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

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last

1 posted on 09/29/2010 1:51:59 PM PDT by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: paltz

NFW!


2 posted on 09/29/2010 1:53:17 PM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

They just keep trying to tear down the very system that protects America from corrupt, oppressive government.....


3 posted on 09/29/2010 1:53:52 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Excellent. What a great idea to fix our broken economy!


4 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:25 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Palin Haley O'Donnell - mmm mmmm mmmmmmmmm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Uh, what about a little document called THE CONSTITUTION? Always a bad idea when a cheesy politician thinks he’s smarter than the Founding Fathers.


5 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:40 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz
Sure thing. Shouldn't take much more than an amendment to the Constitution.
6 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:42 PM PDT by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

It’s bad enough that we allow corpses like Leahy to sit in the Senate and don’t even bother to actually run a race against the old fart.


7 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:44 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Chuck Norris wears Carl Paladino pajamas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

NO PROXIES!!!


8 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:47 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("It's amazing, A man who has such large ears could be so tone deaf" Rush Limbaugh 9/8/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

In other words, “Let us choose judges favorable to our outcomes”.


9 posted on 09/29/2010 1:54:47 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz
Let's see if he proposes this in October 2011.

Situational court-packing. What a creep.

10 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Managing "The Environment" is the power to control the entire economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Nope. It’s bad enough they stay there for decades in the first place. The only justice I’d have any hope for is Rehnquist and he’s in heaven.


11 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:29 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Uhhhhhhhhhh... hell no.

LLS


12 posted on 09/29/2010 1:55:51 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

How instead about a Constitutional Amendment for mandatory retirement at a reasonable age?


13 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:12 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (NO MOS-que AP: It's the "GROUND ZERO MOSQUE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Somehow this reminds me of Roosevelt’s try to pack the Court.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser.

Maybe the Prez should have thougnt of the recusal problem before he nominated his Solicitor General.


14 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:35 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Once again the Left is trying to find or create a loop hole in the Constitution.


15 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:35 PM PDT by txroadkill (Is it November yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Especially since the last 2 that left are leftists! I agree with post above NFW


16 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:35 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

Every case would lead to endless calls for recusal of every justice and endless shopping for judges.


17 posted on 09/29/2010 1:56:58 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: paltz

I’m not positive, but I don’t recall that the US Senate was tasked with the responsibility of determining what procedures the Supreme Court will follow.

If memory serves, that responsibility is reserved for the Chief Justice, and Leahy ain’t him...


18 posted on 09/29/2010 1:57:36 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Now what kind of a geroo are you anyway?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

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!!!


19 posted on 09/29/2010 1:58:09 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Bork!!!


20 posted on 09/29/2010 2:00:53 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

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