quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yes I said Obama's America.

No comment on that one. You've said enough.

quote:

And we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Meh. I think it's most important that our Supreme Court justices can properly interpret the constitution consistently across all demographics. Not surprising that his line here gives me great concern. Yeah! It's my country! Let's appoint activists, not strict constitutionalists, even though that should be their job!

At least he'll only be replacing one lefty with another (although likely more lefty).

If you drink too much Kool-Aid your teeth will rot before you hit 25.

quote:

Obama has said abortion will be an "important issue" in the context of judicial appointments, though "we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test." "I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided," he said at the October 2008 debate. "So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through."

so, how's the the freedom of choice act going barack?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Meh. I think it's most important that our Supreme Court justices can properly interpret the constitution consistently across all demographics. Not surprising that his line here gives me great concern. Yeah! It's my country! Let's appoint activists, not strict constitutionalists, even though that should be their job!

what makes you think a judge's job is to interpret the constitution under the strict constructionist theory? Apparently, that just suits your desires; it's not in a judge's job description. A judge is employed to interpret the law. There are various theories of how to interpret the law. Strict construction is only one theory. Obviously, it is no more right or wrong than any other commonly used theory (i.e., original intent, strict construction, etc...) because people smarter than both you and I apply the various theories.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 what makes you think a judge's job is to interpret the constitution under the strict constructionist theory? Apparently, that just suits your desires; it's not in a judge's job description. A judge is employed to interpret the law. There are various theories of how to interpret the law. Strict construction is only one theory. Obviously, it is no more right or wrong than any other commonly used theory (i.e., original intent, strict construction, etc...) because people smarter than both you and I apply the various theories.

I expect a Supreme Court Justice to be about the most objective arbiter as anyone in this country could possibly be. They have a "living" document that provides guidance and that should guide their principled decisions. When you start introducing things like empathy and emotional factors, you introduce things that cause you to be less objective and likely to set bad precedent.

Unless you want to say things should be done case-by-case, and that one precedent may not be applicable to another case, and that emotions, mood and empathy should be guiding principles in a decision. In which case, I think you're making an awfully strong case in favor of torture, sanctioned by the SCOTUS.

But hey, that's just me and this is "Obama's America" after all. So I guess he can pretty much do whatever he wants and not be wrong about anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I expect a Supreme Court Justice to be about the most objective arbiter as anyone in this country could possibly be. They have a "living" document that provides guidance and that should guide their principled decisions. When you start introducing things like empathy and emotional factors, you introduce things that cause you to be less objective and likely to set bad precedent. Unless you want to say things should be done case-by-case, and that one precedent may not be applicable to another case, and that emotions, mood and empathy should be guiding principles in a decision. In which case, I think you're making an awfully strong case in favor of torture, sanctioned by the SCOTUS. But hey, that's just me and this is "Obama's America" after all. So I guess he can pretty much do whatever he wants and not be wrong about anything.

i think you misinterpreted what i said. i certainly agree that justices should be highly objective. They should respect stare decisis, when the case was correctly decided (i.e., constitutionally correct). The will of the people should not affect their decision. So on and so forth.

My issue was that you think a judge should strictly interpret the text of the constitution. How about when that text is vague? Like, what does "equal protection" mean? Or, what does "due process" mean? the constitution is full of vagueness that can't be decided by simply looking at the text. When deciding how to interpret that vagueness, unlike Scalia, I think it's foolish to look back and see what people 230 years ago meant, considering they lived in a society that hardly represents the 21st century. Nevertheless, using an originalist theory of constitutional intepretation is just as valid a way to interpret vague clauses of the constitution as is any other commonly used theory of interpretation. So, basically, i take issue with your implication that judges are supposed to be strict constructionists. In reality, that's just your preference.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 My issue was that you think a judge should strictly interpret the text of the constitution. How about when that text is vague? Like, what does "equal protection" mean? Or, what does "due process" mean? the constitution is full of vagueness that can't be decided by simply looking at the text. When deciding how to interpret that vagueness, unlike Scalia, I think it's foolish to look back and see what people 230 years ago meant, considering they lived in a society that hardly represents the 21st century. Nevertheless, using an originalist theory of constitutional intepretation is just as valid a way to interpret vague clauses of the constitution as is any other commonly used theory of interpretation. So, basically, i take issue with your implication that judges are supposed to be strict constructionists. In reality, that's just your preference.

