Justice Stevens slows his hiring at high court

disneydude said:

Yes, of course you would try to distort my post into saying something that it didn't say....why am I surprised.

Nowhere did I say that she should be nominated because she is gay. I said that she is a true liberal and that's why I would like to see her nominated. She would also be the first openly gay person to serve on the SCOTUS....that's just an observation.:roll:


Sometimes I ask...why do I even bother with you people?

Click to expand...

Very well then, if we're going to nominate lunatics with deviant sexual practices, why not a young, attractive nymphomaniac in a see-through robe?

All better now?

You bother with us, I suspect, because of a need to disprove fact to maintain illusion. Don't take that personally, I have found it to be true of most modern Leftists I've encountered

RightinNYC said:

So Roberts and Alito are "extreme right-wing picks," but Karlan would simply be a "true liberal"? Do you realize how biased your position comes across here?



I guess it all depends on your perspective.

Click to expand...

Karlan would be an extreme left wing pick....however I'll hold my breath.

disneydude said:

Karlan would be an extreme left wing pick....however I'll hold my breath.

Click to expand...

So you think it's a good idea for presidents to appoint "extreme XXXX-wing picks," so long as you agree with their policies?

RightinNYC said:

So you think it's a good idea for presidents to appoint "extreme XXXX-wing picks," so long as you agree with their policies?

Click to expand...

Not as a general rule. However, sometimes I think it is necessary to maintain a proper balance of the court. Although I am about as left as the next guy...I generally would prefer more middle of the road picks for the Supreme Court. However, Bush made it difficult by actively picking Justices that were extreme right. Because of that, the balance of the court is skewed, which is why I think there should be more leftist picks despite what would otherwise be my personal preference.

I think that the best justices have been the more centrist ones: e.g. Kennedy, O'Connor.
The reason being....most of the country is not far-right or far-left. The SCOTUS should not be a political body. It should be a body that comprises the centrist position.

disneydude said:

Not as a general rule. However, sometimes I think it is necessary to maintain a proper balance of the court. Although I am about as left as the next guy...I generally would prefer more middle of the road picks for the Supreme Court. However, Bush made it difficult by actively picking Justices that were extreme right. Because of that, the balance of the court is skewed, which is why I think there should be more leftist picks despite what would otherwise be my personal preference.

Click to expand...

How does an extreme left wing judge "balance" the court out more than a mainstream liberal judge? Do they somehow get an extra vote if they really disagree with the other side?

I think that the best justices have been the more centrist ones: e.g. Kennedy, O'Connor.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, I'd say those are two of the most wishy-washy justices in recent history. Neither one met a 17-factor balancing test they didn't love.

The reason being....most of the country is not far-right or far-left. The SCOTUS should not be a political body. It should be a body that comprises the centrist position.

Click to expand...

The SC shouldn't be designed to resemble any political position.

RightinNYC said:

How does an extreme left wing judge "balance" the court out more than a mainstream liberal judge? Do they somehow get an extra vote if they really disagree with the other side?



Interestingly enough, I'd say those are two of the most wishy-washy justices in recent history. Neither one met a 17-factor balancing test they didn't love.



The SC shouldn't be designed to resemble any political position.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we are talking "semantics"....when I say far-right or far-left in this context, I am saying a "mainstream liberal" or "mainstream right-wing" judge.

"Mainstream" to me...would not be right or left, mainstream would be centrist.

So, when I talk about balance that's what I'm talking about.

In the last 3 decades, we haven't really had a "liberal" President. Carter and Clinton were both moderate Democrats....Thus...their picks for the Supreme Court have reflected that idealogy (to the best they possibly could).
H.W. and G.W. picks have, for the most part, been to the far-right. So what has happened is that the more liberal side of the SCOTUS has been replaced with either moderate judges or right-wing judges. This has put the balance of the SCOTUS in jeopardy. That is why this last election was probably more important that any other election in my lifetime. No one knows what McCain would have done. But with 1-3 more picks similar to Alito, Roberts, Thomas, the SCOTUS could have been severely skewed. Being that these are lifetime appointments, the reality is, this would have had a long lasting effect that probably would have latest the rest of my life. At least with 2 picks, President Obama can ensure that this isn't going to happen anytime soon. If Obama is lucky enough to get 3 appointments he would be able to probably protect the Court at least for my lifetime.

You are correct in that finding "moderate" judges will have similar protections, appointing 1 or 2 "liberals" though just provides a little more protection against those far-right appointments, in that with a moderate judge, you can never be sure where they are going to side (taking your Kennedy/ O-Connor example into account).