Discussion:
Ginsburg hints at Supreme Court vacancy 'soon'
(too old to reply)
AnAmericanCitizen
2009-03-15 02:08:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at the US Supreme
Court, without indicating who would be leaving.

Speaking Friday at New England Law Boston's annual "Law Day," Ginsburg told students
that the nine justices only take pictures together when a new member joins the high
court.

"We haven't had any photos for some time, but surely we will soon," she said.

"The dynamic is a little different when someone leaves."


Ginsburg, who turns 76 on Sunday, declined to elaborate on her comments and did not
take questions from reporters at the event.

She underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in early February but has returned to the
bench.

Despite speculation that she might leave the court, Ginsburg has on several occasions
expressed her intention to remain on the court for several more years.

Only the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, she is one of five justices who
are over 70 years old. Justice John Paul Stevens, the most liberal of the justices,
is the oldest at 88. He turns 89 next month.

Stevens, Ginsburg or fellow liberal justice David Souter, 69, have been expected
possibly to retire soon, and observers are gearing up for appointments of politically
progressive judges to the bench to replace the older liberals sitting on it today.

Although Stevens has reportedly hired law clerks for the next term that begins in
October, Souter has not.

The nine justices are appointed for life.

Currently four conservatives, four liberals, with the moderate Anthony Kennedy
holding the middle ground, compose a balance President Barack Obama, a Democrat, is
expected to sustain.

Nominated in 1993 by president Bill Clinton, Ginsburg is a pillar of the progressive
wing of the court.
B1ackwater
2009-03-15 04:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at the US Supreme
Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.

Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2009-03-15 08:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at
the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more lefty
is due. Stevens is next to retire, probably as soon as he has assurance
from Obama that the most liberal of liberals will follow in his path.
--
FUNDAMENTALISM is quintessentially a form of TERRORISM.
Thus the ONLY GOOD fundamentalist is a DEAD fundamentalist.

The real danger to the future of humanity is the preference
for surrendering to fear, superstition, and faith
in absolutist belief systems, and so to submit to these
willingly and to the control of those demagogues who
make use of these, rather than preferring
to reason with one's own mind.
AnAmericanCitizen
2009-03-15 21:56:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at
the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more lefty
is due. Stevens is next to retire, probably as soon as he has assurance
from Obama that the most liberal of liberals will follow in his path.
Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, Gerald Ford. Justice Souter who I
doubt was ever anything but a liberal was appointed by Republican, George H.W. Bush.
Justice Kennedy, often a swing vote,was appointed by Ronald Reagan, who also
appointed Justice Scalia.

My point here is that Republicans (to the dismay of many of us) in addition to
appointing the four conservatives to the court also appointed three others, two of
which (Stevens and Souter) have proven to be quite liberal along with the swing vote,
Kennedy.

Appointments to the Supreme Court is one of the most important reasons for selecting
a president IMHO.....AAC


THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... Why don't we just give
them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200
years, and we're not using it anymore....Anonymous
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2009-03-16 04:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon"
at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more
lefty is due. Stevens is next to retire, probably as soon as he has
assurance from Obama that the most liberal of liberals will follow in
his path.
Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, Gerald Ford. Justice
Souter who I doubt was ever anything but a liberal was appointed by
Republican, George H.W. Bush. Justice Kennedy, often a swing vote,was
appointed by Ronald Reagan, who also appointed Justice Scalia.
My point here is that Republicans (to the dismay of many of us) in
addition to appointing the four conservatives to the court also
appointed three others, two of which (Stevens and Souter) have proven
to be quite liberal along with the swing vote, Kennedy.
Ford, Reagan, and especially GHW Bush came from a different era.

1994 marks the era of the Loss of Statesmanship and the Rise of Ideology,
first from the right wing, and now in 2008 you will see in-your-face
liberalism like you have never seen...the extreme reaction to extreme
action. The country will never be well served by the movement to
political extremism...and it is a shithole on account of it.

Roberts and Alito represent that careful vetting process to produce right
wing judges, and I am sure that even Scalia must be alarmed that he does
not really represent the right-wing extreme in the Court any longer (and
was probably hurt by not being promoted to Chief Justice as well).
(Thomas is a brainless Uncle Tom so there is little need to analyze his
psychology; but nonetheless he is a reliable right wing vote for the
Court. Comparisons to Thurgood Marshall have and always will be
outrageous, and insult to Marshall's memory.)

You can bet that the extreme left wing will take control of the vetting
process for Obama's choices for the Court. Obama has done too much fig
leaf throwing by providing a certain "balance" in his administration. He
has a rabid pro-Israeli as his Chief of Staff, and he tried to put supply
siders in key domestic economic posts. I don't fault all of the
principles of supply-side economics, but the Bush/Cheney/Reagan practice
of this form of economics has been much like the Soviet Union's attempt to
call its practice of Communism in line with Karl Marx...in truth Karl Marx
would have said that the Soviet Union never did put Marxism into practice.

I'll be happy to let the left-wing extremists set social and some economic
policy for a while and up to a point. Perhaps then the adult center can
once again step up and tell the extremist children to go back to their
playpens.
--
FUNDAMENTALISM is quintessentially a form of TERRORISM.
Thus the ONLY GOOD fundamentalist is a DEAD fundamentalist.

The real danger to the future of humanity is the preference
for surrendering to fear, superstition, and faith
in absolutist belief systems, and so to submit to these
willingly and to the control of those demagogues who
make use of these, rather than preferring
to reason with one's own mind.
B1ackwater
2009-03-16 11:41:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon" at
the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more lefty
is due.
ACTUALLY ... the cure for lefties and righties on
the count is more MODERATES. Find people who are
NOT particularly interested in partisan politics
and more absorbed by dry old constitional LAW.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2009-03-16 15:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon"
at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more
lefty is due.
ACTUALLY ... the cure for lefties and righties on
the count is more MODERATES. Find people who are
NOT particularly interested in partisan politics
and more absorbed by dry old constitional LAW.
The Court should reflect the nation that it represents.

And since the U.S. has entered an era of people at each others' throats,
in a cultural civil war if not on the verge of a real one---if the
corporate media egging us on to that conflict is any indication---then I
think it would an interesting court where one justice will soon directly
address another during oral arguments as "an asshole."

Civility can wait for a while.
--
FUNDAMENTALISM is quintessentially a form of TERRORISM.
Thus the ONLY GOOD fundamentalist is a DEAD fundamentalist.

The real danger to the future of humanity is the preference
for surrendering to fear, superstition, and faith
in absolutist belief systems, and so to submit to these
willingly and to the control of those demagogues who
make use of these, rather than preferring
to reason with one's own mind.
B1ackwater
2009-03-16 16:06:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:03:46 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon"
at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more
lefty is due.
ACTUALLY ... the cure for lefties and righties on
the count is more MODERATES. Find people who are
NOT particularly interested in partisan politics
and more absorbed by dry old constitional LAW.
The Court should reflect the nation that it represents.
100% INCORRECT.

That's the LEGISLATURES function.

The COURTs job is to interpret/apply The Law as
illuminated by the Framers intent without bias
or partisanship ... preferably without even any
reference to current, transient, events/fads/paranoias.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2009-03-16 19:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by B1ackwater
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:03:46 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon"
at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more
lefty is due.
ACTUALLY ... the cure for lefties and righties on
the count is more MODERATES. Find people who are
NOT particularly interested in partisan politics
and more absorbed by dry old constitional LAW.
The Court should reflect the nation that it represents.
100% INCORRECT.
That's the LEGISLATURES function.
The COURTs job is to interpret/apply The Law as
illuminated by the Framers intent without bias
or partisanship ... preferably without even any
reference to current, transient, events/fads/paranoias.
Oh, so then you are happy that the California State Supreme Court:

1. Overruled the people of California on Proposition 22 making it state
law that marriage is between a man and a woman by declaring that
unconstitutional

2. Is now daring to consider overruling the people again by declaring
unconstitutional the change in the state constitution brought about by
Proposition 8 that marriage is between a man and a woman, basically on the
nonsense that an alieable right is really an inalienable right?

This is just the kind of court you wanted.
--
FUNDAMENTALISM is quintessentially a form of TERRORISM.
Thus the ONLY GOOD fundamentalist is a DEAD fundamentalist.

The real danger to the future of humanity is the preference
for surrendering to fear, superstition, and faith
in absolutist belief systems, and so to submit to these
willingly and to the control of those demagogues who
make use of these, rather than preferring
to reason with one's own mind.
B1ackwater
2009-03-16 23:17:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:49:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:03:46 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:08:04 GMT, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by B1ackwater
Post by AnAmericanCitizen
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20007.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has hinted at a possible vacancy "soon"
at the US Supreme Court, without indicating who would be leaving.
Her ... of course. Riddled with cancer.
Oh well, B.O. can appoint another lefty ideologue to
replace her.
Given that the last two have been righty ideologues, I'd say one more
lefty is due.
ACTUALLY ... the cure for lefties and righties on
the count is more MODERATES. Find people who are
NOT particularly interested in partisan politics
and more absorbed by dry old constitional LAW.
The Court should reflect the nation that it represents.
100% INCORRECT.
That's the LEGISLATURES function.
The COURTs job is to interpret/apply The Law as
illuminated by the Framers intent without bias
or partisanship ... preferably without even any
reference to current, transient, events/fads/paranoias.
1. Overruled the people of California on Proposition 22 making it state
law that marriage is between a man and a woman by declaring that
unconstitutional
Depends on what other portions of the state constitution
had to say on the matter. It's not their job to replace
the legislature and voters and the political process that
goes into amending that constitution. Depending on who
you are and what your cause may be, sometimes democracy
just bites. Means you'll have to work harder to change
hearts and minds.

But SOME apparently you think 'democracy' is only supposed
to generate the results THEY like ... else it's worthless ....

As for the 'marriage' amendment ... if the process was correct,
the 'T's crossed and the "I"s dotted, the context of the law
properly defined ... then it really should have superceded older
law and been put into the constitition.

Was it "mean" to gays ? Yep. "Necessary" ? Nope. "Ethically
correct" ? Nope. But it WAS 'popular' - and aside from certain
long-defined fundamental human rights 'popular' is really all
that's necessary in a nominal democracy.

Now note that I mentioned 'context' above ... there ARE some
potential arguments against that amendment based on whether
it seeks to persecute/dehumanize individuals who have been
acknowledged as legal/moral equals elsewhere in the document.
For example, you can't decide that "blacks" are legal equals,
but then pass laws designed to keep them down, poor & powerless.

"Gee .. ya know ... black people are hard to see in the dark
and thus present a safety hazard to motorists & law enforcment -
ergo we shall set a curfew for blacks at one half hour after
sunset to one half hour before dawn .... so sorry .... oh, and
black people can't get any sort of licences that incorporate
a photo-ID because they don't show up well enough ... and all
the new marriage licences are gonna have photo-IDs, so ....".

See my point here ?
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
2. Is now daring to consider overruling the people again by declaring
unconstitutional the change in the state constitution brought about by
Proposition 8 that marriage is between a man and a woman, basically on the
nonsense that an alieable right is really an inalienable right?
This is just the kind of court you wanted.
Not unless P8 is trying to re-define a broader inalienable
right into a bunch of little alienable 'rights' that can
be tailored to persecute any unpopular group or ideology.
"All men are equal before the law" doesn't MEAN anything
if there's a long string of "Buts" attached.

California voters can pass a law to execute all red-headed,
left-handed, one-legged gay asian-looking women - but it
won't be legal because there are much broader principles
that take precedence ... state AND federal.
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
FUNDAMENTALISM is quintessentially a form of TERRORISM.
Thus the ONLY GOOD fundamentalist is a DEAD fundamentalist.
Careful ... one can be a 'fundamentalist' in MANY ways,
only one of them being 'religious' in nature :-)

Loading...