• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
Most of the “not qualifieds” I know about are due to youth and inexperience, and I’ve already discussed that.

Regrettably, it is also the case that the ABA has become partisan. Lawyers who criticize Roe are deemed “not qualified” for no other apparent reason. I take a “not qualified” rating seriously, but we also need to examine the reasons behind such a rating. If it is being used to snuff out conservative views—and, on occasion, it appears it is—then it shouldn’t be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part is simply a blatant, unabashed, unmitigated lie.

It's one thing to try to play a contrarian, It's quite another to post things that are clearly lies to prove an indefensible "point".
 
Junebug said:
Most of the “not qualifieds” I know about are due to youth and inexperience, and I’ve already discussed that.

Regrettably, it is also the case that the ABA has become partisan. Lawyers who criticize Roe are deemed “not qualified” for no other apparent reason. I take a “not qualified” rating seriously, but we also need to examine the reasons behind such a rating. If it is being used to snuff out conservative views—and, on occasion, it appears it is—then it shouldn’t be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

So you’ll overlook the fact that the Federalist Society has pushed multiple judges that are completely unqualified in your eyes when deciding whether to continue your support? Does it bother you that they are putting ideology over experience?
 
DistrictDeacon said:
So you’ll overlook the fact that the Federalist Society has pushed multiple judges that are completely unqualified in your eyes when deciding whether to continue your support? Does it bother you that they are putting ideology over experience?
Click to expand...

fuck no it doesn’t bother him. it makes him hard.
 
Junebug said:
Most of the “not qualifieds” I know about are due to youth and inexperience.
Click to expand...

This deserves the "no shit" award of the year. My inexperience as a medical doctor doesn't qualify me to be one.
 
Junebug said:
As I’ve stated, I don’t approve of this aspect of what they are doing. But I think they are otherwise doing great work, and the “not qualifieds” are a small fraction of their list.
Click to expand...

So that’s a yes. Thought so.
 
Junebug said:
No shit, Sherlock.

The claim being made on here is that one of the criteria for being on that list is obsequiousness to Trump. That’s false.
Click to expand...

Yeah because nobody is claiming that. They’ll get in line for the next Pub too. They get in line with base conservatism. They’re not individual thinkers.

Of course you’re kidding yourself if you think Trump doesn’t pick judges who will benefit him the most.
 
That’s my argument. Conservatives fall in line with whatever is best for rich white men. Those who do it best are on the list. You got it.
 
Comparing the Federalist Society to something like the Heritage Foundation is nonsense. It's conservative but not radical. They host dinners and mentor young conservative lawyers. It's like calling the Hoover Institution radical.

I don't think conservative justices, for the most part, are in it for Trump. Like many of the "never Trumpers" they see him as a means to an end. I know plenty of incredibly inexperienced lawyers who are getting serious looks for lifetime appointments -- the truth is that being a conservative jurist, and especially a religious one, is a fast pass to clerkships and appointments.
 
Originalism is race neutral? That doesn’t make any sense. That assumes the original intent of the Constitution was race neutral when it clearly wasn’t. When did the Constitution end racism?

As far as your other point, give me some examples of conservative orthodoxy that aren’t to the benefit of rich white guys?

You seem to be under the impression that minorities created the concept of race. That’s false.
 
Who determines “meaning?” How are you defining “meaning?”

Time is a curious concept here. Your explanation only makes sense if time is race neutral. We know that it isn’t.

Surely you can understand how white men coming out of the civil rights movement and women’s rights movements who saw women and minorities gain more rights and representation in all three branches of government would see fit to turn the clock back as they set up a bulwark in the courts.

Interpreting the law absent these gains works in their favor, right?
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure I don't need to know a bunch of qualified or unqualified mitch-trump judges to know they are unqualified. I can read plenty of their opinions. In some cases I can't because... drum roll please... they are unqualified and have not written much. In other cases their resume precedes them. Like the hundreds of complaints filed against good ol brett k that were dismissed by Robert's because... what could he do with them now that pos is a supreme court justice?
 
Junebug said:
Originalism is an interpretive methodology. It says the proper way to interpret a constitutional provision is to look to the meaning of the provision at the time of its enactment. That is a race neutral statement. It doesn’t matter that the constitution contains provisions that pertain to race, such as the equal protection clause. The interpretive methodology is the same whether the subject provision is about race or not. You always look to the original meaning.

There is absolutely no reason why this interpretive methodology would favor (or disfavor) rich white guys. Yes, the constitution was written and adopted by rich white guys, but so what? Who cares who wrote it if the original meaning doesn’t benefit rich white guys? (Obviously, I’m contemplating the constitution as amended, not as originally enacted.)

The point is simply this: In its purest form, originalism seeks out original meaning, regardless of what that meaning is. Nothing more; nothing less. In truth, then, it’s not just race neutral. It’s completely value neutral.
Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
 
DistrictDeacon said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Click to expand...

See they originally meant that everyone should walk down the street with an AR-15.
 
And that's the problem with originalism right there: it's political just like any other hermeneutic. You can just pick and choose what you want to read and ignore the rest.

That only becomes problematic because many so-called originalists refuse to acknowledge that bias.
 
wakephan09 said:
And that's the problem with originalism right there: it's political just like any other hermeneutic. You can just pick and choose what you want to read and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

Exactly right -- and so obnoxious when folks like Junebug try to pretend it's pure, neutral and above board. Definitely not in practice.
 
Junebug said:
I’m a card-carrying member, and I have been since law school.

In law school, it was great to find an originalist group in a place where liberal ideology is pushed from the top down. As far as their efforts in identifying and pushing through originalist jurists, they’ve done a tremendous job. Gorsuch has been great so far, and Kavanaugh was great on paper (even though I think he shouldn’t have been confirmed based on his testimony). With a few exceptions that I know about, they are doing a great job on the lower courts as well. Every now and again I read about some clown who is being pushed by them, but I think these cases are the exception, not the rule.

One thing I don’t like is that they are pushing very young lawyers onto the bench. Law isn’t rocket science, but it requires a great deal of practical wisdom to be a good judge. Most people don’t have that from just being smart. Generally, you have to have been around the block a few times, and most people under 40 just don’t have the kind of experience you need.
Click to expand...

Other than that, how was the play, Ms. Lincoln?
 
So the Supreme Court has decided to delay any possible ruling on the big Obamacare case until after the 2020 election, so at least 10 months. Yet another example of conservative courts slow playing major decisions for political advantage.
 
I do believe you must be mistaken ph. The courts are impartial. Well, they used to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top