“Judges have enough leeway within the scope of the law to make life and death decisions as it is. Why should we give them additional powers to re-write laws which don’t suit their temperment or personal history?”
I agree with that, Legion.
I’m not sure sotomayor disagrees. I’m not sure any justice disagrees in principle. But the constitution is filled with open-ended, abstract terms. What is “due process” or “freedom of speech” or the “establishment” of religion or an “infringement” of a right, is always going to be a bit in the eye of the beholder, and I can’t imagine the framers didn’t know that when they framed broad abstract rights rather than specific prescriptions. I think Sotomayor’s life experience, and experience as a trial judge, was celebrated in part as a corrective to the overly ivory-tower law & econ view of facts that the court, particularly but not exclusively the conservatives, seem to take. I think of Justice Ginsberg on the pay discrimination case. That was life experience shedding light on a statutory interpretation question that was not about bending ro reshaping legislative intent so much as giving real meaning to what the legislatrue had in fact intended, as made clear when the legislature quickly undid the majority’s decision by rewrite. We are light-years removbed from teh Warren court. The conservative majority seems much quicker on this court to wilfully misinterpret and re-write law than the liberals.
benson, you may be gone but politically I fear you may be right. Much as I want to see comprehensive health coverage (and I know you and legion are against this), I worry about the political price with this bill in this manner in this environment. Not sure the dems eliminate the problem by walking away at this point. Interesting question whether mandatory auto insurance is constitutional but mandatory (with exception) health insurance is not. But I don’t see this as the constitutional assault that legion does.
Legion – One example: C. Thos. eschews the idea of affirmative action despite having benefitted mightily from it himself.
And I’m not saying god-fearing folk can’t believe in Darwin – several of the justices have espoused the ideas of Bishop Ussher & creationism.
This country will go down the tubes if we don’t teach kids science.
dibs- my lawyer was snappy. Do you dare impugn her knowledge? Of course I can make sweeping statements. Its the democratic way.
Legion- your argument about Republicans of Color is a red herring. We all know that the Republican Party under Lincoln was no where like the Republican party of today. If you consider Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe “conservatives” you have just rewritten history (just like the Texans). The party has changed drastically from what it was- if you need proof, look at its present day demographics. There is no big tent in the Republican Party.
we are talking about this instance where the democrats in congress (a majority) will not pass this bill, so their leadership is resorting to parlimentary tricks to pass this bill, despite the will of the American people.
bxgrl, if Bush did anything unconstitutional it would be in the courts right now.
there were indeed consititional challenges throughout his presidency. He complied with the supreme court.
please stick to the facts of this problem at hand.
Bush is eating ribs in Texas.
“unearned income = nanny money. tax those biotches, stat!”
Ass.
CGar…who wants to pay this tax, small as it is, on interest & dividends in a Roth when you can continue to have them grow tax free in an IRA?
Arkady, I saw some story yesterday about changes in the history textbooks down in Texas. Imagine the worst.
“Judges have enough leeway within the scope of the law to make life and death decisions as it is. Why should we give them additional powers to re-write laws which don’t suit their temperment or personal history?”
I agree with that, Legion.
I’m not sure sotomayor disagrees. I’m not sure any justice disagrees in principle. But the constitution is filled with open-ended, abstract terms. What is “due process” or “freedom of speech” or the “establishment” of religion or an “infringement” of a right, is always going to be a bit in the eye of the beholder, and I can’t imagine the framers didn’t know that when they framed broad abstract rights rather than specific prescriptions. I think Sotomayor’s life experience, and experience as a trial judge, was celebrated in part as a corrective to the overly ivory-tower law & econ view of facts that the court, particularly but not exclusively the conservatives, seem to take. I think of Justice Ginsberg on the pay discrimination case. That was life experience shedding light on a statutory interpretation question that was not about bending ro reshaping legislative intent so much as giving real meaning to what the legislatrue had in fact intended, as made clear when the legislature quickly undid the majority’s decision by rewrite. We are light-years removbed from teh Warren court. The conservative majority seems much quicker on this court to wilfully misinterpret and re-write law than the liberals.
benson, you may be gone but politically I fear you may be right. Much as I want to see comprehensive health coverage (and I know you and legion are against this), I worry about the political price with this bill in this manner in this environment. Not sure the dems eliminate the problem by walking away at this point. Interesting question whether mandatory auto insurance is constitutional but mandatory (with exception) health insurance is not. But I don’t see this as the constitutional assault that legion does.
“it’s “if you get caught, dont snitch out your pimp ELSE!!!”
m4l, I am MANY things to bxgrl, but pimp is NOT one of them.
Posted by: CGar at March 18, 2010 12:49 PM
we all know that’s MM. MM’s crew also KNOWS that if one doesn’t have fast legs to run away then one needs tight lips ELSE………….
Legion – One example: C. Thos. eschews the idea of affirmative action despite having benefitted mightily from it himself.
And I’m not saying god-fearing folk can’t believe in Darwin – several of the justices have espoused the ideas of Bishop Ussher & creationism.
This country will go down the tubes if we don’t teach kids science.
dibs- my lawyer was snappy. Do you dare impugn her knowledge? Of course I can make sweeping statements. Its the democratic way.
Legion- your argument about Republicans of Color is a red herring. We all know that the Republican Party under Lincoln was no where like the Republican party of today. If you consider Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe “conservatives” you have just rewritten history (just like the Texans). The party has changed drastically from what it was- if you need proof, look at its present day demographics. There is no big tent in the Republican Party.
dibs is right bxgrl
…oh and welcome back 😉
we are talking about this instance where the democrats in congress (a majority) will not pass this bill, so their leadership is resorting to parlimentary tricks to pass this bill, despite the will of the American people.
bxgrl, if Bush did anything unconstitutional it would be in the courts right now.
there were indeed consititional challenges throughout his presidency. He complied with the supreme court.
please stick to the facts of this problem at hand.
Bush is eating ribs in Texas.
Dave, why do you say it would halt the flight from Contributory IRAs to ROTH IRAs?
unearned income = nanny money. tax those biotches, stat!
*rob*