enfant terrible

If it isn't too hard, why have you not done it yet?

True. But was this true before Scalia and Thomas were appointed to the Supreme Court? If not, who is more likely to be wrong? 25 judges of the 9th Circuit or the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that includes Scalia and Thomas?

Highly-criticized by whom? Did you read the decision? Can you find any flaw in it? I bet you that the SC justices O'Connor and Kennedy will search very hard to find a legal technicality to dismiss the case on standing or mootness grounds because there is simply no way they can reverse the 9th Circuit on merits without badly compromising their judicial integrity.

Obviously, that example does not suffice. It would be more accurate to say that you shot yourself in the foot.

A left-wing loony. to be comparable to Pryor, would have to be a communist. I think it is very safe to say that there is no communist federal judge in the US, and it is even less likely that there is a state judge like that, as those are mostly elected.

You are free to enter the debate and make it more genuine and credible. But so far you said nothing to defend Pryor's credentials. All you did was speculate about left-wing loonies in the judiciary.

Leviathan

You're also free to not make erroneous assumptions. If you would have read my previous posts, I am not defending that Pryor's credentials are "impeccable," I'm defending that having a reasonable debate about his candidacy is not to have a political shit-slinging contest consisting of "bad religion man!"

ANd, in contrast to "speculating" on the left-wing loonies, I provided you an entire Federal Circuit, I believe its the ... 9th, that's track record speaks for itself.

Have you read their opinions? In order to be overturned, as much as the California Circuit is, it requires more than a slim majority. In fact, the 5-4 split argument you make actually works against you here, showing that there is so much division on issues, so many swing votes, such as an O'Connor or Kennedy, that it must take powerful deliberations for the Court to overturn them as regularly as they do.

You will also note that Scalia and Thomas were appointed before the latest, Clinton appointees.

And try not to look at it as "wrong." There is no debate on who's authority is "right," and who's is "wrong." The Supreme Court establishes the law, and when the precious liberal Circuit in California just reinvents the will, making the Warren Court look like strict constructionists, I think you have your left wing loonies you state I only "speculate" about.

Are you actually serious? That opinion was so vehemently opposed, there is almost no question what the S. Ct. will decide on that issue. I believe many news reports cited almost all nine justices as being opposed to such a ludicrous ruling concerning "One Nation Under God." Numerous, nay, countless law reviews have been written in the short time since the decision, highly criticizing the decision. Finding a "flaw" is easy: there is no establishment of religion, nor an entangling encumbrance from which there is any violation of the First Amendment.

"Badly compromising judicial integrity..." this is really an ironical time to be using the questioning of Judicial Legitimacy. The Senate voted, what, 99-0, one abstention, against the decision, an overwhelming majority of Americans were polled to contest the decision, and yet you Believe to run contrary to the District decision would be compromising judicial integrity? Sorry, if I find that argument the least bit funny.
[edit]

I found more on this "valid" decision for you. The case is Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et. al, 328 F.3d 466, and was a 2-1 decision, with Circuit Court Judge Fernandez dissenting as to the Establishment Clause finding (the dispositive issue here). Fernandez's dissent on this point presents a *wall* of precedent, from all over the country, finding that the two majority judges either ignore, or erroneously attempt to distinguish.

Additionally, two other Federal District Court Systems have had the opportunity to decide this issue. The Fourth Circuit, in Myers v. Loudoun County School Board, 251 F.Supp.2d. 1262, as well as the Seventh Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School Districts, 980 F.2d 437, have both found the 9th Circuit's constitutional dancing to be unpersuasive.

And that's just the court cases. There are 31 law reviews (I actually found one written from the university I attend: I know the author - that was pretty cool ). The law reviews are even more expansive on the issue.

So, safe to say, this decision was met with the utmost vehement opposition.

Toto

Name one.

The decision was written by a Nixon appointee who lives on a ranch. He's not from an ivory tower or a university, he is noted for his independence, he's not a left wing loonie by any stretch of the imagination.

The Ninth Circuit is often overturned, because the Supreme Court has taken a swing to the right, not because its decisions are loonie.

Is this the kind of thinking you can get away with in law school?

That example showed that you don't know what you're talking about.

We would all be interested in seeing some reviews. Preferably with online citations.



Once again, name one. Do you think that the Judiciary Committee, stacked with conservative Republicans and Democrats, has approved left wing loonies? Until Bush II took over, the Senate generally only approved people deemed qualified by the American Bar Association. Were they all asleep at the wheel?

This thread contains substantive arguments against Pryor's positions on a variety of issues, and a description of him as a committed ideologue who lacks a judicial temperament. Why are you mischaracterizing the debate as mere assertions that "he's a religious lunatic?" And if he is a religious lunatic, are we not allowed to say it?

So if you want a real sincere debate on the man, what do you have to say about him?

No, many news reports did not cite "almost all nine justices as being opposed to such a ludicrous ruling." That's not how the Supreme Court operates (where are you in law school?)

Scalia was quoted as opposing the ruling, and Newdow will ask him to recuse himself.

The Newdow decision is getting off topic in this thread. I invite you to start a new thread and show us where the decision was wrong.

Stephen Maturin

Welcome to IIDB, Leviathan. It's always good to see a fellow law geek come on board.

Your point about the Ninth Circuit being oft-reversed is correct, of course, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Supreme Court reviews court of appeals rulings on a case-by-case basis. A "slim majority" can in fact account for multiple reversals.

Yep, both Newdow opinions did indeed meet with tons of opposition. If by "that issue" you mean application of the Establishment Clause to the school district's Pledge policy, then I tend to agree with you regarding how the Court will come down. However, there's a real possibility that the Court won't reach the merits of that issue at all. Think Article III, jurisdiction and the "S" word that enfant mentioned.

So far as I'm aware, the only Supreme Court justice who had enough disregard for established canons of judicial ethics to comment publicly on Newdow was Scalia. Do you have any links to articles citing public comments from other justices?

Later on you say that you found thirty-one such articles. That's a fair amount of law review commentary in a year, but it hardly qualifies as "countless" articles. (Yeah, I know, that's kinda petty. Couldn't help myself. )

Well, that's the very matter in dispute, isn't it? I'd be interested in hearing why you think there's no establishment here. Perhaps you can start a new thread, or resurrect one of the old Newdow threads, and we can all kick it around a bit.

Fortunately enough, we don't decide issues of judicial integrity or constitutional law based on opinion polls or what a gaggle of knob-gobbling political panderers in the Senate have to say.

I find Judge Goodwin's opinion for the panel majority far more convincing and faithful to Supreme Court precedent than either Judge Fernandez's dissent or Judge O'Scannlain's dissent from the Ninth Circuit's denial of an en banc rehearing. Care to convince me of the error of my ways?

Myers is a trial court decision (Eastern District of Virginia, if memory serves), not a Fourth Circuit case. I haven't read Myers and so can't comment on what, if anything, the judge had to say about Newdow.

However, I'm quite certain that Seventh Circuit didn't make any adverse comments about the Ninth Circuit's ruling. After all, Sherman predates Newdow I by ten years. I thought Judge Goodwin did an exemplary job explaining the fundamental flaws underlying the Sherman court's reasoning.

Anyhoo, welcome again, and here's hoping you enjoy your time at Eye-Eye.

Leviathan

My my, how... nice of you. Let's go into presumption-mode, like Toto for a second, and I'll ask a question of him:

"And with that attitude, you're a moderator?"

You're going to get it. Alot. New thread coming, this one's going way off topic.

enfant terrible

On the contrary, you are trying to silence the reasonable debate.

Do you even know how the Supreme Court works? Of course no decision requires more than a slim majority.

What are you talking about? Without Scalia (a man on an ideological crusade) and Thomas (an incompetent side-effect of Affirmative Action gone awry), every such 5-4 split is a 4-3 split for the other side. And I didn't even put Rehnquist where he belongs.

And how is that relevant?

Perhaps you are dyslexic... are you sure you didn't confuse "right" with "might"?

Brown vs. Board of Education was even more vehemently opposed. But fortunately, the mob does not decide on constitutional issues.

You are free to believe in this, invisible pink unicorns, and anything you want.

What business has the Senate to vote on this?

Uninformed people asked misleading questions.

So what?

Obviously you did not read the decision. Fernandez completely misstated the issue, so his opinion bears no logical connection with the case.

But I have written about Newdow in another thread, so this was my last word on it here. It is also the last reply to you until you give one valid argument on the topic of Pryor.

Leviathan

Is this how you treat new members in your "debates"?

dangin

Welcome to the jungle. It is against the rules to personally insult someone. I have not seen that happen to you.

It is, however, within the rules to make someone else's argument look like the imbecile child of halfwitted sibling parents, if one can.

Your arguments and ideas will be treated as roughly as you can stand for them to be treated.

Don't call foul until someone attacks you personally.

Leviathan

Yep, I'm welcome.

Toto

Lev - that's a tantalizing quote, but it's full of the colorful and overstated language that leads one to expect that the next paragraph will point out that the Ninth Circuit is sober, industrious, and makes more sense that the Supremes.