NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: ... perhaps the only thing? Only time will tell, but it seems that nominating John G. Roberts Jr. as Chief Justice may well be the most important positive change initiated by President Bush. Your thoughts?


In the Roberts Court, More Room for Argument (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/washington/03memo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: May 3, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 2 — This is the week that the Supreme Court, done with its regular argument sessions, enters the stretch run.

"The tone has changed," Prof. Richard J. Lazarus of the Georgetown University Law Center, where he runs the Supreme Court Institute and teaches a course on Supreme Court advocacy, said on Tuesday.

In common with every other Supreme Court specialist contacted for this article, Professor Lazarus listed several obvious changes. "They're not stepping on each other," he said of the justices. "They take longer before someone asks the first question. They give the lawyers more time to answer."

Beth S. Brinkmann, like Professor Lazarus a veteran of the solicitor general's office, who now represents private clients before the court, said of the new courtroom experience: "You sit there and think, 'Whoa, isn't anyone going to ask a question?' "

Carter G. Phillips, one of the most active current practitioners, said the change had been so abrupt as to be a trap for an unwary counsel. "You have to be ready now to make some kind of affirmative presentation" in the opening minutes of an argument, he said.

When former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court, he recalled, she asked the first question so quickly and so predictably that there was little point in preparing an elegant opening argument. "Now you might get three or four minutes" without interruption, he said.

The question, of course, is how to explain the change. Even assuming that Justice O'Connor's departure in January accounts for quieter opening moments, a different dynamic seems to prevail throughout entire arguments. With justices sitting back and allowing colleagues to ask follow-up questions, and with lawyers given an actual chance to answer, there is a new coherence and civility to the sessions.

Has Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself the veteran of 39 Supreme Court arguments as a lawyer, shared with his colleagues the perspective from the other side of the bench, or maybe even laid down some new rules?

The latter theory is unlikely; the court's ethos calls for signaling rather than rule-making. To the extent that the new chief justice is leading by example — and there is no doubt that he is in charge of the courtroom — he is offering a model of how to ask questions that are tightly phrased, penetrating and often the last thing a lawyer wants to hear.

"Maybe it's because he has so much experience arguing before the court, but he seems to be able to zero in on the weakest point in a case," said Prof. Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School, where she runs the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

Professor Karlan argued one case this term and sat in on others, noticing to her surprise that justices who inadvertently stepped on another justice's lines held back to allow the colleague to finish, rather than plowing ahead.

Some of the chief justice's questions are deceptively simple. "What is a tributary?" he asked the lawyers in a pair of Clean Water Act cases, seeking a definition that helped to frame the basis of federal jurisdiction. At other times he spins hypothetical questions, difficult to convey out of context; suffice it to say that the traps in these questions are obvious, but the way to avoid them is not.

The chief justice is a more active questioner than his predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and his style is quite different.

"Rehnquist told you what he thought," Mr. Phillips said. "He wasn't struggling to figure out the case. Roberts doesn't tip his hand as much. He asks hard questions of both sides without communicating his own preference."

As a result, Mr. Phillips said, the arguments have become less predictive of the eventual decisions. He said he had assumed that he won the chief justice's vote after arguing a case in January on the adequacy of the notice that the State of Arkansas gave to a man whose house it sold for unpaid taxes. The two letters the state sent were enough, Mr. Phillips argued, but Chief Justice Roberts disagreed and last week wrote the court's opinion holding that the state had violated the homeowner's constitutional right to due process.

In another distinction between the Roberts and Rehnquist styles, Chief Justice Roberts is reliably said to be presiding over the justices' private after-argument conferences with a lighter hand, not watching the clock as closely and permitting more conversation.

That might account for the changed tone of the arguments, Ms. Brinkmann speculated. "If you know you'll be able to make your point in conference, you don't have to make it on the bench," she said.

The court has scheduled one final argument for the term on May 18. It is a reargument of a police search case, Hudson v. Michigan, that was argued shortly before Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the court in January. It is safe to assume that without his participation, the court is split 4 to 4.

Despite the disruptions of the term, the court has stayed on track, both in the numbers of opinions issued and new cases accepted. Thirty-nine opinions have been issued so far, typical at this point, with 35 to go. Will most of these come in the familiar helter-skelter June rush, or does Chief Justice Roberts have a trick up his sleeve to make the end of the term as orderly as the rest of it?

Now that would really be something different.

My thoughts? I think you should post a cookie recipe.. but I doubt this will happen.

But.. Bush and "good" in the same sentence? Oh well..

*walks off*

COMMENTARY: ... perhaps the only thing?
I know I'll probably just get screamed at by all the college kids who seem to hang out here, but -

Why do you hate America? Can't you see you're just tearing th e country to pieces with all this hateful mudslinging and doubt, at a time when we're at War??

We have to rally our support, around our troops, and around our President.

God Bless America.

I know I'll probably just get screamed at by all the college kids who seem to hang out here, but -

Why do you hate America? Can't you see you're just tearing th e country to pieces with all this hateful mudslinging and doubt, at a time when we're at War??

We have to rally our support, around our troops, and around our President.

God Bless America.

It's because we hate freedom. We want to see western society come crumbling down and replace it with a tyranical, theocratic government. We want to see freedoms of speech and religion erased in their entirety and war become the mainstay of our national heritage. We want to destroy your right to privacy and enslave you to Oil Barons who rule through national wealth.

Maybe we should have just joined the Republican party, eh?

I know I'll probably just get screamed at by all the college kids who seem to hang out here, but -

Why do you hate America? Can't you see you're just tearing th e country to pieces with all this hateful mudslinging and doubt, at a time when we're at War??

We have to rally our support, around our troops, and around our President.

God Bless America.
:p

I know I'll probably just get screamed at by all the college kids who seem to hang out here, but -

Why do you hate America? Can't you see you're just tearing th e country to pieces with all this hateful mudslinging and doubt, at a time when we're at War??

We have to rally our support, around our troops, and around our President.

God Bless America.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh...dear god. You said...you...said Eutrusca hates the US!


I....I....I gotta sit down and breathe. Jesus son, look at his posts. Eutrusca hates the US about as much as Chavez loves it!

I know I'll probably just get screamed at by all the college kids who seem to hang out here, but -

Why do you hate America? Can't you see you're just tearing th e country to pieces with all this hateful mudslinging and doubt, at a time when we're at War??

We have to rally our support, around our troops, and around our President.

God Bless America.

Anyway, I think we went through this tripe. It is not unpatriotic or undemocratic to criticise the President during a war. All Presidents in a war have had it, and dealt with it. It is good, nay neccessary in a democracy for people to constantly question and demand answers, to ensure that we are not going to war for the wrong reasons. Hell, all political leaders go through this; why is Bush any different?

I know I'll probably just get screamed at <Snip>And I know I'll probably get screamed at, but why aren't you in a nice padded cell?

Anyway, I think we went through this tripe. It is not unpatriotic or undemocratic to criticise the President during a war. All Presidents in a war have had it, and dealt with it. It is good, nay neccessary in a democracy for people to constantly question and demand answers, to ensure that we are not going to war for the wrong reasons. Hell, all political leaders go through this; why is Bush any different?
Because it's not fair. He is doing a great job in protecting freedom and protecting ewessayans from Illegal Terrorist Immigrants.

Because it's not fair. He is doing a great job in protecting freedom and protecting ewessayans from Illegal Terrorist Immigrants.

Not the ITIs!

Because it's not fair. He is doing a great job in protecting freedom and protecting ewessayans from Illegal Terrorist Immigrants.
Protecting WHO?

Protecting WHO?
Consider yourself screamed at.

Consider yourself screamed at.
Around this liberal rat's nest, there's no chance of my NOT being screamed at.

Around this liberal rat's nest, there's no chance of my NOT being screamed at.

Rats can be liberal? What does one look like? Does it have a hippy cape and a bong? Perhaps burning a US flag?

Look bud, instead if slinging insults, you might get a better reputation if you answered the questions asked of you.

Rats can be liberal? What does one look like? Does it have a hippy cape and a bong? Perhaps burning a US flag?

Look bud, instead if slinging insults, you might get a better reputation if you answered the questions asked of you.

Please don't scare away the troll, it might be genuine and there are so few left:(

Please don't scare away the troll, it might be genuine and there are so few left:(

Awwww....

I can never have any fun these days...

Because it's not fair. He is doing a great job in protecting freedom and protecting ewessayans from Illegal Terrorist Immigrants.
Okay, seriously you guys-come up with something better. 'ian' off the initial is stupid, it's not done, it doesn't work and make you all look silly. I'm not going to quibble (see what I did there?) about the desire for the people in other countries in the Americas to be able to give the geographically challenged a fifty fifty chance of knowing what continent they're from by 'reclaiming' or whatever you want to call it of the term 'american,' but if you're going to have a stick up your ass about it have the decency to come up with something that actually works. USian doesn't.

Protecting WHO?

Freedom... You know, that balding middle aged guy who scrounges a meager living in his parent's basement dressed in only his underpants and a cheese-stained tank-top.

Awwww....

I can never have any fun these days...
By preserving the trolls, and maintaining a good, hardy stock, the fun will last longer. A limited resource you know. Should their number rise overwhelmingly, there will of course be a culling.

Freedom... You know, that balding middle aged guy who scrounges a meager living in his parent's basement dressed in only his underpants and a cheese-stained tank-top.
That didn't make any sense - unless this is some sort of confession??:confused:

That didn't make any sense - unless this is some sort of confession??:confused:

Tell me, do you deliberately ignore well-posed questions, or just ignore the ones you don't like answering?

Okay, seriously you guys-come up with something better. 'ian' off the initial is stupid, it's not done, it doesn't work and make you all look silly. I'm not going to quibble (see what I did there?) about the desire for the people in other countries in the Americas to be able to give the geographically challenged a fifty fifty chance of knowing what continent they're from by 'reclaiming' or whatever you want to call it of the term 'american,' but if you're going to have a stick up your ass about it have the decency to come up with something that actually works. USian doesn't.
What are you talking about? Please don't say USian, the elderly disapprove. Manners, you know?

By preserving the trolls, and maintaining a good, hardy stock, the fun will last longer. A limited resource you know. Should their number rise overwhelmingly, there will of course be a culling.

We can brand 'em!

What are you talking about? Please don't say USian, the elderly disapprove. Manners, you know?
I'm not rephrasing. One shot is all you get.

Tell me, do you deliberately ignore well-posed questions, or just ignore the ones you don't like answering?
What do you think, you foreign liberal?

Around this liberal rat's nest, there's no chance of my NOT being screamed at.

Quoted for great truth. Wherever you find a lot of human beings you will always find a few bakas and it can't be denied that our liberal friends are not immune to this. ^_~

That said, it would seem that the appointment of Roberts has been led to the improvement of the Court which leads me to suspect that there should probably have been more open-mindedness about the appointment of Myers as well.

What do you think, you foreign liberal?

Liberal? Moi? Centrist, actually, with left-wing tendencies. But, you see, that doesn't matter. By ignoring those posts that might actually disagree with your viewpoint or make you think, I've already won and shown you to be the troll you are.

Unless you'd like to actually answer the questions posed to you?

What do you think, you foreign liberal?

Well that was a particularly telling answer.

Well that was a particularly telling answer.

Succint, and got the point across.



Whatever the point was.

I'm not rephrasing. One shot is all you get.
:eek: ...and I missed it!

Liberal? Moi? Centrist, actually, with left-wing tendencies. But, you see, that doesn't matter. By ignoring those posts that might actually disagree with your viewpoint or make you think, I've already won and shown you to be the troll you are.

Unless you'd like to actually answer the questions posed to you?
As we all know, 'centrist' in any country other than the USA usually means you only have half your house decorated in posters of Che Geuvarra. And as far as 'winning' is concerned, show me how it is you've 'won' anything.

Succint, and got the point across.



Whatever the point was.

He's following the grand example of the President of the World (as long as the world is the nation right in between Canada and Mexico). Why would he need a point when empty rhetoric accomplished the same goals with so much less effort?

As we all know, 'centrist' in any country other than the USA usually means you only have half your house decorated in posters of Che Geuvarra. And as far as 'winning' is concerned, show me how it is you've 'won' anything.

Ahhhh, I see. Since I'm a liberal and centrist, I must worship at the altar of Che. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise...


As to the winning. I have posed several intelligent, reasomable questions on the need for democracy and questioning at the time of war. You have not responded, and continued to troll and post inflammatory remarks further on in several threads. Thus, thou art a troll.

sounds to me more like 'whining' than 'winning'.

Ahhhh, I see. Since I'm a liberal and centrist, I must worship at the altar of Che. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise...


As to the winning. I have posed several intelligent, reasomable questions on the need for democracy and questioning at the time of war. You have not responded, and continued to troll and post inflammatory remarks further on in several threads. Thus, thou art a troll.
:eek: OMG you've killed it!

sounds to me more like 'whining' than 'winning'.

*sigh* No, apparently this one's not a troll. He's just stupid. I had my hopes up and everything, too...

sounds to me more like 'whining' than 'winning'.

Listen up. Why not, and break a habit of some time here on NSG, answer one of the questions put to you, and not simply flame with empty rhetoric?

