|
Post by alum on Aug 14, 2023 12:31:48 GMT -5
Perhaps the crux of the issue is that half of America believes that supreme court justices should review matters in relation to the US Constitution as written by the founders, while the other half of America believes that the constitution is "a living breathing document" and the supreme court should act as a third legislative branch. And a third half wants to know if the founders intended for the constitution to be a static document. And a fourth half wants to know why the Court says it can choose which 1780s dictionary to use in interpreting the constitution And a fifth half wants to know why the court gets to choose which 1780s history to credit in its interpretations (see the gun cases, for instance.) You get my point. It's not as simple as either follow the founders or act as a legislature.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 14, 2023 12:39:17 GMT -5
Static...of course not. After all, the founders did create a way to amend/change the document.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 14, 2023 13:04:01 GMT -5
Static...of course not. After all, the founders did create a way to amend/change the document. Fair enough, I should have been clearer. How do we know that the framers didn't expect that the meaning of "due process" or "equal protection" would evolve? How about cruel and unusual punishment? At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights many states allowed executions for property crimes, crimes committed by enslaved persons, and consensual sexual relations by persons of the same sex. Our current jurisprudence only allows executions for murder committed by sane adults who are not mentally disabled. There is a case coming out of somewhere in the South where the the state is seeking to execute a person for rape. They are hoping the court will simply hold that if the death penalty was available in 1791, it is still available today. Oh, and soon enough the court will say that the federal government does not have the right to regulate child labor for good involved in interstate commerce. I know that the idea of originalism seems so attractive, but the problem is that it does not rest on firmer ground than any other theory of constitutional interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 14, 2023 13:37:41 GMT -5
On that last point I would disagree. It is the Constitution that is the law of the land that keeps us grounded. It provdes a starting point. Courts rule on violation of "rights" tht do not exist in the Constitution. Privacy, for one right, is never mentioned. So when epopletry to claim it is a right they are already on shaky ground. Imagine if that a were o such legal starting point. It could be frightening. Don't like the Constitution ...change it. oo much bother? Too bad. If we do not have people take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, what then is our standard?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 14, 2023 14:40:36 GMT -5
On that last point I would disagree. It is the Constitution that is the law of the land that keeps us grounded. It provdes a starting point. Courts rule on violation of "rights" tht do not exist in the Constitution. Privacy, for one right, is never mentioned. So when epopletry to claim it is a right they are already on shaky ground. Imagine if that a were o such legal starting point. It could be frightening. Don't like the Constitution ...change it. oo much bother? Too bad. If we do not have people take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, what then is our standard? That's fine. Just don't complain when ten years from now, someone you know is: a. arrested after the police break down a door without a warrant (because Miranda has been overruled) b. held without bail because the court holds that the Eight Amendment only applies to the federal government and not the states c. convicted for using birth control (because Griswold has been overturned) d imprisoned for ten years because, again, the Eighth Amendment is said not to apply to the states. Oh, and the trial will be held in a courtroom where the judge will lead everyone in the Lord's Prayer each day and look around to see who is praying and who is not. (Fifth Circuit held that something similar was not objectionable.)
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 14, 2023 18:50:54 GMT -5
Your creative writing is interesting but a bit divorced from reality. a. Miranda is still in place b, c and d. 8th Ammendment still applies to all citizens
We currently have special deals being worked out for connected individuals who are receiving a separate set of rules from the rest of us. Prehaps that will end. I pray every day, just not out loud. Want to try to disqualify me for that? Prayer is supposedly now baned in public school classrooms, but anyone who has ever proctored exams there will see as many praying as you might in foxholes. For most of our counyry's history, wills stypiaccly started, "In the Name of God..." It did not destroy the country.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Aug 14, 2023 19:22:33 GMT -5
Interesting discussion being held at a high level . A while back I read a short piece by a Harvard historian, Lepore(?) She criticized the methodology used by Scalia and his originalist followers in implementing originalism. She did not criticize originalism directly although I believe she felt it was a fool's errand. She criticized its implementation. She & others had researched historical sources and found that Scalia et al cited historical source material limited solely to their opinion. In the process these JusticesJustices ignored the majority of historical sources which had established a different understanding of the words & phrases cited by so-called originalists. In sum originalists cited sources which supported their views. She gave few examples. Many of us believe Justices enter their term on the Court with a well developed world view which they try to implement in their legal opinions. From the extreme Conservative Court of the '30's to the liberal Warren Court to Rehnquist and now our current Catholic(?) Court ,it seems most Justices (not all) come up with decisions in many cases which mirror their political views & those of their benefactors. Cynicism abounds!
