BS: Replacing Justice Stevens (US Supreme Court)

Subject: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM

Obama should select a white, male, Protestant to replace Justice Stevens, because Stevens is the last and only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:20 AM

Actually, he should select someone qualified & capable of doing the job.

Or is this the start of an anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, misogynist screed?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:33 AM

He should be sure to nominate a WW2 vet, because Stevens is the last and only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: EBarnacle
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:38 AM

I looked through the short list on line. I suspect that the sitting governors will not make the cut, no matter how good they are. Why risk a favorable state to fill a "non-partisan" job.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 11:24 AM

The last time that being a justice of the Supreme Court was "non-partisan" was 1932.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 12:44 PM

"Actually, he should select someone qualified & capable of doing the job."


               Not do what he did last time, then, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:09 PM

Someone who tosses coins that always land on edge.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 01:58 PM

"Actually, he should select someone qualified & capable of doing the job."

Could you at least try occasionally, Rig, not to act like a puerile asshole?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:02 PM

I find it amazing that Justice Stevens was the Republican nominee of a Republican president, and that he is now generally considered the most liberal (whatever "liberal" means) person on the Court. Either he has shifted way left over the past 30 years or the center point on the Court has moved way right. I'm very afraid it is the latter, and I hope that the president's next nominee, like Justice Sotomayor, will help it shift back toward the center. We need a Court that is in the center, that can make decisions based on what the law says and means, not one that is either on the right or left and decides based upon personal bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:20 PM

Yes, that surprised me as well, Art. Though I think it went over Greg's head.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:24 PM

Can we discard the whole lot and draw 7 new cards, like in poker?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:32 PM

The Republicans are already demanding someone with no 'leftist' agenda, and some are threatening to derail any attempts...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

presumably so that Roberts and Scalia and Thomas and Alito will have an easier time pushing their 'rightest' agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 02:35 PM

Sadly, age and circumstances are on the side of the conservatives, as all Obama is likely to be able to do is barely maintain the status quo.

We can look forward to many other decisions like the recent one giving corporations unlimited freedom to fund political campaigns.....

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 08:17 PM

Well, someone from then White House left a message on my answering machine about the job and I called back and told them that if I wanted to fight with rednecks I had plenty right here in rural Virginiaq to fight with... Good luck to anyone who gets the job 'cause they are going to come into a court that is about a million miles futher right on issues than the American people and so whoever gets the job had better bring either a good sense of humor or some ear plugs because getting lectured by 5 redneck Supremes can be purdy discouraging...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:06 PM

Here's what I didn't realize until Stevens made his announcement, and why the redneck analogy might not work. To the best of my knowlege, "Rednecks" are pretty much Southern Baptists, or that's what I've always been led to believe. But the right wing of the Supreme Court are Catholics.

            I knew the obvious ones were Catholic, the ones with Italian names, but Thomas and Roberts are Catholic too. I guess I'd just not thought about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 10 - 09:32 PM

Well, Rigs... In these dire times when even the Repubs have Michael Steele as RNC chairman Redneck Nation has had to reach out... Actually, it is a misnomer that rednecks a Southern Baptists... Most that I know ain't church goin' folks... Cuts into their watching NASCAR's 24/7 programmin' on cable... No, really they ain't into church... But not to fear... I came accross this memo from one of the local churches with some ideas on how to get the rednecks into church and, well, it surprised me... Yup, they thinkin' of puttin' TV screens on the backs of the pews and then charging Billy Bob and Betty Joe for the headphones... I donno??? Seems a little sacreligous to me but, hey, I'm kinda an old fashioned church goer... You know, the kind who always has the program stuffed in the hymnal for the next hymn...

But, hey, I think it would do Redneck Nation a world of good to at least have to kick the beer cans outta the doorway of the double-wide on Sunday mornin' and head down to the local church...

"Let's got back to church
Yeah, let's got back to church
It's been so damned long
Let's go back to church"   (A3)

Now as for Steven's replacement??? All jokin' aside, it's a sad commentary on the direction of the country when the current court leftie was once considered a moderate conservative... And he swears he hasn't changed... Everything around him has... Our court is so way out of step that it is a joke... A very bad joke...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:06 AM

Bobert, I agree the whole idea that Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford and considered to be conservative at the time is kind of sobering.

                Thinking back, though, Gerald Ford seems to me like a pretty good guy compared to what came later. He'll always be degraded by folks who thought he shouldn't have pardoned Nixon, but I think he had to do that for the good of the country.

                Recent presidents seem to act in there own self interest. What is good for the country is a secondary consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 01:15 AM

Rigs: "Yes, that surprised me as well, Art. Though I think it went over Greg's head."
Depending where his head is?????
Are you saying his wits and balls went head over heels??...or that his head is so far up his ass, that if he did a somersault he'd disappear???

Rolls eyes(couldn't resist that one)!
Grinning,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Apr 10 - 09:00 AM

I hadn't considered physical positioning, Sanity.

I was making the point that since Stevens is the last Male, White, Protestant, Obama should nominate someone with the same credentials, in the spirit of keeping balance on the court.

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 (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 (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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 10 - 12:31 PM

"(keep the "c")"

*blush*

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:23 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.