Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Loyalty isn't a universal good and can be anathema to a democracy. 465457[/snapback] As those who are so devoted to the Big 2 have shown us over and over again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Not necessarily. The "ability to grasp" case law is significantly different from applying a comprehensive knowledge of it. Similar to how we all have the "ability to grasp" offensive playcalling on the football field, but that doesn't mean we have enough of a comprehensive knowledge of football to actually call the plays. But then, I'm also someone who believes that 80% of anything is common sense. I'll be satisfied with someone who can realize that eminent domain should NOT allow the government to take property from one private entity and give it to another. 464415[/snapback] I don't want to get all stickly on this but a supreme court justice should not be calling the plays at all. They should be saying to others "you shouldn't have called that play" or "that play was fine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I don't want to get all stickly on this but a supreme court justice should not be calling the plays at all. They should be saying to others "you shouldn't have called that play" or "that play was fine." 465566[/snapback] Enough with the football analogies. A supreme court justice should have detailed knowledge concerning the issues discussed in the cases. Does the new nominee understand Commerce Clause jurisprudence pre and post Lopez? Does she understand the history? Does she know the history behind substantive due process? The re-invigoration of the 11th amendment? And many other issues (14th amendment; 4th amendment in patriot act era; etc, etc, etc). You can't just shoot from the hip on these issues, and no Mr. President, I won't "trust you" that she is qualified. Prove it. That is your burden in order to maintain the Court's integrity. One of the constant tensions for the Court is that it must maintain its integrity in a democracy considering it is comprised of unelected persons. The Court is constantly mindfull of that tension. "Trust me" does not cut it and I would guess that the current justices would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I don't want to get all stickly on this but a supreme court justice should not be calling the plays at all. They should be saying to others "you shouldn't have called that play" or "that play was fine." 465566[/snapback] And that is what happens when you over-analyse an analogy. It's an analogy, dumbass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Unknown and a very loyal friend. I wonder if it is a good thing for the country to have a justice whose loyalty to the President is so strong it rivals their loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty isn't a universal good and can be anathema to a democracy. 465457[/snapback] But ultimately, presidents become ex-presidents. If she's loyal to Bush past 2008...is it really that big a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 But ultimately, presidents become ex-presidents. If she's loyal to Bush past 2008...is it really that big a problem? 465648[/snapback] It could be if Jeb inherits the throne or if George goes on to become emperor. You'll have to forgive me, I have been watching "Rome" on HBO so much I tend to see everything in terms of Senate factions, coups and naked slave girls. After a victorious campaign in Gaul, er....I mean Iraq, Gaius Georgius may cross the Potomac with his legions intact, forcing the Senate to proclaim him Proconsul for life so that he might protect Rome, er, um... America, from its enemies, er... I mean from terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 As those who are so devoted to the Big 2 have shown us over and over again... 465539[/snapback] Who are "the Big 2" which so haunt you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Who are "the Big 2" which so haunt you? 465756[/snapback] Seigfried and Roy? (I'd guess, Dems and Repubs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 And that is what happens when you over-analyse an analogy. It's an analogy, dumbass! 465645[/snapback] I can't help it. When someone throws a crappy analogy, I am compelled to throw the crap right back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't help it. When someone throws a crappy analogy, I am compelled to throw the crap right back. 465838[/snapback] Actually, it was a very good analogy demonstrating the difference between knowledge and practical application. Until you !@#$ed it all up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Unknown and a very loyal friend. I wonder if it is a good thing for the country to have a justice whose loyalty to the President is so strong it rivals their loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty isn't a universal good and can be anathema to a democracy. 465457[/snapback] In the resent past there have been some selections to the court that really didn't go the way the presidents wanted. Seems to me this might work in Bush's favor. Lessons learned. You cant tell me that they haven't talked about numerous issues the SC has ruled on in the past and whats on the table in the future. And since it was already mentioned in another post, I wont go down that road of "what will Harriot do when Bush is out of office. " Thats just silly Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 It could be if Jeb inherits the throne or if George goes on to become emperor. You'll have to forgive me, I have been watching "Rome" on HBO so much I tend to see everything in terms of Senate factions, coups and naked slave girls. After a victorious campaign in Gaul, er....I mean Iraq, Gaius Georgius may cross the Potomac with his legions intact, forcing the Senate to proclaim him Proconsul for life so that he might protect Rome, er, um... America, from its enemies, er... I mean from terrorists. 465754[/snapback] You lost me after "naked slave girls". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 You lost me after "naked slave girls". 466203[/snapback] Last week Caesar's sister-in-law, a wealthy wench who is screwing half the senate, gave Caesar's mistress a male slave as a peace offering since they have been quarelling. Her son Octavian questioned whether the mistress would accept a gift from her. Puzzled, Caesar's sister-in-law said: "Why would she not? A large penis is always a welcome thing." It's a great show and always has at least one scene of wealthy Romans going at it like rabbits with slave girls fanning them with palm fronds because, after all, that kind of alliance building is hard work. Probably banned in Kansas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Last week Caesar's sister-in-law, a wealthy wench who is screwing half the senate, gave Caesar's mistress a male slave as a peace offering since they have been quarelling. Her son Octavian questioned whether the mistress would accept a gift from her. Puzzled, Caesar's sister-in-law said: "Why would she not? A large penis is always a welcome thing." It's a great show and always has at least one scene of wealthy Romans going at it like rabbits with slave girls fanning them with palm fronds because, after all, that kind of alliance building is hard work. Probably banned in Kansas. 467147[/snapback] But also accurate from a historical standpoint. If they had razors in those days, I might have liked to hang out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 But also accurate from a historical standpoint. If they had razors in those days, I might have liked to hang out. 467755[/snapback] I won't ask what you have in mind to shave. The possibilities are chilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I won't ask what you have in mind to shave. The possibilities are chilling. 467788[/snapback] Female armpits and legs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Female armpits and legs? 467803[/snapback] and probably Female mustaches too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts