Skip to comments.
Leahy: Allow retired justices to sit on SCOTUS
Washington Times - Water Cooler ^
| 9/29/10
| Kerry Picket
Posted on 09/29/2010 1:51:58 PM PDT by paltz
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow for retired Supreme Court Justices to sit on the court by designation in cases where the active justice has recused. READ THE BILL
Under the proposed bill, the active justices of the Supreme Court would be permitted to vote to designate a retired Supreme Court justice in a particular case in which one or more Justices have recused themselves and allow the court to preempt potential 4:4 split decisions, in which the decision of a lower court stands.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: congress; democrats; leahy; liberalfascism; lping; obama; palin; patrickleahy; scotus; vermont
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-122 next last
To: WellyP
Too bad the Joker didn't finish the job.
21
posted on
09/29/2010 2:01:58 PM PDT
by
NCC-1701
(HEY, NAZI PELOUSY, ON NOVEMBER 2, WE WILL DRAIN THE SWAMP!)
To: paltz
To: xzins
I don't have an exact count, but I'm willing to bet that judges are just about as likely to leave the supreme court in a coffin as by retirement.
Of those who do retire, few do so while they are still able to function on the bench. Sandra Day O'Connor is the only one in recent memory who voluntarily retired while she was still mentally functional. And even that's debatable.
23
posted on
09/29/2010 2:03:13 PM PDT
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: paltz
Um, let's see. How can I delicately put this? DROP DEAD LEAHY - LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTION ALONE!!!
Is that subtle enough?
24
posted on
09/29/2010 2:03:42 PM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
To: paltz
allow for retired Supreme Court Justices to sit on the court by designation in cases where the active justice has recused. uhhhhh...NO!
25
posted on
09/29/2010 2:03:58 PM PDT
by
6ppc
(It's torch and pitchfork time)
To: paltz
26
posted on
09/29/2010 2:04:27 PM PDT
by
paul51
(11 September 2001 - Never forget)
To: paltz
I’m another vote for NFW!
By the time most of the Justices retire, they are dried husks of human form with other concerns for the time they have remaining. I would not care to impose on that time.
27
posted on
09/29/2010 2:05:03 PM PDT
by
T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
To: paltz
FDR tried to pack the Court.
You knew this was coming when O went after the Court at the SOTU.
28
posted on
09/29/2010 2:07:39 PM PDT
by
Carley
(For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
To: WellyP
29
posted on
09/29/2010 2:09:12 PM PDT
by
chesley
(Eat what you want, and die like a man.)
To: SoldierDad
Not on Second Amendment cases, thank you.
30
posted on
09/29/2010 2:09:27 PM PDT
by
skr
(May God confound the enemy)
To: perfect_rovian_storm
Leahy is personally responsible for the murder of over 1/2 million Vietnamese human beings.
He doesn't really care.
31
posted on
09/29/2010 2:10:48 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
To: paltz
Call his bluff! Have McConnell put it to a vote and call the roll right now and embarass Leahy.
Then have McConnell call the roll on a vote for Leahy's censure.
To: paltz
And maybe they can ‘designate’ a former president to sit in the oval office when the president is ill or out of the country too. good grief.
To: La Lydia
Uh, what about a little document called THE CONSTITUTION? Under the Constitution, Congress has complete power to determine the composition of the Supreme Court.
To: paltz
NO!
35
posted on
09/29/2010 2:17:59 PM PDT
by
hoosiermama
(ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
To: La Lydia
How is this unconstitutional?
To: SoldierDad
37
posted on
09/29/2010 2:21:34 PM PDT
by
onyx
(If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
To: La Lydia
The Constitution doesn’t prevent this.
38
posted on
09/29/2010 2:23:08 PM PDT
by
Huck
(Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
To: hoosiermama
Leahy is a disgrace, but it’s likely some smart-ass intern thought of this scheme. Leahy strikes me as an old drunken dolt.
39
posted on
09/29/2010 2:24:25 PM PDT
by
onyx
(If you support Sarah and want on her Ping List, let me know!)
To: paltz
Could this idiot not be anymore transparent........I wish with my heart and soul that he would be defeated....no that will never happen but this a$$hole hates this country and the Constitution........
40
posted on
09/29/2010 2:27:09 PM PDT
by
BamaDi
("The definition of a racist today is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-122 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson