Decision time for Obama

kev9100

As many of you have probably heard, Justice Stevens has retired from the SCOTUS. Justice Stevens was the courts most liberal justice and must be replaced with someone equally as liberal. Supreme Court nominations are one of the Presidents most important duties and will have long term affects on the country and the court. I truly hope Obama follows through on his campaign promise and chooses a nominee that Justice Stevens can be proud of. What type of justice do you think he will pick?

Amerika

Why?

I think the following guideline should be followed by this president.
"Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president -- and benefits our democracy -- to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

amacachi

Of course he'll pick a liberal, why wouldn't he?

Manic Moran

amacachi wrote: »

Of course he'll pick a liberal, why wouldn't he?

He's got to get it confirmed. The general consensus seems to be that he's used up most of his 'credit' with moderate democrats getting healthcare through. He can still pick a liberal, but it can't be one that's going to cause too much controversy.

On the other hand, his pick for the 9th Circuit (Liu) is about as liberal as they come, but will almost certainly be confirmed as 'mere' circuit courts have less 'splash.'

NTM

Amerika

Smartest choice IMO would probably be Hillary Clinton. Gets her out of his hair, and even Conservatives will begrudgingly go along with the pick. And since it’s a smart choice and could even foster some bipartisanship, I’m confident Obama will not nominate her. I do hear Bill Ayers might be interested.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Smartest choice IMO would probably be Hillary Clinton. Gets her out of his hair, and even Conservatives will begrudgingly go along with the pick. And since it’s a smart choice and could even foster some bipartisanship, I’m confident Obama will not nominate her. I do hear Bill Ayers might be interested.

No way! She's a politician, not a Judge. It would completely undermine the integrity of the US constitution if he picked such an overtly political choice.

P.S- Bin Laden's more likely to get the nod that Bill Ayers.

Amerika

The only requirement to become a Supreme Court justice is approval by a majority of the United States Senate. And everything this president does is first and foremost politically driven (to the left).

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

The only requirement to become a Supreme Court justice is approval by a majority of the United States Senate. And everything this president does is first and foremost politically driven (to the left).

In my opinion the person elected to the court has to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the law. Its arguably more important than the Presidency, it was behind the unravelling of Jim Crowe laws and has the ability to revoke major pieces of legislation (E.g, the recent renunciation of the Feingold-McCain Campaign finance reform act)

I think you make a mockery of this great institution if you use it like a political football. By all means, chose a man/woman of the left, but not a Clinton! It wouldn't go down well.

Manic Moran

It would completely undermine the integrity of the US constitution if he picked such an overtly political choice.

Ever since the Bork incident, integrity and SCOTUS judge selection have been kindof opposite ends of the spectrum.

NTM

Amerika

Yeah the Bork incident was a black spot on the court selection process. Another “legacy” you can add to Ted Kennedy’s resume.+

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/weekend-opinionator-kennedy-bork-and-the-politics-of-judicial-destruction/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA&feature=related

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Why?


"Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president -- and benefits our democracy -- to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

Try telling that to the Bush senior and junior who put 2 of the most right-wing judges ever in Scalia and Thomas on the court.

Amerika

And pray tell, what makes them right-wing? Is it because they don’t believe the Constitution of the United States is a living breathing entity. Is it because they believe if you want to change the Constitution, it should be done through Amendments, not changed by 5 or more ideologs in black gowns?

And as for that quote. GW Bush didn’t state that. Who did?

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

And pray tell, what makes them right-wing? Is it because they don’t believe the Constitution of the United States is a living breathing entity. Is it because they believe if you want to change the Constitution, it should be done through Amendments, not changed by 5 or more ideologs in black gowns?

And as for that quote. GW Bush didn’t state that. Who did?

The second Amendment:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Those lines are open for interpretation. Therefore, however one interprets them is heavily influenced by your political philosophy. The constitution may be static but words are not set in stone, their meaning can have variance.

Amerika

I don't agree. A militia is an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Back then the framers of the Constitution considered a need for ordinary citizens who owned their own guns, to come and fight for the nation in time of attack. Think about it. Not much sense in even having the amendment if ordinary citizens don’t have the right to bear arms, now does it? Because the professional military is handled separately in the Constitution.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I don't agree. A militia is an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Back then the framers of the Constitution considered a need for ordinary citizens who owned their own guns, to come and fight for the nation in time of attack. Think about it. Not much sense in even having the amendment if ordinary citizens don’t have the right to bear arms, now does it? Because the professional military is handled separately in the Constitution.

I know the intent of the writers was for ordinary people to have the right to arms. But the wording can be interpreted differently nowadays without disrespecting the integrity of the Constitution. Replace militia with National Guard and you've got a debate.

Denerick

Also, with regard to the law on free speech - Campaign finance reform is criticised by libertarians and conservatives as an assualt on the first amendment. The reasons given for opposing it is that its against the constitution. The constitution doesn't mention campaign finance reform and its a matter of opinion whether regulating how much any individual can give to any individual politician is a violation of free speech. This is another example (Perhaps a clearer one) of how the Supreme Courts political composition is important.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I know the intent of the writers was for ordinary people to have the right to arms. But the wording can be interpreted differently nowadays without disrespecting the integrity of the Constitution. Replace militia with National Guard and you've got a debate.

