Author Topic: And the Supreme Court Fight is on.  (Read 1815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Reading the wikipedia entry, I don't like this bloke.  He seems to be the perfect match for the Bush government; pro Gitmo military tribunals, anti-environment, pro-business/anti-union and pro expansive presidential powers.  

A judge whose case against environmental protection of an animal (frog), is based around criticising that animals choice of territory rather than the application of the law, strikes me as a bit dodgy.

Of course, that should come as no surprise to anyone whose paid attention to my opinions (all 3 of you :) ).  Personally I'm of the opinion that governments shouldn't appoint judges at this level, but rather that they should be elected by their peers.  Obviously that leaves scope for bias and political machinations, but IMO you're less likely to get the top level 'legal policy' makers to be elected for purely political reasons.

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
A judge whose case against environmental protection of an animal (frog), is based around criticising that animals choice of territory rather than the application of the law, strikes me as a bit dodgy.
In other words he is in favor of property rights? Oh Lord we can't have that. Why should a land owner have to put his development plans on hold because of an endangered frog. aldo, in all honesty there is alot to enviromental law that is whacked. However, if the law also says that said frog is an endangered species. Then the law, although IMO is crazy, must be followed. However, this is the kind of behavior that you expect from all judges. They always let their political views conflict with the strict interpretation of the law.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline WMCoolmon

  • Purveyor of space crack
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
Actually, their prolife voters. and many prolife voters reconcile that Row vs Wade will never be struck down. The biggest fight in regaurds to abortion will be do parents of minors have to give their parental consent for abortion like all other invasive procedures?


Er, yeah, pro-life.
-C

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
In other words he is in favor of property rights? Oh Lord we can't have that. Why should a land owner have to put his development plans on hold because of an endangered frog. aldo, in all honesty there is alot to enviromental law that is whacked. However, if the law also says that said frog is an endangered species. Then the law, although IMO is crazy, must be followed. However, this is the kind of behavior that you expect from all judges. They always let their political views conflict with the strict interpretation of the law.


Gee, perhaps because we have (in most countries that give a damn about the environment and its preservation) environmental laws that specifically focus upon animals within a limited and niche range.  Because obviously an animal which is limited to a small range is more likely to be endangered, especially if its limited range is a direct result of human activity.

If that is the whole logic for opposition - because the"hapless"  toad "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California" - it's simply missing the whole point of having these laws.

NB: the precise toad isn't specified; my guess is that it's the Arroyo toad, whose endangered status is the result of habitat destruction specifically due to human activity (urbanization, dam construction, agriculture).

If you're going to criticise environmental legislation based upon the very reason it exists, you might as well admit you don't believe in environmental protection. If you were to grant development permission on the basis of blaming the endangered species for the habitat it was forced into, then effectively you set a precedent to contest any form of protection.

Poaching of elephants bad?  Well, why don't the elephants move somewhere else?  Clearly it must be their fault, then.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Bloody elephants. They should carry guns and hunt the poachers and it's their own fault if they don't, right? :D
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline redmenace

  • 211
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


Gee, perhaps because we have (in most countries that give a damn about the environment and its preservation) environmental laws that specifically focus upon animals within a limited and niche range.  Because obviously an animal which is limited to a small range is more likely to be endangered, especially if its limited range is a direct result of human activity.

If that is the whole logic for opposition - because the"hapless"  toad "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California" - it's simply missing the whole point of having these laws.

NB: the precise toad isn't specified; my guess is that it's the Arroyo toad, whose endangered status is the result of habitat destruction specifically due to human activity (urbanization, dam construction, agriculture).

If you're going to criticise environmental legislation based upon the very reason it exists, you might as well admit you don't believe in environmental protection. If you were to grant development permission on the basis of blaming the endangered species for the habitat it was forced into, then effectively you set a precedent to contest any form of protection.

Poaching of elephants bad?  Well, why don't the elephants move somewhere else?  Clearly it must be their fault, then.
I am not saying I am against protection of species, but I am against people purchasing property and then finding out after their investment that they can't to **** with it. I mean there is no compensation what so ever. There are additional problems with enviromental law. such as owners of a property have to pay for toxic waste cleanup regaurdless of whether or not they did it but based souly on the virtue that they own it.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
              -Frederic Bastiat

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
I am not saying I am against protection of species, but I am against people purchasing property and then finding out after their investment that they can't to **** with it. I mean there is no compensation what so ever. There are additional problems with enviromental law. such as owners of a property have to pay for toxic waste cleanup regaurdless of whether or not they did it but based souly on the virtue that they own it.


Well, it should be the responsibility of polluters, not landowners to clean up (where the two are seperate), as well as an onus upon the government to legislate against excessive (note the 'excessive'; I have no expectation that the US gov would be doing anything to actually cut or control overall emissions, etc, except where it has a measured public health effect/risk) pollution & unsafe waste disposal.  Although I'm surprised the US doesn't operate a 'polluter pays' system, as most countries within the OECD (AFAIK) do.

That given, a fault within legislation does not automatically invalidate supporting or parallel legislation.

However, if you hold economic concerns as being of more importance than environmental, then there is no point in having environmental protection laws atall.  If a developer intends to buy and develop land, then surely they have a responsibility to investigate the legality of that action?   Caveat emptor, and soforth.

EDIT; apparently in this specific case, the developer was being requested to remove a fence.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2005, 07:24:18 am by 181 »

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by Fenrir
Progress being defined as what, exactly? Just curious...


All the changes of the last 100 years. It is one of the goals of the neo-cons to turn back the clock 100 or more years in this country. They will do everything they possibly can to do it.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline DeepSpace9er

  • Bakha bombers rule
  • 28
  • Avoid the beam and you wont get hit
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
I hope they do, we don't need that assclown of a president filling each and every openin with his favourites.


If i recall correctly Bush won the Election... and guess what?! he gets to pick the people for the courts! I dont remember people making such a fuss about Clinton nominating anything but moderate people.

 

Offline Ford Prefect

  • 8D
  • 26
  • Intelligent Dasein
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Well, errr, that's sort of because "moderate" is kind of what you should look for in a Supreme Court justice.
"Mais est-ce qu'il ne vient jamais à l'idée de ces gens-là que je peux être 'artificiel' par nature?"  --Maurice Ravel

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Perhaps people didn't feel their civil liberties were under threat from Clintons' picks?  Or because of the current Supreme Court, the only 2 appointed by Democratic presidents were those appointed by Clinton? (one replacing a Republican appointed justice; so I guess at the time all bar one were appointed by Republican presidents, and that wouldn't be representative of the actual political opinions of the voting populace).

 

Offline DeepSpace9er

  • Bakha bombers rule
  • 28
  • Avoid the beam and you wont get hit
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Well, errr, that's sort of because "moderate" is kind of what you should look for in a Supreme Court justice.


Um no, you want somebody who will interpret the constitution instead of using their personal policy preferences to determine the constitutionality of a law, or use foreign law as a basis. I dont think the Justices should be of any party affiliation, but should be originalists and not make up law where there isnt, like the way some activists do on the court.

And what civil liberties being under threat...  private property?

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


If i recall correctly Bush won the Election... and guess what?! he gets to pick the people for the courts! I dont remember people making such a fuss about Clinton nominating anything but moderate people.



As I recall Bush RIGGED the election. :p
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er


Um no, you want somebody who will interpret the constitution instead of using their personal policy preferences to determine the constitutionality of a law, or use foreign law as a basis. I dont think the Justices should be of any party affiliation, but should be originalists and not make up law where there isnt, like the way some activists do on the court.


Interpretation is a personally biased matter; just look at the myriad ways in which, for example, the need for a 'militia' has been analysed in the gun control debate.  It strikes me that people prefer to assume bias in a judgement they disagree with rather than address the reasoning behind that judgement.

In the case of foreign law, I presume you include the likes of binding UN treaties; if these in particular broke the constitution, why would they have been signed in the first place?

Quote
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
And what civil liberties being under threat...  private property?


Versus reproductive rights and the right to a fair trial, or press freedom (for example)?  Not that you can associate the (****ed up) decision over land development with Clinton, really.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Considering that seven of the nine judges were appointed by Republican presidents I'd say it was their supporters should stop complaining about activist judges as if it was a problem the democrats created.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

  

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
And the Supreme Court Fight is on.
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Considering that seven of the nine judges were appointed by Republican presidents I'd say it was their supporters should stop complaining about activist judges as if it was a problem the democrats created.



Facts don't matter to Republicans, only lies do.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key