BS: Replacing Justice Stevens (US Supreme Court)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:10 AM

"SCOTUS"

          Does this mean something?

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 - 08:38 AM

Thanks, mouse, I feel a little foolish.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:00 PM

Probably the area where Clarence Thomas excells.

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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:54 PM

Is Robert Kennedy Jr. being considered?

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

Not that I am aware of, Rigs... But he'd make a great one... And he is a lawyer and worked as a prosecutor so that oughtta make the Repubs happy... Well, not really 'cause you can't make the Repubs happy...

He is my choice... Maybe if enpough people start talkin' about him he'll get some attention... I mean nothin' against any of the folks that have been mentioned except that Kennedy would be the most relieable progressive in the court...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:39 PM

I forget, now that I'm down here writing about it, just who said, above:

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.)

All "Article III judges" are appointed "for life, during good behavior". (See below)   

Article III judges are US District Court judges (the trial-level judges in the federal system), judges of the various courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. There has been some push to make judges of the various bankruptcy courts Article III judges, but as far as I know that has gone nowhere. The argument for bankruptcy judges to be Article III judges is essentially that bankruptcy jurisdiction used to be part of the realm of US District Court judges, before that jurisdiction was split off into a separate court.

"Good behavior" essentially, in the real world, means that you can't get convicted of a felony and still keep the appointment. That's never happened, as far as I know.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM

Well, I donno, Dave... I mean, the current batch is the *LAW OF THE LAND* (Sorry for the CAPs) seein' as they can trump anything that the the legislature passes with the support of the president... Well, I reckon they have always been able to do that except we go thru some rather peaceful times when they don't go *activist*... So I could see that if, ahhhhh, Justice Sotomeyer were to get a parking ticket in the wrong *political district* that the righties could try to get her off the court and then leave it up to their buds in Congress to gum up the process of Obama getting much more than Jesus thru confirmation???

Like I said, Dave, I donno... I hate to say it but it could happen... I mean, these Repubs are so pissed off about Obama that they could use the Supremes to really mess with him... Of course, in doing so, they would be messin' with the country but, hey, if "Joe Sixpack can't take a joke..."... The scarey thing about all this is that the Repubs will do anything to get their ***rightfull position*** back as the failures they were??? I mean, it's like the .091 hitter asking the coach to put him in in the bottom of the 9th to win the game??? I mean, the...

Awwww, nevermind... It's all a waste of time...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: DougR
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 06:49 PM

"Wouldn't it be a good idea for a supreme court justice to have judicial experience?"

Greg F: "Didn't stop Clarence Thomas."

Greg, what job did Clarence Thomsas have when he was nominated to be a justice on the supreme court? (Not that I expect a reply of course).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:34 PM

Uncle Dave O, thanks for the clarification.

Actually, some Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office. One of the most recent ones was Alcee Hastings, a judge on the Southern District of Florida. He was removed from office in 1989 after being impeached the year before.   (e was later elected to the House Of Representatives, where he still represents Florida's 23rd Congressional district.)

Two other Federal judges similarly impeached and removed from office in recent years are
Harry E. Claiborne        Judge (District of Nevada)        1986
and
Walter Nixon        Chief Judge (Southern District of Mississippi)         - 1989.

Thomas Porteous        Judge (Eastern District of Louisiana)        Impeached was impeached last month. His trial by the Senate is pending.



Associate SCOTUS justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 and acquitted in 1805.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:45 PM

Bobert, I agree Bobby Kennedy Jr would make a great SCOTUS justice.   He is on of the strongest voices in support of both working people and environmental protection -- orientations that are not well represented on the Federal courts today (since Bush packed the lower-level federal courts with right wing corporatists and replaced Rehnquist and O'Connor with activist justices further to the right).

However " And he is a lawyer and worked as a prosecutor so that oughtta make the Repubs happy... Well, not really 'cause you can't make the Repubs happy." Exactly!

That's why Obama should really not even TRY to appease the Republicans, much less the ones on the far right.    A party that routinely casts Obama -- and Stevens -- as "left wing," "socialist," "ultra-liberal," etc., is way out of touch with the reality of the true political spectrum.

Kennedy's problem, though, is that he would be yet another white male Roman Catholic. And a wealthy one too.
In Kennedy's case, I'd make an exception, because I don't think he'd let his wealth or his church dictate his positions any more than his dad and uncles did, but in general I think it's unwise to have too much homogeneity on the highest court(s) in terms of demographics.   Other things being roughly equal, I think striving for more diversity -- in viewpoint as well as demographics -- is highly desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:52 PM

Bobert, you are probably right about the Repubs doing whatever they can to block any of Obama's nominees that they think are really liberal.

But here's what I'm wondering:
When the Democrats were threatening to filibuster the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Republicans -- who did not have as big a majority as the Dems do now -- threatened to use "the nuclear option" if they tried that. I.e., they threatened to change the Senate rules to prohibit filibustering (at least in the case of SCOTUS nominees).

