BS: Replacing Justice Stevens (US Supreme Court)

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge on the other browser
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:33 PM

I think you should be careful Bobert, you have been posting a lot of sensible things lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:23 PM

So, if I have this correct, the supposed liberal Washington Post refused initially to take down a a post on it's blog from a rightie who regularially posts there and has worked for the Post about Kagen's sexual preference... Only after irrefutable evidence that Kagen is not gay did the so-called liberal Washington Post take down the post...

What next, the liberal Washington Post draggin' some poor gay guy thru the streets on a rope behind one of their delivery trucks???

Hey, ya'll righties... There is nothing "liberal" about the Washington Post... They backed Bush's war in Iraq and then a year and a half later admitted to "falling into a culture" that allowed them to print one lie afetr another about WMDs and mushroom clouds and all the reasons that Bush and Cheney gave for tjhe invasion of Iraq... But after dozens of front page stories that purdy much were PR articles for the Bush and his cronies, the admission that they had fallen into "a culture" came the August after the the August after the war and was printed in one edition on like page A-17...

Now back to the the next Supreme Court justice...

I'm still 100% behind Robert Kennedy, Jr... I can't think of anyone who would better articulate the concerns that reasonable progressives and moderates are feeling about the current court...

Now, if Clarence Thomas would resign while Obama is president (or the other Kennedy) then maybe we could restore a little sanity to our three branch government...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 07:00 PM

Probably the area where Clarence Thomas excells.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:38 PM

There also have been rumors, for years, that David Souter might be gay.

I think the defacto rule for Senate hearings on justice nominees should be "Don't ask, don't tell."

Aside from Anita Hill's allegations about Clarence Thomas -- where there was an issue of violation of the law -- I don't recall any nominees to Federal courts ever being asked about their sexual behavior or orientation.

(Oh, and if anyone assumes that a gay SCOTUS justice would automatically be biased in favor of gay/lesbian rights, look at Clarence Thomas's record re minority rights issues.)

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 02:25 PM

I wondered about that as well. There are still a number of American voters who think sexual preference is learned behavior, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:23 AM

It speaks volumes that that might affect appointability!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM

Now somebody is circulating a rumor about Elena Kagan being gay, CBS I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 10:38 AM

I guess that would take Sarah Palin off of Obama's short list!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:50 AM

BTW, while all but 3 of the 111 SCOTUS Justices have practiced law at some point before being appointed to the court, they have all had some training in the law, but the last one to be appointed without a formal law degree was appointed in 1938.

Forty of the justices, though, had no previous experience as judges. They include Chief Justices John Marshall, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM

Don't feel too bad, Rig. The first time I heard the chief executive referred to as "POTUS" was when I saw the first episode of The West Wing.   Not long after that I learned the related acronyms such as "SCOTUS."
(Before that, my main association to the name "SCOTUS" was a medieval philosopher/theologian.)

; )

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:38 AM

Thanks, mouse, I feel a little foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:31 AM

Supreme Court Of The United States

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:10 AM

"SCOTUS"

          Does this mean something?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 11:07 PM

"(I was just a little kid at the time)"

*grin*.... and I remember how Dred Scott upset ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:52 PM

You know, the Constitutions does not give SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the executive. SCOTUS took that power unto itself. IIRC (I was just a little kid at the time) that was Marbury v. Madison.

Right now, the Judicial branch of our US government has far more power than either of the other two branches, in part because of that decision/precedent and in part because of the lifetime appointment of Federal justices. (Not sure how far down that extends, but it's not just for the SCOTUS.)

Someone said earlier that the confirmation of SCOTUS justices has not been politicized much till recent years. I believe such politicization has occurred as far back as the Adams administration, even though it's not the norm. What I think is exceptional about today's Senate is the use or threat of the filibuster to block the appointment of fully qualified Federal justices on purely political grounds.
As I understand it, the "advise and consent" clause does not preclude Senators from considering political orientation in voting yea or nay on a nominee. But I think the filibuster should be reserved for extreme cases and generally has been in the past.
Same should go for individual Senators blocking qualified nominees in committee from coming up for a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:38 PM

"It is fundamentally wrong for a supreme court to take decisions on the basis of party politics."

            Richard is right about this. We need to find some way out of the maze.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM

Yep, Bobert.... as long as the Constitution stays vague in places, those whose principles depend on being able to shout, "the founders SAID we could do such & such", we will have these debates and justices like Alito and Roberts and Thomas 'interpreting' to suit whatever mind-numbing conservative notion gets proposed.

