|
Post by harp on Jun 27, 2018 21:09:14 GMT -5
I honestly expected this to happen a couple of pages ago. I’m all out of popcorn at this point.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 27, 2018 21:28:14 GMT -5
Why lock the thread? Wouldn't a better course be for us all to be civil toward one another and continue the conversation?
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jun 27, 2018 21:41:26 GMT -5
This is kind of off-topic, but you know what I like most about working for OHO? The Hatch Act. This is indeed quite relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Jun 27, 2018 22:02:17 GMT -5
This is not in any way an attempt to change the subject... Anyone else wonder how Kennedy will celebrate his last day of work (after he gets off work, of course)? This would be my choice.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 22:14:51 GMT -5
Why lock the thread? Wouldn't a better course be for us all to be civil toward one another and continue the conversation? Agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Jun 27, 2018 22:55:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jun 27, 2018 23:01:30 GMT -5
We’re about to have a SCOTUS where four of the nine justices were appointed by a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Maybe it’s just my idealistic Millennial notions of functioning representative democracy, but that’s alarming. I think we have some tequila somewhere around here... Look at it this way, those 4 largely cancel each other out- Breyer and Ginsburg on one side, Gorsuch and whomever replaces Kennedy on the other. No harm, no foul.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 27, 2018 23:03:43 GMT -5
Why lock the thread? Wouldn't a better course be for us all to be civil toward one another and continue the conversation? Be civil or I will close it down. I have found that political discussions rarely lend themselves to civility. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 23:14:29 GMT -5
By and large, this board does a great job of staying away from promoting or attacking political positions. I've been really surprised by how this thread has become divisive. There's no need for it, but I guess since it's okay for conservatives to be accosted in their homes, in their jobs, in restaurants, or wherever they might be, then it's okay to belittle conservatives here. I'm a conservative. There, I said it. Up until now, I've kept my political leanings to myself, at least to the best of my ability, but after reading what's been posted here, it's time to speak up. I don't see any inconsistency in a conservative being an SSA ALJ or an IJ. The laws are there and they need to be administered. We all pay into Social Security, it's a system that is mandated. There's nothing inconsistent about conservatives accepting retirement - or disability - benefits since we've paid in. Saying a conservative shouldn't accept SS benefits is like saying conservatives shouldn't use public roads that are paid for by our tax dollars. Give me a break. Comparing an SSA ALJ to an executioner? OMG. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean that they are opposed Social Security. I'd like to see it reformed so that it's sustainable, but I'm not opposed to the program. I wish there were more options for where our SS taxes could go, so they could realize a better return on the investments. That doesn't mean I want to see it go away. There are other social safety nets that meet a legitimate need, but there's well-documented abuse that needs to be stopped. It's like some of you think that conservatives don't want government to do anything but maintain national defense or something. Instead of holding on to stereotypes and projecting them to an entire group of citizens, how about taking some time and actually getting to know some of us on a personal basis? You might actually find that we are reasonable, kind, caring, and generous people who want the best for our fellow citizens. As an example of what you might find, check out what this Harvard professor did with some students. nypost.com/2018/06/16/these-harvard-kids-got-the-lesson-of-their-life-in-the-heartland/I'm glad Gorsuch is on the Court, and I hope Trump nominates another person like him. I've been encouraged by some of the recent decisions that have come down from the Supremes. I hope we see more like them in the future. Maybe I'll change my pen name here to "AnotherDeplorable." A few observations. I think the majority of “slams” (I think is what Christina said) have been directed at POTUS and his...ah...err unique style of governance and decision making. I do not think you should conflate that with a commentary on your values, which I should point out, I have no knowledge of, other than you describe yourself as a conservative. Indeed your ability to articulate yourself so well suggests to me that you are selling yourself quite short if you are conflating your views with the personage of the big boss. Indeed in my neck of the woods, you would not be considered conservative. Anyone to the left of Ron Paul is a progressive-communist-slaver-sheeple. You may be a typical conservative for your area, but this highlights the uselessness of broad descriptors (conservative, liberal, or most meaningless of all “leftism” (sideyes if1)) in today’s political environment. This dovetails into If1s point above about people being a mosaic of traditions, values, interests, etc., and not simply automatons who react to economic conditions. In my executioner example, the analogous person to the anti-death penalty executioner would be a freeman/taxes are theft libertarian. To you (and me) the comparison is a bit ridiculous, but if the belief is sincerely held, then whether it’s taxes or death, the principle is the same. I would also point out that this was a somewhat tounge I n cheek response to If1, who has displayed the ability to take a joke and admit she’s wrong. Both those things earn tremendous respect from me, so I made a bit of a hyperbolic comparison for the sake of argument and fun. I note she did not seem very offended. Also, rejoice! You won! When RBG dies and Thomas retires, your preferred justices will run the court for the next half century. Obgerfell and Roe are history, it’s a done deal. My inquiries to Kylearan and others is an honest inquiry of exactly where they, as self-described conservatives who are also lawyers, want the court to to go vis a vis right to privacy and homosexuality (or whatever other area of law they think may be significantly affected). Forgive me, I do not know the degree of harassment you suffer in your daily life, but my friends who are gay face real criminal charges when Lawrence is reversed. Same for the thousands (millions?) of women who face prosecution for abortions when Roe is overturned. Perhaps the punishment they will face is deserved in your judgement (and maybe not, I don’t know), but I would submit that their suffering will be far more tangible than the perceived persecution suffered by those whose who currently control literally every branch of government. In another age (and maybe this is fantastical nostalgia) there seemed to be an appreciation on all sides for having a somewhat balanced court. Rather than lament the popular vote outcome, and the result on the USSC, as Harp does, I would point out that the goal of balance in the court was pretty blantalty subverted by the Rs with the Merrick Garland debacle. That chafes my hide more than the outcome of the election, as it seemed to me to buck that tradition. Many, maybe most, of my friends are very conservative. As I mentioned I live in a very conservative area. Lots of open carry. Everyone has an AR in their truck. If you tried to suggest that the FICA cap should be raised here, you would be branded a traitor. I get along with these people because we don’t talk politics, and they probably just assume I am as conservative as them. So assuming everyone who does not identify as conservative is a city slicker snowflake is in fact stereotyping in the same manner that you perceive yourself being stereotyped. Lastly, I would just reiterate that one should not conflate criticism of the POTUS’ “style” as it were, as a criticism of your beliefs. I am probably most dismayed about that in the current climate. In my view, one party is becoming the party of a personality and not the party of ideas/issues/values/beliefs. The other side is just becoming “everybody else.” I think one could make a similar argument on the other side vis a vis the last POTUS, but I don’t find it as persuasive. I am just dismayed that a lot of people seem to be resorting to tribalism/my-side -wins-so-who-cares-what-happened, even when having to go through amazing mental contortions to square this with their prior apparently sincerely held beliefs. Oh and I agree civil discussion is the way to go. There are going to be the “this is OT” crowd here soon, which is fine. The hatch act folks have already shown up (sorry judges, I ain’t a further restricted employee; your salary comes with the cost of silence!). But if we do get shut down, I would fully be on board carrying on such a discussion elsewhere if you know a place/forum, or hey maybe we can start our own. I am always down with intellectually honest conversations with those with whom I (purportedly) disagree. Anyway, TL;DR - I meant no offense, have honest inquiries and think you can do better than equating criticism the boss with criticism of your beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 27, 2018 23:15:27 GMT -5
A good look into his background. Thanks for posting. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 23:15:58 GMT -5
We’re about to have a SCOTUS where four of the nine justices were appointed by a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Maybe it’s just my idealistic Millennial notions of functioning representative democracy, but that’s alarming. I think we have some tequila somewhere around here... Look at it this way, those 4 largely cancel each other out- Breyer and Ginsburg on one side, Gorsuch and whomever replaces Kennedy on the other. No harm, no foul. Ginsburg already has one foot in the grave (no offense, love her and she looks great, but...), I don’t see how she can go another six years.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 23:25:20 GMT -5
