BREAKING NEWS: Justice Souter to Retire

[WillowTree]

the ACLU is as American as one can get. the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

I'm not the idiot.. The ACLU is as Anti American as it gets.

Upon reviewing the majority of your posts, I respectfully disagree as to your idiot status. You, indeed, are an idiot

Nope I disagree you are the idiot.. not I

 

[WillowTree]

I guess the Bill Of Rights is anti american also. And I also love how repugs always get decide what is anti american.

No moreso than you moonbats try to decide what is anti american.

Oh! the right loves to toss around unpartriotic, anti american, unchristian like and quite a big more than us moonbats. Have you ever hear me say the NRA is anti american? I can't remember that last time I referred to anyone as anti american.

can't help ya!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

to differentiate him from daddy bush

did i ever refer to him as president bush? I actually have to think about that. I did his father.

So, how did President Bush damage the court? He put up two highly qualified nominees that were both confirmed. It didn't change the balance of the court. Both replaced conservative leaning Justices, though O'Connor was more moderate, she voted right much more than she voted left. So what damage was done? Or was this another one of those "jillian didn't like W so you'll just blame him for shit that didn't really happen moments?"

alito wasn't equipped for the court. but you know what, i'm going to be fair to the guy... I think his dad's choice of Clarence Thomas was far more of an insult to the court than anyone Bush could have picked.

My bigger problem with Bush wasn't that "jillian didnd't like W"... it was that he replaced a brilliant centrist with someone who wasn't in her league and was far more a right-wing ideologue...

*edit* that and the fact that roe v wade is now a litmus test and respect for precedent optional.

Samuel Alito's career before the High Court:

1976–1977 – Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.[4]
1977–1981 – Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.
1981–1985 – Assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.
1985–1987 – Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.
1987–1990 – United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
1990–2006 – Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1999–2004 – Adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey.

Looks pretty damned equipped to me. Or is it that he takes a different stance on Roe v Wade than you do that makes him ill equipped?

Yes. O'Connor was an absolutely brilliant Justice. A conservative nominee who ruled as a centrist. However, no where in the US Constitution does it say that a Justice has to be a centrist. President Bush put forth two brilliant legal minds to replace two brilliant legal minds. Because they don't pass your litmus test, you have shrugged them off as not worthy. Then on top of this, you take a jab at a former President for doing nothing more than his job. Way to go .

 

[DamnYankee]

From the article:

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

An Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.

No real damage done here.

Don't worry... the damage was done by Baby Bush.

Could you cite examples of "the damage" that's been ruled on by the USSC in the last, say, 3 years?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

From the article:

No real damage done here.

Don't worry... the damage was done by Baby Bush.

Could you cite examples of "the damage" that's been ruled on by the USSC in the last, say, 3 years?

No, she cannot. This is what I refer to as Liberal Talking Out Of Their Ass Syndrome.

 

[DiveCon]

From the article:

No real damage done here.

Don't worry... the damage was done by Baby Bush.

Could you cite examples of "the damage" that's been ruled on by the USSC in the last, say, 3 years?

the only one i can think of was the new london ED case
but wasnt that more than 3 years ago?


just looked it up

that was in 2005

 

[DamnYankee]

Don't worry... the damage was done by Baby Bush.

Could you cite examples of "the damage" that's been ruled on by the USSC in the last, say, 3 years?

the only one i can think of was the new london ED case
but wasnt that more than 3 years ago?


just looked it up

that was in 2005

And the names I've seen mentioned with some disdain (Scalia and Alito) had not a thing to do with that one....

 

[jeffrockit]

Don't worry... the damage was done by Baby Bush.

Every chance to take a swing, huh? Have you ever once refered to him as President Bush? I bet not.

to differentiate him from daddy bush

did i ever refer to him as president bush? I actually have to think about that. I did his father.

You are obsessed with the Bush's. The OP was about Justice Souter and you seem to be the only one bringing up Bush. They are both gone...one for quite some time now. Time to start thinking in the present. Why do the libs continue with this never ending obsession with Bush? As is constantly reminded on this board: "we won, get over it". Maybe that advice is worth taking for all.

 

[Dr Grump]

ESPECIALLY FOREIGNERS WHO TRIED TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Did they?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Look for a very far left judge to replace him. With 60 votes in the Senate it's a shoe-in.

Wouldn't surprise me if the head dude of the ACLU got the nod! We are Anti-American all the way now!

the ACLU is as American as one can get. the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

SURE they do. Remind us who they supported about the 2nd Amendment? Where were they on Ruby Ridge and Waco? Tell us of all the pro life cases they have taken. The list is endless of the things they never touch.

 

[jillian]

ESPECIALLY FOREIGNERS WHO TRIED TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Did they?

There's the problem....

no one knows for sure... because they were never tried.

 

[jillian]

You are obsessed with the Bush's. The OP was about Justice Souter and you seem to be the only one bringing up Bush. They are both gone...one for quite some time now. Time to start thinking in the present. Why do the libs continue with this never ending obsession with Bush? As is constantly reminded on this board: "we won, get over it". Maybe that advice is worth taking for all.

You are aware, aren't you, that the PRESIDENT nominates the Federal Justices?

Maybe not... given the "inciteful" nature of your post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are obsessed with the Bush's. The OP was about Justice Souter and you seem to be the only one bringing up Bush. They are both gone...one for quite some time now. Time to start thinking in the present. Why do the libs continue with this never ending obsession with Bush? As is constantly reminded on this board: "we won, get over it". Maybe that advice is worth taking for all.

You are aware, aren't you, that the PRESIDENT nominates the Federal Justices?

Maybe not... given the "inciteful" nature of your post.

Yes, I AM. Now are YOU will to bet me that Obama will NOT nominate a far left Judge to replace Souter. And when he does will YOU be complaining that he did not pick a moderate middle of the road Justice?

I am betting again the answer will be NO, you will be quite happy with any person Obama selects cause you do not actually care about right and wrong or good and bad, all you care about is YOUR position.

 

[jillian]

I'd see a left winger as being able to stand up against the rightwingers. *shrug*

and i wouldn't, in any event, see someone to the left as destroying our constitution the way scalia and the boys try to.

your point?

did you whine and rail when Bush appointed right wingers???

get a grip. and given that you do know the realities of how justices are appointed, you might not want to allign yourself with the goofiest posters just because you see a chance to flame.

 

[jillian]

And, in case anyone is wondering, Souter still hasn't officially announced he's retiring. They *think* he is because he hasn't hired his clerks for the next term.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The case of the missing law clerks is this spring's most-watched mystery at the Supreme Court.

It could be, to borrow a page from Sherlock Holmes, the court's dog that didn't bark, offering a clue as to the retirement plans of Justice David Souter.

Or perhaps Souter, known for his wry humor, is having a little chuckle at our expense.

He isn't saying, declining through a court spokeswoman to put the issue to rest.

The Associated Press: Does Souter's silence on hiring mean he's leaving?

either way... the rightwingnuts are already starting the smear machine against anyone they think Obama *might* nominate. I'm sure that will be as effective as everything else they've done recently.

 

[Sarah G]

I wish it could have been Scalia as well but still an interesting task for Obama.

Potential replacements:

The Associated Press reported that potential replacements include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. The AP said men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago.

 

[Sarah G]

And, in case anyone is wondering, Souter still hasn't officially announced he's retiring. They *think* he is because he hasn't hired his clerks for the next term.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The case of the missing law clerks is this spring's most-watched mystery at the Supreme Court.

It could be, to borrow a page from Sherlock Holmes, the court's dog that didn't bark, offering a clue as to the retirement plans of Justice David Souter.

Or perhaps Souter, known for his wry humor, is having a little chuckle at our expense.

He isn't saying, declining through a court spokeswoman to put the issue to rest.

The Associated Press: Does Souter's silence on hiring mean he's leaving?

either way... the rightwingnuts are already starting the smear machine against anyone they think Obama *might* nominate. I'm sure that will be as effective as everything else they've done recently.

Oh, they're losing their minds over it already.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And Jillian claims she is not a partisan hack yet ADMITS she thinks liberal judges are good, conservative judges are bad.

And remind us again Jillian how the only Presidents that should worry about appointing centerist judges are Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents are free to nominate the farthest left Judge they can find?

A partisan HACK indeed. Go ahead remind us how Liberals are just smarter and just KNOW whats best for everyone else.

 

[Ravi]

Wouldn't surprise me if the head dude of the ACLU got the nod! We are Anti-American all the way now!

the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

Then why are they defending foreign citizens who are being tried as terrorists?

Because they are being tried by our government...and anything the government can do to foreigners makes it easier to do to us...btw, Padilla is an American.

It could also be because many Americans take "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" literally to mean the constitution covers anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the ACLU defends civil rights of every American, you idiot.

Then why are they defending foreign citizens who are being tried as terrorists?

Because they are being tried by our government...and anything the government can do to foreigners makes it easier to do to us...btw, Padilla is an American.

It could also be because many Americans take "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" literally to mean the constitution covers anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA.

Unless of course they are Conservatives, Tea party members, Bush, Karl Rove or any member of Bush's Government. Or any other group Liberals decide are not worthy of protection under the law, Like Bankers and such, you do remember the scare tactics employed by the left against AIG executives right?