BS: Replacing Justice Stevens (US Supreme Court)

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:47 PM

Bobert, I finally got what you were saying. Disregard last message. What you are saying might actually work.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:07 AM

The fact remains, confirmation for a Supreme Court justice is not the same as passing legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:02 AM

Yeah, Genie... It's all up to the Dems to spend some of that massive war chest of $$$ to frame the Repubs as obstructionists... I've seen the graphs on the number of fillibusters that have occured over the years and some Ross Perot style ads would get the job done quite nicely and put the Repubs on the defensive...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:01 AM

Let's see: A Roman Catholic is complaining that with 6 of 9 SCOTUS justices being Roman Catholics 3 Jews is too many? Oy!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Pat Buchanon is quoted as saying there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court now...

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:25 PM

Reserving the filibuster for the most serious, important issues and bills doesn't mean there's "one-party rule."    If the minority party is going to filibuster every bill or nomination that they would not have put forward had they been the majority, that is, in effect, one-party rule - by the minority party.   The minority party still gets to vote on all bills and nominations, and when the filibuster requires some serious effort and maybe some sacrifice, the minority party still has that weapon in their arsenal.

As it has been with the push-button filibuster and this current Congress, the Democrats might as well have had only a 1-vote majority in the Senate, because the Republicans have "filibustered" just about anything of any importance (and lots of less important, less controversial things), so even when a sizeable majority of the Senators would have voted yes on a bill, they haven't been able to vote on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:13 AM

On the other hand, after the Massachusetts Senate election, polls showed that the majority reason given for voting for Scott Brown was because the people didn't want one party rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:07 AM

Bobert, the filibuster rule(s) are set within the Senate itself and can be changed without consultation of the President or any other branch of government.   The Senate's procedural rules for how and when they can change their own procedural rules are fairly complicated, but generally they change them, if at all, only at the beginning of a new Congress being seated (i.e., every two years). The "nuclear option" referred to changing those rules in the middle of a Congressional term.

As for the Republicans being seen as obstructionist (or not wanting to be seen as such), as long as our media -- who tend to be either asleep at the wheel or really ignorant or in bed with the fat cat corporatists -- don't frame things like the filibuster as that, the public probably won't see it that way. Heck, I've even heard a lot of Democratic spokespeople on the TV machine parroting phrases like "It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed."   Or (speaking of a filibustered bill), "The Democrats' jobs bill failed to pass in the Senate."   So the public, instead of realizing that bills and nominations are not being allowed to be voted on, are left thinking that the vote was held but didn't pass.    That makes the Democrats seem weak or inept instead of making the filibusterers look like the obstructionists that they have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:43 PM

Yeah, but this isn't a law, it's confirmation, so they lady would either be confirmed or not. Still, I don't see anything that would stir up the Republicans too much about this nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:02 PM

Yeah, me thinks that the Repubs are very concerned about pushing the fillibusters too close to the Noevember elections... I think they will want to be seen as the party who doesn't do that stuff anymore because they will want to portray the Dems as obstructionists the very first time the Dems threaten one... A fillibuster on a somewhat Melba milktoast nominee would set the stage for exactly that by the Dems if the Dems lose the Senate...

I really don't see the Repubs goin' "nuclear" tho because it would take 66 votes to trump an Obama veto... Well, let me put it another way... If you thing that the voters are pissed off now just think how pissed off they would be if the Repubs decided to go "nuclear"... I think it would be a death blow to their party for decades to come... People have had enough of this crap and Obama would easilly paint the Repubs as un-American, un-democratic and un-carin'... Don't see it happenin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:36 PM

GfS, yes, I would still favor curtailing the use of the filibuster, even if the Republicans were the majority in Congress and had the White House.   It's been abused so much by the Republican minority in the current Senate that it's no longer reserved for fighting really extreme or outrageous nominations or bills by propsed by the majority party, but - with the complicity of the inept, lazy, or partisan "mainstream media" - coming to be seen as S O P for everything that doesn't have strong bipartisan support.

I don't know what the best way would be to curtail its use, but one way would be to actually make people "keep the debate going" by continuing to talk and not yielding the floor. That's supposed to be the purpose of the filibuster: to continue debating an issue as long as there's still more to debate, before calling for a vote.   Democrats could - and should - do an actual filibuster if a Republican Senate proposed really awful legislation or if the President appointed someone they really thought would take the courts in a very bad direction.

Besides, if the Republicans retake the Senate and the Democrats try to filibuster anything major, the Republicans will do away with the filibuster in a heartbeat. They threatened that when Roberts and Alito were nominated for SCOTUS.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:44 PM

Actually, I doubt if Sarah Palin would be any worse than Clarence Thomas... And alot easier on the eyes, too...

BTW, is there any law prohibitin' a Supreme Court Justice from posin' nude fir Playboy???

Jus' curious...

But seriously, the Constitution calls for the Senate to "advise and consent"... Somehow that has gotten away from us... Been so long that that occured that I don't think anyone who is now alive can remember the last time that occured...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Genie: "I really think the Senate should change their rules to bar filibustering a court nominee unless the filibuster is done the original way (complete with the cot, the curtain, and the porta-potty)."

Well, You wouldn't say that if it was a Republican President, who nominated..mmm..let's say, Sarah Palin, would you???

The parties lackeys never think too far ahead. Imagine the Democrat outcry if Bush pushed that stupid 'health care' bill. In like manner, the Dems, bitched, pissed and moaned about Bush's policies, through executive orders, heaping unprecedented powers upon the Executive Branch,....but the Dems didn't repeal them, or get rid of them, once they had their guy in....now did they?..Shit, you never hear a word about it...except, just now!

GfS

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

I agree, Genie, the old filibusters had a lot more class.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:38 PM

I really think the Senate should change their rules to bar filibustering a court nominee unless the filibuster is done the original way (complete with the cot, the curtain, and the porta-potty).

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:37 PM

At least that's true of most Democrats in Congress today and nearly all the Republicans (who seem to vote in lockstep with their party's leadership even when it seemingly violates their own principles and policies).

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:58 PM

Mouser: "The Dems have no spine. The Pugs have no compunction."

And neither have integrity, nor represent their constituents!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:08 PM

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


             Yes, of course, I just thought it was understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:39 AM

I agree 100% with Genie in her observation that the Dams caved on Roberts and Alito... The entire Senate confirmation process is nuthin' but smoke and mirrors side show that does not permit the Senate, or the American people, from having a clue as to whom they are about to get on the Court...

One thing encouraging is that those sentiments are the sentiments of Kagan herself who has written purdy much those exact words...

I would like for nominees to expound more on their general judical philosopies and stay the heck away from the standard, "I won't be an activist judge"... I mean, that seems to be the standard and then the folks get in and they become, ahhhhh, "activist" judges...

Kagan, at best, is a crapshoot at this point in time... I'd still have gone with Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known quantity...

B~

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

100

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:57 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: 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: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 10:29 PM

Democrats? Backbone? One word: Patriot Act.

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: 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 - 09:34 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:54 PM

Is Robert Kennedy Jr. being considered?