tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post3467157218629733321..comments2024-03-28T11:43:29.579-04:00Comments on THE BLOG: SUPREME COURTRumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08380575650255695462noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-75560353381927920322009-05-29T05:40:41.555-04:002009-05-29T05:40:41.555-04:00The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently...The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".<br /><br />This definition excludes people of Portuguese origins, such as Portuguese Americans or Brazilian Americans. However, they are included in some government agencies' definitions.<br /><br />For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses.<br /><br />Still, other government agencies adopt definitions that exclude people from Spain. Some others include people from Brazil, but not Spain or Portugal.Hispanic?http://www.harlandclarke-dv.com/07Q1/images/Hispanic-Origin.gifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-67129409034158943332009-05-27T23:41:11.046-04:002009-05-27T23:41:11.046-04:00Are you deranged? Since when is a Spaniard not Hi...Are you deranged? Since when is a Spaniard not Hispanic? What is he/she? Polish? Oriental? German? Nordic? You dolt!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-51265918245387119202009-05-27T22:01:40.836-04:002009-05-27T22:01:40.836-04:00Spanish is not the same as hispanic. Spaniards are...Spanish is not the same as hispanic. Spaniards are european, the same as italians, Germans , the (yuk), french etc. Hispanic connotes a new world mixture of euro/afro/indigenous. The melting pot is doing its thing! Jason GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-44465107797325015522009-05-27T20:52:11.715-04:002009-05-27T20:52:11.715-04:00Of course, Sotomayor will not become the first His...Of course, Sotomayor will not become the first Hispanic Justice.<br /><br />That honor went to Benjamin Cardozo. His family of Sephardic Jews came to the U.S. from Portugal, many years after Spain had evicted all Jews from that nation.old guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-75040613607713802812009-05-27T17:43:26.427-04:002009-05-27T17:43:26.427-04:00In a one-two punch made public today on its web si...In a one-two punch made public today on its web site, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has recommended that U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent be impeached and ordered that he not be given disability status. <br /><br />If you don't know the story behind Judge Kent, read about this man they called "Judge" online. It is truly unbelievable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-28549099202577749062009-05-27T13:21:28.965-04:002009-05-27T13:21:28.965-04:00You couldn't carry Scalia's jock strap, Rumpole.You couldn't carry Scalia's jock strap, Rumpole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-58181809384540534562009-05-27T12:40:39.197-04:002009-05-27T12:40:39.197-04:00Rump,
Good eye. Montejo is big, and I think you...Rump, <br /><br />Good eye. Montejo is big, and I think you rightly criticize Scalia for it. But, calling him a dolt? Seriously? He may be egotistical and occassionally intelectually dishonest, but a dolt he ain't. He's more of an evil genius (a la Belichik) than a dolt (a la Cameron). I also think Markus is right in saying Scalia is the most pro-D justice ... he authored Crawford, after all. <br /><br />But, I don't think you should be concerned with Miranda. Scalia's main argument in favor of reversing Jackson is that the 6th amendment protection it purportedly (oops) ensures are already protected via Miranda. In other words, we don't need Jackson because we've got Miranda. Seems to me it would be odd then to go on to overrule Miranda. I also agree with another poster who noted that Dickerson really was the last/ best chance to kill Miranda.<br /><br />Unfortunately, you need to think bigger. Scalia has his sights set on Mapp and the exclusionary rule. He's got three main goals in life: (1) overrule Roe; (2) overrule Bakke (affirmative action); and (3) overrule Mapp. <br /><br />The point on which I think criticism is better aimed is that Scalia treats stare decisis like a baby treats a diaper. 23 years? Nuthin. 28 years? No love. He's setting up all of this precedent as citation for getting past stare decisis in overruling Roe. <br /><br />But what's really amazing in Montejo is how Scalia abandons textualism/ original meaning. (He sort of has to, as I think the founders DID intend the 6thA to bar interrogating a suspect post counsel). The opinion reads with the same sort of mamby-pamby policy talk he himself has criticized about Mapp ... talk about balancing the effects on society; what options are "workable". At no point does he even bother to quote the text of the amendment or discuss its history/ background/ enactment.<br /><br />The bottom line is that APD's should be adding "invoke right to presence of counsel" to their appointment soliloquy. Hopefully that will keep the detectives at bay. Or not.The Professornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-10568363485628761672009-05-27T12:02:24.929-04:002009-05-27T12:02:24.929-04:00who cares? just torture them anyway. with or with...who cares? just torture them anyway. with or without a lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-60183540374675583672009-05-27T11:34:32.945-04:002009-05-27T11:34:32.945-04:00Ahhh, the random thought. I saw Samantha in the R...Ahhh, the random thought. I saw Samantha in the REGJB too.<br /><br />To answer your question: While we were working she was teaching a one hour a week course in political science every other semester. Circuit Judge training? Quite a comeback job would you not say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-38973063314478878502009-05-27T10:01:32.422-04:002009-05-27T10:01:32.422-04:00Yes, Scalia is (at best) a "dolt" and at worst a f...Yes, Scalia is (at best) a "dolt" and at worst a fascist. Love it when you go off on him.<br /><br />One bone to pick, though: they are Attorneys General and NOT Attorney Generals. See, e.g., "times out" and "sisters-in-law."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-8836405727973510532009-05-27T10:00:32.371-04:002009-05-27T10:00:32.371-04:00Here's the comment I posted on my blog in resp...Here's the comment I posted on my blog in response to your comment:<br /><br />Rumpole:<br /><br />Let's put aside the Gant case, which breathed some life back into the 4th amendment -- without Scalia, the confrontation clause is still dead (no Crawford) and the sentencing guidelines are still mandatory (no Blakely). Criminal defense lawyers were pretty happy that he didn't care about stare decisis in those cases, no? And I'm sorry, but they are much much more important than Michigan v. Jackson. I've never seen a suppression based on a Jackson motion. Have you? I certainly have seen the effects of Crawford and Blakely/Booker which affect our daily practices. <br /><br />And don't sound the alarm on Miranda. First, there's Dickerson (authored by Rehnquist) -- which reaffirmed the constitutional underpinnings of Miranda. And second, if you read the most recent case, Scalia says that Jackson can be overruled because the protections of Miranda & Edwards still exist. Now, I disagree completely with Scalia on this case and his reasoning. I agree with you that Stevens' opinion is much better reasoned. But I disagree with you that Scalia is the most dangerous Justice on the Court. <br /><br />Alito is much more results oriented -- always ruling for the prosecution -- and much more dangerous. I stick by my premise that Scalia is the most pro-defendant Justice on the Court. Find me one better.David Oscar Markushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386723948607633980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-26741566689752086922009-05-27T08:35:54.264-04:002009-05-27T08:35:54.264-04:00Scalia is not a dolt; he is probably the most inte...Scalia is not a dolt; he is probably the most intelligent justice currently on the bench. <br /><br />If he chose to be a true conservative jurist who advocated judicial restraint and simply called cases as he saw them, he might go down in the books as one of the finest justices in history. Instead he (along with his compadres Thomas and Alito, and close associate Roberts) has chosen to apply his intellect in a conservative judicial activist format designed to gut many of the protections of the Bill of Rights. His extreme right wing beliefs--I personally think Scalia is to the right of Dick Cheney, the USA's version of Mussolini--permeate his judicial thinking and reasoning. Precisely because he is so intelligent, and can put his thoughts into what appears to be valid reasoning, he is extremely dangerous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-81818006229289693262009-05-27T08:03:27.985-04:002009-05-27T08:03:27.985-04:00I am going to have a lot more to say on Scalia, Gr...I am going to have a lot more to say on Scalia, Grant, Belton, and stare decisis in future posts.<br /><br /><br />Scalia is a dangerous dolt. I am shocked....shocked by his treatment of stare decisis today and his 6th amendment analysis is horrific at best.Rumpolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08380575650255695462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-35483098065034299352009-05-27T07:51:33.229-04:002009-05-27T07:51:33.229-04:00Rumpole. Where was your outrage when the same jus...Rumpole. Where was your outrage when the same justice (according to an earlier post by you, the "most interesting and perhaps the most intelligent") set his sights on, and overruled, NY v. Belton in last month's Gant decision? If you approve of that pro-defense turn of the worm don't you lose the intellectual high ground complaining now-- sort of like Kennedy and Alito say in the concurring opinion? They tried and failed to get rid of Miranda in Minnesota v. Dickerson. Why would it work now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-43716876581466623322009-05-27T07:38:45.308-04:002009-05-27T07:38:45.308-04:00First!!!!.
Now what?
Random thoughts:
Tuesdays...First!!!!. <br /><br />Now what? <br /><br />Random thoughts:<br />Tuesdays stink. <br /><br />It bothers me when a judicial candidate who we haven't seen in 5 years turns up at the REGJB on a Friday glad handling everyone. And then they show up at Bar functions- and I say: Where have you been the last five years while we were working???<br /><br />Judge Newman's bark is worse than his bite. I like him. He's the county court man. <br /><br />Except when it comes to Dan Lurvey- as he showed again yesterday- Lurvey is the man!<br /><br />They call Vic Vedmed the "Tsar of County Court". Beware the Russian Bear- he roars!!!!!!<br /><br />The comment about former PD super Intern Joey Bag o Donuts was a nice piece of history. I don't think the PDs office has ever seen someone so smart, with a photographic memory, before or since. <br /><br />OK. I'm done. On with Wednesday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com