PDA

View Full Version : What would Obama’s Supreme Court look like?



Zeus
10-10-2012, 10:59 AM
What would Obama’s Supreme Court look like? (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-supreme-court-look-104535810--election.html)
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/liz-goodwin/;_ylt=ArpEXkByNx9VxNdYdXitUUvNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTFmdm hqbGxmBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEhlYWQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlh QXJ0aWNsZUhlYWRUZW1w;_ylg=X3oDMTM1OXIzNXR1BGludGwD dXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZGYyZmVmZTQtOWU4MS0zMD ZjLWE3MWEtZGQ2NGRiOTAxYmNkBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0 aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3)| The Ticket (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/)


President Barack Obama has already appointed two new justices to the Court and, if he's reelected, he'll most likely get at least one more crack at it. There are currently four justices in their seventies on the aging Supreme Court, and three of them are within four years of 79, the average age at which justices have retired since 1970.

As we wrote last week, Romney would be in a better position to drastically reshape the court if he is elected (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-supreme-court-look-105500607--election.html), because the oldest justice right now is the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79. Romney would choose a conservative-leaning justice to replace her, shifting the makeup of the court so that conservatives have six votes and liberals just three. Ginsburg has hinted she will step down when she's 82, which would be during the next presidential term.

If Ginsburg retires, Obama will almost certainly replace her with another liberal justice and the court will remain split between four reliably liberal justices and four even more reliably conservative justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy swinging between them, but more often siding with conservatives. Obama's earlier two Supreme Court appointments kept the status quo: He replaced two retiring liberal justices with people of a similar ideological bent, leaving the balance of the court unchanged.

But two of Ginsburg's conservative colleagues are not far behind her in age, which means it's possible that Obama would be in a position to replace Antonin Scalia or Anthony Kennedy, both 76. (Stephen Breyer, a liberal on the court, is 74.)
If Obama is able to replace Kennedy, a moderate conservative, or the very conservative Scalia, the court's ideological make up would change dramatically.
A left-leaning court could alter laws on same-sex marriage, gun rights, affirmative action, campaign finance, property and a whole host of other legal issues we might not even know about yet.

And such a move would have major consequences. Geoffrey Stone, the former dean of the University of Chicago Law School, found that if a liberal judge had replaced one of the four most conservative judges starting in 2002, the liberal wing of the court would have won 17 out of the 18 most important Supreme Court cases over the past ten years (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/the-supreme-court-and-the-election-making-a-difference/), including Citizens United, which struck down campaign finance reform laws. Meanwhile, if a conservative judge had replaced one of the liberals, the conservative wing would have won 16 out of the 18 cases, including the health care reform case.



Another extremely important reason Obama needs to be sent packing .

m00
10-10-2012, 11:05 AM
Romney would choose a conservative-leaning justice to replace her, shifting the makeup of the court so that conservatives have six votes and liberals just three


I hope not. I hope (and actually believe) that Romney would choose a thoughtful constitutionalist that understands technology and tries to apply the intentions and philosophical logic of the constitution to modern times. And not just like "oh he'll vote party lines."

Ranger Rick
10-10-2012, 12:15 PM
Which brings us to the Senate. Ried will never allow a constitutionalist, and any Conservative is sure to be played with.

NJCardFan
10-10-2012, 12:31 PM
Romney would choose a conservative-leaning justice to replace her, shifting the makeup of the court so that conservatives have six votes and liberals just three


I hope not. I hope (and actually believe) that Romney would choose a thoughtful constitutionalist that understands technology and tries to apply the intentions and philosophical logic of the constitution to modern times. And not just like "oh he'll vote party lines."

In my lifetime, the justices appointed by Republican presidents are not ideologues. Conservative, yes but not ideologues like Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kegan. Trouble is, it seems that only GOP appointees go against the grain. Kennedy in the Kelo decision and Roberts in the Obamacare decision. If Romney is elected, I'd like to see him appoint more along the lines of Thomas or Alito.

Novaheart
10-10-2012, 12:49 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who believes that a Supreme Court justice is going to be predictable along political lines hasn't been paying attention. In particular, if you think that they will be "conservative (and if by that you mean a simple read of the Constitution)", then you are also mistaken.

These people are at the height of the practice of law- they aspire to be remembered as great legal minds. Great legal minds cannot be established by simply rubber stamping old ideas or interpretations. To be great legal minds, they have to make new law or find existing laws applicable to new situations in new ways. You may not like it when they disagree with you, but it is the case.

As always, the justices are great minds when they agree with us and morons when they don't.

Now there is possibly an exception to this rule. Scalia appears to be going out of his way to test the limits of the appearance of professional objectivity.

