Obama Will Nominate Elena Kagan To the Supreme Court 413
Mr Pink Eyes writes "President Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan."
Re:What the fuck is with this political trash? (Score:1, Interesting)
Few people outside of the tech industry have as much influence on the tech industry as a Supreme Court Justice. I'd say this is meta-tech news, so it has a place here.
the most commented stories in slashdot history (Score:3, Interesting)
are political
the reason for this is that people are interested in politics, techie or not. and there's nothing wrong with a roomful of techies talking politics. you don't have to go there if you don't want. so leave us on slashdot who are obviously interested in politics (based on the most commented stories in slashdot history) to our politics, and go away
in fact, a political discussion on slashdot, theoretically, might be a more useful political discussion than a roomful of other classes of careers: as engineers, techies have minds which are designed to root out a problem and solve it. politics needs more of this, certainly
i really wish there were a class of "political engineers" sometimes when i hear certain mindless discussions: "the political engineering union has deemed this political topic pointless and, by the power vested in us, we are closing down this issue and erasing it from national attention. that is all"
well.. maybe that isn't such a great idea ;-)
but when i see some of the propaganda wallowing out there, the idea of "political engineers" becomes momentarily attractive
If you're hungry for science and tech, Physorg.com (Score:5, Interesting)
New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots
Masses of common quarks are revealed
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
QUT physicist corrects Oxford English Dictionary
Funnel vision: New info about how cells in the eye help guide light into the retina
Suppressing activity of common intestinal bacteria reduces tumor growth
Scientists create mouse grimace scale to help identify pain in humans and animals
Chemist stitches up speedier chemical reactions
Next generation hard drives may store 10 terabits per sq inch: research
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does this article have to do with anything (Score:3, Interesting)
In the U.S., this represents a huge deal to the political process: one-ninth of one branch of our government.
One way to look at it in terms of impact. Take the US Federal budget, divide it by three(3 branches), then divide that by 9. $3.6 trillion dollars/3 = $1.2 Trillion dollars. divide by 9, and this very gross approximation of her influence is on the order of:
$130 billion per year. Assume she sits for 28 years (78 yrs old?) and somehow the US budget doesn't increase and she will have a total lifetime impact of $3.64 Trillion. Of course, she doesn't determine the budget in a way where she has at her disposal that much money, but when you consider that is how much of the government she represents, it kind of puts the weight of this appointment into perspective.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of story I come to Slashdot to read. I'm sure they don't cover this article on Epicurious or Disney.com either, however crucial this individual's appointed role may be.
I was waiting for this article to appear on Slashdot actually. For me, this appointment will inevitably touch on several issues which I would like to hear discussed from a tech perspective.
Since we don't know the ideology of the SCOTUS nominee, we have to assume that she is closely aligned with that of the President. With that assumption made, it should be pretty easy to answer your questions. I'll provide them below just as I predict Kagan will.
1. With the FTC and the FCC engaging the issues of network neutrality, are they authorized to wield the power necessary to implement such rules on the telecom industry?
Yes, absolutely. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate ... anything. Just look at all the precedent we have for massive expansion of power under Interstate Commerce. These agencies are allowed to regulate "trade" and "communications". Without limit.
2. Communities are being blurred with respect to the internet. As many laws are written based on community standards, if I were to say something 'obscene', is the item evaluated by your communities standards, my communities standards, or the internet's standards? What is the community?
Your community is where you live, of course. And as long as your community leaders recognize the supremacy of Federal law, they will be able to require whatever filtering and banning of Internet content that they deem necessary. Based on their community standards, of course.
3. We are seeing more and more functions of electronics hidden behind 'DRM' and the protections of the DMCA, I'm sure we will see more cases regarding that soon.
No, I'm sorry, that's all based on private contracts and copyright. Congress can extend copyright to forever -1 day if they want. That's what the Constitution allows. Look at all the precedent!
4. If the United States enters into an agreement to share ALL of the information it collects about UK citizens with the UK, and the UK shares ALL of the information it collects about US citizens with the US, were any wiretap laws broken if neither country spied on its own citizens?
Well no, of course not. That's just the Federal government working to protect you, along with cooperative international agreements and global consensus. That "privacy right" that precedent created is only for ensuring your right to sexual proclivities and abortions and stuff. It doesn't mean you get to keep information private from the Federal government, because that would be an undue burden on its ability to govern. You see that, don't you?
I could go on for hours on the number of topics that can come up before Kagan, and when she now represents 1/9th of any vote on a subject, you can be certain that her opinions and background will matter a great deal to everyone.
Yep.
Re:A Jewish lesbian chickenhawk? ORLY? (Score:1, Interesting)
Synopsis of the candidate: the rule of law is like, the foundation of our society and stuff, and should totally apply to absolutely everyone except for Bad People.
A better synopsis:
I am a radical leftist lesbian who doesn't have much of a paper trail because I have never been a judge, never argued a case in court before I joined the Obama administration and spent very little time as a practicing attorney. My lack of a paper trail will make it more difficult to oppose my nomination which is virtually assured anyway because the Republicans rarely put up much of a fight over nominees. As a Harvard Dean, I have demonstrated my radical bent by working vigorously to prevent military recruitment on the Harvard campus using the argument that the US military is bad because it has not been made into a propagandizing tool working on behalf of homosexual radicals. I can count on the radical left to continue to generate smoke screens by claiming that Obama is a centrist and regurgitating the Administration's talking point that I am a consensus builder who works with and persuades conservatives. This is, of course, rot. But it may be convincing to some of the American public who don't follow politics closely. Just as Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process by simply appointing more than 50 political freaks as "czars" in his administration, including his "safe school czar" who wrote that he wanted to "queerify" America's elementary schools and his "science" advisor who once supported population control through forced sterilizations and spiking the water supply with anti-fertility drugs, Obama has nominated me, another political freak, to the Supreme Court, knowing that I will hide my views until I am actually sitting on the Court. His appointment of me as solicitor general was intended to give me at least a little court room experience so as to prevent opposition to me based on my extreme inexperience.
He, of course, knows that I am fully on board with his effort to radically transform America. My senior thesis at Princeton, I think, sums my views up well, “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness ... Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.
[The story of the socialist movement’s demise is] a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
Gasp! So you mean she keeps her mouth shut and lets her work speak for itself? She's already more qualified than 80% of all politicians.
Or do you expect everyone to blare on about how they're "for real America"?
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
For the job of "top 9 judges in the United States", yes, that's not enough experience.
For comparison's sake, consider that Sonia Sotomayor had been spent about 20 years on the bench before she was nominated. Diane Wood, frequently put forward as a good alternative to Kagan, has been on an appellate court for 15 years. Being a competent lawyer and being a competent judge are different skills, and I'd much rather have a pick that has demonstrated they're capable of being a judge.
In addition, there's good reason to call her competence as an attorney into question. For instance, in Citizen's United v FEC, her first oral argument of any kind, she (by her own admission) panicked when Justice Kennedy asked her about other significant First Amendment cases. (the exchange can be found on page 41 [supremecourt.gov])
And I'm not suggesting this rule has always been followed, but when it isn't followed, we are taking a much bigger risk that we'll end up with a justice incapable of asking a single relevant question during an oral argument for years on end.
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a way to know whether it is her personal view, or whether she was just doing her job?
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:!newsfornerds (Score:1, Interesting)
Because "real Americans" means "Americans who have the same political opinions that I do". You spew the same filthy lie that the rightwingers do, and are therefore one of them.
Liberals are conservatives are liberals are conservatives. Lying, freedom-hating scumbags, each and every one of you.
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic
No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)
The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).
As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a higher court, but a court can reverse a decision it made earlier. Not only this, but a decision handed down in a district only applies in that district (however, other districts may adopt the reasoning). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all of the federal courts (not the state ones). However, SCOTUS decisions are usually applied to state courts via 14th amendment mechanisms. The SCOTUS usually does respect decisions it made previously, but there is nothing to prevent it from reversing its stance. (http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf)
Re:Holy Biased Article, Batman! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.
Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".
If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook privacy settings, etc, etc) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
We read complaints here all the time about how stupid our legislators are for making these pedophile laws that end up jailing horny teenagers and then you want to tell me that that Congress should be moving full speed ahead on everything! I don't think so!