Jump to content

Johnny Sack

Full Members
  • Posts

    10,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Johnny Sack

  1. From prior confirmation hearings: GINSBURG JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993) KAGAN SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN: “[T]he Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. [S]ome of the limits I talked about in [a law review] article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010) Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?” … ELENA KAGAN RESPONSE: “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.” (Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan: Response To Questions For The Record, P.2, 2010) KAGAN: “…inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court. And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.80, 6/28-30 &7/1/2010) SOTOMAYOR SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?” JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009) JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009) SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “My question to the chief justice and now to you is: do you agree with the direction the Supreme Court has moved in more narrowly, interpreting congressional authority to enact laws under the Commerce Clause? Generally, not relating to any one case.” JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “No, I know. But the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me as a Second Circuit judge or, again, if I'm fortunate enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. So it's not a case I can answer in a broad statement.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009) BREYER JUDGE STEPHEN BREYER: “Let us imagine, if I am lucky and if you find me qualified and vote to confirm me, I will be a member of the Supreme Court, and, as a member of that Court, I will consider with an open mind the cases that arise in that Court. And there is nothing more important to a judge than to have an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments...I will try very hard to give you an impression, an understanding of how I think about legal problems of all different kinds. At the same time, I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994) FORMER SEN. STROM THURMOND (R-SC): “Judge Breyer, it is likely that Justice Blackmun is most widely known to the public as the author of Roe v. Wade. What was your impression of his majority opinion in that landmark decision? In particular, give us your thoughts on where he draws the line at different points during pregnancy as it relates to the State's interest in the regulation of abortion-related services? For instance, do you agree that the first trimester of pregnancy is distinctive and that the State should not be able to prohibit abortion during that period?” JUDGE BREYER: “You are asking questions, Senator, that I know are matters of enormous controversy...The questions that you are putting to me are matters of how that basic right applies, where it applies, under what circumstances. And I do not think I should go into those for the reason that those are likely to be the subject of litigation in front of the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)
  2. I don't think that is at all what that minister was stating, that there was some proposal to require churches to marry anyone.
  3. Those broke dicks should just spend it on something exempt from judgment and tell him to fuck off.
  4. I hope you're wrong about Obergefell. I do not at all agree with overturning it.
  5. How does mining work for bitcoin? There are a finite amount of bitcoins, right? So once that number is reached, is there no more mining? I do not understand crypto well despite trying to and watching a documentary on it.
  6. Never been, but drive by it quite frequently. Bubba's Burger Shack.
  7. The government should not deny any consenting adults the right to marry. I also believe so long as they are consenting adults that polygamy should be legal. And if you are a county clerk or some other government position that, due to your religious beliefs feels you cannot issue marriage licenses to gays, you should either quit or be terminated. Now as for my church, I do not want it sanctioning gay or plural marriages. But that's entirely different. I do not think gay/interrracial marriage or right to purchase contraception will change. If I am wrong, I will be protesting too.
  8. They would just stop exchanging drafts like attorneys do with experts and edit via Zoom. No attorney or judge wants drafts leaked.
  9. Confirmations are mostly just theater now. Everyone knows how they will vote before and it does not change.
  10. It isn't just SCOTUS, it's lower courts as well. And it sure as hell is both sides.
  11. Judicial ethical canons.
  12. Or maybe I write differently and more carefully to a court or when I was drafting legal opinions than I do on a message board. If you also had read my other 20 posts on this thread about what was said in the confirmation hearings, it would be very clear.
  13. You are intentionally misreading what I wrote.
  14. What is your point? What do you disagree with? You just like saying stupid and vague shit while nitpicking?
  15. Just like Jackson with respect to Heller and Citizens United. No appointee will ever saw how they would rule on a future case that comes across. Or commit to never overruling such a case. It does not happen.
  16. The code of judicial ethics/canons prevents them committing to reach a particular result on a future case. It does not prevent them from overturning prior precedent. So again, they did not lie. They said Roe is precedent. When asked if they would overrule Roe that stated the canons of judicial ethics prevent them from answering the question.
  17. In response to people claiming ACB and Gorsuch were lying in their confirmation hearings. Not sure why you have that much trouble following.
  18. Net of government transfers, the middle class pays a negative tax rate.
×
×
  • Create New...