Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 42  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
I caught on the radio that there was a 7-2 vote against racial biases in juries.

I correctly guessed the two dissenters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/washi ... tml?ref=us

Seriously, Scalia is an asshat, and Thomas really, REALLY hates being black.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Interweb Celebrity
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am
Posts: 46000
Location: Reasonville
i just finished a book in which an entire chapter was devoted to the race and jury topic and cases pertaining to it. this is good news. i'll post some of the cases discussed later if i get a chance.

_________________
No matter how dark the storm gets overhead
They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge
What about us when we're down here in it?
We gotta watch our backs


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Let me throw this article into the mix too. It's from last month, but we never talked about it, and it has potential to spark discussion. Does Thomas just shut up and wait for Scalia to tell him what to think?

Quote:
Thomas silent as Supreme Court talks on and on
Feb. 25, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two years and 142 cases have passed since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments. It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court's unceasing inquiries.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he'd like to be known as the "listening justice."

Hardly a case goes by without eight justices peppering lawyers with questions. Oral arguments offer justices the chance to resolve nagging doubts about a case, probe its weaknesses or make a point to their colleagues.

Left, right and center, the justices ask and they ask and they ask. Sometimes they debate each other, leaving the lawyer at the podium helpless to jump in. "I think you're handling these questions very well," Chief Justice John Roberts quipped to a lawyer recently in the midst of one such exchange.

Leaning back in his leather chair, often looking up at the ceiling, Thomas takes it all in, but he never joins in.

He occasionally leans to his right to share a comment or a laugh with Justice Stephen Breyer. Less often, he talks to Justice Anthony Kennedy, to his immediate left.

Thomas, characteristically, declined to comment for this article. But in the course of his publicity tour for his autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son," the 59-year-old justice discussed his reticence on the bench on several occasions.

The questions may be helpful to the others, Thomas said, but not to him.

The book tour showed that the topic comes up even among friendly audiences.

Indeed, Thomas' comment was provoked by this question: Why do your colleagues ask so many questions?

His response: "I did not plant that question. That's a fine question. When you figure out the answer, you let me know," he said.

The typical hourlong argument session can sometimes be difficult, even for a practiced questioner.

"I really would like to hear what those reasons are without interruption from all of my colleagues," Justice John Paul Stevens said at an argument in the fall.

The newest justice, Samuel Alito, has said he initially found it hard to get a question in sometimes amid all the former law professors on the court.

The last time Thomas asked a question in court was February 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous court eventually broadened the ability of death-penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime.

In the past, the Georgia-born Thomas has chalked up his silence to his struggle as a teenager to master standard English after having grown up speaking Geechee, a dialect that thrived among descendants of former slaves on the islands off the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts.

He also has said he will ask a pertinent question if his colleagues don't but sees no need to engage in the back-and-forth just to hear his own voice.

Lately, he has focused on the latter reason.

"If I think a question will help me decide a case, then I'll ask that question," he told C-SPAN's Brian Lamb in October. "Otherwise, it's not worth asking because it detracts from my job."

He talked in that same interview about descriptions of him as the silent justice.

"I can't really say that it's unfair to say that I'm silent in that context. I would like to, though, be referred to as the 'listening justice,' you know," Thomas said. "I still believe that, if somebody else is talking, somebody should be listening."

The following month, however, at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College in Michigan, Thomas was more combative when asked about oral arguments.

Suppose surgeons started discussing the merits of removing a gallbladder while in the operating room, Thomas said, as quoted by U.S. News & World Report. "You really didn't go in there to have a debate about gallbladder surgery," he said. Similarly, "we are there to decide cases, not to engage in seminar discussions."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/ ... ilence.ap/

Isn't asking questions a sign of curiosity, an attempt to understand concepts, or an indication mild interest in gaining knowledge? If he's not waiting for Scalia's opinion than he knows his decision from the get-go and could give a shit what anyone in the courtroom says. I also think this "listening justice" bullshit is just an insult to his colleagues.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, but the Court heard oral arguments on perhaps the biggest 2nd Amendment case in the past century this week. At issue was Washington D.C.'s complete ban on handguns. It was the first time the Court agreed to take a case with this much significance.

Based on the oral arguments, it appears as if the Court is ready to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and hold that it applies to states and that each person has a fundamental right to own a gun. The Court was nearly unanimous. Lovely.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
B wrote:
and Thomas really, REALLY hates being black.


That's completely unfair. You act as if Thomas has no basis at all for his dissents (at least when people disagree with them) and that his "being black" is a prescription for everything that people perceive as "anti-black." While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, but the Court heard oral arguments on perhaps the biggest 2nd Amendment case in the past century this week. At issue was Washington D.C.'s complete ban on handguns. It was the first time the Court agreed to take a case with this much significance.

Based on the oral arguments, it appears as if the Court is ready to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and hold that it applies to states and that each person has a fundamental right to own a gun. The Court was nearly unanimous. Lovely.


That's probably a 5-4, don't you think?

(Can't wait to see Barack go duck hunting this fall.)

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Not sure if this was mentioned or not, but the Court heard oral arguments on perhaps the biggest 2nd Amendment case in the past century this week. At issue was Washington D.C.'s complete ban on handguns. It was the first time the Court agreed to take a case with this much significance.

Based on the oral arguments, it appears as if the Court is ready to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and hold that it applies to states and that each person has a fundamental right to own a gun. The Court was nearly unanimous. Lovely.


That's probably a 5-4, don't you think?

(Can't wait to see Barack go duck hunting this fall.)


It sounded like 7-2.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Chris_H_2 wrote:
While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


If he ever votes in favor of a ruling that makes it harder to discriminate against people, I'll cut him some slack.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
B wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


If he ever votes in favor of a ruling that makes it harder to discriminate against people, I'll cut him some slack.


Come on. You're smarter than that. You know that there's a little more that goes into the equation than unequivocal, straight-forward, no-questions-asked discrimination.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
B wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


If he ever votes in favor of a ruling that makes it harder to discriminate against people, I'll cut him some slack.


By the way, what about his decisions in cases relating to race-based programs? Do those not count?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Chris_H_2 wrote:
B wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


If he ever votes in favor of a ruling that makes it harder to discriminate against people, I'll cut him some slack.


By the way, what about his decisions in cases relating to race-based programs? Do those not count?


If you're going to force me to back up my snide, sarcastic, stereotyped comments ... you're going to have to wait for me to do some research. :evil:

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm
Posts: 10620
Location: Chicago, IL
Gender: Male
B wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
B wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
While I don't agree with everything he does, I'm glad that he doesn't use his color as a basis for some of the Court's decisions.


If he ever votes in favor of a ruling that makes it harder to discriminate against people, I'll cut him some slack.


By the way, what about his decisions in cases relating to race-based programs? Do those not count?


If you're going to force me to back up my snide, sarcastic, stereotyped comments ... you're going to have to wait for me to do some research. :evil:


oops . . . :oops:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
B wrote:
Let me throw this article into the mix too. It's from last month, but we never talked about it, and it has potential to spark discussion. Does Thomas just shut up and wait for Scalia to tell him what to think?

Scalia and Thomas actually came out on opposite sides of a ruling this past week. I can't remember what the topic was. Maybe someone else caught this on the news.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
B wrote:
Let me throw this article into the mix too. It's from last month, but we never talked about it, and it has potential to spark discussion. Does Thomas just shut up and wait for Scalia to tell him what to think?

Scalia and Thomas actually came out on opposite sides of a ruling this past week. I can't remember what the topic was. Maybe someone else caught this on the news.


:shock: If Thomas isn't up Scalia's butt, than my whole worldview is askew.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Decider
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am
Posts: 5575
Location: Sydney, NSW
B wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
B wrote:
Let me throw this article into the mix too. It's from last month, but we never talked about it, and it has potential to spark discussion. Does Thomas just shut up and wait for Scalia to tell him what to think?

Scalia and Thomas actually came out on opposite sides of a ruling this past week. I can't remember what the topic was. Maybe someone else caught this on the news.


:shock: If Thomas isn't up Scalia's butt, than my whole worldview is askew.


Scalia will occasionally defer to precedent. They do, sometimes, come out on opposite sides. Sometimes.

_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Lethal Injection = Constitutional

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

7-2 with seven written opinions

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Wow. That got no attention. I guess it should have been in the "Abolish the Death Penalty" thread.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 25452
Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son
Gender: Male
That's fucked up.

_________________
Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.

Always do the right thing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
I'm against the death penalty, but even I don't think lethal injection is unconstitutional.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
B wrote:
I'm against the death penalty, but even I don't think lethal injection is unconstitutional.

But is the particular way they do it "cruel and unusual punishment"? This 3 drug "cocktail" takes several minutes to administer, and has had some notably awful fuckups in teh past few years (I seem to remember a couple in Florida). Check the other threads for thsoe accounts, I know we discussed them here.

When we put our cat down it was a shot of sedative, and then teh death shot. The whole thing took 30 seconds, and there was quite obviously no pain. Why they can't do that is beyond me.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 42  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:08 am