By and large, this board does a great job of staying away from promoting or attacking political positions. I've been really surprised by how this thread has become divisive. There's no need for it, but I guess since it's okay for conservatives to be accosted in their homes, in their jobs, in restaurants, or wherever they might be, then it's okay to belittle conservatives here. I'm a conservative. There, I said it. Up until now, I've kept my political leanings to myself, at least to the best of my ability, but after reading what's been posted here, it's time to speak up. I don't see any inconsistency in a conservative being an SSA ALJ or an IJ. The laws are there and they need to be administered. We all pay into Social Security, it's a system that is mandated. There's nothing inconsistent about conservatives accepting retirement - or disability - benefits since we've paid in. Saying a conservative shouldn't accept SS benefits is like saying conservatives shouldn't use public roads that are paid for by our tax dollars. Give me a break. Comparing an SSA ALJ to an executioner? OMG. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean that they are opposed Social Security. I'd like to see it reformed so that it's sustainable, but I'm not opposed to the program. I wish there were more options for where our SS taxes could go, so they could realize a better return on the investments. That doesn't mean I want to see it go away. There are other social safety nets that meet a legitimate need, but there's well-documented abuse that needs to be stopped. It's like some of you think that conservatives don't want government to do anything but maintain national defense or something. Instead of holding on to stereotypes and projecting them to an entire group of citizens, how about taking some time and actually getting to know some of us on a personal basis? You might actually find that we are reasonable, kind, caring, and generous people who want the best for our fellow citizens. As an example of what you might find, check out what this Harvard professor did with some students. nypost.com/2018/06/16/these-harvard-kids-got-the-lesson-of-their-life-in-the-heartland/I'm glad Gorsuch is on the Court, and I hope Trump nominates another person like him. I've been encouraged by some of the recent decisions that have come down from the Supremes. I hope we see more like them in the future. Maybe I'll change my pen name here to "AnotherDeplorable." I'm gonna make heads explode: I'm probably just as conservative as JudgeKnot on most issues, and I think the cap should be lifted on FICA to make old age benefits sustainable. I don't agree with a means test, however. If you believe this, perhaps you should consider whether conservative is actually the right way to describe yourself in today’s political spectrum. This is a most anti-conservative proposition, even for establishment republicans. Indeed, it’s close to outright sanders-style socialism. The correct answer to everything is always tax cuts. 🤥
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 23:42:08 GMT -5
I don’t know I haven’t thought about those. But to the extent that Lawrence (a Kennedy decision) said that the public morality cannot form the basis of law, then yes it is clearly wrong and should be overruled. Well check it out. Haven’t perused the cases lately, but pretty much everything in obgerfell derives from Lawrence. I’m not sure “public morality cannot form the basis of law” is the one sentence summary of obgerfell I would give, but I understand this is short hand for a set of principles. Depending where you fall in the government control of people’s lives spectrum, then you may be in favor of overturning Lawrence or Griswold. Both basically involve criminalizing private, consensual sexual behavior. Generally speaking, if you are in favor of morality as a basis for criminalizing behavior (as opposed to requiring some objective evidence of harm to others/rationality test), then your probably OK with both these being overruled. It’s going to be a crazy world when birth control pills are illegal, but Viagra is prescribed on demand.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 27, 2018 23:56:34 GMT -5
The distinction is that Viagra is prescribed to correct a disordered condition, whereas birth control pills are prescribed to prevent a natural, ordered condition. Also, that some birth control pills are abortifacient - that is, they kill the unborn baby - whereas Viagra does not ordinarily kill people, at least not in the intended course of its working.
I looked up Griswold - that is the case that found rights that were “emanations” from the “penumbras” of the Constitution. I would overrule it. I think that my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Justice Thomas whom I’ve met several times, has a sign in his office “Please do not emanate in the penumbras.”
Even if it were overruled, it does not mean that contraception would be illegal - it simply would mean that state legislatures could choose to make it illegal if they decided to. Does anyone really think that there is any state legislature that would do so? Ban condoms, birth control pills, etc.? Of course not.
That’s the big philosophical difference - the question of whether it would be a good idea or a stupid idea to pass a certain law is completely different from the question of whether that law is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 28, 2018 0:06:02 GMT -5
Actually I kind of think that relates to the work of an ALJ, just in a less high-profile context. Any judge, whether a Supreme Court Justice or an Administrative Law Judge, has to rule on what the law is, not what he would like the law to be or wishes the law was. And he certainly shouldn’t play fast and loose with the law, like Griswold and Roe and Obergefell, to get the result that the judge wants to get.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 28, 2018 0:28:07 GMT -5
I have wondered how often legislatures change their laws in response to USSC rulings. Certainly, some state legislatures pass symbolic laws all the time outlawing abortion. I am sure there are states with anti-sodomy laws. I wonder if there are still states with anti-contraception laws. I personally think several states might be ok with such laws if afforded the chance. Many believe contraception only encourages undesirable sexual behavior; this was one reason why these laws were passed in the first place.
Certainly if you are a Thomas fan then you would probably be OK with overruling all of these cases, he dissented in all the cases having to do with any of these issues.
That said, I disagree overall with overturning Griswold, Ogberfell, Roe, or Lawrence. It appears I’m on the wrong side of history for the time being though.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 28, 2018 0:45:32 GMT -5
I believe that only Louisiana has a "trigger law," signed by a Democratic Governor, that bans abortion in the state effective on the day that Roe is overturned. Most other outright abortion bans that have been considered, such as one I think in South Dakota, have been opposed by the pro-life movement on the grounds that as long as Kennedy was on the Supreme Court, those laws would just get struck down by opinions that would further cement Roe as the "law." I live in what would be traditionally viewed as a conservative Bible belt State, heavily Republican, and still we have tough times even enacting any restrictions on abortion, due to internal state politics. A ban on contraception would be a definite non-starter here - and I can't imagine any state that would actually do it. I think that's one of the points that Justice Ginsburg made when she made some comments critical of Roe: www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade-went-too-far/ - that maybe the broad change imposed by Roe would have been better if it had come through the democratic process. Why do you disagree with overturning those cases? Is it because you think the result they gave was a good result, or is it because you think they are based in sound legal reasoning? If it's the latter then that's fine though I would respectfully disagree. But I think that the former, results-based judging, is just the judge abusing his position to MAKE the law according to his own preferences instead of APPLYING the law that the people have made.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 0:48:10 GMT -5
I had no idea that people still cared about Obergefell. I thought everyone had moved on to public accommodation issues, a la Masterpiece Cake Shop, but that we all realized same-sex couples getting Social Security widow’s benefits was NBD. Huh. Learn something new every day.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 28, 2018 0:51:07 GMT -5
I still care about Marbury v. Madison! lol
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 28, 2018 0:59:24 GMT -5
I believe that only Louisiana has a "trigger law," signed by a Democratic Governor, that bans abortion in the state effective on the day that Roe is overturned. Most other outright abortion bans that have been considered, such as one I think in South Dakota, have been opposed by the pro-life movement on the grounds that as long as Kennedy was on the Supreme Court, those laws would just get struck down by opinions that would further cement Roe as the "law." I live in what would be traditionally viewed as a conservative Bible belt State, heavily Republican, and still we have tough times even enacting any restrictions on abortion, due to internal state politics. A ban on contraception would be a definite non-starter here - and I can't imagine any state that would actually do it. I think that's one of the points that Justice Ginsburg made when she made some comments critical of Roe: www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade-went-too-far/ - that maybe the broad change imposed by Roe would have been better if it had come through the democratic process. Why do you disagree with overturning those cases? Is it because you think the result they gave was a good result, or is it because you think they are based in sound legal reasoning? If it's the latter then that's fine though I would respectfully disagree. But I think that the former, results-based judging, is just the judge abusing his position to MAKE the law according to his own preferences instead of APPLYING the law that the people have made. It’s too late in the day to give a full response, but- Obviously no one is going to say they engage in result based decision making, but the reality is all Justices have done this. They find window dressing, and some do it more than others, but no one is immune, in my view, from this. That said Thomas is quite strict, to the right of Scalia on some issues, but when you are always in the minority, that’s a sort of luxury you can afford. So all due respect, the dichotomy you present is not persuasive to me. I had more but am too tired to present in a cogent fashion. Good night!
|
|