The discussion centers around the retirement of Justice Souter and the implications for President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. Participants explore potential candidates, the dynamics of the Court, and the political landscape surrounding judicial nominations.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the merits of Justice Thomas or the implications of Kagan's potential appointment. There are multiple competing views regarding the future composition of the Court and the political strategies of the Republican Party.
Participants acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the health and retirement of justices, as well as the evolving political landscape that may influence judicial nominations.
This discussion may be of interest to those following U.S. Supreme Court dynamics, judicial nominations, and the political implications of these appointments.
mheslep said:Have you read the opinions?
I'm sure they have been.Count Iblis said:I think that the dissenting opinions of the conservative judges on the rulings regarding Guantanamo should be studied by legal experts to see if they were politically motivated.
Key word being "people" -- as opposed to citizens. There is little doubt that those held in gitmo who are not citizens are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.It seems to me that if you argue that the president has the right to hold people without judicial review, then you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge who'se specific task it is to uphold the constitution.
In any case, I find it a little rediculous to suggest impeaching the entire opposing side on a controvertial decision on political grounds. The fact that the decision was split means that the line between the two is grey and no one can really be considered extreme for their opinion.Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most
generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens
detained by this country as enemy combatants...
The Court rejects them today out of
hand, without bothering to say what due process rights
the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute
fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner
has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s
operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces
a review system designed by the people’s representatives
with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by
federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but
think, after surveying the modest practical results of the
majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not
really about the detainees at all, but about control of
federal policy regarding enemy combatants...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-nominees12-2009may12,0,156472.storyTwo roads to the Supreme Court
Obama is apparently debating whether to choose a traditional judicial nominee or opt for a 'real world' selection to replace Justice David H. Souter
... "He can do something bold if he wants, like Jennifer Granholm," Epstein said. "In terms of ideology, it's not going to be way, way left. It'll be someone sort of in the mainstream."
...If Obama is searching for his own O'Connor, Granholm is an appealing choice. A Harvard Law School graduate, she is a two-term governor from a state that has been hammered by the declining economy. She has an advocate in Vice President Joe Biden, who had Granholm serve as a proxy for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as Biden prepared for the vice presidential debates last year.
"She's a tour de force," said David M. Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "She has an admirable intellect, clearly a very sophisticated legal mind, and the personal quality and the empathy the president has spoken about having in a Supreme Court candidate."