Law School Discussion

First Roberts, now Sam "Scali-to" Alito???

YoungIke

Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2005, 09:39:39 AM »
Not likely to happen. Most people pick one issue and fight that their whole life. But in missing the big picture they don't compromise on their issue when needed and end up F&cking themselves over on other important issues that they failed to take into account.

It's because no one cares. If you did get supreme court cases on T.V. honestly how many americans would watch. Bottom line the average joe doesn't care, not about roberts, the supreme court or whatever else the government is doing until it has a direct impact on their life, and at that point it's too late.

Yes, but dont you think if there were more coverage there would be more concern and interest?



How amy average americans watch C-SPAN? Few if none. Meet the Press? Few if None. Now they will sit up and complain about how the wool was pulled over their eyes after say; social security disappears, or the Patriot Act is passed, or large corporate tax cuts are given. It's the way americans are they don't cae whenthey have the opportunity to do somthing about it, but they want to rant and rave when the problemis on their doorstep. I think everyone would be surprised at the results if americans educated themselves to the poltical interworkings of our nation and took proactive measures to influence our nation's progress.

THE BLUE SWEATER

  • ****
  • 1335
  • Home of the Blue Sweater
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2005, 09:45:04 AM »
Not likely to happen. Most people pick one issue and fight that their whole life. But in missing the big picture they don't compromise on their issue when needed and end up F&cking themselves over on other important issues that they failed to take into account.

It's because no one cares. If you did get supreme court cases on T.V. honestly how many americans would watch. Bottom line the average joe doesn't care, not about roberts, the supreme court or whatever else the government is doing until it has a direct impact on their life, and at that point it's too late.

Yes, but dont you think if there were more coverage there would be more concern and interest?



How amy average americans watch C-SPAN? Few if none. Meet the Press? Few if None. Now they will sit up and complain about how the wool was pulled over their eyes after say; social security disappears, or the Patriot Act is passed, or large corporate tax cuts are given. It's the way americans are they don't cae whenthey have the opportunity to do somthing about it, but they want to rant and rave when the problemis on their doorstep. I think everyone would be surprised at the results if americans educated themselves to the poltical interworkings of our nation and took proactive measures to influence our nation's progress.

word.

Made4law

  • ****
  • 486
  • "to boldly go, where no man has gone before"
    • View Profile
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2005, 09:53:29 AM »
Good thread, the point that no one cares is very on point.  Very few people are in an uproar over the recent decision that the government can take your property and sell it to another entity for economic development WTF?

Comparing Judge Roberts to O'Connor, Reagan wanted to make a statement by being the one to appoint a woman. And he picked one of the most conservative legal minds he could find. However, I don't believe any woman wants to be the swing vote to overturn Roe V. Wade or Affirmative Action. Because when O'Connor goes to sleep at night I bet she thought, "wait a minute, overturn affirmative action...hell no, If these a-holes had their way I'd be cooking the meals for the Justices and I wouldn't be here either, they just want an all white male dominated society." So she couldn't vote those down....Now Roberts, he wouldn't have that internal debate with himself...he would probably see nothing wrong with an all white male dominated society, where O'Connor was mending his britches and cooking his meals...and Thomas was washing his car...

P.S. I was looking at a pic of the Justices and reading their bios....Renquist is ancient 81 and ill, Stephens 85 wow that's old , and Ginsburg 72 and unhealthy (that's old too)...and Kennedy and Scalia are not spring chickens at the ripe old age of 69...This is not even funny what can happen in the next 3-7 years...

Made4law

  • ****
  • 486
  • "to boldly go, where no man has gone before"
    • View Profile
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2005, 10:16:41 AM »
And here's another point...Americans in general are uneducated and they like us that way...Our schools teach to the dumbest kids, newspapers are written for 7th graders and the news is fascinated with Brad and Angelina or the latest missing white girl.  The powers that be don't want the nation to be educated...If we were they wouldn't be allowed to rape us of our monies, powers and freedoms...

YoungIke

Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2005, 10:26:39 AM »
Most people tend to tune life out, because the world is so F#cked up. To tell you the truth if I wasn't a rising 1L, I probably wouldn't care myself. It's but at the end of the day people only car about the quality of their own lives. Life can be too short to entertain all this corruption. I would like to see more involvement in political issues, but as long as the smoke and mirrors is up, many people will not. I guess we as students of the law must also take on the responsibility of maintaining integrity and informing the general public on the real deal. Many people get to where we are and where we are going and forget they were once on the outside looking in. We must create a better view to the inside once we get to those places, and not just continue the perpetual cycle of blowing smoke.

faith2005

Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2005, 10:30:07 AM »
that is so true. i think thats probably why they decided not to make that mistake again...


