Isn’t it just darling when RedState, of all Wingnutholes, has a clutch-the-pearls-and-gasp moment?

Really? “lack of respect”? Goodness.

What about the “lack of respect” the 4th Circuit Court (you know, the Right Coast one) showed for the 6th Amendment, the one that states:

” In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”

The Right Coast court took this to mean that the federal governent has a “right to hold an American citizen in custody indefinitely a so-called ‘enemy combatant’ without bringing criminal charges against him” in the Jose Padilla case.

Outraged indeed. Fuckwits.

Ha! And don’t tell me that that Ninth Circuit opinion wasn’t written as a direct slap in the face to the wingnuts, either…

In fact, no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation?s history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty.

A ha ha ha!

Relax, my right-wing friends. Almost everybody understands that this court is a big joke, even most Dems. Because nearly all of their decisions represent an extreme form of judicial activism, most of their decisions are ultimately reversed by real judges. Besides, reason has since stepped in where these judges feared to tread and the legitimately concerned parents successfully had the inappropriate material removed.

If my parents had retained “exclusive control over the introduction and flow of sexual information” to me, I never would have learned about sex where I was supposed to, on the Catholic school playground.

Actually the 9th Court is no more likely to be over-turned than any other, which suggests that the idea that it’s “extreme” is just another tired REW lie…

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511070001

I think this could be a winner. Consider all those poor defendants out there who could use this as grounds to appeal, in Ms. Parker’s perfect world: “Yes, I did it, and sure, the punishment was appropriate, and the judge was more than fair, and my lawyer was great… But dammit, they treated me like a criminal at the sentencing!”

I trust Ms. Parker will never be allowed to represent herself if, gods forbid, she’s ever arrested. The entertainment value might be fairly high, but as they say, stupid is not a crime, and I’d hate to see her punished for it.

Ummm, excuse me Woodrowfan, but you’re killing the wingnut buzz.

Repeat after me.

The 9th is an extemeist, left-wing anti-American terrorist loving body, and even if the last stop before the Supreme Court they’re not even “real”.

Now the 4th Circuit Court can wish away entire amendments and no one utters a peep. Cause they’re a “real” court.

It’s simple when you understand that the rule of law is just a serving suggestion to Republicans.

Here is a cogent discussion from 2002 of the Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate.

And here are some numbers showing that (as of 2004) the Ninth was not out of line in terms of reversals, though a disproportionate number of its cases are reviewed by the Supremes. (Includes a link to a chart of the Ninth’s reversal rates since the 1992-93 session. Looks like there was about a decade when the 9th was reversed more than average, but that ended four years ago. Wacky, huh?)

See what happens when you look beyond the partisan talking points and look into some Actual Facts(tm), Doc?

Oh, and here (PDF) is one of those cases in which the Supremes reversed the 9th. By a 9-0 vote, no less. Obviously, slapping down that wacko 9th Circuit — can you imagine anything more demonstrative of the liberal contempt those activist judges hold for honest American values than finding that a statutory extension of the limitations period for collecting an assessed tax liability applied to a general partnership, but not to the partners individually?

BLT, amazingly, your thinking is about as bad as your singing. Somebody must help you with getting dressed in the morning.

Dan, you have a very creative way of doing fuzzy math. 4 years, no matter how recent, is a much smaller sampling window than a whole decade. You’ve also taken the numbers out of context. You have to look at how many of the reversals were unanimous, because that is also an index of how “out of touch” a particular ruling may be considered, and that number is disproportionately high, even according to the article you’ve linked us to.

“parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where and how their children are taught about sex.”

I find it amusing the wingnuts seem to think knowledge of sex is so unique that it requires them to shield their children against schools teaching it.

Why should they have a constitutional right to prevent their children from learning about sex? They don’t seem to require it for learning about math, or learning about economics, or learning about — dare I say, even religion!!!

And the same loonytunes who feel they have a right to shield their kids from learning about sex feel it’s perfectly OK to teach other peoples’ kids about Jesus.

And — another question –Do these idiots believe that their children aren’t learning about sex elsewhere, like on the playground or in the streets?