Novaheart
10-10-2012, 12:51 PM
In my lifetime, the justices appointed by Republican presidents are not ideologues. Conservative, yes but not ideologues like Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kegan. Trouble is, it seems that only GOP appointees go against the grain. Kennedy in the Kelo decision and Roberts in the Obamacare decision. If Romney is elected, I'd like to see him appoint more along the lines of Thomas or Alito.

How do you feel about DUI checkpoints and warrantless stops and searches at interior "border" checkpoints fifty miles from any international border?

txradioguy
10-10-2012, 12:59 PM
He'll have at least two picks if (God forbid) he's re-elected.

My prediction...Holder will take one spot...Kamala Brown will take the other.

That will allow Brown's brother in law Tony West to become the next AG.

And that...would be enough to make Justice drop her scales and weep.

Novaheart
10-10-2012, 01:03 PM
He'll have at least two picks if (God forbid) he's re-elected.

My prediction...Holder will take one spot...Kamala Brown will take the other.

That will allow Brown's brother in law Tony West to become the next AG.

And that...would be enough to make Justice drop her scales and weep.

Kamala Brown or Kamala Harris? Harris would be a terrible choice.

txradioguy
10-10-2012, 01:10 PM
Kamala Brown or Kamala Harris? Harris would be a terrible choice.

Harris I'm sorry...the California AG. I've been mixing names tonite. Second thread I've done that.

She's on Obama's short list. Probably helps she was a big time bundler for his 2008 campaign.

Novaheart
10-10-2012, 01:40 PM
Harris I'm sorry...the California AG. I've been mixing names tonite. Second thread I've done that.

She's on Obama's short list. Probably helps she was a big time bundler for his 2008 campaign.

Kamala Harris is reportedly a brilliant woman, I don't see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G1VGJBWcU

txradioguy
10-10-2012, 01:50 PM
Kamala Harris is reportedly a brilliant woman, I don't see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-G1VGJBWcU

Well Kagan and Sotomayor were supposedly brilliant women too...after listening to them during the Obamacare hearings...I didn't see it there either.

I'm guessing that to Liberal politicians and Obama specifically...brilliant woman = votes Democrat.

Bailey
10-10-2012, 02:18 PM
He'll have at least two picks if (God forbid) he's re-elected.

My prediction...Holder will take one spot...Kamala Brown will take the other.

That will allow Brown's brother in law Tony West to become the next AG.

And that...would be enough to make Justice drop her scales and weep.

NO WAY IN HELL, would any senate allow Holder to take a seat in the USSC.

txradioguy
10-10-2012, 02:21 PM
NO WAY IN HELL, would any senate allow Holder to take a seat in the USSC.

If Dingy Harry retains his leadership position they will.

Bailey
10-10-2012, 02:57 PM
If Dingy Harry retains his leadership position they will.

I really doubt his name would even be submitted. The republicans would filibuster on general principles

NJCardFan
10-10-2012, 03:53 PM
How do you feel about DUI checkpoints and warrantless stops and searches at interior "border" checkpoints fifty miles from any international border?

I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints. They take 3 seconds out of your day and if you don't drink and drive, you're good and they're usually set up near drinking establishments hence the probable cause/reasonable suspicion. It's a safety issue that saves lives. As for the others, I don't believe them to be constitutional not to mention that I'm a believer that resources are better served elsewhere.

NJCardFan
10-10-2012, 03:58 PM
If Dingy Harry retains his leadership position they will.

Holder, no. Hillary Clinton, yes. However, don't you need some kind of judicial experience to be on the SC? Actually, I just checked and Kegan has no experience on the bench which, IMO, makes her vastly under-qualified to sit on the highest court in the country. Holder, at least, has experience as a judge.

m00
10-10-2012, 03:59 PM
Holder, no. Hillary Clinton, yes. However, don't you need some kind of judicial experience to be on the SC?

technically, no. just like you don't need any executive experience to be president. :friendly_wink:

Novaheart
10-10-2012, 07:01 PM
I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints. They take 3 seconds out of your day and if you don't drink and drive, you're good.......

Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

Rockntractor
10-10-2012, 07:04 PM
Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

It's in the same clause that authorizes national healthcare.

noonwitch
10-11-2012, 08:36 AM
NO WAY IN HELL, would any senate allow Holder to take a seat in the USSC.

I agree that he would not get confirmed.


I'm not sure that Obama will keep him on as AG for a second term, should the President get re-elected. He shouldn't. Personally, I think he should pick a RINO or a more conservative democrat to be his AG, to instill a bit more trust among the public.

txradioguy
10-11-2012, 08:43 AM
Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

It's tucked in there right next to abortion "rights" gay "rights" and Obamacare.

