Derplahoma!
- sunybuny - May 3, 2024 - 4:56am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - May 3, 2024 - 4:54am
NY Times Strands
- Proclivities - May 3, 2024 - 4:42am
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:36am
NYTimes Connections
- Proclivities - May 3, 2024 - 4:36am
What Makes You Laugh?
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:31am
Wordle - daily game
- Proclivities - May 3, 2024 - 4:30am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 3, 2024 - 3:38am
Main Mix Playlist
- R567 - May 3, 2024 - 12:06am
Trump
- Steely_D - May 2, 2024 - 10:57pm
RightWingNutZ
- kurtster - May 2, 2024 - 10:37pm
Who Killed The Electric Car??? -- The Movie
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 2, 2024 - 9:51pm
Name My Band
- Manbird - May 2, 2024 - 7:37pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 5:56pm
The Dragons' Roost
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 5:46pm
Joe Biden
- R_P - May 2, 2024 - 5:07pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 4:58pm
Other Medical Stuff
- miamizsun - May 2, 2024 - 4:37pm
What Makes You Sad?
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:35pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
Breaking News
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 2:57pm
Israel
- R_P - May 2, 2024 - 1:04pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 9:27am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 9:17am
Questions.
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 9:13am
What can you hear right now?
- ScottFromWyoming - May 2, 2024 - 8:39am
The Obituary Page
- Proclivities - May 2, 2024 - 7:42am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 2, 2024 - 4:00am
And the good news is....
- Bill_J - May 1, 2024 - 6:30pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- ladron - May 1, 2024 - 6:22pm
Things you would be grating food for
- Manbird - May 1, 2024 - 3:58pm
Economix
- black321 - May 1, 2024 - 12:19pm
USA! USA! USA!
- haresfur - Apr 30, 2024 - 8:46pm
I Heart Huckabee - NOT!
- Manbird - Apr 30, 2024 - 7:49pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Apr 30, 2024 - 4:01pm
Oh, The Stupidity
- haresfur - Apr 30, 2024 - 3:30pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:46pm
Canada
- black321 - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:37pm
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:15pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Apr 30, 2024 - 7:02am
Food
- Bill_J - Apr 29, 2024 - 7:46pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 29, 2024 - 1:11pm
New Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 11:36am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 8:34am
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- rgio - Apr 29, 2024 - 7:37am
Photos you haven't taken of yourself
- Antigone - Apr 29, 2024 - 5:03am
Britain
- R_P - Apr 28, 2024 - 10:47am
Birthday wishes
- GeneP59 - Apr 28, 2024 - 9:56am
SCOTUS
- Steely_D - Apr 28, 2024 - 1:44am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 27, 2024 - 9:53pm
Classical Music
- miamizsun - Apr 27, 2024 - 1:23pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Lazy8 - Apr 27, 2024 - 12:46pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 27, 2024 - 12:17pm
The Moon
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:08pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- fractalv - Apr 26, 2024 - 8:59pm
Musky Mythology
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 7:23pm
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 4:02pm
Australia has Disappeared
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 2:41pm
Radio Paradise sounding better recently
- firefly6 - Apr 26, 2024 - 10:39am
Neil Young
- Steely_D - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:20am
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:01am
Environmental, Brilliance or Stupidity
- miamizsun - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:07am
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 12:30pm
Ask an Atheist
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 11:02am
Afghanistan
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:26am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:00am
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:46am
The Abortion Wars
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:27am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- ColdMiser - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:15am
What's that smell?
- Manbird - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:27pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:55am
TV shows you watch
- Beaker - Apr 24, 2024 - 7:32am
China
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 5:35pm
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:53am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Red_Dragon - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:42pm
|
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.
|
|
|