Fair enough--perhaps I did.

However, I do stand by the comments regarding bringing in things like empathy and situational specifics that might otherwise taint precedent when the SCOTUS is supposed to give black and white answers to questions that could not be answered in any other court. It leaves the door wide open to rationalization when objective decisions give much clearer guidance. We should demand that of every SC Justice, no matter which party they may be affiliated with.

As a side note, Souter was a GOP appointee who ended up straying more to the left. Frankly, I think a lot of people are still pissed off about the Kelo decision. Anybody remember the Lost Liberty Hotel??

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Fair enough--perhaps I did. However, I do stand by the comments regarding bringing in things like empathy and situational specifics that might otherwise taint precedent when the SCOTUS is supposed to give black and white answers to questions that could not be answered in any other court. It leaves the door wide open to rationalization when objective decisions give much clearer guidance. We should demand that of every SC Justice, no matter which party they may be affiliated with. As a side note, Souter was a GOP appointee who ended up straying more to the left. Frankly, I think a lot of people are still pissed off about the Kelo decision. Anybody remember the Lost Liberty Hotel??

I support the Kelo decision as long as the private person to whom the property will be given after that takings under emminent domain is developing the property in accordance with a larger public plan for redevelopment that ultimately serves a greater good (i.e., turning slums into middle income areas - shit like that). The fact that a specific private person will benefit is irrelevant considering a private party will benefit even if the taking is strictly for government purposes. Holdouts shouldn't stifle progress in development. On the other hand, I wouldn't support eminent domain for a baseball stadium (although it happens all the time), or eminent domain for a casino. I support eminent domain for large scale projects that couldn't move forward otherwise. For some dumb ass reason americans think their private property rights trump everyone elses rights. I simply don't agree.

Kelo was the use of eminent domain to take private property out of one set of hands and place it in another private party's hands, no? Private property rights is one that I hold most dear and one that I think is among the most important in our republic.

quote:

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 US 229 (1984), the Court had said that the government purpose under minimum scrutiny need only be "conceivable." In two 1996 cases, however, the Court clarified that concept. In Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, the Court said that the government purpose must be "independent and legitimate." And in U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation." Thus, the Court made it clear that, in the scrutiny regime established in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937), government purpose is a question of fact for the trier of fact.

quote:

Justice O'Connor objected to the fact that an unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. As a result, the dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this takings power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion� take from the poor, give to the rich� would become the norm, not the exception: quote: �Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.� She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property � and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

But I just love this kicker (which would cause me to question your support of the original decision):

quote:

The promised economic benefits fail to materialize In November 2007, it was reported that the economic benefits that had been promised by supporters of the Kelo ruling had failed to materialize. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline and was said to be technically in default.[9][10] By the end of 2008, the site of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project (where Suzette Kelo's and her neighbors' homes once stood), continues to be an unused lot. No redevelopment has taken place after government expenditures of some $80 million. One building is being renovated for a Coast Guard museum.

Anyhoo, I agree with the dissenters on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Kelo was the use of eminent domain to take private property out of one set of hands and place it in another private party's hands, no?

that is correct. But, the other private party was supposed to develop the land for the economic benefit of the community (i.e., building more retail for job creation, etc...).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Private property rights is one that I hold most dear and one that I think is among the most important in our republic.

private property rights are surely important. nevertheless, certain overarching social goals are more important (i.e., ensuring that everyone has a job, decent place to live, adequate transportation, etc...). For me, I am also somewhat of an urban planning geek, and I think when areas are developed without a large scale plan (i.e., left to private people to develop), the resulting layout tends to end up sloppy and inefficient, e.g., suburban areas!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka But I just love this kicker (which would cause me to question your support of the original decision):

I didn't follow up on the results, however, the years of delay could have been one of the causes of the failure. In any event, I agree in principle with the use of emminent domain for economic development, I am not concerned with individual results because it is impossible to ensure that every case will end up a winner.

this woman is blindfolded for a reason.

CHANGE