konnie, October 6 at 10:11 pm #

I can never understand opposites being so-called friends.  like that mattlin/carville marriage.
what’s up with that.
*****************************************
But they are not opposites.  They are tough hard-hitting political election consultants who do the same thing.  They just happen to do it for different political views.  They say they don’t talk politics at home because that’s talking “work” and they prefer it to be about family.  It works for them!

Politics is very different than what people think.  For most politicians (especially Senators) the other party is the opponent.  Their enemies are in their own party.  Think about it: The other side is the other side, but when you are angling to be Majority/Minority Leader, all your politics of friends and enemies are all in your own party caucus.

Tom DeLay in the House made some HORRIFIC enemies in his own party by passing over members with senority to give the Chair of committees to friends.  That’s why, when he got in trouble, a whole lot of Republicans were happen to seen him fall, including Boehner, now the Minority Leader.  You can make enemies far more easily in your own party than in the other party—everyone figures it’s just politics.

People live door-to-door in McClean or Reston, VA and face the same problems of garbage and zoning…very local things.  They work out in the Senate or House gym together, and friendships arise.  Biden’s not kidding when he says he’s friends with McCain.  Sometimes, if they are not as rich as others, Congressmen or Senators will even be housemates to save money.  Politics doesn’t matter then, but whether one of you is Felix and the other is Oscar does!  As you’d expect….

Ted Kennedy’s friendship with Alan Simpson was legendary—they used to have a radio show where they yelled at each other on CBS.  You don’t do that with someone you hate.

When I lived in the DC area I had neighbors who worked on the Hill.  One guy worked for Jake Garn.  Nicest guy in the world.  Hated his politics, but not him.

*****************************************
wonder who President Obama would nominate?
Wonder which one of the justices would be the first
to grab the retirement ring and how soon after the inaguration?
******************************************

I think Stevens first, then Souter. Stevens is 88.

That was an interesting reply. certainly was informative. 

I can never understand opposites being so-called friends.  like that mattlin/carville marriage.
what’s up with that.

wonder who President Obama would nominate?
Wonder which one of the justices would be the first
to grab the retirement ring and how soon after the inaguration?

konnie, October 5 at 7:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

And to that end could a President Obama (gee that felt good) name a new chief justice over roberts?
**********************************

These are actually good questions. I never really thought about them.  The Constitution doesn’t specify how many justices there should be.  It DOES specify that there is a Chief Justice, but, from what I remember, his sole defined responsibility is presiding over the impeachment of a President.

Justices are appointed to a position, a “seat” per se on the court, by the President.  That “seat” is filled by that justice until they retire or die. One of those “seats” is the seat of the Chief Justice. 

If the Chief Justice leaves the court, it does not automatically get filled by the most senior justice, because THAT would require that justice to give up his/her “seat” (and each seat has been assigned particular responsibilities—various lower courts report to each justice).

So how an empty seat is filled is up to the President.  He can appoint ANY citizen to a seat.  The appointee doesn’t need to be a judge, or even a lawyer (William O. Douglass was neither, the last such justice). Roberts’s predecessor, William Rehnquist had been an Associate Justice, but he certainly wasn’t the senior justice when Reagan gave him the job.  Brennan certainly was senior to Rehnquist at the time. 

Rehnquist’s predecessor was Warren Burger, who was appointed directly the Chief’s chair by Nixon, having never been on the Court.  He was preceeded by Earl Warren, former California governor.  In my lifetime (50+ years) EVERY Chief Justice has been a Republican.  I don’t know when the last CJ was a Democrat.

The Chief’s role is actually not much more than the other justices.  Other than the impeachment assignment, he mainly has 3 functions:
1)He presides over the Court, particularly during oral arguments.
2) During the above, he controls the timer/buzzer that signals the end of discussion (Rehnquist was a stickler for punctuality and cut people off).
3) He assigns the writing of the Court’s decision—if he’s in the majority.  He can keep it for himself if he feels that’s appropriate.  If he’s in the minority, the senior justice in the majority makes the assignment.

The C/J is “First among equals”, but not much more. Most of his other influence is personal and a really good C/J can bring people along. Rehnquist was so-so at it, Burger was terrible, but not as much of an ideologue as Rehnquist.  Roberts is excellent at it.  I may not LIKE his positions but he’s good at being on the winning side.  Warren was even better at it.

Little USSC gossip.  Rehnquist and Scalia, despite nearly compatible politics and frequent agreement HATED each other.  Rehnquist was anal about punctuality and Scalia enjoyed infuriating him by being late all the time!  Scalia and Ginsburg are close friends, having served on a lower court together, despite their disagreements—and were late together!  Rehnquist’s best friend was…Thurgood Marshall!  And Sandra Day O’Conner was good friends with Stephen Breyer!

•  “The very existence of a powerful law making position within this government, that is not subject to the rule of the people, flys in the face of every founding principal of our nation.”

Bob B,

The Supreme Court doesn’t MAKE law. The Congress makes the law, and Supreme Court rules on questions of the Constitutionality of the Law. Big difference.

They also don’t simply overturn anything with the flick of a pen.

Now if you’re good with simply dissolving the union, and completing the shredding of the Constitution, then we don’t need them. Every state can be their own state, and we won’t need a Supreme Court, or a US Constitution. You can just operate within whatever set-up your own state has.

But, unless you can find a way to work that out, (I’d be OK if my state seceded from the Union, but nobody else is going along with it) we need a Supreme Court, and they need to know the Constitution and be at the top of the mark in Jurisprudential excellence. Ideologues have no place on the Supreme Court or any other court of law in the US. Politics should carry absolutely NO SWAY, and that’s the problem with the current court. Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all as dangerous as Dick Cheney has been to the survival of the union, and the principles of the Constitution.

These positions on the Supreme Court should be on a 1 year probationary period first, as was my job when I worked in law enforcement. Then, if their job performance is impeccable and acceptable to an approved group who oversees hiring requirements and not to just one person, like the current President, they could become a full time hire. But, as far as a life time position, this is never a good idea. Look at the last few judges that were so feeble physically and no doubt mentally, that they had to have a caretakers on each side of them to carry/walk them in and out of their job as a judge every time they came to work. This would never be allowed in the private sector and certainly should not be allowed to a person whose decision making affects everyone in the nation. These positions should be an elected job, preferably by the voting public and not left up to the current systems that rewards those who side in with the BOSS regardless of qualifications. A 2-4 year term, then it’s time for the public to decide if they should continue in that position. Term limits might not be a bad idea either.

Americans have all become so jaded and cynical. Of course, it is completely justified considering what we have been subjected to these past 8 years. However, if Obama’s rally cry of “Hope” is sincere, I have to hope he will address SCOTUS with dispatch.

Let’s not forget that while Bush may simply have heard there was some old document called the constitution, Obama actually taught constitutional law (which should be a prerequsite for any presidential candidate).

A Non Emous, October 2 at 7:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

[Originally published the Salt Lake Tribune editorial page]
************************************************

And it was to be 40 years before another competent Republican became President (TR).  And after him, another 52 years for a competent Republican President to be inaugurated (Ike).  And after him, it’ll be at least 60 years before there’s even a CHANCE at another competent Republican President (2013)!  (That’s assuming there’s someone, ANYONE in the GOP who’d make a competent President!)

I deliberately exclude Nixon since he was a crook, and I challenge people who claim Reagan was competent to prove it!

The bottom line is this: Our elected representatives have failed their constituencies at every turn and once again the fault falls on us!  The whole problem is us!  The problem is not out there; it’s in here; ourselves!  Fix that and you fix the system!
**************************************

Bingo!  Clarence Thomas was confirmed by 52 votes despite a Democratic majority and proof that he was not only a poor legal scholar, but perverted.  3 of those votes came from Charles Robb, D-Va, Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ and John Breaux, D-La.  Had those 3 voted no to Thomas, Bush would have been forced to find another Souter.

Or the recent confirmations of Alito and Roberts (esp Alito).  The Dems had the votes to block the nominations via filibuster but the GOP and Cheney broke the rules (and probably the Constitution) saying that Cheney, as President of the Senate, could force a vote on nominations despite the filibuster.  Dems held the doomsday weapon: Do that and all automatic votes are over.  You’ll need a floor vote to buy a box of paperclips for the receptionists’ desks.  The Senate would grind to a halt.  Who blinked first?  Why, Reid and the Democrats who play kissy-face with the GOP. (Why oh why did the Caucus pick a leader from a state dominated by the GOP where he is a Dem elected in a GOP state? Didn’t they learn when Tom Daschle was targeted by the Rove smear machine and defeated? Guess not.)

Dems caved to the GOP back in 1968 with the Abe Fortas mess when they held the Senate by a large margin AND the Presidency. The ONLY time they didn’t cave was on that menace Robert Bork—and the GOP has hammered and hammered and hammered on Bork ever since—like it was some kind of injustice to keep an anti-Constitutionalist off the United Stated Supreme Court!

By Big B, October 2 at 4:27 am #

“The supreme court is a facist institution! It should never have been formed, and any president who does not make it a top priority to limit the power of, or eliminate the court all together is doing a disservice to the american people.”

The purpose of SCOTUS was to provide a check on the other two branches of government.  Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review of governmental actions.  The problem that has arisen over time is that SCOTUS becomes a political player. 

The question obviously for the next four years is will we have moderate justices replaced with moderates, or will we have the RATS-plus-one?
RATS =
Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia

I worry about the Supreme Court just due to the sheer number of nominees this idiot might help appoint:
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/31715/Katie-Couric/Sarah-Palin/CBS-Evening-News/What-Other-Supreme-Court-Decisions-Do-You-Disagree-With

@ Big B;

It has not always been so.  As long as it sticks to legal decisions and not politics it is an important institution that is supposed to constitutionally guide us (key wording here).  Unfortunately it has been manipulated by crooked politicians and the vagaries therein.  Potentially, Obama would moderate the conservative loading of the court.  That is the fault of the appointing process and the lack of guts by “our” elected representatives.  The bottom line is this: Our elected representatives have failed their constituencies at every turn and once again the fault falls on us!  The whole problem is us!  The problem is not out there; it’s in here; ourselves!  Fix that and you fix the system!

The supreme court is a facist institution! It should never have been formed, and any president who does not make it a top priority to limit the power of, or eliminate the court all together is doing a disservice to the american people.

The very existence of a powerful law making position within this government, that is not subject to the rule of the people, flys in the face of every founding principal of our nation.

An all powerful group of nine people, unelected by the populace, with lifetime appointments, have the power to interpret and implement any law they please, without reprecussion(and don’t give me that checks and balances crap, when was the last time the congress convened to reverse a supreme court ruling?)

Kings and czars did not enjoy the raw power and insulation from the public that these mediocre jurists enjoy(I say mediocre because they were not chosen because they were the best legal minds of their time, but because they were politically expedient. lets face it, Kennedy, Scalia, and Roberts are morons!)

Why have 50 state supreme courts when a national one can overturn any decision made in those state houses with the flick of a pen?

The time has come to drag these legal dinosaurs down the capitol steps, strip their robes from their crippled old bodies, tar and feather them, and send them to the old facists home where they belong!

So all you Naderites: Urge folks to vote for Nader because “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.”  That way John McCain can win and appoint 1, 2 or 3 more radical reactionaries to the US Supreme Court.  And if he dies and Sarah Palin has a pick? At least I’d expect McCain to select somewhat talented jurors….Palin doesn’t even know what the Supreme Court does.  But her pick will make bad law for 30 years or more.

Remember: NOTHING Ralph Nader achieved will remain when the Court makes the complete transition to radical right, and no longer depends on convincing Anthony Kennedy to be the 5th vote. Nothing Nader has achieved will survive.

So….vote for Nader and 30 more years of the Court’s Ice Age…I’ll be an old man or dead before I see it come back to Justices who RESPECT the Constitution first, and not the GOP or church doctrines. 

30 years.  That’s how long a justice may serve.

Ellen Goodman;

As important as the Court is; I think the next president will be crippled by far worse problems.  Bushes shadow?  Hell, Bush is effectively writing the playbook for the next 12 years.  I can’t see how anybody could have ruined the future any worse than he has done.  The next administration will walk into an office just finishing a fire sale.  No money!  None, zip, zilch, nada, zero, fini’, and debt going on for generations.  And you worry the Supreme Court; humph!  Bah, I say!