Comparing Judge Roberts to O'Connor, Reagan wanted to make a statement by being the one to appoint a woman. And he picked one of the most conservative legal minds he could find. However, I don't believe any woman wants to be the swing vote to overturn Roe V. Wade or Affirmative Action. Because when O'Connor goes to sleep at night I bet she thought, "wait a minute, overturn affirmative action...hell no, If these a-holes had their way I'd be cooking the meals for the Justices and I wouldn't be here either, they just want an all white male dominated society." So she couldn't vote those down....Now Roberts, he wouldn't have that internal debate with himself...he would probably see nothing wrong with an all white male dominated society, where O'Connor was mending his britches and cooking his meals...and Thomas was washing his car...


Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2005, 10:31:48 AM »
Made - you said it, cat daddy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, J. O'Connor was the most significant Supreme Court Justice over the past 20 years.  She definitely played her position to the fullest.  As the first and only woman on the Court until Ginsburgh came along, she knew she had to hold it down on the hot topics and she did.  She couldn't afford to adopt that selfish "I" mentality and fade into the mainstream.  She was the voice of reason on countless opinions, keeping 7, and at one point, 8 grown ass men in check.

Consider this: O'Connor & Rehnquist both started together in the same class at Stanford back in the 50's.  Both made Law Review at Stanford and graduated in the top of their class.  She goes on to become first a County Judge and then a State Justice.  Rehnquist never became a Judge AT ALL.  Yet somehow, he not only gets appointed to the highest court in the land before her, but is then appointed the Chief Justice above her? ? ?  (As one of my professors once said, everybody benefits from affirmative action - some people just call it "everyday life.")


As its Chief, Rehnquist failed to sway the Court on just about all the hot topics as the republicans and other conservatives hoped he would. And as an Associate Justice, O'Connor continued to sway the Supreme Court in her direction with her legal opinions on ferderal and international jurisdiction, abortion, affirmative action, states rights, employment discrimination, etc. She literally wrote the current rule of law for abortion and women's fundamental rights in this country. She has out argued Rehnquist & a number of the other justices on numerous cases when it was down to the wire and even when she lost, her dissenting opinions end up getting followed years down the road and become law.

Yet when she graduated from law school women didn't even get hired in Big Law.  That was damn near unheard of.

Roberts, on the other hand, a product of Harvar Law school, when into Big Law with ease, made over $1,000,000 a year as a partner in Big Law and sat on a federal court for 2 years before getting nominated to the highest Court in the land...

...you better beleive he won't have that same internal debate!




Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2005, 10:50:30 AM »
Most people tend to tune life out, because the world is so F#cked up. To tell you the truth if I wasn't a rising 1L, I probably wouldn't care myself. It's but at the end of the day people only care about the quality of their own lives.

So true, and so sad. I traveled to Cuba and one of the most interesting things I noticed there was a lack of cynicism about world politics. People I talked to there know the world is f*cked up but they honestly seem to feel that as people (not governments) increasingly communicate and understand each other, we will learn to cooperate and we will achieve goals of world peace and justice. I was very suprised to find this feeling of agency coming from people who live under a very controlling, quasi police state. In the US, we control (or believe we can control) our own lives -- how much money we make, where we live, etc. -- but we don't believe we can affect much change outside ourselves. For Cubans, it's just the opposite. I left Cuba wishing for a happy medium.

ImVinny!

  • ****
  • 2227
  • What am I?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2005, 10:55:58 AM »
"Super, keep your eye on Evan Bayh he should be the Dems next nominee, as a life long republican, I think he could be the answer to the political challenges we see on both sides of the isle."

Evan Bayh is awesome. He's a Dem, but when faced with a bad choice of R, which I am R, I would vote for him. Really.

ImVinny!

  • ****
  • 2227
  • What am I?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roberts on the Supreme Court
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2005, 10:56:57 AM »
"She single handedly undermined the conservative agenda time and time again on key political issues like abortion and affirmative action."

Did you know that affirmative action was the idea of Republicans? Just to clarify for you.