BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage Case

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Roberts joins the majority and authors the opinion he will be vilified by the extreme right.

That will be the political price that he will have to weigh in his decision. Personally I hope he has the courage to tell them to shove it and does what it right for this nation as a whole instead of pandering to the worst of the worst.

So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?

We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.

really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

no scholars? ok.

the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore

...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) the article you linked to is one I use to highlight how wrong some people are. Your linked author suppose d wrongly on Kennedy and Roberts ...

2) the order appeared to be along ideological lines, not partisan lines.ideological lines in the Supreme Court are predictors that often make some legal experts look like the fools they are.
your link says 'some scholars' without naming them or the reasoning of the unnamed

3) the author is a journalist and not a legal scholar and she asks silly questions

4) another political writer

And yet you still cannot quote a single legal scholar that supports your position. Easy enough to gainsay but without substance supporting your position you have nothing.

IF some alleged legal scholars could be found (which would first require looking) that wouldn't prove anything anyway. Scholars not agreeing?

The horror!

It would lead credence to Dante's "opinion" however he has consistently failed to find even one.

If you mean Dante's position stated here. it was that the Court has a tradition that is rarely broken, of leaving politics on the sidelines. It goes to judicial philosophy ruling the court and not politics. This position is shared by most every credible legal scholar

Links to what? The names or quotes? You probably wouldn't recognize a single name

 

[Steinlight]

We need to ban pot and push fags back into the closet. Putin has the right idea.

Speaking of non-informative spews.

Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.

If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.

pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.

Alcohol and prescription drugs harm people too.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.

Your prescription drug argument doesn't follow, there is no comparison. Yes, people abuse prescription drugs, illegally, generally. When monitored by a doctor with an actual prescription, there is no comparison with self-medicating with marijuana.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Alcohol does cause brain and other damage. So do Rx drugs when taken as prescribed (as evidenced by the FDA studies and disclaimers). There have been almost no studies on brain damage on marijuana because such studies have been proscribed by the phony war on drugs.

Onus is on you to prove your claims.

No they don't. And there have been plenty of studies, I linked them and they are also easily found by a simple google search.

There is no onus on me to disprove your asinine claims like that moderate alcohol use or "prescription drugs"(which is such a broad category, that your claim is meaningless) cause brain damage. Onus is on you to prove that the large body of evidence on the subject is wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And yet you still cannot quote a single legal scholar that supports your position. Easy enough to gainsay but without substance supporting your position you have nothing.

IF some alleged legal scholars could be found (which would first require looking) that wouldn't prove anything anyway. Scholars not agreeing?

The horror!

It would lead credence to Dante's "opinion" however he has consistently failed to find even one.

If you mean Dante's position stated here. it was that the Court has a tradition that is rarely broken, of leaving politics on the sidelines. It goes to judicial philosophy ruling the court and not politics. This position is shared by most every credible legal scholar

Links to what? The names or quotes? You probably wouldn't recognize a single name

Irrelevant deflection.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Speaking of non-informative spews.

Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.

If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.

pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.

Alcohol and prescription drugs harm people too.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.

Your prescription drug argument doesn't follow, there is no comparison. Yes, people abuse prescription drugs, illegally, generally. When monitored by a doctor with an actual prescription, there is no comparison with self-medicating with marijuana.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Alcohol does cause brain and other damage. So do Rx drugs when taken as prescribed (as evidenced by the FDA studies and disclaimers). There have been almost no studies on brain damage on marijuana because such studies have been proscribed by the phony war on drugs.

Onus is on you to prove your claims.

No they don't. And there have been plenty of studies, I linked them and they are also easily found by a simple google search.

There is no onus on me to disprove your asinine claims like that moderate alcohol use or "prescription drugs"(which is such a broad category, that your claim is meaningless) cause brain damage. Onus is on you to prove that the large body of evidence on the subject is wrong.

You claimed that marijuana causes brain damage.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.​

Prove it!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Republican appointments does not always equal Republicans get what they want. Most of the time justices try and keep politics out of the decision. You may be confusing judicial philosophy with political partisanship -- sounds like that is what you are doing

I uphold your right to your opinion and I reserve the right to my own.

nothing in life being fair, you cannot keep pushing an uninformed and confused opinion as equal. your ignorance and stubbornness gets in the way of acknowledging very simple mistakes in your knowledge and opinions. when confronted you get defensive and become even more ignorant.

open up and accept when you are wrong, in error, full of shit

Still waiting for you to provide anything other than your "opinion" proving me "wrong". You have been asked to do so repeatedly and have consistently failed. That tells me that you don't have anything of value to support your "opinion".

the point back then wasn't about you being right or wrong, it was about the soundness of your opinion. as far as it being wrong? How do I argue with somebody who confuses political positions with a justice's judicial philosophy.

I pointed out how justices often disappoint political allies or people who seem to think justices are on their side of particular issues

You alleged that my opinion was "uninformed and confused". The onus is on you to substantiate that claim. You haven't provided anything other than your own gainsaying "opinion" to date.

You were simply asked if you could name a legal scholar who supported an opinion you have of the court being politically partisan as if it were Republicans in the majority on the Court when it comes to rulings.

You appear more confused than ever about judicial philosophy, political philosophy, ideology, politics...it's okay. But your being so wrong headed and ignorant is simply embarrassing to watch

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Derideo_Te

June 10, 2014
Book Discussion on Uncertain Justice

Laurence Tribe talked about his book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, in which he argues that the Supreme Court… read more

Uncertain Justice movie clip

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So what? Are you one of those who think the justices usually put their fingers to the political winds before deciding every case?

We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.

really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.

Citizens United was a partisan decision.

Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.

Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.

Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

*The transcript for this program was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

FIVE TO FOUR SPLITS IN THE PARTISAN LINES MADE GOOD PRESS BUT IT TURNS OUT ONLY ABOUT ONE FIFTH OF THE CASES BECAME THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN 2005 HAVE BEEN DIVIDED BY-FOR. AND AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE 5-4 SPLITS INVOLVE UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS.

LIKE ALIGNMENTS WHERE ONE OF THE LIBERALS LIKE BREYER OR SOTOMAYOR OR KEGAN JOIN WITH ALITO TO CREATE A 5-FOR A MINUTE IN WHICH THEY ARE THE OTHER THREE LIBERALS WHO IS INVARIABLY MORE PROTECTIVE OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND MORE LIBERAL OF BREYER OR ANY OTHER JUSTICE.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT FROM THE REPUTATION THAT IS PROBABLY A HOUSE NURTURED AS A RADICAL UNCOMPROMISING CONSERVATIVE.

JUST YESTERDAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ELENA KEGAN LED A 5-4 DECISION THAT WAS AGAINST IMMIGRANT CHILDREN WHO HAD THE BAD LUCK TO TURN 21 BEFORE THEIR PARENTS DROPPED TO THE HEAD OF THE SLOW-MOVING LINE FOR THE IMMIGRANT VISA.

THEY WERE JOINED BY ANTHONY KENNEDY, THE REPUBLICAN, RUTH GINSBURG, DEMOCRAT, AND THE OPINION WRITTEN BY ROBERTS AND JOINED BY SCOTT LEAH.

THE DISSENTING JUSTICES THAT RULED IN FAVOR AND 21 AFTER HIS MOM WOULD EMIGRATE FROM EL SALVADOR IN 1998 HAD WAITED IN LINE FOR EIGHT YEARS. BUT IT WAS HIS MISFORTUNE. HE TURNED 21 AND HAD TO GO TO THE END OF THE LINE.

THEY WERE ALSO UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS. CLEARANCE THOMAS, SAMUEL ALITO AND SONYA SOTOMAYOR. WITH LOTS OF THE DEVICE CASES YOU GET THESE UNUSUAL ALIGNMENT.

THERE IS A DECISION THAT THE BOOK DEALS WITH IN SOME DETAIL WHERE KENNEDY LED A 5-3 MAJORITY AND WAS REFUSED FOR STRIKING DOWN MOST OF ARIZONA. SCALIA WROTE A DISSENT THAT CALLED THE COURT'S DECISION MIND-BOGGLING. HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY AND OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE TO ATTACK OBAMA FOR SOMETHING UNRELATED TO THE CASE. HIS USE OF EXECUTIVE POWER TO FAVOR THE IMMIGRANT CHILDREN KNOWN AS DREAMERS.

THE "WASHINGTON POST" THAT USUALLY SELECTS THE PRESIDENT OR SENATOR OR CABINET MEMBER FOR THE OWNER BESTOWED THE WORST WEEK IN WASHINGTON PRIZE PARTLY BECAUSE HE WAS OUT VOTED IN THE OBAMACARE DECISION THAT CAME DOWN.

THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES IN THE BOOK AND IT DEALS WITH THEM AND EXPLAINS THEM.

IT'S NOT JUST OF THE CASES AS A BARE MAJORITY THAT EXPOSED THE FALLACY OF THE INCREASINGLY COMMON DESCRIPTION OF THE ROBERTS COURT IN THE RIGHT-WING POLITICAL HACKS.

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

THERE ARE PLENTY OF RULINGS WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR NEARLY HALF OF THE
DECISIONS IN 2012 TO 2013 IN WHICH THE NINE JUSTICES ARE DIVIDED ON THEMSELVES. IT JUST LOOKS UNANIMOUS THAT THEY ARE POINTING IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AND IF YOU STUDY THE DIRECTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THE LEGAL MAVEN TO UNDERSTAND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO SPEAK PLAIN ENGLISH ENGLISH. THEY DIVIDE AMONG THEMSELVES IN WAYS TO TELL US A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND WHERE THE COURT IS LIKELY TO GO NEXT. IN THE FIVE JUSTICES APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. PEOPLE CALLED HIM SCALITO. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. ABOUT FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY AND ABOUT THE NEED TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST IT IS IN THE WORLD ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SILENT INTERACTIVE VIDEO GAMES TO

 

[Derideo_Te]

I uphold your right to your opinion and I reserve the right to my own.

nothing in life being fair, you cannot keep pushing an uninformed and confused opinion as equal. your ignorance and stubbornness gets in the way of acknowledging very simple mistakes in your knowledge and opinions. when confronted you get defensive and become even more ignorant.

open up and accept when you are wrong, in error, full of shit

Still waiting for you to provide anything other than your "opinion" proving me "wrong". You have been asked to do so repeatedly and have consistently failed. That tells me that you don't have anything of value to support your "opinion".

the point back then wasn't about you being right or wrong, it was about the soundness of your opinion. as far as it being wrong? How do I argue with somebody who confuses political positions with a justice's judicial philosophy.

I pointed out how justices often disappoint political allies or people who seem to think justices are on their side of particular issues

You alleged that my opinion was "uninformed and confused". The onus is on you to substantiate that claim. You haven't provided anything other than your own gainsaying "opinion" to date.

You were simply asked if you could name a legal scholar who supported an opinion you have of the court being politically partisan as if it were Republicans in the majority on the Court when it comes to rulings.

You appear more confused than ever about judicial philosophy, political philosophy, ideology, politics...it's okay. But your being so wrong headed and ignorant is simply embarrassing to watch

You were provided with articles referencing legal scholars citing the SCOTUS as being partisan. You were given an analysis that the court is the most conservative since the 1930's. I have substantiated my opinion. You haven't provided anything other than your own "opinion".

If you can't then just admit as much.

If you want to actually prove that the court is not partisan then provide your evidence that backs up your opinion. That is how things work around here. Either you can or you can't support your position. I have and you haven't. That you are not embarrassed by your own failure is your problem, not mine.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

nothing in life being fair, you cannot keep pushing an uninformed and confused opinion as equal. your ignorance and stubbornness gets in the way of acknowledging very simple mistakes in your knowledge and opinions. when confronted you get defensive and become even more ignorant.

open up and accept when you are wrong, in error, full of shit

Still waiting for you to provide anything other than your "opinion" proving me "wrong". You have been asked to do so repeatedly and have consistently failed. That tells me that you don't have anything of value to support your "opinion".

the point back then wasn't about you being right or wrong, it was about the soundness of your opinion. as far as it being wrong? How do I argue with somebody who confuses political positions with a justice's judicial philosophy.

I pointed out how justices often disappoint political allies or people who seem to think justices are on their side of particular issues

You alleged that my opinion was "uninformed and confused". The onus is on you to substantiate that claim. You haven't provided anything other than your own gainsaying "opinion" to date.

You were simply asked if you could name a legal scholar who supported an opinion you have of the court being politically partisan as if it were Republicans in the majority on the Court when it comes to rulings.

You appear more confused than ever about judicial philosophy, political philosophy, ideology, politics...it's okay. But your being so wrong headed and ignorant is simply embarrassing to watch

You were provided with articles referencing legal scholars citing the SCOTUS as being partisan. You were given an analysis that the court is the most conservative since the 1930's. I have substantiated my opinion. You haven't provided anything other than your own "opinion".

If you can't then just admit as much.

If you want to actually prove that the court is not partisan then provide your evidence that backs up your opinion. That is how things work around here. Either you can or you can't support your position. I have and you haven't. That you are not embarrassed by your own failure is your problem, not mine.

you did not read the reply post. Dante pointed out that you were using mostly journalists and bloggers who were NOT legal scholars.

You actually posted a legal argument that backs up Dante's position -- that makes you look more foolish than you really are. You're just stubbornly ignorant

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Derideo_Te

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision. Citizens United was a partisan decision. Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision. Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision. Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision. Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision. Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

no scholars? ok.

the definition of partisan you are using might be so broad as to make every cough and sneeze on the court an act of partisanship.
Every single justice on this current court has disappointed what you'd view as political allies. As Dante said before he believes there are a few cases that broke tradition, one being Bush v Gore

Since you persist in using the "legal scholar standard" isn't the onus on you to demonstrate that a preponderance of legal scholars agree with you that the court is not partisan?

nope. didn't say it was a standard. was looking for an informed opinion

you were asked if you could name any legal scholars that shared your opinion:

you: "We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes."
Dante: "really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you"

Enjoy!

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/politics/in-the-court-split-seemed-partisan.html?_r=0

2) Law Professor Calls Supreme Court s Voting Rights Restrictions Purely Partisan

3) Is the U.S. Supreme Court Following a Political Agenda

4) Tracking Supreme Court justices rulings principles of law or politics MinnPost

1) the article you linked to is one I use to highlight how wrong some people are. Your linked author suppose d wrongly on Kennedy and Roberts ...

2) the order appeared to be along ideological lines, not partisan lines.ideological lines in the Supreme Court are predictors that often make some legal experts look like the fools they are.
your link says 'some scholars' without naming them or the reasoning of the unnamed

3) the author is a journalist and not a legal scholar and she asks silly questions

4) another political writer

 

[rightwinger]

We have ample evidence that justices make decisions for partisan political purposes.

really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.

Citizens United was a partisan decision.

Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.

Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.

Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

 

[westwall]

Speaking of non-informative spews.

Gays should be left entirely alone. You mindless bigot.

If there is something really all that wrong with pot (and I guess it's possible) then the shit should be scientifically studied, evaluated and the entire legalization versus criminalization issue addressed fairly and honestly. That might even be a basis for sound public policy.

pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.

Alcohol and prescription drugs harm people too.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.

Your prescription drug argument doesn't follow, there is no comparison. Yes, people abuse prescription drugs, illegally, generally. When monitored by a doctor with an actual prescription, there is no comparison with self-medicating with marijuana.

Yes it is. Every drop of alcohol kills brain cells. It's a poison, just like marijuana. It is actually worse, for most people, and causes far more damage and medical costs than pot does. Those are facts.

No.

You are just an idiot.

When was the last time you blazed?

Never. I don't smoke anything. Ever. I do however keep current with the medical literature and it is you who are the uninformed one. And, anyone who has ever bothered to read the newspaper and collate the data from drunk driving related accidents can tell you quite easily that alcohol does far more damage than marijuana does.

But, I do need to make a correction. Alcohol doesn't actually "kill" brain cells, what it does is damage and sometimes destroy the dendrites between cells. The cells are fine, but the ability to communicate between them is lost, thus in effect "killing" them.

There are a whole host of neurologic diseases that are caused by alcohol, just look them up.

 

[Steinlight]

pot harms users, as do other chemicals and drugs. pot is not harmless. how it harms society is society's business.

Alcohol and prescription drugs harm people too.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.

Your prescription drug argument doesn't follow, there is no comparison. Yes, people abuse prescription drugs, illegally, generally. When monitored by a doctor with an actual prescription, there is no comparison with self-medicating with marijuana.

Yes it is. Every drop of alcohol kills brain cells. It's a poison, just like marijuana. It is actually worse, for most people, and causes far more damage and medical costs than pot does. Those are facts.

No.

You are just an idiot.

When was the last time you blazed?

Never. I don't smoke anything. Ever. I do however keep current with the medical literature and it is you who are the uninformed one. And, anyone who has ever bothered to read the newspaper and collate the data from drunk driving related accidents can tell you quite easily that alcohol does far more damage than marijuana does.

No you don't. And you are wrong or lying.

 

[westwall]

Alcohol and prescription drugs harm people too.

Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.

Your prescription drug argument doesn't follow, there is no comparison. Yes, people abuse prescription drugs, illegally, generally. When monitored by a doctor with an actual prescription, there is no comparison with self-medicating with marijuana.

Yes it is. Every drop of alcohol kills brain cells. It's a poison, just like marijuana. It is actually worse, for most people, and causes far more damage and medical costs than pot does. Those are facts.

No.

You are just an idiot.

When was the last time you blazed?

Never. I don't smoke anything. Ever. I do however keep current with the medical literature and it is you who are the uninformed one. And, anyone who has ever bothered to read the newspaper and collate the data from drunk driving related accidents can tell you quite easily that alcohol does far more damage than marijuana does.

No you don't. And you are wrong or lying.

I never lie and I have never smoked anything, to include tobacco. I can't stand the stuff. Here is one of many links to the deleterious effects of alcohol on the brain.

"Alcohol consumption and mental health problems
Alcohol consumption has been associated with mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression.

Moreover, more serious mental health problems, such as psychosis, can be caused by “extreme levels of drinking” which is defined as more than 30 units per day for several weeks.

Furthermore, stopping drinking alcohol can also be a problem for heavy drinkers as they may experience withdrawal symptoms associated with severe anxiety such as nervousness, tremors and palpitations. (10)

Chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride may be given to treat alcohol withdrawal. It is a medicine that helps people feel calmer, less agitated and less tense. (11)

Alcohol and brain damage
Related Stories

• Study reveals way to alleviate memory deficits for Alzheimer's disease patients
• People with mild traumatic brain injury may have brain damage and memory problems
• 3D brain-like tissue: an interview with Professor David Kaplan, Tufts University

Alcohol has a severe dehydrating effect on the body. (8) In extreme cases the body may become so dehydrated that permanent damage is caused to the brain. This is one effect of a condition known as alcohol poisoning. (9)

Alcohol-related brain damage is also used to encompass several medical conditions related to alcohol consumption. These include alcohol-related dementia and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. (12)"


Does alcohol kill brain cells

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

Having watched the entire video I can make the following observations;

1. Professor Tribe is an astute observer of the court and well versed in it's history.

2. He did highlight what are clearly exceptions to bias but he also substantiated that the court is conservatively biased. e.g.

THE CURRENT COURT IS MOVING AGAIN RATHER FRIGHTENINGLY TO SOME PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF REVIEWING LAWS THAT AFFECT THE ECONOMY IN A SERIOUS WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN VERMONT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO JACK UP THE DRUGS BY GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS TO CERTAIN DOCTORS THAT THEY WOULD PRESCRIBE MORE COSTLY DRUGS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR JOINED THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT AND JUSTICE BREYER WENT ALMOST POINTED. HE SAID THIS IS THE RETURN OF WHAT WAS CALLED THE LOCHNER ERA THE PERIOD FROM THE 1890s AND 1937 WHEN THE COURT WAS STRIKING DOWN ECONOMICS REGULATIONS RATHER LOOSELY. BECAUSE IF YOU STRIKE DOWN IN AND ECONOMIC REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SPEECH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT DEALS WITH INFORMATION IN OUR SOCIETY IS AT THE HEART OF ALMOST EVERYTHING. AND USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY COULD GIVE THE COURT THE KIND OF COVER THAT IS PRESUPPOSED IN YOUR QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THE FEAR IN OUR ECONOMIC LIVES IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREMISE OF LIBERTY AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANINGFUL LIBERTY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. THEY MIGHT RATHER DANGEROUSLY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IN 1937 WE ABANDONED​

3. This link does not substantiate your claim that my opinion is "uninformed and confused". While the Professor has a far more indepth knowledge base of the history of the SCOTUS than myself (hardly surprising given what he has done for a living versus what I have done) but he didn't say anything that was outside my understanding of how the justices make their decisions. In that respect what he did say confirmed a lot of what I already knew.

4. Many of the examples he gave substantiated my opinion of the court's conservative bias. There were very few exceptions and most of those centered around voting anomalies in the positions taken by the justices on certain decisions that were counter to their perceived liberal/conservative positions.

So thank you for providing one single example of a legal scholar and one that actually substantiated that I am neither "uninformed" or "confused" in this matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

Having watched the entire video I can make the following observations;

1. Professor Tribe is an astute observer of the court and well versed in it's history.

2. He did highlight what are clearly exceptions to bias but he also substantiated that the court is conservatively biased. e.g.

THE CURRENT COURT IS MOVING AGAIN RATHER FRIGHTENINGLY TO SOME PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF REVIEWING LAWS THAT AFFECT THE ECONOMY IN A SERIOUS WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN VERMONT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO JACK UP THE DRUGS BY GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS TO CERTAIN DOCTORS THAT THEY WOULD PRESCRIBE MORE COSTLY DRUGS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR JOINED THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT AND JUSTICE BREYER WENT ALMOST POINTED. HE SAID THIS IS THE RETURN OF WHAT WAS CALLED THE LOCHNER ERA THE PERIOD FROM THE 1890s AND 1937 WHEN THE COURT WAS STRIKING DOWN ECONOMICS REGULATIONS RATHER LOOSELY. BECAUSE IF YOU STRIKE DOWN IN AND ECONOMIC REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SPEECH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT DEALS WITH INFORMATION IN OUR SOCIETY IS AT THE HEART OF ALMOST EVERYTHING. AND USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY COULD GIVE THE COURT THE KIND OF COVER THAT IS PRESUPPOSED IN YOUR QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THE FEAR IN OUR ECONOMIC LIVES IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREMISE OF LIBERTY AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANINGFUL LIBERTY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. THEY MIGHT RATHER DANGEROUSLY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IN 1937 WE ABANDONED​

3. This link does not substantiate your claim that my opinion is "uninformed and confused". While the Professor has a far more indepth knowledge base of the history of the SCOTUS than myself (hardly surprising given what he has done for a living versus what I have done) but he didn't say anything that was outside my understanding of how the justices make their decisions. In that respect what he did say confirmed a lot of what I already knew.

4. Many of the examples he gave substantiated my opinion of the court's conservative bias. There were very few exceptions and most of those centered around voting anomalies in the positions taken by the justices on certain decisions that were counter to their perceived liberal/conservative positions.

So thank you for providing one single example of a legal scholar and one that actually substantiated that I am neither "uninformed" or "confused" in this matter.

your use of the term partisan is far too broad. partisan in what way, ideologically, judicial philosophically ..

btw, Tribe also is one of the few people who predicted that Roberts would rule for Congress' power to use the penalty in the PPACA. The taxing power. Why? Because Tribe says (and I agree) Robert's is more a libertarian than anything people like you would paint him as

quote:

you can AGREE OR DISAGREE ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAJORITY in those CASES IS NOT CONTRARY TO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK -- THAT CORPORATIONS ARE JUST HUMAN BEINGS IN DRAG, OR NOT MONEY IS SPEECH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT -- WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT SPEAKERS SHOULD BE HEARD AND HOW MUCH MONEY VARIOUS INTEREST SHOULD SPEND ON SPEECH.
​

notice, Tribe mentions philosophy

 

[IlarMeilyr]

really? Name a few legal scholars that agree with you

Bush v Gore was a partisan decision.

Citizens United was a partisan decision.

Repeal of Voting Rights Act was a partisan decision.

Striking down the amount an individual can donate to a campaign was a partisan decision.

Striking down the abortion clinic protest zone was a partisan decision.

Exempting workers from unions was a partisan decision.

Hobby Lobby was a partisan decision.

The current SCOTUS is the most conservative in almost a century.

Saying that any one (or more) of those decisions was a "partisan" decision doesn't make it so.

5-4

Can you get more partisan?

You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.

Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame

It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.