• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fragamemnon said:
I didn't think there was a lot of resistance to Roberts. Alito was a bit rockier but he went from committee to confirmed in like a week.

The GOP could punt on this, but that would be the smart thing to do and they are run by clowns, so bog down it is.

She will be appointed, no problem. The democrats with Alito were brutal. Basically asking how how he will vote before the cases are even presented to him. Repubs may have a problem with her but will vote her in. Remember Ginsburg? ACLU and all, voted in. Why? Because they knew it was Clinton's choice and unless there was a big red flag then there is no reason to not vote her in even if they disagree with her on issues.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
I would like you to defend her legal opinion. I understand the cities arguments, I would like you to defend hers.
I would love to hear about this cities argument. Coastal cities I take it? I know a lot about those.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Remember Harriet Miers? That was fun.

Yup, repubs had a problem with her. If Obama nominated someone that had a history of being anti-abortion there would have been riots in the streets from the left just like there were with Meyers and Bush. The party dictates who to nominate, unfortunately.
 
JayDubya said:
Well they are if articles like the one you quote promote the notion and try to muddy the water with a false metric like simply overturning laws.

Overturning laws for being unconstitutional is kind of their raison d'etre if you're a fan of judicial review. That isn't inherently "activist."

You're not watching very closely if you believe that it's the supporters of judicial review that are trying to muddy the waters. Claims of "Judicial Activism" have been blindly flung at so many decisions without any sort of metric. When someone attempts to introduce a metric (flawed or not), they are muddying the waters? That's just being dishonest.
 
JayDubya said:
Overturning laws because they're unconstitutional is valid.

Overturning laws because you don't like them and you can presumably use secret hidden parts of the Constitution that only you and your magical glasses can find is not.

There's an amendment process, and it can be changed. In the meantime, it's their job to uphold the Constitution we have, not the one they wished we had.
Overturning anti-abortion laws because they're found to be unconstitutional is valid, tough beans if you don't like it.

The fact is is that it's your boys that are most willing to interene in the legislating process and disenfranchise the voters who elected their representives
 

JayDubya

Banned
mamacint said:
Overturning anti-abortion laws because they're found to be unconstitutional is valid, tough beans if you don't like it.

No, because none of the horseshit Blackmun concocted to craft that decision was valid, and the decision is widely condemned as poor even in litigious circles that lean pro-abortion.

That is a great example, though, thank you.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
The party dictates who to nominate, unfortunately.
:lol

Obama has no problem roiling the Democratic base. No one has been under the illusion that he is particularly progressive or even all that liberal.
 
scorcho said:
I would love to hear about this cities argument. Coastal cities I take it? I know a lot about those.

Connecticut

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=7393908

37 comments
FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
DIGG
SHARE

When firefighters battle a raging blaze, they can be sure that at least one thing will treat them all equally:
In Conn., white firefighters say promotions denied because of race.

"The fire isn't going to discriminate against a person whether he's black, white or Hispanic" Connecticut firefighter Ben Vargas, 40, said. "It's going to treat that person the same way."

But in the city of New Haven, Vargas, who is Hispanic, and 19 white firefighters say that is where the equal treatment ends, and discrimination begins. They allege that they were denied promotions because the city gave preferential treatment to blacks.

Matt Marcarelli, who is white, got the top score on a promotion exam in 2003 and was first in line for captain. But when the city reviewed all the test results, it found that the pass rate for black candidates was about half the corresponding rate for white candidates. None of the black firefighters scored well enough for an immediate promotion. As a result, the city threw out the test results.
Related
Secret Service Blasted in Race Bias Case
Court Rules for Worker Over Retaliation
'A Wonderful Day': Fair Pay Act Signed

"Every day I go to work I've got to pin this lieutenant's badge on me, it reminds me I got screwed out of a captain's badge because of the color of my skin," Marcarelli, 38, said. "That gets to you."

In New Haven, city officials knew they were headed for a catch 22 when the test results came back. If the city certified the test results, it was confident it could expect a lawsuit from the black firefighters. But when it threw out the test results, it instead got a lawsuit from mostly white firefighters.

Blacks make up about a third of New Haven's 221 firefighters, 15 percent are officers -- eight of 42 lieutenants and one of 18 captains.

The case has made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the argument today. The decision, which is likely to come at the end of June, could affect the hiring and promotion practices for millions of civil servants. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has made no secret of his opposition to public universities' considering race in admissions decisions, although the New Haven case will be the Roberts' court first look at the use of race in civil servant hiring and promotion.

But Victor Bolden, the city's lawyer, supported the decision to scrap the tests. "It looked like the exam might have been discriminatory against some of the minority test takers. And that was certainly a red flag for the city under the law." For decades, people of color across the country have filed scores of discrimination lawsuits to challenge testing in fire departments, police departments and public schools.

But whites and Hispanics like Vargas have fought back. Opponents have used civil rights laws to argue reverse discrimination. And they have found some success: The city of Chicago recently settled a major case with white firefighters for $7.5 million.
Related
Court Weighs How Maternity Leaves Affect Pensions
Islamophobia: 'She Wasn't Dressed Right'
Black and White Now: Kids Talk Race

Vargas said civil rights laws should be used to protect his potential promotion. "The civil rights laws, they have nothing in there which state preferential treatment. The civil rights laws are there for everybody; all American citizens have the same exact rights."

Black firefighters say that the stakes in their case couldn't be higher.

"If we lose this," New Haven firefighter Octavius Dawson said, "the implication is catastrophic. I mean, where does it end. Not just with the fire department. Police department, education, who knows where it could end?"

But aggrieved firefighters say they want to take race out of the equation.

"We want to be treated just as firefighters, whether we are men, women, white, African American, Hispanic. We want to be treated as firefighters, period."

The city argues its based on the testing itself which is unfairly biased towards minorities. The african american who was interviewed made it a racial issue which is exactly what it has become.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
JayDubya said:
An activist judge is one that bypasses the legislative process to synthesize new law based only on their own values.

Would you mind providing an example or two in which a judge has "synthesized new law"? I, in my naivety, am skeptical that judges could get away with that.

In the Supreme Court of the United States, this activity is especially odious, because we have an amendment process, and their presumed / assumed roll post Marbury v. Madison is one of judicial review, under which law can be declared unconstitutional.

And as an aside, I've always found it amusing that the Supreme Court kinda decided that their job was to review the constitutionality of the other two branches of government... despite the fact that that power isn't explicitly granted in the Constitution itself (or at least it wasn't last time I looked).
 
scorcho said:
:lol

Obama has no problem roiling the Democratic base. No one has been under the illusion that he is particularly progressive or even all that liberal.

Rolling over the dems in some issues, not in the supreme court. Bush had no problem roiling the Repubs in some issues (spending, larger govt, immigration reform) but he wasn't going to do that with the supreme court picks. Obama is all that liberal in many areas, including his pick for the court. That is his right as the President. Doesn't mean the repubs should just take it just like the dems didn't just take alito.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Ri'Orius said:
And as an aside, I've always found it amusing that the Supreme Court kinda decided that their job was to review the constitutionality of the other two branches of government... despite the fact that that power isn't explicitly granted in the Constitution itself (or at least it wasn't last time I looked).

Judicial review is pretty activist, wouldn't you say?
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
There has to be more serious reviews of the case other than ABC News and CSM.

Loving: Bush nominated Harriet Fucking Miers to the SC. There's also nothing in Bush's public record that would make him averse to picking either Roberts or Alito. Same with Obama's record and Sotomayor, who hues closer to the center than either of Bush's picks, and much closer than Scalila.

Former students and colleagues describe Mr. Obama as a minimalist (skeptical of court-led efforts at social change) and a structuralist (interested in how the law metes out power in society). And more than anything else, he is a pragmatist who urged those around him to be more keenly attuned to the real-life impact of decisions. This may be his distinguishing quality as a legal thinker: an unwillingness to deal in abstraction, a constant desire to know how court decisions affect people’s lives.
Not exactly a radical position to take.
 
scorcho said:
There has to be more serious reviews of the case other than ABC News and CSM.

Loving: Bush nominated Harriet Fucking Miers to the SC. There's also nothing in Bush's public record that would make him averse to picking either Roberts or Alito. Same with Obama's record and Sotomayor, who hues closer to the center than either of Bush's picks, and much closer than Scalila.

