4 ms·

Predictably, the SCOTUS case discussed in the article, Salinas v. Texas, split down conservative/progressive lines, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote to ab

Predictably, the SCOTUS case discussed in the article, Salinas v. Texas, split down conservative/progressive lines, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote to abrogate our 5th amendment privileges. Three members of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70—Kennedy is 80. Vote accordingly next month.

briandear 10y ago
However, Scalia's dissent in Maryland vs. King was a truly conservative-based dissent. You also have Kyllo vs. United States where 'liberals' Kennedy and O'Conner dissented and 'conservatives' Scalia and Thomas joined Ginsburg and Breyer in the majority that established using FLIR without a warrant was a violation of the 4th Amendment. In US vs. Jones, Scalia again wrote the majority opinion enstablisbing that a GPS tracker on a car is a violation of the 4th. We also have Riley vs. California, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (where Scalia'd dissent was joined by John Paul Stevens.) My point is that we need justices that follow the Constitution and not justices that follow a party. I don't particularly trust Clinton to pick constitutionalist justices while Trump is a wildcard (he isn't even remotely conservative, so it's likely his picks would likely be more centrist to please his own centrist views without alienating the Republican voters.) I don't like Trump or Clinton, but I think Trump picks will likely be more moderate than anyone Clinton might select. However my opinion doesn't matter, what I'm trying to say is that a vote for Hillary doesn't mean a vote for judges that will rule correctly. It doesn't mean a vote against those judges either. But 'vote accordingly' is meaningless because there is no 'accordingly.' For example, look at Kagan's opinion in Ransom v. FIA Card Services.. She sided with the credit card company over a consumer in a bankruptcy case while Scalia was the only dissent in the 8-1 decision. Vote accordingly.. ok how? Meaning, there is no such thing. "Liberal" justices aren't always "liberal" in ways that you might like and "conservative" doesn't always mean what you think. The court is far more nuanced. A balanced court is far safer than one ideologically disposed to one extreme or another. It would be very dangerous to have an entire court of John Paul Stevenses just as it would be dangerous to have a court filled with Clarence Thomases.
- mseebach 10y ago
  You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,...) and while I most certainly am not a legal scholar, it seems fairly straightforward? No, it doesn't cost $28k to own a car you already own outright for five years (operating expenses are claimed separately and not controversial here) and you don't get to protect that money in a bankruptcy. What am I not seeing? (To be fair, and to underscore the degree to which I am not a legal scholar, I don't understand the substance of Scalia's dissent.)
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    I think it is not SCOTUS' job to clean up the congress created mess and Scalia was cranky because of that. I think that Scalia strongly believed in laws are set in stone. So if there is some abmiguity or stupid language it is the Congress' fault and it is not up to SCOTUS to create laws on the fly by guestimating the congress intent.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Trump will pick sycophants, that's how he runs his businesses. Lawrence vs Texas, Scalia is just being a bigot, plain and simple. There was nothing conservative about his opinion, unless the definition of conservative is being an asshole to the minority for doing things you merely don't approve of but cause no one harm. Trying to convince knowledgeable people he was a constuctionist is futile.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    > unless the definition of conservative is being an asshole to the minority for doing things you merely don't approve of but cause no one harm It isn't? :D In all seriousness though... When I read this, I remembered a famous scene of Angela Merkel, a conservative (though more progressive than most conservatives). Before the 2015 national elections in Germany, she appeared at a question time session and a citizen asked her about her stance on gay marriage. She hummed and hawed for a few moments, and then answered that she is "not comfortable with it". Analysts interpreted her answer not as her personally disapproving of gay marriage, but as mirroring the feelings of the majority.

briandear 10y ago

However, Scalia's dissent in Maryland vs. King was a truly conservative-based dissent. You also have Kyllo vs. United States where 'liberals' Kennedy and O'Conner dissented and 'conservatives' Scalia and Thomas joined Ginsburg and Breyer in the majority that established using FLIR without a warrant was a violation of the 4th Amendment. In US vs. Jones, Scalia again wrote the majority opinion enstablisbing that a GPS tracker on a car is a violation of the 4th. We also have Riley vs. California, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (where Scalia'd dissent was joined by John Paul Stevens.) My point is that we need justices that follow the Constitution and not justices that follow a party. I don't particularly trust Clinton to pick constitutionalist justices while Trump is a wildcard (he isn't even remotely conservative, so it's likely his picks would likely be more centrist to please his own centrist views without alienating the Republican voters.) I don't like Trump or Clinton, but I think Trump picks will likely be more moderate than anyone Clinton might select. However my opinion doesn't matter, what I'm trying to say is that a vote for Hillary doesn't mean a vote for judges that will rule correctly. It doesn't mean a vote against those judges either. But 'vote accordingly' is meaningless because there is no 'accordingly.' For example, look at Kagan's opinion in Ransom v. FIA Card Services.. She sided with the credit card company over a consumer in a bankruptcy case while Scalia was the only dissent in the 8-1 decision. Vote accordingly.. ok how? Meaning, there is no such thing. "Liberal" justices aren't always "liberal" in ways that you might like and "conservative" doesn't always mean what you think. The court is far more nuanced. A balanced court is far safer than one ideologically disposed to one extreme or another. It would be very dangerous to have an entire court of John Paul Stevenses just as it would be dangerous to have a court filled with Clarence Thomases.

mseebach 10y ago
You seem to imply that the court ruled incorrectly in the Ransom v. case. I skimmed through it (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,_N.A. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_v._FIA_Card_Services,...) and while I most certainly am not a legal scholar, it seems fairly straightforward? No, it doesn't cost $28k to own a car you already own outright for five years (operating expenses are claimed separately and not controversial here) and you don't get to protect that money in a bankruptcy. What am I not seeing? (To be fair, and to underscore the degree to which I am not a legal scholar, I don't understand the substance of Scalia's dissent.)
- venomsnake 10y ago
  I think it is not SCOTUS' job to clean up the congress created mess and Scalia was cranky because of that. I think that Scalia strongly believed in laws are set in stone. So if there is some abmiguity or stupid language it is the Congress' fault and it is not up to SCOTUS to create laws on the fly by guestimating the congress intent.
cmurf 10y ago
Trump will pick sycophants, that's how he runs his businesses. Lawrence vs Texas, Scalia is just being a bigot, plain and simple. There was nothing conservative about his opinion, unless the definition of conservative is being an asshole to the minority for doing things you merely don't approve of but cause no one harm. Trying to convince knowledgeable people he was a constuctionist is futile.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > unless the definition of conservative is being an asshole to the minority for doing things you merely don't approve of but cause no one harm It isn't? :D In all seriousness though... When I read this, I remembered a famous scene of Angela Merkel, a conservative (though more progressive than most conservatives). Before the 2015 national elections in Germany, she appeared at a question time session and a citizen asked her about her stance on gay marriage. She hummed and hawed for a few moments, and then answered that she is "not comfortable with it". Analysts interpreted her answer not as her personally disapproving of gay marriage, but as mirroring the feelings of the majority.