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.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:25 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.