Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Supreme Court Openings

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,663

    Supreme Court Openings

    Vacant!

    Saundra Day O'Conor steps down.

    1 of 2 seats on the Supreme Court open!

    Second seat to be filled soon!

    Moderates need not apply.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  2. #2
    Cyburbian SGB's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve
    Posts
    3,387
    From President Bush's remarks today:
    The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote.
    Sorry, W. The nation also deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is moderate and objective.

    We won't get either, I'm certain.
    All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
    He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
    - - Guy Clark, "The Cape"

  3. #3
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    From the Sun Times:

    But Democratic consultant Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to Clinton, said there doesn't have to be a knockdown, drag-out fight if Bush will confer with Senate leaders of both parties before submitting his choice-- a practice Lockhart said was utilized by both Presidents Reagan and Clinton for choices who were confirmed.

    "If President Bush uses the model created by Reagan and Clinton, there is no inevitability of a big fight. But if he chooses to go it alone, it increases the likelihood that this will get caught up in partisan back-and-forth," Lockhart said.
    Anybody wanna take bets on which course Bush will take?

  4. #4
    Cyburbian DecaturHawk's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    In the palm of the mitten
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    From the Sun Times:



    Anybody wanna take bets on which course Bush will take?
    Um, can somebody show me where in the Constitution that it says that the President is supposed to ask Congress who he should nominate?
    SOME say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate
    To know that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Robert Frost (1874–1963) (From Harper’s Magazine, December 1920.)

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by DecaturHawk
    Um, can somebody show me where in the Constitution that it says that the President is supposed to ask Congress who he should nominate?
    In France and Britain, they sometimes hold "work to rule" strikes: you ONLY do exactly what is spelled out in the written rules of the organization, no more and no less, no exceptions. Things rapidly come grinding to a near halt. If you need every single thing spelled out in The Rules, you aren't human, you are a machine.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally posted by DecaturHawk
    Um, can somebody show me where in the Constitution that it says that the President is supposed to ask Congress who he should nominate?
    It is a diplomatic contrivance called "C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E". It is often used by rational people or organizations to acomplish a goal when two or more groups with different views on a subject will be in disagreement.

    Unfortuantly, it doesn't seem to be understood by the GOP and the president at the moment.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  7. #7
    Cyburbian ijustkrushalot's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    63
    Um, can somebody show me where in the Constitution that it says that the President is supposed to ask Congress who he should nominate?
    I think it was hidden in between the lines that said he had to verify his nomination with the senate...

    There is no question it will be a fairly conservative judge (which isn't a bad thing for the supreme court of the country)

    The attorney general would be a good choice, IMHO. He won't touch Roe v. Wade.

    I am not a huge fan of abortion, but I would personally rather not see the abortion debate in the selection process... the 'pubs will be irked that Bush selected a moderate... and the dems will be steamed that a conservative is on the bench (it is only a landmark appointee breaking racial lines if it is a liberal.. ) But given the circumstances, i think him, or someone like him would be about the best we can hope for.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,780
    This could be the worst of W's legacy, which is saying a lot. I agree with was posted earlier, that a moderate who was picked after working with Senate would be nice. Unforunately this isn't going to happen. I was reading some of Slate's speculation on possible picks, and none of them look that promising.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  9. #9
    Cyburbian DecaturHawk's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    In the palm of the mitten
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia
    It is a diplomatic contrivance called "C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E". It is often used by rational people or organizations to acomplish a goal when two or more groups with different views on a subject will be in disagreement.

    Unfortuantly, it doesn't seem to be understood by the GOP and the president at the moment.
    When Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hardly "moderates," were nominated and breezed through the confirmation process, I guess that was C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E. I don't remember clearly what the makeup of the Senate was at the time of each confirmation, but I believe that Republicans were in the minority for at least one of them. Filibuster? Didn't happen. Funny how those Republicans believed that the President gets to nominate the justices and the Senate offers advise and consent. Funny how they didn't think that the minority party got to work the rules to be able to block confirmations because they didn't agree with the nominee's (and the President's) philosphy.

    Let's look at the record of Senate Democrats when the president is Republican. Do you remember Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas? Now, they are gearing up to do it again.

    Anyway, the point of my original post was that the Constitution does NOT require the President to consult with the Senate on the nomination. The people voted, elected a Republican president with an expectation that he would nominate judges that reflect the voter's views, and they also elected a majority of Republicans to both houses. That's the way the Constitution works.

    But believe me, I'm not holding my breath hoping it will turn out that way. The most likely outcome of this will be that Bush will nominate a "moderate" (read: someone who will hint, if not outright state, that they will not mess with Roe v. Wade) to avoid the chicanery that the Dems have pulled over the last 5 years.
    SOME say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate
    To know that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Robert Frost (1874–1963) (From Harper’s Magazine, December 1920.)

  10. #10

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by DecaturHawk
    When Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hardly "moderates," were nominated and breezed through the confirmation process, I guess that was C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E. I don't remember clearly what the makeup of the Senate was at the time of each confirmation, but I believe that Republicans were in the minority for at least one of them. Filibuster? Didn't happen. Funny how those Republicans believed that the President gets to nominate the justices and the Senate offers advise and consent. Funny how they didn't think that the minority party got to work the rules to be able to block confirmations because they didn't agree with the nominee's (and the President's) philosphy.

    Let's look at the record of Senate Democrats when the president is Republican. Do you remember Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas? Now, they are gearing up to do it again.

    Anyway, the point of my original post was that the Constitution does NOT require the President to consult with the Senate on the nomination. The people voted, elected a Republican president with an expectation that he would nominate judges that reflect the voter's views, and they also elected a majority of Republicans to both houses. That's the way the Constitution works.

    But believe me, I'm not holding my breath hoping it will turn out that way. The most likely outcome of this will be that Bush will nominate a "moderate" (read: someone who will hint, if not outright state, that they will not mess with Roe v. Wade) to avoid the chicanery that the Dems have pulled over the last 5 years.
    Oh come on. Read the statistics on confirmations. Your party hemmed and hawed and delayed and obstructed dozens of Clinton's apponitnments. And, none of his appointees believed things like the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from passing environmental regulations or interfering at all in any way with use of private property.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,619
    Article. II.
    Section. 2.
    Clause 2: He shall have Power, ..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent (approval ?) of the Senate, shall appoint ....., Judges of the Supreme Court, ....
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally posted by DecaturHawk
    .......

    .........The people voted, elected a Republican president with an expectation that he would nominate judges that reflect the voter's views, and they also elected a majority of Republicans to both houses. That's the way the Constitution works.

    ....

    Your misquoting. Most people happen to be centrist in this country. I.e. Moderate.

    as for your vaunted super majority, you are fudging the reality. a very slim majority of voters voted for bush. This does not equate to a landslide of support. Not to mention the fact that a HUGE percentage did not vote at all.

    Moderates have flexibility of decision making. Party hack judges do not.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  13. #13
    Cyburbian biscuit's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Paris of Appalachia
    Posts
    3,902
    I read somewhere recently that the President could avoid a big showdown with Democrats if he were to nominate a sitting Senator to the bench. Anyone else heard anything like this.

  14. #14
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    If you take your political leanings out of the equation and look at any GWB decision, can you say any of them has been wise over the long run. Take a long view and say -- boy that was a good one. I can't see that he will have any better judgement on Supreme Court justices.

    For example. Afghanistan. Would have been good if he had followed through. Now it's not really good because of opportunity lost.

    Iraq. Not really good from the start. Be honest.

    Tax cuts. Didn't really help the economy. Created a huge deficit. Not good.

    Prescription drugs. Creates a huge deficit. Ignored the possibility of volume discounts to reduce that deficit. No way to pay for it. Not good.

    Borrowing to pay for the deficit spending. Not good. We will pay for that for decades.

    Bankruptcy. Most normal bankruptcies occur because of medical costs. Bush's law does not allow those normal folks to start over. Not good.

    Clean skies. Allows power plants to keep high emissions on a local basis. All that would have been cleaned up if he hadn't interfered. Not good if you are near one of those power plants.

    Clean water. Removed requirements to reduce arsenic in water. Not good.

    Energy. Lost five years of opportunity to increase fuel economy and sponsor alternative energy. Not a huge issue yet, but will be before he ends his lame duck presidency.

    That's sort of a partial list. I doubt if there will be any greater wisdom in choice of Supreme Court Justices.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,857
    Blog entries
    6
    If a President wants a good Supreme Court appointee, he needs to appoint someone who is a current federal judge (that way he already knows how he or she rules on different cases) and he needs to appoint someone who is not an extremist.

    A newly appointed Supreme Court justice may vote for politics and principle for a little while, but eventually he or she is going to start voting with his or her philosophical comrades on the Court and is not likely to take too many lone wolf stands (who wants to write dissents all by your lonesome!).

    I hope Dubya will appoint a moderate. Pretty sure it will be a woman. Maybe a Hispanic. As you add on qualifiers, the list gets pretty short.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  16. #16
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    The problem with this debate is that it is no real debate at all, simply a power struggle. The President will want somebody like minded, seriously conservative; the democrats and liberals will oppose no matter whom he chooses as they want their own political victory if they can defeat the nominee.

    Everybody seems to want a moderate...that is everybody who is a democrat, a liberal, or a member of the talking head media.

    he needs to appoint someone who is not an extremist.
    what's an extremeist? Scalia, Renquist, Thomas? someone who think life begins at conception? maybe maybe not, but isn't that also the problem with the debate the fact that one cannot argue legitmate constitutional issues as a part of the selection?

    I think Kelo was pretty extreme. But a moderate is someone else who would likely vote for that.

    Seems best for the President to nominate someone who was just recently approved by the Senate to a federal bench seat, hard for the Senate to turn around and not confirm someone they just confirmed.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally posted by Wulf9
    Tax cuts. Didn't really help the economy. Created a huge deficit. Not good..
    I could say that they did help the economy in the short term. They prevented a possible deeper economic slide than we have had over the last 4+ years. Now long term is another story.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,619
    Interesting OP ED piece in the NY Times:

    Your Land Is My Land
    by John Tierney

    PITTSBURGH — Two questions I'd like to ask candidates for Sandra Day O'Connor's job:
    1. Does the Constitution forbid the government from seizing your home and giving it to someone else?
    2. If you're not sure, would you be willing to tour Pittsburgh before taking this job?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/op...ierney.html?hp
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    230
    Given that both houses of Congress and quite a few statehouses and Govenors chairs are held by the Republican Party, and that the Republicans achieved this postion of political strenght by mostly embracing conservative views, I think a Conservative judge would be appropriate as this seems to the political consensus of most of the public....moderate to conservative.

  20. #20

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by Trinity Moses
    Given that both houses of Congress and quite a few statehouses and Govenors chairs are held by the Republican Party, and that the Republicans achieved this postion of political strenght by mostly embracing conservative views, I think a Conservative judge would be appropriate as this seems to the political consensus of most of the public....moderate to conservative.
    I somehow doubt that there is a "consensus" of most of this country in favor of some of the things recent Bush court appointees support. For example, you can say adios to ALL public regulation of private land use. Or any workplace standards, environmental regulations, minimum wage laws, workplace safety, anti-discrimination laws, etc. etc. Yep, it's back to 1890. Or maybe 1850, for a few of his appointees. (Sorry. No sources. But, I did read articles or opinion pieces written by and summarized by a recent appointee)

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 0
    Last post: 08 Jul 2013, 11:55 AM
  2. Interesting US Supreme Court decision about sewer costs
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 05 Jun 2012, 7:26 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last post: 07 Sep 2006, 1:49 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last post: 20 May 2002, 7:04 PM
  5. Supreme Court ruling
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 07 Apr 2000, 7:27 PM