If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scalia...and some other people)   Look to the person on your right and left. If you can name one of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, you are better than they are. But you already knew that, didn't you, ya big lug you   (washingtonmonthly.com) divider line 190
    More: Obvious, right and left, supreme court justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court of Canada, Clarence Thomas  
•       •       •

6665 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jun 2010 at 1:22 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-02 03:48:05 PM
Lando Lincoln: phaseolus: Can you name some landmark Supreme Court cases? (new window)

Roe v. Wade
Kramer v. Kramer
The Scopes trial thingy

My brain just doesn't remember things like that. It is dumb that way. I think it's the beer that did it in.


Alien V. Predator
Ali V. Frazier
Kramer V. Godzilla
 
2010-06-02 03:48:51 PM
It's easy to name the justices:

The gay couple -Scalia and Thomas
The two chicks-Ginzburg and Sotomayor
The swing vote-Kennedy
The Bush twins-Roberts and Alito
The ice cream guy-Breyer
The geezer-Stevens
 
2010-06-02 03:53:13 PM
YouWinAgainGravity: BuckTurgidson: Police interrogation == "interviewing a fellow citizen, whose safety and rights the police are paid and obligated to serve and protect regardless of suspected offenses".

And all you have to do is let them know you're invoking those rights. It's not hard.


I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.
 
2010-06-02 03:54:38 PM
BuckTurgidson: I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.

This rings true in my ears and heart.
 
2010-06-02 03:54:46 PM
BuckTurgidson: I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.

Yes you do. Or are you saying the police need to have a lawyer ready and waiting for you whenever they talk to you?
 
2010-06-02 04:03:20 PM
YouWinAgainGravity: BuckTurgidson: I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.

Yes you do. Or are you saying the police need to have a lawyer ready and waiting for you whenever they talk to you?


Are you saying that my rights are like a magic spell, if I don't say the words they don't exist?
 
2010-06-02 04:05:15 PM
BuckTurgidson: Are you saying that my rights are like a magic spell, if I don't say the words they don't exist?

No. I am saying the same thing the Supreme Court is saying. When it comes to Miranda Rights, you have those rights, and if you want to *use* them, you need to *say so*. Not using a right is not the same thing as waiving it.
 
2010-06-02 04:05:40 PM
I knew Judge Scalia from Tom the Dancing Bug because Justice Scalia is an awesome superhero!
 
2010-06-02 04:16:45 PM
TexasPeace: I can name all six

Well, there's Simon, Randy, Ellen, Paula, and the Chick Who Replaced Paula. Who am I missing? Are you counting Ryan?

/Actually, I knew at least 5/9, and I ain't even American.
 
2010-06-02 04:28:36 PM
FloydA:

Alien V. Predator
Ali V. Frazier
Kramer Bambi V. Godzilla
 
2010-06-02 04:29:48 PM
BuckTurgidson: YouWinAgainGravity: BuckTurgidson: Police interrogation == "interviewing a fellow citizen, whose safety and rights the police are paid and obligated to serve and protect regardless of suspected offenses".

And all you have to do is let them know you're invoking those rights. It's not hard.

I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.


Then shut the hell up and you keep them. You can't expect the police to read your mind to know whether or not you want to be interrogated, especially when you're answering SOME question like the article said the perp did.

How liberal do you have to be in order to feel like there are never any repercussions for your most stupid of actions like talking when you have a right to remain silent?
 
2010-06-02 04:32:01 PM
jekxrb: Mobkey: I could think of 3 and I'm Canadian.

Ditto.

Now can you name any of the judges on OUR supreme court?


Our what now?
 
2010-06-02 04:35:17 PM
Does "corrupt stooge #4" count?
 
2010-06-02 04:37:49 PM
This Looks Fun: BuckTurgidson: I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.

This rings true in my ears and heart.


Yeah, you have the right to remain silent... stfu, don't confess and you keep that right. You waive the right by talking to the cops without the only words being "I invoke my fifth amendment rights" or "I want an attorney present for my questioning."

You have a right to possess firearms. Does that mean that the government has to purchase and deliver them to you? So have your waived your right by not buying one?

You have a right to freedom of speech. Does the government have to speak for you? Have you waived your right by remaining silent?

Yes, by default you have rights. You don't have to recite a magical incantation for them to be used . In some cases, though, you need to speak to request a lawyer. You need to go to Walmart to purchase a gun, possibly while registering. You need to say something out loud to exercise your freedom of speech.
 
2010-06-02 04:56:33 PM
How about us foreeeners?

Oh right, we don't really exist.
 
2010-06-02 05:00:17 PM
Mobkey: Our what now?

Indeed.

Who knew we had one?
 
2010-06-02 05:10:45 PM
osgeek: BuckTurgidson: YouWinAgainGravity: BuckTurgidson: Police interrogation == "interviewing a fellow citizen, whose safety and rights the police are paid and obligated to serve and protect regardless of suspected offenses".

And all you have to do is let them know you're invoking those rights. It's not hard.

I inherently have those rights, I don't need to explicitly invoke them. The only thing I should be need to be explicit about is if I choose to waive them.

Then shut the hell up and you keep them.


No, if I shut the hell up I have implicitly waived them, according to the Supreme Court.
 
2010-06-02 05:12:52 PM
osgeek:

Also, I hereby remind you of your right to decaf.
 
2010-06-02 05:17:28 PM
BuckTurgidson: No, if I shut the hell up I have implicitly waived them, according to the Supreme Court.

It would help if you actually read the decision or any of the articles about it.

You *waive* the right if you start cooperating with the police by answering their questions. If you say absolutely nothing, you have neither invoked nor waived the right and the interrogation may continue.
 
2010-06-02 05:30:58 PM
YouWinAgainGravity: BuckTurgidson: No, if I shut the hell up I have implicitly waived them, according to the Supreme Court.

It would help if you actually read the decision or any of the articles about it.

You *waive* the right if you start cooperating with the police by answering their questions. If you say absolutely nothing, you have neither invoked nor waived the right and the interrogation may continue.


Until ... ?
 
2010-06-02 05:46:50 PM
I already knew I was better-informed than 2/3 of the country. Sadly.

I'm amused that people are referencing the fact that the SC are appointed for life as a reason why they don't know/don't need to remember their names. Because it is awfully hard to remember the names of 9 people who hold the same job for decades at a time.

As opposed to the names of all the people on American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Survivor, your favorite sports team, etc.
 
2010-06-02 05:49:04 PM
jekxrb: Mobkey: I could think of 3 and I'm Canadian.

Ditto.

Now can you name any of the judges on OUR supreme court?


Sooooo easy: Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, Richard, Orr, Hull Sr., Messier, Lafleur, and Esposito.
 
2010-06-02 05:55:35 PM
BuckTurgidson: Until ... ?

Until one of:

1) They decide to stop
2) You say "I am invoking my right to remain silent"
3) You say "Ok, I confess"
 
2010-06-02 05:57:48 PM
Lando Lincoln: phaseolus: Can you name some landmark Supreme Court cases? (new window)

Roe v. Wade
Kramer v. Kramer
The Scopes trial thingy

My brain just doesn't remember things like that. It is dumb that way. I think it's the beer that did it in.


Brown v. Board of Education
OR Emp. v. Smith
Lawrence v. Texas
Loving v. Virginia
DC v. Heller
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Citizens United
upcoming: CLS v. Hastings
upcoming: Bilski

/off the top of my head
 
2010-06-02 06:06:27 PM
endosymbiont: Lando Lincoln: phaseolus: Can you name some landmark Supreme Court cases? (new window)

Roe v. Wade
Kramer v. Kramer
The Scopes trial thingy

My brain just doesn't remember things like that. It is dumb that way. I think it's the beer that did it in.

Brown v. Board of Education
OR Emp. v. Smith
Lawrence v. Texas
Loving v. Virginia
DC v. Heller
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Citizens United
upcoming: CLS v. Hastings
upcoming: Bilski

/off the top of my head


How about Murray v. Curlett?
 
2010-06-02 06:36:18 PM
endosymbiont: Lando Lincoln: phaseolus: Can you name some landmark Supreme Court cases? (new window)

Roe v. Wade
Kramer v. Kramer
The Scopes trial thingy

My brain just doesn't remember things like that. It is dumb that way. I think it's the beer that did it in.

Brown v. Board of Education
OR Emp. v. Smith
Lawrence v. Texas
Loving v. Virginia
DC v. Heller
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Citizens United
upcoming: CLS v. Hastings
upcoming: Bilski

/off the top of my head


You sound like a 2L. I have no idea which case Bilski is, though.

/is a 2l.
 
2010-06-02 07:21:29 PM
If you're praying for your government as you're commanded to do, you end up knowing who they are.
 
2010-06-02 07:24:35 PM
deciusmaximus: Now I know why I love this forum so much ... leave it to Fark to turn a Supreme Court thread into something truly funny.

Madmann ... time to quit the day job and hit the comedy circuit. Your list had me in stitches.



Thanks. Too late. Threw about 5 years at it. Developed an aversion to ramen noodles. Found a corporate overlord. The End.

I probably could have made it, though... if I'd been luckier and funnier. And willing to leave the sticks.
 
2010-06-02 07:29:38 PM
i think that is what they are going for when they refuse to air the hearings on tv and generally live low key lives.
 
2010-06-02 08:09:47 PM
img526.imageshack.us

"Also, in a rare double-whammy decision the court finds polygamy constitutional."
 
2010-06-02 08:24:48 PM
I keep a note on my iphone of the scotus for just this sort of day.

Im both serious, and very sad now at how pathetic my life has become.

..im still not removing my constitution iphone app though- nor my bookmarks to famous speeches like the Gettysburg Address.
 
2010-06-02 08:39:58 PM
Easy: Diana Ross, Mary Wilson and Florence Ballard, later replaced by Cindy Birdsong

www.cedarville.edu
 
2010-06-02 08:56:31 PM
I work at a shop where everyday there is a different trivia question. If you get the question right, you win a lighter. Last Friday's question (or actually a non-question) was "Name one current Supreme Court Justice." Only 11 people out of the 340 or so people that came through that day could name one, and I was one of those 11 people.
Scallia won at a count of 3, where Thomas, Ginsberg, and Sotomeyer had a three-way tie for second at a count of two. (Fun fact: Both of the customers that guessed Ginsberg referenced how much she looks like a man.)
 
2010-06-02 09:47:15 PM
HeartBurnKid: endosymbiont: Lando Lincoln: phaseolus: Can you name some landmark Supreme Court cases? (new window)

Roe v. Wade
Kramer v. Kramer
The Scopes trial thingy

My brain just doesn't remember things like that. It is dumb that way. I think it's the beer that did it in.

Brown v. Board of Education
OR Emp. v. Smith
Lawrence v. Texas
Loving v. Virginia
DC v. Heller
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Citizens United
upcoming: CLS v. Hastings
upcoming: Bilski

/off the top of my head

How about Murray v. Curlett?


How about Marbury v. Madison? McCullough v. Maryland? Dred Scott? I dare say those are pretty landmark as well, one might even say seminal. Sad that such important decisions were not on that list at the link.
 
2010-06-02 10:22:08 PM
Four conservatives (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia).
Two moderates (Kennedy, Breyer).
Three liberals (Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor).

I've memorized them in case I'm every stopped on the street by some news or TV show, I will be able to answer correctly.

// oh god, i just sensed the vast emptiness of my life :-0

i861.photobucket.com
 
2010-06-02 10:45:13 PM
What happened to Ginsburg? and I thought everyone knew Antonin!
 
2010-06-02 11:11:50 PM
Let's see. Off the top of my head...Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens.

(checks Wikipedia)

...aaaaaaand it looks like I'm one of the one-percenters. How do you like me now, motherfarkers?

/kind of stoked
 
fdr
2010-06-03 02:05:23 AM
mongbiohazard: DarthBrooks: If they said, "Earl Warren" would that count as a correct answer? The survey doesn't mention current Supreme Court Justices.

>snip
I loved listening to the entire confirmation hearings of the last few justices on Cspan. Very entertaining, if only to listen to the justices outwit the Senators, especially Roberts. Roberts was obviously the smartest guy in the room during his.


He showed his smartness by not remembering the lines at Obama's swearing in and they had to re-do it afterwards. Duuuah.
 
2010-06-03 10:59:44 AM
Oreminer: "Also, in a rare double-whammy decision the court finds polygamy constitutional."

I can't wait to tell my husbands!
 
2010-06-03 11:44:54 AM
girlslikestatus: lennavan: Four in 10 Americans say President Obama made a good or excellent choice in nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, a Gallup poll finds.

Pet Peeve: People with an opinion on the SCOTUS who know nothing about the SCOTUS. Gee, whatever could the possibly be basing their opinion on? Maybe I'm being harsh, Stevens has only been on the court for 35 years and is already on his way out. Maybe it's the high turnover the SCOTUS has.

Well that's why you shouldn't put a second of effort into interpreting opinion polls where it's obvious people can't have a real opinion, otherwise you're going to spend a lot of your life ridiculously frustrated. These ridiculous polls are conducted so news outlets can feel they are reporting, while they are rarely scientific.


Yeah, this was my point. Even if they are conducted in a scientific way they are still essentially meaningless. Sure the majority of the population is for/against ________. But how many of them really know what _________ is? Or (in politics specifically) how many of them simply voted for/against it because of what political party it was affiliated with.

"Are you for President Obama's..." stop right there, no more need be said of course I'm for/against it.
 
Displayed 40 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report