pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
It doesn't matter who wins, a look at SCOTUS
#1
So, this might cause a bit of a stir, but over the last few weeks I have been contemplating what changes to the U.S. Supreme Court could bring on a large number of issues depending on the Presidential election this fall.

As we all ought to know the Second Amendment Foundation has several cases regarding 'may issue' carry that are being prepped to the point where the U.S. Supreme Court taking one of them on is inevitable. Many here and elsewhere have pointed to that fact as a desperate plea to get those who are rightly disturbed by Mitt Romney to go ahead and vote for him.

We all know that predictions on court rulings are difficult when a justice swings an unusual way, as with the health care ruling. Yet there is a consistent predictability with which so-called 'conservative' justices like to destroy recourse for civil rights violations. I want to highlight a recent one that I learned about in research for coursework that I had not heard of last year. That case is CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL. v. THOMPSON, the syllabus is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

I've read the entire thing, but to summarize the conservative court has struck down the recourse for someone wrongfully convicted of murder to sue a team of prosecutors that withheld exculpatory evidence for decades. That evidence, only revealed approximately one month before the scheduled execution, and the prosecution's actions over those decades was not enough to satisfy the conservative court's standards for holding prosecutors accountable for violations of past court precedent.

Go ahead, read it yourself and try not to walk away disgusted (read the dissent too, where a justice I do not particularly like shines). Cases such as Connick v. Thompson, and others, highlight to me that we are royally out of luck no matter who appoints the next court justices. The liberal justices hate the second amendment and the conservatives hate the fourth and often the fifth.

This isn't to serve as a message that says "hey go vote for Obama" or "hey go vote for Romney", but more of a message that says that either way we are likely to continue to lose freedoms no matter who appoints justices to the court. It seems to be a pipe dream to get a justice that cares both about the second amendment and about the citizenry's civil recourse for rights violations.

Just a thought.
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#2
The whole system is rotten to the core. Prior to this election I believed with all my heart that it really doesn't matter who is in the whitehouse, the stink runs much deeper. I still believe that, I still believe we need a much broader change than what the current two party system will ever allow. I still believe a mass cleanup is the only way. However, from Obama I have learned that I can defer that belief for another 4 years until the next election just for the sake of getting somebody, anybody, else in there. After that i shall return to my complete and total hatred for the government as a whole.
The law? The law is a human institution...
Reply
#3
IronSight;31276 Wrote:So, this might cause a bit of a stir, but over the last few weeks I have been contemplating what changes to the U.S. Supreme Court could bring on a large number of issues depending on the Presidential election this fall.

Seems pretty clear, to me. Thompson was trying to collect from the wrong party. Leaning on Brady required Thompson to prove that any violation include official policy, or, at the least, rules that operate with the force of policy.

Regardless, I'd rather have another Alito or Thomas than another Kagan or Sotomayor as the deciding vote if any Second Amendment cases make it to the Supreme Court for the next couple of decades.

One case of corruption in a Louisiana parish shouldn't be driving our decision on whether to replace the worst president in US history.

Thanks for a fun read.
kevindsingleton, proud to be a contributing member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.

Have some Pi: http://www.raspberrypi.org/
Reply
#4
Honestly, with the exception of 2nd amendment rights and environmental issues, I flat out favor liberal supreme court justices.

Conservative law and order religious right judges are bullshit. Flat out bullshit.
Reply
#5
I prefer those who actually interpret the Constitution.
It's immoral for them to rule ideologically.
Not that they care.
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#6
It doesn't matter who wins, look at the two candidates people are fighting to vote for.

Anyone paying attention knows the only person that would appoint a justice that would respect all of the constittion is.... oh never mind.. you guys won't care...
Reply
#7
Excel. Your guy lost.
Reply
#8
Valorius;31424 Wrote:Excel. Your guy lost.

Johnson is in the race.
Reply
#9
csmith;31286 Wrote:The whole system is rotten to the core. Prior to this election I believed with all my heart that it really doesn't matter who is in the whitehouse, the stink runs much deeper. I still believe that, I still believe we need a much broader change than what the current two party system will ever allow. I still believe a mass cleanup is the only way. However, from Obama I have learned that I can defer that belief for another 4 years until the next election just for the sake of getting somebody, anybody, else in there. After that i shall return to my complete and total hatred for the government as a whole.

Rotten, yup.
It would not matter if we had a 10 party system as they all use the same play book. Did you know that the current foreign policy on the middle east was established with or before HW Bush and every president since has followed the plan with maybe a few small deviations?
You are right on the mass cleanup. We need to get rid of everyone and all their policies. Everyone. Keeping even one "good guy" will only allow the gov to continue to fester like the cancer that it is.
The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right. It tells the gov they can not infringe our right.
[Image: s2b0iw.jpg]
Reply
#10
kadar;32220 Wrote:Rotten, yup.
It would not matter if we had a 10 party system as they all use the same play book. Did you know that the current foreign policy on the middle east was established with or before HW Bush and every president since has followed the plan with maybe a few small deviations?
You are right on the mass cleanup. We need to get rid of everyone and all their policies. Everyone. Keeping even one "good guy" will only allow the gov to continue to fester like the cancer that it is.

That's an interesting observation. You've either described the war in Afghanistan as a "small deviation", or you've disclosed that the war was planned ~nine years in advance of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks!
kevindsingleton, proud to be a contributing member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.

Have some Pi: http://www.raspberrypi.org/
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  SCOTUS kevindsingleton 5 932 06-29-2015, 10:16 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Pelosi says she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in 2009. das 2 655 11-14-2014, 01:12 AM
Last Post: Ten*K
  Putin wins again Pocketprotector 3 859 03-30-2014, 08:02 AM
Last Post: Camper
  SEN. RAND PAUL WINS 2014 CPAC STRAW POLL Philadelphia Patriot 10 1,853 03-09-2014, 10:11 PM
Last Post: Dave
  "If Congress doesn’t act, the president will" Philadelphia Patriot 20 6,999 01-27-2014, 11:09 PM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.