Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

Feedback.pdxradio.com message board: Politics and other things: Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire
Author: Listenerpete
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 7:36 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire

Author: Skeptical
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:33 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Right on schedule.

A Clinton?

Author: Chickenjuggler
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:33 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

This puts me in an odd position as far as, well, intangible things that are hard to articulate.

But the moment I saw that headline on CNN, I instantly recalled MANY threats by Herb and I think a couple others, that constantly dangled the fear and " you'd better watch out when we get to pick our Supreme Court Justices - you Libs will pay so very hard."

So now, here we are. The worm has turned to a degree. ( Or rather, the worm continues to turn ). This feels like an inevitable result of being made to, you know, try and fear Republicans and what they were always threatening to do.

WWHD?

I don't know what kind of " high ground " there is even to discuss. But there must have been something since it was so clear that many Republicans were so bloodthirsty about abortion and stuff. I can't help but want some revenge for that bullshit.

I suppose that Republicans want mercy and won't ever admit that. I kind of don't have very much right now.

Author: Skeptical
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:37 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Like I said, a Clinton.

:-)

That faraway whining of the wheels you hear? . . . that's the sound of another semi-trailer full of crow headed out to wherever the heck Herb is hiding out these days.

Author: Skybill
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:48 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Like I said, a Clinton.

I thought he was permanently disbarred.

Wouldn't that be for the Supreme Court too?

Author: Skeptical
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:52 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

As in Hillary.

Yes, the Supreme Court.

Author: Aok
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:53 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

No surprise here. He's been wanting to go because he hates Washington. Skeptical, I'm not sure what you mean by "a Clinton". I think Bush the First put him on the court if that's what you're driving at. He's one of those what they thought was conservative and turned out different. Now if we could find a way to get King George's other pick Mr. Thomas off the court.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 8:56 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I would like it if someone had decent qualifications. Barring that. Shit. I'll do it.

Huckabee's name was cited as if, well, to vote against abortion and only for that.

I really need to let that go. I thought I had - and in many areas I have. This one I just didn't see coming so I was mentally unprepared I guess.

Author: Skeptical
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 12:37 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm half serious about appointing Hillary to the court. She's shown she's up to any job. Probably'll do well there too.

But seriously, Obama has to look at the last two "W" picks (both young and right leaning) and the age & health of the two remaining liberals (Stevens, 89, and Ginsburg, cancer) and acknowledge balance is needed. A young and obviously biased liberal would not be out of place for the next two picks. Somebody that can cite the oath of office glitch-free would be nice too.

Author: Deane_johnson
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 9:56 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Obama will be looking for a radical liberal minority. Watch and see if I'm right.

Author: Missing_kskd
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:07 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Good!

We've got a very conservative and pro-corporate Chief Justice. Having a minority liberal on the bench would be a nice check on that.

CJ -- Totally! That would be very interesting to put an ordinary person there. They can get legal help from the staffers, and consider the matters before them from a very different perspective.

Author: Deane_johnson
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:10 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Missing, be careful what you wish for.

Author: Andrew2
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:14 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Yeah, Deane, we know you want another male extremist conservative Catholic instead, because there aren't enough of those on the Supreme Court now...

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:43 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I have no doubt Obama will appoint a liberal, but he or she won't be nearly as radical as Scalito or Roberts are.

Author: Broadway
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:46 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

>>another male extremist
does advocating the "choice" of termination of the pregnancy or "death" extreme?

Author: Listenerpete
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 12:33 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Obama will be looking for a radical liberal minority. Watch and see if I'm right.

And hopefully fairly young.

Author: Skybill
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 6:50 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

This whole discussion exemplifies EXACTLY what is wrong with the SCOTUS.

There should be no liberal/conservative bias by the judges.

They are there to interpret the law precisely how it was written.

There should be no pro this or anti that.

That's the whole point of the SCOTUS to eliminate that kind of crap.

Of course I know in the real world that will NEVER happen.

There should be term limits (as was brought up in a previous thread) for SCOTUS Judges. 8-10 years max.

Author: Andrew2
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 7:14 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Bill, I think such a short 8-10 year SCOTUS term would make the Court more, not less political, by giving whoever is currently in political control much greater influence over the direction of the Court. I think 20 to 25 year terms would be much better, so these people aren't in for life but also are insulated by long enough terms that they aren't so subject to the politics of the moment.

Author: Missing_kskd
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 7:55 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

There will always be bias with the judges. We cannot avoid this.

They interpret the law, because we cannot write law with enough precision to just stand, nor can we write it to account for the variables that will be applied to it. We also cannot avoid this.

The point of the SCOTUS is to provide a final decision point, or we have a travesty of the legal system through infinite appeal. We chose to do this.

