Obama, 2012-2016, and retiring Supreme Court Justices

[PokerGuy]

Not having any hard time, I'm too lazy to do your homework for you. Google is your friend.

 

[fskimospy]

Not having any hard time, I'm too lazy to do your homework for you. Google is your friend.

Hahaha, nice attempt to dodge the burden of proof. This was pretty pathetic, even by standards as low as yours.

 

[rudder]

They're both fairly moderate. And to people as far, Far, FAR right as PokerGuy and Spidey, anything that's not bordering on Christian Zealotry is crazy. Both Bush's appointees were much further away from center than both Obama appointees. I guess when you yourself are crazy, the sane look crazy to you.

Kagan a moderate? Could be... no one knows. She was never a judge and had no track record, no published work about her legal opinions, nothing.

That is almost as crazy as saying a community organizer is qualified to run the country.

At least nominate someone who has a little judicial experience.

 

[JSt0rm]

Not having any hard time, I'm too lazy to do your homework for you. Google is your friend.

look how dumb you are.

 

[CitizenKain]

Moderate? Are you crazy? They are FAR LEFT. Both of them don't believe the constitution limits the federal governments authority and have said as much in their hearings.

Was it kagan or scrotomyass who wouldn't answer the question on if congress could mandate what foods people eat?

Why would the most liberal president ever appoint moderates?

They are only far left if you are so far right that you have no idea what left even looks like.

 

[preCRT]

The truth is that making Supreme Court nominations is the single most important decision a President makes, after deciding upon a running mate as VP.

Souter & Stephens only retired because Obama won, else they'd still be on the bench in DC, waiting for a change in 2012. Souter may have even retired back in 2000 had the Court not handed the election to GWB.

Scalia will be carried out of the Court in a coffin, he'll never go on his on.

 

[thraashman]

Kagan a moderate? Could be... no one knows. She was never a judge and had no track record, no published work about her legal opinions, nothing.

That is almost as crazy as saying a community organizer is qualified to run the country.

At least nominate someone who has a little judicial experience.

Why? Throughout the history of the Supreme Court often there are SC Justices with no judicial experience. I've found several articles where liberals were afraid that Kagan replacing Stevens on the court would push the court too far right.

 

[thraashman]

I found this interesting while looking up quotes. If you wanna talk about crazy SC justices, how about Clarence Thomas. Even Antonin Scalia thinks so in fact.

From wikiquotes

On the difference between himself and Justice Clarence Thomas: I'm a conservative, I'm a textualist, I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut.

 

[Lemon law]

Moderate? Are you crazy? They are FAR LEFT. Both of them don't believe the constitution limits the federal governments authority and have said as much in their hearings.

Was it kagan or scrotomyass who wouldn't answer the question on if congress could mandate what foods people eat?

Why would the most liberal president ever appoint moderates?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with Spidey07 in 3 of 3 areas.

1. Not only did not Kagan or Sotomayer say they believed in limitless Federal power, they were very similar in Ideology to the justices they replaced. Which is why there was not the giant fight we have if Obama was replacing a Scalia, a Thomas, a Roberts , or an Alito.

2. Anyone who believes that Obama is the most Liberal President ever has been listening to too much Limbaugh and Fox news without a Helmet. And in the case of someone like Spidey, the mind rot is already too far advanced, and there may be no cure. As brain centers dealing with reality and judgment are quite evidently fatally fried and have been so for a very long time.

3. For sheer crazies, we cannot beat our current mainly GOP appointed crazies. This is new new new in American history for SCOTUS nutcases to assert money is free speech and the right of eminent domain should extend past public entities as only a few wealthy individuals can have co-equal public domain rights. And given the fact that all these highly
dubious rulings passed with a 5-4 majority, simply means, the real fight will start when one of the gang of five end their court tenure. With the gang of five being defined as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and somewhat Kennedy.

Once we can replace on the five, the country has a far better chance of returning to Judicial sanity, but expect a giant partisan fight over it.

The GOP can jump up and down in terms of saying we will filibuster anyone but a card carrying Scalia style nut case, but that ignores the fact the dems are in even a better position to filibuster any Scalia style nutcase.

 

[airdata]

Instead of spending 1 billion dollars on a campaign, obama should give it all to charity.

That's the only way I'm voting for him.

Having said that. I'm not going to vote in 2012 unless Ron Paul is on the ballot, unless they attach sarah palin to him in which case again I will not be voting.

 

[werepossum]

The Dems have always been much better at getting results from their appointees. Republicans (until Bush) appoint those they think will be acceptable to the Democrats; Democrats appoint those who will actively advance the progressive agenda. This is especially important now because of Obama's expressed interests in "positive rights" (what the government must do on your behalf) versus "negative rights" (what the government cannot do to you.) If the Messiah succeeds in getting five SCOTUS justices committed to implementing these "positive rights", then none of us will have any rights whatsoever. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot prevent you from bearing arms, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be kept safe from your harm by government. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot prevent you from exercising free speech, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be kept safe by government from hearing opinions they find offensive. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot deprive you of your property without due process, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be provided with some benefit by government. Should this concept of "positive rights" get enshrined into SCOTUS, Kelo v. New London will look like limited government, property and wealth will become something to which only the very richest, and the concept of freedom will become the progressive concept - government providing all your needs and controlling all assets.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Kagan a moderate? Could be... no one knows. She was never a judge and had no track record, no published work about her legal opinions, nothing.
That is almost as crazy as saying a community organizer is qualified to run the country.
At least nominate someone who has a little judicial experience.

John Rutledge, John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Harlan Stone, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist...

 

[fskimospy]

The Dems have always been much better at getting results from their appointees. Republicans (until Bush) appoint those they think will be acceptable to the Democrats; Democrats appoint those who will actively advance the progressive agenda. This is especially important now because of Obama's expressed interests in "positive rights" (what the government must do on your behalf) versus "negative rights" (what the government cannot do to you.) If the Messiah succeeds in getting five SCOTUS justices committed to implementing these "positive rights", then none of us will have any rights whatsoever. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot prevent you from bearing arms, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be kept safe from your harm by government. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot prevent you from exercising free speech, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be kept safe by government from hearing opinions they find offensive. Perhaps you have a "negative right" that government cannot deprive you of your property without due process, but it will be overmatched by others' "positive right" to be provided with some benefit by government. Should this concept of "positive rights" get enshrined into SCOTUS, Kelo v. New London will look like limited government, property and wealth will become something to which only the very richest, and the concept of freedom will become the progressive concept - government providing all your needs and controlling all assets.

They really didn't do that at all. Scalia was a partisan choice, and Thomas was a highly partisan one.

 

[spidey07]

They really didn't do that at all. Scalia was a partisan choice, and Thomas was a highly partisan one.

Are you kidding me? Scalia is the definition of a judge who upholds and protects The Constitution. Seriously, listening to him speak makes me proud to be an American. He is the best judge the SC has seen in recent memory. He protects all our liberties and rules accordingly. He sees through the bullshit and use The Constitution to guide his decisions, the entire SC needs to be like him. They are the defenders, the final check on the legislative/executive, they are not supposed to be the enablers.

 

[ProfJohn]

I highly doubt that Obama is going to win in 2012 so this is all a waste of time.

Unemployment in fall of 2012 should still be above 7% and that will be the end of Obama. Nothing he can probably do about it either.

 

[herkulease]

I doubt Scalia will ever step down, regardless of who is president. He comes off to me like Rehnquist to be the old school guys, gonna die in their seat.

I mean he's the only one who actually does what he's paid to do. Every single case he puts on an opinion. Sure they have a limited case load but he takes the time to write an opinion. At least he's doing something to earn his paycheck. Justice Thomas is a total slacker. 95% of the time he just concurs with Scalia and that's it.