So here are my questions:
1. Why couldn't the Democrats use the same threat to prevent a Republican filibuster of Obama's nominees?
2. Do the Democrats have the backbone to stand up to the Republicans' obstructionism if it comes to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 10:29 PM

Democrats? Backbone? One word: Patriot Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 08:32 AM

Greg... (Not that I expect a reply of course)

Then I won't disappoint ya, Douggie.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 10:57 AM

Surely the Republicans want to put the appointment off until after the election. If Obama doesn't want that to happen, he would have to appoint somebody who would draw some Republican support.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:19 PM

I think that would be a huge mistake, Rig -- unless, of course, there are a couple of Republicans who are willing to vote for cloture, to bring the nominee's name to the floor for a vote, even if they disagree with the nominee's general political leanings.

I don't remember any nominees being filibustered or voted down on strictly political grounds in the last 50 years (I don't remember much before then about judge appointments) except perhaps Bork, who was considered a far right extremist -- and even then, I don't believe his confirmation was filibustered.

It is time for the Democrats to bring the whole excessive filibustering thing to the attention of the media and the people.    The Republicans demanded "an up-or-down vote" on their nominees, and they got that.   The Democrats need to do the same thing.

The only nominees that would possibly get support (votes) from more than a handful of Republicans would be justices to the right of Anthony Kennedy, justices who favor big business over small businesses and individuals; oppose abortion rights, labor unions, environmental protection, etc., etc.    And if Obama nominated someone like that, the nominee might be voted down by the Democratic Senators.

I'm afraid Obama will nominate a so-called "centrist" -- who is really midway between the far right (Alito & Roberts) and moderate (Sotemayor) -- so that maybe someone like Lindsey Graham will break the filibuster. And the court will move further to the right, further away from respecting the Bill Of Rights and the people in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 10:50 PM

I wonder if it depends on the issue. Leaving the law out of it--I know you can't, but just for the sake of argument--if I were a Supreme Court justice I would rule on the following issues this way:

1. Abortion--A good idea. I'm all for it.
2. The environment--Another good idea. Save everything we can.
3. Immigration--get the illegals out of here. The last thing the
                     environment needs is more people.
4. Evolution--Yes. It's the only thing that makes sense.
5. Affirmative Action. Get rid of it. It never caused even a minor inconvenience for rich white males, but it's destroyed more poor white males than it has ever helped any minorities.

                  The list is endless!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:38 AM

I think Corporations or any organization should not have the same rights as a citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 02:34 AM

... or any other "natural person."

The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to "persons" ("natural persons," in particular), not just to citizens. Those include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure, the right to be confronted with one's accusers if arrested and to be told what the charges are, the right to counsel, etc.      Until the recent "Citizens United" decision, those rights were for the most part reserved for "natural persons" (people), not "artificial persons" (corporations), but not just to US citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM

The problem with corporations being treated as individuals is that it goes against the concept of "one-man-one-vote" in that the corpoartion is both an entity onto itself and the people who make the decisions of that corprations...

We went thru a period of time when black people were treated as a *fraction* in terms of their votes counting but rightfully so we rectified that... Now it looks as if we are back to some similar situation, albiet not strctly related to race in that corporations has two voices and everyone else just one...

As for Robert Kennedy, Jr... As others have pointed out it would pit Obama against the Reoublican base but, heck, if Obama appointed Jesus it would be the same thing...

I find it interesting that the "Gang of Seven" got together during Bush's term to bring some level of civility into the Senate confirmation process... They were both Repbs and Dems agreeing that using the "nuclear option" wasn't in the best interest of the country in judical confirmations... We don't have that now in that there sren't any Republicans left with any spine...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:47 AM

People who are here illegally should not have rights, except to be deported. They should be charged for the value of their plane or bus ticket, and if they're found in the US again, a judgement should be levied against them before they are deported again. At some point they could be jailed for non-payment--just like not paying speeding tickets--10 days maybe. Gradually, they would become hardened criminals and might be gunned down on the streets or knifed in the showers at Pelican Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:37 PM

Rig, apparently our revered "founding fathers" didn't agree with you on who should have fundamental rights.

We are not talking about 'rights' like getting food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc., but the rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights are pretty fundamental to a society, especially a democratic one, working. That includes the idea that the government should not suppress people's freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, religion, or the right to be confronted with accusers and know what they've been charged with, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, etc.   (I agree that perhaps the Second Amendment should apply only to people here legally. However, certain felons are already prohibited from owning or carrying firearms, so I don't know that the Second Amendment applies to illegal immigrants anyway.)

Even in the case of illegals, people shouldn't be allowed to be deported just because someone suspects they are illegal. Even they are entitled to due process of the law and the protection of basic human rights,

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:51 PM

Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM

Actually, black people were never treated as 3/5 of a person in terms of their votes counting, since back then they weren't allowed to vote at all. The court ruling was that 3/5 of them could be counted as part of a state's population for purposes of deciding how many Congressional representatives that state could have.   (So the slave states were benefitting in terms of Congressional representation from having "people" who were considered "property" and could not vote.)

