|
05 Nov 04 - 03:44 PM (#1318141) Subject: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Genie Some non-Bush supporters were taking a bit of comfort this morning in the news that John Ashcroft is probably stepping down as Attorney-General. Looks like that joy may be premature and short-lived. "Reliable sources" from within the Bush camp are saying Rehnquist is likely to step down soon for health reasons and that Bush wants to appoint him to the SCOTUS. I don't understand how this works, but the talk is there's a way he could do that WITHOUT needing Senate confirmation! Gawd, I hope this ain't so! |
|
05 Nov 04 - 03:57 PM (#1318156) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Jack the Sailor There was a joke going around Wednesday. Bush supports Ashcroft to the Supreme Court and says "Let the healing begin." |
|
05 Nov 04 - 04:04 PM (#1318165) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Genie Gallows humor, anyone? |
|
05 Nov 04 - 04:45 PM (#1318202) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rapparee ALL nominations to the Supreme Court MUST be approved by Congress. The nominations are made by the President, "with the advice and Consent of the Senate." Senate Procedure Despite the fact that certain procedures for the Senate's advice and consent function were established the first time George Washington and the Senate interacted on nominations, other procedures have only come into being more recently. Today when the Senate receives a Supreme Court nomination from the president, the nomination is referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings, but that has been a regular procedure only since 1949. Until then, hearings were help only sporadically, usually in an instance where some controversy had arisen regarding a nomination. A major part of the Committee hearings is the testimony of the nominee, but that has been a regular feature of the hearings only since 1955. Of course, we can watch the hearings live on television, but that has been the case only since 1981. It is expected that the Committee will make a recommendation to the Senate, whether that recommendation be to confirm or to reject. That too has not always been the case. A common method of quashing nominations to the lower federal courts is simply for the Committee not to report on the nomination, to kill it in committee. That is unlikely to happen with a Supreme Court nomination today. Even is the majority of the Committee is in opposition, they likely will report it to the full Senate as a recommendation to reject the nomination. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate leadership will schedule a debate and a vote on the nomination. In a noncontroversial nomination, like that of Ginzburg or Breyer, only a few senators will rise to praise the nominee before proceeding to the vote. In a more controversial nomination, more senators will rise in support of or opposition to the nominee. There doesn't seem to be any provision in the US Constitution for any temporary or other sort of appointment. |
|
05 Nov 04 - 05:32 PM (#1318249) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Don Firth Oh, Jeez! Ashcroft on the Supreme Court? When does the next starship leave for Arcturus Four? Don Firth |
|
05 Nov 04 - 05:37 PM (#1318253) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST Well, keep voting for the Democrats like Kerry, and he'll probably get appointed. Lest we forget, Senator Kerry voted to approve the worst of nominees on his watch... Seriously though, Ashcroft wouldn't be approved. Not by Dems, but also, not by many Republicans either. You do have to have served some time on the bench for those seats, you know! |
|
05 Nov 04 - 09:00 PM (#1318444) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Genie Actually, GUEST, you don't have to have any legal or judicial background to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Earl Warren, I believe, had been Governor of California but had never served as a judge. I believe Bush could appoint Arnold Schwartzenegger to the SCOTUS if he wanted and the Senate consented. Rapaire, I know the usual procedure if for Senate confirmation, even for some lower court justices, but Bush has appointed some circuit court justices during Congressional recesses, without a Senate vote to confirm. If Rehnquist were to resign during a Senate recess, I think Bush might be able to appoint a SCOTUS justice on an "interim" basis, with that justice serving till the President "got around to" sending a "real nominee" to the Senate. I really hope that's not true, but there are noises being made to the effect that it is. Genie |
|
05 Nov 04 - 09:01 PM (#1318448) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Cluin Ever heard of the depraved sex act known as a Chocolate Ashcroft? |
|
05 Nov 04 - 09:16 PM (#1318465) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Bill D Don....Arcturus 4 is WAY too close! |
|
05 Nov 04 - 10:08 PM (#1318509) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rapparee Wouldn't happen. The lower courts are set up BY the Senate, but the Supremes are APPROVED by the Senate. There have been other times when there has been a vacant seat amongst the Supremes during Congressional recesses. I suspect that the Supremes themselves would find any such action unconstitutional. Besides, I really really doubt that he could be confirmed. There are too many Republicans who don't like him (e.g.: both of Idaho's senators have called for the death of the Patriot Act and have stated that they don't like his high-handed assault on the Constitution, as have Idaho's representatives). Here's the dope on Warren's background -- he was a Republican, Eisenhower thought he was getting a moderate Republican, and he got a very liberal guy.... Bar Admission California, 1914 Experience Prior judicial experience: None. Warren played politics as Governor of California. Extra Judicial Position(s) Chair, commision to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy Father's Office None Federal Political Position(s) Republican vice-presidential nominee, 1948 Law Practice California, 1914-17 Law School California, Graduated 1914 Military Service Army Lieutenant, 1917-18 State Political Position(s) Deputy city attorney, Oakland, CA, 1919-20; deputy assistant DA, Alameda County, CA, 1920-23; chief deputy DA, Alameda County, CA, 1923-25; DA, Alameda County, CA, 1925-39; attorney general, CA, 1939-43; governor, CA, 1943-53 Undergraduate Education California, B.A. 1912 |
|
06 Nov 04 - 12:36 PM (#1318870) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST I agree that someone without a strong legal background theoretically could be nominated and approved, but that has been extremely rare in our history. In this climate bitter and rancorous political party rancor, Ashcroft simply would never be approved. Nope, the "bar" (pardon the pun) will be set very high in terms of legal background for any nominees to the Supremes on Bushies' watch. Count on it. |
|
06 Nov 04 - 01:27 PM (#1318902) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Deckman For the last four months, I have been studying the life and impact of William O. Douglas. He was an associate Justice of the Supremem court for 36 years. He was appointed to the bench by FDR, served under Presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. I have learned much from this ongoing study, not just about Douglas, but also the goings and commings of the Supreme Court. Presidents do have the legal authority, and responsibility, to appoint Judges to the Supreme Court. And yes, congress must also approve. However, in many instances in the recent past, Judges have been successfully placed on the Court that you would never have expected to "get through the process." I think this game plan is entirely feasible. It might scare the heck out of me, but it sure would NOT surprise me. Bob |
|
06 Nov 04 - 02:03 PM (#1318923) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST My comments weren't directed to the recent history especially (which I noted above in my comments about Kerry voting to approve some of the worst nominees in Supreme Court history) of Supreme Court nominations. But I think the need for legal expertise as a qualification over party ideology in the post-9/11 world is going to have much more influence than the pathetic "business as usual" process of nominating justices recently. Arlen Spector of PA is poised to become head of the Judiciary committee now. He immediately came out and said he was in no mood to entertain political ideologue nominees. He said there was a vacuum right now on the Supreme Court of great LEGAL minds, and that it was hurting the court and not serving the nation well. I was actually quite surprised to hear Spector talk like that at first. But then when I heard the Frist was already trying to manipulate ways to keep Spector out of the Chair's seat on Judiciary in order to better serve the right wing political ideologues, I understood why Spector went public so quickly after the election with his remarks. The Bush/Frist Republicans don't want Spector, because they can't push him around and manipulate him easily. They really need PA in the elections (as they found out again on Tuesday, when the state went to Kerry, but re-elected Spector), and Spector has turned out to have more integrity than I ever gave him credit for as senator. That is why I always caution people not to automatically assume that politicians will react according to the Bush/Frist/Rove formula. We too easily forget that men like Spector are also interested in the ways history will view them. And historians look at things like the Supreme Court, much more than they do the budget wrangling or the pathetic Republican strategy of claiming they will call for a "constitutional amendment" about their favorite cultural hot button topics, like gay marriage. Those come and go all the time, and are not the stuff history is made of, when you think hard about this stuff. |
|
06 Nov 04 - 02:05 PM (#1318930) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Uncle_DaveO Speaking only constitutionally, and not practically or politically, I don't believe that a nominee need even be a lawyer. Dave Oesterreich |
|
06 Nov 04 - 02:31 PM (#1318955) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST I disagree. I believe it is impossible to serve responsibly without having studied law, and studied it HARD. I'm not saying one needs to have practiced law, but at least, they should be constitutional scholars and professors of law, if not experienced judges. And frankly, I prefer those with both great intellectual vision on the scholarly side, who also have practical experience serving on the bench before they arrive at the Court. |
|
06 Nov 04 - 02:33 PM (#1318957) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST And Ashcroft is living proof of what happens when you put weak legal minds in positions of great legal responsibility. Ashcroft is a stupid, weak legal mind. He just hitched his wagon to the right rising political stars (ie the Republican right wing ideology party). How do you suppose history will judge Ashcroft's merits as a legal expert? Besides as a cruel joke upon the American people, that is. |
|
06 Nov 04 - 04:28 PM (#1319045) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Nerd Specter's problem is that he capitulates pretty easily to the Right's demands. In fact, soon after he said he would not tolerate ideologues being nominated, he came out tail between his legs and said "Bush is my Daddy." (Actually, he said that his remarks were NOT intended as a warning to the president, and that he would NEVER apply an ideological litmus test such as position on Roe V. Wade to a nominee, etc, etc.) So we'll see. Either Frist will get his way and Specter will not get that position, or a chastened Specter may become pliant, or just possibly, Specter may show some backbone. |
|
06 Nov 04 - 05:54 PM (#1319078) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: DougR I know the majority of you believe our president is stupid. Believe me, he ain't THAT stupid. DougR |
|
06 Nov 04 - 07:17 PM (#1319131) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rapparee God, yes, DougR! I certainly hope you're right! Strictly according to the constitution, you don't need to have a law education to be on one of the Supremes. Practically speaking, you'd damned well better have a good one! The ABA alone would chew you up and spit you out.... |
|
06 Nov 04 - 07:39 PM (#1319149) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rabbi-Sol Former Supreme Court Justices Arthur Goldberg and Abe Fortas were not judges. They were lawyers . Goldberg however did have government experience as Secretary of Labor. SOL ZELLER |
|
06 Nov 04 - 11:35 PM (#1319266) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST But Sol, they had legal *educations*. That is the point I'm making. I don't know how right or wrong I am about the % of justices historicall, as I haven't done any research. But I'm gonna make a guess that the majority of men who have served on the Supreme Court had experience on the bench to recommend them prior to their nominations. |
|
07 Nov 04 - 12:15 AM (#1319288) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rapparee They did. But the Constitution doesn't require it. |
|
07 Nov 04 - 12:34 AM (#1319298) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST I never said the Constitution required it, so what's yer point there Rapaire? |
|
07 Nov 04 - 01:04 AM (#1319312) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: mousethief Clarence Thomas never sat on the bench before he was appointed to the SCOTUS. He had never tried a case before in his life. And if I remember correctly, the president who appointed Thomas wasn't nearly the ideologue the current president is. |
|
07 Nov 04 - 01:57 PM (#1319710) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST mousethief, Thomas received his legal education from Yale Law School. He served as Assistant Attorney General in Missouri, worked as a practicing corporate attorney for Monsanto (the petrochemical giant), was a Reagan appointee to the Civil Rights and EEO offices, and was appointed to the bench by Bush I, to the Court of Appeals, DC, largely based upon him being African American, and most certainly NOT because of his brilliant legal mind. The disgusting irony of his appointment, was that this pathetic, piss poor excuse for a legal scholar, was appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall. He was appointed for the same reason that Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice have been promoted through the ranks by Republicans opposed to affirmative action: because of the color of their skin, and their ideological "house Negro" demeanors. So don't delude yourself into thinking that appointments to the Supreme Court don't have ANY legal background. They most certainly do, even when, as in the instance of Clarence Thomas, that legal background is utterly undistinguished, and the appointment obviously based upon political ideological loyalty to the president who appoints them. |
|
07 Nov 04 - 03:08 PM (#1319752) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST I forgot to mention that one of the many objections to Thomas being put forth as an appointee, was the question about how good a legal mind he was, but that wasn't due to his lack of education and training as a legal scholar. Those criticisms were of his short tenure on the Court of Appeals (around a year or so), in addition to the complete lack of distinguished legal writing. This resulted in the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee (which vets all judicial appointments) giving Thomas the tepid rating of "qualified" rather than "well qualified". Scalia also served on the Court of Appeals for Washington DC. Anyone notice a pattern? This is where the conservatives first began to make the appointments that made the inroads into them getting really conservative decisions on cases that could be brought in DC courts. Some of you might remember that this was an issue for the DC sniper cases, and where the prosecutors wanted the trials to be held. The DC court is much more conservative than the courts in the areas surrounding DC, where the snipers first started the shootings. That was a very calculated political strategy in judicial appointments begun long ago in the Nixon era. Scalia was originally a judicial assassin for the Nixon administration. |
|
07 Nov 04 - 03:35 PM (#1319774) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: DougR Wow! Mousethief! Now THAT'S a name out of the past! DougR |
|
07 Nov 04 - 03:48 PM (#1319783) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST And lest we forget, the most conservative Supreme in decades, Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee, was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED by the Senate, back when the Democrats still controlled it! |
|
07 Nov 04 - 04:56 PM (#1319858) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rabbi-Sol Thurgood Marshall himself was never a judge. He was however a brilliant legal scholar and was Solicitor General of the United States. We may yet see another Solicitor General, Theodore Olsen as a possible Bush appointee to the Supreme Court. SOL ZELLER |
|
07 Nov 04 - 10:14 PM (#1320095) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST,Genie (switched Browser, lost my cookie) Yes, Sol, I think Ted Olsen is a more likely Bush nominee than Ashcroft is, because I think even some Republicans would balk at Ashcroft. Guest, as to Dems approving Scalia, there's kind of a tradition -- though not a Constitutional requirement -- for the Senate to do more "consenting" than "advising" in judicial nominee votes. They seem to think it's not cricket for them to OPENLY oppose a nominee on ideological grounds or apply a "litmus test." Instead, they try to find some non-judicial skeleton in the nominee's closet -- e.g., smoking pot, sexual harrassment, past membership in the KKK, etc. The "ideology thing" (litmus test) probably gets used a lot by the Judicial Committee -- which is why so many Clinton nominees never even got brought up for a vote. But once the nomination is placed before the Senate, the opposing Senators dance delicately around the legal track record issues and usually vote for confirmation. I think they especially do this when they know the appointment will pass anyway, and they don't want to be on record as an obstructionist. (Who wants a SCOTUS justice pissed at you, anyway?) Unfortunately, I heard on This Week or Meet The Press this morning what I was afraid of. It seems Bush CAN appoint even a SCOTUS justice without needing Senate "consent" if he makes the appointment while the Senate is in recess -- or maybe just if it's between the last session of one Senate and the first session of the new Senate. Genie |
|
08 Nov 04 - 08:50 AM (#1320361) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST Genie, have you forgotten about Robert Bork? |
|
08 Nov 04 - 09:24 AM (#1320388) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST,Larry K Drudge reports today that Clarence Thomas is being considered as chief justice. With a republican majority, he might get it. I think that would really piss democrats and mudcatters off. I would laugh my head off. Thomas is far and away the youngest of the Supremes. He could be chief justice for 30 years. What a thought. |
|
08 Nov 04 - 09:25 AM (#1320392) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST Says the man who gets his news from the Drudge Report. |
|
08 Nov 04 - 12:37 PM (#1320603) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: Rabbi-Sol I believe that Rehnquist was the youngest on the court when he was appointed as Chief Justice. SOL ZELLER |
|
08 Nov 04 - 12:58 PM (#1320617) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST,donuel Thanks for clearing that up Rapaire |
|
10 Nov 04 - 12:08 PM (#1322456) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: GUEST,jen@beware-of-art.com Sounds like people think Ashcroft hasn't had a legal education or career -- but he has. He was actually a law educator at a university, back in the day. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/ashcroft-bio.html Plus, needless to say, he was the Attorney General. If he can "qualify" for that, why wouldn't he qualify for the SC? I'm twitching already. |
|
10 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM (#1323055) Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court Justice Ashcroft? From: dianavan I have heard the rumour about Achcroft taking the seat long before he resigned. I wouldn't doubt it one bit. Bush knows he wasn't elected by the people, what better way of thumbing his nose at the masses than appointing Ashcroft to the position. Wouldn't surprise me at all. d |