So then, to factor out bias, we promote diversity, period. This is why I object to packing courts with like minded individuals. Liberal, conservative, other. We need the diversity so that good decisions are rendered, with all the elements and implications considered.

I do not agree with term limits either. The high court should be stable, otherwise what Andrew wrote would then apply.

Author: Skeptical
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 9:28 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

There should be term limits (as was brought up in a previous thread) for SCOTUS Judges. 8-10 years max.

I think suggestions from people who admit wanting to create chaos in our political system should be promply ignored.

Author: Brianl
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 6:15 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"There should be no liberal/conservative bias by the judges.

They are there to interpret the law precisely how it was written.

There should be no pro this or anti that.

That's the whole point of the SCOTUS to eliminate that kind of crap."

Well, even when a law is written down, etched in stone, it is ALWAYS up for interpretation.

The job of the SCOTUS is to INTERPRET the Constitution of the United States. Each and every case they see is weighed against the Constitution, to see if it fits within the realm of the framework of it.

That means, they see it from their viewpoint to see if it should fit. It is not possible for the SCOTUS to decide straight along with the word of the law. They decipher the SPIRIT of the law.

Having balance is good. Who knows, maybe Obama picks someone who ends up going the other way on the spectrum ... much like Souter, a Bush Sr. appointee, did.

I doubt that though, I am sure Obama could pick someone very liberal and they would have no problem being confirmed by a Senate with now a 19-seat Democratic majority.

Author: Amus
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 6:31 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Brianl wrote:
"The job of the SCOTUS is to INTERPRET the Constitution of the United States. Each and every case they see is weighed against the Constitution, to see if it fits within the realm of the framework of it.

That means, they see it from their viewpoint to see if it should fit. It is not possible for the SCOTUS to decide straight along with the word of the law. They decipher the SPIRIT of the law."


Hence the title "Judge".

Author: Missing_kskd
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 11:13 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

LOL!!

I think we've put this one to bed.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:25 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

If they did have term limits, I think their term should be 8 years and it should be "opposite" the Presidential election and the terms should stager through the judges so that at any one point in time, a President can only appoint 1 judge.

i.e. 2008 was a Presidential election. In 2010 would be Obama's first opportunity. then in 2014 he or the next President could appoint another and so on and so on.

That would help keep the politics out and would avoid any 1 President from stacking the bench.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:26 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Unless they die or retire.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:33 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Edzakley


Your message is too short. It must have at least 2 words that are at least two letters long. Your message had only 1 such words.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:34 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Yeah, what if the justices die, retire, or resign in the meantime? Partial terms?

8 year terms (no matter how you stagger them) would be almost the worst thing to do if you want to make the Supreme Court less political. If prospective Justices know a new vacancy is coming up in two years, who's to say they won't "campaign" for the job by catering to the president currently in office?

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:38 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'd be okay with a 15 yr term. Life is too long. Nobody, no mater how talented, should be on the bench at 89 years of age.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:40 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

That would work too as long as one President can't apoint more than 2 in his term (or somethiong like that to prevent "stacking")

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:02 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Well, the president doesn't "appoint" anyone to the Supreme Court - he can only nominate them; the Senate must confirm them of course. And the Senate has a history of not simply rubberstamping any SC nomination the president makes, even when his own party controls the Senate (e.g. Harriet Miers).


Again, I think it good that the Supreme Court has some political independence. I would give justices very long terms, 20-25 years ought to be enough to insulate them from the latest political winds.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:07 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Yeah, maybe.

But on the other hand, maybe we should just leave it the way the founding fathers set it up. They were pretty spot on with the rest of the stuff! (i.e. the 2nd amendment. Ha, there I turned it into a gun thread!!!....Just kidding!)

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:16 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

The Founding Fathers didn't really set up the court system; that was by far the most vague part of the US Constitution. All they said was that there would be a highest court sitting atop a separate judicial branch of government and that Congress could make up the rest. It's really not clearly stated anywhere in the Constitution that Supreme Court justices are in for life but one phrase has been so interpreted, apparently.

Author: Missing_kskd
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:35 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

That one is kind of interesting.

So, no limit was set.

A small time passes and that's determined to be "lifetime", then as the only effective limit, barring a set one, is life itself.

So then, it becomes legislated that the terms have a limit.

All it would take would be one case sent back to the court, for that to be ruled lifetime again, leaving everybody at square one.

...unless a majority of the court agreed that lesser than life term limits made sense. Even then, a future court could reverse that, couldn't they?

By not explicitly defining the term, the founders more or less set the game up for life.


Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out     Administration
Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out   Administration
Welcome to Feedback.pdxradio.com message board
For assistance, read the instructions or contact us.
Powered by Discus Pro
http://www.discusware.com