You're right, of course, that the recent Citizens United decision runs counter to the "one-man-one-vote" principle.

You're also right that if Obama nominated Jesus, the Republicans would still try to filibuster the nomination.

We do need another "Gang of Seven" (or maybe even just a "Gang of Three") to bring some level of civility into the Senate confirmation process. Using the "nuclear option" isn't in the best interest of the country in judical confirmations. Nor, I think, is the use of the filibuster in court nominee confirmations, unless the nominee is FAR out of the mainstream of judicial philosophy -- which could probably have been argued of William O Douglas and of both Roberts and Scalia.

I actually think a filibuster could be warranted in the case of a nominee basically stonewalls the Senators, denying that s/he has ever given any thought to key issues like corporate personhood, the second amendment, the right to privacy, etc., and basically refusing to answer questions.    But I would advocate for the use of the filibuster in such cases ONLY if the Senate agreed NOT to filibuster nominees who DO answer pertinent questions (again, unless their views are really extreme).

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 09:41 PM

"...if Obama nominated Jesus, the Republicans would still try to filibuster the nomination."

             Why, do you think the Jewish seat is filled, and we don't need another one?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 09:58 PM

My mistake, Genie... Yes, it was all about porportionment... Glad I'm not teaching history anymore 'cause the ol' squash ain't what it used to be... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: ichMael
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:56 PM

Oh, this is nice. Obama nominates a GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEE:

From 2005 to 2008, Ms. Kagan was a paid member of the Research Advisory Council of Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to financial-disclosure reports she filed after being appointed to her current job. The form shows she was paid $10,000 in 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703338004575230602921084726.html

What a whore Obama is. And you thought Bush was bad.

In case you haven't looked up from the funny papers lately, Greece is dying. The cradle of civilization is being destroyed by the World Bank. Greece is part of the "PIGS" Group--Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain. The bankers think so little of us they call us pigs. And those 5 countries are the most vulnerable right now, financially. Some of you are in Ireland, right? Well, get ready for riots, courtesy of the World Bank. Economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote about the phenomenon (IMF riots). The IMF/World Bank gets a country in debt and then offers to bail it out with loans of billions at 20 and 30 percent interest. Your leaders agree (after you lose everything and riot) and you suddenly have a THOUSAND GENERATIONS OF DEBT on your back.

And after the PIGS group and Europe is devastated, America will undergo the same treatment. And Obama's putting a Goldman Sachs flunky on the Supreme Court. When the citizens of the U.S. (that's "United States"--individual states) sue the federal govt for trying to burden us with a thousand generations of debt, the court and whore Kagan will rule that the whores in Washington have the right to do it.

At least the Brits kicked whore Brown in the head. He started the whole "bailout" domino effect with the Northern Rock thing (contrived by him from the start). THANK YOU, BRITAIN for resorting to the one PROVEN method of controlling out-of-control government--gridlock. Maybe America will come to its senses now and follow your example.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:27 PM

So, what is the alternative, itchy... Go buy a bunch of guns and decalre war on the USA???

Come on... Let's let a tad of reality shine in here...

I'm gonna have to side with John Lennon on this one... If you wanta flame out in some federal office building with an Ak-47 then too bad fir you and the folks that you kill...

I mean, really... After 30 years of corpotists rule where do you reasonably start to correct the problems that these folks have left fir us???

I mean, think about it... We have a severely dumbed down population (that votes)... We have a chickenshit democracy where 90% of elected people are in "safe" districts...

I mean, where do you start???

Easy to say. "This is fucked up"... Not so easy to bring about all the stars that must align to fix it...

Like I said, I'm with John on this one...

Yeah, we'd all like to change the world...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:05 PM

I'm with John Lennon too:
No hell below us,
Above only sky.

         So, we kind of don't need this woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: mousethief
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:37 PM

Is everybody who ever worked for Goldman Sachs a pariah? I once worked for Arthur Anderson. Does that make me the antichrist? Coooool.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:39 PM

The information on that link is damning, absolutely damning. Not.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:08 AM

Ah, but everyone already knows you're the Antichrist, Alex.   (Just ask Rig.) *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:15 AM

Kagan would not have been my first choice -- I fear she's too much a corporatist and "centrist" -- but she'd sure be a helluva lot better than Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and anyone else that a Republican President today would nominate. And given the filibuster addiction of the Republicans (and blue dog Democrats) in the Senate, I don't think anyone more progressive or populist could even have their name brought to the full Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.

The Dems way too easily caved in on the nominations of extremists Roberts and Alito, but the Republicans will play hardball with the nomination of anyone who is not, basically, center-right (at least on fiscal, military, and commerce-related issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: mousethief
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:38 AM

The Dems have no spine. The Pugs have no compunction.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 02:10 AM

That's it in a nutshell, Mouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 03:59 AM

100