Swinging to the Right or the Left? Preference?

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Aha. So you're rude to people who are (or who you think) are gay?

LOL. I don't know of any gay people who steal poop.

[livius drusus]

What bey said. This line was particularly illuminating for me:

Originally Posted by maddog

That means that a MAJORITY did not really decide the case: the meaning of the case is decided by a distinct minority, "1" in fact. THAT's the significance of O'Connor's position on the court.

Thank you, maddog.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

LOL. I don't know of any gay people who steal poop.

Maybe you should check the meaning of words before you use them, then?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=turd+burglar

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Maybe you should check the meaning of words before you use them, then?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=turd+burglar

Listen dipstick, take a look there yourself. Yes, some of those definitions refer to using the word as a derogatory word towards homosexuals, but an equal portion don't.

So when I call you a turd burglar, I mean you like to steal poop. IOW, a wholy unprofitable and unrewarding activity. Yet, you'd still rather be you than me? Sure ... have fun burgling turds.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Listen dipstick, take a look there yourself.

I did already.

Yes, some of those definitions refer to using the word as a derogatory word towards homosexuals, but an equal portion don't.

Riiiight. And just because you call someone queer and gay doesn't *necessarily* mean anything about their orientation, because they might just be strange and happy. After all, those are also valid definitions as well.

So when I call you a turd burglar, I mean you like to steal poop. IOW, a wholy unprofitable and unrewarding activity.

"Wholly unprofitable and unrewarding activity"? Too bad that particular homemade definition doesn't appear there.

Naw, I think I hit the nail on the head - you knew exactly what you said. But now you're realizing that maybe it wasn't such a good thing to say.

Yet, you'd still rather be you than me?

Yeah. Non-bigot over bigot anyday.

[livius drusus]

I've used that expression on occasion and had no idea it was also a homophobic slur. I won't be using it again to avoid just such misunderstandings.

Meanwhile, there are interesting and on-topic posts here, most recently from maddog. I'd be interested to hear any actual discussion you might have on the subject.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Meanwhile, there are interesting and on-topic posts here, most recently from maddog. I'd be interested to hear any actual discussion you might have on the subject.

Yeah, right. I was engaged in actual discussion (started last night), before Tom's latest b.s.

I had previously commented that any idea of an evenly balanced court has to be viewed in the context of the American political spectrum, which is decidedly right of center: pro-business, anti-labor, etc. So from the liberal/progressive standpoint striving for a "balanced" court is really only acquiescence to the status quo.

Discuss.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I won't be using it again to avoid just such misunderstandings.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding ... on Sauron's part. It's his typical rhetoric (villify your opponent), but yah ... rather than open myself to such asshattery in the future, I'll have to be more careful as well.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Meanwhile, there are interesting and on-topic posts here, most recently from maddog. I'd be interested to hear any actual discussion you might have on the subject.

Maddog raised a great point, as her posts usually do. Something new I learned today (about the workings of split opinions), and something I'm somewhat ashamed to have buried with this stupid exchange with Sauron. I can only agree that the SCOTUS need to work on reaching consensus, and I seriously hope that Chief Justice Roberts works towards that goal, and it happens in the near future.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by maddog

If the rest of the justices would work together better, to hammer out more consensus, so that an actual majority of the court would sign ONE opinion, the influence of the minority opinions would decrease considerably.

Plus it would make the goddamn things easier to read. I often hear corporate and personal injury lawyers using the expression "complex litigation." To my mind there is nothing more complex than constitutional law. With all due respect to corporate attorneys and PI practitioners, their cases are often extremely complex on factual and policy grounds, but I don't think you can touch con law for abstract complexity.

An example. I'm doing some research on the question of peremptory strikes on religious grounds. (Peremptory strikes are dismissals of potential jurors whereby the striking attorney need not give any reason, or "cause," for their dismissal.)

The cases (beginning with Batson) have made clear that peremptory strikes can be challenged on race or gender grounds, but all the striker needs to do is provide a race- or gender-neutral rationale for the strike that's satisfactory to the court, which is generally not much of a hurdle at all. If the lawyer has asked the juror a few questions, there's generally something in one of those responses that will yield the neutral rationale.

However, peremptory strikes on the basis of religion are allowed; at least, Batson hasn't been extended to religion (at the federal level - although Justice Thomas would like to see it similarly regarded). You can't strike a Catholic for simply being Catholic, but you can strike her for her Catholic beliefs, which might tend to make her biased or impartial when it comes to, to cite an obvious example, voting for the death penalty. Being Catholic vs. Having Catholic beliefs: a distinction without a difference, one might argue.

Then you've got the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, under which race and religious classifications are subject to the same level of judicial scrutiny, but not during jury selection, because the defendant's 6th Amendment right to a fair and unbiased jury comes into play. So there still exists that question of the EPC's application to both jurors and defendants.

Additionally you've got the Free Exercise of Religion clause, which is a whole area of unsettled law in and of itself, and even the Establishment of Religion Clause, because jurors are essentially government actors. And so on. Add to this the Supreme Court's recent penchant for plurality opinions and you got yourself some pretty goddamn complex litigation right there.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

thank you maddog,

I never realized the power of those minority opinions.

You're quite welcome, bey (and others).

The "typical" idea of a minority opinion is, let's say, what 3 dissenters say in a 6-3 decision. You're right, those "minority opinions" don't have nearly the influence; after all, it's a minority opinion!

But when there is no clear majority opinion, it makes figuring out what a case has decided very tricky. Sometimes, in those 3-3-2-1 decisions, part of a case has 6 (3-3 or 3-2-1) in favor of it, part has 5 (3A-2 or 3B-2), or any combinations thereof. So it's ****** difficult to tell what a case means, or what the law *is* on a particular question. Huge headache for practitioners. The Supreme Court should give guidance, not foster confusion.

That's one of the very bad legacies of Rehnquist's tenure as chief. Roberts stated that he will work to garner more internal support for the opinions before they are issued. If he holds to that, then already the administration of justice is improved. Even if one disagrees with the particular result or results, at least the law itself is more clear, and that helps people solve real problems they are facing.
#671

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by maddog

Earl Warren, whatever else one might think about his jurisprudence, worked hard to get consensus in the cases. The key civil rights cases were 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 rulings, by-and-large.

Amen to that. Brown v. Board of Education was 4-4 before Warren got to the Court. His vote made it 5-4 in favor of overruling Plessy. By the time Warren was done working his consensus-building magic, it was 9-0.

In this respect, more than any other, Wild Bill Rehnquist was an absolute failure as a chief justice.