tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post332911096686394712..comments2024-03-13T21:26:03.011-07:00Comments on Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: Goodwin Liu Doesn't Like The First Amendment?Darrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-8719311708896932712013-01-13T13:46:49.938-08:002013-01-13T13:46:49.938-08:00Maybe more than you thought . . .I generally agree...Maybe more than you thought . . .I generally agree with you. But thanks.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-6662443992674475012013-01-12T16:14:45.894-08:002013-01-12T16:14:45.894-08:00what about gay marriage, speed limits, ages for al...<i>what about gay marriage, speed limits, ages for alcohol purchase (new york and hawaii, among others was 18 for a long time, education, drug laws, and so many others . . . it's like none of the justices have bothered looking at amendments 9 and 10.</i><br /><br />To get to the point, that’s not for the feds to decide and those are state issues. One point was made by a former Houston mayor to a then new city councilman named Michael Berry (now a local talk show host). The mayor’s advise was simple, focus on doing the basics, but do them well. No one will remember the 999 times your garbage was picked up but they will always remember the one time it was late. And I wish our Congress and President would act more like that.<br /><br />Back to the 9th and 10th Amendments, I wish the federal government would actually follow the limits of the document. The the judiciary would stop them from expanding the powers of the legislative and executive branches, as well as the bureaucracy. Protect our borders, defend the nation, keep our currency strong but leave people alone. Yes, simplified but if I was king of the US one the first day I would ax the Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, DHS, DVA (tie it’s legit functions back into DOD). <br /><br />Looks like we’re tracking more than we originally thought.Mike Thiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929567856363413549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-78831084224532437402013-01-11T23:17:46.323-08:002013-01-11T23:17:46.323-08:00Mike AT . . . no offense taken, and you're wel...Mike AT . . . no offense taken, and you're welcome. When I'm wrong I admit it . . .I think there was a Scalia based decision that came out about the same time that I also disagreed with vehemently, and I may have confused the two. I'll have to find it . . . Shoickingly, I agree with you about Roe vs. Wade . . .the logic is completely convoluted, despite the fact that I would like to see abortion remain safe, legal, and rare, as Clinton once said . On the other hand . . .while we're dealing with state's rights issues. . . what about gay marriage, speed limits, ages for alcohol purchase (new york and hawaii, among others was 18 for a long time, education, drug laws, and so many others . . . it's like none of the justices have bothered looking at amendments 9 and 10.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-65787137118934021572013-01-11T16:00:36.606-08:002013-01-11T16:00:36.606-08:00Max
Your post saying Kelo wasn’t a Scalia decis...Max<br /> <br />Your post saying <i>Kelo</i> wasn’t a Scalia decision wasn’t posted when I put up my last post. Thank you for the acknowledgment.<br /> <br />My admiration for Scalia (and Thomas) is the fact he strictly interprets the Constitution. One thing he uses is a dictionary from the late 1700s so he can look at what words meant back then. That’s not a lack of “free thinking” but an acknowledgement that the document means what it says and says what it means. In a republic judges, if the Constitution is silent, should defer to the legislative and executive branches. Unlike them, the Congress and President are accountable to the people and can be restrained. <br /> <br />Another abortion of constructional law is <i>Roe vs Wade</i>. The Construction says nothing about abortion and it’s not in the enumerable powers of the Congress or President. It’s up to the states to manage. Britain liberalized its abortion laws in the 1960s and abortion is not the open wound on its society like it is with us. <br /> <br />Have a great weekendMike Thiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929567856363413549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-5882985884335332062013-01-11T11:08:29.510-08:002013-01-11T11:08:29.510-08:00MikeAT. . . do i not get any credit for acknowledg...MikeAT. . . do i not get any credit for acknowledging that I was wrong? I don't know why I thought that was a Scalia decision, but i did. I am the last to push either a liberal or a conservative agenda . . . I would just like the supreme court to honor the constitution. both the conservative and the liberal sides seem to not want to do that.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-22183203797963042542013-01-10T21:42:46.549-08:002013-01-10T21:42:46.549-08:00Max. I"m so right, as in correct. The leftis...Max. I"m so right, as in correct. The leftist in <i>Kelo</i> wrote that abuse of the Constitution, not the conservatives. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.Mike Thiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929567856363413549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-78096319511030748832013-01-10T21:16:24.263-08:002013-01-10T21:16:24.263-08:00Mike AT . . . you are entirely correct. The emine...Mike AT . . . you are entirely correct. The eminent domain travesty was liberal side driven. And, an awful decision. It doesn't change my position that I would like more free thinkers on the court, but it does make me wrong. maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-73255913823226545112013-01-10T21:10:24.298-08:002013-01-10T21:10:24.298-08:00Wow . . . if I'm wrong on that one, I'm wr...Wow . . . if I'm wrong on that one, I'm wrong. But I was sure the eminent domain debacle was conservative based. Let me do some research -- it may be a different, but similar decision. I don't have a dog in this fight . . .I'm a libertarian, and I respect Kennedy and Scalia . . .and no one else -- particularly Thomas, who is Scalia's lap dog. But if I'm wrong, I'll cop to it.<br />maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-43608382167761738472013-01-10T20:30:12.123-08:002013-01-10T20:30:12.123-08:00YOU'RE so . . .YOU'RE so . . .maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-15157202199942253092013-01-10T19:40:35.282-08:002013-01-10T19:40:35.282-08:00Max
You damned right, 9 Scalias would be great, b...Max<br /><br />You damned right, 9 Scalias would be great, but shouldn't you be concerned about <i>diversity</i> on the court?<br /><br />I take it you mean <i>Kelo v City of New London</i>(2005). Majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. <br /><br />Dissenting opinion was authored by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas.<br /><br />Sounds like the conservatives on the court went against this abuse of eminent domain. And yes, that was a f#$%ed up abuse of Constitution to only be outdone by the Obamacare decision last year.Mike Thiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929567856363413549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-91599680889952579202013-01-10T17:54:40.292-08:002013-01-10T17:54:40.292-08:005 Scalias and 4 Thomases IS 9 Scalias. But you k...5 Scalias and 4 Thomases IS 9 Scalias. But you knew that. And allen . . . if your so in love with the conservative side of the court, how do you feel about that eminent domain decision a few years ago, where the conservatives said it was cool to use eminent domain not for public works, but rather to increase tax base? maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-21788234770651137272013-01-10T15:49:52.514-08:002013-01-10T15:49:52.514-08:00conservatives is that they want 9 Scalias.
As usu...<i>conservatives is that they want 9 Scalias.</i><br /><br />As usual Dean, wrong. We don't want 9 Scalia's. We want 5 Scalia's and 4 Thomas's. To make it simple because you need it simple, we want justices who will rule is an act of the government is constitutional and if the Constitution is silent, leave it to the legislative and executive branches.Mike Thiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02929567856363413549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-60988620818401109052013-01-10T10:24:31.612-08:002013-01-10T10:24:31.612-08:00I guess I can understand why our lefty corresponde...I guess I can understand why our lefty correspondents are anxious to change the subject from the appointment of a judge whose interpretation of the Constitution seems to be summable as "whatever I say it is". <br /><br />While lefties adore the possibility of turning rights into privileges, never giving a second's thought to the possibility that such illegitimate power might be wrenched from their noble hands they know, in general, better then to be too overt in their admiration of the efficiency of totalitarian regimes. Judges, however, have to render opinions and Justice Liu's opinions indicate he's a lefty to the core. Since there's no changing the opinions he's rendered the subject's got to be changed.allen (in Michigan)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-19497282865639355452013-01-10T09:28:04.943-08:002013-01-10T09:28:04.943-08:00I'd be happy with three of each as opposed to ...I'd be happy with three of each as opposed to what we have now . . . My point about Kennedy was that he can't really be pigeonholed. In my opinion, he is the only current jusatice who actually considers the issue, applies the constitutiuon, and attempts to get make the correct decision as opposed to the ideological . . .3 of each would merely give us what we have now, plus two more swing votes. It would be better, but not ideal. The problem is . . .each side is so afraid of the other stacking their side (which they would undoubtedly do) that each tries to get the most conservative or liberal justice they can in an attempt counteract the appointees of the other. To pick a rational moderate would be to 'waste' a pick. And so we get moderates only by saccident.