((**corporations are "individuals"??**)) crap! Give me a break!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:50 PM

Yeah, Bill... I completely agree... We are in need of some Constitutional ammendments but our nation is no longer capable of ammending the Constitution because it would require 2/3 of the states to agree on something and that is unlikeley... It would also require that 2/3 of Congress agree on something with is rtediculuosly unrealistic...

We are, therefor, at a Constitutional crisi in that we are now stuck with justices doing what the people used to do in terms of ammendments and justices also having a veto power pover Congress...

Hey, I wouldn't care if it was 5 liberals... It wouldn't chnage anyhting except that liberal or moderate legislation would stand until the next round of conservative (ha!) judges came in and vetoed them...

I mean, I'm not sure how we got in such a pickle but we are in it...

I will predict this: There won't be another ammendment to the Constitution in any of our life times... It's not possible any more...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: pdq
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:32 PM

There has been no Supreme Court justice serving without a formal law degree since 1957.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:15 PM

The reason for the time-differences between Congress and Senate elections is so that each house may control the dictatorship of the majority? The elections are held at exactly the same time - or do you mean term durations? It is supposedly so that there is one part of Congress that is immediately responsive to the desires of their constituents - because they have to face those people every two years - and another that has the ability to take a longer view. In practical terms, that is how it usually works...that is, there are a lot of strange bills that are introduced (or even passed) in the House to placate those back home that never even get introduced in the Senate.

What, BTW, does "dictatorship of the majority" mean? The majority always wields dictatorial powers in a democracy, although they may not always act like it. That is one of the most basic definitions of a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM

Genie makes an excellent point about stare decisis. As it is, a conservative court 'could' overturn several civil rights decisions. The decision to allow corporation's money to become a major power in politics is a harbinger of such changes....and yet the GOP threatens to fight judges who might 'legislate from the bench'...until they get a Republican president again, then watch out!

What we NEED is obviously several constitutional amendments to clarify some things the founders could not possibly have anticipated 250 years ago. That 'militia' bit meant something then...now it is used to justify all sorts of arrogant gun-slinging. States rights really needs to be re-defined and clarified in light of modern times, but I shudder at the prospect of getting any new amendments ratified.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:40 PM

Amos, empathy and full understanding are not the same thing. It is fundamentally wrong for a supreme court to take decisions on the basis of party politics. Their principal task is to discover, not invent, the law. There are many decisions of the UK House of Lords (now re-named "Supreme Court" in mistaken worship of the military might of the USA) that recognise that a change in the law might be desirable but that that is a matter for the legislature.

It is a shame upon an allegedly constitutional democracy that the SCOTUS should divide along political lines, and it undermines the US constitution. As I understand it, the reason for the time-differences between Congress and Senate elections is so that each house may control the dictatorship of the majority. That being so, the function of the SCOTUS is to determine not to make law, and certainly not to descend to party politics.

I do think that there is a lot to be said for requiring a greater majority than 5/4 to reverse a previous SCOTUS decision. The ability of the legislature to revise the constitution is much more trammeled than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 06:31 PM

Wouldn't we need to have 5 of the 9 be female to start with? Of course, the female population is 51% rather than 56%, but that would work as a starting point. On the other hand, only 8% of the lawyers in the US are women, so perhaps they are already over-represented. IMHO, a non-doctrinaire perspective is much more important than trying to match numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:51 PM

It certainly would not hurt if some of the Justices had either had experience as workers outside the political arena in addition to their training in the law, but I do think a law degree or its equivalent (e.g., having served as a legislator for a few terms) would be a requirement.
At the very least, a judge needs to be able to read and understand the Constitution, court arguments and decisions, etc.

As for your previous statement about "maintaing balance," Rig, surely you realize that having even 5 white males on the court is not "balance" in terms of representing the population.

Obviously in a group of nine, we couldn't have proportional representation by gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. But if we replaced 3 more of the white male Christians with people who were Jewish, female, Asian-Americans, and/or others of minority background, we'd come closer to that kind of "balance."

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 05:18 PM

"Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea for a supreme court judge to have judicial experience?"

             Maybe we'd be better off with plumbers, and farmers, and nurses, and teachers...

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:23 PM

mousethief - "I think they should change the court to an even number, half conservative and half liberal. And no "tie" votes are ever allowed. Make 'em talk to each other, dammit."

Excellent suggestion!

If "stare decisis" is really an important principle, the SCOTUS should change their own rules and require at least a 7-2 or 6-3 vote to overturn a major previous SCOTUS ruling (something that's basically considered "settled law").   We should not be seeing major changes in legal interpretation based on 5-4 rulings, nor should something as momentous as the Bush v. Gore ruling (a case which SCOTUS had no business taking in the first place) have been decided 5-4.

The Roberts court is one of the most "activist," non-"originalist," non-"strict-constructionist" courts we've ever had.   Does anyone seriously think Madison and the other framers of our Constitution (and its amendments) meant for money to be considered "speech," for corporations to have all the rights of people yet not be subject to all the obligations and penalties (such as imprisonment or death, the prohibition against owning each other, etc.), for the government to be able to "take" private property from one person to give it to another person or business, etc.?

It is not hard for me to see how Stevens and others who are now considered "liberal" were just a few decades ago seen as "conservative."

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:14 PM

mg
Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea for a supreme court judge to have judicial experience? mg

Not necessarily. If it were, I'd think the Constitution would have specified that.
I think they all have to be lawyers (or at least have been), but there are many other perspectives which are valuable to have represented on the bench: prosecutors, defense attorneys, legislative experience, labor, management, etc.
It's not that unusual to have a SCOTUS justice who had never been a judge. At least 40 past SCOTUS appointees have not had previous experience as judges.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM

Rig, while Sotamayor's gender and ethnicity were probably weighed as factors, that does not mean she was not chosen for her qualifications -- which are extensive (far beyond those of Clarence Thomas, for one). Thomas was clearly chosen largely because of being a conservative African-American, thus pretty much insuring that the Democrats wouldn't dare vote against him unless they could find some scandal like the Anita Hill thing. He basically refused to answer any pertinent questions about law or politics and did not have a track record on which to evaluate him. Had he not been a minority, the Democrats probably would not have voted to confirm him.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM

"Riginslinger, you implied that Justice Sotomayor is not capable and qualified without making your case."


                Sorry, Neil. The point I was trying to make was that she was chosen for reasons other than her qualifications--being Hispanic, being a woman, being younger--I didn't mean to imply that I was attacking her qualifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 10:39 AM

Excerpt from an interesting essay in The New York Times on the dynamic differences between liberal and so-called conservative judges:

" As James Madison observed, in a democratic society "the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended ... from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents." It was therefore essential, Madison concluded, for judges, whose life tenure insulates them from the demands of the majority, to serve as the guardians of our liberties and as "an impenetrable bulwark" against every encroachment upon our most cherished freedoms.

Conservative judges often stand this idea on its head. As the list of rulings above shows, they tend to exercise the power of judicial review to invalidate laws that disadvantage corporations, business interests, the wealthy and other powerful interests in society. They employ judicial review to protect the powerful rather than the powerless.

Liberal judges, on the other hand, have tended to exercise the power of judicial review to invalidate laws that disadvantage racial and religious minorities, political dissenters, people accused of crimes and others who are unlikely to have their interests fully and fairly considered by the majority. Liberal judges have ended racial segregation, recognized the principle of "one person, one vote," prohibited censorship of the Pentagon Papers and upheld the right to due process, even at Guantánamo Bay. This approach to judicial review fits much more naturally with the concerns and intentions of people like Madison who forged the American constitutional system.

Should "empathy" enter into this process? In the days before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, President Obama was criticized by conservatives for suggesting that a sense of empathy might make for a better judge.

But the president was correct. If all judges did was umpire, then judicial empathy would be irrelevant. In baseball, we wouldn't want an umpire to say a ball was a strike just because he felt empathy for the pitcher. But once you understand that the umpire analogy is absurd, it's evident that a sense of empathy can, in fact, help judges fulfill their responsibilities — in at least two ways.

First, empathy helps judges understand the aspirations of the framers, who were themselves determined to protect the rights of political, religious, racial and other minorities. Second, it helps judges understand the effects of the law on the real world. Think of judicial decisions that have invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, granted hearings to welfare recipients before their benefits could be terminated, forbidden forced sterilization of people accused of crime, protected the rights of political dissenters and members of minority religious faiths, guaranteed a right to counsel for indigent defendants and invalidated laws denying women equal rights under the law. In each of these situations, in order to give full and proper meaning to the Constitution it was necessary and appropriate for the justices to comprehend the effect that the laws under consideration had, or could have, on the lives of real people. "

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:59 AM

Riginslinger, you implied that Justice Sotomayor is not capable and qualified without making your case. See if you can do so and to make it interesting, don't cite Fox News as a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 10 - 09:15 AM

It looks like the list of potential candidates is getting longer. He's even looking at a guy who graduated from the University of Montana.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:31 PM

"(keep the "c")"

*blush*

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 09:50 AM

wouldn't it be a good idea for a supreme court judge to have judicial experience?

Didn't stop Clarence Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 08:05 AM

"Ronald Reagan and Barak (only one "r") Obama DID/DO think for themselves.."

            Barack (keep the "c") David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel do the thinking for Obama. It's still unclear who did the thinking for Reagan, but somebody must have.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 07:20 AM

Probably not, it would be better if they had some actual experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 11:21 PM

When I saw the short list it kept saying no judicial experience, no judicial experience for about 4 out of the 6, or maybe 5. I think Wood was deemed to have judicial experience.

Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea for a supreme court judge to have judicial experience? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:29 PM

Mouse has a purdy good idea here... An equally divided set of justices will always end up *having* to talk with one another, other than the usual football, resturants and shows...

Figuring out the verifications of leanings might prove difficult but not imposssible.... Just take a little work...

But back to the candidate...

My choice would be Robert Kennedy, Jr. because he is a known quantity and would represent progressive thinking... And that is a good thing cause...

...unlike Roberts, poeple will know what they are going to get... Alito??? Yeah, we knew we were gettin' another Clarence Thomas... Just the Archie Bunker variety...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:08 PM

HA! then you'd have both sides lying about their leanings in order to sneak one in!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 08:16 PM

I think they should change the court to an even number, half conservative and half liberal. And no "tie" votes are ever allowed. Make 'em talk to each other, dammit.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:08 PM

Hey, there's a bit too much personal stuff going on here. Talk about Supreme Court justices, and please refrain from personal attacks.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: pdq
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:08 PM

About the book called Advice and Consent...

" In Advice and Consent, two leading legal scholars, Lee Epstein and Jeffrey A. Segal, offer a brief, illuminating Baedeker to this highly important procedure, discussing everything from constitutional background, to crucial differences in the nomination of judges and justices, to the role of the Judiciary Committee in vetting nominees. Epstein and Segal shed light on the role played by the media, by the American Bar Association, and by special interest groups (whose efforts helped defeat Judge Bork). Though it is often assumed that political clashes over nominees are a new phenomenon, the authors argue that the appointment of justices and judges has always been a highly contentious process--one largely driven by ideological and partisan concerns. The reader discovers how presidents and the senate have tried to remake the bench, ranging from FDR's controversial 'court packing' scheme to the Senate's creation in 1978 of 35 new appellate and 117 district court judgeships, allowing the Democrats to shape the judiciary for years. "

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 05:04 PM

Ronald Reagan and Barak (only one "r") Obama DID/DO think for themselves..We just disagree about their conclusions.

G.W. Bush tried a couple of times, and Rove and Cheney about had apoplexy.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 04:35 PM

It seems to me like the landscape becomes a lot more politicized--and that includes the Supreme Court--when you have presidents who don't think for themselves, like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barrack Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: EBarnacle
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 10:57 AM

In theory, the Court is supposed to be a moderating force in both directions, above the fray, interpreting the law and being beyond partisan issues. Being human, they often find that impossible due to their personal philosophies. It does not mean that they are supposed to get into the trenches with the rest of us. It does mean that they are supposed to look at issues for the nation, rather than looking to meet the needs of constituencies.

That this is not true is rather sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:55 AM

"Is there anybody in the USA who is far-left AND a lawyer?"

       Depending on how far left, or how one defines it, Robert Kennedy Jounior comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 07:19 AM

And speaking of puerile screeds, right on cue,

Heeeeeere's DOUGGIE !

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Apr 10 - 03:23 AM

Is there anybody in the USA who is far-left AND a lawyer?

I have it!

InOBU for the Supreme Court!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 08:32 PM

Greg F: "puerile", "misogynist screed", WOW, you been hanging around Amos or something? Know what those words mean, Greg? You're coming up in the world. Hmm, I wonder if Obama knows we have such a learned fellow right here on the Mudcat? He may be calling you to take Stevens' place on the Court, Greg.

The Justice Sotomayer replaced was appointed by George H. W. Bush and was thought to be a conservative. Turned out he was the most liberal Justice on the court.

I think Obama will appoint a liberal and would be shocked if he didn't. He may not choose someone who is far left-wing, though, in hopes to avoid a filibuster by the Republicans and the one or two less liberal Democrats.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 06:15 PM

In the spirit of racism, religion, and male chauvenism, ya mean?