Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Imagine a court even more conservative than SCOTUS :-(

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Imagine a court even more conservative than SCOTUS :-(
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Imagine a court even more conservative than SCOTUS :-(
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You are just upset...

In reply to: Imagine a court even more conservative than SCOTUS :-(

because the fifth district holds the same views as a Black Justice that you don't like but who is more arguably in tune with determining non politically motivated jury selection as not being a separatist plot.

Collapse -
Re: You are just upset...

In reply to: You are just upset...

Don't forget, Ed, that Uncle Thomas is one of Bush's favorite "justices" -- truly scary, given Bush is apt to have at least two nominations before the Senate goes back to the Dems in 2006. Here's a Washington Post editorial about another 8-1 decision where Thomas refused to see the obvious:
Fifth Circuit's Judicial Defiance. (In the retrial arguments after the Fifth again defied the SCOTUS and cited Thomas' lone dissent in its reply, Bush's other favorite, Scallia, seems to be joining the search for explanations other than the obvious for blatant race-based discriminatory practices)
(Washington Post login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw= speakeasy)

(From the Chronicle report, no longer available online in favor of a less informative AP report): >>Faced with a Dallas County prosecutor's old training manual advising against choosing jurors who are black, Jewish, Hispanic, Italian-American, bearded, fat or female, a U.S. Supreme Court majority said Monday that a black defendant clearly suffered discrimination when blacks were excluded from his 1986 jury.... Prosecutors used a practice unique to Texas -- a shuffling to rearrange the order of potential jurors -- whenever several blacks were seated in the front rows, where they were more likely to be chosen.... << And then "of 11 who got past that barrier and were qualified to serve on the jury, 10 were struck by peremptory challenge. The only African American not challenged was one who declared that lethal injection is "too quick. They don't feel the pain.... <<

And to the person who keeps complaining that my use of "Uncle Thomas" is racist -- Thomas is consistently called that by a majority of his own people. It's a term he fully deserves and has earned -- if he were to change his behavior, I wouldn't use the term for him. A racist term is one that is based soley on race, not on actions. This is the same distinction that we are drawing with the use of the term "subhuman" -- if you allow that term in some contexts, we must allow this one for "Justice" Thomas. Unless, of course, you apply the typical double standard that if I say it it's ok, if you say it, it's not...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

In reply to: Re: You are just upset...

... isn't it against protocol to repost the same crap again? Eliminating the word Black in front of Uncle Thomas does little to diminish your racist slurs.

The majority of "his people" DON'T routinely call him that. And even though it would be fair to say that a large number (if not a majority) of kids in the hood call each other by the n-word, that wouldn't make your calling them by that term any less offensive.

It is NOT the same distinction. You are saying the term is for his actions, yet but for his race combined with those actions, he would not qualify for the derogatory term. Folks calling muslim terrorists subhuman would call non-muslims that engaged in the same acts by the same term as it is solely the action and not the race or religion of same that makes the term appropriate in the eyes of some.

Nice try Sad

Collapse -
Re: If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

It's not a racist slur, Evie -- any more than "white supremacist" is. Condemnatory, of course -- but Thomas' consistent betrayal of his own race deserves condemnation, not because of the racial aspect, but becuase of his trying to deny others in similar situation to that of his youth the same opportunity to extract themselves that he was given.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

In reply to: Re: If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

Well then you won't mind me calling you a traitor to your race. After all, you have benefitted from preferences due to your father's connections and your race and yet bend over backwards to support policies that discriminate against the young white men of today.

You can rationalize all you want but you only dig the hole deeper demonstrating the depth of your racism.

Since we are talking about the court decision, and you made this latest charge against Thomas based on his dissent, PLEASE tell me SPECIFICALLY what about his dissent is traitorous to his race? Or do you believe that as a black justice he is obligated to rule against his interpretation of the law in cases involving a black petitioner? I'll even provide a link to the ruling that should save you some time out of your busy schedule: Miller-El vs. Cockerell {pdf file, his dissent begins on p.36 of this file} Dave, you wouldn't commend a white justice for ruling on the basis of the white race of a petitioner, and there is no reason to expect black justices to discriminate either.

I realize Thomas and you are at odds in your understandings and interpretations of Constitutional law, but just because he doesn't espouse the liberal view you believe all blacks should share doesn't give you the right to your summarily derogatory remarks. Ah, but I suppose we could be thankful of one thing, his race spares him the Nazi analogies.

Evie

Collapse -
Re: If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

Evie, I made my point about his dissent already -- his refusal to call blatanty racial discrimination for whaty it is. Contrast him for O'connor, who even though conservative was always the most sensitive to gender bias. Thomas is consistently the least sensitive member of the court to racial bias -- it's as if he's going out of his way to avoid any possible claim that he is favoring Blacks because of their race, and in so doing is actively discriminating against them himself.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Nice dodge, you can't even read it can you? Sheesh :(

In reply to: Re: If a post is pulled for objectionable content Dave ...

Collapse -
You should have cited page numbers Evie...

In reply to: (NT) Nice dodge, you can't even read it can you? Sheesh :(

That way he could have had an idea of how many of the 53 pages he would have to skim. (The dissent starts on page 36 of 53 Dave.)

Of course then he would be unaware of how much agreement there was between Thomas and the rest except for certain specific issues.

Not bothering to read allows him (and others of similar persuasion) to avoid facts and continue spouting nonsense claiming later that they never saw anything disproving their assertions.

They can'd seem to help it though.

Collapse -
She cited the page, Ed.

In reply to: You should have cited page numbers Evie...

You must have skimmed over that part.

Dan

Collapse -
She sure did...

In reply to: She cited the page, Ed.

and I was not as clear as I should have been (although my aside to Dave should have made it clear to you even) about the citation of page giving him an idea of how many pages he would need to skim.

You can't be faulted for skimming but comprehension is another story. hang in there.

Collapse -
I know you're just embarrassed you missed it, Ed.

In reply to: She sure did...

It's really OK.

Dan

Collapse -
I'm not but you should be for not...

In reply to: I know you're just embarrassed you missed it, Ed.

being able to comprehend the significance of the words " That way he could have had an idea of how many of the 53 pages".

Don't worry, we long ago realized that comprehension was not your long suit. Hang in there.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Ed, it's really OK to miss what you missed. No biggie.

In reply to: I'm not but you should be for not...

Collapse -
Re: can't even read it can you?

Evie, most important decisions are made based on executive summaries and skimming -- busy people don;t have time to read three pount legislative bills in the four hours before they have to vote on them. That's why occasionally you have the odd land-mine, such as the one about access to tax records that's currently got the omnibus budget bill on hold in the Oval Office. But you and Ed's new "read it all and discuss it in detail" dodge is nonsense -- it's just another smokescreen to hide unpleasant facts.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
speaking of smokescreens...

In reply to: Re: can't even read it can you?

yours is pretty dense.

Suggestions to read what you want to talk about are made with the understanding that you (or others) want to discuss the subject with a modicum of intelligence rather than bruised feelings and ignorance.

We realize certain people's proclivity to wax loquacious about subject matter they have not even a limited basic familiarity with such as you and court opinions or the military or Laws of war or so very many other things.

Without learning a wee bit about the subject matter one's remarks have the accuracy and knowledgability of a man describing the exact feelings experienced during childbirth or a woman discussing the pros and cons of beard growth.

By the way, most important decisions are based on the executive reports of the trusted and trained STAFF of the person making the decisions and the report is conjugated in such a manner as to key on the points the decision maker would not fail to ask about or investigate. Which members of your staff prepared your executive summary and are they any better versed in the subject matter than you are?

No one expects such a "busy" man as yourself (we know how much busier you are than any of the rest of us because you have told us just that) to actually read every word of reports or even links but skimming the first phrase of every 15th page isn't going to give you enough information to make even a remotely intelligent response, let alone decision. Worse than such skimming though is not even doing that much.

Collapse -
Still upset I see...

In reply to: Re: You are just upset...

And to the person who keeps complaining that my use of "Uncle Thomas" is racist -- Thomas is consistently called that by a majority of his own people. It's a term he fully deserves and has earned -- if he were to change his behavior, I wouldn't use the term for him. A racist term is one that is based soley on race, not on actions.

Your use IS racist Dave and you have yet to provide any evidence regarding this mithical "majority of his own people" (in itself a racist statement) let alone any implication of consistency it its use. YOU and other caucasian liberals and Bob Hebert are the only ones I recall consistently using the term in reference to one of your betters.

If a racist term is "based soley" on race it would readily appear that comments regarding n i gger rigging is not racist. ****** wouldn't be racist and neither would **** as the term referred to the little circle used in signing name rather than our more common X (other immigrants on Ellis Island also used the circle as they copied the Jewish immigrants in signing their John Henrts.

Face it Dave--you are simply a bigoted and prejudiced racist in denial.

I am bigoted and unafraid and unashamed to admit it.

Collapse -
More hopeful thinking.

In reply to: Re: You are just upset...

I love the way the left slides these things in as if everyone agrees with your vision of the future.

before the Senate goes back to the Dems in 2006

Did I miss something? Didn't the Republicans just gain some seats? Eleanor Clift loves this kind of reporting also. Report what you want to be true as in fact true.

Collapse -
Great post Dave, and an important issue

In reply to: Imagine a court even more conservative than SCOTUS :-(

Don't let the Bushies get you down.

How we can claim to have a system of justice when groups like the 5th Circuit exist is beyond me, let alone that it is the pool from which Bush likes to draw for higher appointments.

They say it's one of the two most conservative Appeals courts, I wonder what the other is?

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Important issue ...

In reply to: Great post Dave, and an important issue

... perhaps you care to discuss it?

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.