SCOTUS: Stevens's Retirement & Replacement

It's unlikely - something like a majority of law school graduates these days are females, and they are disproportionately inclined to pursue jobs in public service (the males seem inclined to big firms and corporations where you make big bucks). So I expect the day is not so far off (if it hasn't arrived already) where a clear majority of the best judges in the land will be female.

I happen to know a lot of people who've attended law school recently and two things stand out: like 3/4 of them are female, and none of the males went into public service/clerkship/etc. (i.e., the career path to end up as a judge). All of the males work in the private sector.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't that basically what the Executive Branch already does (minus the qualifications about not holding any other offices)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As much as women might complain about wanting equal pay, many seem to prefer a man who earns more than they do.

"Making more makes me resent him and feel he's not pulling his weight and should figure out something else to pursue," says Elizabeth D., a computer executive in Silicon Valley, of her husband, who holds a lower-level job in the industry.

"When my husband stopped having sex with me, he said that my haranguing him about his lack of income killed his desire," notes Lisa R., a recently divorced publicist in Vail, Colorado.

Indeed, fury isn't pretty. I know one television executive who walked out of her 25th high school reunion "when one too many women said something like, 'Your husband does what? Oh, that must be ... creative.'"
​

http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity-lifestyle/articles/living/alpha-women-relationship-trouble

Thus the women are free to pursue relatively low paying jobs, but the men seek to maximize their income so as to maximize their success with the ladies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Short answer: No

Maybe because he's not the leftist bugbear conservatives claim he is.

I would only ask that you remember your question the next time you dismiss the notion that the more valid criticism of Obama is coming from the left. For instance, liberals might lament that Obama rolled too hard to the right after winning office, while conservatives bawl about a socialist government takeover of health care. One of those criticisms is actually reasonably accurate.

I would be impressed if it happened, but it's not at all likely. The right wing often likes to pretend it has been suppressed and ignored, but Americans have been literally killing people like me for centuries. We've even passed laws in this country to keep liberals like me from working in the federal government. It is unlikely the left has the political clout to stop Kagan's confirmation.

 

Or he's even further to the left than you. An authoritarian leftist. Consider some recent articles regarding Kagen. It seems she's not too big a supporter of the second amendment:

Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument

Nor is she a big fan of the first amendment:

Elena Kagan vs. First Amendment

But she is a fan of indefinite detention without trial and warrentless wiretapping!

Elena Kagan and the Limits of Executive Power

What determines the validity of a complaint? I'd venture to say that the significance of a complaint (at least in the realm of politics), if not the validity, can be determined by what effect it has on policy and/or the political fortunes of those affected by it. I think November will give us some answers to these questions.

Liberals lament while conservatives bawl? You could have gone with "conservatives complain" and had some nice alliteration going, but that might have left the reader with too much doubt as to which side you were on.

Which of your attributes was considered a capital offense in the US?

When? What law(s) are you referring to?

It wouldn't take much. There are plenty of Republicans who'd be happy to jump on board if they thought they had a serious chance of handing Obama a defeat. So if even as little as ten democratic Senators chose to vote against Kagen, you might well see all the Republicans come on board. I think around 30 Republicans voted against her for her current position.

 

The authoritarian/libertarian scale is orthogonal to the left/right scale. For someone to be an "authoritarian leftist" does not imply that they are any more (or less) leftist than a "libertarian leftist."

And to the original point: I don't see any grounds for asserting that Obama is farther left than Tiassa. Quite the opposite, in fact. He's certainly more authoritarian - essentially every politician currently serving in the US government is much more authoritarian than the general population, left or right. That's why they become career politicians.

You were talking about "the Left" scuttling Kagan's nomination, not the Democrats. The number of leftist senators is far less than 10.

Your continued obliviousness to this point is becoming pathological. The fallacy of equating the Democratic party with "Leftism" has been hammered repeatedly every time this subject has come up on these forums for as long as I can remember (years, now), without any substantial contradiction. I mean, go ahead and refuse to accept the distinction if you like, but we're well past the point where it would have made a sensible basis for responding to interlocutors that consistently and explicitly argue from the presence of such a distinction.

 

This is why Elena Kagan is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court;

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=18644

The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws.

 

So you disagree with the court ruling segregation was unconstitutional? to be fair the courts must protect those with out the means to defend themselves in the legal arena from those who have the ability to prey upon them.

 

Getting acquainted with history

And the lede from that article?

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was "not sympathetic" toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.​

I think you've offered up a bit of a distortion here. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist refused to hear the defendant's appeal, and his convictions for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition held up. Additionally, as the Bloomberg article you provided notes, Kagan discussed during her Solicitor General confirmation hearing how she went about her job for for Justice Thurgood Marshall, which indeed helps define the context of the particular issue you raise.

What, are you taking your cues from Drudge these days?

That's hardly a liberal or leftist outlook. For instance, I don't see how censoring song lyrics for the sake of traditional, American, Christian sensibilities is a leftist trend. Nor do I understand how using commerce laws to arrest Z. Budapest in the 1970s for practicing witchcraft reflects leftist values.

And this is a leftist principle ... how?

I always thought fact had something to do with validity, but maybe that's just a leftist trend.

Two points:

• Was there ever any doubt as to which side I'm on?

• Again, something about fact and validity.​

Well, I've been a witch before, and if pressed, will fall back on that as my last religious identification. Killing witches is part of our Puritan heritage that predates the United States itself. And Lou (L. M.) Boyd once related, in his column, that a cow was hanged in the Kansas Territory, once upon a time, for sorcery.

I'm also a flaming leftist and communist sympathizer. Some might suggest I was born at least fifty years too late for my disposition, but I consider that to my benefit. Once upon a time, I would have been mowed down by Pinkerton mercenaries, or framed and sent to the gallows for my Anarchist sympathies.

Oh, yes, and I also have sex with men sometimes. Indeed, a major catalyst of my transition from political awareness into activism was when two people were murdered by firebombing in Salem, Oregon, for the "crime" of being gay.

You've never heard of the Communist Control Act of 1954?

There are ten leftists in the Senate?

See Quadraphonics' post.

• • •​

Which, in the end, would protect society's most vulnerable.
____________________

Notes:

Stohr, Greg and Kristin Jensen. "Kagan Was 'Not Sympathetic' as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument". Bloomberg. May 13, 2010. Bloomberg.com. May 14, 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs

"1950s: Communist Control Act of 1954". 1954. Documents of American History II. (n.d.) Tucnack.fsv.cuni.cz. May 14, 2010. http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html

 

When an article takes two or three words out of context and represents it in a derogatory manor and attributes it to a political enemy, one has to wonder why the writer does not provide source information in the article so the allegations presented can be verified...or why they deliberately avoided giving the context of the wording. The writers were not confident enough in what they were writing to provide such disclosures...one has to wonder why. Of course to those on the right and devotees of limbaugh, beck, hannity, levin, truthfulness is not needed or welcome in political discourse. So they probably would never question something like this...just accept it as gospel truth.

Could it be like so much of the posting done by Buffalo Roam that when the full context of the alleged comments are known, a totally different picture emerges?

I challenge Mr. Buffalo Roam to provide the full context of the alleged quote and cite references so the alleged quote can be verified.

 

pj, and what does this have to do with anything?

So I guess you don't want a impartial judge to try your case, with equality for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws.

A Judge is suppose to be absolutely impartial with no preconceived bias for or against those who come before the courts, a Judge it is not there to primarily exist to look out for the "despised and disadvantaged." a Judge is their to guarantee a impartial trial and application of the law for all.


From their post, seems Tiassa and joepistol think the same way.

 

Welcome to SciForums, Buffalo Roam, I'm glad you could join us.

If I understand your post correctly, you are offering for our consideration that "Elena Kagan is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court" because she would "favor... one particular group", and because she does not support "equal justice for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws."

I'm not asking for a doctoral dissertation- just some credible supporting evidence along with that bold assertion. Out of respect for readers here- the bolder the claim, the greater the burden of proof.

Please consider answering joepistole's challenge seriously. Your stepping up to the challenge interests me as a fellow member. As a moderator, it will also assist me in marking the boundaries between "trolling" and informed, respectful political discussion in these green pastures. Thanks.

 

The traditional left/right scale has communism on the left and fascism on the right. So the extreme left and the extreme right are both totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. Thus further left or further right could be said to be more authoritarian within that context.

