Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - REDSTATEWARD

Pages: 1 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 396
2416
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 17, 2020, 11:23:27 AM »
Scholar, fix your quote boxes.
After you fix your facts.

2417
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 17, 2020, 10:13:00 AM »
[


Fuck me, the Amy argument was that raping prisoners wasn't part of the guard's job and didn't benefit his employer, so the county wasn't liable.  How about a duty to supervise their employees, a duty to protect prisoners under their care, hiring such a person in the first place.  That'su a lot of culpability and negligence.  And this wasn't a one time sexual assault but an ongoing series of assaults...


It's weird that she joined with a ruling that did hold a county liable,  in another similar case.   Why was she seeing the county as negligent in one case but not the other?
maybe you need to read the opinions 

2418
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 16, 2020, 07:37:22 PM »
Red,  I went to a website that explains law to simple-minded people like me.   It said this about precedent:

   In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.  The use of precedent provides predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. The Latin term stare decisis is the doctrine of legal precedent.

The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially announced principles that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision. 


Then I went another place that helps simpletons and they said that Roe was a landmark decision.    

Don't we want "predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law?"

So wouldn't a scotus justice who has regard for landmark decisions help promote those good things?
Except of course, you can’t produce a law, only a court opinion.  50 years after this “ landmark decision” the country remains split on the issue of abortion.

2419
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 16, 2020, 07:29:15 PM »
Amended is the most widely used term.  27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution...


Now I'm even more dazed.   And confused!   I thought the people elected Senators to vet SCt appointments so the appointed ones would make decisions and interpretations and set precedents that furthered a Living Constitution.   Which Living Constitution  you just said you're in favor of.   But then you said only amendments can modify a Living Constitution.  So,  if over 60% of Americans want a Constitution with a Roe v Wade interpretation,  the will of the people doesn't matter?   It's not an amendment so we can ignore it and appoint an Originalist who would gladly dump it?     
An Amendment to the Constitution is not needed to settle disputes to Abortion.  A simple act of Congress signed by the President would suffice.

Then,  given that over 60% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, why has this simple act not been passed?   
Because Congress has displayed no backbone in trying, relying instead on nine robed and unelected justices to do their work.
Quote
You earlier said the will of the people, expressed through their representatives, should prevail on the matter.   Did it not happen because people believe Roe V Wade has the weight of law?   I'm  so confused... it almost sounds as if legal precedents matter!
It did not happen because Congress does not do its job. 
It could also reflect that the country is split on wanting abortion to be legal but also wanting some restrictions.

2420
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 16, 2020, 04:14:47 PM »
Amended is the most widely used term.  27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution...


Now I'm even more dazed.   And confused!   I thought the people elected Senators to vet SCt appointments so the appointed ones would make decisions and interpretations and set precedents that furthered a Living Constitution.   Which Living Constitution  you just said you're in favor of.   But then you said only amendments can modify a Living Constitution.  So,  if over 60% of Americans want a Constitution with a Roe v Wade interpretation,  the will of the people doesn't matter?   It's not an amendment so we can ignore it and appoint an Originalist who would gladly dump it?     
An Amendment to the Constitution is not needed to settle disputes to Abortion.  A simple act of Congress signed by the President would suffice.

2421
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 16, 2020, 03:27:19 PM »

As has been pointed out,  the Constitution of 1790 also has nothing to say about women having a right to vote.   Or be judges.   
Women have been voting for 100 years.  It’s an amendment to the original US Constitution.

So it's not in the original Constitution?  So you're saying the Constitution is modified?   
<Gosh,  how did that happen? 
Amended is the most widely used term.  27 times. It is the brilliance of the founders that to change or add to the Constitution it must be done with the consent of the people through their representatives. That is the working definition of a living Constitution.
Quote
I was just getting ready to soak in a nice warm bath of Originalism.   This is very disturbing.
Sorry for that.

2422
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 16, 2020, 12:40:47 PM »
And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,



Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent.  There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter

Her law journal writings and other public opinions make it crystal clear she doesn't see Roe as super-p, or settled law.   She's an Originalist, so it's pretty obvious she doesn't subscribe to Living Document theory.  Or that the Constitution has anything to say about a right to medical privacy.   If you don't know what that Living Document concept is,  it's worth looking up.   
  Apples and Oranges.  Originalism pertains to the words in the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade is not a statute, it is a court opinion establishing the legality of abortion.  Even Ginsberg thought the Court decision was not well thought out. That Barrett would not treat ROE as a super precedent is not exactly shocking since we have been arguing over it for 50 years.
Quote
As has been pointed out,  the Constitution of 1790 also has nothing to say about women having a right to vote.   Or be judges.   
Women have been voting for 100 years.  It’s an amendment to the original US Constitution.
And no one has a “right”
to be a judge 

2423
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 10:17:11 PM »
And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,



Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent.  There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter

Her law journal writings and other public opinions make it crystal clear she doesn't see Roe as super-p, or settled law. 
As was her answer to Klobuchar.

2424
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 10:12:57 PM »
I voted, by mail.

I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

Um,  Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for.   It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons.   It works against systemic racism and poverty,  Tony.  You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.
Prop 16 would codify systemic racism.  It is stillborn according to California polls .
With total common sense justification.

How does it codify systemic racism?
By establishing race as a priority.
Local school funding plus redlining put that ship on the outbound tide long ago, to the further shrinkage of your micropenis.

I had a longer answer,  but yours gets to the heart of the matter.   Notice how he cut the most telling facts and figures out of my followup post.   Troll baby troll.
That would be you, not me. 

2425
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 09:43:52 PM »
I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?
Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

IIRC, thats a misrepresentation. Klobuchar asked ACB about a law article that ACB wrote about the concept of super-precedent and why ACB felt that RvW did not fall  into that category.

And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is
Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and identified Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing
So you have no idea what super-precedent is? How did you achieve such renown? The kind of renown that allows you to boldly call a U. Of Chicago Law grad a "a constitutional idiot."
Pretty obvious as I stated  .

2426
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 09:27:49 PM »
I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?
Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

IIRC, thats a misrepresentation. Klobuchar asked ACB about a law article that ACB wrote about the concept of super-precedent and why ACB felt that RvW did not fall  into that category.

And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,
All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is
Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and identified Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing 

2427
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 09:10:07 PM »
I voted, by mail.

I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

Um,  Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for.   It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons.   It works against systemic racism and poverty,  Tony.  You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.
Prop 16 would codify systemic racism.  It is stillborn according to California polls .
With total common sense justification.

How does it codify systemic racism?
By establishing race as a priority.


2428
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 09:02:47 PM »
I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?
Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

2429
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 08:48:58 PM »
Super-precedent was a political concept raised in Barrett's writings. Why shouldn't a Senator, even a Constitutional idiot, ask a possible Justice about concepts she initially raised?

But instead why don't you show us your Constitutional eclat and tell us what super-precedent means?
LOL!
Ask Amy Klocucher. She thinks( or thought) it was a big deal.
Until Barrett’s answer. 

2430
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: October 15, 2020, 08:29:01 PM »
I'm not the scholar you are. She uses a lot of big words. Can't you help me out?
Ask Amy to help you.
Klobuchar? Why would I ask a "Constutional idiot" (U of Chicago Law, notwithstanding) when I could ask someone of your scholarship?
Because Amy raised the issue.
No she didn’t
LOL! Yes she did.

Pages: 1 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 396