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-91253327653169897842013-01-09T23:36:41.140-08:002013-01-09T23:36:41.140-08:00"Where 95% of the time, the relatively free-t..."Where 95% of the time, the relatively free-thinking Anthony Kennedy is the deciding vote."<br /><br />The decisions that make the news are the ones where the country is strongly divided on the desired outcome, often along political lines. 95% of probably involve Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.<br /><br />I've read, but forget the source, that most US Supreme Court cases have lopsided majorities. And having spent some time reading cases for fun I believe it.<br /><br />A very unrandom sample, the now current (as of January 9, 2013) latest <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=12" rel="nofollow">slip opinions</a>:<br /><br /><i>SMITH v. UNITED STATE</i> Unanimous, "SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."<br /><br /><i>ALREADY, LLC, DBA YUMS v. NIKE, INC.</i> unanimous opinion, with an additional concuring opinion written by Kenney and joind by two conservatives and one liberal. "ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined."<br /><br /><i>LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ET AL.</i> Eight justices signed on to the opinion of the court. And Alito makes the judgement unanimous. "GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., concurred in the judgment."<br /><br /><i>RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. VALENCIA GONZALES</i> Unanimous, "THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."<br /><br /><i>KLOECKNER v. SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR</i> Unanimous, "KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."<br /><br /><i>ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES</i> Unanimous among the eight justices who considered and decided the case, "GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except KAGAN, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case."<br /><br /><i>NITRO-LIFT TECHNOLOGIES, L. L. C. v. EDDIE LEE HOWARD ET AL.</i> Per curiam with no dissent. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia, Per Curiam decision</a>, "In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and anonymously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[1] but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed."<br /><br /><i>UNITED STATES v. BORMES</i> Unanimous, "SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."<br /><br /><i>STEVEN LEFEMINE, DBA COLUMBIA CHRISTIANS FOR LIFE v. DAN WIDEMAN ET AL.</i> Per curiam with no dissent.<br /><br />Out of seven cases, one case where the judgement was unanimous but one justice disagreed as to the opinion, one case with unanimous opinion with four justices, who are members of all three "factions", signing an additional concurring opinion. And none of those will make national news.<br /><br />PS, I'm sorry this is not wrapping correctly, not sure what I did to break wrapping.Shannon Severancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-78915004891249149492013-01-09T21:07:07.992-08:002013-01-09T21:07:07.992-08:00You want 3 of each? That *sounds* nice, but I'...You want 3 of each? That *sounds* nice, but I'll be honest, I believe you're being, uh, *disingenuous*. Yeah, that's the ticket.<br />Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-67237251648257393462013-01-09T21:07:06.652-08:002013-01-09T21:07:06.652-08:00You want 3 of each? That *sounds* nice, but I'...You want 3 of each? That *sounds* nice, but I'll be honest, I believe you're being, uh, *disingenuous*. Yeah, that's the ticket.<br />Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-35875285810907386492013-01-09T20:58:00.174-08:002013-01-09T20:58:00.174-08:00A majority on SCOTUS requires an agreement of five...A majority on SCOTUS requires an agreement of five individuals. Admittedly, Justice ThomaScalia is given two votes, but that's just the way it is.<br /><br /> A majority in the Supreme Court of California requires an agreement of four individuals.<br /><br />These courts are composed of an odd number of justices so as to avoid ties. You can kid yourself that one person (the swing vote) is the sole decision maker, but doing so ignores the true nature of the court.<br /><br />Max, I don't want 9 Kennedys on SCOTUS, I want three of each: three on the left, three on the right, and three in the middle. My experience with conservatives is that they want 9 Scalias. It's a reflection of their insecurity.<br /><br />Goodwin Liu is one of seven. Deal with it.Dean Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17681829220589441713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-28894838046590307342013-01-08T21:01:35.124-08:002013-01-08T21:01:35.124-08:001. Don't flatter yourself. You and Maher are i...1. Don't flatter yourself. You and Maher are interchangeable with regard to your determination to see sarcasm as thoughtful discourse. <br /><br />2. Supreme Court rulings sure as heck do often depend on a single vote and you know it. That's why Supreme court appointments and elections are such heatedly partisan elections; a change of a single justice can make or break legislature. Hell, in some cases the right justices obviate the need for legislation. Isn't that an exciting prospect for everyone who sees the elective process as being entirely to subject to the will of "the masses"?<br /><br />But let's not stray as far as you'd like from from the issue at hand which is of a California Supreme Court justice who believes freedom of expression is far too dangerous to let just anyone engage in the practice. Some may enjoy the right which in Liu's interpretation looks rather more like a privilege and others may not.allen (in Michigan)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-30829337251426826982013-01-08T20:44:52.665-08:002013-01-08T20:44:52.665-08:00that would be obama care. and decision, at that. I...that would be obama care. and decision, at that. I'm not going to count, but, it's been most of them . . . atleast the high profile ones.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-36870399607180938512013-01-08T20:07:11.548-08:002013-01-08T20:07:11.548-08:00You have some time? Go count them.
I can think...You have some time? Go count them. <br /><br />I can think of one 5-4 case in which Kennedy was *not* the swing vote....Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-72267111464277818792013-01-08T19:59:16.342-08:002013-01-08T19:59:16.342-08:00One justice has been deciding USCS court cases for...One justice has been deciding USCS court cases for a long time now . . . how many cases have been decided 5-4, with Kennedy the swing vote? Most of them, I'm guessing.maxutilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11294262473781967372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-68700292395673071662013-01-08T19:35:27.336-08:002013-01-08T19:35:27.336-08:00Dean, please. Sarcasm is part and parcel of your ...Dean, please. Sarcasm is part and parcel of your trade. Please don't attempt to flatter me, you know you're a master of it.<br /><br />Why do you make up this whole straw man about one justice making law? You're the only one who says that. The link in this story only pointed out that Liu's opinions are, uh, extremely biased in a way I myself wouldn't support. That he doesn't get to enforce his views on us unilaterally doesn't make them any less palatable.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-91232260647572231782013-01-08T19:35:25.994-08:002013-01-08T19:35:25.994-08:00Dean, please. Sarcasm is part and parcel of your ...Dean, please. Sarcasm is part and parcel of your trade. Please don't attempt to flatter me, you know you're a master of it.<br /><br />Why do you make up this whole straw man about one justice making law? You're the only one who says that. The link in this story only pointed out that Liu's opinions are, uh, extremely biased in a way I myself wouldn't support. That he doesn't get to enforce his views on us unilaterally doesn't make them any less palatable.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-78708989158011979872013-01-08T16:22:14.988-08:002013-01-08T16:22:14.988-08:001. No crankiness. And I have very little use for B...1. No crankiness. And I have very little use for Bill Maher. He's an Atheist, but he's no skeptic/critical thinker. <br /><br />2. Supreme Court rulings, as fortune would have it, never turn on the opinion of a single justice. The Supreme Court majority held an opinion you dislike. And the sky remained aloft. You are free to howl, wail, and gnash teeth to your heart's content about the merits of the decision. But you are absolutely wrong to ignore how a court works and "blame" its most junior member for the ruling.<br /><br />Darren drove a long way out of his way to name drop Goodwin Liu. And he beamed with knowing glee that I responded. His trap was masterful, and I walked right into it. <br /><br />Had the issue been the ruling, I would have gladly ignored the post. But I was, instead, a sloppy attempt at a convoluted smear. So I called it out as such. <br /><br />Pretty simple, really. As far as sarcasm goes, Allen, I merely study at feet of the blog owner. The pH of my acid is no match for his. Your heated outrage at my comments leads me to believe you only detect sarcasm when its pointy end is directed to the right. When pointed to the left, it's simply speaking Truth. <br /><br />Fascinating!Dean Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17681829220589441713noreply@blogger.com