Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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 ...
Leahy is up for reelection - Len Britton is running a great campaign despite the fact that the lib press in VT tries to ignore him. Get Leahy out! http://www.lenbritton.com/
Liberals are very slow to recuse themselves. That action requires ethics.
Hell NO.We need new conservative blood on the Supreme Court.Not a bunch of Judicial Activist retreads.
IF you don’t have Beck on turn him on.
Just when you thought there was no way Leaky Leahy could get any stupider, he finds a way to reach new depths of stupidity.
My Constitutional Amendment would be to set SCOTUS terms at 18 years, staggered, so that one Justice is named in every Congress.
A sitting justices may or may not be renominated, and vacancies occurring before a term ends are filled in the current manner, but only to complete the term.
The only big headache would be the phase-in process. That would be an ugly behind the scenes negotiation of who on the current court was in which seat.
It would serve to make Presidential elections far less important.
We do. Thank you!!!
DrO never misses Glenn Beck.
Idiots.
Don't confirm justices that you think have conflicts of interest.
-PJ
That gets a BINGO. It's the most likely reason for Leahy's proposal. I doubt he sits around just thinking of ways to improve the functioning of the judiciary... he's been motivated... a big-eared bird may have whispered in his ear.
What part of NINE doesn’t he understand? And what part of RETIRED doesn’t he understand?
Article II Section 2 Clause 2 grants to power to nominate members of the Supreme Court to the President only, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the Supreme Court do not have the power to designate other members of the Supreme Court.
-PJ
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has proposed a bill -
Enough said, if this RAT is for it, I am against it!
The bill would obviously be detrimental to the USA as are
most, if not all, RAT bills.
I’m watching and loving it.
Why not?
How is a "designation" by a Supreme Court member not a de facto nomination? Even if the Justice recuses himself, he is still a Justice of the Supreme Court. "Designating" a proxy for a case would make that person a de facto 10th member of the Supreme Court, and only the President has the power to nominate members of the Supreme Court.
-PJ
and he is cheesy..the bald headed pokie feels he is
smart as hell. Roberts made him lool like a nitpicker
and ran rings around Leahy, Schumer, and the other
bias rats...in end Leahy voted for Roberts...a laffer. JK
They know that the two justices appointed by Premier Obama will have to recuse themselves in an NBC eligibility case involving him!!!! They are looking forward to this eventuality!!!
Wouldn’t surprise me.
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.