JUstice?

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:08:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:24:40 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/15/2020 9:32 AM, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.


Earl Warren ran FDR's pogrom against American citizens with
Japanese names. So, naturally rewarded for his party loyalty.
From what I've read the internment of foreigners was not limited to
Japanese. I believe that "well over ten thousand—of people of German
and Italian ancestry were confined". And in 1944 the Supreme Court
ruled that the law was legal.

And, it might be noted that news paper reports from that period seemed
to show that the general public accepted the validity of the law.
Examples:

A Washington Post editorial dated February 22, 1942, stated that:
There is but one way in which to regard the Presidential order
empowering the Army to establish "military areas" from which citizens
or aliens may be excluded. That is to accept the order as a necessary
accompaniment of total defense.

An Atlanta Constitution editorial dated February 20, 1942, stated
that:
The time to stop taking chances with Japanese aliens and
Japanese-Americans has come. . . . While Americans have an inate [sic]
distaste for stringent measures, every one must realize this is a
total war, that there are no Americans running loose in Japan or
Germany or Italy and there is absolutely no sense in this country
running even the slightest risk of a major disaster from enemy groups
within the nation

Los Angeles Times editorial dated April 22, 1943, stated that:
As a race, the Japanese have made for themselves a record for
conscienceless treachery unsurpassed in history. Whatever small
theoretical advantages there might be in releasing those under
restraint in this country would be enormously outweighed by the risks
involved.



And lest we forget, the 4442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was made
up of Japanese from Hawaii, is the most decorated unit for its size in
U.S. military history.

They only detained actual German and Italian nationals and not Italian or German American citizens or even long those who had lived in the US long term.

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 7:32:38 AM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.

Elana Kagan was solicitor general. Her job was briefing and presenting cases to the SC. She represented the US.

Judge Barrett has very little private or public practice experience prior to her appointment on the Seventh Circuit. She clerked; she worked for a private boutique firm for a couple of years and taught (according to Wiki) "federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation" for 15 years. She has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit for less than three years. So, she's a professor with a few years on the Seventh Circuit.

She is a top pick because of her ideology and not her experience. This is not uncommon or impermissible, but the comment that she has little experience is accurate.

-- Jay Beattie.

Very good. At Rhodes she was Phi Beta Kappa. She attended law school at Notre Dame on a full academic scholarship. Her academic and scholarly records are the very best:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/p...coney-barrett/

She has been a prolific writer in the law reviews.

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2020 9:32 AM, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.


Earl Warren ran FDR's pogrom against American citizens with
Japanese names. So, naturally rewarded for his party loyalty.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Earl Warren was a Republican. Damned Republicans. He was appointed Chief Justice by Eisenhower -- not FDR. He supported the exclusion orders but was not part of the federal government when they were imposed by the Roosevelt administration/military. He later expressed regret for his support of the order and then went on to lead the court in all the opinions that keep the police out of your long hair -- Miranda, Mapp, Terry, Gideon, etc., etc. Not to mention Brown v. Board of Education.

My fave book about the Warren Court is _One Man's Freedom,_ by Edward Bennett Williams. It's not a verbose book and a great read, even for the layman..

-- Jay Beattie.

I remember as a teenager driving from NC to FL, NC to Houston, and so on. There were signs all over the South in the mid-sixties demanding the impeachment of Earl Warren. It was both funny and a little bit disturbing.

In 1963 when I was a senior in high school I met and talked to Sen. Estes Kefauver in his office in Washington. It was then that I decided I'd like to be a lawyer. I graduated UTLaw in Knoxville and practiced law in the 70's and 80's by trying cases in court. I grew to despise all the dirty politics and courthouses infested with crooks.

I took a sabbatical in the late 80's and got my pilot's license and never looked back at the law. I also went to aircraft maintenance school and began rebuilding recip engines. I was hooked on airplanes, motorcycles, bicycles, and travel. I'm almost 76 now and still hooked on airframes and powerplants, more of a STEM fan than a law fan, though occasionally I do read some law just to stay current.

The thing about physics is you can't twist and torture the field for your own personal gain. Airplanes are unforgiving and they DO NOT lie. I like that.

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 1:09:31 PM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 7:32:38 AM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.

Elana Kagan was solicitor general. Her job was briefing and presenting cases to the SC. She represented the US.

Judge Barrett has very little private or public practice experience prior to her appointment on the Seventh Circuit. She clerked; she worked for a private boutique firm for a couple of years and taught (according to Wiki) "federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation" for 15 years. She has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit for less than three years. So, she's a professor with a few years on the Seventh Circuit.

She is a top pick because of her ideology and not her experience. This is not uncommon or impermissible, but the comment that she has little experience is accurate.

-- Jay Beattie.

Very good. At Rhodes she was Phi Beta Kappa. She attended law school at Notre Dame on a full academic scholarship. Her academic and scholarly records are the very best:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/p...coney-barrett/

She has been a prolific writer in the law reviews.

Yes, I've read her articles on textualism. Very heady -- like reading philosophy and about that useful to a practitioner, particularly since it doesn't track the usual methodology for interpreting statutes in Oregon or the Ninth Circuit.

Two of my former partners (now retired) got full rides at Harvard and/or Yale. When I was hired (and we were still a big firm), I moved into an office being vacated by an attorney who clerked for Harry Blackmun and was honors from Cornell and Stanford Law. My patriarch, Alan Hart, was a Stanford undergrad and Yale law grad, friend of Bill Douglass, and one of the first general counsel for BPA. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/a.../#.X4tat9BKgRk Eating lunch with him was like being in a Ken Burns documentary on the New Deal. I spent years co-defending a national client along with the former US solicitor general and his crew of former SC clerks. I've gotten pulled up to the majors for spot jobs and know that qualified people abound, e.g. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-supre...t/1897591.html Every one of the locals was being run by dozens of ivy leaguer, law review writing former SC clerks. Same with the tobacco cases and my recent foray into COVID death and the PREP Act preemption.

Picking a SC Justice is political, and it involves choosing a qualified person of the right flavor. Judge Barrett is the right flavor -- a Scalia clone who is probably less flexible than Scalia, at least based on her writings.. That's what the Rs want and that's probably what they'll get. Is it the best choice for the US of A -- probably not. If you were assembling a nine-person ensemble, you wouldn't get all French horn players, unless you were some sort of sado-masochist. I also don't support an all liberal court, and I certainly don't support an all academic court.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 1:33:36 PM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2020 9:32 AM, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.


Earl Warren ran FDR's pogrom against American citizens with
Japanese names. So, naturally rewarded for his party loyalty.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Earl Warren was a Republican. Damned Republicans. He was appointed Chief Justice by Eisenhower -- not FDR. He supported the exclusion orders but was not part of the federal government when they were imposed by the Roosevelt administration/military. He later expressed regret for his support of the order and then went on to lead the court in all the opinions that keep the police out of your long hair -- Miranda, Mapp, Terry, Gideon, etc., etc. Not to mention Brown v. Board of Education.
My fave book about the Warren Court is _One Man's Freedom,_ by Edward Bennett Williams. It's not a verbose book and a great read, even for the layman.

-- Jay Beattie.

I remember as a teenager driving from NC to FL, NC to Houston, and so on. There were signs all over the South in the mid-sixties demanding the impeachment of Earl Warren. It was both funny and a little bit disturbing.

In 1963 when I was a senior in high school I met and talked to Sen. Estes Kefauver in his office in Washington. It was then that I decided I'd like to be a lawyer. I graduated UTLaw in Knoxville and practiced law in the 70's and 80's by trying cases in court. I grew to despise all the dirty politics and courthouses infested with crooks.

