B-Bob, You can kiss my A$$. I don't see you contributing to the debate with your comments. Sounds like someone here wants liberal judges legistrating from the bench instead of the enforcing the rule of law.
Trader_Jorge: Ooooh... I didn't know you were an opponent of the Separation of Church and State? For some reason, I thought of you as a fiscal conservative... slightly squeamish concerning the religious right. I'm wrong about that? Geez...
haven -- you'll find that very few of my opinions arise as a result of me being a lawyer. i don't identify myself as such, quite frankly. it's my job...but it's not ME. i'm a lot of things before i'm a lawyer. having said that...i'm very concerned with the erosion of the 4th amendment...very concerned. that really bothers me. i'm admittedly ignorant of Scalia's contract law and landlord/tenant issues...landlord/tenant isn't something i deal with much, but contract law certainly is...what are you concerns there? Roe v. Wade is a joke...it's a twist of the law to get a desired result...THAT bothers me...though it did NOT bother me in Brown v. Bd of Education...that was the right decision. Abortion will ultimately be an issue left for the states, I think. I think that's likely inevitable, because Roe has been eroded pretty consistently.
Conservatives have lost this argument with the 2nd Rehnquist Court. Once, you had the right of bringing this issue up. But of late, the current Court has departed from the traditional conservative bastions of Stare Decisis and strict interpretation.
I am not against separation of church and state. I believe the Christian faith has a strong moral code that is applicable to many areas of life. I also believe in freedom of religion. A conservative judicial branch will support both of these beliefs.
The reverse is no better. If you have no balance on the Supreme Court, you have no balance. I truly respect the rights of conservatives to fight for causes in which they believe. I also expect the same respect in return if I choose the opposite. We are a country full of differences and it is important that we actually learn to balance those difference. If you alienate millions of people politically, it will come back and bite you on the ass. It always does.
Madmax: As I'm sure you're more aware than I (being a lawyer, as opposed to a mere student), certain "boiler plate" provisions are traditionally taken with a grain of salt, when the bargaining position among the parties is greatly disparate, they present unreasonable burdens on one party, and if they run contrary to certain strong legal presumptions and rights. Scalia wants strict enforcement of boiler plate provisions, regardless of consideration, and even whether the put-upon party had a choice in signing it. An easy example is choice-of-forum and choice-of-law provisions. Air lines, cruise lines, etc always have these provisions on the back of their tickets. For a long time, everyone thought these were unenforceable. In a somewhat shock-decision, the current court ruled that they were binding, even though they present considerable hardship to the consumer, waive certain standard legal rights, and the consumer really is in a position of not having a choice. Landlord-tennant law... to be honest, I'm not remarkably clear on. I have something of an idea, but I don't feel like I could cogently explain it. Sorry, but I'd rather force you to find out about this elsewhere, than possibly spread misinformation .
I guess you don't remember what happen in New Jersey? The Rehnquist court always rules on the side of the Constitution. Believe it or not the court has been very fair in there decisions. If you don't think this is true please give some examples.
How about the moral code of Islam or Buddhism or Wicca. I'm assuming that a conservative justice would have no problem supporting them, correct?
Jeff, I agree with you, the court should act with the will of the people in mind. Far too often State and the US supreme courts act with the political parties in mind. Example, Florida recount and New Jersey.
1. I guarantee you that you know more about the law today than I do...you may not know more about its practice...but you never know more about the law then you do when you're in law school or right after you finish the bar exam. 2. The boilerplate stuff is concerning...I would have to read it put in practice..which I'll attempt to do..I'll see if I can find some of the cases that point towards that. Keep in mind though, there are more than a few warranties to consumers within the states that can not be waived at all, no matter what the language. I don't have a problem with the choice of law provision...the choice of forum (unless it's arbitration) certainly seems burdensome on a consumer, I would agree.
Dude, you wish to dispute the fact that the Rehnquist Court is a Conservative, Activist Court? There are entire books on this issue. If you want to, go read one. I assure you that even legal scholars who would take your side substantively, would disagree concerning the current Court. It's Conservative and Activist, and has departed from Stare Decisis and strict interpretation. Water is wet. The sky is blue. The Rehnquist Court is the first conservative, activist court in history. I didn't think anybody disputed this.
How dare you compare Islam to Wicca. I have never heard of wiccan terrorist. At least not yet. But thanks for the heads up. I will definitely keep my eyes open.
wait, wait, wait...departed from stare decisis...every court that makes new law does that...and there have been more than a few times in history where departing from stare decisis has been a good thing. i'm sure glad the court subsequently interpreting Plessy v. Ferguson didn't sweat stare decisis. as for strict interpretation...i disagree with you there....i think that's simply a matter of how you interpret the constitution. what you would call a strict interpretation, i might call wide-eyed liberal gobbledygook.
you haven't? dude...there's one sect that controls a group of flying monkeys!! it's some scary crap!!! i saw a film on it in elementary school...freaked me out!!! thank god they seem to have one fatal weakness...water! good old H2O...
i have to say...i think my real favorite part of this whole deal is not having to hear the words, "Senate Majority Leader Daschle" again. he's not among my favorites.
