Reply
Tue 2 Nov, 2004 11:57 am
http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoral-vote.com%2F
SCOTUS news: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist announced last week that he was going to return to the Supreme Court yesterday. He did not return. According to the New York Times his office released a terse statement saying that the Chief Justice spent 7 days at Bethesda Naval Hospital where he was treated for thyroid cancer. He underwent a tracheotomy so he could breathe and he is now being given both chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Medical experts say this evidence suggests that the cancer was not successfully removed and that even with heroic treatment, patients with this type of cancer usually die within a year. Should the election end up in the Supreme Court, it is not known whether Rehnquist will particpate in the case and vote on the outcome. Should he decline to participate due to ill health, the deadlock in the country might end up in a Court itself deadlocked 4-4. In such an event, the lower court ruling stands but no legal precedent is set. An alternative scenario is that Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns and that President Bush makes a recess appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation. If Bush were to appoint a new justice without Senate confirmation who then cast the deciding vote to make Bush president I fear for the future of the country. Let us hope somebody wins big today with no litigation. Do your part and vote.
Not a pleasant scenario, is it realistic?
If Bush wins he will hold out as long as he can. If Kerry wins he will retire after Kerry is sworn in.
Oh my goodness, I hadn't considered the implications if the Supreme Court needs to make a decision, and is itself deadlocked.
Recess appointment??
Oy.
oy....is right Soz. The implications jumped up off the page...
Recess appointments are not permanent
just an FYI - a recess appointment could not be a lifetime appointment so would not have nearly the effect of a standard appointment approved by Congress
Thanks for the tip. But I'm more concerned with a possible repeat of 2000 and an incapacitated Justice.
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to do its true job in the future. Ideology is going to retire and the Constitution is going to take hold. It's about time.
No, Baldimo it's all about an opinion. You've got one and so does everyone else.
And in my opinion, we haven't seen ideology, wait til the SC is firmly packed...then you'll see idology at work.
panzade wrote:No, Baldimo it's all about an opinion. You've got one and so does everyone else.
And in my opinion, we haven't seen ideology, wait til the SC is firmly packed...then you'll see idology at work.
I made another thread here at A2K asking about "right wing" judges and controversial judgments they have made and I got no response to it. People wanted to know what I was talking about and when I gave them an idea all I got was debate about what I had posted as an example. No one brought forth an example of an ideology based judgment from a conservative court. If you could please provide one I would be very pleased.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37469&start=30&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=