I took a sabbatical in the late 80's and got my pilot's license and never looked back at the law. I also went to aircraft maintenance school and began rebuilding recip engines. I was hooked on airplanes, motorcycles, bicycles, and travel. I'm almost 76 now and still hooked on airframes and powerplants, more of a STEM fan than a law fan, though occasionally I do read some law just to stay current.

The thing about physics is you can't twist and torture the field for your own personal gain. Airplanes are unforgiving and they DO NOT lie. I like that.
Fortunately I observed courtroom corruption from the outside - from a chair on a jury. What struck me was how total chaos could rein in a court room and how clearly a jury could see right through it.

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 5:33:32 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 1:09:31 PM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 7:32:38 AM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.

Elana Kagan was solicitor general. Her job was briefing and presenting cases to the SC. She represented the US.

Judge Barrett has very little private or public practice experience prior to her appointment on the Seventh Circuit. She clerked; she worked for a private boutique firm for a couple of years and taught (according to Wiki) "federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation" for 15 years. She has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit for less than three years. So, she's a professor with a few years on the Seventh Circuit.

She is a top pick because of her ideology and not her experience. This is not uncommon or impermissible, but the comment that she has little experience is accurate.

-- Jay Beattie.

Very good. At Rhodes she was Phi Beta Kappa. She attended law school at Notre Dame on a full academic scholarship. Her academic and scholarly records are the very best:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/p...coney-barrett/

She has been a prolific writer in the law reviews.

Yes, I've read her articles on textualism. Very heady -- like reading philosophy and about that useful to a practitioner, particularly since it doesn't track the usual methodology for interpreting statutes in Oregon or the Ninth Circuit.

Two of my former partners (now retired) got full rides at Harvard and/or Yale. When I was hired (and we were still a big firm), I moved into an office being vacated by an attorney who clerked for Harry Blackmun and was honors from Cornell and Stanford Law. My patriarch, Alan Hart, was a Stanford undergrad and Yale law grad, friend of Bill Douglass, and one of the first general counsel for BPA. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/a.../#.X4tat9BKgRk Eating lunch with him was like being in a Ken Burns documentary on the New Deal. I spent years co-defending a national client along with the former US solicitor general and his crew of former SC clerks. I've gotten pulled up to the majors for spot jobs and know that qualified people abound, e.g. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-supre...t/1897591.html Every one of the locals was being run by dozens of ivy leaguer, law review writing former SC clerks. Same with the tobacco cases and my recent foray into COVID death and the PREP Act preemption.

Picking a SC Justice is political, and it involves choosing a qualified person of the right flavor. Judge Barrett is the right flavor -- a Scalia clone who is probably less flexible than Scalia, at least based on her writings. That's what the Rs want and that's probably what they'll get. Is it the best choice for the US of A -- probably not. If you were assembling a nine-person ensemble, you wouldn't get all French horn players, unless you were some sort of sado-masochist. I also don't support an all liberal court, and I certainly don't support an all academic court.

-- Jay Beattie.

Fascinating reading. I'll come back after I have thought more about that French horn analogy. Will she swing the Court to the right? I have a feeling she won't in any radical way.

On 10/17/2020 4:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 1:09:31 PM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:50:52 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 7:32:38 AM UTC-7, 2wheelfan wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 8:01:43 PM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:03:11 -0700, Mark Cleary wrote:


-- Jay Beattie.
Going to jump in on this one. Judge Barrett has all the credentials

but sadly, very little experience,

That's BS. She has comparatively very extensive experience. Contrast her experience with these notably well-known justices at the time of their appointments:

John Marshall, Lewis Powell Jr., Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis.

Also check out Elena Kagan.

Elana Kagan was solicitor general. Her job was briefing and presenting cases to the SC. She represented the US.

Judge Barrett has very little private or public practice experience prior to her appointment on the Seventh Circuit. She clerked; she worked for a private boutique firm for a couple of years and taught (according to Wiki) "federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation" for 15 years. She has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit for less than three years. So, she's a professor with a few years on the Seventh Circuit.

