Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Hybrid View

  1. #1 What would Obama’s Supreme Court look like? 
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    What would Obama’s Supreme Court look like?
    By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News| The 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, 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, 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 .
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    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."
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Ranger Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    417
    Which brings us to the Senate. Ried will never allow a constitutionalist, and any Conservative is sure to be played with.
    I dream of the day a chicken can cross the road without it's motives being questioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by lazyboy97O View Post
    How is a state religion bad, but state medicine good?
    Quote Originally Posted by steamboatpete View Post
    Anyone who makes the decision to depend upon the government to take care of their basic needs has essentially doomed himself to a life of bitter disappointment.
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,308
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    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.
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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?
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
     

  8. #8  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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?
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
     

  10. #10  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •