Quote :

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized after falling ill, a court spokeswoman said."

On CNN main page

9/24/2009 8:28:32 PM

Shouldn't make a big impact on the composition of the court, but with 3/7 years to go, he'll probably get at least another pick.

9/24/2009 8:30:47 PM

I like how the first thing people wonder is if the President will have a chance to nominate another person to the Supreme Court instead of, say, this woman's health and well-being.

9/24/2009 8:35:43 PM

yes because what i posted was exactly what i first thought about when i saw the headline

9/24/2009 8:36:41 PM

probably sounds evil but i wish this could happen to one of the conservative judges.

9/24/2009 8:38:16 PM

^^ I wasn't indicting you.

9/24/2009 8:45:53 PM

With all due respect to Justice Ginsburg, I've never met her and her passing, while tragic to her family, is of little more consequence to me than the thousands who die or fall ill every day.


What is of consequence to myself and the other citizens of the United States would be her replacement.

9/24/2009 8:53:16 PM

You're only encouraging him.

9/24/2009 8:53:38 PM

Quote :

"probably sounds evil but i wish this could happen to one of the conservative judges."

What current policy of the court do you want changed? Especially with the dems in control, certainly they can just pass the laws you want, no need to have them legislated from the bench.

9/24/2009 10:44:46 PM

JCASHFAN, she's not dead...she fell, went to the hospital, and is "back to work"

and even if mmm mmm mmm BHO did get a second supreme court justice, there is possibly no one worse than Ginsberg

9/25/2009 10:50:00 PM

I know, I was responding to the possibility brought up in this thread. With the age of some of the justices, it is entirely possible that BHO would get three picks on the court if he makes it to a second term (something I suspect will happen).

9/25/2009 11:02:25 PM

So will Obama have to nominate a jew? or maybe he will go with a muslim?

9/26/2009 2:40:45 AM

I hope Scalia retires.

9/26/2009 2:46:40 AM

there was a times article a while back that said the plan was for him to get 1 a year for the next 3. first souter to get another female, then a replacement ginsburg, and then a 3rd one for someone else i forget

9/26/2009 8:09:29 AM

In the name of diversity, BHO should nominate a dog

9/26/2009 5:17:16 PM

"I Don't Want to Get on the Cart!"

9/26/2009 11:00:23 PM

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

Quote :

" WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, he is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill. Stevens said Friday he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. He said he hopes his successor is confirmed "well in advance of the commencement of the court's next term." His announcement had been hinted at for months. It comes 11 days before his 90th birthday. Stevens began signaling a possible retirement last summer when he hired just one of his usual complement of four law clerks for the next court term. He acknowledged in several interviews that he was contemplating stepping down and would certainly do so during Obama's presidency."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6951315.html

4/9/2010 10:44:50 AM

Well, as arguably the most liberal member of the Court, I don't think this will have any kind of huge effect on the makeup of the court. It will be interesting to see who Obama will choose though.

4/9/2010 10:49:44 AM

Quote :

"Shouldn't make a big impact on the composition of the court, but with 3/7 years to go, he'll probably get at least another pick."

4/9/2010 10:51:10 AM

Specifically, their skin color, gender, and other characteristics incidental to their qualifications.

amirite?

4/9/2010 10:54:19 AM

hahah fuck the people in this thread

"WHY ARE THERE WHITE MEN CONSIDERED FOR THE COURT "

4/9/2010 11:14:15 AM

Quote :

"In the name of diversity, BHO should nominate a dog"

Conservatives just love to compare blacks and gays to dogs and animals

4/9/2010 12:14:21 PM

Quote :

"Well, as arguably the most liberal member of the Court, I don't think this will have any kind of huge effect on the makeup of the court. It will be interesting to see who Obama will choose though."

If Obama holds to form with this appointment he'll either A: put up a progressive and then let the person languish as the Senate refuses to confirm the appointment or B: will try to appoint a centrist who will be instantly reviled by Republicans for the few leftists beliefs that the person actually has.

And since whoever is appointment has already been threatened with a filibuster I think we can assume a lot of liberal teeth gnashing, a lot of lies, a large amount of faux-rage, and some nice juicy ratings for Fox News.

4/9/2010 12:23:07 PM

Why can't Obama nominate a White guy for the supreme court?

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 12:25:34 PM

^^Before all of that hyperventilation from both sides starts happening, does anyone want to call out a few names of realistic potential replacements that they'd be okay with?

4/9/2010 12:27:35 PM

John E. Jones III

4/9/2010 12:31:13 PM

I agree that his appointment won't really shake things up in the supreme court, but whoever he chooses will certainly be torn apart by the republicans regardless of how left/center/right leaning the nominee is. Should be an interesting few months ahead!

4/9/2010 12:42:20 PM

come on, we all know the best thing for Obama to do is nominate a Chinese Jew

4/9/2010 12:50:03 PM

It's funny how justices are considered "conservative" or "liberal." It shouldn't be a fucking political position. All you have to do is read the constitution. We've turned it into this thing where you have to have decades of experience in the courts and an education from a top law school. It isn't that complicated, though.

What's complicated is somehow interpreting the constitution in a way that clearly wasn't meant by the founders. If the general welfare clause means, "Congress can do whatever it thinks is best," why even have a constitution? Why have enumerated powers? We might as well just have one amendment that says, "Congress does whatever it wants" and leave it at that.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 1:30:59 PM

And for that matter we should count Black people as 3/5ths of a person.

Cause, you know, it was in the original constitution.

4/9/2010 1:32:01 PM

Who said anything about the original constitution? I'm talking about the constitution right now. We've amended the constitution. You have to have a lot of support to amend the constitution. If we can just disregard it whenever convenient, the document is meaningless and we have mob rule (hint: we do).

4/9/2010 1:33:59 PM

THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!

4/9/2010 1:50:03 PM

The constitution is considered a living document, able to be changed and left purposefully ambiguous to be interpretted by future leaders. As all presidents have Obama will presumably choose someone who will interpret similarly to him so simply being able to read the document is not a qualifying factor

4/9/2010 2:03:56 PM

Quote :

"The constitution is considered by some a living document."

Try telling the Originalists out there that the Constitution is meant to be changed and interpreted by the leaders.

4/9/2010 2:41:12 PM

all you have to do is read the constitution for yourself and it will become perfectly obvious that the founders intended for that document to be reinterpreted throughout time.

4/9/2010 2:46:29 PM

^Can you point out where? I'd just like to see what you're specifically referring to. I've read the Constitution many times, specifically in a legal setting, and I can see both sides of the argument, but I personally don't think it was meant to be changed with the times.

4/9/2010 2:55:06 PM

Loose interpretations lead to un-equal enforcement of the law. The consititution is only living in the sense that it can be changed through an act of congress to keep it up to date. When politicians decide to pick their own interpretation it leads to things like the patriot act or assassinating citizens. If you want to add loopholes to due process, then change the constitution. Dont decide to pick and choose where and when you want to enforce it as written.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM. Reason : s]

4/9/2010 3:03:17 PM

^^ The bill of rights would be a good example, to start with.

4/9/2010 3:20:23 PM

No, I mean specifically. Like cut and paste text. You said it was "perfectly obvious."

4/9/2010 3:23:07 PM

Quote :

"And for that matter we should count Black people as 3/5ths of a person. Cause, you know, it was in the original constitution."

...and it was gotten rid of through the proper channels.

Completely irrelevant argument.

Quote :

"The constitution is considered a living document, able to be changed and left purposefully ambiguous to be interpretted by future leaders. "

That's hardly a universal view. "Living document" is quite a loaded term.

and everyone agrees that the Constitution was written to be flexible--those who advocate adherence to the Constitution are the biggest proponents of this, as our entire point is that a system exists by which the Constitution can be changed to adapt to the times. When we adapt to the times or changing desires by fucking ignoring the law of the land, we go down a dangerous road.

Yes, I know it's cumbersome. That's by design, and we would weed out a lot of stupid bullshit if we followed the proper process.

Quote :

"Try telling the Originalists out there that the Constitution is meant to be changed and interpreted by the leaders."

[NO]

Read what I just wrote.

4/9/2010 3:25:20 PM

Meet your new Supreme Court Justice

4/9/2010 3:26:49 PM

Perhaps you disagree with the sentiment, but it is a living document subject to amendment and interpretation. As evidenced by its changes and interpretations.

4/9/2010 3:28:40 PM

I'm not sure why you said [NO] to my comment... I was making the point that it's not universally agreed that the Constitution is a "living document." Which is basically what you said. I know it's open to amendment, but that's not interpretation, or making it a flexible document. It isn't the job of the courts to say what the law ought to be, but only what the law is.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 3:29:19 PM

There are various flavors of those who share the general belief that our lawmakers should abide by the law of the land, but I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that the Constitution should never be changed.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : i mean, shit, it was changed 10 times just to get ratified.]

4/9/2010 3:31:25 PM

Quote :

"^^Before all of that hyperventilation from both sides starts happening, does anyone want to call out a few names of realistic potential replacements that they'd be okay with?"

Bubb Rubb.

4/9/2010 3:33:12 PM

Okay, I get the distinction you're making. I meant "changed" as in judicial activism or "interpretations" that aren't founded in original purpose. Not changed as in amendments, which I agree with you everyone accepts as viable.

And here are some names I've heard thrown around, haven't looked into them yet: Diane Wood, Elena Kegan, Deval Patrick, Merrick Garland.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 3:33:27 PM

Unfortunately not every sentence in the constitution is cut and dry therefore it is often interpreted and debated by varying sides. Our founders did not do this on accident.

4/9/2010 3:36:42 PM

Sure, and I have no problem with that.

The lengths to which some of those clauses are stretched are utterly absurd, though. It's to the point that it's not even a "stretch"...it's an "ignore".

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : it makes the Constitution all but a pointless document]

4/9/2010 3:43:08 PM

Quote :

"And for that matter we should count Black people as 3/5ths of a person. Cause, you know, it was in the original constitution. "

There was never a proposal to count "blacks" as 3/5 of a person. If I remember correctly it was directed at "slaves" so that slave owners could have greater representation... but lets go to wiki for some clarification...

Quote :

"The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position. The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: “ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "

yep, no mention of "blacks"

4/9/2010 4:30:07 PM

hahah ok

I guess there were some non black slaves. Therefore your entire point is correct.

4/9/2010 4:39:29 PM