She is a top pick because of her ideology and not her experience. This is not uncommon or impermissible, but the comment that she has little experience is accurate.

-- Jay Beattie.

Very good. At Rhodes she was Phi Beta Kappa. She attended law school at Notre Dame on a full academic scholarship. Her academic and scholarly records are the very best:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/p...coney-barrett/

She has been a prolific writer in the law reviews.

Yes, I've read her articles on textualism. Very heady -- like reading philosophy and about that useful to a practitioner, particularly since it doesn't track the usual methodology for interpreting statutes in Oregon or the Ninth Circuit.

Two of my former partners (now retired) got full rides at Harvard and/or Yale. When I was hired (and we were still a big firm), I moved into an office being vacated by an attorney who clerked for Harry Blackmun and was honors from Cornell and Stanford Law. My patriarch, Alan Hart, was a Stanford undergrad and Yale law grad, friend of Bill Douglass, and one of the first general counsel for BPA. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/a.../#.X4tat9BKgRk Eating lunch with him was like being in a Ken Burns documentary on the New Deal. I spent years co-defending a national client along with the former US solicitor general and his crew of former SC clerks. I've gotten pulled up to the majors for spot jobs and know that qualified people abound, e.g. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-supre...t/1897591.html Every one of the locals was being run by dozens of ivy leaguer, law review writing former SC clerks. Same with the tobacco cases and my recent foray into COVID death an
d the PREP Act preemption.

Picking a SC Justice is political, and it involves choosing a qualified person of the right flavor. Judge Barrett is the right flavor -- a Scalia clone who is probably less flexible than Scalia, at least based on her writings. That's what the Rs want and that's probably what they'll get. Is it the best choice for the US of A -- probably not. If you were assembling a nine-person ensemble, you wouldn't get all French horn players, unless you were some sort of sado-masochist. I also don't support an all liberal court, and I certainly don't support an all academic court.

-- Jay Beattie.


As I noted earlier, this is a crapshoot at best.

One need go no further than the ACA statutory fines being
relegislated at the bench as a tax (although we could all go
on, for a very long while).



--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/18/2020 3:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

God knows what you did to get a $12,000 month premium.

I'm convinced Tom creates wild stories out of thin air for trolling
purposes. He can't be dumb enough to pay $12000 per month for medical
insurance.

Just as he can't be dumb enough to ride into a thick tree branch hanging
impossibly low over a regular roadway, when we were in the midst of a
discussion about how rare those must be.

I just don't believe anybody is that dumb.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2020 3:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

God knows what you did to get a $12,000 month premium.
I'm convinced Tom creates wild stories out of thin air for trolling
purposes. He can't be dumb enough to pay $12000 per month for medical
insurance.

Just as he can't be dumb enough to ride into a thick tree branch hanging
impossibly low over a regular roadway, when we were in the midst of a
discussion about how rare those must be.

I just don't believe anybody is that dumb.

So you're back to "you didn't hit your head on a tree branch"? There is definitely something wrong in your head when you cannot even remember the entire description of what happened and so simply make it up as you go along.

No one said that I actually paid $12,000. Like everything else out of your sick mind you cannot remember me saying that I had to join the Kaiser medical foundation which is a medical group. I am surprised that you have managed to live as long as you have if you make comments to other as you do here. I can only assume that all of your courage is due to anonymity and distance.

On 10/19/2020 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2020 3:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

God knows what you did to get a $12,000 month premium.
I'm convinced Tom creates wild stories out of thin air for trolling
purposes. He can't be dumb enough to pay $12000 per month for medical
insurance.

Just as he can't be dumb enough to ride into a thick tree branch hanging
impossibly low over a regular roadway, when we were in the midst of a
discussion about how rare those must be.

I just don't believe anybody is that dumb.

So you're back to "you didn't hit your head on a tree branch"?

So you're saying you actually ARE that dumb?


--
- Frank Krygowski