Discussion: The Supreme Court

[Kelly]

And posting here about all you don't care about, and the 2 things you do....


Cause if you didn't care about those things, seems to me you would get pretty bored just posting that you don't care about this or that...

Soooooooooooooooooo, I think there are 3 things you care about.

 

[Addendum]

If I was bored, I wouldn't have stuck around here for the past 5 years...

 

[Kelly]

Exactly....

 

[Majic Walrus]

All I care about is paying my bills on time so I can have power in my apartment and a car that's legal to drive to work so I can get paid.

Then why come to the political forum?

 

[Addendum]

Why do you care

 

[Kelly]

Why don't you care?....

lol, just messing with you add....

 

[Majic Walrus]

Why do you care

Care about you? I don't. I'm just curious.

 

[Marx]

I bet his wife also voted for a Presidential Candidate, is a member of a Political Party and probably has some political commentators she likes or hates. How is that any different?

It's one thing to vote in a primary (which is done silently behind a curtain,) and openly launching and heading an activist group chapter.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It's one thing to vote in a primary (which is done silently behind a curtain,) and openly launching and heading an activist group chapter.

So? Justices are selected because they are supposed to be impartial in their rulings. Not because their wives are.

 

[Addendum]

Care about you? I don't. I'm just curious.

Good.

 

[Marx]

So? Justices are selected because they are supposed to be impartial in their rulings. Not because their wives are.

It opens an unnecessary door. Whether or not the justice is biased or will be biased, his wife's actions open a door to question the ruling.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It opens an unnecessary door. Whether or not the justice is biased or will be biased, his wife's actions open a door to question the ruling.

Only if the person believes that the congressional approval process is flawed. Even so, she shouldn't have been bold enough to put her husband in that sort of situation.

 

[StorminNorman]

It's one thing to vote in a primary (which is done silently behind a curtain,) and openly launching and heading an activist group chapter.

How so?

I mean while you vote behind a curtain, that doesn't mean she doesn't openly voice her opinions amongst friends and guests.

This is a non story.

 

[Franklin Richards]

It's very much a story. To have such partisan, political influence over the court of the land is horrid.


Lawyers can't even have dinner with people involved in court cases. Judges recluse themselves whenever personal matters rear their heads.


Don't you think there is a connection between a recent supreme court case and this? Money can now be given to her political action groups and her husband was one of the guys who approved it.

Any of this smell funny to you? I thought Conservatives were against activist judges.


Oh wait... only when they are active against their causes.

 

[StorminNorman]

It's very much a story. To have such partisan, political influence over the court of the land is horrid.


Lawyers can't even have dinner with people involved in court cases. Judges recluse themselves whenever personal matters rear their heads.


Don't you think there is a connection between a recent supreme court case and this? Money can now be given to her political action groups and her husband was one of the guys who approved it.

Any of this smell funny to you? I thought Conservatives were against activist judges.


Oh wait... only when they are active against their causes.

The only problem is that it isn't the judge that started the Tea Party. It's his wife.

If the Supreme Court Justice is influenced by their wives at all, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place.

 

[dnno1]

The only problem is that it isn't the judge that started the Tea Party. It's his wife.

If the Supreme Court Justice is influenced by their wives at all, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place.

There still can be a conflict of intrest associated with it. Family memebers are included in this as well. At least we can presume that it was disclosed since we have read it in the news. Whether it is okay or not is a different story.

 

[Ocramed]

There still can be a conflict of intrest associated with it. Family memebers are included in this as well. At least we can presume that it was disclosed since we have read it in the news. Whether it is okay or not is a different story.

Then you might as well include Harry Reid's family, because they stand to benefit from Reid's time in office, especially on land deals.

 

[SentinelMind]

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE'S WIFE LAUNCHES 'TEA PARTY' GROUP
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

...as the article suggests, impartiality comes into question.

Meh, what a non-issue. If you tried to exclude every member of public office, legislator to justice, from doing their job because a critic may complain there is a tangential perception of conflict of interest becaues that they are related or know somebody who might have a particular strong interest in the issue at hand, nobody would get anything done. That's both side of the aisle. Justice Thomas would have made the same decision regardless of how his wife spends her free time because this is completely consistent with his judicial philosophy. Everybody here knows this. You seriously think Thomas would have came to a different conclusion of this critical Constitutional issue because of his wife? No....the critics wish he excused himself unconditionally so the decision would have turned out differently.


A Supreme Court Justice being married to a political activist who has a passion for Constitutional issues is not enough reason to require them to be excused from making a Constitutional Court decision. If a spouse benefited from a immediate business transaction, that's a conflict of interest. If the wife was in the deliberation room with him, then it would be an issue. But Thomas is sequestered and discusses the issues with only other Justices with all evidence in front of them alone in a manner consistent with professional decorum. I don't care for partisan hand-wringing. The critics won't apply same argument to Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.

 

[Marx]

According to the AP, Justice John Paul Stevens has indicated that he does plan to retire within President Obama's term.

 

[Kelly]

Adios Stevens...

 

[Matt]

Well, that won't change the court's power structure at all.

 

[Marx]

IT'S OFFICIAL: JUSTICE STEVENS ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/09/john.paul.stevens.retires/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[Marx]

BECK: PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL FIND 'GAY, HANDICAPPED, BLACK WOMAN WHO IS AN IMMIGRANT' TO REPLACE STEVENS
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...hos-an-immigrant-to-replace-steve.php?ref=fpc

In all honesty, I'd really like to see an openly gay or african-american woman justice on the high court.

 

[Kelly]

Well, Napolitano is apparently on the short list...

Oh wait, she's not openly gay is she???? I can't remember if she came out or not....

 

[Paradoxium]

Glenn Beck is stupid. What does he want? Some Progressive Superstar judge that could actually influence a lot? No thanks. I rather have me some moar Sotomayoresque picks thank you very much.