Post: #26

This single issue showed how deranged the never Trumpers were. Allowing Hillary to win would have been disaster for the court. They showed they weren't remotely conservative by not supporting Trump on this issue alone (regardless is they disliked him personally). They should never be respected or allowed to back into any conservative movements.

Post: #27

(06-27-2017 07:57 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

Thurgood Marshall always wrote excellent dissents in Fourth Amendment cases.

Mind sharing a few examples? I mostly know Thurgood as the guy who, inadvertently or not, integrated the South at gunpoint, caused tens of millions of abortions, and having some of the most thoughtless opinions on the death penalty I've ever read.

A judge needs to be more like a moderator who merely applies the agreed upon rules fairly. He's not the guy who makes the rules. Both Brennan and Marshall were activist judges who completely abused their power completely and lead to the current extreme discontent between the left and the right today.

I agree with others here that the judicial system needs reforming in very important ways. A few major ones:

- No law school to take the Bar (this will lower costs of lawyers by about a factor of 10)
- All judges must run for election every year from pool of qualifying lawyers who've passed the Bar and have practiced for at least 10 years
- Jury trials as much as possible whenever a case impacts people for the remainder of the lives, such as family law cases involving children
- Allow jury members to participate through the internet for non-notable cases (this will speed up the process tremendously), but all records of deliberations must be made available for streaming to the general public during the proceedings of the trial and jury deliberations should be made public after the trial is over
- Accused should be held in much better accommodations than what convicted prisoners are put in, at least two-star hotel quality with a matress, phone, and government approved internet websites
- Minimum number of judges and courthouses must be mandated to meet the demands of the system and to be funded non-negotiably from state taxes (wait times for cases are already absurd... speedy trial my ass)

Bottom line the system we have dates before to the Ancient Greeks for christ sakes, we need to update it for modern living styles and technology, as well as make the system much more democratic.

Post: #28

Democrats will suddenly start hating Judicial Overreach

Post: #29

(06-29-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A judge needs to be more like a moderator who merely applies the agreed upon rules fairly. He's not the guy who makes the rules. Both Brennan and Marshall were activist judges who completely abused their power completely and lead to the current extreme discontent between the left and the right today.

Name me one judge who was NOT an activist judge. Incidentally, my first thought when I was Marshall was John Marshall. He was another activist judge.

Post: #30

If SJW's, feminists, and liberals hate and fear Gorsuch then he must be doing something right.

Post: #31

``And if Ginsburg has to retire due to decling health, that is a third.''

No matter how bad her health becomes, Ginsburg would have to be dragged out of that place kicking and screaming. She might be in a wheelchair, unable to speak and soil herself during every argument and she would still refuse to retire. If the liberals have to prop her up ``Weekend at Bernie's'' style they will. She is never going to retire under any circumstance as long as Trump is in office.

Post: #32

There are reports that Justice Kennedy might retire next year. It is about time that we have a conservative majority supreme court. Now that is what I call winning bigly

Post: #33

(07-03-2017 07:17 PM)djk100 Wrote:  There are reports that Justice Kennedy might retire next year. It is about time that we have a conservative majority supreme court. Now that is what I call winning bigly

It's big league

Post: #34

(06-29-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:57 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

Thurgood Marshall always wrote excellent dissents in Fourth Amendment cases.

Mind sharing a few examples?

Just read any Fourth Amendment case - those are the cases where the police search you, find something incriminating, and then your lawyer says it was an illegal search because there was no warrant. Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court created at least 30 exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. This makes it virtually useless and greatly expanded the power of the police. So while Marshall was an activist in other areas, he was a Ron Paul libertarian in Fourth Amendment cases. Unfortunately, he was usually in the minority and his thoughts are published in a dissent to the court's opinion rather than in its holding. In contrast, Scalia - the conservative's pet - usually authored the opinion that eviscerated the original intent of the Bill of Rights.

So while I'm normaly a fan of Scalia, and not a fan of Marshall, I have to agree strongly with the quote above:

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

By the way, some of your reforms already exist. For example, law school degree is not a requirement to sit for the bar exam in New York state.

Post: #35

(07-04-2017 05:44 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:57 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

Thurgood Marshall always wrote excellent dissents in Fourth Amendment cases.

Mind sharing a few examples?

Just read any Fourth Amendment case - those are the cases where the police search you, find something incriminating, and then your lawyer says it was an illegal search because there was no warrant. Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court created at least 30 exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. This makes it virtually useless and greatly expanded the power of the police. So while Marshall was an activist in other areas, he was a Ron Paul libertarian in Fourth Amendment cases. Unfortunately, he was usually in the minority and his thoughts are published in a dissent to the court's opinion rather than in its holding. In contrast, Scalia - the conservative's pet - usually authored the opinion that eviscerated the original intent of the Bill of Rights.

So while I'm normaly a fan of Scalia, and not a fan of Marshall, I have to agree strongly with the quote above:

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

By the way, some of your reforms already exist. For example, law school degree is not a requirement to sit for the bar exam in New York state.

If you can't provide examples don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.

Post: #36

(06-29-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  A judge needs to be more like a moderator who merely applies the agreed upon rules fairly. He's not the guy who makes the rules. Both Brennan and Marshall were activist judges who completely abused their power completely and lead to the current extreme discontent between the left and the right today.

I see Marshall only as an activist in terms of his defining specifically what the Supreme Court's role, as the court system's role is pretty much undefined in the Constitution.

(06-29-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - No law school to take the Bar (this will lower costs of lawyers by about a factor of 10)

This is actually the case in a few states. A few states allow lawyers to "read the law" (a sort of apprenticeship with a qualified attorney) and then take the exam. The main reason this isn't more common is that you don't qualify in every state under "reading the law," and the pass rate of the bar among those who've "read the law" is something like 10 percent.

Prior to the first law schools in the US, this is how most lawyers were trained, with the exception of those who went over to the UK for training (e.g. Peyton Randolph).