OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Johnson, T » Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:16:16


O.K. so we've started.

Do you think he'll make it by 2015?

Tracy Johnson
Measurement Specialties, Inc.

BT







NNNN



* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Denys Beau » Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:57:20

suspect a push for Eugene as a Supreme Court justice has been underway for
a while now; if history teaches us anything, he may be quite well regarded
by his lawyer peers. He also shows up on TV for his opinions every once in
a while.

However, as we are finding it now, the Senate wants to know everything about
a nominee, especially whatever opinions that nominee holds or has held in
the past. This is where we hear about a paper trail, a quaint term in this
day and age.

This paper trail is used by special interest groups to interpret the
interpretations of the nominee and then to categorize said nominee as
extreme and out of the mainstream if a comma is missing or if an opinion
runs counter to the beliefs of whoever is blabbering at the time.

Eugene has many opinions about lots of issues and is not afraid to express
them in his blog. This may come as a shock to some of you but sometimes
Eugene holds an opinion on a controversial subject that a future senator,
especially one with a big government, socialist penchant will say is extreme
and out of the mainstream.

The other issue is experience. Eugene is a law professor and the current
trend is for long-term jurist, especially in the higher courts. I am not
saying this is good or bad, it's just what it is currently. Perhaps in
10-15 years, that will change, who can tell?

Currently the oldest member of the SCOTUS is John Paul Stevens at 85 and he
is probably the next one to go; I would not be surprised to see him step
down within a year or two. That may still be too soon for Eugene. The next
oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who at 72, is three years younger that
retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ] On Behalf
Of Johnson, Tracy
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:16 PM
To: XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

O.K. so we've started.

Do you think he'll make it by 2015?

Tracy Johnson
Measurement Specialties, Inc.

BT







NNNN



* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Heasman, D » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:27:27


Another problem with Eugene may be that he changes his mind when
he's persuaded by argument. He blogged in favour of torture, then
changed his mind.
This would alienate those in favour of torture, those against, and
those who
think it's a virtue to never change your mind.
And that's a lot of people alienated.


* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Tracy John » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:31:02

[big snip because I'm replying from another account]

> The other issue is experience. Eugene is a law professor and the
> current trend is for long-term jurist, especially in the higher
> courts. I am not saying this is good or bad, it's just what it is
> currently. Perhaps in 10-15 years, that will change, who can tell?

... Well the 'trend' has always been that way. There haven't been that
many, (Marshall, Holmes, Warren, + 1 below.)

So, we already have 1 out of 9 justices who wasn't a judge before
(Scalia), so we are already bucking the 'trend'.

--
BT

Tracy Johnson
Justin Thyme Productions
http://www.yqcomputer.com/







NNNN

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Michael Ba » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:03:32

see a different problem.
What are the qualifications for a supreme Court judge and what is really
the job of the Supreme Court?

Currently it looks like every president that has a chance appoints a judge
that would rule the same way the president would like him to do.
That means that GWB is in a good position because he can appoint 2 maybe
more judges that share his view/vision.
Then for the next 5-20 years we get these rulings and earlier rulings may
be overturned.
The next time we have a more democratic president and he gets "lucky"
enough to appoint several judges, then things might change and be
overturend again.

Now is this the sense/use of a Supreme Court?

Michael

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:57:20 -0600, Denys Beauchemin
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

for
about
extreme
next

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Mark Wonsi » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:21:57

Micheal asks:

The role of the Supreme Court changed in a landmark case called Marbury vs.
Madison:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

The concern with judicial review is that the Court becomes more powerful
than the legislative and executive branches and this can transform the
country from a constitutionally-limited republic to a judicial oligarchy.

Legislators have actually been writing laws in such a way that judges can
decide how they should be implemented. (The Americans with Disabilities Act
is a good example). This takes the legislators off the hook during election
time and all is good as long as you get "your kind of people" in the
judicial branch.

The process eliminates that pesky democratic thingy but causes a lot of
political strife - in case you haven't noticed...

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Tom Hul » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:16

Unfortunately, the main way I've seen the Supreme Court
"used" is to legislate new laws that were never written or
passed by any legislature.

Perhaps we could get back to them being judges instead of
legislators. What a concept! Do we really want 9 people
appointed for life practically ruling our country? Not good.
And not what the framers ever intended.

Tom Hula

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Baier"

|I see a different problem.
| What are the qualifications for a supreme Court judge and what is really
| the job of the Supreme Court?
|
| Currently it looks like every president that has a chance appoints a judge
| that would rule the same way the president would like him to do.
| That means that GWB is in a good position because he can appoint 2 maybe
| more judges that share his view/vision.
| Then for the next 5-20 years we get these rulings and earlier rulings may
| be overturned.
| The next time we have a more democratic president and he gets "lucky"
| enough to appoint several judges, then things might change and be
| overturend again.
|
| Now is this the sense/use of a Supreme Court?
|
| Michael

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by russ smit » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:54:16


>

The Supreme Court is no more powerful than the Congress or the
Presidency. We are subject to the combined rule of three branches of a
federal government whose roles include providing a check and balance for
the power of each other. The Supreme Court can be overruled by the
combined power of the Congress and the Presidency by amending the U.S.
Constitution. That process is designed to be difficult and lengthly
specifically to make its use infrequent.


Wow. This must be new. I always thought politicians spoke clearly and
wrote laws without fluff or legaleaze that might make their meaning
unclear. /:|

Realistically, a good amount of the fluff that gets written into our
laws is exactly so that the 'reason' a law is passed is incorporated
into its text and is therefor available as fodder in the fight that some
'activist judge' is going against the original meaning of the law; but I
digress.

Legislators write laws to be open to situational interpretation because
to do otherwise greatly reduces the power and effect of the law. The
flexibility increases the likelihood that they will not be nullified,
but rather will be applied and made part of the legal fabric of our society.


It's not politically expedient to admit this, Mark, but the course of
the law is slow, and horribly intricate. The democratic thingy, of
which you seemingly speak so fondly, however, is often the actions of
short lived political personalities catering to their money base,
burning out in a blaze of passing a few bills that will have to be
overturned following legal challenges because allowing them to exist
would nullify tens or hundreds of other laws the court rightly deems to
be more valuable.

Worse, the passage of those laws is usually done as a "you scratch my
back and I'll scratch yours" with more senior (and more likely to stay
in power) legislators who know the are unlikely to stand, but again are
more interested in their own battles.

No man is an island, and no law stands alone in the judiciary. Every
law competes and interacts with other related laws for application in a
situation; and it is really that choosing of which law will win out that
the courts must do. It is situational. It is political. It is how the
system was designed, and while it is easy to complain about it, there is
nothing currently available that is better.



Rs~

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Heasman, D » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:59:14

----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ]


Legislators have actually been writing laws in such a way that judges
can decide how they should be implemented. (The Americans with
Disabilities Act is a good example). This takes the legislators off the
hook during election time and all is good as long as you get "your kind
of people" in the judicial branch.

The process eliminates that pesky democratic thingy but causes a lot of
political strife - in case you haven't noticed...

Mark W.


Coincidentally there has been a NYT article, pulling together
data
which is checkable, so its lickspittle surrenderist socialism
can be discounted : -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html


We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down
Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President
George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63
percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President
Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The
tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %


One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered
more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and
John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional
statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently
to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the
latter group is the most activist.


And some wag has added, as one would, were one waggish:-


Whatever conservative justices are showing here, it sure ain't "humility
in the face of the common-sense of citizens as reflected through
democratically-elected legislatures."


The bit in quotes is, I gather, meme from someone named Zywicki.


But IOKIYAAR, so it's OK.





__________________________________________________________________


This message might contain confidential information. If it has been sent to you in error please do not forward it or copy it or act upon its contents, but report it to XXXX@XXXXX.COM

Schroders has the right lawfully to record, monitor and inspect messages between its employees and any third party. Your messages shall be subject to such lawful supervision as Schroders deems to be necessary in order to protect its information, its interests and its reputation.

Schroders prohibits and takes steps to prevent its information systems from being used to view, store or forward offensive or discriminatory material. If this message contains such material please report it to abuse@schroders..com

Schroders does not normally accept or offer business instructions via email unless prior agreements are in place. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk.



Schroder Investment Management Limited
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Schroder Investment Management Limited is entered on the FSA register under the following register number: 119348

Registered Office
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA

Registered number 1893220
VAT registration number 243 8687 30

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* e
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Brice Yoke » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:01:08

ark Wonsil wrote:
>
vs.

The Supreme Court is no more powerful than the Congress or the
Presidency. We are subject to the combined rule of three branches of a
federal government whose roles include providing a check and balance for
the power of each other. The Supreme Court can be overruled by the
combined power of the Congress and the Presidency by amending the U.S.
Constitution. That process is designed to be difficult and lengthly
specifically to make its use infrequent.

---------------------

Not quite true, Russ. It requires 3/4 of the STATE LEGISLATURES to
amend the constitution. There are many ways the Federal Government
can block this process, but thay cannot approve it alone.

---------------------


Wow. This must be new. I always thought politicians spoke clearly and
wrote laws without fluff or legaleaze that might make their meaning
unclear. /:|

Realistically, a good amount of the fluff that gets written into our
laws is exactly so that the 'reason' a law is passed is incorporated
into its text and is therefor available as fodder in the fight that some
'activist judge' is going against the original meaning of the law; but I
digress.

Legislators write laws to be open to situational interpretation because
to do otherwise greatly reduces the power and effect of the law. The
flexibility increases the likelihood that they will not be nullified,
but rather will be applied and made part of the legal fabric of our
society.

----------------------

No, what has happened is the Federal Government has taken on powers the
founders never intended. This makes the law enormously complex, too
complex to be worded in a specific fashion. The effect of this is to
damage Rule of Law, since the law increasingly means whatever is
politically expedient at the moment, rather than what it says.