You may be correct and I should edit my first post regarding whether she is an activist judge or not, that was very hasty of me to do so. I hope the best for her regarding her future as a justice however I am very hasty, just as I was with Alito and Roberts.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
You may be correct and I should edit my first post regarding whether she is an activist judge or not, that was very hasty of me to do so. I hope the best for her regarding her future as a justice however I am very hasty, just as I was with Alito and Roberts.

sotomayor-intro-526-930.jpg
 
the existence of Thomas, Alito and Roberts makes it okay for Obama to appoint the most leftist SC Justice IMO

he should pick a 30 year old socialist for life as justice IMO,, ballance out the right wing nuts

the US is too far right as it is, it needs a counter ballance.
Sotomayor is not left enough and not young enough IMO
 
mamacint said:
Terms like "strict constructionism" are just bullshit buzzwords to smokescreen deciding cases based on a particular idealogy, and "activist judges" is just one more arrow in the rightwing quiver to fire at something they don't like.

THEY'RE FUCKING MEANINGLESS
This.
 

Macam

Banned
LovingSteam said:
Rolling over the dems in some issues, not in the supreme court. Bush had no problem roiling the Repubs in some issues (spending, larger govt, immigration reform) but he wasn't going to do that with the supreme court picks. Obama is all that liberal in many areas, including his pick for the court. That is his right as the President. Doesn't mean the repubs should just take it just like the dems didn't just take alito.

Short of immigration reform, Bush wasn't "roiling" Republicans on some issues; he was simply engaging in classic Republicanism. Lip service to 'conservative' values, then doing the opposite.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
You quoted what I said for this photo why?

I think their expressions adequately convey my opinion of your posts.








Gah! Again with the "Bush wasn't really a conservative" excuses. When will it stop?!
 
gutter_trash said:
the existence of Thomas, Alito and Roberts makes it okay for Obama to appoint the most leftist SC Justice IMO

he should pick a 30 year old socialist for life as justice IMO,, ballance out the right wing nuts

the US is too far right as it is, it needs a counter ballance.
Sotomayor is not left enough and not young enough IMO

I would argue that there are nuts on the left of the court also, its in the eye of the beholder I should say. Example being the eminent domain case where the govt can take your land and give it to another entity if that entity will be paying more taxes then you will with the land you currently have. Before it was if one lived on property that sat in the middle of a future free way, hospital, etc... Ofcourse I agree with Jefferson who was against even that, after all, your property is YOUR property.
 

Macam

Banned
scorcho said:
I would love to hear about this cities argument. Coastal cities I take it? I know a lot about those.

Apparently, the "cities" argument was nothing more than a grammatical error; he meant "city's".
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
For those interested in seeing how 'radical' Sotomayor is now, CSPAN1 is airing a moot court argument with her, guido calabresi and john roberts as the judges. I was told this is interesting to watch.
 
PantherLotus said:
I think their expressions adequately convey my opinion of your posts.

That is fine. I find it interesting that you still haven't responded to my question regarding the fire fighter case but I have come to expect such from you so that will be the end of me asking anymore.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
That is fine. I find it interesting that you still haven't responded to my question regarding the fire fighter case but I have come to expect such from you so that will be the end of me asking anymore.

You said you wanted me to defend her legal opinion, which I'm neither qualified nor interested in doing. Do you care to defend the other side? And, for the sake of argument, if she was wrong, would that disqualify her from this appointment?
 
PantherLotus said:
You said you wanted me to defend her legal opinion, which I'm neither qualified nor interested in doing. Do you care to defend the other side? And, for the sake of argument, if she was wrong, would that disqualify her from this appointment?

No, it wouldn't disqualify her from the appointment in my opinion. This is why I went back and edited my original post regarding whether she was an activist judge I believe on page 18 or 19. I do believe its an important case and her opinion is important as well. However, no, that will not disqualify her in my opinion.
 
