US Politics

Why are we supposed to respect the courts at all?

Kennedy wrote the majority decision in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009), which involved an Alaskan mining company that planned to extract new gold from a mine that had been closed for decades using a technique known as "froth-flotation". This technique would produce approximately 4.5 million tons of "slurry", a thick waste product laced with toxic elements such as lead and mercury. The company intended to dispose of the waste in a nearby lake, which would eventually decrease the depth of the lake by fifty feet and flood the surrounding land with contaminated water. While federal law forbids "[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system", Kennedy's decision stated that pollutants are exempt from this law so long as they have "the effect of … changing the bottom elevation of water".
Click to expand...

This logic wouldn't hold in a school exam.

Is there a way to measure a map’s partisan bias and to create a standard for when a gerrymandered map infringes on voters’ rights?
The metric at the heart of the Wisconsin case is called the efficiency gap. To calculate it, you take the difference between each party’s “wasted” votes — votes for losing candidates and votes for winning candidates beyond what the candidate needed to win — and divide that by the total number of votes cast. It’s mathematical, yes, but quite simple, and aims to measure the extent of partisan gerrymandering.

Justice Neil Gorsuch balked at the multifaceted empirical approach that the Democratic team bringing the suit is proposing be used to calculate when partisan gerrymandering has gone too far, comparing the metric to a secret recipe: “It reminds me a little bit of my steak rub. I like some turmeric, I like a few other little ingredients, but I’m not going to tell you how much of each. And so what’s this court supposed to do? A pinch of this, a pinch of that?”

Justice Stephen Breyer said, “I think the hard issue in this case is are there standards manageable by a court, not by some group of social science political ex … you know, computer experts? I understand that, and I am quite sympathetic to that.”

And Chief Justice John Roberts, most of all, dismissed the modern attempts to quantify partisan gerrymandering: “It may be simply my educational background, but I can only describe it as sociological gobbledygook.” Keep in mind that Roberts is a man with two degrees from Harvard and that this case isn’t really about sociology
Click to expand...

Undergrads would be expected to understand this stuff I think.
 
That’s what’s so disturbing. This man barely even had to try. He was sweaty and flushed and overwhelmed and pissed off, the way no woman gets to be ever. He was defensive and evasive and arrogant and chippy, the way no person of color gets to be. And he’s still headed for a plum lifetime position, thanks to a weaponized troop of grandstanding cretins in the GOP with no memory of Merrick Garland and no concern whatsoever for anyone outside of their tight little demographic of chuckling good old boys.
Click to expand...
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-barely-had-to-try-at-supreme-court-hearing.html
 
kps88 said:
The SNL Kavanaugh sketch was the best thing they've done in ages.



Go to https://www.proxysite.com/youtube/
Select a US server and paste the link from the above video in the bar
Click to expand...

Damn that was hilarious but did Matt Dmon unintentionally realise he's actually the perfect double for Tucker Carlson?
 
Came to post SNL skit. Magnificent. How are these people so self aware as to watch that and think they look like the good guys?
 
Beachryan said:
Came to post SNL skit. Magnificent. How are these people so self aware as to watch that and think they look like the good guys?
Click to expand...
Maybe they really believe that they are the good guys.

After all Kavanaugh was just a young bloke at Uni doing what young blokes do. Drinking, messing about, having a laugh and getting as much sex as possible. Maybe the majority of them will be able to relate to all the shenanagins that went on. They won’t see anything wrong in what they did (cos everybody does it but they daren’t say that) and so won’t see anything wrong in what Kavanaugh did. Plus it was ages ago and all young blokes at Uni get up to silly stuff don’t they. No big deal.

The women were just having a laugh too. They didn’t complain then and the only reason they’re complaining now it for attention, money and to feck up Trump’s SC nomination. Anyway, he’s not like that now is he and the GOP don’t think it’s right that daft antics from a young bloke at Uni should have any bearing on his career now.

Maybe they see themselves in him which means they think he’s probably a grand bloke, just what they need in the SC.
 
Red Defence said:
Maybe the majority of them will be able to relate to all the shenanagins that went on. They won’t see anything wrong in what they did (cos everybody does it but they daren’t say that) and so won’t see anything wrong in what Kavanaugh did.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Grassley said something to the effect of "lots of people would be in trouble if everyone was held to this standard" as if people who rape or try to rape shouldn't get in trouble
 
Silva said:
I'm pretty sure Grassley said something to the effect of "lots of people would be in trouble if everyone was held to this standard" as if people who rape or try to rape shouldn't get in trouble
Click to expand...
Yes they would be in trouble and so that’s a standard they never want to set.
Expect him to be confirmed and expect him not to last long in the job.
 
The fact that it even needs to be said is pretty ridiculous.

"For what it's worth, if he committed a felony he should be disqualified from the Supreme Court"

Well no shit, he should be in fecking prison.
 
Bernie pushing the line I just don't understand: he clearly deliberately lied under oath. And he didn't have to at all, would have been fine if he'd just said he knew what boofing was or he's been drunk. Neither of those things are disqualifying. But why lie about it? And why don't the GOP care? Is it just accepted that lying is so pervasive we should ignore it?
 
Beachryan said:
Bernie pushing the line I just don't understand: he clearly deliberately lied under oath. And he didn't have to at all, would have been fine if he'd just said he knew what boofing was or he's been drunk. Neither of those things are disqualifying. But why lie about it? And why don't the GOP care? Is it just accepted that lying is so pervasive we should ignore it?
Click to expand...

Every nominee has lied since Bork and they've done so about substantive, contentious legal matters. They just did so less blatantly. The conditions they're operating in unfortunately make it necessary. Kicking up a fuss about that is political bullshit because it's primarily the Senate who've created that atmosphere.

The thing that confuses me the most is that Flake has already explicitly said Kavanuagh might be an attempted rapist. He said there's no way of judging either way, and he knows that won't change with the FBI investigation, so he's saying he is ok with possibly putting an attempted sex offender on the court. Bizarre.
 
Brwned said:
Every nominee has lied since Bork and they've done so about substantive, contentious legal matters. They just did so less blatantly. The conditions they're operating in unfortunately make it necessary. Kicking up a fuss about that is political bullshit because it's primarily the Senate who've created that atmosphere.

The thing that confuses me the most is that Flake has already explicitly said Kavanuagh might be an attempted rapist. He said there's no way of judging either way, and he knows that won't change with the FBI investigation, so he's saying he is ok with possibly putting an attempted sex offender on the court. Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Do you have source that documents this?
 
langster said:
Well said that man. It's down to how how individuals live with their conscience and rationalise their choice. I don't blame those who didn't vote for Hillary for reasons like you stated. I blame the apathetic voters who couldn't be arsed to vote and I blame those that voted for Trump.

This shit is getting boring though. It's over 2 years in now and people are still banging on about Hillary and you are having to defend and explain your position at least once a week.

It's done now. Can't we move on from this shit?
Click to expand...
That won't happen while Trump is in power. She'll always be brought up to remind people.
 
Red Dreams said:
true.

Which says where Obama was.

Because the Republicans prevented his appointment I'm fully behind increasing the seats of the SC so it reflects the will of the majority in this country. That court can give its final decision on what is a fair representation of districts instead of the current gerrymandered ones.
Click to expand...
Garland was nominated because they wanted a bipartisan justice in to get through with the likely obstruction. A non-election year and someone centrist wouldn't have been appointed.

Also, Hillary's nominations would have been on the left to allow her to retain her support in Congress.
 
roseguy64 said:
That won't happen while Trump is in power. She'll always be brought up to remind people.
Click to expand...

But it's a bullshit excuse and a weak argument. If Hillary won and the USA was bombing the shit out of Syria and Iran would people be saying "well you should have voted for Trump" etc?
 
langster said:
But it's a bullshit excuse and a weak argument. If Hillary won and the USA was bombing the shit out of Syria and Iran would people be saying "well you should have voted for Trump" etc?
Click to expand...
No, because that'd be par for the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.