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 15, 2023 8:20:00 GMT -5
Your creative writing is interesting but a bit divorced from reality. a. Miranda is still in place b, c and d. 8th Ammendment still applies to all citizens We currently have special deals being worked out for connected individuals who are receiving a separate set of rules from the rest of us. Prehaps that will end. I pray every day, just not out loud. Want to try to disqualify me for that? Prayer is supposedly now baned in public school classrooms, but anyone who has ever proctored exams there will see as many praying as you might in foxholes. For most of our counyry's history, wills stypiaccly started, "In the Name of God..." It did not destroy the country. 1. Thomas joined a disssenting opinion of Scalia more than 20 years ago which maintained that Miranda was bad law. 2. Thomas has argued that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment is erroneous. He advocates using the privileges and immunities clause which would allow reconsideration of whether certain rights are fundamental and which would likely result in a determination that the states need not afford Bill of Rights protections to noncitizens. Do you think that non citizens should not have the right to an open and public trial or to freedom of speech? If you travel abroad, would you want different free speech rules than those which apply to the citizens of that country? 3. No one is disqualifying you for praying, just as no one punishes the student who prays before the math test. The question is government sponsored prayer and especially whether it is coercive. Imagine being a Muslim person who comes before a judge who opens court by saying "Thank you Jesus. I accept you as my lord and savior and will run this court to promote your mission here on earth." Does the Muslim person say, "Amen" even if he or she doesn't want to do so? Does an atheist lawyer feel obligated to say, "Amen" because she is now in the uneveniable position of standing up for her own beliefs at the risk of having the judge exercise discretion in a way which will adversely affect the lawyer's client?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 15, 2023 10:12:49 GMT -5
Justice Thomas is inexorably opposed to disclosure requirements. I believe there have been 4-5 cases on which disclosure requirements were challenged on constitutional grounds during his time on the Court, and he was the sole dissent in the Court's upholding the constitionality of the requirement in all these cases.
As for his own repeated failure to disclose information on Federally required financial reporting forms, e.g., not reporting Ginni Thomas' salary between 2003 and 2007, which was nearly $700,000, this has repeatedly led to his having to amend and correct the forms, most recently as this year. [As I have noted before, I know and worked with Ginni.]
The instructions below are from the 2023 financial reporting form for the Judiciary with respect to spousal income. I doubt the provisions have changed from what was required 20 years ago..
[C.F.R. stands for Code of Federal Regulations.]
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 15, 2023 16:21:28 GMT -5
Does Ginni Thomas need a public relations consultant? Or is she using her husband's? I have never seen anything in the media that paints her in a positive light. Having worked with Phreek is her only redeeming quality I know of.
She appears to be the worst stereotype of a meddling spouse since Lucille Ball in "I Love Lucy" minus the slapstick humor.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 15, 2023 18:55:24 GMT -5
Does Ginni Thomas need a public relations consultant? Or is she using her husband's? I have never seen anything in the media that paints her in a positive light. Having worked with Phreek is her only redeeming quality I know of. She appears to be the worst stereotype of a meddling spouse since Lucille Ball in "I Love Lucy" minus the slapstick humor. Ginni and I were each pursuing our own agendas, ant trying to do this in a complimentary, mutually beneficial way. I for the Executive, and she for the Republican leadership in the House. I did not find her to be at all partisan
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Aug 15, 2023 19:01:37 GMT -5
Does Ginni Thomas need a public relations consultant? Or is she using her husband's? I have never seen anything in the media that paints her in a positive light. Having worked with Phreek is her only redeeming quality I know of. She appears to be the worst stereotype of a meddling spouse since Lucille Ball in "I Love Lucy" minus the slapstick humor. Ginni and I were each pursuing our own agendas, ant trying to do this in a complimentary, mutually beneficial way. I for the Executive, and she for the Republican leadership in the House. I did not find her to be at all partisan Maybe she was being discreet, or maybe she's just changed, because she is obstreperously partisan now.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 15, 2023 19:31:52 GMT -5
Ginni and I were each pursuing our own agendas, ant trying to do this in a complimentary, mutually beneficial way. I for the Executive, and she for the Republican leadership in the House. I did not find her to be at all partisan Maybe she was being discreet, or maybe she's just changed, because she is obstreperously partisan now. She was not in a position to freelance, independent of what the Republican leadership wanted. To use contemporary parlance of a more partisan era, there were guardrails back then.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 15, 2023 19:44:02 GMT -5
Maybe she was being discreet, or maybe she's just changed, because she is obstreperously partisan now. She was not in a position to freelance, independent of what the Republican leadership wanted. To use contemporary parlance of a more partisan era, there were guardrails back then. She was hemmed in and really needed those vacations?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 15, 2023 20:19:46 GMT -5
She was not in a position to freelance, independent of what the Republican leadership wanted. To use contemporary parlance of a more partisan era, there were guardrails back then. She was hemmed in and really needed those vacations? Once, after a visit to the old Stalinesque USSR, I recovered by spending a week on the Cote d'Azur. Piggybacking a personal vacation on the back of official government travel. I believe that is no longer allowed. So I am not the one to throw darts at vacations.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 15, 2023 20:33:31 GMT -5
She was hemmed in and really needed those vacations? Once, after a visit to the old Stalinesque USSR, I recovered by spending a week on the Cote d'Azur. Piggybacking a personal vacation on the back of official government travel. I believe that is no longer allowed. So I am not the one to throw darts at vacations. You deserved a refund for the return flight on Air Force 4-B you didn't use.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Aug 15, 2023 20:38:18 GMT -5
CODEL’s are trips taken by members of Congress and paid for by taxpayers. Reasons for the trips are at best educational, but do little for the national interest and taxpayers. Just another bad excuse for government to spend the hard earned money from taxpayers
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 16, 2023 6:15:57 GMT -5
I will briefly narrate a travel anecdote with an incidental Holy Cross connection. On the last day of our delegation's official trip to the USSR, we were treated to a ballet danced by the Bolshoi Ballet. The ballet was roughly translated as The Crimean Fountain. From a 1999 NYT review, The U.S. delegation's box was next to a box occupied by senior military officers from North Korea. Awkward. Should we ignore them, or acknowledge them? I missed half the ballet, excusing myself to make trips to the bathroom. (Each box had a private bathroom, thank God.) I was a sick as a dog, undoubtedly from having earlier eaten a cream-filled pastry sold at a buffet at the end of our corridor in the largest hotel in the world, the 5,000 room Rossiya, just off Red Square. So sick, I greatly feared missing my flight to Amsterdam the next day. I did make the flight, and on arriving at the Marriott hotel, I remember rather strangely ordering two milkshakes, my first meal in 24 hours. The Rossiya, at age 30 or so, was demolished in 2006-07. To be replaced by a new park. ^^^ St. Basil's cathedral can be seen at the south edge of Red Square. Kremlin walls to the left. The architect for this new Moscow park: Diller, Scofidio + Renfro The architect for the Prior Center: Diller, Scofidio + Renfro The projects actually overlapped.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Aug 16, 2023 7:32:24 GMT -5
Only on Crossports
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Aug 16, 2023 7:49:12 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just indulging in stereotypes about Russia, but I'm kind of shocked that they would hire DS & R to design a public park.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 16, 2023 8:07:20 GMT -5
Cream puff poisoning is just one of many dangers of being an International Man of Mystery.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Aug 16, 2023 8:17:57 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just indulging in stereotypes about Russia, but I'm kind of shocked that they would hire DS & R to design a public park. Mr. Kudryavtsev, with his Citymakers partner Andrey Grinev, began advocating a purely green space, and lobbying governmental bodies. They formed a Friends of Zaryadye group, inspired by Friends of the High Line, which had successfully campaigned for the restitution of a disused elevated rail track on Manhattan’s West Side led by Diller Scofidio & Renfro.
|
|