Rehnquist and O'Connor may retire

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

an ideal mid road judge

Who get's to define what that is?

You and me and moonbeam and Etech, Hayabusarider, Cadguy, carbonguy and a few others could sit down and determine what that non political person would be. I'm sure if the weight of the nation was on your back you alone would make the right decision and I'd rather you make it then the congress.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

an ideal mid road judge

Who get's to define what that is?

You and me and moonbeam and Etech, Hayabusarider, Cadguy, carbonguy and a few others could sit down and determine what that non political person would be. I'm sure if the weight of the nation was on your back you alone would make the right decision and I'd rather you make it then the congress.

WOOT! I get a say? "Oh happy days are here again...."

<- dances a jig


CkG

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

an ideal mid road judge

Who get's to define what that is?

You and me and moonbeam and Etech, Hayabusarider, Cadguy, carbonguy and a few others could sit down and determine what that non political person would be. I'm sure if the weight of the nation was on your back you alone would make the right decision and I'd rather you make it then the congress.

WOOT! I get a say? "Oh happy days are here again...."

<- dances a jig


CkG

I'd have to pass. People like Moonbeam and HJD1 are obviously waaaaay smarter than me and I would be way out of my depth.

 

[LunarRay]

Cadguy,
somewhere between Kennedy and O'Conner would be fine with me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

an ideal mid road judge

Who get's to define what that is?

You and me and moonbeam and Etech, Hayabusarider, Cadguy, carbonguy and a few others could sit down and determine what that non political person would be. I'm sure if the weight of the nation was on your back you alone would make the right decision and I'd rather you make it then the congress.

WOOT! I get a say? "Oh happy days are here again...."

<- dances a jig


CkG

I'd have to pass. People like Moonbeam and HJD1 are obviously waaaaay smarter than me and I would be way out of my depth.

Well I'm pretty dumb... moonbeam ok he's smarter than me for sure... but you... I'm sure you're smarter than me too... so wade on in.... the water's fine... vote for your middle of the road Justice I said if Kennedy and O'Conner had a baby Justice it would be just fine by me to clone it..

 

[przero]

Most of the dogs you see run over are in the middle of the road. I'll pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually they are almost invariably lying on the right side.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually they are almost invariably lying on the right side.

This was a clever one Mr beam... Hail Moonbeam. They lie on the right... love it.

 

[chowderhead]

I think if Rehnquist retires before the 2004 elections, Bush will want to elevate Scalia to the Chief Justice Position. He will want to nominate a conservative Hispanic to the court.
I think in terms of abortion issue, replacing Rehnquist or O'Connor with someone who is tends towards being anti-abortion will not mean very much. Bush has shown his distaste for Souter someone who was middle of the road before becoming more liberal on the bench. Bush will not want to make that mistake and will choose someone who is a true blue conservative.
If Stevens or Ginsburg retires (two pro-abortion justices), look for a HUGE fight. Regardless, I think it will be quite a shock if the ruling is overturned soon as I don't think people are ready for that or even voted for that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I think if Rehnquist retires before the 2004 elections, Bush will want to elevate Scalia to the Chief Justice Position. He will want to nominate a conservative Hispanic to the court.
I think in terms of abortion issue, replacing Rehnquist or O'Connor with someone who is tends towards being anti-abortion will not mean very much. Bush has shown his distaste for Souter someone who was middle of the road before becoming more liberal on the bench. Bush will not want to make that mistake and will choose someone who is a true blue conservative.
If Stevens or Ginsburg retires (two pro-abortion justices), look for a HUGE fight. Regardless, I think it will be quite a shock if the ruling is overturned soon as I don't think people are ready for that or even voted for that.

The other interesting idea that has been floated is that Thomas might get moved to the Chief Justice position because he is so much younger than Scalia. However this probably will not happen given what it took to get Thomas on the court itself.

 

[Nitemare]

I can smell the filibuster already...Hell, if we nominated Hillary for the Supreme court, they'd do a filibuster simply because Bush recommended her.

It would be nice to get more people like Clarence Thomas on though. Don't see it happening though since the Dems approach is if we can't have it no one can....

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Well - The problem with your catching a cold example is that most Americans are absolutly positivly stupid. And I'm not talking about those who can't read; we need to improve our education system for that. I'm talking about those private school high school girls who can't even name the mayor of their own city or who is running for president or people who can't even pick out their state on a map. It sickens me. Just because these Americans are stupid though doesn't mean we should cut down on abortions; too many states have restrictive laws that hurt people for whom an abortion is the most logical solutions.

As for federal bench - 98% of appointments go through unanimous, most the whole Senate doesn't even show up for the vote. But for very controversial ones to the 2nd highest court in the country, then a fillibuster may be in order.

Maybe, but tell me why Estada deserves a filibuster?

He's hispanic and everyone knows that all democrats are racists.....hmmmm think I misspelled republicans. He is definitely a moderate. I view extreme right wingedness by Asscroft, Estrada is closer to neutral than he is to Asscroft.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: przero
NakaNaka - "Plus, he's too conservative for my taste in a 50-50 country."

Man, are we only supposed to have judges YOU approve of?

PR,

Ideally and IMO we would be better off if we could find an ideal mid road judge and clone eight of him/her and sit them on the court... or robots or androids. 9-0 decisions are great. 5-4 based on political (life term) philosophy is not good and not consistent with founding father thinking.. I think.

You know, if you are just going to look for clones of one man, there is an easier method, a one judge USSC. And since the Founding Fathers made a 9 judge court, I'm going to have to say they wouldnt agree with you.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
I think if Rehnquist retires before the 2004 elections, Bush will want to elevate Scalia to the Chief Justice Position. He will want to nominate a conservative Hispanic to the court.
I think in terms of abortion issue, replacing Rehnquist or O'Connor with someone who is tends towards being anti-abortion will not mean very much. Bush has shown his distaste for Souter someone who was middle of the road before becoming more liberal on the bench. Bush will not want to make that mistake and will choose someone who is a true blue conservative.
If Stevens or Ginsburg retires (two pro-abortion justices), look for a HUGE fight. Regardless, I think it will be quite a shock if the ruling is overturned soon as I don't think people are ready for that or even voted for that.

The Democrats tried to make the 2000 presidential election a fight for the stability of Roe vs Wade, on the basis that they assumed Bush would appoint several judges to the supreme court

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Well - The problem with your catching a cold example is that most Americans are absolutly positivly stupid. And I'm not talking about those who can't read; we need to improve our education system for that. I'm talking about those private school high school girls who can't even name the mayor of their own city or who is running for president or people who can't even pick out their state on a map. It sickens me. Just because these Americans are stupid though doesn't mean we should cut down on abortions; too many states have restrictive laws that hurt people for whom an abortion is the most logical solutions.

As for federal bench - 98% of appointments go through unanimous, most the whole Senate doesn't even show up for the vote. But for very controversial ones to the 2nd highest court in the country, then a fillibuster may be in order.

So they're too stupid to know who their mayor is, but bright enough to make an informed decision on ending what will, if it isn't already, undoubtedly become a human life?

Who is YOUR mayor?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: przero
NakaNaka - "Plus, he's too conservative for my taste in a 50-50 country."

Man, are we only supposed to have judges YOU approve of?

PR,

Ideally and IMO we would be better off if we could find an ideal mid road judge and clone eight of him/her and sit them on the court... or robots or androids. 9-0 decisions are great. 5-4 based on political (life term) philosophy is not good and not consistent with founding father thinking.. I think.

You know, if you are just going to look for clones of one man, there is an easier method, a one judge USSC. And since the Founding Fathers made a 9 judge court, I'm going to have to say they wouldnt agree with you.

Make it a 25 justice court... My point is 9 who for their lifetime or when they retire will view law without political bias.... of course law has its political bias by the party in control but, the court should reafirm the law interpretation (by executive branch or police etc) with 9-0 decisions not 5-4 with the same 5 always (well almost always) going the same way and the same with the 4... today there was a 6-3 bravo! on police portection against suit case.
Even that is better than 5-4.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: przero
NakaNaka - "Plus, he's too conservative for my taste in a 50-50 country."

Man, are we only supposed to have judges YOU approve of?

