Comments on: Chemerinsky on the Supreme Court

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:38:29 +0000

dc user,

If we are naming names, I have a Centaur from Massachusetts I would like not to have carried for the last 45.

Must we toss about gratuitous political comments?

By: James Trainor

James Trainor — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:11:13 +0000

Deoxy, the President’s primary job is to run the country, not to make other nations happy.

By: dc user

dc user — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:58:17 +0000

Now you know how I feel about having paid Karl Rove’s salary for the past 6 years.

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:26:03 +0000

Am I to understand that Mr. Nuesslein’s emphatic disagreement with several SCOTUS decisions makes those decisions conservative?

Maybe he just wasn’t addressing the content of this blog entry…

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:06:23 +0000

William Nuesslein,

On your last point… anybody in the world but an American, you mean. And no, I have absolutely no problem with that.

The President’s PRIMARY job is foreign policy/foreign relations. Dealing for foreign countries and their citizens is his primary job function. If he thinks it’s worth ticking off some country to hold their citizen of interest, well, that’s his prerogative.

Of course, I may well disagree, and if it’s abused, I may well vote against him in the next election, or even support his impeachment, but the point of the Presidency is that HE is the one exercising that judgement in real time, not committees or groups.

Looking over his actions and holding him accountable for them AFTER the fact is for committees and groups.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:53:50 +0000

I agreed with the school cases. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Breyer is perfectly willing to have a 5-4 decision overturn centuries of precedent--as I've asked elsewhere, "why is the 5-4 narrowing of the appalling four-year-old McConnell decision more problematic than McConnell's 5-4 overruling of the two-century-old First Amendment?" OT 2006 did not have any Guantanamo decisions, so I'm not sure what relevance problematic Guantanamo decisions have to a discussion of an article about OT 2006.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:36:35 +0000

I like Erwin Chemerinsky and Ted Frank, and I was disappointed by the tone of this blog entry.

Chief Justice Robert’s goal was to reduce the number of 5-4 decisions from the court. Boy did he miss that one! Justice Breyer has compelling statistics about the radical nature of the current court. Chief Justice Robert’s decision in the school cases left me agape. On paper the Chief Justice is a brilliant guy, but that decision showed stunning ignorance, as would any defense of Williams having a valid claim against tobacco companies.

Right now the President of the United States or his designee can pick up anybody in the world and imprison him indefinitely in Guantanamo. Surely the three of us can agree that that is wrong.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:23:45 +0000

Lordy. I’d have thought that when he left California, the California Bar would have stopped pretending there was any justification for running his tripe. Guess I thought wrong.

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:45:40 +0000

As a recipient of three bars’ slick, dues-financed publications, I would register the same protest. They’re usually carriers of some liberal nonsense that’s always presented as a moderate, authoritative take. On the issues of importance to this blog, for instance, you might see an article on tort reform that’s far from balanced. But who’s got time for that compelled speech lawsuit against the bar?