Just to stir the pot...

Posted By Froggy

I can't help but to make a bold prediction publicly so that IF it happens, I'll be credited for having made it.  If it doesn't happen, then I'm just another blogger talking smack.

SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens will soon announce his impending retirement from the Court.  I get the feeling his Hamdan opinion was a parting shot to the President, and he can now go out a liberal icon.  The man is well into his eighties, and I would imagine that he feels like he has blown his wad and now it's time for a nap. 

You heard it here first.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/5225757

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Just to stir the pot...:

» The Day After from Flopping Aces
In the end this is going to force those in Congress to choose sides, and in an election year. How much you want to bet the majority will not side with Al-Qaeda? ... [Read More]

Comments

[Scrapiron]

Stevens hasn't made a decision in years. He's so senile he gets his decisions by email from the ACLU.

[Grim]

"You heard it hear first."

Unless you heard it on Southern Appeal yesterday. :)

http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1287

Not that it isn't still a good thought. I just have to defend the honor of Cpt. Joel Leggett's blawg, as he's also one of my co-bloggers at Grim's Hall.

[Froggy]

Sorry Grim. I honestly did not see that post, but I guess great minds think alike I suppose. I was thinking it yesterday though if that counts... Oh well.

[tim]

Hmmm, another Supreme Court vacancy for Bushhitler to fill. We can only hope.

[Nick]

Nah, he ain't going no where. I would find it disturbing if, liberal or conservative, one president got to nominate more than one Justice.

[Pops]

They stole your thought!

[Josh]

Hey Nick - hasnt he already nominated two?

[Politee]

funny how the terrorist don't treat our soldiers in a humane way when captured, but we have to bend-over-backwards to make sure they don't get a scratch on them. Screw the supreme court!

[Peg C.]

Matt, from your mouth to God's ear.

[Melinda]

He's as old as my grandpa was when he passed & let's just say that Gramps wasn't always consistently "with it." I'm thinking it's time the old boy steps down too. He appears to be very confused.

[Miss Ladybug]

What would it take to impeach sitting members of SCOTUS?

[Grim]

Miss L.,

The procedure is the same for impeaching the President. The authority is Constitutional (Art. I, sec. 2-3, and Art. II, sec. 4), and the procedure is the same regardless of who is being impeached.

The trick to it is that you need a supermajority in the Senate, which so far the Republicans do not have. As a consequence, impeachments are doomed to failure for now.

[Nick]

Technically, bush has nominated 3 and confirmed 2. Which does bother me. Just to reiterate however, I would find it just as disturbing if any particular president got more than one.

Another thing I find disturbing is the amount of hate that is generated towards Judges. Impeachement? come on, settle down. If this is the true state of this country then we are truely screwed. Right now it seems that it doesn't matter what happens so long as your party is in power, then do any and everything you can to either 1. destroy the party in power to get in power, or 2. destroy the part out of power to stay in power. This does the country no good, if we keep this up we are going to end up like Mexico.

As for the same procedure, how about the requirement of having commited an impeachable offense first? Or is now sufficent to impeach and remove someone simply because you don't like them? Well, I guess that did sorta of work for the Republicans with Clinton.

[jordan]

But Presidents make their picks based on soundness of judgement and judicial temperment. A good Justice is a good Justice regardless of party affiliation. It's not supposed to be a political appointment. I think Roberts and Alito were regarded that way by both parties.

[MCPO Airdale]

Hey, I've got some cruise boxes, wonder if I should offer to help the little, leftist weasel pack?

[Michael in MI]

Reagan: Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia
Bush I: Clarence Thomas and David Souter
Bill Clinton: Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg

You must have found it pretty disturbing during the last 3 Presidencies, Nick, as each had more than 1 and Reagan had 3. That must have been *extremely* disturbing.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

[Michael in MI]

Also, the Supreme Court is not the last word on all things Constitutional, the liberals have just made that up. The Constitution allows for the Congress to overturn a Supreme Court ruling if the Supreme Court runs amok. Which it clearly has been doing since Roe. The problem is that not many Americans even understand the Constitution, let alone the powers of the 3 branches of government. We can thank the liberals wonderful dumbed down Public Education system and the lies and propaganda of our wonderful media for that. (Not to mention the lack of leaders in our government who don't have the spine to come out and set the record straight whenever there are lies being told about the rule of law and the responsibilities and powers of the government).

[Draftee]

We will get around the Gitmo decision.
The really, really good part is that GW gets to put another justice on the court. Replacing three liberals will live a long way into the future. Who knows maybe Scooter and Ruthie will get run over by a rampaging donkey?? Five "right" thinkers on the court by one pres......Outstanding!!!

[Nick]

Hey, no need to get your panties in a twist, it's an opinion, not grounded in anything other than, well, opinion. No need to get huffy.

Also, I guess Chief Justice Marshall was a raving liberal, since he is the one that wrote the opinion that "made up" that the SCOTUS has the final word on what the Constitution says.

Jordan, I do agree with you. I don't have much of an opinion on Alito, but I think that Roberts was a good pick. Also, I know that many of you are probably of the camp that hate "activist" judges, how come no one seems to be grousing about Scalia, who is probably one of the most activist Justices on the court. Just of a conservative bent. I have way more of a problem with him than Roberts or Alito (or any of the others for that matter).

[Michael in MI]

Exactly, Nick. The Supreme Court decided to grant unto itself the authority of the final word on what the Constitution says. That is not in the Consitution nor is it what the Founders intended. The founders actually wanted the Supreme Court to have the LEAST power of the 3 branches. Marshall, in his ruling, decided to grant the Supremes, Supreme power.

A good read on the Supreme Court running amok is Mark Levin's "Men in Black".

[Michael in MI]

Nick - Your ideology and lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court is showing. Scalia is probably the best judge on the Supreme Court right now. Clarence Thomas a close second.

The judges that worry me are the ones who have publicly stated that the Constitution is not the only thing they look to for their decisions, they also look to foreign law. That is an activist judge. As Scalia rightly pointed out, the only reason these activists would go to foreign law is when they can't find what they want in the Consitution. The Supreme's job is to look to the Constitution for their rulings. If it is there, rule as such. If it is not stated in the Constitution, then they rule as such. But to use foreign law to rule on American law is as activist as you get.

Scalia is one of the defenders of the Constitution and the farthest from an activist judge as you can get.

[Nick]

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with the statement that the SCOTUS has supreme power. As the founders intended and the document says, the people have that. Don't like a ruling, well, there is a handy dandy, if some what of a pain in the butt way of fixing that. Amend the document to say what you (the people) want it to say. No branch of the government has supreme power, we do.

[Michael in MI]

One example of activism using foreign law references is the case in which they overruled the death penalty for minors. The liberals on the court cited other countries who did not have the death penalty for minors and the libs said that America should be like them. Scalia countered when talking about foreign law being used that America is one of only 6 countries who allow abortion-on-demand. I'm sure the libs would then be happy if the Supreme Court cited that fact when overturning Roe.

[Nick]

HA, my ideology? Good one.

Scalia is hardly the best Justice on the bench right now, and Thomas is HARDLY the second best. That Thomas is the that good, is laughable. Your ideology is showing now. I don't think Scalia is the worst, but not the best. I might even go so far as to nominate Roberts for that position. I didn't agree with it one bit, but his Opinion in Rumsfield v FAIR was a damn well written opinion. I don't agree with him, but he is doing a bang up job.

As for Scalia, you don't have to be a liberal to be an activist. and scalia is about as activist as it comes. He is just a conservative activist so other conservatives will be happy with his activism than say that of a Warren. If you're against activist judges, be against them all, not just the one's you agree with.

[Grimmy]

Any SCOTUS that relies on anything other than the Constitution, as written and amended, as foundation for his/her pronouncments is in direct violation of his/her oath of office and is therefore no longer qualified to sit.

[Michael in MI]

Nick - If the people have the power, not the Court, then explain Roe, which took abortion laws right out of the hands of the people, where it previously had been. Not to mention the recent decision which stated the government had the power to take land away from the people and use it for their own use.

In theory and intent, you are correct, the people are supposed to have supreme power. In reality, the Supreme Court is looked upon by the ignorant masses to be the final say on all things Constitutional and can only be amended for liberal things (abortion, homosexuality, land grabbing, death penalty for minors), but when those decisions are then in place, the liberals cry stare decisis.

[arrowhead]

From your lips to God's ears!

[Michael in MI]

Grimmy - I agree. And that means we need to get rid of Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as they have both stated publicly that they see nothing wrong with looking to foreign law in their decisions.

