Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:00 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stac2007 View Post
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.

 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by amcjap View Post
A sad day for a hispanic like me, but I expected as much from BO...
Fortunately there aren't a lot of hispanics like yourself.
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Rockland County New York
2,984 posts, read 5,840,117 times
Reputation: 1298
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
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.
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:16 PM
 
Location: On Top
12,373 posts, read 13,150,563 times
Reputation: 4027
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
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!
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:18 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stac2007 View Post
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?
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,449 posts, read 14,418,340 times
Reputation: 4777
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
NPR is reporting that President Obama will nominate Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. A great choice.

Now watch the right-wing attack machine go to work.
I heard she puts mustard on her burger!!!!
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:29 PM
 
1,162 posts, read 2,100,396 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Fortunately there aren't a lot of hispanics like yourself.
Not so...is that what the msm tells you?
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Missouri
3,645 posts, read 4,910,943 times
Reputation: 768
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.
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:43 PM
 
16,579 posts, read 20,609,970 times
Reputation: 26860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stac2007 View Post
You speak from the left which embraces this upside down practice whereby the courts make policy.
Go read Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education and get back to us.

Hint: You can even read the Wikipedia summaries.
 
Old 05-26-2009, 07:45 PM
 
16,579 posts, read 20,609,970 times
Reputation: 26860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky View Post
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top