Nope. The framers believed the right to keep and bear arms was a by-product of the natural right to self-defense and survival.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Nope. The framers believed the right to keep and bear arms was a by-product of the natural right to self-defense and survival.

I agree with you. I've already stated that. What I'm actually saying is that intent is irrelevant, the actual meaning of the written words is what is open for interpretation. This is how the law works. Which means that there are conservative judges and liberal ones, depending on how they view the wording should be interpreted.

Amerika

Okay, I go with your thinking. So why not just change the Consitiution through Amendments, as was the original intent, when changes needed to be made for future times?

PeakOutput

im pretty sure this guy would get confirmed



in fact has anyone thought to ask president bartletts opinion on this decision? i feel he would have great insight

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, I go with your thinking. So why not just change the Consitiution through Amendments, as was the original intent, when changes needed to be made for future times?

The question isn't whether the constitution has to be changed. The Court only ever deals with specific instances and determines whether those specific instances violate constitutional law. For example, the Washington DC case a couple of years back when they were brought to court over the handgun ban in their city. The court overturned the ban, saying it was unconstitutional as it violated the second amendment. Or the recent overturning of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, as it violated the first amendment. These decisions were based on an interpretation of the constitution, and does not entail any kind of re-writing of the constitution. The only way to change the constitution is through an amendment.

I do agree with you that the second amendment does seem almost water-tight, which is why a majority (And I think 2 liberals) voted in favour of over-turning the handgun ban.

PeakOutput

so besides the chat about the intricacies of constitutional law has a shor tlist been leaked?

does anyone have links to good articles on pros and cons of some possible nominees?

Amerika

So Denerick, then do you also agree that it is a job of the Supreme Court to rule based upon the written Constitution and Amendments, and let the legislative process remain where it belongs – in Congress? (Becasue that is why we have trias politica.)

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

I know the intent of the writers was for ordinary people to have the right to arms. But the wording can be interpreted differently nowadays without disrespecting the integrity of the Constitution. Replace militia with National Guard and you've got a debate.

Not really. The Militia is defined by law: See US Code Title 10 s.311. Every able-bodied male between the ages of 17-45 is a member of the militia. This is changed slightly from the original 18th Century Militia Act which defined the militia as able bodied white males.

It is to be noted that whilst the Heller case was decided on a split decision on the specific merits, all 9 Justices agreed that the Amendment referred to the right of individuals. First line of the Dissent, I do believe.

We've gone slightly off-topic here though.

NTM

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

So Denerick, then do you also agree that it is a job of the Supreme Court to rule based upon the written Constitution and Amendments, and let the legislative process remain where it belongs – in Congress? (Becasue that is why we have trias politica.)

What else can the Supreme Court do other than judge cases presented to it on how it affects constitutional law? I'm confused by your question. The US political system is divided between the three brances - the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. They all have their unique roles as established by the constitution.

Amerika

PeakOutput wrote: »

so besides the chat about the intricacies of constitutional law has a shor tlist been leaked?

does anyone have links to good articles on pros and cons of some possible nominees?

Yup
http://theweek.com/article/index/201573/Obamas_next_Supreme_Court_nominee_5_frontrunners

Amerika

I remember Obama’s state of the union address when he sought to embarrass the Supreme Court justices regarding a recent ruling when he stated:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

By these words of his, I’m sure he will nominate someone that would disagree with the supreme court ruling in question. But he would be a hypocrite in my opinion if he does. Special interest money and union money were paramount to his being elected president in 2008. So I wonder why he would not want corporations to have the same rights as labor unions. Could it be that corporations have a tendency to put money towards republican candidates and labor unions go with democrat candidates?

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I remember Obama’s state of the union address when he sought to embarrass the Supreme Court justices regarding a recent ruling when he stated:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

By these words of his, I’m sure he will nominate someone that would disagree with the supreme court ruling in question. But he would be a hypocrite in my opinion if he does. Special interest money and union money were paramount to his being elected president in 2008. So I wonder why he would not want corporations to have the same rights as labor unions. Could it be that corporations have a tendency to put money towards republican candidates and labor unions go with democrat candidates?

There is a big difference between Obama receiving money from individual members of Trade Unions than receiving lump sum payments by the institution itself. Obama did not take money from lobbyists, it was a key plank of his campaign.

And corporate interests have a vested interest in giving money to both parties, rather than focusing on one - it doesn't make sense for a mega rich corporation to back just one horse, does it? Besides, New York, the capital of US big business, is a heavily Democratic town.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

There is a big difference between Obama receiving money from individual members of Trade Unions than receiving lump sum payments by the institution itself.

You might want to check your facts there bud.

Obama did not take money from lobbyists, it was a key plank of his campaign.

Oh come on. Don't play naive. Obama didn't take donations from "registered federal lobbyists." You don't think $20 million from healthcare industry or $13 million from lawyers wern't from a form of lobbyist.

Manic Moran

There is a big difference between Obama receiving money from individual members of Trade Unions than receiving lump sum payments by the institution itself.

There is indeed. Hence the creation of 'bundling'.

If I go to my 100,000 union members and say "I want $20 from each of you for union business" and present it to the election campaign saying "This is a series of 100,000 individual donations from people who just happen to be union men totalling $2m, the persons' names are on the attached file" that's legal. If I say "This is a donation of $2m from a union" that's illegal.

It's all how you word it.

NTM