Forum: n-Track Studio Discussion Forum
Topic: High Court Clarifies Racial Bias Standard
started by: Mr Soul

Posted by Mr Soul on Jun. 14 2005, 7:26 PM
< http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/wire/sns-ap-scotus-jury-selection,1,938459.story?coll=sns-ap-scotus-headlines >.

What's up with this guy Clarence Thomas.  He was the lone dissenter in this racial bias case.  Event Rehnquist and Scalia didn't join him (although they did in the Texas death penalty case - < http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11886345.htm >)

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 14 2005, 7:37 PM
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said a state has "broad discretion to craft its own rules of criminal procedure."


Sounds good enough to me. Why get the Feds involved?

TG

Posted by Mr Soul on Jun. 14 2005, 7:42 PM
Thank God that you're not on the SC too!!!  :laugh:
Posted by TomS on Jun. 14 2005, 8:11 PM
Quote (gtr4him @ June 14 2005,12:37)
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said a state has "broad discretion to craft its own rules of criminal procedure."


Sounds good enough to me. Why get the Feds involved?

TG
Thomas' opinion is a bit of gesturing, a bit of empty rhetoric.  It sounds good, but like most of his opinions, that's about all it does.  Define "broad discretion."  I would bet that everyone on the court would agree with that sentence.  :)

What's up with Thomas?  What's always been up with him?  He's a sell out.

Posted by Mr Soul on Jun. 14 2005, 9:11 PM
What's up with Thomas?  What's always been up with him?  He's a sell out.
He's either paid off or he has some axe to grind with some other African-Americans or something?

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 14 2005, 10:02 PM
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2005,12:42)
Thank God that you're not on the SC too!!!  :laugh:

You should be even MORE thankful that I am not the President!!

Seriously... how much power do you want the Federal Government to HAVE over our state governments? Do you think we should abolish state government and just have The Senate, House and Supreme Court RULE EVERYTHING?

I thought you guys were "liberals"? I'm confused........

TG

Posted by John on Jun. 14 2005, 10:49 PM
Quote (gtr4him @ June 14 2005,15:02)
I thought you guys were "liberals"? I'm confused........

Typically, the "Liberal" is for larger government - more regulations, more control, higher taxes, more social programs etc... While the "Conservative" is supposed to be for less government interference - free market, lower taxes to pay for fewer social programs, etc...

I'm sure we'll now be treated to somone's diatribe about how Bush is really expanding the government, or whatever... Please save your breath, I said "Typically".
:p

Posted by Mr Soul on Jun. 14 2005, 10:57 PM
Seriously... how much power do you want the Federal Government to HAVE over our state governments?
Just enough to protect our constitution.

Do you think we should abolish state government and just have The Senate, House and Supreme Court RULE EVERYTHING?
No but having all these governments does make things inefficient IMO.

Typically, the "Liberal" is for larger government - more regulations, more control, higher taxes, more social programs etc... While the "Conservative" is supposed to be for less government interference - free market, lower taxes to pay for fewer social programs, etc...
These stereotypes are old as the hill.

I'm sure we'll now be treated to somone's diatribe about how Bush is really expanding the government, or whatever...
Get a life John  :laugh:

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 14 2005, 11:10 PM
Ah. I understand now. Bush - bigger government... bigger government - liberal. So... Bush is a liberal! Hey Mike! We won Dubya over for you! He's on your side now!! BAWAHAHA!!.... Nope. I'm still confused. :(

TG -- Possibly joining phoo, John and Isaac as a Libertarian?

EDIT: Mike, you beat me to the punch......

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 14 2005, 11:13 PM
No but having all these governments does make things inefficient IMO.


I'll buy that. I think we should scrap the Federal Government instead of the State Governments though.

TG

Posted by TomS on Jun. 14 2005, 11:22 PM
Lessee, there's liberal in the classical sense, which is conservative, there's liberal in the sense that the repubs want to make it a swear word, there's liberal in the Canadian sense....


Anyway, I don't think the case presents a liberal/conservative problem. It involves rather directly an equal protection problem.  The evidence was that the jury selection was thoroughly racist.  One dissenter, on a conservative court: Thomas.  His name is most unfortunate, for it is very easy for those critical of him to call him "uncle Tom."  

