Why Judicial Appointments Do NOT Matter (Schiavo)

2005-03-26 | UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

[Mark in the Old South]

You are missing the point, we are getting more liberal judges and by BOTH parties. The point is the solution has to come for some other direction than the nomination process. Both the Congress and the President has the power to reign in the Courts if they want. The GOP has control of both which is why so many people are getting mad at the GOP. We know if this case is lost the problem gets much worse much faster and all the tears over giving the power to the DNC will be an exercise in self-indulgence.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you! Obviously some of these people didn't bother to read any pleadings by the Schindler lawyers. I sat stunned as I read them last night. No wonder the Federal Courts didn't approve anything.

Also cannot believe how much this has been litigated.

[BCrago66]

"Also cannot believe how much this has been litigated."

PhiKapMom, what part of "De Novo" do you not understand?

[EDINVA]

Kennedy and Souter were substitute appointees who were nominated only after the original choices of Reagan and Bush were defeated in the Senate, lest anyone forget. Remember Bork and Ginsberg?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Schiavo v. Schiavo
It's Schindler v Schiavo. He's not suing himself.

The case is THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, her parents and next friends, versus MICHAEL SCHIAVO, as guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, incapacitated, JUDGE GEORGE W. GREER, THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC.

i.e. Schiavo v. Schiavo. Didn't you ever see Kramer vs. Kramer?

[PhiKapMom]

I was talking about from the beginning and didn't make it clear -- starting way back.

[PhiKapMom]

And to add -- how much has been spent on attorney fees.

[ClintonBeGone]

I think we can take a two pronged approach - nominating more conservative judges AND having the legislative and executive branchs take back their 1/3's of their constitutional powers. What we don't need is people bashing the Bushes.

[ClintonBeGone]

Do you happen to have a link to the pleadings or tell me where you found them?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Kennedy and Souter were substitute appointees who were nominated only after the original choices of Reagan and Bush were defeated in the Senate, lest anyone forget. Remember Bork and Ginsberg?

I think most of us who were there at the time said "Give the ba****rds somebody even more conservative!"

[bigeasy_70118]

http://www.findlaw.com

[PhiKapMom]

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html

FindLaw is where I found them.

[maryz]

the 11th Cir. does not release the vote tally.

I didn't know that -- is this specific to the 11th or true of all the Circuits?

[bigeasy_70118]

Not sure about every Circuit, but in the two circuits, I practice before, the 5th releases the vote for an en banc hearing and the 11th does not.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "What we don't need is people bashing the Bushes."

I think you are wrong on this. I doubt the Congress will do a darn thing nor will either of the Bushes. All could get the ball rolling yesterday but they will not because they have no problem with the ruling but they have lots of problems with criticism and angry voters at the polls.

You use the tools in the tool box. If bashing a few posers get them moving, they will just have to act or they can just take it. Unless my freedom of speech is to be taken away like Terri's food and water. Until then I will bash away.

[Crackingham]

Please get your facts straight: Legislatures pass laws. A court order is a judgement. Taking that action to make a statute binding is enforcement. They are three entirely different functions.

They are three entirely different functions of THE LAW.

A judgement without law is not legal. Enforcement without law and judgement has no legality or justice. A judgement without law has no entitlement to enforcement. A judgement without enforcement has no effect.

Wrong, common law is law based on precedent, not legislative statutes. The 7th Amendment protects your right to trial by jury in common law cases, cases where there are no legislative statutes. Not only did the Founding Fathers recognize this as law, they viewed it as an essential core function of the courts.

[MplsSteve]

It seems to me that in the best interests of accountability (yes, I know they're not elected but I couldn't think of a better word) that the names of the judges who voted to accept or deny an appeal should be published.

[BCrago66]

That's with all federal circuits. In the rare case, when there's a written dissent joined by 5 judges out of a 12 judge court, then we know how every judge voted.

But those justices who voted no need not author or join a written dissent, and when there is a written dissent that is joined by less than 5 judges, one cannot assume that every judge who voted no joined it.