Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

SCOTUS Justice JP Stevens Retires

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 5:19:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://hosted.ap.org...

He retired earlier this morning. He's 90, and he's arguably the most liberal member on the Supreme Court, so there won't be an ideological change in the court.

Three most possible replacements:
- Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, 49 (White Female)
- Merrick Garland, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, 57 (White Male)
- Diane Wood, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, 59 (White Female)

- Kagan is more liberal than Garland but less liberal than Wood. She's very much in favor of expanding the power of the executive branch. She's very ugly, which is irrelevant, but she pisses me off for no apparent reason. Just like Janet Reno. They're just really, really ugly. I digress. Kagan seems to be the front-runner at this point and it seems like Obama will try to appoint her first. The Republicans will fight pretty hard against her.
- Garland is the most moderate by far of all three possible choices. I like him the most. Although I don't like him really much at all. He would be confirmed quite easily, maybe unanimously. Although I'm not sure Obama would want such a moderate to replace the liberal lion of the Court. Also, he's a white male, which means he's not a female or minority, which hurts him somewhat. If Obama wants an easy nomination, which some are saying he wants, I expect him to nominate Garland. Garland will definitely get nominated either first or second.
- Wood is extremely liberal. I highly doubt Obama will nominate her first though. I'm sure it will energize the Obama base, but I just don't see it happening. Republicans and Tea Partiers might riot is this lady gets nominated.

---All three are intellectual and quite smart. Much more so than Sotomayor.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 77) is probably going to retire before Obama leaves office. She's also liberal though, probably the second most liberal. It doesn't appear as though Obama will leave a great legacy on the Court. Although he'll certainly leave a lasting impact.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The smart choice appears to be Garland, IMHO. If he's "moderate," easy to pass through with good bipartisan support, and won't cause too much ruckus among the right-wingers (mind you, I think Obama's very existence bothers them too much), he's the right choice.

Because, really, its best not to have another fight on your hands if you're Obama right now. It isn't as if he's going to upset the balance of the court with this pick. Mind you, I find it amusing people keep calling Stevens "liberal" when he was appointed by a Republican and to my eyes seems pretty moderate. But, eh, whatever.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2010 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 5:35:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
The smart choice appears to be Garland, IMHO. If he's "moderate," easy to pass through with good bipartisan support, and won't cause too much ruckus among the right-wingers (mind you, I think Obama's very existence bothers them too much), he's the right choice.

Agreed. I think that's what is going through Obama's head right now. I really, really don't think he wants to put up with a bunch of crazy Tea Partiers and Republicans right now when the Americans want him paying attention to jobs and the economy, or at leas that's what polls say. Garland is greatly respected by both Democrats and Republicans and the nomination of Garland first would portray Obama as a centrist willing to compromise, which would help his poll numbers and his agenda. A nomination of Kagan or Wood would result in a long, brutal drawn-out process surely to be incredibly partisan. And it would even further any hope of the right liking him.

Because, really, its best not to have another fight on your hands if you're Obama right now. It isn't as if he's going to upset the balance of the court with this pick. Mind you, I find it amusing people keep calling Stevens "liberal" when he was appointed by a Republican and to my eyes seems pretty moderate. But, eh, whatever.

I don't pay too much attention to the SCOTUS, but I've seen conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and objective journalists (rare breed) call Stevens the most liberal member of the Court. And the Liberal Lion of the Supreme Court. Eww, brings back memories of Dead Ted.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:15:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"if President Barack Obama picks too liberal a nominee "

Do they have a Liberalometer?

That said if Obama has a clear majority he could easily pick Wood and keep a Liberal stronghold, though he may use this vacancy to leverage a deal with the Right and put Garland in place in return for bipartisan support on something. However Obama will probably go with Kagan, to appease the Democrats and not p*ss the GOP and Tea Party off too much.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:14:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:15:11 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Do they have a Liberalometer?

Well you look at a person's stance on issues and you can see how liberal that person is. For example, by looking at Bush's views and looking at Obama's views, we can see that Obama is more liberal than Bush.

That said if Obama has a clear majority he could easily pick Wood and keep a Liberal stronghold, though he may use this vacancy to leverage a deal with the Right and put Garland in place in return for bipartisan support on something. However Obama will probably go with Kagan, to appease the Democrats and not p*ss the GOP and Tea Party off too much.

If I were Obama, I'd go with Kagan. She's somewhat respected by some conservatives and is liberal and a woman at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if he goes with Garland though. Republicans will be extremely happy with Obama and there will be no fireworks (which Obama wants) if Obama nominates Garland.

The AP just wrote up a really good article on all the nominees, their background, and the pros and cons of each: http://hosted.ap.org...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Theoretically, the ideal candidate is one that is going to appear centrist and then switch gears in a few years and become a flaming hot liberal. I have to say that the Court, while a great check to the exec and leg branch, is a little bothersome in some of its atributes. Although like my law teacher said, you can criticize the structure all you want, but your not going to come up with a better system.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 6:55:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 8:24:27 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Theoretically, the ideal candidate is one that is going to appear centrist and then switch gears in a few years and become a flaming hot liberal. I have to say that the Court, while a great check to the exec and leg branch, is a little bothersome in some of its atributes. Although like my law teacher said, you can criticize the structure all you want, but your not going to come up with a better system.

American law teachers tend to say that. But the fact is, and they know it, that the system wasn't even intended to be good. It was intended as a compromise among obsolete classes. If those who thought it up didn't think it was the best possible system, why should we? And if they weren't satisfied with a centuries-old one, why should we be? If you'd simply extend your secularism to the Framers, you might find that the bothersome attributes you have in mind could be eliminated with no significant trade-off.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2010 8:16:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/9/2010 5:19:57 PM, Nags wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org...

He retired earlier this morning. He's 90, and he's arguably the most liberal member on the Supreme Court, so there won't be an ideological change in the court.

Oh, crap, I don't believe I missed this. This is going to hurt. Stevens was one of the most liberal Supremes ever, and the foil to folks like Scalia. To balance the SC, his replacement has to be very liberal. Another moderate on the bench would make the Court far too conservative for my tastes.

Of course, I didn't always agree with Stevens, but the Court needs balance or you get terrible rulings ... and balance requires some extreme members to bluster against the moderates. Obama should pick someone ideologically very liberal ... and hopefully also still somewhat sane.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2010 4:39:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/28/2010 8:16:12 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 4/9/2010 5:19:57 PM, Nags wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org...

He retired earlier this morning. He's 90, and he's arguably the most liberal member on the Supreme Court, so there won't be an ideological change in the court.

Oh, crap, I don't believe I missed this. This is going to hurt. Stevens was one of the most liberal Supremes ever, and the foil to folks like Scalia. To balance the SC, his replacement has to be very liberal. Another moderate on the bench would make the Court far too conservative for my tastes.

Of course, I didn't always agree with Stevens, but the Court needs balance or you get terrible rulings ... and balance requires some extreme members to bluster against the moderates. Obama should pick someone ideologically very liberal ... and hopefully also still somewhat sane.

Liberal and sane? Those tend to be mutually exclusive.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.