Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Favorite Justice

Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:22 pm

Does any of you have a favorite Supreme Court justice?

I'm partial to many. My favorites on the current court are Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Roberts for his brilliance - his dissent in Alleyne was so good that (apparently) it convinced Scalia - SCALIA!! - the unpersuadable one! - to switch sides and back the anti-Apprendi faction. To me, Roberts is the only real titan on the modern court. I place him with Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy, the titans (to me) of the last generation.

Kagan - she seems to understand so well that her job is to persuade. And Gorsuch is so down to earth and real, I love his opinions.

Breyer - his epic battle with Stevens over Apprendi and its progeny will reverberate for a long, long time. Breyer is the one who, in Booker, saved the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Not sure they should have been saved - apparently there is actually MORE injustice under their aegis than less - but that's a different issue. I'm sure everyone was doing what they thought best!

Thomas - it's hard to love Thomas. Mentally, he seems to be such a dwarf. But (again with Apprendi! my favorite case) he won a battle of wits with O'Connor, which should NEVER happen. That's like a really short guy dunking on Shaquille O'Neal - in a playoff game. Later Scalia responded to one of O'Connor's complaints about it that her ideas would be a little more attractive if there were A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR HER POSITION!!!! lol And Thomas has had some interesting ideas, too. Ideas the other justices have not credited - or mentioned - but that seem to me to be worth thinking about. You know, when the other justices don't even MENTION your ideas, that's a sad comment on how persuasive you are.

Ginsburg - well, RIP, I will speak no ill of the dead. At least, not the recently dead. So many people loved her.

Alito - I cannot love Alito, at least not yet. He's not ALWAYS bad but he has occasionally sounded hysterical and possibly insane. Please don't ask me for examples, it's been too long! I can't go back! I suspect - I'm probably wrong - that he's just a very bright guy who has no experience of life, whose judging experience has been such that he's been unable to truly imagine himself in anyone else's position.

Kavanaugh just seems kind of creepy and phony. He referenced Mullaney for the proposition that the Supreme Court must defer to state courts in the interpretation of their own laws, which is kind of like referencing Roe v Wade for the idea that the termination of pregnancy doesn't render a case about the pregnancy moot. It's not what Roe v Wade was about, and it's not what Mullaney was about.

Sotomayor I haven't made up my mind about yet. Haven't heard her say anything interesting yet, and it's been a while. We'll see. I used to think Thomas was worthless, too, and then I got more evidence.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13555
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:02 pm

I am kind of partial to Thomas. He handled the Anita Hill episode with grace and class.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

I met Sotomayor before she was appointed to the USC. While I have my political differences with her, she was a very nice host and very approachable.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 am

Since it wasn't limited to currently sitting justices my pick is Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice for much of the 50s and 60s.

From the current court, I applaud Chief Justice Roberts for his pragmatism. I feel the justice who mostly agrees with me must be Justice Sotomayor.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:11 am

NIKV69 wrote:
I am kind of partial to Thomas. He handled the Anita Hill episode with grace and class.


Always a difficult thing when the media spotlight is on! Yes, good point.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:12 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I met Sotomayor before she was appointed to the USC. While I have my political differences with her, she was a very nice host and very approachable.


She does look like she would be easy to talk to, full of fun. Not something you often see in a high court justice.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:13 am

N867DA wrote:
Since it wasn't limited to currently sitting justices my pick is Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice for much of the 50s and 60s.

From the current court, I applaud Chief Justice Roberts for his pragmatism. I feel the justice who mostly agrees with me must be Justice Sotomayor.


Gosh, I know almost nothing about Warren. Well, I'll learn eventually... I plan to get photos of all the justices, just to help keep them straight in my own mind.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:57 am

N867DA wrote:
Since it wasn't limited to currently sitting justices my pick is Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice for much of the 50s and 60s.


Ah, now I've looked him up. Good god, what a life! Appointed to the court at the age of 62 and then went on to became one of the most influential jurists in our country's history. There's hope there for most of us, isn't there? Not to mention that he was a Republican all his life - started as a prosecuting attorney, for god's sake - who woulda thunk it? I wish liberals would stop whining about high court selections. People change and grow, and I'm sure the sudden change in responsibility - I mean, once you're on the Supreme Court suddenly your views have real weight - causes people to rethink their preconceptions.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:06 am

Blurp2 wrote:
N867DA wrote:
Since it wasn't limited to currently sitting justices my pick is Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice for much of the 50s and 60s.


Ah, now I've looked him up. Good god, what a life! Appointed to the court at the age of 62 and then went on to became one of the most influential jurists in our country's history. There's hope there for most of us, isn't there? Not to mention that he was a Republican all his life - started as a prosecuting attorney, for god's sake - who woulda thunk it? I wish liberals would stop whining about high court selections. People change and grow, and I'm sure the sudden change in responsibility - I mean, once you're on the Supreme Court suddenly your views have real weight - causes people to rethink their preconceptions.


Eisenhower called appointing Warren to the court one of the biggest mistake of his presidency. It was a lot harder to know how reliably partisan Supreme Court picks of yesteryear would be. But even by those standards Warren had significant ideological drift.

John Marshall is another 'interesting' justice to read about. He was the one of the first Chief Justices, and some of this court's rulings still impact how the Supreme Court operates and expresses its power today.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:13 am

Marshall is another one I'd like to know more about. I've got to get hold of Sanford Kadish's article, "Why I No Longer Teach Marbury... Except to Central Europeans!" A project for another day.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19172
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:28 am

Lord Denning. Top judge.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:28 am

scbriml wrote:
Lord Denning. Top judge.


It's interesting how often my criminal law treatise references English law - it's really quite common. So to speak lol! Can you recommend a "best book" about Denning? I know absolutely nothing about the English system.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:11 pm

I don't really have a favorite. But there are aspects I appreciate about most of them.

Of the current court I think the best writer is probably Gorsuch. He's channeled some Scalia into his writing style and even opinions with which I disagree can be interesting and enjoyable reads, at least as enjoyable as legal opinions can get. Sotomayor and Kagan both have a penchant for dropping unexpected pop culture references that can be amusing.

Roberts is very good at finding and exploring angles others have not seen or have chosen to ignore. His decision in upholding the ACA's penalty is a good example. Kavanaugh seems to be trying to emulate this in the way he looked at June Medical (the Louisiana abortion case), though it may have simply been a new justice trying to no look to partisan early into his tenure. I'm still not entirely sure what to make of Kavanaugh. Breyer is solid and not at an ideological extreme.

I respect Thomas for sticking to his legal theory though I disagree with it. I'd bet he was pretty annoyed behind closed doors when Roberts voted to strike down Louisiana's abortion law on grounds of stare decisis and the similarity to the Texas law that had been struck down with Roberts in the dissent. Maybe the best way to describe Thomas was by Scalia when he compared himself to Thomas and said "Look, I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut."

Really the only absolute dud to me is Alito. I disagree with him on many cases and have never found his opinions to be particularly interesting or enjoyable. I found his dissent in McCoy v. Louisiana (a little known death penalty case a couple terms back) particularly disturbing. That Thomas and Gorsuch joined is a disappointment.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19172
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Favorite Justice

Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:11 pm

Blurp2 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Lord Denning. Top judge.


It's interesting how often my criminal law treatise references English law - it's really quite common. So to speak lol! Can you recommend a "best book" about Denning? I know absolutely nothing about the English system.


I can't, I'm afraid. He's written several books himself and there are quite a few books about him.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:20 am

Alias1024 wrote:
Maybe the best way to describe Thomas was by Scalia when he compared himself to Thomas and said "Look, I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut."


Jeez, I hadn't heard that. That's pretty funny... and kinda sad, considering how close Thomas has stuck to Scalia all his tenure.

Alias1024 wrote:
Really the only absolute dud to me is Alito. I disagree with him on many cases and have never found his opinions to be particularly interesting or enjoyable. I found his dissent in McCoy v. Louisiana (a little known death penalty case a couple terms back) particularly disturbing. That Thomas and Gorsuch joined is a disappointment.


Yeah, I haven't caught Alito saying anything really good. I appreciate that McCoy reference, though, I'll take a look at it.

Death penalty jurisprudence is kinda scary. Have you read Ring v Arizona? There was absolutely no physical evidence - except they found a bunch of money in one of the defendants' garages - and yet Ring was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." How could that happen? And yet, what's really scary is, I kind of understand it. Beyond a reasonable doubt is just an ideal - what people actually do is way different. And I would have done the same, I'm sure.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:17 am

Alias1024 wrote:
I found his dissent in McCoy v. Louisiana (a little known death penalty case a couple terms back) particularly disturbing. That Thomas and Gorsuch joined is a disappointment.


Having read McCoy now, it strikes me as a far from hysterical dissent. I still find myself on Ginsburg's side - deciding whether to tell the jury you did it or not strikes me as an awfully big responsibility to leave the lawyer with - but it's interesting how hard Alito hammers on the idea that the court is "creating a new right." I mean, either way it was decided it would have been a new right constitutionalized, right? If it had been OK for the lawyer to tell the jury the guy did it, that would have been constitutionalizing the lawyer's right, and if not, it would have been constitutionalizing the defendant's right. No?
 
Airontario
Posts: 693
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:55 am

I'm sorry, you all have favourite judges?

What is in the water down there?
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2673
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:11 pm

Blurp2 wrote:
Alias1024 wrote:
I found his dissent in McCoy v. Louisiana (a little known death penalty case a couple terms back) particularly disturbing. That Thomas and Gorsuch joined is a disappointment.


Having read McCoy now, it strikes me as a far from hysterical dissent. I still find myself on Ginsburg's side - deciding whether to tell the jury you did it or not strikes me as an awfully big responsibility to leave the lawyer with - but it's interesting how hard Alito hammers on the idea that the court is "creating a new right." I mean, either way it was decided it would have been a new right constitutionalized, right? If it had been OK for the lawyer to tell the jury the guy did it, that would have been constitutionalizing the lawyer's right, and if not, it would have been constitutionalizing the defendant's right. No?


The idea that you can be insistent that you did not kill someone and you don't want your legal counsel saying you did in court, yet your attorney can ignore your instructions and tell the jury and indeed the world that you killed them is abhorrent. Ginsburg was absolutely correct that the right to a defense is not just about reducing or eliminating legal penalties. The accused's reputation is at stake and trials are public so all of society can see the evidence and judge for themselves.

I do not believe that entitling the accused to that defense is creating any kind of new right. I'd argue it is a primary reason the sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial. The other major reason being it allows the public to keep an eye on what the government is doing to ensure the justice system is not being abused by those in power.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:22 pm

Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4469
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Favorite Justice

Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.

Some of the above posts indicate users are rating judges according to their character and skill instead of their orientation
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:00 am

Airontario wrote:
I'm sorry, you all have favourite judges?

What is in the water down there?


lol not sure what you mean, but yeah, I follow the Supreme Court, and occasionally get interested in other courts as well...
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:08 am

Dutchy wrote:
Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.


People have different favorites for different reasons. Some people go big on political orientation, others on character, some maybe on appearance, you know, there are a lot of ways to decide if you have a favorite judge. I like to think I'm mostly about character, but there's no objective test for that! Is there a Supreme Court in the Netherlands, and if so, do they make important decisions about how government will run, or not? If they do, I would think their decisions, if written, would be very interesting to read, as ours are. Reading Supreme Court decisions here in the US gives a very definite idea of the different justices' characters, I think, and some are more entertaining and interesting than others, as well. Read O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v Casey, for example, and Scalia's dissent in the same case, and see if you don't get a real sharp idea of the different characters of the two justices. I'm not saying that will allow you to pick one or the other, but I think you'll see what I mean about character differences.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10115
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:15 am

I consider Thomas as the token black guy who does what he is told to do. He will never be able to be compared to the Giant of a Justice he replaced. That started him off as a guaranteed failure and he hasn't gotten any better since then,
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:41 am

Dutchy wrote:
Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.


Ah, I see now. I've been looking up Dutch law on Wikipedia. Apparently in The Netherlands, and in many civil law countries (the US is a "common law" country) there is no court that can determine a law to be unconstitutional. That's why our justices are rock stars and no one pays any attention to yours. So to speak lol! Sorry, didn't mean to insult you.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:44 am

Ken777 wrote:
I consider Thomas as the token black guy who does what he is told to do. He will never be able to be compared to the Giant of a Justice he replaced. That started him off as a guaranteed failure and he hasn't gotten any better since then,


Well, but read his concurrence in Apprendi! He WON AN ARGUMENT with O'CONNOR!!! That should NEVER happen. He should get some props for that. And then, just recently, there was a dissent of his in a maritime case that really seemed quite reasonable. None of the other justices paid any attention to what he said, of course, but it provoked some thought from me. He's not worthless, not by a long shot.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:54 am

Airontario wrote:
I'm sorry, you all have favourite judges?

What is in the water down there?


Your high court in Canada has review of constitutionality powers over your national laws, I'd think you'd have some interest in their opinions. They can declare laws unconstitutional. That's a big power.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:08 am

Dutchy wrote:
Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.


Fun trivia question: what do the following countries, and only the following countries, have in common?

The Netherlands
China
Cuba
Bahrain
Brunei
Guinea-Bissau
Iraq
Kuwait
Laos
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Maldives
North Korea
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Vatican
Vietnam

Answer: these are the world's only countries with NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION! lol
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:07 am

Blurp2 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Could anyone explain to me why this question is even raised? favorite Supreme Court justice, it is a judge, right? So. he or she should be impartial, it should not matter who is the judge.


Ah, I see now. I've been looking up Dutch law on Wikipedia. Apparently in The Netherlands, and in many civil law countries (the US is a "common law" country) there is no court that can determine a law to be unconstitutional. That's why our justices are rock stars and no one pays any attention to yours. So to speak lol! Sorry, didn't mean to insult you.


Well, it might come as a surprise, but I am not a judge serving on a bench somewhere. So why on earth would you insult me?

We have two supreme courts if you will. Raad van Staten (on government decision matters) and Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (criminal / civil / tax law matters) (two bodies within the Netherlands if you appeal twice a discission taken by a lower court). We do not have a constitutional court as in America or Germany. In our justice system, a judge isn't even allowed to look at the constitution ( although almost everything in our constitution is covered by international treaties, so not really a problem there ). In our political system, the second chamber of Parlaiment is the political one and the first chamber (chambre de reflexion) looks at a proposed law, if it is constitutional and the consequences of a law. So the constitution is in the end a political document, not something to base a verdict on.

Yes, and those judges aren't rock stars as you put it. But that is because the Supreme Court is highly politized, it matters which President is in office, what color the Supreme Court is. So in essence you introduced another political entity in the system. That is not in accordance with the priciples of Trias - politica. And given that your constitution is quite old, but also very hard to change in your political system, it leaves a lot of room to interpreted a 200-year-old text to put it in. current society. And that interpretation is highly political. And I think that's why you have "rock stars" as judges and we have "faceless" judges.

I think Montesquieu was right and I think the justice system should not be politized, no offence. So the "rock stars" is actually a sign of a bad justicial system, to put it like that. But heck, that is my vies, I know this is a highly sensitive subject in the US and you are all very proud of your system, I only offer my perspective, looking from the outside to it. Do with it what you like.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:08 am

Dutchy wrote:
Yes, and those judges aren't rock stars as you put it. But that is because the Supreme Court is highly politized, it matters which President is in office, what color the Supreme Court is. So in essence you introduced another political entity in the system. That is not in accordance with the priciples of Trias - politica. And given that your constitution is quite old, but also very hard to change in your political system, it leaves a lot of room to interpreted a 200-year-old text to put it in. current society. And that interpretation is highly political. And I think that's why you have "rock stars" as judges and we have "faceless" judges.

I think Montesquieu was right and I think the justice system should not be politized, no offence. So the "rock stars" is actually a sign of a bad justicial system, to put it like that. But heck, that is my vies, I know this is a highly sensitive subject in the US and you are all very proud of your system, I only offer my perspective, looking from the outside to it. Do with it what you like.


Now that you mention it, every other European country has judicial review of legislation except the Netherlands, so you would actually expect, or I would, that the highest justices would be rock stars in all these countries. I wonder if they are and how much that differs from country to country? A point to ponder...

Also, I don't think our justice system is as politicized as it looks from the outside. There's a lot of hysteria over who gets to appoint justices and then once they get on the court, the justices change from what the people that appointed them thought they were going to get. This happens a LOT. So there's really no way to predict how our Supreme Court is going to vote on any issue ahead of time. They're people, not machines, and they make the best decisions they can.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:42 am

Blurp2 wrote:
Now that you mention it, every other European country has judicial review of legislation except the Netherlands, so you would actually expect, or I would, that the highest justices would be rock stars in all these countries. I wonder if they are and how much that differs from country to country? A point to ponder...


Yes, I was thinking the same. So it would indeed be interesting how it is in other countries. I indeed think the Netherlands is the exception that judges are not allowed to include the constitution in their deliberation. The rational is that the constitution is to broad and non-specific, so if the legislator wants to interpreted it, than it should make a law dealing with an issue.
Disclaimer, I am not legally trained - just a bit, conserning Real Estate which in itself deals with a lot of regulations and laws in itself, but that is another matter.

Blurp2 wrote:
Also, I don't think our justice system is as politicized as it looks from the outside. There's a lot of hysteria over who gets to appoint justices and then once they get on the court, the justices change from what the people that appointed them thought they were going to get. This happens a LOT. So there's really no way to predict how our Supreme Court is going to vote on any issue ahead of time. They're people, not machines, and they make the best decisions they can.


The systemic problem with that is that we do not know. You can never be sure any verdict is impartial and not politically motivated. Trump said today that he expects the November 2020 election result to be taken to court, so that will end up in the Supreme Court. Than you have 3 judges appointed by one of the parties, that in itself doesn't look all that good, no matter what the issue and verdict is.
In the Netherlands, the process of appointing a new judge on the court is mostly an internal justice matter, no political influence at all, that makes them impartial and indeed faceless ;) .

An excellent example of what I think illustrates this: Roe vs Wade. Legalization of abortion is absolutely a political matter, not a justice matter. So from my point of view, it is interesting that the suprime court got actually involved in something like that. I do not know the finer points of this, but it always struck me as quite odd. That makes me for me a more political body than a justice one
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
An excellent example of what I think illustrates this: Roe vs Wade. Legalization of abortion is absolutely a political matter, not a justice matter. So from my point of view, it is interesting that the suprime court got actually involved in something like that. I do not know the finer points of this, but it always struck me as quite odd. That makes me for me a more political body than a justice one


See, now, I just don't understand your position there. How do you extricate politics from justice or law? How do you decide that this is political and that's legal and there's no connection? To me they're inseparably linked. The idea that government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their bodies is a powerful argument. The idea that women shouldn't be marching and demonstrating for the right to kill their children is a powerful argument. Aren't these unquestionably legal issues as well as political issues? We here in the US expect certain protections from our Constitution, protections that legislators are not allowed to revoke. How do you separate the political from the legal?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:23 am

Blurp2 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
An excellent example of what I think illustrates this: Roe vs Wade. Legalization of abortion is absolutely a political matter, not a justice matter. So from my point of view, it is interesting that the suprime court got actually involved in something like that. I do not know the finer points of this, but it always struck me as quite odd. That makes me for me a more political body than a justice one


See, now, I just don't understand your position there. How do you extricate politics from justice or law? How do you decide that this is political and that's legal and there's no connection? To me they're inseparably linked. The idea that government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their bodies is a powerful argument. The idea that women shouldn't be marching and demonstrating for the right to kill their children is a powerful argument. Aren't these unquestionably legal issues as well as political issues? We here in the US expect certain protections from our Constitution, protections that legislators are not allowed to revoke. How do you separate the political from the legal?


It is more on philosophical position. Yes, your rights should be protected under the law, international treaties etc. My rights are perfectly protected, under the Dutch law, trieties like the ECHR etc. etc. etc. Politics is about policies, the legal branch is about judging if the policies are carried out in a good manner. That's the distinction I make between the two. I do not think it is a good idea for judges to defacto formulate policies.

"The idea that government shouldn't be telling women what to do with their bodies is a powerful argument." yes, it is and I fully agree with it. But legaliation of the right of abortion is primarily a political question. Politics should decide to put into law the right of abortion, not a judicial body should decide that. That is the distinction I make. Not the issue in itself, but the process to which the issue is dealt with.

"The idea that women shouldn't be marching and demonstrating for the right to kill their children is a powerful argument." Nobody should have the right to kill anyone, unless they are in danger or a danger to others. A fetus is not a child, most pracnesies - at least in The Netherlands, are terminated within the first 3 mounths. A fetus is just a bunch of cells with the potential to grow to a baby. My personal take: I believe in the freedom to choose to have an ambortion and the 20weeks limit seems reasonable because a fetus can't live outside the whom untill 24weeks or so. On the other hand, if my girlfriend were pregnant, I would be struggeling to decide to have an abortion, but that is a personal view and i do not want to impose that on others.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:23 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A fetus is not a child, most pracnesies - at least in The Netherlands, are terminated within the first 3 mounths. A fetus is just a bunch of cells with the potential to grow to a baby. My personal take: I believe in the freedom to choose to have an ambortion and the 20weeks limit seems reasonable because a fetus can't live outside the whom untill 24weeks or so. On the other hand, if my girlfriend were pregnant, I would be struggeling to decide to have an abortion, but that is a personal view and i do not want to impose that on others.


Ah, now it's becoming a political debate. Jeez, and I just wanted to talk about justices... FYI a "fetus" at 2-3 weeks old has a heartbeat and a spinal cord. I know the fetus doesn't "quicken" until about 3 months into the pregnancy, and that's a strong argument that it's not yet what we think of as a human being, but if you separate the two words, it's definitely human and it's definitely a being. But I really don't want to argue about abortion here! I gave the two opposing views so my own views wouldn't intrude.

If we can get back to talking about rights in general, and just use abortion as an example - I think most anti-abortion activists would claim that the fetus ought to have protected rights. The mother and father risk financial loss, but as for the fetus, his or her whole life is at stake. Now, you're obviously comfortable having your legislators make those decisions and happy with the decisions they've made. But here in the US, there are a lot of people in our legislatures that I would not want to spend time with. They're way too much like Trump or worse. I know, you can probably hardly imagine worse, right? Well, we've got worse in our legislatures. I can't tell you how much better I sleep at night knowing we have a Supreme Court that is well educated and knowledgeable and that can rein in our state legislatures. I can't build a horror scenario for you because we've had it so long that it just isn't a problem any longer, but I wouldn't want to imagine life in the US without it.

Part of my problem explaining this all to you is that I have no idea what legislators argue about in the Netherlands. Everybody knows what the US legislators argue about, but only you can tell me what they argue about there. Do you have right-wing extremists? Left-wing extremists? Xenophobes? Neonazis? Communists? My imagination is running wild now...
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:24 pm

Blurp2 wrote:
If we can get back to talking about rights in general, and just use abortion as an example - I think most anti-abortion activists would claim that the fetus ought to have protected rights. The mother and father risk financial loss, but as for the fetus, his or her whole life is at stake. Now, you're obviously comfortable having your legislators make those decisions and happy with the decisions they've made. But here in the US, there are a lot of people in our legislatures that I would not want to spend time with. They're way too much like Trump or worse. I know, you can probably hardly imagine worse, right? Well, we've got worse in our legislatures. I can't tell you how much better I sleep at night knowing we have a Supreme Court that is well educated and knowledgeable and that can rein in our state legislatures. I can't build a horror scenario for you because we've had it so long that it just isn't a problem any longer, but I wouldn't want to imagine life in the US without it.


Sure, but actually quite a scary thought, that you need your justice system to protect you from your legislators.

Blurp2 wrote:
Part of my problem explaining this all to you is that I have no idea what legislators argue about in the Netherlands. Everybody knows what the US legislators argue about, but only you can tell me what they argue about there.


One of the most interesting cases in the Netherlands has got to do with climate change. The Netherlands commited to climate goals, there was a case brought for the courts (still depending for the highest goals) that the government needs to do more to combat climate change because their own goals weren't met with the current policies. They have won the first two levels, so now it is on to the highest court in The Netherlands and perhaps the European court.

Blurp2 wrote:
Do you have right-wing extremists? Left-wing extremists? Xenophobes? Neonazis? Communists? My imagination is running wild now...


In Parlaiment? We have 150 Members of Parliament, there are 13 parties who have won seats. And of those parties a number of MP's have been seperated from their party and are working alone. I think you would consider the majority of our MP's extreme left :D
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:59 am

Huh. Well, "extreme left" means different things to different people. And yes, it is a bit scary that we need the Supreme Court to protect us from our legislators! But we're used to it.

Here in the US, I would say the defund the police movement is extreme left. Doesn't have a hope of getting done, however. I doubt that anyone in the Netherlands wants to defund the police, right? You all are pretty much supportive of your local law enforcement?

Some people say that federally-supported health care would be extreme left, or federally-supported education K-12 (up to age 16). I'm sure the Netherlands is a collection of smaller states, just as the US is - what do states decide for themselves how much to pay for, and what does the federal government mandate that everyone has to pay for?
 
User avatar
NWAESC
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:29 am

This my kinda rabbit hole...
"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
 
Caryjack
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:55 am

Dutchy wrote:
An excellent example of what I think illustrates this: Roe vs Wade. Legalization of abortion is absolutely a political matter, not a justice matter. So from my point of view, it is interesting that the suprime court got actually involved in something like that. I do not know the finer points of this, but it always struck me as quite odd. That makes me for me a more political body than a justice one


US Constitution spells out powers of the federal government over the states. If its not in the US Constitution, it's up to the states. Abortion is not in the US Constitution.

Roe v Wade is a law written by SCOTUS (Suprime Court of the US) based of the right to privacy which is also not in the constitution. This is called legislating from the bench which they have no authority to do, and is why conservatives want it repealed. This law is a glaring example of judicial activism which allows people to seek out sympathetic federal judges for the purpose of enacting or changing laws that legislators won't.

Conservatives (the political right) believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land as originally written. Liberals (progressives, the political left) believe it's a living document that must change with the times.

To the right, gun rights are required to protect family, property and community: To the left, guns are no longer necessary because police and military perform that function.
To the right, freedom of speech is required to discus serious and contentious issues: To the left, disagreement may involve 'hate speech' which should be punished.
To the right, censorship is bad; To the left, 'trigger words' are worse and should be banned.
To the right, people should live and work as equals (melting pot ): To the left, people should be allowed to segregate themselves into 'safe spaces' in housing and work spaces.
There are other examples of this Orwellian behavior but it all comes down to your view, left or right, of the Constitution.


If Roe v Wade were to be overturned, the states would write their own abortion laws, as is the normal practice. Laws legally passed by the state restricting or enhancing abortion would be upheld by a conservative SCOTUS. Those passed by states restricting abortion in any way would be rejected by a liberal SCOTUS.

In my state abortion is available on request, no restrictions. If we were to pass a law requiring parental or judicial approval for an abortion on a 13 year-old girl, a conservative court would allow the law but a liberal court would reject it.

A challenge to a national health insurance act (ACA or Obama Care) has been brought by conservatives and is scheduled before the SCOTUS in early November. Funding has been removed from the act and the question is if the act can remain in place without funding. With a new conservative justice, the court will be balancead 6 to 3 conservative to liberal. I understand that the process for bring the challenge is flawed which will cause conservatives to reject it. The liberals want the law so they will also reject it. I'd guess a 7/2 to 9/0 rejection.

