogation measures, so don’t assume. As I have stated, the discussion on what constitutes torture has already been done here, and I find no reason to go through it again in other threads (it pretty much just becomes a pissing match). Nobody’s opinion changed from the debate that took place (including mine). Look back through this section and you will find the thread. You are welcome to dig up that old thread, read mine and other's comments, and add to it if you so wish.

I believe Rush Limbaugh is interviewing Andrew McCarthy today about waterboarding and other methods. I don't get to listen to him, but hopefully there will be a transcript of the exchange tomorrow. You may also want to give it a read.

As I recall in the end you were just offering up your interpretations. But this is Politics not Poetry as one poster put it. Read over the old gitmo thread all you like. The only thing I see in there is everything that backs up the claim that what has been going on at Guantanamo was illegal under many, many Historical cases and modern day law - inclusive of the US Bill of Rights and The Geneva Convention. Bearing in mind some of the cases you bring up (like Vietnam) were not only illegal, but unsanctioned.

You can't offer up anything to claim it is legal, so I welcome you to try. But if you haven't managed to do that then I will consider the matter rested on the conclusion that the activity at Gitmo was illegal in every sense, and I hope that we will need to have no further discussion of it.

Gitmo will be closed, Torture is illegal, and these suspected Terrorists are being transferred and/or released.

I have no idea why your understanding of the situation has not changed. But the reason nobody else's "opinion" changed in that thread, PJ, is because they were Facts, proofed and verified, not your feelings hunches and rose-tinted interpretations.

Though I did notice one thing - there's probably not one place in that thread where you engage any of my counterpoints. I found this a bit interesting - have you no way of engaging or disputing any of my claims or arguments? Or are you really resigned to the idea that what happened at Gitmo was illegal, and you're still just trying to carry on in Denial? Its a river in Egypt I hear.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Ah, so you will not defend it. I don't recall that you did in Torture Memos either. That's grand, I won't expect real debate then.

I think that sums it up.

I'm done wasting my serious on the matter when it ends up going nowhere: back to sattire and good times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY64meMb7-s