Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Manedew on July 01, 2005, 09:39:54 AM
-
The frist woman to serve on the US sepreme court stepped down today (just announced)
This is a lifetime appointment.
Some media are talking of this being too long. That they should have set terms.
The founding fathers talked about "enthusiasms" the people might have. That fad's might cause problems. This seems like another good safeguard aginst such fad's-"enthusiasms". By keeping these judges for so long ... things can't be moved too quickly.
Any thoughts?
-
Well
to Justice O'Connor. I didn't always agree with her decisions/votes but I respect her.
Life terms? Yep. That's the design and so far it seems to work.
Now the fun will really begin in the Senate, however.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
...Some media are talking of this being too long. That they should have set terms...Any thoughts?
lifetime appointments were specified in order to make the Supreme Court less corruptible than the other branches of government, among other reasons. If your job depends on the goodwill of a boss (president and/or congress and/or the electorate) that can fire you at the next election or next week, your rulings are going to consider that fact, and be colored by it.
I say leave it like it is. I don't always agree with the decisions made by the SC, but I know they are made in an atmosphere where the justices are not afraid of personal repercussions due to their decisions. Removing that burden allows them to follow their hearts and heads, for good or bad.
-
There is already more than enough political wrangling going on with appointing the Justices. Tying their hands to "popular" political trends would be like mandating "political correctness" for their decisions instead of just being "correct". The lifetime appointment was the best option to remove as MUCH political influence as POSSIBLE for them to be as independent as they could be. I think it was a good idea for that time and is still a good thing.
-
If i was part of that court...coming out with the se whacked out decisions lately..I'd probrably step down out of frustration . Wonder if that is a motivator?
-
Astac,
I doubt it. She was enough of an outspoken person to make that statement very clearly if that were the case.
-
how many members are there on the supreme court?
-
one less than before...
actually 9
-
Keep the system the way it is, it works. I strongly disagree with some of their recent decisions, but it would be much worse if their appointment reflected brief 'gusts' of opinion. There's already a little bit of that, but minimize the frequency of change as much as possible to reduce the problem.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
one less than before...
actually 9
is that what you may call a "legal defecit"?
seriously... same number as we have then (10)
-
Nope, not 10. The full complement is 9 to keeo a uneven number guaranteeing that it cannot be a tied or "hung" court unless some justice recuses themself.
-
Actually, there is no set number of Supreme Court Judges. It doesn't even have to be odd. It's just that 9 judges is traditional.
-
Regardless. USSC is corrupt.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Regardless. USSC is corrupt.
Karaya
Wow what a powerful statement, so beautifully argued and with such compelling proof. :rolleyes:
-
Unfortuntately lifetime appointments don't guarentee that they won't be voting along their party's lines when it comes to decisions.
-
Correct, the only thing that'll prevent that is their professionalism. The important thing is that the less often new justices are picked, the lower the chance that they'll be picked in the middle of some political crapstorm (like, say, the immediate aftermath of 9/11).
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Unfortuntately lifetime appointments don't guarentee that they won't be voting along their party's lines when it comes to decisions.
Which is something O'Connor rarely did. I suspect that there's going to be one helluva fight trying to replace her.
-
This early in Bush's term though AND with Rhenquist sick she will be replaced. I don't think the Court can go three more years on 8 justices. Though she did say she'd stay until her replacement is confirmed I think.
Overall, I think her timing favors Bush a bit.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Wow what a powerful statement, so beautifully argued and with such compelling proof. :rolleyes:
Our government as a whole is corrput. I love my country dearly.
Karaya
-
she was the swing vote against the late term abortion law
yep, Bush just has to get a true Conservative in there, which he will do
-
How about this guy?
http://www.morallaw.org/roymoore.htm
Wouldnt that be funny?
-
Any word yet on which conservative female Hispanic Bush is likely to nominate?
-
Originally posted by myelo
Any word yet on which conservative female Hispanic Bush is likely to nominate?
So true.
-
Geesssh..... Bush hasn't even picked anyone yet and people are screaming about this already.....
No matter who he picks someone is not going to like it.....
-
Originally posted by myelo
Any word yet on which conservative female Hispanic Bush is likely to nominate?
They're having trouble finding one that is also homosexual, 1/4 black, 1/4 Native American, 1/4 Asian and 1/4 Hispanic that supports the right to choice while being fervently anti-abortion and hasn't already worked for Halliburton or KBR at some point in her career.
That's what I heard anyway.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Geesssh..... Bush hasn't even picked anyone yet and people are screaming about this already.....
No matter who he picks someone is not going to like it.....
Screaming? Who's screaming? And what makes you think I don't like it?
For those who were drawing airplanes in 3rd grade when the teacher was covering reading between the lines, I’ll spell it out.
Bush is likely to go one of two ways on this.
1. Make the pick on ideological grounds; someone with a hard right record on social issues to appeal to the religious right (i.e. Eagler) of the GOP. Such a choice will surely face a vigorous confirmation fight and it’s a toss up which party would win the public opinion battle.
2. A political choice. This would most likely be a female or Hispanic as these are two demographics the GOP are strongly courting. This type of choice is much less likely to face severe opposition.
It will be interesting to see which way he goes. I’m predicting #2.
-
So myelo, you're saying that any hispanic or non white person is automatically not qualified for the job? That because they are hispanic they aren't actually good enough and it's just a political move?
-
Not just a political move. But if you don’t think politics are involved in this, quickly instruct the nearest bystander to call 911 and tell them to bring the brain defibrillator.
After all, O’Connor herself was a political choice; Reagan had made a campaign promise to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.
Picking a female or Latino helps Bush politically and might blunt the backlash from democrats. With a second opening looming I don’t think the W wants this to turn into an “extraordinary circumstance.”
-
Originally posted by Toad
They're having trouble finding one that is also homosexual, 1/4 black, 1/4 Native American, 1/4 Asian and 1/4 Hispanic that supports the right to choice while being fervently anti-abortion and hasn't already worked for Halliburton or KBR at some point in her career.
That's what I heard anyway.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Ill be happy if he picks someone even slightly to the right of O'Connor--she was always depicted as a centrist, but was actually the left-leaning swing vote in a lot of decisions one could easily label as 'activist' --But, that won't stop words like 'extremist'..'out of the mainstream'...etc from invading us in the near future, no matter who he picks.
(Over 70% of polled Americans think the recent decision to grant local governments the right to snatch property from poor people and give it to wealthy campaign contributors is 'extremist'):mad:
-
Now what?
I'd love to throw around doomsday predictions, but I don't know enough to be able to. What do you all think is going to happen with this?
I think it'll be kind of interesting anyway.
-
The congress will waste about a year on the nominees.. nothin else will get done and we'll eventually wind up with a couple of new justices.
Business as usual.
-
The administration will try to get this done before mid-term elections in Congress.
-
Ted kennedy, on his way to the bar, has allready said "he'd appose any judge that presidnet Bush appoints by abusing his power"
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well to Justice O'Connor. I didn't always agree with her decisions/votes but I respect her.
Life terms? Yep. That's the design and so far it seems to work.
Now the fun will really begin in the Senate, however.
If she isnt dead then she shouldnt step down. It was a lifetime appoinment. :)
-
Maybe we should chain them all to their seats and give 'em an oar.
-
Hangtime/Toad, do you think the Democrats will dare to filibuster Bush's pick knowing that Frist will go over their heads and end the practice completely? I have very little doubt that is what would happen were the Democrats to try to filibuster any S.C. pick.
Thanks for your input Guns and 6Gun lol.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Unfortuntately lifetime appointments don't guarentee that they won't be voting along their party's lines when it comes to decisions.
That could be true but if you follow the history of their votes it doesnt really favor party lines. Being on the court changes a person.
-
Urchin, I just don't know.. can't see 'em just fillibustering just any nominee.. or attempting it untill/unless other debate and discousure routines are exhausted.
really depends on who the nominee's are, i'd guess.
-
want to see some of the major hipocracy of the left? Check out now.org http://www.now.org
This is the national organization of WOMAN! and look at their front page of what they have to say about O'COnnor's resignation. The FIRST woman appointed to the supreme court in US history and all they have to talk about is their agenda.
"Justice O'Connor Resigns ..." is literally all they say about the woman.
-
Originally posted by Silat
That could be true but if you follow the history of their votes it doesnt really favor party lines. Being on the court changes a person.
That is unless you look at Justice Thomas. Well, not necessarily party-linish. Just very extremely conservative and hardly ever deviating from this position. Sometimes I think his views are more "out there" than Rehnquist's. But on the whole I agree with Silat - it seems many of the assumed conservatives turned out to be some of the most liberally voting justices while some of the most assumed to be liberal justices ended up once on the court to be some of the hardest voting conservatives.
Anyway, I've always kind of liked O'Conner's opions. I'm not sure why she's so vilified here by so many. Her opinions have mostly seemed quite sensible, whether or not I agreed with them, and grounded on sensible basis.
-
Well, personally I'm against abortion, but if I were for it I'd be concerned as well. There is a very real possiblity that it will be gone by the end of Bush's term.
-
Guns, was there any point at all to your last post? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but damn. Yeah, the left fringe are idiots, and yep, so are the right fringe. We all get it. However, the folks at NOW don't represent the entire "left", and I think you're well aware of that.
As to the new justice(s), I don't see anything seriously horrible happening. I can't imagine they'd overturn Roe v. Wade, 30 years after the fact.
-
No one but the nuts on either side gives a crap about roe v wade.
It's not going to change.
What we need is judges who will look at the constitution as it was meant not what their agenda says it should be.
Even trying to over turn roe v wade would have the gray haired Birkenstock weary libs rioting and burning down their cities. No one wants dried up old libbers to be out and about again, even Bush.
PS Mods my last post was not a troll or flame bait it was humor, grow a sense of humor please.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
PS Mods my last post was not a troll or flame bait it was humor, grow a sense of humor please.
Nice backpedal... except for that last part. ;)
-
What did I Backpedal on Sandy?
I am not being obtuse, the only other thing I mentioned was why ted kennedy was still around, as a joke.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What did I Backpedal on Sandy?
I am not being obtuse, the only other thing I mentioned was why ted kennedy was still around, as a joke.
Sorry.. misunderstood. Nevermind.
-
LOL so I didnt back pedal? Its all so confusing?
Think I am going to get MahDUHrated, for my comments?:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Think I am going to get MahDUHrated, for my comments?:D
Well, I've noticed that the Mahds don't generally take criticism. Good luck. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well, I've noticed that the Mahds don't generally take criticism. Good luck. :)
Now as I have said before, I Moderate a board for a living, and if you cant take criticism, you should not being doing the job.
Everyone makes mistakes.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ted kennedy, on his way to the bar, has allready said "he'd appose any judge that presidnet Bush appoints by abusing his power"
and that is what it truly is about....
hopefully, right will win out and steer this country back on course ... strange how it has become the "religious right".. what does that make the left???
-
Originally posted by SOB
Guns, was there any point at all to your last post? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but damn. Yeah, the left fringe are idiots, and yep, so are the right fringe. We all get it. However, the folks at NOW don't represent the entire "left", and I think you're well aware of that.
As to the new justice(s), I don't see anything seriously horrible happening. I can't imagine they'd overturn Roe v. Wade, 30 years after the fact.
SOB,
It's about an organization that's supposed to be for the empowerment and advancement of woman and instead don't care except when it comes to advancing their agenda.
appointment of the first woman to the SC is a major accomplishemnt of woman and this is all NOW has to say.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and that is what it truly is about....
hopefully, right will win out and steer this country back on course ... strange how it has become the "religious right".. what does that make the left???
teddy actually said "abuse of power" about the president. It's funny the lengths these people will go to. Since when is it an "abuse of power" to appoint a judge?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
hopefully, right will win out and steer this country back on course ...
Wha? You've had four years to do it and have another four more. You have the White House, the Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court under control.
If you can't put the country back on whatever "course" you think it should be on, then maybe just possibly it shouldn't be on that course.
-
judges are lawyers, most lawyers are liberals. basically the judicial system has from it's inception systematically usurped power not granted it in the constitution. we need these black robed oligarchs for what now? the supreme court has come down on the wrong side of every major decision this society has ever faced. congress needs to buck up and assess the whole federal judicial system, only congress has the authority to do so and we who are concerned with the mad slide the nation is taking towards the abyss have the obligation to make our will known to our respective representatives. spend as much time emailing your rep as you do on these boards, I do.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Well, personally I'm against abortion, but if I were for it I'd be concerned as well. There is a very real possiblity that it will be gone by the end of Bush's term.
I don't think so. Replacing O’Connor with a pro-lifer only reduces the Roe majority from 6-3 to 5-4. Kennedy is unlikely to support a total ban on abortions.
More likely would be a change along the lines of Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down 3rd trimetster abortions with no exception for the health of the mother. O’Connor was the key 5th vote and Kennedy dissented.
So late term abortions might become illegal but this is only a small percentage of abortions. There might be some other restrictions making other abortions harder to get.
Besides, even if Roe was reversed, abortion rights would once again become a state issue, and several states legalized abortion even before Roe.
-
For most of the nation's history, nobody gave a dam about who the President nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. The Senate rather routinely confirmed his appointments, regardless of the nominee's political leanings. There seemed to be a type of gentleman's agreement which respected the right of an elected president to have the nominees that he favored confirmed.
That excellent arrangement was axed, probably permanently, by radical leftist, judicial activist supporters on the Senate Confirmation Committee during the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. The basic objections to Bork stemmed from his failing the "litmus test" of Roe v. Wade. The opposition to Thomas took the form of character assassination, involving unsupported accusations of sexual harassment by a vindictive former co-worker.
We can probably look forward to more of the same this time, regardless of the qualifications and character of the person that Bush nominates.
-
The main reason kennedy is still there is that he's too pickled to decompose and he's got the cemetary block vote in MA. cornered.
Note; both political statement and humor combined. All I lack is a reference to a pirate here.
-
"That excellent arrangement was axed, probably permanently, by radical leftist, judicial activist supporters on the Senate Confirmation Committee during the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. "
I'd say FDR probably started it with his attempt to pack the Court, just as he is pretty much solely responsible for the amendment limiting Presidents to two terms. FDR generally showed a remarkable disregard for tradition; even some of his admirers admit that he probably would have made himself King if he could have.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by myelo
Not just a political move. But if you don’t think politics are involved in this, quickly instruct the nearest bystander to call 911 and tell them to bring the brain defibrillator.
After all, O’Connor herself was a political choice; Reagan had made a campaign promise to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.
Picking a female or Latino helps Bush politically and might blunt the backlash from democrats. With a second opening looming I don’t think the W wants this to turn into an “extraordinary circumstance.”
This is not entirely true.....his Father picked a black (Justice Thomas), and the Demoncrats insisted he wasn't black, he was Republican.
-
And Thomas is on the court, isn’t he.
Also, I said female or Hispanic, I didn’t say black. I would be more surprised at an African-American nominee.*
The GOP is really going after women and Hispanic voters, not so much African-American.
*Unless it's a black woman, like Rogers Brown.
-
(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:FyiwyxUUzjIJ:terpsboy.com/blogpics/tedchap.jpg)
Nice car Ted, who was driving again?(http://
I vote for ....
[url]http://www.ytedk.com/maryjo1.jpg[/url])
..wait we can't vote her in Teddy killed her.
- Senator Kennedy's driver's license had expired on February 22, 1969 (nearly 5 months before the accident at Chappaquiddick) and had not been renewed.
- Although driving with an expired license was only a misdemeanor, it did provide the evidence of negligence needed to prove a manslaughter charge in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
- The license problem was "fixed" by officials at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, under the direction of Registrar Richard McLaughlin, before the legal proceedings began.
Now lets talk about "Abuse of Power."
There's only one thing stopping a Kennedy Family Reunion....
A Bullet.
We Need a Free America.
Mac
-
*edited* See Rule #17.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How about this guy?
http://www.morallaw.org/roymoore.htm
Wouldnt that be funny?
lol from the site you haveposted
http://www.visionamerica.us/
Yeeeep... sutch people will make it realy funny
Btw did you note that almost every institution of religion fanatics use same colour scheme on their web sites as govermental institutions ?
examples:
http://www.fbi.gov/
http://www.visionamerica.us/default.asp
http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/
etc...
-
2. A political choice. This would most likely be a female or Hispanic as these are two demographics the GOP are strongly courting. This type of choice is much less likely to face severe opposition.
If Linda Chavez was a lawyer she would be sitting pretty right now :)
Charon