OT: A Real Debate

[Kirk007]

As Dave's debate thread has drifted I decided to start a new one on debate.

On Wednesday I had the privilege of sitting at counsel's table in an argument in front of the United States Supreme Court. It is much more intimate setting than I imagined. Counsel table is about 6 feet from the bench, and the bench is only elevated a foot or two. When counsel stands at the podium, they are looking the justices eye to eye.

The two arguments that morning were debates of the highest order. Skilled counsel on each side facing 9 (well 8 - Justice Thomas hasn't asked a question is close to 10 years apparently and was true to form) inquisitors. Smart inquisitors. Some who had an agenda.

There was no "stump speeches" just on your feet thinking to tough probing questions and responses to the other side's positions. If you like debate, it was a beautiful thing and I highly recommend that you go and watch an argument if you ever have the opportunity.

To me one of the ironies was the juxtaposition of Justice Scalia's constant harping against liberal "activist" judges yet in both arguments, when Souter and Breyer has the US Solicitor Generals squirming, Scalia interrupted with phrases such as "counsel it seems as if you are trying to say "X" is that your argument. Solicter: "Yes Justice Scalia, that is exactly the governments' point." I guess that's a different type of activist judge. I kept looking for the basketball hoop, wondering if Scalia would be going for a triple double later in the day. He had his assists wrapped up before lunch.

[thwart]

Justice Thomas hasn't asked a question is close to 10 years apparently and was true to form Hard to believe the guy's actually there...except for his predictable vote... :crap:

[Louis]

Kirk, interesting. What was the case?

Louis

[Viper]

Kirk, interesting. What was the case?

Louis

Lemond, Lance, something along those lines. :)

[Kirk007]

Summers v. Earth Island Institute. Environmental case. Here's a pretty good newstory: http://www.nbc11.com/ecologic/17681956/detail.html

Here is our website that has more details: www.westernlaw.org

[cadence90]

Kirk, that sounds very interesting. If you are allowed to mention it, what is the nature of the case? (Oops, we posted at the same time: I just saw your reply, and I'll read the link.)

It must be quite amazing to enter into that chamber and to participate.
Are we going to see you presiding over an Appellate Court someday?

[cadence90]

Kirk, I read the links. That's a very interesting case, and it seems it has travelled quite a road. Your firm sounds pretty cool. Did you have to buy a new suit? :)

I would say that Bader and Ginsburg's stance seems quite logical. I have a question: how does the USFS define the limits of "timber projects of less than 250 acres and "forest thinning" projects of 1,000 acres or less."? Can the USFS allow for instance adjacent but separated parcels of these sizes to be "harvested" without EIRs, etc.? Is this a position the USFS feels entitled to be allowed to impose anywhere?

[Karin Kirk]

Nice story and links. I have been following this in the background, but I'd lost track of it. I'm glad there are people like you and firms like yours to look after matters like this.

Thanks for the posts!

[Louis]

I guess that's a different type of activist judge.

A judge who rules in your favor = Standing up for the Constitution

A judge who rules against you = Activist Judge who probably tortures small children and pals around with Bill Ayers

[don compton]

i love to ride my bike. i am a fanatic and own many more than is necessary. i find myself in a quandry. how can someone with somewhat, conservative views enjoy any cycling forum on the internet? :confused:
sincerely, don c.

[Louis]

i love to ride my bike. i am a fanatic and own many more than is necessary. i find myself in a quandry. how can someone with somewhat, conservative views enjoy any cycling forum on the internet? :confused:
sincerely, don c.

Some ideas off the top of my head:

Option #1: Ignore the political threads.

Option #2: Have no views at all.

Option #3: Vacillate wildly (i.e. be erratic) and agree with every post you happen to be reading.

Option #4: Don't let it bother you.

Option #5: Become somewhat less conservative.

Option #6: Take some more testosterone or steroids so you enjoy violently attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Option #7: Repeat ad nauseam the same political or economic opinions until you bludgeon you opponents into silence.

There are so many more...

[Viper]

i love to ride my bike. i am a fanatic and own many more than is necessary. i find myself in a quandry. how can someone with somewhat, conservative views enjoy any cycling forum on the internet? :confused:
sincerely, don c.

Continue to dry clean your Reagan Under Roos.

It works for me.

The internet is a hip place, liberal views are cool. Being who you are, using your entire mind to listen to many ideas, while never forgetting your own core and foundation is cooler.

:beer:

[cadence90]

i love to ride my bike. i am a fanatic and own many more than is necessary. i find myself in a quandry. how can someone with somewhat, conservative views enjoy any cycling forum on the internet? :confused:
sincerely, don c.
Following Louis' funny and ironic reply: just 1 answer:
People of all stripes (I won't even say "zebra" ;) ), occupy every corner of the globe, including cycling forums.
Freedom of expression is a pretty nice addition to cycling, and living.
Can I get a witness???

I have no idea though if conservative-view cyclists are allowed to wear rose-colored shades though; that's my quandary.

Anywho, I'm off to watch Bill Moyers and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

"On your left!!"

[Karin Kirk]

i love to ride my bike. i am a fanatic and own many more than is necessary. i find myself in a quandry. how can someone with somewhat, conservative views enjoy any cycling forum on the internet? :confused:
sincerely, don c.

There are other conservatives on this forum who interact a lot and seem to enjoy themselves. So you're not alone. Based on some of the political threads lately, there seem to be people of all stripes here, which is one of the things that keeps it interesting.

[Kirk007]

Cadence-

Theoretically the FS could try to exclude small sales that were contiguous but I haven't seen this happen. The sale at issue originally was a salvage sale (burnt timber) Typically these sales have value, if at all, for a very limited time. Therefore it would be hard for the FS to stage them out sequentially over time. If they offered them all at once they would be challenged on the grounds that they had segmented the project to evade environmental review, a clear no no under the National Environmental Policy Act.

But yes, the FS could and has tried to exclude many many projects from environmental review despite strong scientific evidence that the types of projects excluded, such as salvage timber sales, have dramatic environmental impacts on soil stability, water quality in the streams in the watershed, and the the likelihood of forest regeneration in a healthy way. Ironic that they are proposed under a Bush initiative called the Healthy Forest Initiative.

No judgship for me; that would require getting involved in politics. I clerked for a federal judge; it was incredibly political scene - as evidenced by any confirmation hearing these days.

Don - my original post was not intended to be political. I was commenting on what was for me quite an incredible day; urging folks to, if they ever have the inclination to get up at 5 am to stand in line, to do so and watch an argument. It gives one a much better sense for how the court works, and that the justices are real people; real smart people but people nonetheless with all of our foibles.

The observations of Scalia and others are what they are, no more, no less. Go read the transcript of our argument or the one before it on the Navy's use of sonar and its impacts on marine mammals. The posturing of Scalia, and to a degree Alito, was disappointing and somewhat repugnant to my notion that litigators should stand on their own two feet and make their case. Instead, Scalia and Alito seemed to think that the lawyers were at times props for their own points of view, using them to express their opinions, often on matters that were not at the heart of the issues or to express their own opinions on the case for the benefit (?) of the other Justices. I'm sure its not limited to Scalia and Alito (although Scalia has the rep); but that was what I saw on this day. It is what it is.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[Kirk007]

Roberts is very impressive. Regardless of what you think of his judicial philosophy he is clearly very smart, and he was unfailingly polite, cordial and even exhibited a sense of humor. I wouldn't want to be in a one on one debate with him! I think there is no doubt that he will be a force on the court for many years.