[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 9:18am
 
Things that make you happy - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:47am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:36am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:29am
 
unusual time signatures - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:26am
 
Wordle - daily game - ptooey - Aug 9, 2022 - 7:54am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - puntloos - Aug 9, 2022 - 7:49am
 
Best/worst white reggae/ska/rcksteady - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:54am
 
More reggae, less Marley please - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Media Bias - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:34am
 
RPeeps who would have a sense of humor if they were not s... - sunybuny - Aug 9, 2022 - 5:48am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 5:40am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:29pm
 
Things Forgotten. - Steely_D - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:24pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:02pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Aug 8, 2022 - 7:28pm
 
It's the economy stupid. - miamizsun - Aug 8, 2022 - 6:41pm
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Aug 8, 2022 - 5:44pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Aug 8, 2022 - 3:28pm
 
Cheney, Dick - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:36am
 
Joe Biden - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:18am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
Food - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
John Lennon's Jukebox - thisbody - Aug 8, 2022 - 4:55am
 
Portishead S. O. S. - geoff_morphini - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:43pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 6:51pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 12:09pm
 
Ridiculous or Funny Spam - Steely_D - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:47am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:18am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:13am
 
China - haresfur - Aug 7, 2022 - 9:00am
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Aug 6, 2022 - 5:06pm
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2022 - 3:17pm
 
Name My Band - Manbird - Aug 6, 2022 - 2:41pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 6, 2022 - 9:27am
 
The Abortion Wars - black321 - Aug 6, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 6, 2022 - 4:34am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - BlueHeronDruid - Aug 5, 2022 - 8:37pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 5, 2022 - 4:44pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Aug 5, 2022 - 12:58pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 10:09am
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - geoff_morphini - Aug 5, 2022 - 9:19am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - miamizsun - Aug 5, 2022 - 7:09am
 
Favorite Flags - Proclivities - Aug 5, 2022 - 6:33am
 
Afghanistan - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 5:29am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Aug 4, 2022 - 7:34pm
 
What are you listening to now? - westslope - Aug 4, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 4, 2022 - 2:01pm
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Aug 4, 2022 - 11:48am
 
Breaking News - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 5:06pm
 
Saudi Arabia - westslope - Aug 3, 2022 - 4:45pm
 
Congress - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:19pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 3, 2022 - 2:00pm
 
Message To Lucky - black321 - Aug 3, 2022 - 12:03pm
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - miamizsun - Aug 3, 2022 - 11:40am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - sirdroseph - Aug 3, 2022 - 10:39am
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - geoff_morphini - Aug 3, 2022 - 9:08am
 
Infinite cat - Red_Dragon - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:36am
 
Flower Pictures - haresfur - Aug 3, 2022 - 7:13am
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 2, 2022 - 1:58pm
 
Favorite Beauty Products - Tried and Tested! - Proclivities - Aug 2, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Favorite Quotes - ptooey - Aug 2, 2022 - 10:21am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - miamizsun - Aug 2, 2022 - 9:15am
 
Local Scenery - rgio - Aug 2, 2022 - 5:20am
 
Health Care - R_P - Aug 1, 2022 - 11:10am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - GeneP59 - Aug 1, 2022 - 5:14am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 31, 2022 - 9:46pm
 
ATTN: Kate Bush Fans! - Steely_D - Jul 31, 2022 - 8:34pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - Proclivities - Jul 31, 2022 - 4:26am
 
You might be getting old if...... - Manbird - Jul 30, 2022 - 6:26pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jul 30, 2022 - 10:07am
 
Mr Peabody's Coal Train Broke - oldviolin - Jul 29, 2022 - 6:21pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Jul 29, 2022 - 5:01pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Isabeau - Jul 29, 2022 - 4:43pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court: Who's Next? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  Next
Post to this Topic
mzpro5

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 13, 2010 - 6:53am

 mzpro5 wrote:
From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) there are no written or implied requirements for a person to be nominated to the Supreme Court.  It doesn't have to be a judge or even a lawyer, essentially anyone can be nominated.  So in that light I think my great uncle Thatcher should be nominated.  Wisest man I know, very fair and he knows the Constitution.

