Thread: BORK HER !!!

I've been to Switzerland a number of times. I'll stand by my statement on their medical system, their tax rates, their train system and the education system. They have far more of a social welfare system than we do, or are ever likely to have.

The guns are in locked closets because of a standing militia, a defense system of almost instant call-up, much like the Israelis. In a small, low-population country, it's impossible to have much of an active-duty military.

All Supreme Court justices interpret law and that includes the Constitution, our basic law. There's no such thing as an non-activist judge. Whether you, or I, view any justice as activist is a matter of our attitudes and life experience.

Incidentally, it was quite early in our history that John Marshall established the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of matters of Constitutional law. The pendulum always swings one way or the other, but over time during history has tended to the center. That's a good thing, I think.

I haven't been to Switzerland, but I'm surprised to read about their tax rates in this thread. People all over Europe 'relocate' to Switzerland to escape the tax rates in their respective countries -- I always assumed therefore that the tax rate is actually incredibly low, or perhaps that it is very easy to avoid using creative accountancy. Many of UK's richest either base themselves offshore (Bermuda, Jersey, wherever) or in Switzerland to escape UK tax rates. There was a mini/non-scandal when Lewis Hamilton (Formula 1) recently did this ('relocate' to Switzerland).

And the business I work for has just moved its tax headquarters to Switzerland, the share price jumped 14% on that news. So one has to conclude there's a tax advantage to be enjoyed in Switzerland which you do not find elsewhere.

Can someone who perhaps lives in Switzerland confirm the situation, because my experience says Switzerland = tax avoidance technique!

I suspect deregulation spurs business.

This thread is COMEDY GOLD...

This has been a great way to waste a friday morning at work.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

This thread is COMEDY GOLD...

This has been a great way to waste a friday morning at work.

Bummer - I wasted it playing golf.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Bummer - I wasted it playing golf.

that might have been a little better.

since a mod has mentioned my use of BORK as a surrogate for the F word I feel I should reiterate.

Etymology

From Robert Bork, rejected US Supreme Court nominee

[edit] Verb

Infinitive to Bork

Third person singular Borks

Simple past Borked

Past participle Borked

Present participle Borking

to Bork (third-person singular simple present Borks, present participle Borking, simple past and past participle Borked)

1. (US, politics) To defeat a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee's character, background and philosophy.
   
   • 2002, Orrin G. Hatch, Capital Hill Hearing Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in the matter of the Nomination of Charles W. Pickering to be United States Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Circuit, February 7, 2002
   
   

The wonder of soundbites. The entire speech was about how one's background necessarily influences one's decision making.

That doesn't sound so radical. That sounds like the type of intelligent self-awareness that a sitting judge should have.

In fact, here's a quote in full from a current Supreme Court Justice's congressional hearing:

I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

The crazy, racist, radical who said that was Sam Alito. He was responding to a crazy liberal question about empathy, to tell the senate what he "cares about, and let us see a little bit of [his] heart and what's important to [him] in life?" Asked by Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Compare Alito's testimony with the full speech given by Sotomayor and they say the same thing. Where I come from influences the decisions I make.

As for the making law red herring, here's a quote from a 2002 supreme court decision:

In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often “make law,” since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.

This was from the majority opinion, rendered by Justice Scalia, who I believe is not considered a radical activist judge. You can see the whole text at: REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE but if you haven't read a Scalia decision before, let me warn you, they are ponderous documents. The comment was made in a case involving the Minnesota judicial elections, I'll give a quote from the paragraph that says the summary decision:

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to respondents and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In other words, Scalia and the Supreme Court in 2002 found that it was appropriate for judicial nominees to express their political beliefs because it may influence how they make decisions that interpret legislation thereby "making" law.

Sotomayor stands aware of being accused of nothing more than an awareness of her personal story and the power that being a high ranking judge can wield. The former no more so than Samuel Alito, the latter no more so than Anton Scalia. These accusations have no danger attached to them.

like everything else there seems to be various meanings
Urban Dictionary: borked

Caution language.

Originally Posted by Doc

like everything else there seems to be various meanings
Urban Dictionary: borked

Caution language.

sorry Doc but that site is open to edit by anyone

go look at number 14
Urban Dictionary: Doc
caution language

those aren't REAL definitions and if you look around a while you will even see trolling


Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia
that isn't a real dictionary
sorry