Yeah, our dear friends at that other blog smelled this one coming when Alex first dropped. Its announcement was flung together, perhaps not unlike its current patent applications, to beat the Nook's reveal. [www.engadget.com]#nookvsalex
@OCEntertainment: It assumes that Justices are doing something different than law-makers and law-enforcers. In theory, they are more like neutral problem-solvers that need judicial independence, deciding what things say or mean as opposed to what they should be.
So they are as insulated as much as possible from:
(a) The temptation to decide the law based on public sentiment and the need to be elected. (A balance against the more "democratic" legislative and executive branches.)
(b) The temptation to decide the law based on potential personal future gain or earnings. (The same reason they have historically had to be careful about their stock portfolios.)
(c) The idea that just as the law is based on precedent, the more experience a Justice has on the bench, the better they will be to moderate the slow movement of case law.
And it doesn't just apply to Supreme Court Justices, it's true for all Federal judges.
@Bon5ai: You're simply an idiot if you read that as a "ruling against those firemen." The ruling was made by the federal district court and a three judge panel affirmed the ruling. It's REALLY not that big a deal.
b) Of the 380 opinions, she wrote, the SCOTUS only actually accepted cert on five of them (letting the rest stand), and of those, overturned only three.
c) She became an appellate judge in 1998, meaning her tenure coincided with one of the most conservative SCOTUS periods of the last 75 years, so it wouldn't be all that shocking in any case that a judge that is more similar in her legal approach to the current 4-Justice minority would be overturned.
d) She comes from the 2nd Circuit, which aside from the 9th Circuit, has generally been overturned more than the other Circuits due to (c).
Seriously, she's not a perfect candidate, but support your arguments with facts if you want to actually establish that it is "important."
@Elvisisdead: Newsflash.... Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Everything he says is intended to anger his entire audience, in one way or another, and increase his ratings. A six year old with Google effectively refute almost anything he presents as "fact."
Aside from the fact that most lawyers know the difference between being an advocate and being a judge, I'm not sure the fact that she did international trademark and copyright work for eight years, twenty years ago is going to have much impact on her Supreme Court tenure.
Well, since you need not be a lawyer OR a judge to be on the Supreme Court, we are all technically still in the running. I nominate Ponies!, but if he fails to take the nomination(some scandal involving a Bacotini and a hair), I will accept, and promise to wear nothing under my robe except what I'm wearing in my avatar pict. So help me God.
@dumanue: Have you ever heard a Supreme Court opening/address?
"The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the SupremeCourt of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
last time i checked, giz was copylefted (attribution, noncommerical, i think?) creative commons licensed, so they wouldn't care actually all that much.
That's what I was thinking. That ruling right there pretty much spells out that she is either A) lazy as all fuck, and didn't feel like putting any effort into the case, or B) is totally fine perpetuating the racial double standard that does nothing for equality, as this would have been an open and shut case if a bunch of black fire fighters were denied a promotion because none of the white fire fighters passed their exams.
I don't care if a judge has different ideologies then I do, but I sure as hell expect them to know a thing or two about the laws they supposedly represent, and are willing to do their homework before deciding on hot button cases, especially if that judge is in line for a seat on the nation's highest court.
11/03/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
05/27/09
.......
Remind me again why Supreme Court Justices get lifetime appointments? In 2009, this seems like it should be a bit of an oddity to hear.
05/27/09
So they are as insulated as much as possible from:
(a) The temptation to decide the law based on public sentiment and the need to be elected. (A balance against the more "democratic" legislative and executive branches.)
(b) The temptation to decide the law based on potential personal future gain or earnings. (The same reason they have historically had to be careful about their stock portfolios.)
(c) The idea that just as the law is based on precedent, the more experience a Justice has on the bench, the better they will be to moderate the slow movement of case law.
And it doesn't just apply to Supreme Court Justices, it's true for all Federal judges.
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey kids.... anyone seen a grown man naked before? want some scocialism?
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
a) That's not a fact, because it's not true.
b) Of the 380 opinions, she wrote, the SCOTUS only actually accepted cert on five of them (letting the rest stand), and of those, overturned only three.
c) She became an appellate judge in 1998, meaning her tenure coincided with one of the most conservative SCOTUS periods of the last 75 years, so it wouldn't be all that shocking in any case that a judge that is more similar in her legal approach to the current 4-Justice minority would be overturned.
d) She comes from the 2nd Circuit, which aside from the 9th Circuit, has generally been overturned more than the other Circuits due to (c).
Seriously, she's not a perfect candidate, but support your arguments with facts if you want to actually establish that it is "important."
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
That's what I was thinking. That ruling right there pretty much spells out that she is either A) lazy as all fuck, and didn't feel like putting any effort into the case, or B) is totally fine perpetuating the racial double standard that does nothing for equality, as this would have been an open and shut case if a bunch of black fire fighters were denied a promotion because none of the white fire fighters passed their exams.
I don't care if a judge has different ideologies then I do, but I sure as hell expect them to know a thing or two about the laws they supposedly represent, and are willing to do their homework before deciding on hot button cases, especially if that judge is in line for a seat on the nation's highest court.
05/27/09
Are you white? [ ] Yes / [X] No
I'm sorry. The correct answer was "yes."
05/27/09
...Well if I'd known you were all so hungry, I would have made two.
05/27/09