15
   

Supreme Court Candidates

 
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2005 10:00 am
He prolly figured Chief Justice was a stepping stone to god. Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Sep, 2005 10:14 am
Prolly. From dishwasher to CEO, from chief justice to god -- to live the American dream, you've gotta start low.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 01:23 pm
Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. From the Washington Post's description, Ms Miers is a loyal member of Bush's inner circle. If she has any other qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court, it seems they haven't manifested themselves to the Post yet.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 01:46 pm
There's a discussion about this already going on at least one new thread :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 07:52 am
Bush nominates Samuel Alito.

From the Slate article I linked to on page one of this thread (Links to some cases added):

Age: 55
Graduated from: Yale Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.
He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).

His confirmation battle:
Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it. As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State
For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004) (PDF)

For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall,2001)

Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law
Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004) (PDF)

Habeas Corpus
Granted the habeas claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)

Abortion
Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991) (Can't find the district court's opinion. Supreme Court decision here.)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004) (PDF)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 08:57 pm
I thought I'd revive this thread to inquire about possible judges the next president might appoint to the Supreme Court.

On McCain's side, I think the usual suspects from the Bush administration are still usual suspects. But Obama's choices could be interesting. After all, he used to be a professor of constitutional law, so might know non-obvious choices that haven't been argued to death yet.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 09:30 am
@Thomas,
Justice Souter's retirement gives me the opportunity to try reviving this thread once more. Do we have any idea which justices Obama has in mind for the Supreme Court? I don't remember him letting anything slip during the campaign. Are any of the possible Kerry nominees, which we discussed two elections ago, still in the (inofficial) race?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 09:39 am
@Thomas,
Via Yahoo, the Associated press is giving a list of 16 possible nominees.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_possible_nominees

Personally, I'd have to root for Pamela Wood from Plainfield, New Jersey. People from Plainfield -- some of you may not know this about them yet -- are famous for their calm, well-considered judgment and their impeccable civility. Frank Apisa lives in Plainfield.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 10:03 am

Maybe... just maybe PrezBO will nominate his wife Michelle...
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 10:59 am
@H2O MAN,
Nah -- although that's what Bush did by appointing Harriet Miers, and although Obama goes too far (IMO) in accommodating the Bush administration's legal principle, I doubt he would follow their example on that one.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:10 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Via Yahoo, the Associated press is giving a list of 16 possible nominees.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_possible_nominees

Personally, I'd have to root for Pamela Wood from Plainfield, New Jersey. People from Plainfield -- some of you may not know this about them yet -- are famous for their calm, well-considered judgment and their impeccable civility. Frank Apisa lives in Plainfield.

I think the top two choices are Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor has the advantages of being both a woman and a hispanic, but Obama knows Wood personally (they taught together at the UofC law school), and Obama has a tendency to rely on his Chicago connections to fill appointments. Elena Kagan might have been an early favorite, but she has never been a judge and she had some problems with Republican senators during her confirmation as solicitor general. Jennifer Granholm would be a dark horse choice -- she is having a difficult time as governor of Michigan and would probably like a position that offers a bit more job security.

Bear in mind, however, that, in the past, my supreme court prognostications have been uniformly terrible.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:30 am
@Thomas,


Nah ... that's pure bull ****.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 06:06 am
@joefromchicago,
Hi Joe!

Somehow I managed to miss your post, sorry. No misgivings about your predictions being bad. I would have a serious problem with a Chief Justice Gonzalez right now.

This morning's New York Times has a favorite list of its own. I didn't get around to reading it, and right now I have to show New York City to my parents. But I'll take a look at Wood, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Granholm as soon as I can.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 02:44 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Personally, I'd have to root for Pamela Wood from Plainfield, New Jersey. People from Plainfield -- some of you may not know this about them yet -- are famous for their calm, well-considered judgment and their impeccable civility. Frank Apisa lives in Plainfield.


I may have that framed and hung in my living room.
0 Replies
 
keymaker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 07:13 pm
Supreme Court Justice nominees must be someone with integrity, dedication, impartiality and hard work.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 07:23 pm
@keymaker,
keymaker wrote:

Supreme Court Justice nominees must be someone with integrity, dedication, impartiality and hard work.
yeah I agree, I'm thinking Obama will nominate a hispanic lesbian
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 01:35 pm
i've heard jennifer granholm on the t.v. machine a few times. she seems to be fairly sensible.

the proceedings should be fairly interesting no matter who the final nominee is!
0 Replies
 
apprentice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:43 am
@Thomas,
Regardless of who the nominees are, they should have the integrity, hard work, empathy and dedication especially in handling controversial issues.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:42 am
@apprentice,
apprentice wrote:

Regardless of who the nominees are, they should have the integrity, hard work, empathy and dedication especially in handling controversial issues.


i'd settle for apolitical.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 12:38 am
@Thomas,


It appears to be a good time to look back at Roberts as the nominee in 2005 and how he has served since he took the bench. Jeffrey Toobin examines Roberts' record and demeanor in this article:

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Excerpt:

Quote:
. . . When Antonin Scalia joined the Court, in 1986, he brought a new gladiatorial spirit to oral arguments, and in subsequent years the Justices have often used their questions as much for campaign speeches as for requests for information. Roberts, though, has taken this practice to an extreme, and now, even more than the effervescent Scalia, it is the Chief Justice, with his slight Midwestern twang, who dominates the Court’s public sessions.

Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party. . . .



Roberts has not proven himself to be an impartial justice, but rather one whom is driven by his politics.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/22/2014 at 07:24:22