 

 miamizsun wrote:

Let's dial him up and see if he's down with it. {#Biggrin}

 
Talked with Uncle Thatcher last night and he declines.  Says he isn't getting closer to DC than 100 miles. Also said he didn't want to disappoint the ladies at the senior center but did say he would like the opportunity to visit RBG in her office for a "private" conference. (hey he is 93 yo)

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Apr 13, 2010 - 5:54am

 donna_birichina wrote:
For the first time in my adult life, a name that I know is being mentioned as a possible contender for Supreme Court nomination: Elizabeth Warren. There are not words for how much I respect her, and for how safe I think our Constitution would be in her hands. I would trust her to approach each decision unbiased and with a clear head. One vote for Warren!

 
I agree, she would be a great choice. Some member of Congress might find her too "activist."

donna_birichina

donna_birichina Avatar

Location: in the middle
Gender: Female


Posted: Apr 13, 2010 - 5:50am

For the first time in my adult life, a name that I know is being mentioned as a possible contender for Supreme Court nomination: Elizabeth Warren. There are not words for how much I respect her, and for how safe I think our Constitution would be in her hands. I would trust her to approach each decision unbiased and with a clear head. One vote for Warren!
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 11:29pm

 Manbird wrote:

which is why the hair is always on the coke can I guess

 
are you saying cookie would be a better choice?  'cause if you are...

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Owl Creek Bridge
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 11:16pm

 oldslabsides wrote:

The Corporation is always in the right.
 
which is why the hair is always on the coke can I guess
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 11:14pm

 Manbird wrote:

Where do you stand on Ugga-Torkle v. McFishwich?

 
The Corporation is always in the right.

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Owl Creek Bridge
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 11:12pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
Me.  I'll do it.  I'm at least as qualified as the current set of loons.
 
Where do you stand on Ugga-Torkle v. McFishwich?
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 11:07pm

Me.  I'll do it.  I'm at least as qualified as the current set of loons.
jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 9:16pm

Whomever it may be, you can be sure it will be the next sideshow tossed up by
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 6:16am

 mzpro5 wrote:
From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) there are no written or implied requirements for a person to be nominated to the Supreme Court.  It doesn't have to be a judge or even a lawyer, essentially anyone can be nominated.  So in that light I think my great uncle Thatcher should be nominated.  Wisest man I know, very fair and he knows the Constitution.

 
Let's dial him up and see if he's down with it. {#Biggrin}
mzpro5

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 6:13am

From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) there are no written or implied requirements for a person to be nominated to the Supreme Court.  It doesn't have to be a judge or even a lawyer, essentially anyone can be nominated.  So in that light I think my great uncle Thatcher should be nominated.  Wisest man I know, very fair and he knows the Constitution.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2010 - 6:06am


Shouldn't we get a Constitutionalist on the SC? {#Ask}

If you actually listen to what Dr. Paul says, it makes way too much sense.

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2009 - 9:01am

 romeotuma wrote: 

romeo,
Greetings...
And THE LEFT didn't attack Miguel Estrada? There is no Senate Judiciary Staff memo written that clearly stated Mr. Estrada must be stopped or Republicans would curry favor with Hispanics? Both sides play a game of blood sport on Court nominations. Both.

with regards,
mk
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2009 - 3:56pm

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer - 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON - Pushing toward a historic Supreme Court confirmation vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic justice, over nearly solid Republican opposition.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jul 18, 2009 - 7:53pm

I nominate Lewis Black.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 12:32pm

 manbirdexperiment wrote:
Bullwinkle 

 


Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Owl Creek Bridge
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 11:50am

Bullwinkle 
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 11:43am

Uh oh! The Repugs are bringing out the big guns to challenge, the original Dirty Tricks guy:

Ed Meese, Far-Right Reaganite, Hired By GOP To Coordinate Sotomayor Attack



In their battle against Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Republicans in Congress have turned to an old hand. Ed Meese, the Reagan-era attorney general and conservative firebrand, has been playing a behind-the-scenes role in organizing GOP opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Meese was hired before Sotomayor was chosen. According to the Washington Post, which broke the story, he coordinated with Republican Senators on how best to plan for the nomination.

What type of guidance Meese is offering in his memos remains a secret. But it's not hard to guess the message he's trying to push. Despite being removed from government for more than two decades, Meese remains a lightening rod in judicial circles, his admirers praise his legacy as a strict "originalist" while his critics accuse him of politicizing the judicial nomination process.

As Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, Meese played an influential role in helping craft the White House's approach to the courts. He is reported to have applied litmus tests to judicial candidates, including asking them about their philosophies on Roe v. Wade, school prayer, and unions (allegations Meese has denied). Within this context, conservative figures like Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork flourished and were granted appointments — not always successfully — to higher posts. Moderates, by contrast, floundered. Former U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Andrew Frey found his career path impeded in part because he had given $25 to a gun-control group.

Policy tilted heavily conservative under Meese's influence as well. In January 1982, he helped guide the Reagan administration's decision to reverse a policy that removed tax exemptions from schools that discriminated on the basis of race. "We do not want IRS bureaucrats setting social policy," he reportedly said.

But Meese was known above all for his unbending belief that the conservative movement needed to change the culture of the Supreme Court. He famously declared in 1985 that judges should be "expected to resist any political effort to depart from the literal provisions of the Constitution." Later, he would suggest that it was within the power of the president to circumvent Supreme Court decisions.

"Such decisions," Meese said, "do not of themselves establish the supreme law of the land, as that phrase is known, that is binding on all persons and parts of government henceforth and forever more."

Such remarks engendered a wave of concern and anger among Democrats, moderates, and even members of the Court. Justices Brennan and Stevens would rebuke the argument that the court had departed from the constitution in speeches later that year.

The Meese philosophy would be put to the test in 1987, when a Supreme Court vacancy presented itself following the retirement of Justice Lewis Powell. In his place, Reagan turned to Judge Bork who, even before his nomination, was heavily criticized by Democrats in the Senate. When that nomination was defeated, in large part over opposition to Bork's judicial "originalism," Meese hastily pushed for a replacement: Judge Douglas Ginsburg. It was a peculiar choice. A former Harvard academic, Ginsburg had argued before the court once. But, according to contemporary news reports, Meese regarded him as an "ideological soul mate" based on various conversations the two had on constitutional issues, including abortion. Ginsburg would end up withdrawing his name after embarrassing revelations from his past surfaced, including ones regarding marijuana use. And Reagan would finally settle on the more moderate Anthony Kennedy for the Court.

Meese would resign from his post as Attorney General the next year, under a host of legal problems and an unfavorable ethics investigation. Since then, however, he has played an active role in crafting conservative judicial philosophy. Last year, he expressed his concern that the nomination process had become too laborious and partisan during a speech in Greenville, South Carolina. And now, of course, he is helping contribute to that trend by coordinating the political opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nominee.




steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 3, 2009 - 7:42pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

As bad as it is, she was bound by the Kelo decision—one of the worst Supreme court decisions in our history. The only way to answer the question I'd have about this would be to ask her how she would have voted on the Kelo case, a question she would probably decline to answer.

Which leaves her real intentions as a Supreme Court Justice unknown. Whatever she says in the hearings she will be on the bench for life, and short of impeachment there's no way to throw her out. The recent pattern has been to say as little as possible (or whatever is necessary) to get thru the hearings and then get to work. No one will answer a question that matters.
  

The confirmation hearings went off the track long ago, and have really devolved into political spitting matches.  The Founders were right to immunize — as much as possible — the Justices from the political process. Unfortunately, nothing is more political than the current confirmation process for the Supreme Court, which has become more of a dog -and-pony show for constituents and the party faithful than anything else. .

Everyday folk seem to think they have a pretty good notion of what does or does not make a good Justice. They don't.  It is no secret that jurisdictions that select their judges by popular vote have much worse judges on the whole than jurisdictions in which the judges are appointed.  

The confirmation process for Justices really underscores what is wrong with this country.  Jurisprudence giants from the past would have no chance — absolutely no chance — of getting on the Court today. That should tell us something. 

       
{#Whisper} Don't mind me. Just playing through.


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 3, 2009 - 11:28am

 jadewahoo wrote:

No. Republicans that are so stuck in the 'anti-anything-Obama' mode that they are incapable of seeing that Sotomayor is one of their own corporate lackies. Democrats who are so delusional that they are blinded by the light and fail to see that Sotomayor is one of the proverbial 'pieces of silver' given in obeisance to the Corporatacracy.
 

How ironic, truly.  Both sides are so guilty of this.  "The Loyal Opposition" has now trancended into "we disagree no matter what".  Once again, a Bush "chicken" has "come home to roost" in the Obama administration, with Sotomayor. 

The more things change, the more they remain the same.  This has never been more true than it is presently.

Except that Rollerball teams are now forming.  Contact your regional Corporate office for details.

Residents of Sector R need not apply.

Question:  Is it still a coincidence that the last 4 Presidents have attended either Yale or Harvard and...
That presently 8 out of the 9 current Supreme Court Justices have attended Yale or Harvard, the lone different school is Northwestern.

?????
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  Next