Sandra Day O'Connor

rsynnott

Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate judge on the US supreme court, is resigning, leaving Bush free to appoint a new judge. She was in the majority on a 5-4 decision to maintain separation of church and state, and the 6-3 decisions to prevent a state from passing laws banning homosexual equality laws (in 1996), and to legalise homosexual sex across America (2003). She was in the minority on the recent eminent domain ruling. Looks like things are going to get even worse over there.

Meh

But she also ruled for Bush in Bush v. Gore. So it's a bit of an oversimplification to depict her as a "liberal" judge, remember she was appointed by Reagan.

rsynnott

No, I didn't say she was a liberal judge. She's a moderate. And has GENERALLY gone along with the more progressive decisions.

xm15e3

rsynnott wrote:

No, I didn't say she was a liberal judge. She's a moderate. And has GENERALLY gone along with the more progressive decisions.

Inconsistant, more than moderate. She's the ditz (along with Ginsberg) that decided the laws of other nations were relevent in "interpereting" the US constitution. This actually, is grounds for impeachment.

The term Progressive is sick euphamism when applied to a jurist on the Supreme Court. They either are constuctionist and apply the law, or they are are "Progressive" and interperit the law (as the see fit, like the piggies on animal farm). The term Progressive is a nice way to package socialism in an age when the name really isn't socially acceptable (in the US), it has about as much to do with Progress as a return to aristocracy.

Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor are simple testiments to the incompentence of the GOP.

rsynnott

xm15e3 wrote:

The term Progressive is sick euphamism when applied to a jurist on the Supreme Court. They either are constuctionist and apply the law, or they are are "Progressive" and interperit the law (as the see fit, like the piggies on animal farm). The term Progressive is a nice way to package socialism in an age when the name really isn't socially acceptable (in the US), it has about as much to do with Progress as a return to aristocracy.

If the law covered all situations perfectly, a court would not be necessary. It doesn't. As such, it NEEDS to be interpreted. In addition, many would see this sort of law as a living document, one that changes with society.

Talliesin

xm15e3 wrote:

She's the ditz (along with Ginsberg) that decided the laws of other nations were relevent in "interpereting" the US constitution.

Following generally accepted principles on the interpretation of legislation. What a weirdo.

Cojofl

xm15e3 wrote:

They either are constuctionist and apply the law, or they are are "Progressive" and interperit the law (as the see fit, like the piggies on animal farm).

What a ridiculous equivication and simplification. Blantantly fallacious .

Hobbes

Shes not quit yet. She put a stipulation into it that she would not leave until her replacement was signed in.

Hobbes

Eeep!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4646499.stm

rsynnott

I love how the whole thing is baded on having your people in the courts. "his views on issues such as abortion and affirmative action are not far enough to the right." Whatever happened to judges making a decision based on the facts?

bonkey

rsynnott wrote:

Whatever happened to judges making a decision based on the facts?

If every case was decided on fact, then surely there'd be no need for a judge....

...except when the facts were unclear, contradictory, or two principles collided and the facts lead to a situation where something (wrt the law) had to give.

And, of course, once you're back in a situation like that...who you'd want to have on the bench would be someone who's likely to make those decisions in accordance to how you'd like to have them made.

And lets not even forget the situation where judges are interpreting new law / new legal situations. Again...you want the person who'll interpret in accordance to how you'd do it yourself.

jc

xm15e3

bonkey wrote:

If every case was decided on fact, then surely there'd be no need for a judge....

...except when the facts were unclear, contradictory, or two principles collided and the facts lead to a situation where something (wrt the law) had to give.

And, of course, once you're back in a situation like that...who you'd want to have on the bench would be someone who's likely to make those decisions in accordance to how you'd like to have them made.


jc

Fair enough. However, what I hate are interpretations that are pulled out of ambiguity that are in conflict with intent/common law in order to change society. Ruling not by the law, but what they see as right. All conflicts within the law should be resolved by referring back to Common Law.

Two good examples are Dredd-Scott, and Roe V. Wade.

The Dredd ruling made a contorted interpretation of intent, that Blacks couldn't be citizens since they weren't fully human, and claimed this was based in intent. Good luck finding that one in Common Law, or the concept of Natural Rights. In this case they made a ruling out of false logic, imo intentionally, in order to push a social outcome.

Roe V. Wade was almost the opposite. The US Constitution, and I would guess common law back to the Magna Carta, are silent on Abortion. That pretty well makes it a State issue. However, the court decided to "interoperate" meaning out of thin air. They invented an right that was never intended at the founding. Like Dredd, however, it was supporting a social outcome favored by the court.

Miller vs. US, is another bogus one like Dredd. They wanted to nail Miller for owning a sawed off shotgun. So, they interpreted the intent of the 2nd amendment to mean only weapons in current military service (funny thing is, cut down shotguns had been issued by the military). ie, The right to bear arms shall not be infringed is infringed only to mean M-16s and M-60s. Most of these types of rulings set up instant conflicts with common law, intent, or the Constitution outright. Now, a persons RIGHT to possess a current US Service Rifle (and ONLY a US Service Rifle) is clear by the ruling, however it is at odds with the National Firearms Act. Thomas has stated that if gun registration had been challenged on 2nd amendment grounds (back in 1998), then most all US gun laws would have been overturned. Ooops!

xm15e3

Cojofl wrote:

What a ridiculous equivication and simplification. Blantantly fallacious .

The use of Interperate vs. Apply was either Renquists of Scalia's point of view. I like it, so I used it. However, it a bit confining, and easily taken out of context. ie. Roman Civil Law vs. Common Law.

What we have in the US are Progressives vs. Constructionists. Constructionists would be defined by a view that human nature is constant, society may change, but natural rights do not. Therefor, the Constitution as writen is just as valid now as it was then, and should be interpreted by original intent. Hence, applied.

Progressives, being happy little materialists, tend to see human nature as evolving, malable, ect. Therefor, the government should change with the changing society. The Constitution, by reason, needs to be a living document and interpreted in a "modern" context. IMO, this makes the document next to meaningles, and is in direct contrast with Natural Rights. What is donew now for good intentions, will be done later for bad.

xm15e3

Talliesin wrote:

Following generally accepted principles on the interpretation of legislation. ......

That is fine and dandy if you are living under Civil Law based system. This is unexceptable under the US Constitution. The only foreign law relevent to it's interpretation British Common Law. Anyone on the USSC that doesn't know this, or disagrees with it, really shouldn't be there, or even a member of the bar for that matter. It is beyond the limits of jurisprudence.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Cojofl

xm15e3 wrote:

The use of Interperate vs. Apply was either Renquists of Scalia's point of view. I like it, so I used it. However, it a bit confining, and easily taken out of context. ie. Roman Civil Law vs. Common Law.

What we have in the US are Progressives vs. Constructionists. Constructionists would be defined by a view that human nature is constant, society may change, but natural rights do not. Therefor, the Constitution as writen is just as valid now as it was then, and should be interpreted by original intent. Hence, applied.

Progressives, being happy little materialists, tend to see human nature as evolving, malable, ect. Therefor, the government should change with the changing society. The Constitution, by reason, needs to be a living document and interpreted in a "modern" context. IMO, this makes the document next to meaningles, and is in direct contrast with Natural Rights. What is donew now for good intentions, will be done later for bad.

I was refferring about you saying progressive are the same as the pigs in Animal Farm and hence the leadership of the Bolsheviks. You then call them
"happy little materialists" because we all know Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were happy little materialists. Also could explain how the US constitution perfectly encapsulates all natural rights upon which your claim that the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights is contingent. Also you could you explain how the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights.

Pinochet

xm15e3 wrote:

Inconsistant, more than moderate. She's the ditz (along with Ginsberg) that decided the laws of other nations were relevent in "interpereting" the US constitution. This actually, is grounds for impeachment.

The term Progressive is sick euphamism when applied to a jurist on the Supreme Court. They either are constuctionist and apply the law, or they are are "Progressive" and interperit the law (as the see fit, like the piggies on animal farm). The term Progressive is a nice way to package socialism in an age when the name really isn't socially acceptable (in the US), it has about as much to do with Progress as a return to aristocracy.

Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor are simple testiments to the incompentence of the GOP.

well said

Pinochet

Cojofl wrote:

I was refferring about you saying progressive are the same as the pigs in Animal Farm and hence the leadership of the Bolsheviks. You then call them
"happy little materialists" because we all know Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were happy little materialists. Also could explain how the US constitution perfectly encapsulates all natural rights upon which your claim that the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights is contingent. Also you could you explain how the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights.

yes, communists generally regard themselves as the ultimate matrealists because they focus on the matreal state of a person and not actual justice (at best).

rsynnott

Pinochet wrote:

well said

'Pinochet' is really not the best nickname for commenting on such matters, tbh

xm15e3

Cojofl wrote:

I was refferring about you saying progressive are the same as the pigs in Animal Farm and hence the leadership of the Bolsheviks. You then call them "happy little materialists" because we all know Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were happy little materialists.

Well, most of us know they were materialists, they certainly did. Hence, try reading a little bit on Dialectic Materialism. Throw some Hegel in for fun. I use the term "happy" sarcastically, as they were bitter and cynical old losers..IMHO.

Cojofl wrote:

Also could explain how the US constitution perfectly encapsulates all natural rights upon which your claim that the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights is contingent. Also you could you explain how the progressive approach is direct contrast to these natural rights.

No. "Perfectly" is your own choice of words, nothing is perfect. However, natural rights directly contrasts Progressivism. Natural rights, in short, are life, liberty, and property. A logical outcome of these core assumptions is that the state/nation/group exists for the benefit of the individual. Progressivism is the opposite. The Common Good supersedes the rights of the individual. Hence the Kelo ruling by Progressive jurists. Progressivism is overtly at odds with the right to property, has a history of systematically denying its constituents the right to life (without due process of law), and curtails liberty in almost every instance.

rsynnott

xm15e3 wrote:

However, natural rights directly contrasts Progressivism. Natural rights, in short, are life, liberty, and property. A logical outcome of these core assumptions is that the state/nation/group exists for the benefit of the individual. Progressivism is the opposite. The Common Good supersedes the rights of the individual. Hence the Kelo ruling by Progressive jurists. Progressivism is overtly at odds with the right to property, has a history of systematically denying its constituents the right to life (without due process of law), and curtails liberty in almost every instance.

Hmm, so would you think that the supreme court ruling in 2003 to legalise homosexuality in those states where it was criminalised was justified, because such criminalisation was an infringement of liberty and privacy? Even though that ruling affirming liberty and privacy was largely the work of filthy liberals?

Wheely

xm15e3 wrote:

The use of Interperate vs. Apply was either Renquists of Scalia's point of view. I like it, so I used it. However, it a bit confining, and easily taken out of context. ie. Roman Civil Law vs. Common Law.

What we have in the US are Progressives vs. Constructionists. Constructionists would be defined by a view that human nature is constant, society may change, but natural rights do not. Therefor, the Constitution as writen is just as valid now as it was then, and should be interpreted by original intent. Hence, applied.

Progressives, being happy little materialists, tend to see human nature as evolving, malable, ect. Therefor, the government should change with the changing society. The Constitution, by reason, needs to be a living document and interpreted in a "modern" context. IMO, this makes the document next to meaningles, and is in direct contrast with Natural Rights. What is donew now for good intentions, will be done later for bad.

First ROe v Wade was decided on precedent taken from the right to privacy recognised in Griswold v Conneticut, so if a right was invented out if thin air, which I dont think it was its the latter case you wanna take issue with, not the former because nothing was invented in roe v Wade, the right to privacy was merely extended. ALso if the role if the judiciary is not to interpret the law, then i would like you to explain what is. Our Constitution speciffically enumerates that that is their role though i dont know if the same can be said about the American one. IMO judicial activism is a good and necassary thing
when the US conat. was written "horse-theivery" was punishable by death. This was done away with by the courts, not by an AMmendment. Do you really think that every single change in the law must be done by referendum? Thats fairly ridiculous. Also you mention that all conflicts in law should be resolved by reference to the common law. Thats a massive contradiction in that the common law is dynamic, consistently changing with each new precedent and is not derived from any written documents be it parlimentary legislation or a constitution!! You contradict yourself again then by implying the use of Natural Rights.....now if you mean those natural rights derived by Locke....well they have no legal relevance whatsoever. If however you mean the Natural Law then its completely inconsistent with your stance as a constructionist!!! Natural Law is flimsy, widely open to conflicting interpretations nad genarally imo a very difficult/gray area in law. The most vehement constructionist on the USSC in Scalia adn he is quoted as despising those judges that see themselves as propounders of natural law. While you seem to be infavour of literal interpretation or constructionism as they refer to it Stateside but your argument is full of contradictions and frankly is very muddled. And in reality a judges political leanings left or right will always come into how they make their decision- are you telling me its just one big fat coincidence that the most conservative/right wing judge on the SC (scalia) has the most conservative/right-wing history of judicial decisions!!! Constituitions/legislation will always bee open to some creative interpretation, theywere designwd that way for a reason. Why do you think every SC in the world has a panel of judges sitting that more often than not disagree. The legal system, both in the US and here, is far from perfect but its the best we've got!

Wheely

[ QUOTE=xm15e3]Therefor, the government should change with the changing society. [/QUOTE]
This really seems to be nothing more than common sense!!!

[ QUOTE=xm15e3]
The Constitution, by reason, needs to be a living document and interpreted in a "modern" context. IMO, this makes the document next to meaningles, and is in direct contrast with Natural Rights. .[/QUOTE]

This also makes sfa sense. How does the living document theory contradict natural law....natural law is written nowhere and is thus open to wider interpretation than any written document. And how does it make the Const. meaningless. I await your explanations with anticipation