NationStates Jolt Archive

That was pretty quick - and it doesn't seem to have generated much of a splash yet, either.

The vote was 6-3. Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia dissenting.

http://www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4372397

Interesting how the new Bush appointee sided with the two most ardently conservative justices in the court. I guess when Alito's confirmed it'll be four ultra-conservative justices skewing the court's judgement.

I'd like to thank everyone who voted for W in 2004. You've made an American theocracy alot more likely.

Looks like a solid decision, from what I can garner from the article. Sounded like Ashcroft tried to stretch a law to fit a circumstance and it didn't quite fit. Another decision upheld from that wacky 9th Circuit.

Interesting how the new Bush appointee sided with the two most ardently conservative justices in the court. I guess when Alito's confirmed it'll be four ultra-conservative justices skewing the court's judgement.

I'd like to thank everyone who voted for W in 2004. You've made an American theocracy alot more likely.
Well, you can always call your Senators and tell them to vote no on Alito and sustain a filibuster if necessary. I have.

Looks like a solid decision, from what I can garner from the article. Sounded like Ashcroft tried to stretch a law to fit a circumstance and it didn't quite fit. Another decision upheld from that wacky 9th Circuit.
The most overturned circuit in the nation?

The most overturned circuit in the nation?
I knew you'd fall for the bait. (http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/chartCA.jsp?id=1088439698783)

The Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate through the years

ALL CIRCUITS NINTH CIRCUIT
Terms Reversal Rate Total Cases Affirmed Reversed Reversal
Rate
2003-2004 77% 25 6 19 76%
2002-2003 73% 24 6 18 75%
2001-2002 75% 17 4 13 76%
2000-2001 63% 17 5 12 71%
1999-2000 58% 10 1 9 90%
1998-1999 70% 18 4 14 78%
1997-1998 59% 17 4 13 76%
1996-1997 71% 21 1 20 95%
1995-1996 60% 12 2 10 83%
1994-1995 65% 17 3 14 82%
1993-1994 50% 15 4 11 73%
1992-1993 60% 24 9 15 63%
Sources: Clerk of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court

Well, you can always call your Senators and tell them to vote no on Alito and sustain a filibuster if necessary. I have.
Good idea.

If anyone else wants to fire off a brief message to their senators here's a link.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I knew you'd fall for the bait. (http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/chartCA.jsp?id=1088439698783)
Looks like 1999 was a good year for reversals for the Ninth then.

I would expect a court to match the average within one or two percent. Getting a skewed year like 1999 is manifest bias that is out of touch with reality.

Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia dissenting.

damn activist judges

One year with a 95 percent reversal rate, another year with 90 percent. Several with over 80.

While the rest of the courts are 10 to 20 percent lower.

I knew exactly who was dissenting when I saw the way the ruling went and it was 6-3. Has Thomas ever voted anyway but pro-Republican?

One year with a 95 percent reversal rate, another year with 90 percent. Several with over 80.

While the rest of the courts are 10 to 20 percent lower.

So what's your point in regards to this specific case? The court was upheld, no?

I knew exactly who was dissenting when I saw the way the ruling went and it was 6-3. Has Thomas ever voted anyway but pro-Republican?

and has scalia ever been in favor of 'states rights' when they aren't being used for evil?

Has there been any talk of shutting down the 9th circuit?
When a court is reversed that often, then the relevance of the court falls into question.

That is awesome... every state should have that law.

That is awesome... every state should have that law.

Indeed.

But, instead, we have an administration full of people opposed to laws like this, while having no problem with laws that allow this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/14/151930/63

So, basically, the administration's position is that terminally ill patients who want to die with dignity at a time of their choosing cannot, but those who want to stay alive long enough to see family members one last time can be forcefully removed from life support, so long as the hospital gives them ten days prior notice (and they aren't rich, white people).

Indeed.

But, instead, we have an administration full of people opposed to laws like this, while having no problem with laws that allow this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/14/151930/63

So, basically, the administration's position is that terminally ill patients who want to die with dignity at a time of their choosing cannot, but those who want to stay alive long enough to see family members one last time can be forcefully removed from life support, so long as the hospital gives them ten days prior notice (and they aren't rich, white people).

Sometimes I wonder if the rich and powerful in charge are just bored and do these hypocritical or just plain insane things to see how much they can get away with.

Sometimes I wonder if the rich and powerful in charge are just bored and do these hypocritical or just plain insane things to see how much they can get away with.

It's possible. I think it all comes down to the bottom line though. Politically, the Bush administration needed to oppose the Oregon law to pander to the "religious right". But, from an economic point of view (and thus a political one as well), hospitals, etc. don't want to keep supporting poor people who can't pay and are only going to live a little while. These people aren't worried about life or about the citizens - they're worried about how much money or political capital a certain move gains them. Which means that, at its core, it isn't hypocritical - the base motivation is always exactly the same. It is simply the window dressing they put on it that is hypocritical.

I'm really surprised that the three conservative judges were not more supportive of states' rights.

I'm really surprised that the three conservative judges were not more supportive of states' rights.
States' rights only apply when they're doing something that pleases the Republican's base. Stuff like stopping abortion, cutting social programs and putting Jesus (tm) in the schools is OK. Legalizing medical marijuana, allowing terminally ill people to choose whether to live or die, and allowing people to look at porn don't count towards states' rights.

I'm really surprised that the three conservative judges were not more supportive of states' rights.

Maybe when they talk about "states' rights", they really mean, "states' rights to do something I agree with"?

Edit: In other words, what DCD said, hehe.