New SC Jurist: Who's it gonna be?

S

speedracer

Banned
Stevens retired. Arguably the most liberal justice on the court today, he was a squarely moderate choice at the time of his nomination.

So Roberts has turned out to be an ultra conservative that doesn't give a hot damn about precedent, "narrow views" of issues, or coalition building on the court (I know, my wife says I'm an idiot for believing his statements to Congress). Alito is as conservative as they come. I can haz another Marshall nao plz???

Kagan seems to be the front runner.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']They could replace liberal with radical liberal - and they probably will.[/QUOTE]
I'm all for it. I don't think even you would classify Alito, Roberts, or Scalia as anything but radical conservatives.

It would be interesting to see what happened if Thurgood Marshall was nominated today.

I prefer Kagan over Woods just because we need people other than circuit court judges in there. I wouldn't mind a politician with strong legal background. Then again, Kagan is a j00 and I just got finished being lectured last week by my family about how Barry Hussein hates the tribe.
 
As long as it is someone young who can work a long time. It would be interesting to see if one the conservatives decides to retire or pass away, can Obama replace him with a liberal
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']They could replace liberal with radical liberal - and they probably will.[/QUOTE]
One more quick thought on this. From Above The Law:
We know Republicans will bitch and moan about Kagan’s liberal tendencies. We know many will whine about Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. But all indications are that the President wants to put somebody on the Court who hasn’t spent his or her lifetime in robes. And we assume that whoever Obama nominates will be liberal (I’m not at all sure his left flank will support another centrist like Sotomayor).
Click to expand...
Dumb law people and their dumb actual reading of opinions and using that information to place jurists on the political spectrum instead of whatever right wing trash outfit you read tells you to believe.

Because never in a fucking million years would thrust have called Sotomayor anything but liberal. Right thrust?
 
[quote name='speedracer']One more quick thought on this. From Above The Law:

Dumb law people and their dumb actual reading of opinions and using that information to place jurists on the political spectrum instead of whatever right wing trash outfit you read tells you to believe.

Because never in a fucking million years would thrust have called Sotomayor anything but liberal. Right thrust?[/QUOTE]

That's the dominant rhetoric of the kind of naive fools who disagree with us on a daily basis. The word "moderate" as a modifier of "liberal" does not exist in their lexicon.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the dominant rhetoric of the kind of naive fools who disagree with us on a daily basis. The word "moderate" as a modifier of "liberal" does not exist in their lexicon.[/QUOTE]
Which is why Thurgood would be such a rad nominee today. Imagine the firestorm. An NAACP lawyer! Identity politics! Murray v Pearson = he hates states' rights!
"the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today."

...

"Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights."
Click to expand...
I can hear the strict constructionist heads asploding.
 
"the government they devised was defective from the start"

I can see that in all caps and a shitty font on the front page of "Drudge."
 
It's definitely going to be Kagan. Her positions are mostly unknown, but when they are, they're pretty appealing to the GOP. She takes pretty hard line stances on executive power and civil liberties. Glenn Greenwald argues that she'll push the court Right, which may turn out to be true.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/09/stevens/index.html

My money is on Kagan. She's young too, so she'll stay on there for a while. It just sucks that the liberals are all retiring and Obama isn't really getting to change the make-up of the court. Ah well.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Josip Stalin, I bet![/QUOTE]

obama is probably already working on cloning stalin using aborted fetuses.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']obama is probably already working on cloning stalin using aborted fetuses.[/QUOTE]
Mexican Stalin, no doubt!
 
operation-sombrero.gif
 
[quote name='speedracer']

Because never in a fucking million years would thrust have called Sotomayor anything but liberal. Right thrust?[/QUOTE]

I actually really don't give a shit how liberal (or conservative) a judge nominee is, as long as they don't do their jobs with an agenda. Just because I can't think of an example, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Their job is suppose to be interpreting the constitution and law in it's application to cases - regardless of how much they personally dislike that interpretation.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually really don't give a shit how liberal (or conservative) a judge nominee is, as long as they don't do their jobs with an agenda.[/quote]
Strict constructionism is an agenda, dude.
 
I thought the term was 'originalist' not constructionist. Ah too lazy right now to click on google. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Apparently every new supreme court justice has been more conservative then the one he/she replaces. Trend will probably continue, especially if it's Kagan.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Who is that? I know his face but can't place it. Not Kaine, not Pawlenty...[/QUOTE]

It's no one in particular. Just got this hilarious image of Stalin in a sombrero in my head from this thread, went to see if I could find something close to that, and this was the best I got.

Back OT, saw this excellent article today (specifically in response to myke's comment) on Stevens and Supreme Court nominees in general.

http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/how-republican-justices-evolve.php
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']The court needs to have guys/gals who will put the Executive Branch in its place.[/QUOTE]

I have high hopes on this score. Someone to rein in the conservative justices when the next President Bush tries to hold Americans without charge, or violate wiretapping laws, or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top