• 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!

Before everyone slams the "partisan court"

my side isn't activist, it's sensible.
no, my side isn't activist, it's sensible.
no
no
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
 
Milhouse said:
my side isn't activist, it's sensible.
no, my side isn't activist, it's sensible.
no
no
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Click to expand...

Exactly. Both republican and dem judges engage in judicial activism. To even suggest that, on purely political/policy issues, partisan views don't play a role is pretty far fetched IMO.
 
If the Court was as partisan as some suggest then the Sheriff's office in Arizona would be celebrating instead of complaining on CNN right now.
 
Les Grossman said:
Doesnt appear to be a "partisan" decision. Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor were in the majority. Scalia, Thomas and Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.
Click to expand...

Well, the three most conservative judges were on the side of upholding certain parts of the law.
 
Billy Mitchell said:
If the Court was as partisan as some suggest then the Sheriff's office in Arizona would be celebrating instead of complaining on CNN right now.
Click to expand...

The worst part of the law was allowed to stand.

All cops have to do to hassle people for their "papers" is come up with a BS charge like jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk or in Prescott a Latina wearing pans as it is illegal for women to wear pants in Prescott.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Those look like primarily legal arguments, not policy arguments to me. So the lack of partisanship should not come as a surprise.
Click to expand...

How is this not a legal question? The Act is either legal under the Constitution or it isn't. The people making this a policy issue are those who know that it isn't legal yet want it to stand nonetheless.
 
mfdeacs99 said:
Order of the Coif from Wake.
Click to expand...

slow-clap.gif
 
mfdeacs99 said:
12 years practicing litigating attorney. Order of the Coif from Wake.
Click to expand...

Well, go figure then. I think, as I'm sure many do, that presidential elections are so crucui b/c it could lead to control of the court. The political ideology of members have been know for a number of years, and it's not because people are curious, it is because it matters.
 
HeavyPetter said:
Well, the three most conservative judges were on the side of upholding certain parts of the law.
Click to expand...

I get it, but I dont consider it a "partisan" decision when Roberts and the liberals are on the same side.
 
It's partisan in allowing the worst of the law to stand.
 
So a 5-4 decision would be partisan, but a 6-3 wouldn't (realizing that Kagan recused herself in this case and the decision was 5-3)?

Roberts siding with the "liberals" really just indicates to me that there was no way he could hold his nose tight enough to vote to uphold.
 
RJKarl said:
It's partisan in allowing the worst of the law to stand.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this case was about federal preemption and not constitutional challenges concerning things like profiling? You are complaining about something that was not at issue in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top