Posted on 07/08/2005 12:27:20 PM PDT by dangus
Why compromise? GW should nominate who he wants and the Republican majority ram it down the minorities throat. They try that filibuster crap again, invoke the nuclear option.
hey- who else but me thinks O'Connor retired now in part to protest the recent rulings allowing the govt to seize land (she voted against it, and wrote the dissenting opinion)
Either they uphold the U.S. Constitution, or they don't. If they don't, it's not an option but a duty to impeach them. If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be an American.
You can't make a "deal" with people who have no intention of honoring any promise they make.
I would say he's either crazy like a fox or crazy like a guy who thinks the ghost of John Wilkes Booth is talking to him through his dental work. Very similiar to your dichotomy. But you are right...we do get some damn interesting ideas here and this is one of them!
The only problem with making a deal with the Dims is they will break the deal as soon as they get what they want.
SCALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, is Bush running again in 2008? He needs to spend as much Conservative capital as he can right now. Forget the perceptions. Democrats are in the perception phase of campaigns. We won.
Here's a radical thought. "Buying a perception of centrism" is useless. We are better served without such perception. Bush should go as hard right as he can. When it is the left's turn, let them go as hard left as they can. Only this way can the electorate become informed and exercise its voting powers.
Under the banner of horsetrading and centrism we get a gradual leftwing drift, even under conservatively inclined presidents and congresses. That is because the issues do not gel in the people's minds and the damn media get to play in the mud.
Thank you for interesting and valued analysis. I believe Kennedy, although moderate, would do a fine job at most of the jobs you described.
But you do raise a good point about him getting first crack at a majority opinion. When a conservative ruling is issued, I would certainly like someone who was taking every concern to create the clearest and most well-reasoned argument possible. On the other hand, if siding with the liberals, Kennedy would probably issue the most restrained ruling of the bunch. So, I think that issue may be a wash, but it is certainly something for the higher legal minds to consider.
Pretty wacky, alright.
He did nothing of the sort. What the decision ruling amounted to is that the local government had the right to do so. In effect this removed a portion of the 14th Amendment's incorporation claim on the 5th Amendment, which for conservatives looking to return to a Constitutional government as envisioned by the Framers is a good thing
Now it is up to the citizens of the respective states to approach their legislatures to pass laws preventing such actions
The problem with this idea is as follows: The CJ is, essentially the Chief Administrator of the US court system and has additional duties beyond those of an Associate Justice:
If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice.
Presides when the Senate tries impeachments of the President of the United States
Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over Presidential impeachments and trials--Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceeding against Bill Clinton.
Presides over the impeachment trial of the Vice President if the Vice President is serving as Acting President (not a Constitutional responsibility but a rule of the Senate).
Officiates at the inauguration of the President of the United States. This is a traditional, not a constitutional, responsibility of the Chief Justice. All federal and state judges, as well as notaries public, are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations.
Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution.
Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to promulgate rules to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States
That's a fair amount of power to give a "moderate."
I tried googling and ended up with nothing definitive. Do you have a link that would help?
Uh, no. We impeach judges who fail to follow their oath to follow what the Constitution plainly says. That's why we have a Constitution, and that's what separates us from autocracy. We impeach them, by the way, through a democratic process that is set out in that same Constitution. But thanks for the Friday hyperbole.
You need to put aside your public school education and read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers. The constitution was originally set up to impeach, convict and remove from office those who abuse the constitution. We may not live in Iran, but with the legislative and executive branches forfeiting their positions of authority to the USSC, we're losing our liberties just like those who lived in Iran.
SCALIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't think Judge Roy was a moderate. Thought he was a conservative. Or are you talking about Kennedy?
I'd rather lear the Left scream when W nominates Ann Coutler...
I disagree that it amounts to rewarding bad behavior. Rather, it is quite natural for the person who represents the majority most frequently to preside. We can't be so partisan as to consider disagreeing with us to be "bad behavior."
I don't think reaching for the center makes Scalia or Thomas look foolish, and Thomas, as youngest by far, newest among the Republicans, and least likely to author an opinion, is certainly not in line ahead of Kennedy. (But Scalia is, I admit.)
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.