O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

[ShamMol]

That's what I thought. All the more reason why Judges with an agenda for either side need to kept out and only those who rule soley on the constitutionality of a law only need apply. Imagine if the court was stacked 9-0 for either side with activist judges? That sort of power needs to kept in check.

I completely agree, but it all depends on who is in office at the right time to appoint judges. Theoretically, any court could become completely one-sided with time. Some people say they see that happening right now with one of the more moderate judges leaving (not saying if I am one, see, using a technique I just learned from FOX, lol).

Don't forget that it was a Democrat back in 1937 who tried to pack the court by adding to its membership because the court routinely ruled his initiatives as Unconstitutional. The Democrats will stop at nothing to get their agenda through regardless of Constitutionality! That was then, and it is still that way now.

How is that the case now. I don't believe in that. I like someone who is of the same political beliefs as I am, but that doesn't mean I want them on our courts. What I want are the independent thinkers, those who look at the case, look at the facts, look at the laws and doesn't consult their morality or lack of morality and decides the case through what is legal and what is not. However, if push came to shove, I will admit that between two equally qualified people for the same posistion, I would choose the one more like me-natural reaction.

 

[ludahai]

1994 - Stephen Breyer appointed by Clinton. Despite the fact that his record was opposed to the core beliefs of many Republicans, he was confirmed with little fuss 87-9!

1993 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed by CLinton. Once again, major differences between her record and the core beliefs of Republicans. She was confirmed 97-3!

1991 - Clarence Thomas appointed by Bush 41. Of course, he has differences with most Democrats, but the Democrats didn't defer to the PResident like Republicans allowed Clinton to have his choices. Oh no, they defamed his character and came out with false charge after false charge in an effort to slander him and destroy his character. Hence, the term "politics of personal destruction." He was confirmed anyway, but it goes to show the lengths the Democrats will go to get their way. He was confirmed 52-48.

1987 - Robert Bork appointed by Reagan. The following day, Senator Kennedy announced his litmis test by saying, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." Despite the fact that Bork was a highly qualified jurist, he was defeated SOLELY on political grounds!

Gee, why didn't we complain that a Ginsburg and Breyer America is one in which FIFTY MILLION unborn babies would be murdered from 1973 to 2005? Because we have class, and contrary to the fan of the most evil team in baseball, the Democrats WILL do anything and try any tactic to get their way on the Supreme Court and elsewhere!

 

[ShamMol]

Honestly, I think Republicans have learned the lesson well when it comes to fighting for their appointees to the courts. They seem to be doing a bloody good job of it as well, especially for the...underhanded tatics. Yeah, I would say they learned their lesson.

And that is your opinion on Abortion, it doesn't mean that others believe it. The Repubs, however much you would like to deny it, did complain about Ginsburg and Breyer, they just didn't do it well. The Dems realized how important the supreme court is and activist groups set up well in advance of Bork to combat it so they could get someone less radical.

Let me type this up from my history book, it may shed some light on Ginsburg..."Much of the initial resistance to Ginsburg's nomination came from within the feminist movement because she had expressed reservations about the reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) upholding a woman's right to choose an abortion. Ginsburg would have preferred a more measured approach--an opinion that invited gradual liberalization of state abortion laws, one that might avoid a political backlash. At her confirmation hearings, however, Ginsburg dispelled any doubts about her commitment to a woman's reproductive choice. She characterized a woman's right to choose an abortion as 'something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity... And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a full adult human being responsible for her own choices.'" Now, I am thinking another reason she may have had an easy time was because some thought she might go to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I seem to remember reading that Bryer was quite popular with some conservatives because he was on the Sentencing Guildline board, or whatever it was called, that came up with mandatory sentencing for the courts, thus eliminating a lot of discretion that had previously been there. And as a judge, he broke from norm quite often. It doesn't explain why more conservatives didn't fight it, but it does beg the question why so many supported him. He was seen as a consensous builder according to my book that would be a counter balance to Scalia...well, my book is right for once. Go figure.

On the other hand, we agree about the Yankees, cheers! I am a boston fan and have been for a very long time.

 

[debate_junkie]

As far as I'm concerned, Sandra can take Thomas, Rhenquist, Scalia, and Kennedy with her...all traitors to our constitution....but that's another story.

Supreme Court backs eminent domain
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, slamming the majority for abandoning a "long-held, basic limitation on government power" to make such seizures ensured by the Bill of Rights.
Justice O'Connor said "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be ... given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public."

You must not be a property owner? You must not care that the Supreme Court has given our local governemnts the RIGHT to take our homes, for the sake of economic development? Wow, I guess this ruling is the one you hoped for, and that Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas are still being traitorous to the Constitution, right?


But let's pay attention to one line of O'Connor's dissent: "given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." I thought the most benefit we, the public, could have from owning property is our own home. After all, isn't that one thing Bush pride's himself on... more American's owning homes? I would think the Supreme Court supporting this practice would make him (or at least I hope it would) cringe.

I'm hoping this never comes to fruition against my home. There is no way I would give up MY castle, for a developer who thinks a strip mall would be more beneficial. A roof over my children's head is more beneficial... REGARDLESS of what the Court says!

 

[Stinger]

Well, the reigning theory going is that the republicans will put up someone that has no chance of making it, the democrats will whine about that candidate while the real candidate walks in through the proverbial back door.

Just about anyone on the lists that are being bantered around have a great chance of making it, unless of course the Democrats take the unconstitutional option and filibuster. Then of course they will have to engage in demogogry and smearing in order to make the candidiate out to be "outrageous" or however they tried to put their little escape clause.

 

[Pacridge]

Just about anyone on the lists that are being bantered around have a great chance of making it, unless of course the Democrats take the unconstitutional option and filibuster. Then of course they will have to engage in demogogry and smearing in order to make the candidiate out to be "outrageous" or however they tried to put their little escape clause.

It sounds like you're saying filibustering is unconstitutional? Is that what you believe?

 

[gordontravels]

Everything the Democrats are doing is permitted under not only the Constitution but also under the rules of the Senate. I found the following interesting though. It comes from the MRC in today's alert. That is my link and if you have any link that shows the numbers are wrong, please, let me know. From the MRC (Media Research Center, a conservative organization that monitors the media):

QUOTE: Reporters quickly assured viewers this "titanic battle" that is
guaranteed to be knock-down, drag-out, wall-to-wall ugly. They didn't
wonder: why does this always happen with Republican nominations, but
not Democratic ones? In 1993, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, who was calmly approved by a vote of 96 to 3. In 1994,
Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed by a vote of 87
to 9. By contrast, all hell broke loose with Robert Bork and Clarence
Thomas, with 58 senators against the one, and 48 votes against the
other. The same pattern occurs with Attorney General nominees: 42
votes against John Ashcroft, 36 against Alberto Gonzales, and zero
against Janet Reno. Why? END QUOTE.

These are honest figures and I believe that the Democrats will eventually cause the Republicans, or at least some Republicans, to use the same tactics when the time comes that a Democrat President thinks he has the right to put forward those he agrees with. We have a conservative government led by a conservative president for one reason. That's the way the majority voted. :duel