Novaheart
10-11-2012, 10:47 AM
It's tucked in there right next to abortion "rights" gay "rights" and Obamacare.

The definition of optimism was me thinking I would get an intelligent response from you and NJ.

m00
10-11-2012, 11:26 AM
Where does the Constitution permit the police to set up checkpoints? Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers being OK with checkpoints other than in time of war?

Is your point that Republican-nominated justices supported the constitutionality of interior "checkpoints" (under Bush)?

Novaheart
10-11-2012, 09:18 PM
Is your point that Republican-nominated justices supported the constitutionality of interior "checkpoints" (under Bush)?

No, my point was that Justices of the Supreme Court supported the violation of the Fourth Amendment and my fear that regardless of political identity, these people will find compelling reasons to trample the Bill Of Rights. Meanwhile, we have the peanut gallery doing banana dances and demanding to see literal language covering situations that even a person with a high school education and passing understanding of the Constitution ought to be able to see the underlying legal principles. There is no underlying legal principle for stopping and searching US citizens within this country, in lawful transit on a hunch or on the mathematics which support the idea that if you stop and question enough people then you will eventually catch a criminal. The same logic could be applied to a house to house search, and probably will.

Zeus
10-11-2012, 11:07 PM
No, my point was that Justices of the Supreme Court supported the violation of the Fourth Amendment and my fear that regardless of political identity, these people will find compelling reasons to trample the Bill Of Rights. Meanwhile, we have the peanut gallery doing banana dances and demanding to see literal language covering situations that even a person with a high school education and passing understanding of the Constitution ought to be able to see the underlying legal principles. There is no underlying legal principle for stopping and searching US citizens within this country, in lawful transit on a hunch or on the mathematics which support the idea that if you stop and question enough people then you will eventually catch a criminal. The same logic could be applied to a house to house search, and probably will.

The Expectation of privacy or causing harm to others sitting in ones home is a wee bit higher threshold bar than the one of using a publicly funded roadway. Not to mention Rights v privileges.

txradioguy
10-12-2012, 03:17 AM
The definition of optimism was me thinking I would get an intelligent response from you and NJ.

My definition of optimism is thinking that one day you can be an honest participant in these debtates.

Novaheart
10-12-2012, 03:47 PM
The Expectation of privacy or causing harm to others sitting in ones home is a wee bit higher threshold bar than the one of using a publicly funded roadway. Not to mention Rights v privileges.

So are you saying that the police can (or should be able to) just pull anyone over at any time without probable cause for questioning and searches? Because that's what a roadblock is- it's a warrantless search.

Molon Labe
10-12-2012, 03:55 PM
Based on the fact that it was a Bush nominee that gave us Obamacare for life.....supposedly a conservative....... not to mention the fact that the most conservative courts haven't reversed Roe V Wade nor reduced the scope of executive power...........I would argue that the SCOTUS appointments are overrated.

Zeus
10-12-2012, 04:13 PM
So are you saying that the police can (or should be able to) just pull anyone over at any time without probable cause for questioning and searches? Because that's what a roadblock is- it's a warrantless search.


There are times when police can justify searching your vehicle without your consent or a warrant. One such circumstance is when the officer can see something illegal in your car that is clearly visible; this is the “plain view” rule. Another time the police can search your car without permission or a warrant is if they have probable cause. If you are being arrested for any reason, whether for DUI, driving while suspended or other cause, you have no choice but to let the officer search your car.

If you have been pulled over in a traffic stop but none of the above circumstances applies, you have every right to refuse an officer’s request to search your vehicle. Even if you are confident there is nothing illegal to be found, you do not need to allow a search. When the officer asks permission, politely refuse his request. However, be aware that the officer doesn’t have to just let you drive away. He is now suspicious that you are trying to conceal something. If the officer decides she has reason to search the car despite your lack of permission, allow her to do so. While the search is underway, however, state, “I did not give you permission to search my vehicle”, clearly and calmly several times. If anything is being recorded, you will officially be on record as having refused the search request.

Another option the officer has is to hold you there until a search warrant can be delivered. This can be quite time consuming and when the warrant does arrive, chances are you vehicle will be searched extensively. If you are e confident you have nothing to hide and do not want to be delayed for an indeterminate amount of time, it may be simpler just to let the officer take a quick look. The choice is up to you.

The Probable cause claim is a wide ranging litany of justifiable reasons for a search. If nothing discovered one is out nothing but some time. on the other hand if something illegal is determined to be happening or found then the probable cause claim is extremely hard to overcome in a court of law. Again one has choices.