[Nick]

Easy, the people have the power to elect people to amend the document. They have the power to elect a president to change the composition of the court. The down side is that this takes time and most people don't like to do it. Dislike it as much as you want, Kelo (and hamdan) are probably correctly decided and both of them simply tell the government "you can't do it this way, do it a different way" Kelo, while shocking, doesn't say that the government has the absolute right to steal your land and do as they will with it. The government ALWAYS had that power (provided they pay for it). The controversial part of that is not that the soverign could take your land but they had to pay for it. Besides, Kelo says that the people, through their state government could, through statutes and state constitutions make it harder to take the land than what the federal constitution says.

Grimmy, there are plenty of times that SCOTUS can and should rely on things outside the constitution to make their decisions. They decide more than just consititutional issues. Even when deciding constitutional issues, i'm sure even scalia would look to sources that that founders wrote and used to interpret the document.

[Michael in MI]

Nick - I agree that the people have the power to elect those who can change the court. I completely agree. The problem is that most of the American public is so dumbed down and ignorant of that fact. Not that I am suggesting changing the process, but I am suggesting that another way, in lieu of waiting for rogue justices to retire is to tell Congress to impeach those justices to abuse their power. That is Constitutional, just as the appointing of Justices is Constitutional.

And yes the Justices can look to all the founding documents to give themselves context into what the Founders intended for the interpretation to be of the US Constitution, but I was referring to Justices specifically looking to foreign *International* laws for their decisions. Breyer and Ginsburg have endorsed and encouraged this practice and it was already used in the banning the death penalty for minors case.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/02/JUVENILE.TMP

[Michael in MI]

CORRECTION: "...impeach those Justices WHO abuse their power"

[B52 SAC geezer]

Nick is describing something entirely different than what the Kelo decision was about.

Kelo didn't just move the goalposts, it changed the name of the game.

.

[Grim]

Nick:

You asked, "As for the same procedure, how about the requirement of having commited an impeachable offense first? Or is now sufficent to impeach and remove someone simply because you don't like them?"

That requirement is in Article II, Section 4, which was cited. As with Presidential impeachments, the offenses are "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemenors."

As you probably remember from the Clinton impeachment, exactly what constitutes "high crimes" and "misdemenors" is not defined. I thought perjury qualified, myself, so the Clinton impeachment was proper. I'm not sure what the impeachable offense would be in this case, however.

[thebronze]

Good riddance you liberal scum.

Let's hope its true...

[Michael in MI]

It's a shame we don't have anyone in government anymore like former President Ronald Reagan:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/reagans-rejection-of-geneva-protection-for-terrorists

"But Protocol I is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called “war of national liberation.'’ Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one’s view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war’s alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to “wars of national liberation,'’ an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves."

[ ... ]

"In fact, we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law."

[ ... ]

"I believe that these actions are a significant step in defense of traditional humanitarian law and in opposition to the intense efforts of terrorist organizations and their supporters to promote the legitimacy of their aims and practices. The repudiation of Protocol I is one additional step, at the ideological level so important to terrorist organizations, to deny these groups legitimacy as international actors."

[Michael in MI]

Did Hamdan completely overrule this recent Congressional Act?

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (H.R. 2863, Title X)

Published December 30, 2005

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 is part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 (Title X, H.R. 2863). It prohibits the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of detainees and provides for “uniform standards” for interrogation. The Act also removed the federal courts’ jurisdiction over detainees wishing to challenge the legality of their detention, stating that “no court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider” applications on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9865/

[Grimmy]

Nick: The purpose of the SCOTUS was to ensure legislative compliance with The Constitution of These United States and to ensure the findings of lower courts were also in compliance of the same when challenge arose.

The SCOTUS has pulled, sucked and dragged more and more power onto itself since its creation.
In many ways, the SCOTUS itself is in violation of what it was intended by its creators.

Using out of context quotes of a select minority of persons that had some input into the process that created that Constitution is wrong.

Using "the living constitution", which is a deconstructionist creation that means "the constitution that exists only in my mind at this moment and says only what I want it to say for only the duration of this particular argument" is also wrong.

Using foreign law or custom to "interpret" The Constitution of These United States is also wrong.

The Constitution of These United States is a rather plainly worded document. There's no juju or voodoo required to "interpret" it, unless the desired interpretation is required to shift its actual meaning or allow for a judge's personal desires.

The SCOTUS is not the legislative branch, no matter how much its practitioners want it to be.
The SCOTUS is not the executive branch, no matter how much its practitioners want it to be.
The SCOTUS is simply a final check for compliance to that single document as written and amended. That's it. Anything extra is in violation.

[adele]

"Don't like a ruling, well, there is a handy dandy, if some what of a pain in the butt way of fixing that. Amend the document to say what you (the people) want it to say"

This is what I'm for!!! As a recovering liberal, I have to say that when people said the words "living Constitution" I thought they meant that it could be changed (the correct way), not that the changes depended on which side of the bed the left woke up on.

Article 5 all the way.

Peg C..., nice to see you!

[Oyster]

Very well put, Grimmy.

[Jack Dumass]

"You heard it hear first."

Get Over yourself BlackFive. "You Heard it Here Last" is more like it.

April 19, 2006 was the first post predicting this from poster "Insider" on Confirmthem. There has been numerous other rumors on other sites especially postings around June 19. However, they all may be false rumours we'll see.

[Michael in MI]

Jack Dumass -

(1) It's "You Heard it HERE First"
(2) This post was made by FROGGY not "Blackfive"

[Brett]

No one's liberties are safe under the sophistry promoted by the contemporary legal profession and championed by Nick.

The profession would have hoi polloi believe that the law is a tightly reasoned body of thought. It is obvious to anyone whose rice bowl is not involved that it is a self-contradictory mess that provides a precedent to any arbitrary judge whether he wishes to affirm or overturn. Such arbitrariness from the bench is merely tyranny. Nick's arguments defending these practices merely assuage the consciences of those who have them.

[Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper]

John Paul Stevens was born on April 20, 1920. He's 86, heading toward 87.

Pretty fair bet Stevens is just hanging on by his toenails, hoping that a longshot comes in and the Democrats retake the Senate in 2006.

[Lisa Gilliam]

Time to reign in these lawyers in black robes.

[Beeblebrox]

Nick,

Simply asserting that a justice is an "activist" does not make it so. The reality is that you think Scalia is an activist because his rulings go against your views. To a liberal/socialist mind like yours, a "strict constructionist" is akin to an activist because such a person would reverse liberal court rulings. Others have written eloquently on this distinction but I will sum up by saying that an "activist" is someone who rules outside of the plain reading of the Constitution even if that ruling is in keeping with stare decisis. If a justice diverts from precident but moves closer to original intent then this is not activism but rather "reform".

Even as a conservative, I don't want the court to impose "conservative" ideology on the country unless it passes constitutional muster and even then, it should be in the context of legislation. No rulings by supreme fiat, even if it benefits my cause.

But liberals, knowing that the country generally loathes them, has to rely on the court and not the legislature or the executive to foist their ideology on the rest of us. The smart Lobs recognize that the Constitution is fundamentally in line with modern conservative though and so it is actually a document that they can never agree with. This is why it has to be "living" since the original is a conservative manifesto written by dead white male Christians.

[OC Chuck]

Nick finds it disturbing when a President nominates more than one Justice. What I find disturbing is Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter associated with Reagan and Bush. Roberts and Alito look to be good picks so far (ignoring Meiers), lets see if Bush can continue this with another good pick.

Oh, and Nick, do you have any examples of Scalia's "activism"?

[jordan]

Today, Chris Matthews has put on a performance on the SCOTUS decision that has revealed he is the Wrestling Mania of MSM news. His show is a caricature of politics, a comic book news show, a made up drama presented as a real fight, as reality-based as Wrestling Mania.

One aspect of this, which one msm'er Clarence Page doesn't get, is why you can't "just put them on trial, and present your case against them." Why not, says Clarence, UNLESS YOU HAVE NO CASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE that they're guilty." Poor terrorists. Poor Clarence.

These GITMO detainees were captured on a battlefield while fighting US forces. Once terrorist #1 was bagged, Cpl. Johnny America didn't pull out sterile evidence bags to do the forensic sweep of the area as the firefight was ongoing, and then hand over the shrapnel bits and bullets to Sgt. Big Daddy, who could establish a chain of custody and sketch out in detail how the firefight went down. Cpl Johnny didn't have time to videotape terrorist #1 as he fired upon the Americans, rushed his position and ended up under the control of Cpl Johnny.

What will be the evidence against these detainees if presented in trial, that will satisfy our rabid media, like Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune? Even OJ got off despite a mountain of forensic evidence. With these detainees we've little or nothing but the witness of the soldiers involved, and we all know what the Clarences of the world will do with that.

TV coverage of this centers almost exclusively on terrorist rights, rather than the implications of this decision for the protection of innocent civilians. Those consequences nobody has thought through to the end. They're too busy reveling in it as a Bush defeat.

Extending these rights to fighters who target innocents, use them as shields and do not wear uniforms takes away every incentive any fighting force might have to observe the rules of war -- rules that say you have to fight honorably, in the open, openly bearing arms, and in a way that protacts noncombatants.

So the Washington doyenne and social x-ray Andrea Mitchell, who used to be a reporter before subbing for Tim Russert, now piously suggests GITMO should be closed seeing as it's such a black eye. (Of course, she and other msmers are the ones that turned it into a black eye.)

Heard about the Adopt-A-Detainee program, Andrea? Anyone whose sensibilities are offended can get one detainee to take home. You, Andrea, can feed and bathe him and give him free medical care. Of course you can't keep him in the basement of your fully decorated Georgetown mansion, that wouldn't be humane. He should have the master bedroom with the Fortuny sconces and 1200 tc heirloom sheets. He may wish to take tea on the Luytens garden bench on the veranda. Think of how noble you will feel.

[jordan]

Dana Priest today reminds us that the media must cover the GWOT to ensure that the government is using proper strategies that will enable it to reach it's goals. Problems like GITMO perceptions have to factor into that, she says, and have to be considered in warfare, and she's the one to make sure that happens.

Don't recall electing her to anything, but apparently, that's her job, to make sure the war is prosecuted with an eye toward success, even if that means deciding which classified info is okay to blow. Why thanks Dana. Tell us more about all those military people and the 4 star General who wrote to thank you for blowing the prisons story. That part was interesting. Can we have his name? No? I didn't think so.

But you still have every right to keep blowing classified data, while keeping secret your own supposed sources that may or may not exist. Isn't that special.

[seth]

Great point Froggy.

I think it's a good bet that when the Republicans hold on to the House and Senate in November, Stevens (and possibly Ginsburg) will have the wind spilled from their sails. They'll then want to get out while they still have the energy to fire off memoirs bemoaning the current state of the union in time to hopefully influence the '08 election.

By the way - I have to say I'm a little upset that there are almost 50 comments on this post and it has not yet erupted into Abu Sinan lecturing us on the misunderstood vitures of Islam. Surprised he hasn't at least popped in to tell us how unfair it is that SCOTUS doesn't have a muslim justice.

What's up Abu, your cell get activated? ; )

[Nick]

First off, I'll take just about any insult you guys can dish out at me, but whomever wants to call me a Socialist can lick my sweaty taint. I won't accept that one. I don't mind being called a Sophist though, that's a pretty swell insult in my book. Another thing that really cracks me up, and tells me that I'm doing my job as a moderate is that my mostly liberal friends consider me to be a raving facist, and the commentaters here seem to think I'm a raving socialist. Next:

Brett, I figured that out my first week of law school. Once I realized how crazy, arbitrary and utterly insane the legal system is and was, I got along much easier. It is almost completly arbitrary and bizzare. However, this isn't necessarily tyranny, there are ways to regulate the system, to get it what you want it to do. Whether it is conservative activism or liberal. I'm of the opinion that one of England's most lasting and most important political invention was the Common Law. This legal system is so far superior to the Civil Law systems that it's not even funny.

Bebeelbrox, I couldn't disagree with you more. First the only document more RADICAL than the constitution is the Declaration of Independance. Come on, conservative manifesto? How much more liberal and radical can you get than, "We The People...". As for strict constructionism, I can at least deal with that as a way of interpreting the Constitution, I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. My problem with Scalia is that he really isn't a strict construction is and, he is first and formost, an activist judge. For proof of this look to his religion and drug rulings. The religion case that most proves this is Emp. Div., Dept Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872. If you read any of the religion cases that Scalia participates in prior to this case, almost everyone ends up ruling against "religion" and in almost everyone scalia dissents and says that the "religion" should win. This is a bit over simplified, but whatever. So, you would think that scalia would rule in favor of religion in Smith. Nope, he rules against them becuase they aren't Christians. It's an almost appalling discision. If you than go back over the relgion cases you realize that Scalia only really cares about Christian and somewhat Jewish religious practices. WTF? The other case is the Medical Pot case out of CA. You would have thought that Scalia would have been a good Conservative and strictly construe that the states had the right to experiment with drug policy in their own state. Nope. he says big daddy Federal government can step in and set drug policy for the state. WTF?

In general. I know a lot of you are totally against using foreign law to interpret the Constitution. I mostly agree, it's almost totally useless to look to Civil Law countries to see what they are doing. The U.S. is a common law country and more in line with other common law countries. I don't believe that any other contries law is controling, but might be perusasive, but only common law countries. The funny thing is that I don't think my view is entirely controversial, or it is controversial only in a modern setting. I wish I had my case books with me, I could find a ton of cases from the early 1800's when the SCOTUS was quoting Canadian law to interpret the constitution. And even Scalia would support looking at English law, except that he's looking back to the 1700's. Oh, and the person who mentioned international common law, there is no such thing. The civil law countries do their best to keep the common law principals out of international law. Crap, what the hell is the treaty, ah, the CISG, specifically excepts civil law countries from having to use Common Law.

[dick]

Two problems with your statement. The documents say we the people. However, when we the people vote and pass initiatives, the LLL and the ACLU immediately go to liberal justices and get the will of we the people overturned so what we really have is we the people as amended by we the court and LLL. Not at all the same thing.

As to your use of international law, it may start out as countries that use common law but how do you insure that it remains only countries with common law used as references. Are you going to have a list posted somewhere of what countries can be used as references? Suppose that those countries change their legal systems. Who will then have the right to change your list or is this whole thing just supposed to be assumed. I for one do not want my rights determined by what some justice gleans from the legal system of some other country. I am not a resident of that other country and it should no hold on me or my rights. Just as an example in Britain they are considering a law that the food your child is fed will be counted up and if you do not meet their standards of x number of veggies and x amount of bread and x amount of milk, then you can be brough up on charges and have your child taken away. You can also be put in jail if someone breaks into your home and threatens you with a knife and you shoot them. You can be brought up on charges if you injure someone who is mugging you. Is that the basis you want used by our Supremes to judge our rights? The government is taking over whole blocks of homes all over the country to tear them down while building council housing in other parts of the country. I am not talking about small amounts, I am talking abour whole neighborhoods that are perfectly fine and where people want to live. Think Kelo writ in the thousands per city. Is that what you want here? Kelo was bad enough but this is really nuts. Instead of trying to get industry to these other areas, they just want to tear down the houses. I don't think I want any justice using foreign law. I want them to judge our law based on our constitution. When the foreign countries pay my taxes and buy my food for me and take care of me, then they can have some control over my laws. Until then, screw them.

[Michael in MI]

Dick - Good points. I would add that Canada has "hate speech" laws in order to protect Islam and Britain is getting dhimmified as well. The more the libs encourage looking at International foreign laws, the more we will become dhimmified as well and our Constitution will be preempted by shari'a. That's the irony. Libs promote shari'a as "multiculturalism" and "diversity", yet once shari'a is implemented, the lifestyle of the libs is the first to be controlled. Christians just want to protect marriage and the unborn. Shari'a says that everyone must convert to Islam, pay jizya or die, not to mention it takes away freedom of speech.

Also, here is an interesting post about the Communist roots of the ACLU: http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/aclu-should-stay-true-to-its-radical-communist-roots
*****
"Ms. Flynn was removed from the ACLU at a time when they were trying to keep from being outlawed as a Communist front organization, which of course they were and are to this day.

It is absolutely perfect that Wendy Kaminer would cite her brief exile and subsequent re-glorification by the ACLU as some sign of a momentary lapse on their path of righteousness.

Especially as Ms. Kramer is writing a book on "ethics."

Elizabeth Flynn wanted the government of the United States overthrown and replaced by a Soviet style system.

Come to think of it, that’s still the message of the ACLU today."
*****

[Michael in MI]

Nick - I looked up Dept of Human Resources of Oregon vs Smith [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=oh&vol=990206&invol=1]

It sounds like a case of a company having a rule (specific haircut style) and an employee not liking that rule, because he has religious beliefs in opposition to the rule. This also seems similar to Muslim women being upset with having to take their burkas off when they get their drivers licences. I agree with whomever ruled in favor of DHRO against Smith.

From what I understand of our laws here in America, you are free to practice your religion, so long as it does not come in conflict with the laws of the nation. The military also has specific requirements for cutting hair. Should Muslims and Native Americans demand a change in the military rules of haircuts, simply because of their religion?

No one's religion supercedes the laws of America.

Also, Nick, please provide the other cases in which you declare Scalia was a partisan activist on behalf of Christians/Jews. This way we can all make up our own minds about the decisions instead of going by your biased anti-Scalia opinions.

[Nick]

Dick, I don't know what LLL is. Sorry. As for your points about home invasions and muggings, you can be charged here if you do those things. You can't use excessive force to protect your home. The mugger is a closer call, but if you are unreasonable in protecting yourself you can be charged with a crime. It's always been like that.

Michael, Smith is nothing like a company having a policy against bad hair cuts and such. That would be one thing. The guys in Smith didn't contest and weren't suing over their terminations, that would be on thing. They were suing because the State wouldn't give them unemployment based on their termination. That's the problem with the opinion, it denies someone benefits, they would normally be entitled to, due to their religion. A better analogy would be if someone was fired for giving their kid sacramental wine at church and then the government came and took their kids away.

I wish I had the cases handy to show Scalia's dissents in the other religion cases. Unfortunatly though, I'm in New Orleans and my papers are back home elsewhere.

[jordan]

I wonder if this is in any way analogous to Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and his subsequent tussle with Chief Justice Taney, who ruled Lincoln's assumption of power unconstitutional. Not precisely the same situation but it's wartime, a question of civil rights and constitutionality, and a pissing contest between the Executive and Judiciary. I believe in the end, Lincoln just ignored the ruling. True?

Perhaps Justice Stevens wants to go out in a blaze of glory as a latter day Taney.

[bruce]

Wow! "As for your points about home invasions and muggings, you can be charged here if you do those things. You can't use excessive force to protect your home. The mugger is a closer call, but if you are unreasonable in protecting yourself you can be charged with a crime. It's always been like that."

Where is here Nick?

In the good ole state of Georgia in the USA you can defend your home from invasion with whatever force you (the inhabitant of the home)deem necessary. It is consider to be your home and that someone would invade your home means that you are not being unreasonable to assume that they mean you harm. That allows you to use lethal force in self-defense. Your home has been invaded! The same applies to you while you are in your automobile. And in the great state of Georgia the legislature has broadened the sphere of self-defense to include public places, where you are not expected to flee if you are attacked.

Specifically,
"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, so as to provide that a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; to provide that such person has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force; to provide for an immunity from prosecution; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."
was signed into law by the govenor on 4/27/06.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/sum/sb396.htm

Georgia recognizes the basic human right to self-defense.

Sorry for the off-topic vector, but I still have a hard time believing that a person would have to consider how much force is appropriate or weigh how much is too much when that person is considering the action(s) that they think are necessary during the stress of the moment when they are acting in the defense of his/her family and home during a home invasion. That's nuts IMHO.

[Mike H.]

Bruce, Florida just did the same for homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[Nick]

Different states (and probably cities and what not) have different laws on what is an acceptable amount of force. The South is particularly gung ho about shooting people. I actually learned last night that LA has a particularly trigger happy set of home defense laws. Starting with a pretty broad definition of what a burgler is.

I was kinda shocked too. I grew up being told that you can shoot anyone that unlawfully enters your home. I was pretty supprised to learn that this is generally not the case. Again, if I had my case books (which there's no effing way I'm bringing anywhere other than my book shelf), I'd put up some cites.

[bruce]

"gung ho about shooting people" "trigger happy"? Nick you lead me to believe that you would rather a person fall to their knees and accept whatever harm would be brought upon them by the intruder.

Absolute BS.

[jordan]

"..a hard time believing that a person would have to consider how much force would be appropriate or weigh how much is too much when that person is acting in the stress of the moment...in the defense of family and home"

That's what we're demanding of our troops in battle. And we're supposed to be able to react instinctively as trained professionals when our biggest contests are banging other carts out of the way at the supermarket? If it's dark and a stranger is in your house should you just assume the guy couldn't possibly have a gun, so a rolling pin should be sufficient?

Sounds like an approach the bad guys are counting on.

[bruce]

Heheh… yeah Jordan, after typing that remark, posting it, and thinking a little more about it, I thought of the similarity between that statement and what the US military must have to deal with regarding their own ROE.

I find it interesting that I have more leeway with respect to self-defense here in the "gung ho about shooting people" "trigger happy" south, than the fine folks totin' our water in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about stereotypical remarks based on nothing other than prejudice and arrogance. But that’s another issue for another thread.