Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coming events may hint at Rehnquist’s status
MSNBC.com ^ | Updated: 2:57 p.m. ET Nov. 21, 2004 | The Associated Press

Posted on 11/21/2004 3:18:33 PM PST by Ed Current

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 11/21/2004 3:18:33 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

We need judicial term limits. 10 years and you are out. It is idiotic for this fossil to be making decisions that affect the lives of us all.


2 posted on 11/21/2004 3:20:45 PM PST by tkathy (There will be no world peace until all thuggocracies are gone from the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

It will be very sad indeed if he is not able to do the inauguration thing. Worst still if he tries and his voice is all messed up and he coughs up blood. Yikes.


3 posted on 11/21/2004 3:21:16 PM PST by corkoman (Logged in - have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current


Courtesy of Filibuster Cartoons.

4 posted on 11/21/2004 3:21:55 PM PST by Terpfen (Gore/Sharpton '08: it's Al-right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Your opinion of the following quote is requested:
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
 

 

5 posted on 11/21/2004 3:23:16 PM PST by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
Douglas’ refusal to step down despite obvious mental confusion led Rehnquist and the other justices to secretly stop counting his vote in some cases. Douglas eventually stepped aside in 1975.

A good example of why term limits for an unelected Judiciary, that is never answerable to the people, should be examined.

6 posted on 11/21/2004 3:28:49 PM PST by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

He's a sick puppy, but he's done us right for a lot of years. I hope he makes the inaugural, but that might be a lot.


7 posted on 11/21/2004 3:33:48 PM PST by Thebaddog (Dawgs at rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were senile for years on the court. Their law clerks voted and wrote their opinions for them based on prior decisions and judicial philosophies. As they say, the Supreme Court is where the finest judicial minds in the nation are gathered to serve as clerks.


8 posted on 11/21/2004 3:39:00 PM PST by peyton randolph (Time for Bush to pack the U.S. Supremes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

This "fossil" as you call it probably has more intelligence, wisdom and knowledge in his "pinky" than you have in your entire brain. How old are you? your 20's?


9 posted on 11/21/2004 3:39:58 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

Since the Judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government this statement is true.

But, this statement presupposes that the Congress and the Executive will assert their constitutional authority.

An activist Judiciary, that claims judicial review over all legislation, cannot take root when it's authority is challenged by an assertive Legislature and Executive.

10 posted on 11/21/2004 3:44:17 PM PST by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
Douglas was the one who was the most badly affected - although some might say it was hard to tell, since his judicial philosophy was way out there in any event (imagine a Supreme Court justice arguing that woodpeckers have legal standing . . . !)

But in Douglas's case (as the MSNBC article notes), the other justices just quit counting his vote. If Brennan or Marshall's vote would have decided any case, I'm sure they did the same for them.

I refuse to join in the speculation regarding C.J. Rehnquist's health. There is no indication that his mind is affected - when it is time to do something, he will do it. He is a very proud man and would not want his tenure on the court to be clouded.

11 posted on 11/21/2004 3:45:16 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

I think we should look at term limits too. Average life expectancy is getting set to increase substantially with things such as stem cell research and nanotechnology.


12 posted on 11/21/2004 3:48:05 PM PST by Dozer3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dozer3

But ya, don't badmouth Rehnquist, he's one of the good justices who actually thinks the constitution means what it says.


13 posted on 11/21/2004 3:49:03 PM PST by Dozer3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

Except that this eighty year-old fossil has more brains in his little finger than most of the rest of us combined.


14 posted on 11/21/2004 3:49:13 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
As they say, the Supreme Court is where the finest judicial minds in the nation are gathered to serve as clerks.

Perhaps so, but these "fine minds" are still human and are in a position to do great good or great harm.

I'd rather have those "great minds" publicly in the Legislature than closeted in the Judiciary.

15 posted on 11/21/2004 3:50:23 PM PST by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
The U.S. Supreme Court or ANY court in the USA doesn't have the authority to make law (read-judicial activism) only to adjudicate the law as it stands. It is Congress that is given the duty and responsibility to "Make Law" by Constitutional Law. So "judicial activism" should be prosecuted by Congress by "impeaching" such judges and justices, but then we have a "spineless" GOP majority in both houses so it probably won't be done, and it MOST CERTAINLY won't be done by demonicrats since all of the "judicial activism" (read - superceding the boundary of their responsibilities) are done by liberal judges and justices.

BUT, to prevent further corruption of our Constitution, I believe that no Government office holder should be allowed to serve more than 8 years. This will prevent bribery from lobbyists, and other PACs, thus putting the direction of Gov't in hands of a few but powerful and rich groups of people to sway as they wish.

16 posted on 11/21/2004 3:50:47 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
We need judicial term limits. 10 years and you are out. It is idiotic for this fossil to be making decisions that affect the lives of us all.

Don't include me in the we. The 'fossil' has done and until no longer in the court I suspect will do a superior job!

17 posted on 11/21/2004 3:51:29 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

Thanks for using the word 'fossil'! It was used recently in a great article by V.D. Hanson about Liberals/Europeans, why they hate us...as in 'Fossilized Leftist Elitists'. I had the notion that he'd said 'ossified'. Maybe he did? At any rate plan to use phrase next time I email my ossified/fossil-brained Liberal Elitist idiot son in NZ.


18 posted on 11/21/2004 3:53:56 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tkathy


Your vicious comment about Chief Justice Rehnquist is beneath the dignity of intelligent discussion.

Mr. Rehnquist has probably done more to save this country than anyone in my lifetime except Ronald Reagan. Nor has he shown any sign of diminished mental capacity. So your comment is not only vicious, it is factually absurd.

Even if you have an intelligent point to make against Rehnquist, right now it would be far more appropriate
to pray for the man.


19 posted on 11/21/2004 3:56:01 PM PST by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dozer3
I think we should look at term limits too. Average life expectancy is getting set to increase substantially with things such as stem cell research and nanotechnology.

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to having one-hundred year old judges on the High Court?

20 posted on 11/21/2004 3:56:09 PM PST by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson