TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 9, 2010 11:19:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 12:33:19 GMT -5
Justice Stevens, in my estimation, was one of the strongest minds on the Supreme Court, only behind Justice Scalia. His guidance will surely be missed considering the ill-temper displayed by some of the younger Justices in recent weeks.
As a liberal, I hope that Justice Stevens will be replaced by a like-minded jurist, both in terms of ideology and in terms of talent.
The top 3 replacement picks appear to be Solicitor General Kagan, Judge Wood of the Seventh Circuit, and Judge Garland of the D.C. Circuit.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 9, 2010 12:44:17 GMT -5
Justice Stevens, in my estimation, was one of the strongest minds on the Supreme Court, only behind Justice Scalia. His guidance will surely be missed considering the ill-temper displayed by some of the younger Justices in recent weeks. I just spoke with John Roberts and he told me to tell you that "Obama started it!" I'm going to do my best to stay out of this fray over the next few months. I don't want to get any more lawyer on me than I have to. I'm sure Stevens will be replaced with a qualified liberal judge. And while you'll certainly hear a lot of talk about it, I very much doubt you'll see a Republican filibuster when it comes down to it.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 9, 2010 12:48:03 GMT -5
This can be the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans. If there's a confirmation before the election, every single "yes" vote has the potential to torpedo people in tight races.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 12:50:23 GMT -5
I would like to think the process could focus on a full and fair vetting as opposed to the file and fundraise jurisprudence of contemporary conservatives.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 9, 2010 13:17:33 GMT -5
The Court does not need a liberal justice. It needs a justice who will not be looking over the shoulder of public opinion to review cases and will not interject politics into jurispridence.
Then again, Stevens' timing is purely political, since he considers the post-2010 Senate less accomodating for someone of his ideological bent to be confirmed.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 9, 2010 13:25:42 GMT -5
I would like to think the process could focus on a full and fair vetting as opposed to the file and fundraise jurisprudence of contemporary conservatives. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 13:27:32 GMT -5
DFW - with all due respect, I am not sure it can fairly be said that liberals (as opposed to conservatives) look at public opinion. I certainly don't see it in Justice Stevens's writing, but I haven't read all of it to be sure. I have seen it in conservative writings that look at what people believed certain terms to mean at the time of ratification of the Constitution. To be fair, that is usually cloaked in an attempt at objectivity by reference to certain texts like the Federalist Papers (not partisan, to be sure ;D), contemporary dictionaries, and so forth. I don't recall ever seeing a Gallup poll or something similar cited in an opinion by a liberal or conservative.
There is a certain decision from the 2000 time period in which politics seemed to be prevalent, and it is not lost on many liberals given the 8 years that followed.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 9, 2010 13:41:40 GMT -5
Four things that have shocked me today:
1. I have ten fingers and ten toes.
2. Tiger Woods is a pretty good golfer.
3. Jersey believes that conservative judges consider public opinion, often nefariously, but liberal judges do not.
4. Jersey still holds a grudge from 2000, despite the fact that it's been clearly demonstrated through media recounts that Gore never would have won the state anyway.
But "file and fundraise" is an extremely clever phrase. You should keep using it, as often as possible and in every conversation.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 13:44:54 GMT -5
#3 and #4 are sloppy misstatements of my position. As I wrote, I just don't see political opinion polls factoring into opinions authored by so-called liberals or conservatives. Regardless, there is subjectivity in most any judicial approach IMO, despite the claims to the contrary. I believe Bush won FL, which is an entirely separate inquiry from whether the Supreme Court's decision was political in some form.
I don't view courts as vehicles to fill political campaign coffers and have no problem stating as much. I certainly don't see how blasting out fundraising e-mails before and immediately after a suit has been filed is in keeping with service to the law. I've said before that I don't like electing judges either and am perfectly comfortable with that too for similar reasons.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 9, 2010 14:00:05 GMT -5
To clarify the earlier point, we need independent justices regardless of being conservative or liberal, but the problem is that the selection process is increasingly tied to political gains by either party.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 14:10:17 GMT -5
Appreciate that clarification, and I agree.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,248
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 9, 2010 14:45:48 GMT -5
Verb Infinitive to bork Third person singular borks Simple past borked Past participle borked Present participle borking to bork (third-person singular simple present borks, present participle borking, simple past and past participle borked) 1. (US, politics) To defeat a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee's character, background and philosophy. * 2002, Orrin G. Hatch, Capital Hill Hearing Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, February 7, 2002, [2] After an eight-year hiatus, these groups are back on the scene, ready to implement an apparent vicious strategy of Borking any judicial nominee who happens to disagree with their view of how the world should be. * 2004, Mark Tushnet, A Court Divided, p340 Forcing their adversaries to bork nominees may, they may think, lead voters in the middle to think less well of liberals, enhancing the distaste for Washington politics that has helped conservatives gain political power. * 2006, Jeffrey Lord, Borking Rush, in American Spectator, October 30, 2006 Above all it discusses the best tactics to defeat a borking. Having been in the Reagan White House when Robert Bork was borked, I knew something about the subject, which was a huge help when the same borking guns were turned on my friend Judge Smith years later. [edit] Usage notes Probably the first use of "Bork" was by the National Lampoon Radio Hour in 1973 to describe the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox by Solicitor General Robert Bork. The meaning, with Bork as the Borker, was subsequently undermined by conservatives using the term as described in the following paragraphs, depicting Bork as an object of Borking. William Safire of The New York Times attributes "possibly" the first use of 'Bork' as a verb to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20th, 1987. Safire defines "to bork" by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before." [3] This definition stems from the history of the fight over Bork's nomination. Bork was widely lauded for his competence, but reviled for his political philosophy. In March 2002, the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary under "Bork"; its definition extends beyond judicial nominees, stating that people who Bork others "usually [do so] with the aim of preventing appointment to public office."
Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"[4] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,732
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 9, 2010 15:18:13 GMT -5
Tiger shocked you today? Really?
Whenever there are personal issues, people tend to respond by either sucking at work, or absolutely diving into it.
Before this all came out, which would have you suspected Tiger of? I imagine Tiger practiced longer and harder and concentrated more because of this than ever before.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Apr 9, 2010 15:20:01 GMT -5
Then again, Stevens' timing is purely political, since he considers the post-2010 Senate less accomodating for someone of his ideological bent to be confirmed. That's just not true. He decided to retire awhile ago and before dems started sliding in the polls due to healthcare.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Apr 9, 2010 16:01:31 GMT -5
Tiger shocked you today? Really? Whenever there are personal issues, people tend to respond by either sucking at work, or absolutely diving into it. Before this all came out, which would have you suspected Tiger of? I imagine Tiger practiced longer and harder and concentrated more because of this than ever before. Uh, SF, he also said he was shocked he had 10 fingers and 10 toes. So, he was employing a literary device and was indicating that he was not really surprised at all by any of the items listed. Get it? Pretty clever, huh? ;D
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,732
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 9, 2010 16:43:26 GMT -5
Tiger shocked you today? Really? Whenever there are personal issues, people tend to respond by either sucking at work, or absolutely diving into it. Before this all came out, which would have you suspected Tiger of? I imagine Tiger practiced longer and harder and concentrated more because of this than ever before. Uh, SF, he also said he was shocked he had 10 fingers and 10 toes. So, he was employing a literary device and was indicating that he was not really surprised at all by any of the items listed. Get it? Pretty clever, huh? ;D Oh, God. I'm one of those posters. Time out for me. I'll be back when I can read.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 9, 2010 17:43:25 GMT -5
I would like to think the process could focus on a full and fair vetting as opposed to the file and fundraise jurisprudence of contemporary conservatives. Like the process for Sotomayor?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 9, 2010 17:44:46 GMT -5
Uh, SF, he also said he was shocked he had 10 fingers and 10 toes. So, he was employing a literary device and was indicating that he was not really surprised at all by any of the items listed. Get it? Pretty clever, huh? ;D Oh, God. I'm one of those posters. Time out for me. I'll be back when I can read. Could be worse. You could start a whole new thread proclaiming a terrorist was trying to blow up a plane going to Denver.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 9, 2010 19:50:41 GMT -5
I would like to think the process could focus on a full and fair vetting as opposed to the file and fundraise jurisprudence of contemporary conservatives. Like the process for Sotomayor? I think that's right - the process there was generally fair and complete. I was reacting more to the apparent joy that this would help a group win an election, which I don't view as an appropriate consideration on either side during a SCOTUS nomination (and both sides get caught up in this and "borking").
|
|