Since “heal thyself” is far too much to ask of you, could you get bent instead?

What G said.

Because nearly all of their decisions represent an extreme form of judicial activism, most of their decisions are ultimately reversed by real judges

Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

How does rate of being overturned relate to “activism”? Do you even know what “activism” means, or if it means anything at all?

You are way out of your depth here, and it shows.

Tulkinghorn, naturally, “activism” means “action the Right disagrees with.” Duh. How hard is that?

Tulkinghorn,

I’ve been following the judicial issue for a while, and I have noticed the following pattern:

“Activist” judges are “judges who do not rule the way I want them to.”

“Extreme liberal” judges are “judges who do not rule the way I want them to.

“Dangerous, out of control” judges are “judges who do not rule the way I want them to.”

Seriously. There is no other common thread among the cases that I have seen.

Consider the case of Judge George Greer (Terri Schaivo case): a dangerous, out of control, activist, MURDERING judge, who dared to rule on a case based on precedent, law, and facts presented to him. The BASTARD!

And the conservative Catholic, Republican judge who dared to rule “the wrong way” on gay marriage…because he ruled based on precedent, law, and facts…

AND the oldest constitution in America, Dorothy, the constitutio of the commonwealth.

MA has had judges longer too.

“You are way out of your depth here, and it shows.”

Tulkinghorn, when all else fails, and you can’t come up with a cogent argument, act condescending, supercilious and arrogant so folks will think its the other guy that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s a pretty good shtick you’ve got going there.

What bothers me is that clearly parents do not have an exclusive right to teach children about sex; In the case of sexual abuse, it’s perfectly legitimate to have the state step in and over-ride the parent’s ideas about sex.

Actually, my good Doctor, Tulkinghorn did ask you a few questions.

Granted, they had a rather rherorical flavor, but they were questions nonetheless — questions you could have answered and continued the debate, strengthening your position. You, however, instead of answering them, came back with a response that was scented with condenscention, supercilliousness and arrogance. Was that a dodge? If it was, that’s not a pretty good schtick you’ve got going there.

Is it just me, or are the good Doctor’s comments beginning to feel like Chinese Water Torture? *drip-drip-drip*

It’s not just you.

4 years, no matter how recent, is a much smaller sampling window than a whole decade.

Well, Doc, I suppose that’s true. A 4-year sample is smaller than a 10-year sample. In fact, I’d say it’s about 40% of the sample size. (I hope that’s not too fuzzy.) But your original point was not “The 9th Circuit spent about 10 years having a higher-than-average reversal rate”; your point was, and I quote: “Because nearly all of their decisions represent an extreme form of judicial activism, most of their decisions are ultimately reversed by real judges.” But it turns out that most of the decisions of all the Circuits are reversed. In fact, since 1992-93, there has been only one session in which the average of reversals was not higher than 50% — and in that one session, it was 50-50. So I guess if “most decisions are reversed” is caused by “extreme judicial activism,” then all the Circuits are extreme judicial activists, eh?

You’ve also taken the numbers out of context. You have to look at how many of the reversals were unanimous, because that is also an index of how “out of touch” a particular ruling may be considered….

Or, as the first article I
linked to suggests, if is an index of whether the appellate court is trying (and failing) to predict the Supreme Court’s ruling or trying to determine the correct ruling on an open issue of law.

Let’s look at the most recent unanimous reversals:

2003, U.S. v. Banks: Held that a 15-20 second wait between police (with a search warrant) knocking and breaking down the door satisfied the 4th Amendment.

2003, Raytheon v. Hernandez: Held that the 9th Circuit improperly used a disparate-impact analysis instead of a disparate-treatment analysis in overturning a summary judgment from the district court in an employment discrimination (ADA) claim.

2004, U.S. Postal Svc. v. Flamingo Industries: Held that the USPS is immune from antitrust liability, instead of having only limited immunity as the 9th Circuit had held.

2004, U.S. v. Galletti: That’s the tax liability/statute of limitations case I referred to in my earlier comment.

2004, U.S. v. Flores-Montano: Held that a search and disassembly of a car’s gas tank (which found drugs) did not require a reasonable suspicion, because the requirement for suspicion to support an intrusive bodily search do not carry over to vehicles.

2004, National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish: Held that the Office of Independent Counsel could rely on a personal privacy exemption to withhold photos relating to Vince Foster’s suicide when the requester under FOIA did not have evidence of government agency impropriety. (The 9th Circuit had ruled that the requester did not need to show such impropriety.)

2004, Dept. of Transportation v. Public Citizen: Held that a government agency did not act improperly by not issuing a complete environmental assessment of cross-border operations of Mexican truckers.

2004, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow: The infamous Pledge case. Wanna know what the 9th Circuit was reversed on here? Michael Newdow’s standing to bring the action in the first place. Held that he did not have standing to bring the suit on behalf of his daughter, because her mother
had sole custody.

2004, U.S. v. Dominguez Benitez: Held that the 9th Circuit used the wrong test to decide if a court’s failure to advise the defendant he couldn’t withdraw his guilty plea required reversal of the conviction.

2004, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain: Held that the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows plaintiffs to sue the U.S. for injuries caused by government employees acting in the scope of their duties, could not be used by a Mexican plaintiff who was abducted from Mexico on behalf of the DEA and subsequently acquitted, because the FTCA has an exemption for injuries occurring on foreign soil and his injury — the false arrest — took place in Mexico. (The 9th Circuit, recognizing that exemption, had held the plaintiff could still proceed because the false arrest was directed from a “headquarters” in the U.S., and that’s what the Supremes rejected.)

So, Doc. Ten unanimous reversals. Of those, only two made national news — the Newdow and Alvarez-Machain cases. And even including those two, I don’t see how any of them reflect an appellate court that is in any way “extreme,” let alone “activist.” But you go ahead and read the cases — they’re all linked from the second article I linked to previously — and tell me where the 9th Circuit is exercising “extreme judicial activism.”

Strange Forces:
Ask me a direct question, and I’ll do my best to answer it. Play games with me, and I’ll put the ball right back in your court. I believe Tulkinghorn was playing a game, so I responded in kind.

celticgirl: Yes, it may be torture, but like that old John Mellancamp song goes,it “Hurts so good!”

Anne: Wouldn’t you agree?

Dan, I’ve just figured out that you and I are going to go around in circles with this argument simply because quantative statistical analysis alone is not enough to prove either of our points. We’d have to also do a qualitative analysis, looking at the nature of each case and the way in which judges on the 9th circuit ruled. Quite frankly, by the time I completed my doctoral dissertation, I was sick of crunching numbers. Though I could puruse this further, I’ll trade in the satisfaction that comes with winning an argument for the satisfaction that comes from knowing I don’t have to crunch any more numbers.

Gee, Doc, that’s very decent of you, to propose a “draw” in our little argument here. Except you’re the one who made a claim — specifically that the 9th Circuit is reversed most of the time because it’s engaged in “extreme judicial activism.” So it’s your burden to prove your claim.

But the recent numbers don’t show a disproportionate reversal rate; there’s no way to ascertain that the cause of any one or more reversals was because the 9th was “out of touch” with whatever you think they’re out of touch with; and even in the period where the 9th was being reversed more than the national average, we don’t have any information on the other circuits, so we don’t know which other circuits might have also been above the average, so you can’t single out the 9th.

No number crunching required, just logic and facts. If you have the facts to back up your parroting of the GOP talking points about the 9th Circuit, then let’s see them. I don’t think you’ve got them, and I’ve shown where your logic is flawed, so I don’t think you can prove your claim.

So no, I will not agree to split the pot with you. I’m holding the best hand.

…As Jon Stewart would say, “Oh, Snap!”

Well, Dan, it’s time to cash in that hand. The fact is, all I had were GOP talking points and my dog just grabbed my only copy and obliterated it.

Dr. Sandwich, there are over 30 justices on the 9th Circuit. Can you name even one? Some are liberal (e.g. Reinhardt, Gould), others conservative (e.g. O’Scannlain, Wallace).

On the merits, perhaps, since you despise judicial activism so, you could point us to the provision of the constitution that states that parents have a right to keep their children from learning about sex in public schools? Or do you object to “judicial activism” only when it produces an outcome you don’t like?

Big Worm, this arrogant, smarter-than-thou, condescending routine is getting pretty popular around here. Enough of the pedantry. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not your student, and you’re not my school teacher. So please don’t send me to the principal’s office for things you assume I don’t know. I must give you props, though. I can’t blame you for trying to deflect your ignorance by making me out to be the ignorant one. It’s a pretty handy little trick, it’s just that you’re executing it in a manner that is too transparent.

Some of the specific questions very young children were being asked were read verbatim on the Bill O’Reilly show. These are questions that would make even you blush. Let’s keep our children as innocent as possible for as long as possible. Once innocence is lost, it’s gone for good.

This just in from Dr. BLT:

The Constitution prevents school boards from asking kids questions “that would make even [me] blush.” Originalism at its finest.

As you concede, Dr. BLT, the democratic process worked as it should and “legitimately concerned parents successfully had the inappropriate material removed,” despite the 9th Circuit’s refusal to make shit up about the Constitution. So this tempest in a teapot served no other purpose than in exercising ignorant rubes for yet another round in the culture wars. I’m sure O’Reilly et. al. are happy that you took the bait.

Oooh, I can name one! Pick me! Pick me! Alex Kozinski!

Do I win?

Heh, and speaking of pedantry and arrogance, what do you think of the mook who wrote this: “Relax, my right-wing friends. Almost everybody understands that this court is a big joke, even most Dems. Because nearly all of their decisions represent an extreme form of judicial activism, most of their decisions are ultimately reversed by real judges.”

You win, Dan. Congratulations. Your prize is a first-press of Dr. BLT’s next single, “Pedantry in the Principal’s Office.”

I don’t know, Dan, who is the arrogant SOB who wrote that piece of pedantry? Big Worm, I think you could really be onto something with that. How small a cut of the royalties would you be willing to take?

Zero percent. You’d do all the hard work – I just suggested a title. But if the finished product doesn’t incorporate the phrase “reason has since stepped in where these judges feared to tread,” I will be really disappointed.

I’m late to this posting but I can’t resist. I’ve got a nine year old daughter and a six year old daughter. Oddly, lots of questions and answers about sex don’t make them blush at all–they do make them giggle. Because they go to a progressive private school I’m aware that their interest in, and curiosity about, their bodies and (by extension) other people’s bodies are quite normal and also quite extensive. With the schools help we checked out some books about bodies, puberty, and sexuality and began reading and discussing them. What a fantastic time we’ve had!

And yet, their innocence isn’t “gone” unless you are using innocence to be a synonym for ignorance. They remain the delightful, innocent, thoughtful, dreamy, intellectual children they were before but they just don’t have as many false notions about their internal organs as they did before.

weird, that.

Now you’ve done it, Big Worm. I give us one week, max, before he posts a link to the MP3.

Amimai, I don’t know what kind of a school your children attend, but I do know that “progressive” is often used as a euphemism for “whacky.” How would you like a teacher asking your kids questions about sex—- rhetorical questions for example, that implied that sex was dirty and that they were evil for having thoughts about sex? When you leave such an important task such as sex education up to schools, any nut job could influence your child’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings on the matter.

When you leave such an important task such as sex education up to schools, any nut job could influence your child’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings on the matter.

Agreed. When you leave any significant aspect of your children’s upbringing entirely to someone else, “any nutjob” could have a negative effect on how your kids grow up. That is what we call a “truism.” Even with subjects as prosaic as reading and math, it is incumbent on the parents to maintain a reasonable level of involvement in their children’s education, to make sure that the random nutjob isn’t successful in, for instance, teaching a science class that unknowns in biology can only be explained by invoking God, or, pardon me, an “intelligent designer.”

But nowhere in aimai’s post is there a suggestion that those girls’ sex education is being left entirely up to the school; in fact, it’s pretty clear that the parents are taking the lead in educating the girls, “with the school’s help.”

If conservatives don’t like the youngsters getting all sexual, they shouldn’t allow states to have legal marriage ages of, like, 13 and stuff.