Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court

**Consultant** · 05-28-09, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Was it a specific case or subject that quote about a latina versus a white man was referring to?

I don't think there is much debating that someone who grew up poor in the streets and made it to the top is going to reach a better conclusion about how to fix it versus someone who grew up in little town suburbia and made it to the top. Perhaps she was referring to a similar situation.

Then she needs to run for Congress or President - not Supreme Court Justice. (and I know she didn't "run").

her experiences might very well make her an excellent LAW MAKER - but that isnt the job of a supreme court justice.

Right? Can we agree on that?

**Consultant** · 05-28-09, 10:46 AM

The fairness doctrine - since that came up -

If left-wing pundits and talk show hosts had a product that radio listeners wanted to hear, they would be just as financially solvent as the right wingers - they would be selling ad-space and you would hear them on your local radio dial.

There are lots of local leftist radio shows - I know, I've traveled all over the US for work and hear them all the time.

The nationally syndicated ones all happen to be right'ist.

If you force a local radio show to give equal time to the other half of whatever argument, it won't work.

I wish somebody would explain to me exactly how it would functionally work anyway.

Would it be exactly equal time? Would a government official have to listen to the radio with a stop-watch and see how much time was spent criticizing X politician?

It just makes no sense.

The market for talk radio has SO FAR, decided they are not interested in supporting wide-reaching democrat/left-leaning content. Period, that is the end of it.

If you manufactured a product nobody wanted, you would go out of business. End of story.

My prediction is we'll never see the fairness doctrine again, because it isnt fair - it's forced equity...which is never equal.

And don't go comparing this to the Civil Rights movement, LOL.

**Captain Coors** · 05-28-09, 10:53 AM

Er the civil rights thing was me flying off topic when I saw the phrase "states rights" come up. Not applying it to fairness doctrine which is senseless.

As far as experiences, life experience absolutely is required for a justices. Justices make rulings on gray issues that aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. Why is it that justices 100 years ago made rulings we look at now as unbelievably prehistoric, and the rulings are then overturned down the line. Now I'll use my civil rights example.

Not that I'm completely jumping to the activist judge side, but the judicial branch does issue law in the sense of precedent based on rulings, so different personalities will issue interpretations in different ways based on their life experiences affecting how they interpret the constitution and what the founders intended.

**SapiensErus** · 05-28-09, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

There are lots of local leftist radio shows - I know, I've traveled all over the US for work and hear them all the time.

The nationally syndicated ones all happen to be right'ist.

There is Air America. And while I am left, they leave a bad taste in my mouth for the most part. The only show they ever had I liked was the Al Franken show...but of course he has moved on to bigger and better things.

**Consultant** · 05-28-09, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Consultant

There are lots of local leftist radio shows - I know, I've traveled all over the US for work and hear them all the time.

The nationally syndicated ones all happen to be right'ist.

There is Air America. And while I am left, they leave a bad taste in my mouth for the most part. The only show they ever had I liked was the Al Franken show...but of course he has moved on to bigger and better things.

Yeah, there ya go - there is an entire network for equal coverage. It's just that most of America has said they don't want to listen to it or advertise on it.

Al Franken is hilarious - I appreciate him the same way I appreciate Bill Mahr. (spelling?)

**Highstakes72** · 05-28-09, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

States rights.....uh huh. I digress...way off topic but the phrase "states rights" sends me into red zone sometimes.

Opposite side of the spectrum...and yet the left claim to better represent the people.

To your earlier comment...yes there was debate among the founders...it was NO FED or LIMITED FED. They ultimately went limited but would have their eyes shoot out of their skull if they were alive to see how far we have twisted it.

**Potemkine** · 05-28-09, 06:14 PM

my step mom actually went to high school with her. She didn't know her, but she was in the same school. Think she was a senior when my stepmom was a freshmen. From what she tells me, she was ridiculous smart. We are talking SoySoldier smart, just in different areas.

**jason_jinx** · 05-28-09, 06:36 PM

What is the point of all this arguing?

Look its good to have variety because it broadens the perspective. They are not filling the entire bench with liberals so shut the fuck up.

**MotoZ** · 05-28-09, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

. . . I admit that I didnt study up on Supreme Court ruling percentages prior to my post, so [hawgballs is] probably right. I also dont have the time or desire to fact check [hawgballs] all over the place.

Consultant,

I don't know if hawgball's data is correct, either.

For the benefit of the discussion I offer this. The Supreme Court generally only hears cases when there is a split in ideology between the various Federal circuits, i.e. when the Supreme Court sees factions forming on an issue in different parts of the country.

It is therefore more likely than not for the Supreme Court to overturn or remand decisions. Why? Simple hillbilly logic. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

**jason_jinx** · 05-28-09, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by MotoZ

Originally Posted by Consultant

. . . I admit that I didnt study up on Supreme Court ruling percentages prior to my post, so [hawgballs is] probably right. I also dont have the time or desire to fact check [hawgballs] all over the place.

Consultant,

I don't know if hawgball's data is correct, either.

For the benefit of the discussion I offer this. The Supreme Court generally only hears cases when there is a split in ideology between the various Federal circuits, i.e. when the Supreme Court sees factions forming on an issue in different parts of the country.

It is therefore more likely than not for the Supreme Court to overturn or remand decisions. Why? Simple hillbilly logic. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Eating all those poor lil sunfish has damaged your brain. :9