BTW, if I had to define liberal it would include something to the effect that I recognize positive obligations to help each other, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to use the unique and unprecedented power of the whole to work for human conditions for all.  The definition would also include somethign to the effect that transfer payments are necessary to achieve this.  I would assert an equal right of all to basic education (right now, through a bachelors degree), adequate health care, adequate housing, food, and the basic conditions necessary for human flourishing.  That is, I'd assert the basic rights found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  

And, no, Bush does not fit this definition.

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 14 2005, 11:50 PM
That all sounds great Tom. Let me know when you find somebody who does fit that description. I can ASSURE you, he/she WILL NOT be a politician in The United States of America. Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

TG

Posted by phoo on Jun. 15 2005, 12:13 AM
One thing to remember is that Thomas wasn't disagreeing with the evidence that it was racist. He was saying the federal government shouldn't be getting into states' issues. Historically, that has been a true Republican stance as part of a smaller government. It's also the same reason he cast his vote to let the states' pot laws stand. That decision was a bit of an odd one, too, if you put it into context with the way Republicans and Democrats generally sway. (OH - THE IRONY OF POLITICS)
Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 15 2005, 12:16 AM
He was saying the federal government shouldn't be getting into states' issues.

And he's RIGHT!

TG

Posted by Ali_T on Jun. 15 2005, 12:23 AM
Lessee, there's liberal in the classical sense, which is conservative, there's liberal in the sense that the repubs want to make it a swear word, there's liberal in the Canadian sense....


You forgot the Scottish sense Tom, "a liberal amount of whisky in a glass!"  :D

Ali

Posted by Mr Soul on Jun. 15 2005, 12:33 AM
Historically, that has been a true Republican stance as part of a smaller government.
That depends on how far you go back.  Before the Civil War, there was a group of Republicans called the Radical Republican (fancy that).  They were typically from northern states.  Lincoln, the most famous RR, ended slavery.  They believed in promoting industrial development through high tariffs, while their popular base lay among the freedmen and the white, Protestant population of the northern states.  This led to tension.

President Theodore Roosevelt who identified the Republicans with the cause of progressivism—in particular the idea of a vigorous executive regulating the economy and society in the public interest.

It wasn't till later that they went back to their laissez-faire capitalistic ways.  This is a great simplication of history but you get the drift.

Posted by TomS on Jun. 15 2005, 12:56 AM
Quote (gtr4him @ June 14 2005,17:16)
He was saying the federal government shouldn't be getting into states' issues.


And he's RIGHT!

TG
Equal protection is not a states rights issue, it is at the core of the Civil War amendments.

Hey, Ali, how are things hanging?  I always thought that a liberal amount of whisky in the jar was a blessing we owed to the Irish.  :)

Posted by gtr4him on Jun. 15 2005, 1:01 AM
I'm not arguing that Tom. Equal protection is actually a common decency issue IMO. I think what Justice Thomas was saying was that in his opinion, the state had acceptable controls in place. He did not say whether they worked or not.

We can't ALL be Chiefs.

TG -- happy little Indian

Posted by John on Jun. 15 2005, 2:27 AM
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2005,15:57)
I'm sure we'll now be treated to somone's diatribe about how Bush is really expanding the government, or whatever...

Get a life John  :laugh:
Hello Pot, I'd like you to meet The Kettle.
:;):

Posted by Ali_T on Jun. 15 2005, 4:48 AM
Hey, Ali, how are things hanging?  I always thought that a liberal amount of whisky in the jar was a blessing we owed to the Irish.  


Well, now that we're talking about important stuff again............. :D

The first definite written records of whisky production come from Scotland in the 15th century, but there's lots of anecdotal and other evidence that suggest the Irish did make it first, so the balance of evidence suggests you're right.

However, as wonderful poets, musicians and philosophers as the Irish are, they've never shown much inclination for engineering, so one wonders where they got it from.

The vikings made winter ale by freeze distillation back in the 8th century, and possibly earlier.

The Chinese were distilling sake long before then, so how it actually arrived in the British Isles, who knows?

But whoever it was; here's to them! Slainte!   :cool:

Ali

Powered by ikonforums 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonforums