on January 20, 2009:


(1) Steven Breyer, age 70, served 14 years

(2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 75, served 15 years

(3) David Souter, age 69, served 18 years

(4) Anthony Kennedy, age 72, served 20 years

(5) John Paul Stevens, age 88, served 33 years

Quote :

"WINSTON-SALEM, N.C., May 6 Sen. John McCain on Tuesday ... pledged to nominate judges similar to the ones President Bush has placed on the bench. [McCain] said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "would serve as the model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me," ... the appointment of one more conservative to the nation's highest court could tip the balance on issues such as abortion, discrimination, civil liberties and private property. --http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602527.html "

5/11/2008 1:46:12 AM

i agree

i agreed with this argument in 2000

5/11/2008 1:51:13 AM

Recall how Sandra Day O'Connor (a nominal conservative, appointed by Ronald Reagan) even delayed her impending retirement until after the 2004 election, betting on the opinion that Bush would lose.

you know most of the current ones are holding out until 2009, hoping that John George Bush the Third McCain doesnt win.

it's easy to see why of course: Bush gives us shit like Harriet Myers and Samuel Alito as if they are remotely Supreme Court material

McCain can not win the presidency for this reason alone.




[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 2:30 AM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 2:08:07 AM

yeah i hate that roberts is gonna be chief justice for like 30 years probably

5/11/2008 2:12:44 AM

better him than Alito, i suppose.

our "system" for choosing Chief Justices is pretty fucking whacked, that's all i can say.

it'd be like a hiring process for Senior Vice Presidents of a company is going along, and then all of a sudden the CEO steps down/dies/gets indicted/whatever... so to the very next VP candidate comes thru the door, you say "HEY! Howd'ja like to be CEO instead?"

but i digress.

McCain must be stopped. McCain will be stopped.

5/11/2008 2:25:54 AM

the only thing i really hate about it is that they can serve until they retire

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 2:42 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2008 2:40:54 AM

personally i prefer a conservative judge who goes by the constitution instead of a liberal activist judge who legislates from the bench and pisses all over the constitution, but hey thats just me.

5/11/2008 3:24:49 AM

typical rightwing response

5/11/2008 3:27:23 AM

what are you doing up at this hour?

5/11/2008 3:33:20 AM

Quote :

"what are you doing up at this hour?"

5/11/2008 3:40:22 AM

how is that relevant at all??

5/11/2008 3:41:07 AM

just curious

5/11/2008 3:43:36 AM

oh...well since you asked...i've kinda been going to bed at like 6am the past 6 days...i only got 3 hours of sleep today to hopefully correct it and i'm still up

5/11/2008 3:45:06 AM

I like John Roberts. He's pro-business, but he has broken with the ultra-right faction of Scalia, Thomas and Alito on several occasions.

5/11/2008 4:33:33 AM

Roberts is respectable. Alito is a fag.

5/11/2008 5:00:04 AM

oh i must have heard wrong...i heard roberts was like the most ultra conservative

5/11/2008 7:01:37 AM

I hate the term 'liberal activist judge' because they're all activists in some sense or the other, depending on what side you're looking from.

Saying you want to put judges in that will overturn decided cases is certainly more 'activist' than ones that will not overturn those cases.

5/11/2008 7:47:15 AM

hmm... maybe I shoul vote McCain.

I bet he nominates moderates, he hasn't the gumption for the partisan brawl a good judge would bring.

^ they're called activists because they adhere to societal whims rather than the intent or content of the actual law. Moreover, conservatives want much more change (repeals of the bloated fed. programs) so should we call them progressives just because the liberals (aka progressives) already got their way 1950-1970's ?

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2008 8:58:13 AM

Change the title of your thread to "The only five reasons McCain has any chance of being President" and it would be much more accurate.

5/11/2008 9:21:47 AM

I'd rather somebody interpret the law as it was written instead of making it up as they go along, but hey that's just me.

^ Very true. It's the only reason I'm voting for McCain.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 10:37:05 AM

Joe what issues do you have with Roberts? He seemed VERY qualified for the job.

5/11/2008 11:00:01 AM

this thread is so retarded

5/11/2008 12:12:37 PM

Quote :

"they're called activists because they adhere to societal whims rather than the intent or content of the actual law"

They're called activists because it's a good spin word, no more and no less. Most judges will even admit to the validity of different interpretations of the law. The whole reason we have a supreme court setup the way it is, is because of the fluidity of the law and the fact that it is open to interpretation.

5/11/2008 12:39:44 PM

The proper wording is should never not can never. You'll never get any respect on your position saying shit like that.

5/11/2008 1:18:40 PM

Quote :

"Five Reasons McCain Can Should Never Be President"

I hate when people try to convey normative sentiments with positive statements.

Where you believe McCain's potential SC nominees are good or bad has little to do with the fact that he can or cannot be elected President.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ``]

5/11/2008 1:43:09 PM

considering the other options include hillary and obama; i can think of a million reasons why McCain must be president

5/11/2008 1:48:50 PM

I think Roberts is a good Justice. He's like a right leaning moderate which means he is at least somewhat grounded in reality. Plus the dude seems really smart.

Alito is an ass spelunker.

Both sides are activists. There are plenty of laws that are never stated in the Constitution that are supported by Republican Justices. Don't use the Constitution as your shield of reason for why they lean one way or the other. That's just inaccurate.

5/11/2008 4:14:20 PM

Quote :

"Moreover, conservatives want much more change"

well lord fucking help us...i mean you'd think they have changed enough in the past 8 years

5/11/2008 6:08:23 PM

Quote :

"yeah i hate that roberts is gonna be chief justice for like 30 years probably"

Even has a staunch liberal, I respect Chief Justice Roberts, he's had a good record, and is pretty moderate given the incredibly right wing appointees that could've been brought forward.

5/11/2008 6:10:52 PM

From a progressive standpoint, Roberts hasn't been any worse than his predecessor and may be better.

Given that Bush had just won reelection, it was about the best compromise we could have had .... Considering the shit we almost got (Meyers), the Supreme Court came out alright. he's a real scholar, and though i don't like the direction he represents, I can't hate on him.

But Alito is joke. He's just another Scalia. for McCain to (1) compare him as equivalent to Roberts, and (2) promise to replace retiring/dying justices with ones in the same model as Alito...

well, that's just fucking



[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 6:21:03 PM

Yeah, the meyers thing was a joke. I dont think even the republicans would have allowed that. However, Roberts seemed head and shoulders over Alito, and diced up the confirmation hearings. I dont think there are too many people who can be objective that would deny that Roberts is qualified for the job. So Bush got ONE right... law of averages I guess.

5/11/2008 7:07:45 PM

Bush nominated Harriet Miers so that the person he nominated afterwards would look like a genius in comparison. That bitch was fucking dumb (Miers)

5/11/2008 7:12:22 PM

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=17922&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1

5/11/2008 8:27:47 PM

that article is horrible

5/11/2008 8:29:28 PM

^ it is, but it's written by a Russian.

I never knew though that it was an actual Vietnamese guy that saved McCain's life. That didn't seem true, but apparently it is:
http://tinyurl.com/3pcrzj

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/022400/gen_rescuer.shtml

And even if McCain really did crack like they say, I don't think anyone can blame him, because no one knows what they would do in that situation, and it doesn't diminish the service to the country.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 9:02:12 PM

Quote :

"Bush nominated Harriet Miers so that the person he nominated afterwards would look like a genius in comparison."

yeah, you'd almost think that, because it's the only explanation that makes sense AND doesn't
have Bush look like the biggest idiot on the world's stage.

But the thing is, Miers (sp!) was his personal legal counsel and very close friend from a long time
back. For this bit of backroom shenanigans to be true, that means he set his own close friend
and counsel up for intentional failure in a brutally embarrassing national (international!) gaffe ...
just to eventually promote someone else with whom he doesn't have a relationship, and could not
gain any political capital with any special interest group.

the whole Miers fiasco was a big hit on his credibility, for no personal or political benefit that I can
see.

i think the truth is that Bush is indeed one of the biggest idiots on the world's stage.




[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:10 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 9:09:15 PM

^^wow...i cant wait til repubs find that out...he tried committing the ultimate sin twice...


ps the next post will be dumb and wrong- i am psychic

5/11/2008 9:12:49 PM

dont be a dumbass.



[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 9:14:28 PM

looks like i was right


ANYWAYS


bttt

5/11/2008 9:18:08 PM

Quote :

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), recommended Miers as O'Connor's successor"

5/11/2008 9:19:42 PM

Although I support McCain; it is unfortunate that he'll be appointing conservative justices. As i tend to agree with the liberal justices more often.

5/11/2008 9:23:09 PM

McCain will appoint textualist and orginalists, not conservatives. This is a Harvard v Yale Constitutional interpretation conflict that goes back decades and isn't Republican v Democrat. It is always amusing; however, that the Democrats would prefer to allow Supreme Court Justices (typically wealthy white males who attend Ivy League Schools) to make new laws instead of simply interpreting the laws that are passed by Congress and construing them under the Constitution rather than keeping the power to legislate separate from the judiciary and only allowing Congress to create new laws as they are permitted to do textually in the Constitution. This is an interpretation issue and a separation of powers issue. Both sides of the argument have good points and anyone with a half a brain and any real exposure to the debate certainly wouldn't be calling one side stupid as you tools in here presume to have the intelligence to.


Besides all that, Roberts is regarded as a Stare Decisis man and won't over turn your beloved Roe v Wade no matter what. Also, you may have noticed that Scalia has been siding with the likes of Justice Stevens in recent decisions to include Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

It's so funny to come into the Soap Box and read the regurgitation of the latest Huffington Post or whatever you guys read (as opposed to Supreme Court Decisions) which tells you what and how to think about the Justices.

I am betting that Scalia writes the majority opinion for Boumediene this summer and gives the detainees at Guantanamo common law habeas rights and orders their release or trial.





[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:45 PM. Reason : sdfa]

5/11/2008 9:38:42 PM

Quote :

"McCain will appoint textualist and orginalists, not conservatives. This is a Harvard v Yale Constitutional interpretation conflict that goes back decades and isn't Republican v Democrat. It is always amusing; however, that the Democrats would prefer to allow Supreme Court Justices (typically wealthy white males who attend Ivy League Schools) to make new laws instead of simply interpreting the laws that are passed by Congress and construing them under the Constitution rather than keeping the power to legislate separate from the judiciary and allow Congress to create new laws as they are permitted to do textually in the Constitution. This is an interpretation issue and a separation of powers issue. Both sides of the argument have good points and anyone with a half a brain and any real exposure to the debate certainly wouldn't be calling one side stupid as you tools in here presume to have the intelligence to."

The Supreme Court is one of the checks and balances on the legislative branch. Not all laws that the Congress passes are Constitutional. I would rather have Justices that would do something about an unconstitutional law than do nothing. You should read that Constitution a little more thoroughly. You missed some of it.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2008 9:46:52 PM

I would recommend that you do a little research. No one is arguing against not overturning unconstitutional laws on either side.

One side is arguing that laws should be interpreted under the strict black letter rule of the Constitution and interpreting and invalidating unconstitutional laws and the other is arguing that the Supreme Court should be allowed to create entirely new laws thereby superceding Congress.

Maybe you should lay down the pipe.

It's somewhat of a classic Hamilton v Madison argument for extending the power of federal judiciary.



[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM. Reason : sdf]

5/11/2008 9:50:00 PM

What are these laws being created that you are referring to?

5/11/2008 9:57:09 PM

one example is Miranda which Congress specifically has tried to overturn and the supreme court has overruled repeatedly.

I like miranda because it's a money maker, but justices like Scalia hate it.


you can read gobs of this shit online. i am not here to teach you.

5/11/2008 10:05:06 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather somebody interpret the law as it was written instead of making it up as they go along, but hey that's just me."

agreed. that was my initial point

5/11/2008 10:33:46 PM

Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
and Dylan

McCain does not spit that hot fire

5/11/2008 11:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "I'd rather somebody interpret the law as it was written instead of making it up as they go along, but hey that's just me." agreed. that was my initial point "

ahhh... the sweet, sweet smell of ignorance and naiveté.

5/11/2008 11:15:11 PM

Considering how liberalism has failed on a grand front both on the executive and legislative sides of government, the only option left for the left is to make up the rule of law as they go along through the court system. It's naive and downright stupid to not think that this is the case with activist justices, whose guildlines are so politically driven that the original intent is shat upon with regularity in favor of their own destructive beliefs.

If you ignore the original intent, it gives you a clean slate to do whatever the fuck you feel like. I am not surprised that posters like ^ embrace such a premise, but to the rest of us who use more than 1 percent of our brains, it's a rather sinister and destructive practice when you make up shit as you go along for the sake of advancing your own beliefs at the expense of the rule of law.

5/11/2008 11:39:23 PM