The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on October 07, 2008, 01:50:07 PM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/politics/washingtonpost/main4504541.shtml
"A President Obama or a President McCain will likely be handed an opportunity to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court that is unprecedented in our history,"
Obama, supported by a strongly Democratic Senate, could be presented with three openings during his first term, said Walter Dellinger, a prolific Supreme Court practitioner who was acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration.
"President Obama is going to be able, I think, to name whoever he wishes to the court and have that person confirmed,"
Obama opposed Roberts and Alito and has mentioned Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer as models, although it was unclear whether he was looking only at the current court, rather than past justices, for examples.
Obama said in a speech this year that the court is in agreement much of the time. But on the important constitutional issues that divide the justices, "adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon," Obama said.
"That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
I have been a big proponent of Congressional term limits for a long time now, and I am almost to the point that I believe our Supreme Court Justices should also have term limits. Cases are no longer decided on the basis of constitutionality, but rather political ideology (on both sides). This is a very scary time, and if you sit this election out, then for this reason alone you will be turning your back on your country.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/politics/washingtonpost/main4504541.shtml
I have been a big proponent of Congressional term limits for a long time now, and I am almost to the point that I believe our Supreme Court Justices should also have term limits. Cases are no longer decided on the basis of constitutionality, but rather political ideology (on both sides). This is a very scary time, and if you sit this election out, then for this reason alone you will be turning your back on your country.
How's this for scary? Supreme Court Justice William Ayers.
-
How's this for scary? Supreme Court Justice William Ayers.
Justice Wright?
-
Justice Clinton ?
-
Justice Clinton ?
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH....makes my brain hurt to imagine it......... :o :o :o :o :o
-
It will hurt more than your briain !! Biden has already sounded off during the VP debate & if the Dems get the expected gains in the Senate hard times are a-coming. A buddy & I were playing the if-we-could-change game the other day & my #1 govt change was term limits on all 3 branches of the govt. Great minds DO think alike!
-
It will hurt more than your briain !! Biden has already sounded off during the VP debate & if the Dems get the expected gains in the Senate hard times are a-coming. A buddy & I were playing the if-we-could-change game the other day & my #1 govt change was term limits on all 3 branches of the govt. Great minds DO think alike!
Can you say "Depression 2.0"?
-
The SCOTUS Justices was touched on in another thread. Seven of the present Nine have been appointed by Republicans. Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were appointed by Clinton.
Everyone is pulling for McCain, but his willingness to embrace the dark side in the spirit of "bipartisanship" leads me to believe no matter who wins the election, SCOTUS Justices will list heavily to port just to get past confirmation.
As for the term limits for SCOTUS justices, it was envisioned that way to give the Court a steady more consistent hand in interpretation of the Constitution and we see how that is working out. Just to throw another grenade in the fire, there is no limit on the number of Justices either. FDR was rebuffed, but there is no Constitutional construct for the number of justices.
-
The SCOTUS Justices was touched on in another thread. Seven of the present Nine have been appointed by Republicans. Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were appointed by Clinton.
Everyone is pulling for McCain, but his willingness to embrace the dark side in the spirit of "bipartisanship" leads me to believe no matter who wins the election, SCOTUS Justices will list heavily to port just to get past confirmation.
As for the term limits for SCOTUS justices, it was envisioned that way to give the Court a steady more consistent hand in interpretation of the Constitution and we see how that is working out. Just to throw another grenade in the fire, there is no limit on the number of Justices either. FDR was rebuffed, but there is no Constitutional construct for the number of justices.
Another classic example of how much of the general public is unaware of how our government really works and the original construct of said government.
I know over the past 150 years or so the lines have 'blurred' in some areas due to 'Congressional over-involvement'.
Makes me wonder if they even teach 'Government' or 'Civics' classes anymore. I know our state requirements for said classes have dwindled in those areas.
-
Justice Clinton X2
-
Justice Clinton X2
I heard that the only way Clinton would give her support to B HO would be, she be appointed >:(
-
In regards to the GOP appointing 7 of the justices IMO it shows (1) the need for term limits since so many justices tend to GROW with the length of their stay & (2) check out any & every vote of the 2 DEM justices. AND before anyone starts ,YES, I know any term limits on the legis OR judicial branches would require a constitutional amendment.That does not mean it would NOT be good or is NOT needed.In a fair world that senile SOB Stephens would NOT realize who was the PRES & BHO could NOT replace him with a newer longer lasting version but as I learned long ago the world is NOT fair .
-
Actually, the SCOTUS will probably be abolished in favor of a Politburo.
-
Obama said last night in the debate:
"I think that it’s important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want."
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/16/debate-difference-of-principles-on-judiciary/
Ed Morrissey said it best:
Except, of course, that’s not their job. Judges have the task of applying the law as promulgated by coordination between the elective branches of government, the legislature and the executive. That responsibility does not rest with the one branch of government unaccountable to the voters. That design intends to keep the US from being ruled by lifetime-tenured star chambers with no recourse left available to the electorate.
That undermines the entire notion of representative government. Our system works because we create the laws under which we live, through our elected representatives. If they pass bad laws or fail to pass good laws, they have to answer for that in elections on a regular basis. What Obama proposes is to have judges create laws rather than elected representatives — judges who were not elected and who have no accountability to the people that they would rule in such a system.
Judicial activism distorts representative democracy and the legitimacy of self-government. Barack Obama wants it, though, because he believes that he can achieve ends through judicial activism that he can’t get through the democratic process. It’s anti-democratic at its core, and while Obama is clearly not the only advocate of this philosophy, he may be the most explicit supporter ever to get this close to the power to appoint those judges.