 

[rudder]

John Rutledge, John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Harlan Stone, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist...

Not going to cover all... but Rehnquist for instance was a lawyer who actually went through quite a few trials and served as an assistant district attorney.... but I know... it does not matter if obama makes a stupid decision because at some point in history someone else made a stupid decision and that makes it all okay.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Not having any hard time, I'm too lazy to do your homework for you. Google is your friend.

rofl, proof not found

 

[CallMeJoe]

Not going to cover all... but Rehnquist for instance was a lawyer who actually went through quite a few trials and served as an assistant district attorney.... but I know... it does not matter if obama makes a stupid decision because at some point in history someone else made a stupid decision and that makes it all okay.

If you want to call John Marshall, John Jay, Felix Frankfurter and William O. Douglas "bad decisions" in order to make some vague sort of political point about President Obama, don't allow me to interrupt your idiocy.

 

[fskimospy]

I highly doubt that Obama is going to win in 2012 so this is all a waste of time.

Unemployment in fall of 2012 should still be above 7% and that will be the end of Obama. Nothing he can probably do about it either.

Pro-Jo, no offense buddy, but your election predicting skills leave a lot to be desired. You couldn't even predict the '06 elections 2 days out, what makes you think you can predict 2012 presidential elections 2 years out?

 

[MovingTarget]

John Rutledge, John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Harlan Stone, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist...

Judicial experience should not be a requirement for scotus. In fact, it is not a requirement for it at all. We do have a history of non-judges on the supreme court. Sometimes we do need a justice that has an outside view of the profession of law. Even laywers are prone to groupthink concerning their profession.

 

[Atreus21]

More likely than not, Obama will win, but making any serious predictions this far out is a fool's errand.

I really do hope that he is able to replace some more justices though, as the USSC is the farthest to the right the country has probably ever seen. (it's really telling how skewed the court has become when Stevens is considered a 'liberal' even though he was put on the bench by a Republican)

Not without precedent. O'Connor was seated by Reagan.

 

[Atreus21]

Hahaha, nice attempt to dodge the burden of proof. This was pretty pathetic, even by standards as low as yours.

C'mon Eskimo. Even you know that partisans' minds are not ruled by specific facts, but by general impressions.

If I held you to the same standard regarding justices to whom you were ideologically opposed, such as Scalia, I bet you'd have a hard time meeting it. And even if you did, I wouldn't agree.

Speaking for myself, I can't find anything concrete to nail to Obama, or Clinton (well maybe Clinton), or most people I disagree with. In politics, you make your opinion first, and find the facts to support it only when it's challenged.

At least that sure seems to be the way it is around here sometimes.

 

[fskimospy]

C'mon Eskimo. Even you know that partisans' minds are not ruled by specific facts, but by general impressions.

If I held you to the same standard regarding justices to whom you were ideologically opposed, such as Scalia, I bet you'd have a hard time meeting it. And even if you did, I wouldn't agree.

Speaking for myself, I can't find anything concrete to nail to Obama, or Clinton (well maybe Clinton), or most people I disagree with. In politics, you make your opinion first, and find the facts to support it only when it's challenged.

At least that sure seems to be the way it is around here sometimes.

I can absolutely point you to specific, stated opinions by both Scalia and Thomas that I directly think makes them horribly, ridiculously wrong. This is easy due to both the sheer volume of opinions they have authored and the fact that they have been involved in a number of controversial ones.

So no, I call bullshit. Even though we aren't talking about them, I can absolutely back up my opinion on Scalia and Thomas, and he is unwilling or unable to back his up, despite how 'clear' it was to him that they are nuts.

 

[soccerballtux]

It is a scary proposition to have even more crazies like the Sotomayor and Kagan on the court. The one risk mitigating factor is that the repubs should be in a stronger position after the 2012 election so they can block the worst of the worst from getting on the court.

excuse me...first I must say, it's Soto-my-OR.