Weirdest of all, the vast majority of Trump supporters are working class and cheer at her nomination. — praxis

Do you believe that those whose economic position would improve under a Marxist system are logically compelled to believe in the virtue of Marxism? It seems people on both sides are more ideological than that and not entirely concerned about how a particular policy might or might not work to their immediate financial advantage. If that weren't the case, every rich person would be logically compelled to believe in the virtue of laissez-faire capitalism, yet they don't.

Question: if RBG knew she could affect the make up of the court by retiring earlier, why didn't she? Was it because she didn't want to play politics? The notion that it was because of arrogance makes no sense. — frank

The reason she provided suggests that she didn't believe a Republican Senate would have approved someone as liberal as she was, so she felt she was protecting a liberal seat. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-why-she-didnt-retire-during-obamas-term-2019-09-19

I think she hoped to make it to a Democratic President and Senate, or, maybe, she just loved going to work every day.

"Just weeks before President Donald Trump reportedly selected her to fill the new Supreme Court vacancy, Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered a ruling that could help corporations evade long-standing laws requiring them to provide overtime pay to their workers.

That ruling was one of a number of cases in which Barrett helped corporate interests prevail over workers. Her highest-profile business-focused actions on the federal bench have limited the enforcement of age-discrimination laws, restricted federal agencies’ power to punish companies that mislead consumers, and reduced consumers’ rights against predatory debt collectors, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice."

A corporate rat. — StreetlightX

And herein lies the problem. You've not presented any argument that her ruling was legally wrong. Assuming the assessment of the Alliance for Justice (an openly liberal organization) is completely accurate, it might well be the case that the law in question was written by Congress to allow corporate interests to prevail over workers, which would mean your ire ought be directed at Congress instead of the judge who accurately interpreted the law.

And now let's assume you take me up on my challenge, and actually go back to her written opinion and cite from points of her legal analysis you find so flawed that no reasonable judge could so rule, how could I ever take that seriously without thinking you're now just trying to justify your previously stated knee jerk disdain for corporations? That is to say, you seem results oriented, less concerned about the legal analysis than in whether your political ideology is advanced. Is that how nominees are to be judged, as to whether their rulings help those you wish to help, instead of whether they are legally accurate?

Prosecutorial judgment' in high profile politically explosive cases are not only based on how likely it is to secure a conviction - that, of course, is major consideration - but also whether more social disorder, or undermining of local authorities, might be caused by indicting (and proceeding to trial) than by not indicting at all (or appropriately (e.g. "wanton — 180 Proof

But see below: the ABA code of ethics for prosecutors:

"Standard 3-4.6 Quality and Scope of Evidence Before a Grand Jury
(a) A prosecutor should not seek an indictment unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the charges are supported by probable cause and that there will be admissible evidence sufficient to support the charges beyond reasonable doubt at trial. A prosecutor should advise a grand jury of the prosecutor’s opinion that it should not indict if the prosecutor believes the evidence presented does not warrant an indictment."

And see:

"Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/

Trials are for verdicts, not for crowd control.

and thereby know just enough about the American Injustice System /quote]
— 180 Proof

Why are you, my Dutch friend, like too many of my fellow Americans, refusing to accept this fact of Black (Brown Red & Poor) American life? :chin: — 180 Proof

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the grand jury is to afford the accused protections against meritless prosecution, and the injustice stemming from it being a rubber stamp is that indictments might be issued that ought not be, not that prosecutors might use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases they're afraid to dismiss under their own signature.

The question I ask you is whether you would push for an indictment in this case.

I'd think your answer would depend upon whether you think you have a chance of obtaining a conviction, which would require a thorough evaluation of the facts and law and knowledge of your jurisdiction. Whether this case involves the tragic loss of innocent life and implicates the justice system as racist notwithstanding, if your indictment amounts to nothing more than a dog and pony show for a demanding public, what exactly have you accomplished with a well tried acquittal? I remain unconvinced this is a winnable case even should I be able to walk in your very shoes with all your experience and years of frustration at seeing those closest to you treated as less, but neither you nor I can ignore the pragmatic reality that this case might be unwinnable as a homicide.

In other news, will the revolution begin with a bang but end with a whimper. https://news.yahoo.com/pledge-dismantle-minneapolis-police-collapsed-155801253.html

That's actually wrong. They're definitely not instructed by a prosecutor. The prosecuter decides what subjects the grand jury investigates and drafts the indictment and interrogates witnesses. The grand jury can subpoena evidence and persons (and reach presentments). There's an obligation on the prosecutor to present evidence substantially negating guilt as well. The grand jury is advised on the law by the court. — Benkei

In practice, the Grand Jury does whatever the prosecutor asks them to do. It's pretty much a rubber stamp. They offer political cover in instances where the prosecutor doesn't want to dismiss a case under his own name. They do not provide a reasonable protection against unjust indictments.

think we all feel relatively certain there's been a lot of lying surrounding the knock and announcement. Hanover what happens with his testimony if he'd be flipped to denying the knock and announce again? Is it then an untrustworthy witness or can you surpress all his statements and get them thrown out as evidence? — Benkei

Interesting questions because they point to what appears to be significant differences in Dutch vs American law.

Witness testimony, and evidence generally, that benefits the accused is almost never suppressed. I say "almost" because there might be cases of absurd scientific testimony or the like that can be excluded, but the general rule in civil and criminal matters is that the fact finder (typically the jury) makes all determinations of credibility. The jury gets to determine what weight to give to any witnesses testimony. If a judge comments on the witnesses truthfulness in the jury's presence, that would be grounds for a mistrial. Trustworthiness is a jury question.

There's no room to hide in this except in irrelevant and gratuitous generalities. Which is just to say there is no room to hide in this. — tim wood

You seem to be taking the position that the police would have been unjustified if the warrant were based upon fully valid facts, the occupants of the home posed a risk to public safety, and an occupant openly tried to kill the officer trying to serve the warrant.

you'll notice that my citation of the publicly reported facts are in order, counselor. — 180 Proof

Indeed. I stand corrected. But keeping the facts straight is difficult, which makes these issues complicated because conclusions can depend upon subtle distinctions.

With a burden as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt" advantage weighs heavily to the accused where there is confusion.

What would you say might be the responsibility of the police, then? Do they have any? How about not to kill anyone unless they had to? — tim wood

The article above lays out the facts. The officers were serving a warrant issued by a judge. They knocked. An occupant in the home fired a shot through the closed door and hit an officer in the leg. The door was knocked down and the officers fired back. Their purpose was in self defense and in an effort to serve the warrant, which they were obligated to do under order of the judge.

I would presume forensics could determine if the shot fired was through the door while closed, which should lay to rest concerns the occupants didn't know the officers were outside the locked door prior to entry, which can only be explained if the officers had knocked.

Yes. I didn't focus enough on this discrepancy. — 180 Proof

Keeping the facts straight... The warrant issued by the judge at the request of other officers was a no knock warrant. That means the officers executing the warrant were not personally familiar with the facts underlying the warrant, were not responsible for the validity of the information in obtaining it, and we're under no legal requirement to announce their presence prior to serving it. .https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/.

Since this incident, that police department has banned no knock warrants. But the facts as we have them are that a no knock warrant was issued, the officers claim they announced anyway, and a grand jury, that actually heard from the witnesses, concluded the officers did announce.

Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not. — StreetlightX

Who are you charging with this crime, the officers or those who sent them into the house?

This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood

I've not delved that deeply into the facts, so I'm not ready to arrive at a judgment, but if the facts show that these officers were provided a search warrant to execute and they followed the law in an effort to perform their job, and the occupants were truly confused as to who was entering the home and that resulted in a shoot out, it's very difficult for me to find any malicious intent on the part of anyone, and I don't even see any negligence in that situation.

Are you familiar enough with the facts to aver that process-in-principle conforms here to process-in-fact? You're satisfied no crime was committed? None? Against the argument that who shot who cannot be determined, I submit it was a criminally negligent enterprise and that criminal guilt inheres in all participants.

They, the police, are constrained by a prior responsibility to get it right. Everyone and anyone can make mistakes, but this was no mere mistake, not a slip twixt lip and brim. This was incompetence layered on incompetence. When does malpractice become criminal? When it could, should, and does know better. — tim wood

I really don't see where I've argued any of that. All I said was that the prosecutor made the correct decision if his judgment was not to seek charges that could not be proven at trial. I'm sure there are many like you who'd convict, but I trust the prosecutor to know his jurisdiction and the law that's going to be charged. I'm reminded of the forced prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case due to public outcry over the local prosecutor's initial decision not to prosecute. What did the trial and acquittal get us?

If what happened was that the police were at the home legally via a warrant and the occupants were in the home legally because that's where they resided, then both had the right to protect their right to be there. Neither were at fault. I'd say the same thing if the police officer had been killed. It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.

The prosecutor apparently chose to make the case for the police who killed Breonna Taylor as if he was their defense attorney rather than the attorney for the public which includes Ms. Taylor. :shade: — 180 Proof

Since it is the prosecutor alone who presents matters to grand juries, it takes very little to obtain an indictment or to have the case dismissed (no billed). The real question isn't whether the prosecutor could have gotten indictments on every charge had he wanted, but whether he could have ultimately obtained convictions on them. It is ethically improper to use the courtrooms as theatre to appease the masses, and ultimately all that would have happened is that today's riots would have been postponed for tomorrow's acquittal. I can't blame a prosecutor for dismissing a case he knows he's going to lose, and I can't excuse a prosecutor for prosecuting someone he knows he can't convict just because he wants to makes the citizens clamoring for a trial happy.

onsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.

The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. No, Benkei, I think your interpretation of "the facts" misses the forest for the trees.

Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof

This isn't correct.

Facts that are discovered in a civil suit can be used in a criminal suit, but a "finding" cannot, at least to the extent you're using that term to mean an official determination by the jury. That is to say, the fact that a prior jury reached a particular result cannot be used in a subsequent legal proceeding to prove that fact. Juries don't bind one another and their prior finding cannot be used to sway a second jury.

The reason that it might make sense to settle a civil wrongful death suit but not prosecute the same matter in the criminal context is because civil cases have a much lower burden of proof than criminal ones. The fact that I might be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (>50% likelihood) the officers acted improperly doesn't mean I can prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt (~99% likely).

Civil cases are often delayed until after the criminal case for a number of reasons. A major reason is because those charged with crimes have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, which means they have the right to refuse to answer any question posed of them about anything related to the crime. Once the criminal matter is dispensed with, the person may speak freely without fear that what he says will be used against him and land him in jail. Another reason they are delayed is that the prosecutor is not required to provide anything from his file pursuant to an opens records request while there is a pending investigation. Once that is cleared, all that information can be shared.

Civil suits are settled all the time for reasons unrelated to whether there is a belief that a jury will award a higher amount (or any amount) if the case is tried. Corporations (and likely cities and police departments as well) are worried about PR as much as anything else.

This is simply ahistorical and conceptionally unjustified. Read Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind. — Maw

It's simply correct, despite what Robins wants to say.

Shrug. — Banno

Answer this specific question:

If Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution creates the power for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress, why isn't it mentioned anywhere in Marbury v. Madison?

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Art. 3 sec. 2. — tim wood

Yes, thanks for this cite, which clarifies my confusion about why the Court is in most events an appellate court. These are the "exceptions" referenced when the Court can have original jurisdiction:
https://www.thoughtco.com/original-jurisdiction-of-us-supreme-court-4114269.

This does not, in the event someone might suggest otherwise, have any bearing on whether the Court is a constitutional one or not, but again speaks to the question of how and when it obtains jurisdiction.

Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
— Reporter

We're gonna have to see what happens." — Pfhorrest

Conservatives are at their heart believers in law and order. I understand the left's position that the right's concept of law and order amounts to suppression of certain groups, but the point remains that a conservative is committed to protecting the status quo and the existing institutions. For that reason, the fear that there will be a conservative rebellion in any literal sense is unfounded. Those criticisms are better levied against the left and is evidenced by the fact that is the left that speaks of radical rule change (elimination of the electoral college, increasing the size of the Supreme Court, and defunding the police) and who literally takes to the streets with riots, looting, and violence.

The right is not collecting their guns and building their fences in preparation of an offensive attack, but they are holing up in anticipation of defending themselves from the zombie apocalypse they fear will make it out to the suburbs and countryside where they reside.