----------------------


It's not politically expedient to admit this, Mark, but the course of
the law is slow, and horribly intricate. The democratic thingy, of
which you seemingly speak so fondly, however, is often the actions of
short lived political personalities catering to their money base,
burning out in a blaze of passing a few bills that will have to be
overturned following legal challenges because allowing them to exist
would nullify tens or hundreds of other laws the court rightly deems to
be more valuable.

Worse, the passage of those laws is usually done as a "you scratch my
back and I'll scratch yours" with more senior (and more likely to stay
in power) legislators who know the are unlikely to stand, but again are
more interested in their own battles.

-------------------

This is why the government needs to be severly limited, to make political
expediency difficult.

-------------------

No man is an island, and no law stands alone in the judiciary. Every
law competes and interacts with other related laws for application in a
situation; and it is really that choosing of which law will win out that
the courts must do. It is situational. It is political. It is how the
system was designed, and while it is easy to complain about it, there is
nothing currently available that is better.



Rs~

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Denys Beau » Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:13:59

onsense.

Striking down laws that are unconstitutional is exactly what the Supreme
Court is expected to do. The NYT simply changed the definition of "activist
judges" to fit their agenda.

To my mind, and speaking only for myself as always, an activist judge is one
that manufactures "rights" out of thin air or interprets the constitution in
"novel" ways.

In recent time, there have been two decisions coming out of the Supreme
Court that directly affect a lot of us. The first one says the Fifth
Amendment and perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment are non applicable if the
state can show an increased tax benefit by taking your property and giving
it to someone else. I'll give you a hint who dissented from that ruling:
four of the top five activist judges according to the NYT definition.

The other decision is the ruling on the McCain-Feingold successful attack on
the first amendment, the BCRA of 2002. I'll give you another hint about who
dissented from that ruling; this time it was the four top activist judges
according to the NYT definition.



Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ] On Behalf
Of Heasman, David
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:59 AM
To: XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ]


Legislators have actually been writing laws in such a way that judges
can decide how they should be implemented. (The Americans with
Disabilities Act is a good example). This takes the legislators off the
hook during election time and all is good as long as you get "your kind
of people" in the judicial branch.

The process eliminates that pesky democratic thingy but causes a lot of
political strife - in case you haven't noticed...

Mark W.


Coincidentally there has been a NYT article, pulling together
data
which is checkable, so its lickspittle surrenderist socialism
can be discounted : -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html


We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down
Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President
George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63
percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President
Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The
tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %


One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered
more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and
John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional
statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently
to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the
latter group is the most activist.


And some wag has added, as one would, were one waggish:-


Whatever conservative justices are showing here, it sure ain't "humility
in the face of the common-sense of citizens as reflected through
democratically-elected legislatures."


The bit in quotes is, I gather, meme from someone named Zywicki.


But IOKIYAAR, so it's OK.





__________________________________________________________________


This message migh
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Michael Ba » Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:47:14

Here's something for the Supreme Court to decide.

Miller, who never wrote a story, said Libby told her about the CIA
connection of Wilson's wife. Cooper said Libby was one of his sources for a
story identifying the CIA connection of Wilson's wife.

Libby attorney Joseph Tate said inconsistencies in recollections among
people regarding long-ago events should not be charged as crimes. Libby is
accused of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to FBI
agents and two counts of perjury before a federal grand jury

==>
Libby attorney Joseph Tate said inconsistencies in recollections among
people regarding long-ago events should not be charged as crimes.
Only for Politicians or everybody?
Whats a definition of "long-ago"?
Would that make lying legal?

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Brice Yoke » Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:55:08

Here's something for the Supreme Court to decide.

-----------------

No, this is something for a jury to decide.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Johnson, T » Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:59:33

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Brice Yokem

Well, the Supreme Court may still get the case on final appeal.

Tracy Johnson
Measurement Specialties, Inc.

BT







NNNN

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *
 
 
 

OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?

Post by Michael Ba » Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:44:23


This one is for the jury.

Glued to toilet, man sues Home Depot
Thursday, November 3, 2005; Posted: 6:41 a.m. EST (11:41 GMT)

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Home Depot is defending a lawsuit filed by a man
who claims one of the chain's stores ignored his cries for help after he
fell victim to a prank and was glued to a toilet seat.

Bob Dougherty, 57, of nearby Nederland, said he became stuck to a bathroom
toilet seat last year after somebody smeared glue on it.

"They left me there, going through all that stress," Dougherty told The
Daily Camera, of Boulder. "They just let me rot."

His lawsuit, filed Friday, said Dougherty was recovering from heart bypass
surgery at the time and thought he was having a heart attack. A store
employee who heard him calling for help informed the head clerk via radio,
but the head clerk "believed it to be a hoax," the lawsuit said.

Home Depot spokeswoman Kathryn Gallagher said she could not comment on
pending litigation.

According to the lawsuit, store officials called for an ambulance after
about 15 minutes. Paramedics unbolted the toilet seat.

Dougherty, "frightened and humiliated," passed out as he was being wheeled
out of the store, court papers said.

The lawsuit said the toilet seat separated from his skin, leaving abrasions.

"This is not Home Depot's fault," Dougherty said. "But I am blaming them
for letting me hang in there and just ignoring me."

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://www.yqcomputer.com/ *