Posted on 11/26/2018 6:43:42 PM PST by Kaslin
Which they did. And that action, preventing the counting of ballots without clear standards - gave Florida (and the election) to Bush.
so what is he bitching about?
He doesn’t get the Right of the “People”, does he?
It didn’t say the Right of the “Militia”.
Stevens was Ford’s biggest mistake and Souter was the elder Bush’s biggest mistake.
And John Roberts was W’s biggest mistake.
Stevens also believes it was a mistake for the Court to decide the president in 2000. The justices were tasked with settling a discount dispute in Florida
“It was really a disgrace,” he told The Times.
Clueless dullard didn’t know the case. It was to stop selective counting, not a coronation of Bush as President. Sorry but being a liberal should be a disqualification to be appointed to any judicial bench.
Jerry Ford was a d!ck for not admitting this was a bad pick. It alone secures Ford’s brief tenure as a poor one, maybe the 2nd worst GOP administration after Progressive RINO Hoover, for the lasting harm JP Stevens did to our country.
Naturally the three cases he mentions were protecting our first, second, and 14th amendment rights. of course no brainers, decided correctly, no thanks to him. Was he EVER on the right side of a vote that wasn’t 9-0 or 8-1? He’s as bad if not worse than Ginsberg.
Because a bunch of useful idiots on our side claim it doesn't matter AT ALL what the judge's background or personal beliefs are, the only thing that matters is if the White House says his "judicial philosophy" is "strict constructionist" or "originalist" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Nah, can't be. A bunch of FReepers have informed me that voting for a presidential candidate with an "R" next to his name magically ensures we won't get bad judges on SCOTUS, and that the "most important issue"
Stevens didn't immediately turn traitor upon getting on the court in 1975. His pre-Reagan record on the court placed him pretty firmly in the "center" of the court and he was a swing-vote on a number of important cases. He was considered an "upgrade" for conservatives since he replaced the outspoken leftist FDR appointee William O. Douglas. It wasn't until the Rehnquist era that Stevens began moving left and ended up firmly in the Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing of the court (and maybe even MORE liberal than that hag!)
Similarly, if you looked at Sandra Day O'Connor's record during her first couple years on the court (mid 80s), she sided with Rehnquist more than any other justice, and you would have to conclude Reagan made a solid pick based on that information. It wasn't until some "landmark" social issues cases came before the court that O'Connor was revealed to left-of-center on social issues, as well as the fact she wasn't going to overturn any liberal "precedents" from the 60s and 70s.
Coolidge’s sole appointee to SCOTUS, the left-wing RINO Attorney-General, Harlan Fiske Stone (and he had also been appointed to that job by Coolidge as well), was so well-regarded by FDR that he was elevated to Chief Justice.
Stone was notorious for opposing Wilson Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and his decisive attempts to rid this country of ultraleft subversive elements, whom Stone defended(!) A HUGE black mark on Coolidge (whom I rank below Warren Harding in terms of excellence).
I would’ve vociferously opposed this guy’s appointment to high office. Coolidge apparently had an attachment to him as he was a classmate of his at Amherst (was there almost anyone who went to Amherst who didn’t end up a Communist ?).
Some of the major 1970s era cases where Stevens ended up on the “right side” of a split decision were to reinstate capital punishment in the United States (Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 1976), and to strike down race-based admissions programs in Regents of the University of California (1978).
His views on Affirmative Action and other issues “evolved” in the 1980s.
On the flip side, the otherwise horrible Woodrow Wilson appointed his Attorney General, James Clark McReynolds, to SCOTUS. McReynolds was a Stone/Stevens/Souter type in REVERSE and ended up being an extremely conservative judge, one of the fiercest opponents of FDR's massive government expansion, continually striking down FDR's New Deal legislation as unconstitutional. McReynolds was so conservative he refused to speak to fellow Wilson appointee John Clarke because he was "too liberal".
I should note, too, that Hoover got 3 appointees on SCOTUS. When Chief Justice Taft passed, he put Charles Evans Hughes in his place (arguably his best appointment).
Squishy “moderate-left” Owen J. Roberts stayed on the court long enough to become the “Conservative wing”, and was appalled by their leftist inclinations by the end of the FDR era. Hugo Black hated his guts, so that was a positive.
John J. Parker, a Conservative Republican from North Carolina was the initial choice (he’d been put on a lower court by Coolidge), but he was defeated when a single Senator switched their vote to go against him. Parker stayed on the lower bench until 1958, so that would’ve been a long tenure for him. Sadly, what partly helped defeat Parker was an ill-advised comment he made when he ran for NC Governor in 1920 in opposing Black participation in politics (yet the Dems installed left-wing Klansman Hugo Black on the court not long after !).
Bar none, the worst appointment was made in Hoover’s last year in putting left-winger Benjamin Cardozo on the court, a blatant attempt to appeal to Democrats. The legal establishment was having full-body orgasms over his appointment.
Once again showing the GOP has made some really bone-headed appointments.
John Paul Stevens...
Nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford.
Confirmed by 100% of Republican Senators.
Stevens was a registered Republican.
Why do Democrats NEVER make judicial errors like Republicans do?
Yes, I can explain it.
It is because the commies control the law schools, the law journals, and all the legal professional associations. There just aren't many reliable conservatives available to pick from who have been able to achieve the professional credentials necessary to survive the confirmation process.
They also imposed a rule that elections have to be decided according to rules in place before the election is held. Then they backtracked and said the rule would only apply to Bush v. Gore. That's a tragedy since Al Frankin would never have been elected if that rule had been in place during his contest.
Yep. Cardozo, with his notions of strict liability, is the reason tort lawyers have a license to steal in product liability cases. Though he did most of that work on the New York Supreme Court and other states followed his lead.
Cardozo's reasoning was that by making manufacturers strictly liable (meaning without regard to fault or intent) for any harm caused by their products, manufacturers would be incentivized to make safer products. Prices of manufactured goods would rise, but that would just be a sort of involuntary insurance premium. All of this done by a judge ruling from the bench and not by any legislature.
In the early day, a “militia” was formed when the men, during an emergency, got together and brought their personal arms with them. It was not a standing army.
That is what the 2nd Amendment is referring to.
Andrew Jackson brought in some militia to help him with an Indian war. The enlistees (agreeing to three months of service) brought their arms, he provided the ammunition. Jackson did not have the resources to provide arms.
The former Supreme Court justice is ignorant of American history.
Stevens also wrote the opinion (in the early 2000s IIRC) upholding a state’s use of voter ID. I think that it was a 6-3 decision, maybe even 5-4.
I have written in the past about how that 1 vote opposing Parker was arguably the most consequential single vote in the history of the U.S. Congress. Had one of the NAYs vote YEA, VP Curtis would have broken the tie and there would have been *five* “Horsemen” on the Supreme Court, no “switch in time,” and, unless FDR could have gotten his court-packing past several roadblocks in Congress, the entire New Deal would have been declared unconstitutional prior to the 1936 elections, which could have been a game-changer. Would Congress have kept passing legislation declared unconstitutional, or would it change course? American (and, indeed, world) history would have been quite different.
“How many liberal Democrat politicians turn conservative once elected? I can’t think of a single one.”
That’s because to a Democrat the party is the be-all and end-all, and comes first, foremost, and always.
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.