tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post8287786075395764547..comments2024-02-21T17:03:05.861-08:00Comments on Petrelis Files: Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08359712473083091475noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post-46082996063632537152011-01-21T11:14:32.258-08:002011-01-21T11:14:32.258-08:00For those who think that it would acceptable for R...For those who think that it would acceptable for Roberts to consider his cousin's interests in a ruling on <i>Perry</i>, surely you must agree there is no problem with Scalia and Thomas <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0121-court-conflict-20110120,0,2463815.story" rel="nofollow">meeting with the Kotch brothers</a> possibly regarding <i>Citizens United</i> -- right?Brad Karrfaltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post-5784748522977114882011-01-20T20:41:29.016-08:002011-01-20T20:41:29.016-08:00Brad Karrfalt, what makes you think that Roberts d...Brad Karrfalt, what makes you think that Roberts does not make rulings that reflect his upbringing and values? He may not "confer with his Bishop or Cardinal," but I assure you that Roberts' background as a heterosexual, Catholic, white male influence the way he views gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, free speech, and corporate power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post-25928392009766876312011-01-20T20:27:28.307-08:002011-01-20T20:27:28.307-08:00I would not call that expectation limited at all. ...I would not call that expectation limited at all. It is what the courts are there for, to rise above the mud-slinging and reactionary rhetoric. And yes, the identity politics.<br /><br />True, Justices are both fellow human beings with our inherent flaws and also pragmatists. Surely they do not arrive at a decision without -- consciously or unconsciously -- considering the impact of that decision. But it is a far cry from saying "If this law is upheld/struck down, the following will likely occur" to "well, my cousin/friend/business partner will benefit directly if this is so."<br /><br />As I had alluded to earlier it is even the hint or possibility of a conflict of interest that is of concern. Consider Justice Walker and the <i>Perry</i> case. Most rational human beings would read his very erudite decision and conclude that Prop 8 was indeed a travesty of justice, predicated upon the most base and vile of human prejudices and sold to the masses in a veil of fear and self-righteousness. The other side put on no case because they <b>had</b> no case. Yet all they need do is yell, "The judge is one of <i>them</i>!" to instill doubt about the validity of that decision.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting that Roberts recuse himself, I'm just cautioning -- strongly -- against Mr. Petrelis suggestion that Ms. Podrasky try to unduly influence her cousin. Can you imagine if the Roberts court upholds Walker's decision (either broadly or narrowly) and a possibility of her influence is even whispered?<br /><br />Maggie Gallagher's tiny little brain would explode all over her mumu... Would you want to clean that up?Brad Karrfaltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post-70919818075609578522011-01-20T17:37:51.915-08:002011-01-20T17:37:51.915-08:00"The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to we..."The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to weigh the evidence presented and interpret it in the context of the U.S. Constitution" is a remarkably limited understanding of what a justice does. I cannot thnk of a single justice, liberal, conservative or moderate who has followed such a limited guide. All justices consider the impacts of their decisions. Some more than others but none just call balls and strikes and have no concern for the game.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09159209690295101604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141703.post-60374952128973252202011-01-20T15:25:35.691-08:002011-01-20T15:25:35.691-08:00...I would still hope that she would talk to him a...<i>...I would still hope that she would talk to him about the real-world impact of his decisions and the affects they have on gay people.</i><br /><br />That would be very, very wrong. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to weigh the evidence presented and interpret it in the context of the U.S. Constitution, not make a ruling that impacts favorably towards friends, relatives, or other personal interests. It might even be argued that because of Roberts' relationship to his cousin he has a "horse in the race" and should recuse himself.<br /><br />To put it another way, how would you feel if he instead were to, as a Catholic, confer with his Bishop or Cardinal on the impact to the Church before issuing an opinion?<br /><br />We need to win -- we <b>deserve</b> to win. But we must do it fairly or it means nothing.Brad Karrfaltnoreply@blogger.com