Xandu posted:Non-religious or don't identify with a religion? I don't think Breyer is all that religious. I mean I know if you do a quick google it's all Catholics and Jews, but I wondered if anyone was essentially non-religious. Breyer did seem like a good candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:None of them come off particularly religious to me besides Roberts. Kennedy comes off as extremely god drat religious to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:None of them come off particularly religious to me besides Roberts. Scalia is *very* religious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia#Religious_views
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Would any potential appointee even be considered if they weren't at least claiming to be some form of Christian? We're not quite there yet, I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:20
|
|
Javid posted:Would any potential appointee even be considered if they weren't at least claiming to be some form of Christian? We're not quite there yet, I'm afraid. There are 3 Jews on the court so...
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Javid posted:Would any potential appointee even be considered if they weren't at least claiming to be some form of Christian? We're not quite there yet, I'm afraid. Don't forget the Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Javid posted:Would any potential appointee even be considered if they weren't at least claiming to be some form of Christian? We're not quite there yet, I'm afraid. jews jews jews jews also mormons
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also mormons I think out of courtesy they are typically denominated as Christian ish
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Same deity. I stand by my point. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Javid posted:Same deity. I stand by my point. By that logic we could expect to see a Muslim Associate Justice. Barack Obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think out of courtesy they are typically denominated as Christian out of cowardice, you mean
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:29
|
|
Jagchosis posted:By that logic we could expect to see a Muslim Associate Justice. Barack Obama I didn't know I wanted this to happen until just now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:By that logic we could expect to see a Muslim Associate Justice. Barack Obama Only if he replaces Kennedy, forcing the entire conservative movement to have an aneurism. It's just too bad Al Gore is too old for such an appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
^^^^ Gore would make for a lovely justice. If you're going to have a weird SCOTUS appointment fetish at least go with Obama or (Bill) Clinton, both of whom would actually have some idea of what they're doing.Arsenic Lupin posted:Antonin Scalia thinks hotels are hotbeds of vice: Of course this piece of poo poo is ok with an old law that allows police to get information without a warrant. I'm just surprised 5 justices weren't. There's no loving way 5 or more justices would be in favor of abolishing the death penalty via a SCOTUS ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Obama's established position on executive power is too overreaching for me to support him as a justice, although I wouldn't mind if rumors of a nomination were floated just to piss off the usual suspects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Obama's established position on executive power is too overreaching for me to support him as a justice, although I wouldn't mind if rumors of a nomination were floated just to piss off the usual suspects. I don't think his position is all that excessive, but I lean towards an equal distribution of power rather than one where the executive's leeway in faithful execution is subordinated to the legislature. That leeway is the check on an abusive legislature but still balanced by the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Obama's established position on executive power is too overreaching for me to support him as a justice, although I wouldn't mind if rumors of a nomination were floated just to piss off the usual suspects. On the other hand Obama is probably the last President who'll have the restraint he's shown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
America's criminal justice system is just really hosed up, Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:^^^^ Gore would make for a lovely justice. If you're going to have a weird SCOTUS appointment fetish at least go with Obama or (Bill) Clinton, both of whom would actually have some idea of what they're doing. I don't particularly think any of them would be a great justice. But the hilarity of Gore writing 5-4 decisions that drive conservatives crazy would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
I want Obama to take Roberts' seat and become a thinner, blacker Taft. Even though I think he's in bed with the corporations, I have a feeling he could be a good liberal justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:I want Obama to take Roberts' seat and become a thinner, blacker Taft. Even though I think he's in bed with the corporations, I have a feeling he could be a good liberal justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:I want Obama to take Roberts' seat and become a thinner, blacker Taft. Even though I think he's in bed with the corporations, I have a feeling he could be a good liberal justice. It'd be a little unfortunate if the first black president becomes CJ and essentially buries the economic side of MLK's message with the civil rights side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Obama would just be black Roberts tbh, I don't think he'd be pro gay rights if he didn't find it politically expedient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Obama would just be black Roberts tbh, I don't think he'd be pro gay rights if he didn't find it politically expedient. Obama's so conservative he appointed Sotomayor!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Sometimes I'm blinded by the media's alternate universe socialist Obama and forget that his policies are actually right of center and terrible most of the time. He's just such a charismatic man that I want to believe he's a good elite liberal president, and even if he's not I want to believe that he could be a good elite liberal supreme court justice. But yeah, now that I think about it, he should stay off the bench.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think out of courtesy they are typically denominated as Christian They're called Christian in public for culture war solidarity and vile heretics the rest of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Of course this piece of poo poo is ok with an old law that allows police to get information without a warrant. That's not actually safe to assume when it comes to Scalia and the fourth amendment, his jurisprudence is more complex there. I mean, same guy said this: Scalia concurrence in Thornton v. US posted:As one judge has put it: “[I]n our search for clarity, we have now abandoned our constitutional moorings and floated to a place where the law approves of purely exploratory searches of vehicles during which officers with no definite objective or reason for the search are allowed to rummage around in a car to see what they might find.” McLaughlin, supra, at 894 (Trott, J., concurring). I agree entirely with that assessment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:That's not actually safe to assume when it comes to Scalia and the fourth amendment, his jurisprudence is more complex there. I mean, same guy said this: lol if you think there's any consistency to Scalia's decisionmaking outside of "What's the most massively shitheel move I could make?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:lol if you think there's any consistency to Scalia's decisionmaking outside of "What's the most massively shitheel move I could make?" When it comes to the 4th Amendment, Scalia is usually one of the better justices on the court. I'd rather have him than Breyer if I was defending someone and there was a Fourth Amendment issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:When it comes to the 4th Amendment, Scalia is usually one of the better justices on the court. I'd rather have him than Breyer if I was defending someone and there was a Fourth Amendment issue. I hope your client wasn't getting a blowjob from another dude in his apartment, then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:lol if you think there's any consistency to Scalia's decisionmaking outside of "What's the most massively shitheel move I could make?" That may not be a bad rule of thumb, but in this area the issues where Scalia is predictably bad are more granular than "all of them".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:That may not be a bad rule of thumb, but in this area the issues where Scalia is predictably bad are more granular than "all of them". It's fairly consistent in him believing you have no right to privacy unless you're a straight white male who has already been placed under arrest for something other than marijuana or being gay. e: Okay, I found the exception to his self-contradicting shitheelery: Hamdi v Rumsfeld. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jul 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's fairly consistent in him believing you have no right to privacy unless you're a straight white male who has already been placed under arrest for something other than marijuana or being gay. Not really, it's consistent with a dislike of the reasonable expectation of privacy test. He may be bad about the consequences of a police fuckup, but frequently isn't about what constitutes a police fuckup. While I imagine the prospect of guys doing butt stuff gives him the vapors in any context, if you want a weed-specific opinion, he wrote Kyllo v. U.S. Some quick googling tells me Maryland v. King and U.S. v. Jones involved nonwhite defendants, and they can't be the only ones. I dunno why you're talking about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in this context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Scalia is all about the old school 4th amendment practice of treating it as a property right. He hates the privacy interpretation and frequently has concurrences where he points out that the privacy standard is unnecessary and shouldn't be used because the property right version of the 4th would have covered it. Scalia is just frozen in time in the mid to late 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Not really, it's consistent with a dislike of the reasonable expectation of privacy test. He may be bad about the consequences of a police fuckup, but frequently isn't about what constitutes a police fuckup. While I imagine the prospect of guys doing butt stuff gives him the vapors in any context, if you want a weed-specific opinion, he wrote Kyllo v. U.S. Some quick googling tells me Maryland v. King and U.S. v. Jones involved nonwhite defendants, and they can't be the only ones. I dunno why you're talking about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in this context. Because the idea that someone you disagree with could possibly have any sort of nuanced and considered opinion is anathema to some posters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
"This is pure apple sauce" is a pretty nuanced opinion if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Much has changed in ten years.quote:The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469, 521 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting). quote:The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (slip op. at 17) (Thomas, J., dissenting)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
I don't think it's time that made the difference, Thomas has been a consistent fuckwit about gays even back to the Lawrence decision when he was magically not concerned about a government with the power to toss you in jail if a few politicians decide you're doing sex wrong. Maybe that's how you get Thomas on board with eminent domain: just declare any sex-having or wanking in a blighted neighborhood illegal and the penalty is civil forfeiture of the property where it occurred. That law might be "uncommonly silly" but it's clearly the state's right to decide what sex is good for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Remember Thomas is pretty much an 18th century LARPer, it's entirely consistent to view property rights as a fundamental right for a well governed society but what you get up to in the bedroom is up for debate (and probably delicious gossip in the local Salon).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:40
|
|
