Agree Agree:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 124
  1. #46
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,587
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Justice Scalia Meets with Tea Party Caucus

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will speak Monday to Congress' recently formed Tea Party caucus, in an event organized by Minnesota's outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, Politico reports.

    "It is a special privilege to have him address the first of what will be regular seminars featuring constitutional scholars . . . In his 24 years of service on the high court, Justice Scalia has distinguished himself by his 'originalist' approach to constitutional interpretation," Bachmann said in a statement.

    Scalia had headlines recently when he told an interviewer that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution holds no protection for the rights of women or gays.

    In a famous dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, Scalia wrote: (T)here is no right to 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause . . . The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows states to deprive their citizens of 'liberty' so long as 'due process of law' is provided."

    It will not be Scalia's first Tea Party contact.

    Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas have each spoken at private dinners in recent years that were hosted by industrialist Charles Koch, one of Koch Industries' main owners and a financial underwriter of the Tea Party movement.

    The two justices travelerd to Indian Wells, Calif.a, to address a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, hosted by Charles Koch and his wife Elizabeth.

    Scalia spoke in January of 2007 on international law, but did not attend a political/strategy session. Thomas spoke a year later about his recently published memoirs and had what a Supreme Court spokeswoman described as a "brief drop by" at a subsequent meeting.

    The justices' travel and lodgings were paid for by the Federalist Society.

    More: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...rom=blog_last3
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  2. #47

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    I'll refrain from calling Scalia out of his name.

    At least on this forum.


  3. #48
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    Ace Blackjack Champion, Base Jumping Champion, Ultimate Jewel Champion Woody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,614
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    delete. wrong forum
    Last edited by Woody; 01-25-2011 at 09:51 AM. Reason: my stupidity
    “I put in the work and wanted it so badly but this guy is the best for a reason. He is such a complete player ... maybe I'll just punch him or something, I don't know.” - Andy Roddick

  4. #49
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    NYTimes had a very interesting article on Clarence Thomas in yesterday's edition

    If Thomas holds true to form, next Tuesday (the 22nd) will be the fifth anniversary of Clarence's silence during oral arguments. He last spoke on February 22, 2006, when he asked a question about a death penalty case. Since then, absolute silence.

    Just for perspective, Scalia asks an average of 25 questions per case, Roberts 22, Breyer 19, Sotomayor 18. Alito, who is next to the bottom, asks 6 on average.

    Full story:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us...0thomas&st=cse
    Last edited by Moose; 02-14-2011 at 06:15 PM.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  5. #50
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,587
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    NYTimes had a very interesting article on Clarence Thomas in yesterday's edition

    If Thomas holds true to form, next Tuesday (the 22nd) will be the fifth anniversary of Clarence's silence during oral arguments. He last spoke on February 22, 2006, when he asked a question about a death penalty case. Since then, absolute silence.

    Just for perspective, Scalia asks an average of 25 questions per case, Roberts 22, Breyer 19, Sotomayor 18. Alito, who is next to the bottom, asks 6 on average.

    Full story:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us...0thomas&st=cse
    Interesting. I didn't know that about Thomas. Maybe his home-life as bled over into his work-life.
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  6. #51
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,587
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas Speech
    by Eric Lichtblau
    Published: February 14, 2011

    WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.

    When questions were first raised about the retreat last month, a court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas had made a “brief drop-by” at the event in Palm Springs, Calif., in January 2008 and had given a talk.

    In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The event is organized by Charles and David Koch, brothers who have used millions of dollars from the energy conglomerate they run in Wichita, Kan., to finance conservative causes.

    Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.

    “I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.

    The Supreme Court had no comment on the issue Monday. Nor did officials at the Federalist Society or at Koch Industries.

    Common Cause maintains that Justice Thomas should have disqualified himself from last year’s landmark campaign finance ruling in the Citizens United case, partly because of his ties to the Koch brothers.

    In a petition filed with the Justice Department last month, the advocacy group said past appearances at the Koch brothers’ retreat by Justice Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, along with the conservative political work of Justice Thomas’s wife, had created a possible perception of bias in hearing the case.

    The Citizens United decision, with Justice Thomas’s support, freed corporations to engage in direct political spending with little public disclosure. The Koch brothers have been among the main beneficiaries, political analysts say.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us
    Talk about an activist court.
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  7. #52
    Grand Slam Champion owendonovan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    W. Hollywood
    Posts
    3,653

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkus View Post
    Talk about an activist court.
    I don't think a republican EVER thinks another republican is an activist. Thomas needs to go.
    Open wide.

  8. #53

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by owendonovan View Post
    I don't think a republican EVER thinks another republican is an activist. Thomas needs to go.
    I agree but is there a way to remove someone from the Supreme Court even in a situation like this one with Thomas?
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  9. #54
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    I agree but is there a way to remove someone from the Supreme Court even in a situation like this one with Thomas?
    Article 3 says justices hold their office "during good behavior", which has been interpreted to mean the same standard as "high crimes and misdemeanors" being the only grounds for impeachment.

    In the history of the Supreme Court, only one justice has ever had articles of impeachment filed against him - Samuel Chase. Chase's crime? Allowing his political beliefs to influence his judicial decisions. Needless to say, the Senate acquited Chase of all the charges.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  10. #55
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,587
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    I think it should be extremely difficult to remove a Supreme from the bench. But not impossible. Perhaps Thomas is not persuaded by his political leanings when forming his opinion on the cases that come before them. But shouldn't a Supreme even avoid the appearance of impropriety? Thomas, and perhaps to a lesser degree, Scalia, don't seem to give a crap what their actions look like.
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  11. #56
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkus View Post
    But shouldn't a Supreme even avoid the appearance of impropriety?
    That's part of the Judicial Code of Ethics, which they are still bound by, Kirkus. Of course, the definition of "appearance of impropriety" has many different spins interpretations.

    The NY Times had an editorial on Sunday talking about the Court's history of its members being involved in outside political activity. They make it sound that this idea that justices should be disengaged from outside political activity really only started in the 1970s, and that prior to that, many members of the Court were actviely engaged in political activity while sitting as a Justice.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/op...0thomas&st=cse
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  12. #57
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,587
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    That's part of the Judicial Code of Ethics, which they are still bound by, Kirkus. Of course, the definition of "appearance of impropriety" has many different spins interpretations.

    The NY Times had an editorial on Sunday talking about the Court's history of its members being involved in outside political activity. They make it sound that this idea that justices should be disengaged from outside political activity really only started in the 1970s, and that prior to that, many members of the Court were actviely engaged in political activity while sitting as a Justice.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/op...0thomas&st=cse
    Ahhh. That makes sense that it would be part of the Judicial Code of Ethics. Thanks for that, Moose.

    I'm looking forward to reading that editorial.
    Oh Grigor. You silly man.

  13. #58

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    That's part of the Judicial Code of Ethics, which they are still bound by, Kirkus. Of course, the definition of "appearance of impropriety" has many different spins interpretations.

    The NY Times had an editorial on Sunday talking about the Court's history of its members being involved in outside political activity. They make it sound that this idea that justices should be disengaged from outside political activity really only started in the 1970s, and that prior to that, many members of the Court were actviely engaged in political activity while sitting as a Justice.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/op...0thomas&st=cse
    That's an excellent history.

    Still, it seems to me, that Thomas' greatest problem was his failure to report sources of his wife's income for all those years. On that alone, he deserves more than a slap on the wrist.


  14. #59
    Grand Slam Champion jjnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    17,115

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    The Fred Phelps gang won their case.

    8-1, Alito dissenting.


    Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld

    Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

    The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

    ...

    The ruling was a narrow one, dealing with the specific, unusual facts of this appeal. Such vocal protests at military funerals are almost entirely confined to this one small group. Roberts said on the free speech question, it was enough to rely on "limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case."

    Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."
    Continued: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/sco...ex.html?hpt=C1

    And if you want to read the decision in its entirety: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
    Blue Steel

  15. #60
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    James7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    6,019
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2010-2011

    It's the right decision.

    Too bad they are so repugnant. It's only a very small handful of people and I hold out hope that they will eventually dissolve within a generation or two.
    I disapprove of this message

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •