Comments on: What Will Change? http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joel B. http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-25661 Joel B. Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:02:50 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-25661 Ryan... Take a deep breath and reread my comment. I apologize if I was doing a poor job of it, but I was being sarcastic. The point being for any number of contentous cultural and moral issues the only votes that matter are the Supremes, and that is what is truly unacceptable. As longer reader of this site can attest, I myself am generally quite conservative. Ryan…

Take a deep breath and reread my comment. I apologize if I was doing a poor job of it, but I was being sarcastic. The point being for any number of contentous cultural and moral issues the only votes that matter are the Supremes, and that is what is truly unacceptable.

As longer reader of this site can attest, I myself am generally quite conservative.

]]> By: Peoria Pundit » Blog Archive » Much ado over John Roberts’ addition to the Supreme Court http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-25548 Peoria Pundit » Blog Archive » Much ado over John Roberts’ addition to the Supreme Court Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:37:05 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-25548 [...] Using an easy-to-understand chart, Ixlq takes look at what will change and won’t change if John Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Not much, it looks like. [...] [...] Using an easy-to-understand chart, Ixlq takes look at what will change and won’t change if John Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Not much, it looks like. [...]

]]> By: FreedomSight http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-22360 FreedomSight Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:49:20 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-22360 [...] Well, in the various reading I've done on 2A references (which I admit isn't up to the level of someone who's studied the subject extensively, or even a 2nd-year law student, I suppose), I hadn't heard of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a 4th Amendment case, which contains the following, in an opinion delivered by Rehnquist:That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.That's via Xrlq's running post on Justice Roberts, which is interesting in and of itself. Humorous too. [...] [...] Well, in the various reading I’ve done on 2A references (which I admit isn’t up to the level of someone who’s studied the subject extensively, or even a 2nd-year law student, I suppose), I hadn’t heard of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a 4th Amendment case, which contains the following, in an opinion delivered by Rehnquist:That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because “[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law”). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] “person” and “accused” used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.That’s via Xrlq’s running post on Justice Roberts, which is interesting in and of itself. Humorous too. [...]

]]> By: Dummocrats.com http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21686 Dummocrats.com Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:35:58 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21686 <strong>SCOTUS Decisions that could change with the addition of Roberts</strong> SCOTUS Decisions that could change with the addition of Roberts SCOTUS Decisions that could change with the addition of Roberts

SCOTUS Decisions that could change with the addition of Roberts

]]> By: Ryan http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21680 Ryan Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:54:01 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21680 Joel: There is zero, zip, nill, nada effect on the nineteenth ammendment. WOmen don't have an inherant 'right' to sit on the Suprerme court. Nor do men, minorities or anyone else. The right of women to vote is not about to be scaled back. The right or duty of congress to enforce this by law and legislation is not about to be rolled back. SO please DO tell me how this effects the nineteenth ammendment in any way, shape, or form? A Supreme court justice is _not_ an elected position. Joel:

There is zero, zip, nill, nada effect on the nineteenth ammendment. WOmen don’t have an inherant ‘right’ to sit on the Suprerme court. Nor do men, minorities or anyone else.

The right of women to vote is not about to be scaled back. The right or duty of congress to enforce this by law and legislation is not about to be rolled back. SO please DO tell me how this effects the nineteenth ammendment in any way, shape, or form? A Supreme court justice is _not_ an elected position.

]]> By: The Southern California Law Blog » How Will Roberts Change the Supreme Court? http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21674 The Southern California Law Blog » How Will Roberts Change the Supreme Court? Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:21:19 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21674 [...] XRLQ asks what will change if Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. [...] [...] XRLQ asks what will change if Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. [...]

]]> By: The Southern California Law Blog » damnum absque injuria » What Will Change? http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21673 The Southern California Law Blog » damnum absque injuria » What Will Change? Thu, 21 Jul 2005 06:11:13 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21673 [...] XRLQ asks what will change if Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. [...] [...] XRLQ asks what will change if Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. [...]

]]> By: James B. Shearer http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21630 James B. Shearer Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:03:11 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21630 On limiting punitive damages, a more recent case is State Farm vrs Campbell which was 6-3 for limits (Rehnquist switched his position from BMW vrs Gore, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsberg continued to dissent). So there is probably still a majority for limits but it is possible Roberts will be against limits and Rehnquist will switch again. <cite>[D'oh! Duly updated, thanks.]</cite> As for sentencing guidelines as I recall in the federal case 4 judges wanted to throw them out completely (as in the state cases), 4 (including O'Connor) thought they were fine as is and Breyer split the baby and said they were ok if changed from mandatory to voluntary. So another anti vote could throw them out entirely but of course Roberts may agree with O'Connor in which case nothing changes. On limiting punitive damages, a more recent case is State Farm vrs Campbell which was 6-3 for limits (Rehnquist switched his position from BMW vrs Gore, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsberg continued to dissent). So there is probably still a majority for limits but it is possible Roberts will be against limits and Rehnquist will switch again.

[D'oh! Duly updated, thanks.]

As for sentencing guidelines as I recall in the federal case 4 judges wanted to throw them out completely (as in the state cases), 4 (including O’Connor) thought they were fine as is and Breyer split the baby and said they were ok if changed from mandatory to voluntary. So another anti vote could throw them out entirely but of course Roberts may agree with O’Connor in which case nothing changes.

]]> By: Joel B. http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21578 Joel B. Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:48 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21578 You forgot the affect of this appointment on the 19th amendment! Naturally women have lost half the representation they use to have after all, the Supreme Court has been good about educating us to remember that only their votes matter. You forgot the affect of this appointment on the 19th amendment! Naturally women have lost half the representation they use to have after all, the Supreme Court has been good about educating us to remember that only their votes matter.

]]> By: Kevin Murphy http://xrlq.com/2005/07/20/what-will-change/comment-page-1/#comment-21577 Kevin Murphy Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:00:34 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=2488#comment-21577 Don't count Kennedy out on the 2nd Amendment -- it's an "expanded" rights case and Kennedy seems to be OK with increasing people's rights. On McConnell, I have no idea what happens: remember the breakdown on that one needed a scorekeeper: <blockquote>Stevens and O'Connor, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which Thomas, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion Scalia, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined, in which Scalia, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which Thomas, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined.</blockquote> Don’t count Kennedy out on the 2nd Amendment — it’s an “expanded” rights case and Kennedy seems to be OK with increasing people’s rights.

On McConnell, I have no idea what happens: remember the breakdown on that one needed a scorekeeper:

Stevens and O’Connor, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which Thomas, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion Scalia, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined, in which Scalia, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which Thomas, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined.

]]>