:eek: OMG you've killed it!

Don't worry, trolls have +1 extra lives per "Angry Liberal Rhetort". It won't die yet.

:eek: OMG you've killed it!

Trolls never die, They merely shed one skin and replace it with another...

*sigh* No, apparently this one's not a troll. He's just stupid. I had my hopes up and everything, too...
Can we keep it, then?

Okay smart stuff, go ahead and ask me a question, then.

Can we keep it, then?

You'll have to feed it twinkies and show it Paulie Shore movies on a constant basis. Are you willing to risk keeping Paulie Shore movies in here?

Okay smart stuff, go ahead and ask me a question, then.

If we cannot question the public policy of a leader, how can we insure that war policy is carried out in a way acceptable to the public?

Okay smart stuff, go ahead and ask me a question, then.

I refer to my earlier, slightly edited post:

It is not unpatriotic or undemocratic to criticise the President during a war. All Presidents in a war have had it, and dealt with it. It is good, nay neccessary in a democracy for people to constantly question and demand answers, to ensure that we are not going to war for the wrong reasons. Hell, all political leaders go through this; why is Bush any different?

Can we keep it, then?

You have to clean up after it's messes if we do. Do you really want to have to do that?

You have to clean up after it's messes if we do. Do you really want to have to do that?

I dunno about you, but my main concern would be the Paulie Shore movies. *shudders* What if I accidentally saw part of one?

I dunno about you, but my main concern would be the Paulie Shore movies. *shudders* What if I accidentally saw part of one?

*Points to shotgun enclosed in case marked 'In case of Paulie Shore movies, break glass'*

You have to clean up after it's messes if we do. Do you really want to have to do that?
erm, how long does it live?

*Points to shotgun enclosed in case marked 'In case of Paulie Shore movies, break glass'*

I once knew a guy who tried shooting a Paulie Shore movie with a sawed-off 12-gauge once... just made it mad... DAMN YOU PAULIE SHORE!!!

erm, how long does it live?

Trolls never die.

I refer to my earlier, slightly edited post:

It is not unpatriotic or undemocratic to criticise the President during a war. All Presidents in a war have had it, and dealt with it. It is good, nay neccessary in a democracy for people to constantly question and demand answers, to ensure that we are not going to war for the wrong reasons. Hell, all political leaders go through this; why is Bush any different?
Because we've never before faced an enemy this devious - and face it, according to scriptures we are in the Last Days, meaning: this is a Holy War, and we're damned if we don't stand united against Christianity's oldest and most deadly foe. Not that WE have declared a Holy War or Crusade, that's been decided for us by the terrorists and their leaders in Iran.

Happy now? Or are you going to start screaming at me some more?

Because we've never before faced an enemy this devious - and face it, according to scriptures we are in the Last Days, meaning: this is a Holy War, and we're damned if we don't stand united against Christianity's oldest and most deadly foe. Not that WE have declared a Holy War or Crusade, that's been decided for us by the terrorists and their leaders in Iran.

Happy now? Or are you going to start screaming at me some more?

I'm not sure where to begin really. Faced an enemy this devious? Devious how? By hitting the US once with a terrorist attack that although shocking, was hardly devestating. What about those who don't believe we are in the Last Days and that Islam is Christianity (Or anyone else's) oldest and deadliest foe? For those of us not practicing religon, or the more extreme versions of it, why should we not question your President? The US is still a democratic state, no? The freedom of speech is still enshrined in your country's values, I believe?

Because we've never before faced an enemy this devious - and face it, according to scriptures we are in the Last Days, meaning: this is a Holy War, and we're damned if we don't stand united against Christianity's oldest and most deadly foe. Not that WE have declared a Holy War or Crusade, that's been decided for us by the terrorists and their leaders in Iran.

Happy now? Or are you going to start screaming at me some more?

Islam, significantly younger than christianity is it's oldest foe?

Besides which, even if we were living in the last days, why would that excuse the President for violating his own scripture? Holy War isn't the place of a secular nation anyway.

All of that aside, that still doesn't explain why the public cannot criticise the President.

You're all just going to fiddle while Rome burns, aren't you?

Well, I think I've been exposed to as much liberal cringeing as I can take in one day, so take 'er easy.

Liberal? Moi? Centrist, actually, with left-wing tendencies. But, you see, that doesn't matter. By ignoring those posts that might actually disagree with your viewpoint or make you think, I've already won and shown you to be the troll you are.

Unless you'd like to actually answer the questions posed to you?

A true centrist does not have left wing or right wing "tendencies." A true centrists sticks to his guns and goes the reasonable "third way" path.

A true centrist does not have left wing or right wing "tendencies." A true centrists sticks to his guns and goes the reasonable "third way" path.
Would that be Giddens' third way you are referring to?

You're all just going to fiddle while Rome burns, aren't you?

Well, I think I've been exposed to as much liberal cringeing as I can take in one day, so take 'er easy.

Well, you know what they say...

If you can't stand the heat...

Because we've never before faced an enemy this devious - and face it, according to scriptures we are in the Last Days, meaning: this is a Holy War, and we're damned if we don't stand united against Christianity's oldest and most deadly foe. Not that WE have declared a Holy War or Crusade, that's been decided for us by the terrorists and their leaders in Iran.

Happy now? Or are you going to start screaming at me some more?

I am a Christian and I want to know where it says Islam is our enemy in any holy text. In fact, the two religions are awefully similar, Islam is just an "updated" version with some distorted beliefs added on to it.

P.S. Armageddon probably won't ever happen. I think the reason it was put in the Bible is so that people will be fore-warned and will learn to PREVENT it from happening. There's no way you can kill every human in the universe anyway.

You're all just going to fiddle while Rome burns, aren't you?

Well, I think I've been exposed to as much liberal cringeing as I can take in one day, so take 'er easy.
You're obviously afraid you will Turn.

I am a Christian and I want to know where it says Islam is our enemy in any holy text. In fact, the two religions are awefully similar, Islam is just an "updated" version with some distorted beliefs added on to it.
It sez so in teh bilble!

A true centrist does not have left wing or right wing "tendencies." A true centrists sticks to his guns and goes the reasonable "third way" path.

*Shrugs*

Anyway, why is Islam an evil enemy? Because a book says so? Mein Kampf days the jews are the enemy, but fortunately that nonsense got quashed some time ago. Also, who are you to say Islam's beliefs are distorted?

You're all just going to fiddle while Rome burns, aren't you?

Well, I think I've been exposed to as much liberal cringeing as I can take in one day, so take 'er easy.

Oh, I see. So, instead of responding to a well-reasoned argument, you choose to ignore it and attack with gross generalisations. I see; the evidence for you being a troll grows expotentially, doesn't it?

I just wish some christians would keep thier mouth shut about this being the last days. It shoudnt make a diffrence one way or another, If it is the last days so what? To me it just seems like a way to scare people into pews. When god comes he comes shoudlnt change the way you view the world just live by Gods laws and all will fall into place.

if anything you need to have a more practical reason then just ITS THE END LETS KILL EM. Thiers pleanty out thier that you can clearly beat anyone with. You aint gunna win a debate with preaching the end. Most of those groups die out after thier pradictions have started since oh 218 a.d.

*yawns*

Why do I always have a co-op board meeting to attend when trolls pass through, anyway? Silly trolls, threads are for people. People with more than two brain cells functioning.

*yawns*

Why do I always have a co-op board meeting to attend when trolls pass through, anyway? Silly trolls, threads are for people. People with more than two brain cells functioning.

Tried ta keep 'im in here boss, but the bugger left.

What are you talking about? Please don't say USian, the elderly disapprove. Manners, you know?
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Hey, Eut, you're a Centrist, right? How do you feel about this then:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10892436&postcount=31

?

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif (http://imageshack.us)
:D

Hey, Eut, you're a Centrist, right? How do you feel about this then:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10892436&postcount=31

?
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Would that be at me, or the poster I quoted?

Would that be at me, or the poster I quoted?
It does leave something to be desired, the single-emoticon response.

I'll refer Quibs to the same response I made to him in my new thread about Chavez (y'know, the one without the paranoid idiot).

He's on a break from his experiment in which he tries to re-write "the Tempest" along with his 999,999 friends.

Further:

Quibs. Do you ACTUALLY believe you can even come close to fathoming what GOD has planned, based on ONE BOOK? For crying out loud! I study in depth how this whole thing works, I'm an occultist, and I'm not that arrogant! I DO know, however, that NOBODY can tell what God intends. If there is only one, which, rest assured, there isn't. I do know what he does NOT intend: For people to live in fear and follow the first person that claims that God sent them.

My God, Quibs, you're either a troll or you're so stupid that I have to wonder how is it that you breathe. Thanks the gods I have you on ignore, lest I'd have to waste my eyes on reading your doubtlessly stupid and incoherent retort.