Agreed. ( :yikes: ) — 180 Proof

This tactic of yours in agreeing with me has become very effective at limiting my rants. :wink:

For likely the past 5 years or more, a dying geriatric woman of doubtful intellectual competence clung to a job as a placeholder for a political ideology, even supposedly admitting as much, despite her position having demanded political neutrality. That she saw it a laudable objective for her to shape the ideology of the future court and not leave such politics to the politicians is evidence of unfitness.

So, to those outraged by today's politicians contradicting their words of yesterday, at least respect their adherence to protecting their political interests, because they are, unlike Justices, after all, politicians.

:down:

would be entirely consistent With the US Constitution for it to contain a contradiction? Ok. — Banno

While I'm sure you enjoy making these quips, you remain entirely incorrect in your understanding of the Constitutional provision you cite. Your avoidance of the fact that you rely upon a constitutional provision to support the holding of Marbury that Marbury itself doesn't reference is disingenuous.

To the extent that you wish to present a novel thesis that the provision you cite logically necessitates that the Supreme Court be a constitutional court, you'll need some sort of real analysis of it, not just a mindless repetition of what it says followed by a refusal to respond to the obvious criticism that you've cited to an inapplicable rule related to subject matter jurisdiction.

Black and white. — Banno

That's non- responsive. You're not quoting Marbury. You're quoting the Constitution.

This really isn't a philosophical question. It's entirely answerable whether Marbury relied upon the provision you reference. It didn't. You're confusing subject matter jurisdiction with the hierarchy of laws.

It would be entirely consistent with the US Constitution for it to contain the provision you reference and for it to also contain a clause stating, "No act of Congress shall be declared void on the basis that it conflicts with this Constitution."

None of which undermines this:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." — Banno

My point stands, which is that the provision you cite has nothing to do with the Court's ability to strike down laws as unconstitutional. If that provision were controlling of the issue, you'd think it might appear in the Marbury v. Madison case, the very case that announced the authority of the Court. It's not in there because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It's open to considerable interpretation, but I think if you're going to assert God's omniscience, then when he says that you will one day eat from the tree, then you will.

The Eden story is central to Christianity because it asserts original sin, which then proclaims everyone born a sinner, which then requires Jesus to cleanse you of that sin. Alternate interpretations of the original sin account result in problems for Christianity, at least for those who consider that story foundational for their belief system.

When God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2: 17), He respectfully positioned human freedom as the sole parameter of discernment between good and evil, not mattering that actually eating the fruit of the said tree would contain some kind of cosmic revelation. — bcccampello

I don't read it that way. It states: "And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

It doesn't say "if" you eat from the tree, you'll die. It says the day you do, you will die. That sounds like a when not an if. I don't see this implicating free choice or even sin. God was just telling Adam that when he eats that apple, that's going to make him mortal. Sounds like from the wording that God knew what Adam was going to do, which makes sense, because God is posited as the knower of everything. Had it said "If you do X, then Y will follow," then that sounds like free will and a being with divine power beyond the knowledge of God. It doesn't say that though.

Hence, if a case is brought forward that asks if a given statute is constitutional, it falls under the remit of the Supreme Court. — Banno

Prior to getting into the nuts and bolts of American law, I'd first point out that I don't challenge the holding of Marbury, nor does any contemporary Justice, even the most staunchly conservative. It's well established (since 1803) that the Supreme Court has the power it does, and I find systems like exist in the Netherlands to be confusing in that they declare fundamental principles, enshrine those principles in a document, and then refuse to give their courts the teeth to enforce them. I must assume that the Dutch respect for culture and government is dramatically different than what exists in the US, with the Dutch legislatures offering great deference towards their foundational principles and having a desire to hold true to their stated ideals. The American way, on the other hand, is to have the respective sides fight for every inch and for the Court to deliver a sledge hammer every now and then when someone oversteps his bounds.

The only value I see in trotting out these ancient debates is to remind ourselves that arguments related to judicial power and judicial restraint are not new, but are challenges inherent under the US system.

Now to the nuts and bolts. I don't view the provision you cited from the Constitution as authority that the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Court. I view it as a declaration of general subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, meaning the Court is unlimited in the sorts of cases it can hear. The reason, for example, that I cannot obtain a divorce in the City of Atlanta traffic court is because that court is one of limited jurisdiction, having authority only to consider traffic law violations within the boundaries of the City of Atlanta. The Superior Court of Fulton County, however, is one of general jurisdiction, and it can hear any and all cases from divorce, murder, civil trials, and traffic tickets within the confines of Fulton County, even though many of those are delegated to courts of more limited jurisdiction. The fact that the Superior Court does not hold traffic court does not mean that it lacks the authority to; it just means it has delegated those duties to other courts. So, as a hypothetical, which I've never really thought about before, based upon the Constitutional provision you cited, I suppose the US Supreme Court could hold a jury trial trial as to the question of whether you properly paid your parking fee when visiting Yosemite National Park had it not delegated that power elsewhere. That is to say, it has subject matter jurisdiction as to all matters.

In any court, however, the question of what the law is remains before the court. If the City of Atlanta traffic code sets a speed limit in violation of state or federal law, the city traffic judge must consider those laws. She cannot say that she limits her considerations to city ordinances, but she must consider the hierarchy of all laws and determine which controls. That means as well that if she believes a traffic law violates the US Constitution, she must strike the law down. Her determination of what law controls is not a question of what sorts of legal matters she can consider and does not have anything to do with subject matter jurisdiction questions.

The point being that the provision you cited doesn't speak to whether the Constitution is the highest law in the land, but it speaks to what sorts of cases the Court can consider.

Is that so? Given the wording of the US Constitution: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." how could the Court have decided otherwise — Banno

That provision confers jurisdiction on the Court to interpret statutes and common law, but nowhere does it confer power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. The distinction between conferring general judicial power (as that provision confers) and the powers of a constitutional court (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_court#:~:text=A%20constitutional%20court%20is%20a,and%20freedoms%2C%20among%20other%20things.) is what is being made here.

For the Republicans and Democrats to be flaunting the fact that they are choosing "conservative" vs "liberal" (strange names for two groups that aren't entirely conservative or liberal) judges just shows how stupid we are as citizens. — Harry Hindu

See the above quote from Thomas Jefferson:

Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps — Hanover

This debate over judicial bias is as old as the nation.

Sure. But given the wording of the US Constitution, how could the Court have decided otherwise? — Banno

Jefferson thought otherwise:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." http://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_Thomas_Jefferson_say_about_judicial_review.

Given the wording of the constitution, how could they have deemed otherwise? At least without considerable resort to yoga... — Banno

For an example of a country with a Constitution that lacks a constitutional court and how that is possible, talk to @Benkei about what they do in the Netherlands.

Article three, section two: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." — Banno

A constitutional court is one specifically vested with the power to strike down laws when violative of a constitutional provision. The US Constitution does not provide that power. The Supreme Court conferred that power to itself in Marbury v Madison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

But there wasn't such a thing as conservatives or liberals at the founding. So liberal and conservative interpretations of constitutional law would be unconstitutional, no? — Harry Hindu

There was no such thing as a constitutional court at the founding. The idea that the Supreme Court had the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional was something the Court made up. Once they gave themselves that power, the next question was how they were going to interpret it. No one method of interpretation is obviously correct, so the one chosen will necessarily be subjective.

The broader interpretations one allows, the more power afforded the Court, and the less democratic the system.

I'm glad she's off the bench, not that she died. Her wish was that she survive this presidency so that her replacement might be decided by a more liberal president. Fair enough, but a political sentiment, unbefitting someone's whose interests should not be.

There is nothing more erotic, nor beautiful, than my partner's face as she orgasms. — Banno

Obviously you've never seen @Baden at just the right moment in just the right light.

But more recently I've come to recognise that there are those for whom there is no point in replying. — Banno

Outside chance you might be on someone's similar list?

Looks interesting. I was asking about something more akin to the link you provided; I'm a novice to the actual history of Judaism in general, so I gobbled that link up and was interested in a longer form version if one exists. — Noble Dust

The Catholic trinity doctrine traces itself back to 1215. The Zohar was printed in the late 1200s, so it post dates it. I don't see the similarities, especially considering the trinity issue would not have a problem for Jewish theology because there is no trinity in Judaism.