PR,

Ideally and IMO we would be better off if we could find an ideal mid road judge and clone eight of him/her and sit them on the court... or robots or androids. 9-0 decisions are great. 5-4 based on political (life term) philosophy is not good and not consistent with founding father thinking.. I think.

You know, if you are just going to look for clones of one man, there is an easier method, a one judge USSC. And since the Founding Fathers made a 9 judge court, I'm going to have to say they wouldnt agree with you.

Make it a 25 justice court... My point is 9 who for their lifetime or when they retire will view law without political bias.... of course law has its political bias by the party in control but, the court should reafirm the law interpretation (by executive branch or police etc) with 9-0 decisions not 5-4 with the same 5 always (well almost always) going the same way and the same with the 4... today there was a 6-3 bravo! on police portection against suit case.
Even that is better than 5-4.

If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?

 

[LunarRay]

Charrison,

If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?


****************

I want the dialog that 9 would bring to the table... some dissent is reasonable but not always 5-4 the same political way.... We are talking mainly about reafirming interpretation of law enacted v Constitution and revisiting old settled law when the society gets to vote every 2,4,&6 for their reps etc vs... lifetime of decision... say the dems win the house senate and white house society voted... then they enact law Then the court that the conservatives enshrined... overturn the law... I say boo to that... I wan't my vote to count and yours too. Society needs middle of the road justices I think.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Charrison,

If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?


****************

I want the dialog that 9 would bring to the table... some dissent is reasonable but not always 5-4 the same political way.... We are talking mainly about reafirming interpretation of law enacted v Constitution and revisiting old settled law when the society gets to vote every 2,4,&6 for their reps etc vs... lifetime of decision... say the dems win the house senate and white house society voted... then they enact law Then the court that the conservatives enshrined... overturn the law... I say boo to that... I wan't my vote to count and yours too. Society needs middle of the road justices I think.

Do you believe the constitution is a living document, or do you beleive it only supports what is clearly written?

On tough issues there often is no middle ground.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HJD1
Charrison,

If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?


****************

I want the dialog that 9 would bring to the table... some dissent is reasonable but not always 5-4 the same political way.... We are talking mainly about reafirming interpretation of law enacted v Constitution and revisiting old settled law when the society gets to vote every 2,4,&6 for their reps etc vs... lifetime of decision... say the dems win the house senate and white house society voted... then they enact law Then the court that the conservatives enshrined... overturn the law... I say boo to that... I wan't my vote to count and yours too. Society needs middle of the road justices I think.

Do you believe the constitution is a living document, or do you beleive it only supports what is clearly written?

On tough issues there often is no middle ground.

I used to be a strict constitutionalist... if it ain't explicit it ain't there. Today I'm more loose because of all the decisions rendered. Ya gotta be, I think.

I agree on the tough issues but, even there if it is always 5-4 the same way.. I get the feeling it is more political then judicial... I mentioned earlier that the law was created by a political process and if liberals created it but conservatives judge it... (how it is interpreted by the implementors) I find that inconsistant with the laws purpose at its inception.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HJD1
Charrison,

If you want agreement, why not just have 1 judge?


****************

I want the dialog that 9 would bring to the table... some dissent is reasonable but not always 5-4 the same political way.... We are talking mainly about reafirming interpretation of law enacted v Constitution and revisiting old settled law when the society gets to vote every 2,4,&6 for their reps etc vs... lifetime of decision... say the dems win the house senate and white house society voted... then they enact law Then the court that the conservatives enshrined... overturn the law... I say boo to that... I wan't my vote to count and yours too. Society needs middle of the road justices I think.

Do you believe the constitution is a living document, or do you beleive it only supports what is clearly written?

On tough issues there often is no middle ground.

I used to be a strict constitutionalist... if it ain't explicit it ain't there. Today I'm more loose because of all the decisions rendered. Ya gotta be, I think.

I agree on the tough issues but, even there if it is always 5-4 the same way.. I get the feeling it is more political then judicial... I mentioned earlier that the law was created by a political process and if liberals created it but conservatives judge it... (how it is interpreted by the implementors) I find that inconsistant with the laws purpose at its inception.

There are those that are strict constitutionlist and those that are not, this is what causes splits. And yes this difference is political and idealolgical.