• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

Jetboogieman said:
Well she's not wrong. The republican party has time and time again said no to just about everything the President has asked for, or introduced. and alot of those ideas were the republicans ideas! that they supported but dropped as soon as the president picked them up. What cowardice and bad sports.

Anyway, who thinks Joseph Stalin is a front runner for supreme court?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with politicians standing against the opposition party when their constituents wish them to.
 
This thread makes me sad already. I started it wanting to talk about something of key importance to the country, a new Supreme Court justice. Instead, all we can do is bicker about party politics.
 
Redress said:
Do you agree with Dan that the republicans will block any nominee that Obama might pick?
Click to expand...

I think that depends on who Obama nominates. If he/she leans far left, then yes. They will have to in order to keep the base happy.

If he nominates a moderate lefty, then I think many will vote for the candidate. Most Senators tend to give the President a lot of leeway in Supreme Court nominations, with the exceptions of the Dem's smears of Bork and Thomas.
 
Gill said:
I think that depends on who Obama nominates. If he/she leans far left, then yes. They will have to in order to keep the base happy.

If he nominates a moderate lefty, then I think many will vote for the candidate. Most Senators tend to give the President a lot of leeway in Supreme Court nominations, with the exceptions of the Dem's smears of Bork and Thomas.
Click to expand...

Are you at all familiar with any of the people listed as possibles in the article I linked?
 
danarhea said:
Obama is going to be in a pickle on this, no matter what he does. The far left is going to want a radical, and Obama won't deliver it. He can't, without losing the moderates. And the Republicans, still smarting over their defeat on health care, are going to stonewall any nomination completely. One of two things is going to happen. There will either be an invocation of the "nuclear option", since there won't be anyone on either side willing to compromise this time, or Obama will make this a recess appointment. I predict the former, as Republicans won't be able to reverse it, as they could if they took over after a recess appointment has been made.
Click to expand...

A recess appointment is not permanent, and has to be approved by the Senate before the expiration of the following Congress or the President has to start over. The "nuclear option" will be a one way street. If it's invoked/enacted (whatever), then it will be with us until the end of time. I just hope whichever party decides to use it understands that.
 
Redress said:
Are you at all familiar with any of the people listed as possibles in the article I linked?
Click to expand...

No, I have to admit that I'm not familiar with them. I'm sure more information will be coming out on them.
 
Redress said:
This thread makes me sad already. I started it wanting to talk about something of key importance to the country, a new Supreme Court justice. Instead, all we can do is bicker about party politics.
Click to expand...

A liberal will be replaced by a liberal, so the political calculus of the Supreme Court won't change. The mechanics of getting there are open for debate, of course. Honestly, I don't think the Republicans will put up much opposition to it because it really won't change anything.
 
Gill said:
Just curious.... did you consider the Democrats the "party of no" when they blocked and filibustered Bush's judicial nominations ???
Click to expand...

And yet Roberts and Alito--both incredibly right-wing--made it through the Senate. Go figure. :roll:

Back to the topic.. it doesn't matter too much who Obama chooses. He'll be simple replacing one left leaning judge with another. He's certainly not going to nominate a conservative and I agree that he won't nominate a far left jurist. He's in enough hot water now with out turning up the heat more.
Click to expand...

He's entitled to nominate someone exactly like Stevens, and I hope he does.
 
Redress said:
So anyway, now that the ultra-partisanship has been dispensed with(hopefully), talking about the actual topic without hysterics, any one heard of any of these?
Click to expand...

Diane Wood:
http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-bios/wood-diane.pdf

Seems entirely qualified.

But I love the resume of Merrick Garland.

U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Merrick B. Garland (202) 216-7460

Both seem totally qualified. The current Solicitor General--I dunno. She doesn't do much for me.
 
aps said:
Diane Wood:
http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-bios/wood-diane.pdf

Seems entirely qualified.

But I love the resume of Merrick Garland.

U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit - Merrick B. Garland (202) 216-7460

Both seem totally qualified. The current Solicitor General--I dunno. She doesn't do much for me.
Click to expand...

In relation to Garland: Conservative warns Obama: Pick Garland or else - War Room - Salon.com

Salon just spoke with Curt Levey, the director of the Committee for Justice, a GOP group originally founded to push George W. Bush's court nominees, about how Republicans might react to the selection of a new justice. His message? There will be "an interesting conformation fight this summer...unless [President Obama] nominates someone very moderate."

For Levey, "very moderate" means someone like Judge Merrick Garland, a Clinton-appointee to the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Garland, along with Solicitor General Elana Kagan and Judge Dianne Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court, is widely thought to be the one of the mostly like candidates to replace Stevens.
Click to expand...
 
aps said:
I will look into his decisions. I dunno. I dont' want the Supreme Court to be so much on the right, so I worry about Garland being moderate. It scares me.
Click to expand...

Me too, but about all I know about judges is what I see on TV, so I am hardly one to judge. It's why I ask questions of you who know the profession. Where is RightInNYC, he would be another one I would like to hear from on this. Who else around here works in the legal profession?
 
Redress said:
Me too, but about all I know about judges is what I see on TV, so I am hardly one to judge. It's why I ask questions of you who know the profession. Where is RightInNYC, he would be another one I would like to hear from on this. Who else around here works in the legal profession?
Click to expand...

TurtleDude is an incredibly successful Constitutional attorney, according to him.

I won't be able to get back to you tonight. But I will look into it at some point this weekend. Garland went to Harvard Law School, so my dad may know something about him (he went there as well and worked in the admissions office for almost 20 years). So I'll get his thoughts too. Oh, and the hubster is an attorney, but he had never heard of Garland when I read him the name just now. LOL
 
aps said:
TurtleDude is an incredibly successful Constitutional attorney, according to him.

I won't be able to get back to you tonight. But I will look into it at some point this weekend. Garland went to Harvard Law School, so my dad may know something about him (he went there as well and worked in the admissions office for almost 20 years). So I'll get his thoughts too. Oh, and the hubster is an attorney, but he had never heard of Garland when I read him the name just now. LOL
Click to expand...

Thanks alot aps, have a good evening. ;)
 
Deuce said:
I bet the GOP filibusters literally any pick and doesn't even bother to claim it's based on qualifications rather than ideology.

edit: And the longer they filibuster, the more it's going to hurt them. Imagine the ads for the 2010/2012 elections: "The GOP is using parliamentary tactics to stall the appointment process for the most important seat in the country."
Click to expand...

didn't hurt the dems when they filibustered the eminently qualified Miguel Estrada on racist reasons or blocked Peter Keisler for anti semitic reasons

an interesting sub plot is that with Stevens retirement the dominant religious groups in the USA-the Protestant Christians have absolutely no members on the court--everyone left is Jewish (2) or Catholic (6) and two of the leading contenders are Jewish
 
TurtleDude said:
didn't hurt the dems when they filibustered the eminently qualified Miguel Estrada on racist reasons or blocked Peter Keisler for anti semitic reasons

an interesting sub plot is that with Stevens retirement the dominant religious groups in the USA-the Protestant Christians have absolutely no members on the court--everyone left is Jewish (2) or Catholic (6) and two of the leading contenders are Jewish
Click to expand...

You can of course source the claims that those two where blocked on racist and anti-Semitic reasons.

What does the religion of the justices have to do with anything?
 
aps said:
And yet Roberts and Alito--both incredibly right-wing--made it through the Senate. Go figure. :roll:



He's entitled to nominate someone exactly like Stevens, and I hope he does.
Click to expand...

those two are among the most qualified men to ever make it to the supreme court

Roberts was at the very top of his class at Harvard and Harvard law and was well regarded as one of the 3-4 best supreme court litigators in the United States. ALito was #1 at Princeton and at the very top of his class at Yale Law, a top rated Assistant US attorney, a highly regarded US Attorney, and then again a very highly regarded Circuit Court Judge with years of experience.

The left would love seeing radical lesbian and brilliant professor Pamela Karlan (Who I knew fairly well at Yale) but she probably is too radical given the way things are going in the senate. Kagan is considered more moderate but she also is Jewish and there is some thought that Obama best pick a protestant.

Me, I'd love to see my old friend Akhil Reed Amar on the court. Not only is he Indian-American (thus a first) he is truly brilliant and one of the most intellectually honest men I have had the pleasure to be associated with
 
TurtleDude said:
those two are among the most qualified men to ever make it to the supreme court

Roberts was at the very top of his class at Harvard and Harvard law and was well regarded as one of the 3-4 best supreme court litigators in the United States. ALito was #1 at Princeton and at the very top of his class at Yale Law, a top rated Assistant US attorney, a highly regarded US Attorney, and then again a very highly regarded Circuit Court Judge with years of experience.

The left would love seeing radical lesbian and brilliant professor Pamela Karlan (Who I knew fairly well at Yale) but she probably is too radical given the way things are going in the senate. Kagan is considered more moderate but she also is Jewish and there is some thought that Obama best pick a protestant.

Me, I'd love to see my old friend Akhil Reed Amar on the court. Not only is he Indian-American (thus a first) he is truly brilliant and one of the most intellectually honest men I have had the pleasure to be associated with
Click to expand...

WTF does a judges orientation or religion have to do with being a Supreme Court justice?
 
Redress said:
You can of course source the claims that those two where blocked on racist and anti-Semitic reasons.

What does the religion of the justices have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

sure, the Rockefeller memorandum indicated that if Estrada was put on the DC circuit that would groom him for the supreme court and Bush would probably elevate him and get a big boost from hispanic voters.

Keisler, a Jew, is among the most brilliant attorneys in the USA and a founder of the federalist society. He was also one of my best friends in college and I know that he was criticized for being a "Conservative" given his "Background.

Now why don't you tell me why Estrada was blocked even though

1) the Liberal ABA gave him their top rating (as they did Keisler)

2) ALL FOUR LIVING FORMER DEMOCRAT SOLICITOR GENERALS ENDORSED HIM FOR THE APPELLATE BENCH
 
TurtleDude said:
sure, the Rockefeller memorandum indicated that if Estrada was put on the DC circuit that would groom him for the supreme court and Bush would probably elevate him and get a big boost from hispanic voters.

Keisler, a Jew, is among the most brilliant attorneys in the USA and a founder of the federalist society. He was also one of my best friends in college and I know that he was criticized for being a "Conservative" given his "Background.

Now why don't you tell me why Estrada was blocked even though

1) the Liberal ABA gave him their top rating (as they did Keisler)

2) ALL FOUR LIVING FORMER DEMOCRAT SOLICITOR GENERALS ENDORSED HIM FOR THE APPELLATE BENCH
Click to expand...

So no source then?
 
Redress said:
WTF does a judges orientation or religion have to do with being a Supreme Court justice?
Click to expand...

are you really that stupid? You don't think Sotomayor being Hispanic was a leading reason for her appointment? Did you know that George Mitchell told BUsh I white house counsel Peter Keisler and Lee Liberman Otis that the Thurgood Marshall seat was "the black seat" and anyone other than a black would be Borked? For years there has been a "jewish" seat on the court that goes back to FDR.
 
TurtleDude said:
are you really that stupid? You don't think Sotomayor being Hispanic was a leading reason for her appointment? Did you know that George Mitchell told BUsh I white house counsel Peter Keisler and Lee Liberman Otis that the Thurgood Marshall seat was "the black seat" and anyone other than a black would be Borked? For years there has been a "jewish" seat on the court that goes back to FDR.
Click to expand...

Are you really so stupid you won't back up your claims with sources?

See, more than one can play that game...

By the way, did I mention ethnicity?
 
Redress said:
So no source then?
Click to expand...

I am a source, I handle federal appellate cases and I know many of the players

do you have a law degree and if so, feel free to dispute what I have posted

I know Amar, Keisler, and Karlan very well along with a couple outside contenders such as Ian Ayers
 
TurtleDude said:
I am a source, I handle federal appellate cases and I know many of the players

do you have a law degree and if so, feel free to dispute what I have posted

I know Amar, Keisler, and Karlan very well along with a couple outside contenders such as Ian Ayers
Click to expand...

You are in no way a reliable source. I could claim to be anything I want to on the internets too. Sorry, but I don't believe random claims from people on the internets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom