Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I didn't go to all those fancy schools but I KNOW THAT JUDGES DON'T MAKE POLICY! She is DUMB if she did not know that!
Well the only one dumb in this discuss is someone who would argue that Judges don't make policy because that is exactly what appellate judges do everyday.
One recent example of policy making even by "strict constructionist" can be clearly seen in the recent Supreme Court ruling pertaining to the 4th Amendment;
Arizona v Gant
The decision in Arizona v. Gant (07-542) limits the rule established in New York v. Belton, in which the Court held that “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident to that arrest, search the passenger compartment.” The Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court ruling for the defendant, Rodney Gant, on whom police found cocaine during an arrest for driving with a suspended license. The state court held that Gant could not have reached his car during the search and posed no safety threat to the officers, making a vehicle search unreasonable under the “reaching-distance rule” of Chimel v. California, as applied to Belton.
Justice Stevens’s opinion for the majority, which was joined by an uncommon coalition of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, held that stare decisis cannot justify unconstitutional police practice, especially in a case — such as this one — that can clearly be distinguished on its facts from Belton and its progeny.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia disparaged that line of cases as “badly reasoned” with a “fanciful reliance” upon the officer safety rule. Justice Scalia was clearly the swing vote in the case, explaining that a “4-to-1-to-4 opinion that leaves the governing rule uncertain” would be “unacceptable.” In his view, the “charade of officer safety” in Belton, Chimel, and Thornton v. United States (extending Belton to all “recent occupants” of a vehicle) should be abandoned in favor of the rule that the majority ultimately adopts in its opinion.
Arizona v. Gant - ScotusWiki (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Gant - broken link)
In innumerable cases, the appellate and Supreme Court establish rules, guidelines and test to determine how a law is or is not to be executed, if that is not setting policy, then I don't know the definition of the word.
Well the only one dumb in this discuss is someone who would argue that Judges don't make policy because that is exactly what appellate judges do everyday.
One recent example of policy making even by "strict constructionist" can be clearly seen in the recent Supreme Court ruling pertaining to the 4th Amendment;
Arizona v Gant
The decision in Arizona v. Gant (07-542) limits the rule established in New York v. Belton, in which the Court held that “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident to that arrest, search the passenger compartment.” The Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court ruling for the defendant, Rodney Gant, on whom police found cocaine during an arrest for driving with a suspended license. The state court held that Gant could not have reached his car during the search and posed no safety threat to the officers, making a vehicle search unreasonable under the “reaching-distance rule” of Chimel v. California, as applied to Belton.
Justice Stevens’s opinion for the majority, which was joined by an uncommon coalition of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, held that stare decisis cannot justify unconstitutional police practice, especially in a case — such as this one — that can clearly be distinguished on its facts from Belton and its progeny.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia disparaged that line of cases as “badly reasoned” with a “fanciful reliance” upon the officer safety rule. Justice Scalia was clearly the swing vote in the case, explaining that a “4-to-1-to-4 opinion that leaves the governing rule uncertain” would be “unacceptable.” In his view, the “charade of officer safety” in Belton, Chimel, and Thornton v. United States (extending Belton to all “recent occupants” of a vehicle) should be abandoned in favor of the rule that the majority ultimately adopts in its opinion.
Arizona v. Gant - ScotusWiki (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Gant - broken link)
In innumerable cases, the appellate and Supreme Court establish rules, guidelines and test to determine how a law is or is not to be executed, if that is not setting policy, then I don't know the definition of the word.
You speak from the left which embraces this upside down practice whereby the courts make policy.
Fortunately there aren't a lot of hispanics like yourself.
Brilliant move by Obama, appointing Sotomayor, the repugs must be shaking in their boots knowing that they have less than 30% of the Latino vote, watch that number drop like a ton of bricks now!
You speak from the left which embraces this upside down practice whereby the courts make policy.
I don't speak from the left, I speak from fact. The Court, left right and center since its inception has determined policy when laws are unclear or their application contrary to law or the Constitution.
The case I cited above was based upon a 5-4 decision with Justices Stevens, Gingsburg, Souter, Thomas and Scalia in the majority.
Now read those names over again.
Justices Stevens, Gingsburg, Souter, Thomas and Scalia
Now you tell me where the right, the left or the center lies in that line-up?
She might not be all that bad. I don't like a lot of what she says when she talks about racial preferances and such, but it seems except for a few judgements, she seems pretty on the mark. She did screw up with her judgement about the firefighters and such but that comes from her liberal education and her listening to the blame everyone else crowd because someone is not able to do as well as people who actually worked for it.
She might not be all that bad. I don't like a lot of what she says when she talks about racial preferances and such, but it seems except for a few judgements, she seems pretty on the mark. She did screw up with her judgement about the firefighters and such but that comes from her liberal education and her listening to the blame everyone else crowd because someone is not able to do as well as people who actually worked for it.
Or, possibly, it came from her reading of the facts and interpretation of the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.