Oldest Rock song on RP
- kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 1:06pm
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
Irony 101
- MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
Breaking News
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:58am
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App
- pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- newwavegurly - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:48am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:46am
The Obituary Page
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
Wordle - daily game
- rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:00am
Ukraine
- Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:41am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
Radio Paradise Comments
- pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
Business as Usual
- black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:44am
Trump
- rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
Outstanding Covers
- thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 7:40pm
Little known information...maybe even facts
- haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Mar 27, 2024 - 5:08pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
Please Don't Post Here
- Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
Motivational Office Cliches...
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
(Big) Media Watch
- Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
YouTube: Music-Videos
- miamizsun - Mar 26, 2024 - 4:10pm
Israel
- R_P - Mar 26, 2024 - 12:24pm
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
Is there any DOG news out there?
- Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
Food
- Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
China
- R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b...
- jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
New Music
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and...
- Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
Orbiting Earth
- oldviolin - Mar 24, 2024 - 9:42am
Basketball
- oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers
- sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
Other Medical Stuff
- Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones
- Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
Can you afford to retire?
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
What Did You See Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi...
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
2024 Elections!
- Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
Economix
- R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great"
- miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone
- Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
Damn Dinosaurs!
- oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
Great guitar faces
- skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
Despots, dictators and war criminals
- R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
Uploading Music
- dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
Media Matters
- thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
NASA & other news from space
- miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
MEALTICKET
- drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
What makes you smile?
- Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court: Who's Next?
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 36, 37, 38, 39 Next |
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2010 - 6:06am |
|
Shouldn't we get a Constitutionalist on the SC? If you actually listen to what Dr. Paul says, it makes way too much sense.
|
|
musik_knut
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender:
|
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
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
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jul 18, 2009 - 7:53pm |
|
I nominate Lewis Black.
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 12:32pm |
|
manbirdexperiment wrote:Bullwinkle
|
|
Manbird
Location: ? ? ? Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 11:50am |
|
Bullwinkle
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 11:43am |
|
Uh oh! The Repugs are bringing out the big guns to challenge, the original Dirty Tricks guy: 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
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. Don't mind me. Just playing through.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
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. ?????
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 3, 2009 - 10:22am |
|
arighter2 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.
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
|
arighter2
Location: dubuque Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 3, 2009 - 10:06am |
|
Zep wrote: The student (Doninger) sent out emails to the student community calling the administrators "douchebags," which by itself should be protected, but she also moved closer to disruptive actions when she encouraged her readers to call the school to "piss off" the principle.
This came before the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, right?
Actually, the appeal came just slightly after The Supreme Court ruled on the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I think requests to call the principal may well have been a legitimate attempt to get the principal's decision overturned. But that requires a little more digging on my part.
|
|
jadewahoo
Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:
|
Posted:
May 29, 2009 - 11:28am |
|
Zep wrote: Harriet Myers II?
Or "Souter in Reverse"?
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.
|
|
maryte
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
|
Posted:
May 29, 2009 - 10:56am |
|
|
|
Zep
Location: Funkytown
|
Posted:
May 29, 2009 - 7:06am |
|
jadewahoo wrote:I'm laughing! Obama picked a mouthpiece of the Corporatacracy and the Righties are coming unglued trying to paint her as a Liberal, whilst the Lefties are circling the wagons around someone who will stab them in the back while they stand around her.
Harriet Myers II? Or "Souter in Reverse"?
|
|
Zep
Location: Funkytown
|
Posted:
May 29, 2009 - 7:04am |
|
arighter2 wrote:I do not like her decision on Doninger vs. Niehoff at all. I do not think she is a friend of free speech. I do not support her.
The student (Doninger) sent out emails to the student community calling the administrators "douchebags," which by itself should be protected, but she also moved closer to disruptive actions when she encouraged her readers to call the school to "piss off" the principle. This came before the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, right?
|
|
arsenault
Location: long beach cali USandA Gender:
|
Posted:
May 28, 2009 - 11:42pm |
|
romeotuma wrote:Oh, the hypocrisy of the complaints against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a racist... there were no complaints from Republicans when Samuel Alito stated at his confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court nominee— "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." that doesn't sound racist to me...sounds reasoned. ?! if he had said being a white dude and benefiting from the richness of that makes it likely that he would make better judgments than a latino woman, that would be racist and sexist right???!! sotomayor's statement was racist and sexist...but not enough to deny her confirmation on its own... let us all be honest here!! all this partisan crap is getting so old to me!...on what we know now sotomayor is confirmed, just as alito should have been and was...!
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 28, 2009 - 9:53pm |
|
arsenault wrote: i am always queasy when children are litigious...whatever the merits.
It was her mom, I think, who actually brought suit. I'm not sure though. I don't think it's as important a case as it's being made out to be... but it's famous and Sotomayor was sort of involved so hey.
|
|
arsenault
Location: long beach cali USandA Gender:
|
Posted:
May 28, 2009 - 9:38pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: She didn't make the decision in that case, the lower court did. Her court was asked to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion. In fact they agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime, but they were not re-trying the case. They found that the lower court acted appropriately and therefore the decision must stand. It's possible (probable?) that if any of the circuit court judges had tried the case, the decision would have been different.
i am always queasy when children are litigious...whatever the merits.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 28, 2009 - 9:35pm |
|
arighter2 wrote:I do not like her decision on Doninger vs. Niehoff at all. I do not think she is a friend of free speech. I do not support her.
She didn't make the decision in that case, the lower court did. Her court was asked to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion. In fact they agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime, but they were not re-trying the case. They found that the lower court acted appropriately and therefore the decision must stand. It's possible (probable?) that if any of the circuit court judges had tried the case, the decision would have been different.
|
|
|