We're splitting hairs here as to what constitutes a leftist.

In the US the Democratic Party is the party of the Left and the Republican party is the party of the Right. You can hammer it all you want, but it's true.

There are, of course, parties that expose a more doctrinaire version of Leftist ideology, but mainstream Leftists belong to the Democratic Party just as mainstream Rightists belong to the Republican party.

Those were examples of her authoritarian outlook. As mentioned above, in the simplest left/right scheme moving towards authoritarianism marks the more extreme versions of either left or right wing ideology.

You forget, we're talking politics. Perception is reality, and perception is expressed at the voting booth.

Of course not. That's why the little dig you threw in with your choice of adjectives was overkill.

Not to split hairs, but doesn't all that predate the existence of the United States? Was witchcraft ever a capital offense in the US itself?

Yes, but so long as you weren't a spy, none of those things have ever been capital offenses either.

Actually, no. Was that law struck down on constitutional grounds or just repealed? Because we have a communist party now.

 

In theory. But a separate branch, who holds no power but to say "no" would be ideal IMHO. The executive branch--as I'm sure you know--has the power to execute law. A fourth--"audit" (or some other name)--branch would have only the power to nominate judges and audit government activity and remove any unelected official by majority vote. The barring from ever having served in a high federal office or from ever serving in one would remove the politically ambitious.

~String

 

That traditionally is true. However, the right has become more extreme in recent decades with the introduction of right wing control of the media and the left - traditional Democrats - have become more middle of the road, traditional centerists.

The problem is today, there is not much air between the main stream Republican and the extremist right winger. And the right wing of the political spectrum in the US has sucumbed to "group think" and intollerance to dissent. Which is very scary to those of us who like living in a tollerant society and one in which government cannot and does not enforce a particular brand of politcal dogma.

 

Love is a beautiful thing

Or it could represent a right turn in a liberal outlook, much as the world witnessed in the transformation of the Russian Revolution from a bumbling series of near accidents into Stalinism.

I think you're switching subjects. Looking back to what I consider the original point—the validity of criticism against Obama—we might remember that people make mistakes. Does the fact that any number of people believe something true actually make it so? That people carry such mistakes to the ballot box is a mistake in itself, but reality need not be justified in that manner.

I'm pretty certain you are not so absolutely shallow as to argue that right and wrong are so whimsical.

Perception, at the ballot box, is reality, but there is more of significance about politics outside the box. (Heh.) For instance, apply your consideration to the fact that Obama was even elected.

Republicans haven't really gotten along too well with reality since 2008, have they?

See, to me it seems like you're suggesting I should soften my rhetoric because it hurts the feelings of Republicans to hear their behavior described according to accurate terms.

That they are the opposition does not automatically make them correct. A key component of how I describe their complaint is its validity.

But you see, I think that is splitting hairs. I'm not just talking about capital offenses according to the law. You seem to argue from a point of view exceptionally disconnected from the idea of culture. I did not limit myself exclusively to statute. That would be like denying our racist heritage, including the KKK, because there was never a specific law on the books that made it legal to hang Negroes. And, frankly, I can't be certain there are no such laws in history. But I do not require them for my consideration of the American heritage insofar as—

—it's not just about capital offense. Perhaps I could have been more clear if, instead of—

Americans have been literally killing people like me for centuries.​

—I had said—

Americans have been literally murdering people like me since before there were Americans.​

But then you probably would have invoked, oh, I don't know, the indigenous tribes?

Whatever possible reading you can justify that means the other is exactly wrong; that's how it works, isn't it? Appearances of effect—the apparent dimensions of experience—are exceptionally persuasive. The two most consistent aspects of your reading "comprehension" suggest either uncanny stupidity or bad luck, or else some measure of calculation. I don't think you're stupid, and if you're simply unlucky, it's to such a degree that I might start believe there really are hot and cold streaks in Vegas. ("I can feel it, baby! Make ... papa ... proud!")

But yes, you have an uncanny abiliy to completely miss the point in a manner that somehow justifies the idea that the proposition is exactly wrong.

I believe in Vegas they would call that a tell.

It's been defanged in a couple of state courts and one trip in front of the Supreme, but I think it is, technically, still in effect. I think it's mostly that no president has been stupid enough to enforce whatever is left. But none want to challenge it, either. That would be comically unpopular. Hilariously, degradingly, shockingly unpopular. So they ignore it. American communists have been on presidential ballots in my lifetime; nobody wants to gratify the reds communists by having the big fight. What could possibly revitalize communism in America like the public dismantling of the Communist Control Act? I mean, completely, with the full appearance that the law was a mistake? And what could finally convince CPUSA to stop acting like a cartoon and start being serious but that sort of official validation. As long as nobody says anything, the farcical array of neurotic symptoms Americans might call a relationship to the idea of communism remains in effect.

Love is a beautiful thing.

 

I have doubts that a judge like that has ever sat on the supreme court. I have doubts that impartiality is even possible.

A judge also is not supposed to look out for the privileged and powerful corporations. I think our present court is too deferential to corporate power. Somebody who cared about the poor or even somebody who cared about small business would bring some balance.

The constitution is tiny. It has to be interpreted. The laws and precedents are vast but individual circumstance is more vast so even a court that obeys precedent must interpret to apply precedent and the laws to individual circumstance.

I don't see the current court as being all that inclined to follow the precedents of the more liberal court from the 1970s and 1980s.

All the talk about strict constructionalism seems to me to be empty but clever rhetoric. I don't see that the alleged strict constructionalists are any more strict constructionalists that the people alleged to be loose constructionalists. I think the supposed strict constructionalists are just conservatives who legislate conservatively from the bench. Even on "States Rights" the supposed strict constructionalist champions of states rights rule against states rights when doing so advances conservatism.

A reading of the constitution does make it clear that a real strict constructionalist would defend states rights but apparently even Scalia is a phony strict constructionalist.

 

You hit on a very good point. Strict constructionalism is a myth and just blatent political rhetoric used to call the ditto heads to arms. The truth is that Strict Constructionalist are all for bending the constitution as long as it is in their favor..states rights be damned if it goes against any Republican policy (e.g Terri Shavio, Healthcare Reform, or getting their candidates appointed to the presidency, etc)

 

How can I let that one go?

What are we, Mr. Roam, maybe halfway through page three at that point? And as late as the end of page two, Joe and I were still in disagreement? I mean, the only reason we're not actively discussing those points at the moment is that I got distracted by Madanthonywayne's brash—to say the least—attempt to redraw neoconservatism as the new left.

But, yes, it would behoove you, sir, to note such details before editing a post to append such a silly, superficial, dishonest excuse for a response.

 

The article takes 2 or 3 words out of contexts? from Marshall Memo: 1993, Kagan defends Marshall's characterization of the Constitution as Defective....the Constitution wasn't defective, the compromise to establish the United State as a Government and Nation, is what was defective, and the times that the Constitution was written, the Delegates were doing exactly what the Democrats of today are always screaming about, they were being bipartisan, they compromised the Principle Enshrined in our;

Declaration Of Independence​

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

For the sake of creating our country.

And the supposed point that our Constitution is defective, is still not valid on one very central point, and that point in that it can be modified by Amendment to Correct any short comings.

Tt would have been the Height of Perfection if at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 the Founding Fathers of our Constitution would have had the where with all, and political will to have addressed the issue of slavery, instead of letting it fester into a civil war in 1860, but that was not to be, they were only Human, for all their greatness, and had a far more important mission, and that was the establishment of a Government by Constitution and Law to protect the fact by war that a Independent Nation now existed on the North American Continent, and to make sure of it's survival;

The United States of America​

Now as to Kagans Marshall Memo: 1993, it exist, that is a fact, but someone is taking great care to not have it in any easily accessible format, with out having to pay for it, the Memo can be found in the:

1993. Texas Law Review.

IN MEMORIAM: For Justice Marshall
Texas Law Review, May, 1993 -- 71 Tex. L. Rev. 1125

​

So Mr. joepistol I offer you a counter challenge, since I have given you the Publication, Article Name, Month and Date of publication, and exact volume of Mizz Kagans memorandum, how about you show us where the out of context words are in the article???? Hmmmmm?????

I have done all the heavy research and located the Memorandum, now how about you show that the assessment of it's meaning is out of context.