LovingSteam said:
I would argue that there are nuts on the left of the court also, its in the eye of the beholder I should say. Example being the eminent domain case where the govt can take your land and give it to another entity if that entity will be paying more taxes then you will with the land you currently have. Before it was if one lived on property that sat in the middle of a future free way, hospital, etc... Ofcourse I agree with Jefferson who was against even that, after all, your property is YOUR property.
it doesn't matter, most of the land was seized away from the Natives by colonialists, so it's all fair game if the gov wants to expropriate you to build wind turbines and solar pannels
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
No, it wouldn't disqualify her from the appointment in my opinion. This is why I went back and edited my original post regarding whether she was an activist judge I believe on page 18 or 19. I do believe its an important case and her opinion is important as well. However, no, that will not disqualify her in my opinion.

t1wide.sotomayer.18.gi.jpg
 
gutter_trash said:
it doesn't matter, most of the land was seized away from the Natives by colonialists, so it's all fair game if the gov wants to expropriate you to build wind turbines and solar pannels

That is a pandora's box to get into the taking of land from the Native's. However, regarding this particular decision it goes against the founders understanding of individual property. It is one thing if it means a hospital or freeway that will benefit the people (I personally am against this as well just as Jefferson was but I have an easier time understand the argument) but to allow anyone who will be building a bigger and "better" piece of property, thereby paying more taxes, is wrong. You have been on your property for generations, you own it. In comes a business who wants to build a mini mall, they take your land without you having the right to decline their effort. That is simply wrong.
 

JayDubya

Banned
It's one thing to use eminent domain in a time of war to build a fort.

It's another to use eminent domain to turn around and sell the land to Wal-Mart.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Republicans: Sotomayor loves good oral!

Joke falls if you're not currently watching CSPAN.

ivysaur12 said:
She's a bit old for my liking, but overall a good, if predictable, nomination.
Same age as Justice Roberts, I believe. Can't imagine anyone dramatically younger having the record that would allow for a SC nomination.
 

gkryhewy

Member
JayDubya said:
It's one thing to use eminent domain in a time of war to build a fort.

It's another to use eminent domain to turn around and sell the land to Wal-Mart.

At least you've got the spelling right now.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
JayDubya said:
It's one thing to use eminent domain in a time of war to build a fort.

It's another to use eminent domain to turn around and sell the land to Wal-Mart.

Hard not to agree with that, but most of the time, it's not that obvious. Highways and road projects are most common uses, but the ones that are most contentious and hard to judge would have to be the public project that is operated by a private entity (but benefits local society) like a new stadium or shopping district.

I used to work at a PR firm, where I discovered an awful truth: assuming the ED argument is required, announcing the city's plan years in advance will cause property values in the desired area to fall well before anybody would ever actually be forced out of their homes. It just means if you hear about a project and your house is in the way, GTFO as quickly as possible. You won't win the case and you won't get your value.
 
PantherLotus said:
Hard not to agree with that, but most of the time, it's not that obvious. Highways and road projects are most common uses, but the ones that are most contentious and hard to judge would have to be the public project that is operated by a private entity (but benefits local society) like a new stadium or shopping district.

I used to work at a PR firm, where I discovered an awful truth: assuming the ED arguement is required, announcing the city's plan years in advance will cause property values in the desired area to fall well before any body would ever actually be forced out of their homes. It just means if you hear about a project and your house is in the way, GTFO as quickly as possible. You won't win the case and you won't get your value.

This is a travesty imho. This is the concern that I have with govt (both repub/dem alike). It is getting so big that the respect for state and individual rights is going by the wayside.
 

JayDubya

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Hard not to agree with that, but most of the time, it's not that obvious. Highways and road projects are most common uses, but the ones that are most contentious and hard to judge would have to be the public project that is operated by a private entity (but benefits local society) like a new stadium or shopping district.

That's not hard to judge. It's explicitly wrong. Like the Wal-Mart example above.

The people wanting to build the new shit are welcome to pay each owner what they want, or not.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
JayDubya said:
It's one thing to use eminent domain in a time of war to build a fort.

It's another to use eminent domain to turn around and sell the land to Wal-Mart.


I agree with JayD here. *suprised*
 

ivysaur12

Banned
scorcho said:
Same age as Justice Roberts, I believe. Can't imagine anyone dramatically younger having the record that would allow for a SC nomination.

Ah, I did my math wrong. She's a year older than Roberts. Ok, that's young enough.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Here's atypical political minutiae that I LOVE:

SCOTUS Sephardic Jew Trivia Edition
Everyone is hailing Sonia Sotomayor as (if confirmed) the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. But we've had a few emailers who point out that, at least by one definition, that's not true. They point to Benjamin Cardozo who had a relatively brief tenure as an Associate Justice on the court from 1932 until his death in 1938.

Cardozo held what was then informally known as one of the Jewish seats on the Court (he overlapped with Brandeis and was succeeded by Frankfurter.) But his ancestors were Portuguese Jews. That is, they were Sephardic Jews presumably expelled from Portugal in 1497 or who lived as conversos and then later reverted to Judaism after leaving at some later point.

This could of course suggest that a hidden Hispanic seat stood vacant on the Court for a full 71 years until today. But, be that as it may, there's your asterisk: Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice, unless you think that Cardozo was the first.
 

gkryhewy

Member
PantherLotus said:
I used to work at a PR firm, where I discovered an awful truth: assuming the ED argument is required, announcing the city's plan years in advance will cause property values in the desired area to fall well before anybody would ever actually be forced out of their homes. It just means if you hear about a project and your house is in the way, GTFO as quickly as possible. You won't win the case and you won't get your value.

Of course *now* property of all classes is losing value rapidly, and so if you have to sell any time in the next few years, better to do it now. Historically though, if it's a well-planned redevelopment, it often has very positive effects on neighboring property values. For example, let's say there's a derelict industrial use that separates a city neighborhood from a waterfront. The city proposed a mixed-use redevelopment plan that will replace the industrial use with a mixed-use residential/commercial development, including waterfront trails, and that the surrounding neighborhoods will be connected to this restored waterfront via roads, sidewalks, etc. In this case, eminent domain is used (or its specter is apparent) to assemble lots of small parcels with complex ownership/liens/etc. for transfer to a redevelopment agency or entity.

The impact on property values in the neighborhood will be very positive, and even if the City lowballs the industrial landowner, a value that reflects newer market circumstances will almost certainly be negotiated (in court or outside).
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
^ Excellent points. But I was referencing a general 'community removal' like in the case of a re-routed highway or something similar that is intended to go through where a neighborhood currently resides.

JayDubya said:
That's not hard to judge. It's explicitly wrong. Like the Wal-Mart example above.

The people wanting to build the new shit are welcome to pay each owner what they want, or not.

Again, I don't think it's that black and white because I believe a serious case can be made for the greater good. It's also hard not to note the difference between a Wal-Mart and a Stadium. One of which may provide jobs, but doesn't have the societal impact of drawing thousands upon thousands of consumers on a weekly basis to whichever location we're discussing. Of course, those businesses near that location will be highly motivated to support such a move.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
As per wikipedia -
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".[14] This definition excludes people of Portuguese origins, such as Portuguese Americans and Brazilian Americans. However, they are included in some government agencies' definitions. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."[15] This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. Still other government agencies adopt definitions that exclude people from Spain. Some others include people from Brazil, but not Spain or Portugal.
Anyhow - Sotomayor is a Yankees fan, meaning she's disqualified for me immediately. With that and her previous ruling on the MLB, I think we can look forward to more baseball analogies thrown around in the hearing.
 

syllogism

Member
In November, a few days after he was elected President, Barack Obama convened some of his most trusted advisers in a private meeting for an even more closely-held topic. He wanted to talk about the Supreme Court. Obama arrived, armed with a list of judges and academic he wanted his team to consider. At the top of the list, according to someone with direct knowledge of the meeting, was Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/obamas_pick_from_the_start.php
 

JayDubya

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Again, I don't think it's that black and white because I believe a serious case can be made for the greater good.

Go ahead and make it then.

It isn't good at all, let alone relatively more good than something else.
 

Tamanon

Banned
scorcho said:
As per wikipedia - Anyhow - Sotomayor is a Yankees fan, meaning she's disqualified for me immediately. With that and her previous ruling on the MLB, I think we can look forward to more baseball analogies thrown around in the hearing.

That explains why Obama thought it'd be an easy home run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom