The Vacancy: Who Will Be Next to Join the Supreme Court?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Vaderize03, Apr 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Hmm, Mr. 44, Judicial Activism by the right...how about Citizens United v. FCC?
  2. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
  3. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I don't understand wanting Garland. Why waste a nomination on a bland person who would do nothing to help protect people from the Court's conservative judicial activism?

    It should be Diane Wood, or better yet, someone even more liberal. Roberts has a majority right now, but Obama can steadily outnumber him if he gets at least one more nomination and a conservative has to leave the Court. In 20-30 years, a lot of historical analysis of the Obama years will feature a photo of the two of them at his 2009 inauguration

    So, to sum up: Liberal liberal liberal. Anything short of that is a waste. The race and gender don't matter remotely as much as their views.

    Kagan would be a huge mistake and Obama runs the risk of appointing his own David Souter if he appoints her (not that Souter wasn't great, because he was, but he sure wasn't supposed to rule the way he did).
  4. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    The reason I want Garland is obvious: I don't want a big liberal activist on the court and would want the Stevens replacement to be left of center, not wholly liberal. Garland has shown himself to be that way. I want more center-like people.

  5. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I want Diane Wood.


    People have to remember, with Stevens leaving, even a big liberal replacing him would still nudge the court to the right.
  6. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Sure Ghost you are right. We talked about how Stevens was a coalition builder with a rare power. So any n00b on the SCOTUS is likely to lack that skill.

    But still, I would prefer a centrist or light liberal rather than full blown progressive.
  7. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    What would be a "full blown progressive"?

    For example, what is wrong with Diane Wood?

    Sidenote, why has Progressive recently become a bad word, almost as bad or worse than Liberal? When Liberal became an Unpopular word, they started to describe themselves as Progressives. Now that is becoming a bad word?

    (and are you ShaneP? :p )
  8. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Stevens was just in Chicago yesterday for a legal conference for the 7th Circuit Court. Of course, it's interesting to note that Stevens introduced Elana Kagan at his retirement party, and not just introduced her, gave an 8 minute speech for Kagan. Kagan then went on to "roast" Stevens and joke back and forth. Diane Wood was also there, as well as underdog judge Ann Williams.

    While Stevens wouldn't directly say who his own choice was, I think one could conclude that it's fairly obvious, for whatever input the retiring Justice should get.
  9. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Stevens would be a full blown progressive.

    Yes, I am ShaneP! I can finally reveal myself! Muhahahaha! [face_devil]..........

    [face_plain].........

    ........Okay, I don't use that username because my computer crashed and I lost the password. :p But still: Muhahahahaha!

  10. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Bad news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/07/elena-kagan-will-be-obama_n_567456.html

    If true, a big mistake by Obama. Glenn Greenwald will eviscerate him for it over at Salon.
  11. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    And guess who she was a legal adviser to? Guess which big bad EVVVVVIIIL investment firm?

    Hurry...guess which one?
  12. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    The rumor is, it rhymes with "Goldman Sachs".

    Peace,

    V-03
  13. darthdrago Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2003
    star 4
  14. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Should have been Diane Wood.

    I hope we're not ruing this day like many Republicans look back on David Souter's appointment.
  15. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Well, the one ting I do like about her is shes not a judge. Yes, I do like that for a change.

    We'll see how this shapes up during confirmation. I do expect her to be fairly easily confirmed.
  16. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Rep. Sessions of Alabama has already called her a "radical" on abortion, and claimed that she lacks any real experience to serve on the court, not having been a judge beforehand (like Brandeis or Rehnquist).

    In reality, anyone he nominates that is pro-choice and reasonably pro-gay will get the dems' backing, and the GOP's wrath, at least in terms of "going through the motions".

    She'll be confirmed, she won't be filibustered. The only risk here is that no-one knows exactly where her views lie, or whether or not there could be a "Harriet Miers" style revolt over her nomination.

    We shall see.

    Peace,

    V-03
  17. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Well in order for there to be a Harriet Myers revolt you would have to have dems picking her apart too. I haven't seen that and don't expect it.

    *shhh* don't bring up politicians hypocrisy when talking about nominees with judicial experience. [face_shhh]

  18. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    The thing is, I don't think Wood was ever a serious contender. She really only made sense if Obama was simply looking for a justice for strictly activist reasons, and that wouldn't have done anyone any good.

    I think Kagan will be a tough, but fair justice. She might not have been a judge, but from an experience standpoint, she's argued a handful of cases before the Supreme Court, including both wins and looses for the government. This is going to give her insight into how to defend positions from the opposite side.

    I'm not sure her abortion stance is going to be all that controversial. What's going to be more direct is her belief that enemy combatants can be held indefinitely without trial, and her strong personal belief against "don't ask/don't tell." I don't think the military policy will ever make it up to the Supreme Court, but a state same sex marriage decision certainly will.
  19. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The thing is, I don't think Wood was ever a serious contender. She really only made sense if Obama was simply looking for a justice for strictly activist reasons, and that wouldn't have done anyone any good.

    Please. It would have done the country a lot of good. We have several activist conservative justices and we need to push back against them. Someone like Wood would (interesting combination) have been perfect for that.
  20. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Well, Obama is going to have at least one more Supreme Court nomination before 2012, probably Ginsburg will retire next year because of her health problems.

    Kennedy and Scalia are also up there in age, even Breyer, all born in the 1930's.

    If Obama wins a second term, it is likely that 6 out of the 9 Justices will have been appointed by him (only excepting Thomas, Roberts and Alito).
  21. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    There is no way on earth that Scalia will leave the Court except through death as long as Obama or any Democrat is president.

    if Kerry had won in 2004 and then been re-elected, he would have had a chance to nominate no less than four justices so far, assuming Souter and Stevens would have retired and not stayed on.
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Eh, maybe Ginsburg, especially after her cancer, and being older than the rest (most certainly for her if Obama gets a second term) but I could see Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer all remaining in the SC well into their 80's, which would still give them at least a decade or more. I mean, Stevens was 90, and he just retired.
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I haven't been posting much because of time and work issues, but I have a few minutes and had to respond to this:
    The majority of the country doesn't agree with you on that.

    A recent Washington Post/ABC poll shows that 46% of the country thinks the Court is balanced in its decisions, 26% say it is too liberal, and only 21% agree with you that it is too conservative. According to Gallup, a plurality (42%) of the nation would prefer a justice that makes the Court more conservative, compared to only 27% preferring one who makes the Court more liberal.

    Based on those two polls, it would appear that your position could easily be considered the extremist one here. You simply aren't in touch with the rest of the nation on this issue.

    Kimball Kinnison
  24. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Or that polls are entirely meaningless tripe used to justify views that in no way match the reality or totality of a person's opinion and are thus only used to score political points based on their results. Well...that could be it.
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, but do you have any data to back that up?

    Without data, all you really have is hot air, and we have enough of that already.

    Kimball Kinnison
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.