Here's the leader of the US Senate:

“The sorts of people that Trump has been naming to the Supreme Court are no more likely to strike this down than anyone else,” Michael McConnell said. “It’s usually the conservatives who are most insistent upon principles of standing and that congressional and state legislative measures be left undisturbed unless there's a really solid constitutional basis for overturning them.”

Conservatives normally leave the states alone.

Thanks,
Cary
 
Caryjack
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:21 am

Blurp2 wrote:
Huh. Well, "extreme left" means different things to different people. And yes, it is a bit scary that we need the Supreme Court to protect us from our legislators! But we're used to it.

Here in the US, I would say the defund the police movement is extreme left. Doesn't have a hope of getting done, however. I doubt that anyone in the Netherlands wants to defund the police, right? You all are pretty much supportive of your local law enforcement?

The scariest thing I've seen the US Congress do is to add about $5 trillion to the national debt. Perfectly legal to spend money we don't have.

Here is a link to 13 cities that are cutting police budgets. These cuts go to personel, including new-hire cadets. I'm sure that cities like Minneapolis, where violence has spiked, will see the errors of their ways and reverse course.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcev ... 62699329e3
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:35 am

thanks to that explanation, Cary. Non-Americans tend to forget that the US is not as harmonize as a country, many different. states, many different laws. The question of what should be handled on the state-level or on the national-level is indeed an interesting one. It actually underlines my point that I find it odd that there is in essence a non-democratic institution making such far-reaching political discissions. Trump could appoint 3 judges on this body and it actually does matter which signature those people have. In my simple view, that is not good, not a democratic way of dealing with it.

In essence, you and Blurp2 say that the US democratic institutions are flawed and that's why we need to have such a body to give some more balance to the system. Interesting view.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:31 am

My favourite judge would be Judge Dredd, the Karl Urban version of course, not the campy Sylvester “I am the law” Stallone version.
Attamottamotta!
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:07 pm

Dutchy wrote:
thanks to that explanation, Cary. Non-Americans tend to forget that the US is not as harmonize as a country, many different. states, many different laws. The question of what should be handled on the state-level or on the national-level is indeed an interesting one. It actually underlines my point that I find it odd that there is in essence a non-democratic institution making such far-reaching political discissions. Trump could appoint 3 judges on this body and it actually does matter which signature those people have. In my simple view, that is not good, not a democratic way of dealing with it.

In essence, you and Blurp2 say that the US democratic institutions are flawed and that's why we need to have such a body to give some more balance to the system. Interesting view.


Wow! Good summary. I must say, it's been interesting trying to explain the US experience to someone who's not from here. Got me thinking about things I don't often think about. Thank you.
 
Blurp2
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:31 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:10 pm

Caryjack wrote:
The scariest thing I've seen the US Congress do is to add about $5 trillion to the national debt. Perfectly legal to spend money we don't have.


Well, but that's something any country can do. Nothing unique about the US there. What I don't understand is how Obama got away with it. Paul Krugman said he could and he did and we didn't get hyperinflation. Now that Obama got away with it, suddenly everybody seems to have forgotten what a scary deal it was. Ouch.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Favorite Justice

Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:23 pm

Blurp2 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
thanks to that explanation, Cary. Non-Americans tend to forget that the US is not as harmonize as a country, many different. states, many different laws. The question of what should be handled on the state-level or on the national-level is indeed an interesting one. It actually underlines my point that I find it odd that there is in essence a non-democratic institution making such far-reaching political discissions. Trump could appoint 3 judges on this body and it actually does matter which signature those people have. In my simple view, that is not good, not a democratic way of dealing with it.

In essence, you and Blurp2 say that the US democratic institutions are flawed and that's why we need to have such a body to give some more balance to the system. Interesting view.


Wow! Good summary. I must say, it's been interesting trying to explain the US experience to someone who's not from here. Got me thinking about things I don't often think about. Thank you.


Likewise, you got me thinking about it from a US perspective.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, B717fan, Google Adsense [Bot], johnboy, Kiwirob, northwest_guy, Number6 and 64 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos