US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has died.
edit:
Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/re...bit/index.html
Printable View
US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has died.
edit:
Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/re...bit/index.html
Yay new opening.
Sad he's dead though. What can you say though? Everyone has his time, and we all gotta go when we gotta go.
Link
RIP. Let's save the politics for a while, gents. And ladies.
Oh Christ. This is bad. :uhoh2:
Wow. What a trooper..
He was a good man.
I would second the thought of keeping this thread non-political.
I was desperately hoping that the tough old bastard would hold out until after next election year.
Well, I will miss him.
sad good man a states rights man
What do you expect one of your guys. You lost get over it. Thats what the last election was all about. Sorry to see the oldman go they. He was trully a class act and I hope Bush picks someone JUST LIKE HIM as his replacement. Its what he would want.Quote:
How can you keep it non-political? This is a disaster. I think we got lucky last time with bush picking a moderate type... This is gonna be a nail-biting few weeks or so until Bush announces his choice
Hell, one of the main reasons I voted for Bush was for Supreme Court picks.... that and he wasn't John Kerry. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That said, Rehnquist definitely seemed to be a nice guy and he could usually be counted on to rule on the Constitution without making parts up.
Who the hell do you want picking them? Kerry, Senor Anti-Federalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You must be one of those Anti-Federalists who thought Kelo Vs New London r3wl3d.
I guess dont make this political means nothing anymore
This cannot be a realistic fear for anyone who's familiar with the approval process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Hey, I'm one of the few conservatives on this board who whole heartedly agrees with you on the religious stuff. But I don't know why you think this is a disaster. 'Disaster' is a term that should be reserved for when folks like Gore, Kerry, or H. Clinton are doing the nominating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
If you are a conservative, why is your name Proliteriat?
I kinda wondered that myself!Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
Why does anyone do anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
...
Seriously, I dunno. I just never figured I should put emotional investment in what my user name should be on a war gaming forum. From the looks of yours, I think you can sympathize.
I was watching the Family Guy when I registered and heard Stewie say, "Eviscerate the Proletariat!" and it made me laugh, so it stuck.
I guess she wanted to give "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" a whole new meaning!
Well, I identify with Meatwad. He (the underdog) is constantly being trampled by Shake (the rich/conservative elite). Also, I love Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by meatwad
And what is Frylock, then? Though we can all guess what Carl is all about :)
I guess Pat Robertson's prayers have been answered.
I have to admit, I was thinking it, but I wasn't going to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
A marked difference in this thread from the rudeness and cheap shots taken on this board when Sandra O'Connor resigned. I remember somebody posting a "Don't let the door hit you on the posterior" message for her, only in slightly more colorful language.
Is it that the man died instead of resigning? Is it that the Conservatives in the backroom found Rehquist more agreeable? Or is it his fashion innovation with the gold stripes?
Seriously, I'm amazed that the same people who were as disrespectful as possible to O'Connor are now demanding a politics-free mourning of another justice. I guess respect for the Court is subject to moral relativity.
Actually, I think Pat the whacko was more interested in God taking Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and Ginsburg than snatching up the old man.
Give it a few hours before you imply that the left is more tactful on this board.
Frankly, neither side is tactful around here. (If that's what you meant, sorry.)
~:eek:
This is so quick after the last guy.
If his prayers were answered Rehnquist would be imortal. Its not like some liberal judge died.Quote:
I guess Pat Robertson's prayers have been answered.
And Gelatinous Cube get over this unfounded fear you have of religion in of religion in our government. Its still hard for me to see how the world has changed to where being religous is bad and an athiest is good. It would seem you have little sense of history. Religion and government go hand in hand. When they dont one or the other and usually both cease to exist. Once more the founding fathers belived in freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The last thing in the world they wanted was a nation of athiests.
Nope, just means that Robertson needs to be more specific in his requests to get the results he really wants. I'm waiting for him to go for three...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Actually if he wanted to be really cynical he would hope that they all go now, liberal and conservative so that he can get a fresh set of replacements in now which will last longer than the current lot, both liberal and conservative. But I understand what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Sometime I'll have to ask you to outline, specifically, what you're so scared of in the PATRIOT ACT(one of the most obnoxious acronyms ever, btw). I wonder if people actually know its contents or are just blindly swallowing the horror stories told about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nah you made enough silly statements in the last one. No need to do it over again. ~DQuote:
If you want a refresher, feel free to start another thread.
Chief Justice Rehnquist lived a full life and served his country to the best of his ability and judgement. He presided over a contentious court with grace and handled one of the most sensitive judicial proceedings in our history -- an impeachment trial in the Senate -- with smooth professionalism. May he rest in peace.
Now, as to the immediate future:
Roberts was a shoe-in as little as 72 hours ago, now he is a bellweather, or even a practice target.
Of COURSE its political! It was designed that way constitutionally. The greater degree of practical power accorded the court (assumed by the court?) since its inception only increases the stakes.
Now, consider "these apples" as possibilities
CJ C. Thomas
AJ's J. Roberts and J.R. Brown
.....whadya think about that? Make the next few weeks interesting wouldn't it?
I think that this Fall is going to be a media-crazed, political junky slice of heaven like we almost NEVER see in an off-election year.
Seamus
Yup these forums will be a buzzing like it was the election all over again. This could be the biggest political fight in who knows how long as the liberals try to hang onto their one last bastion of power.Quote:
I think that this Fall is going to be a media-crazed, political junky slice of heaven like we almost NEVER see in an off-election year.
And the conservatives grab the last bit of power they don't already control, making a mockery of the whole idea of balance of power and three separate branches of government. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Well then maybe liberals should come up with some better ideas. Besides there are a lot of liberals in the republican party.Quote:
And the conservatives grab the last bit of power they don't already control, making a mockery of the whole idea of balance of power and three separate branches of government.
Indeed there are. I'd even consider voting for Chuck Hagel if he were the next Republican nominee for president. But you and I both know that the liberals in the Republican party are just a sideshow, only a step or two above the Log Cabin Republicans in the pecking order. ~D
Yup, Brown all the way. I'd love to hear the Dems try to smear someone who's a minority and a female. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Are you certain you have that rank ordering correct? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Seamus
Yeah there's ... and uh... or maybe ...ok, haven't found any but you've got to keep your eye's peeled for 'em. Never know when one of 'em's gonna come sneakin' in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Heh. Great, more soda up my nose! (grumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Is it normal practice to nominate a successor (Roberts) to the Chief Justice while the old one (Rehnquist) has not even been buried? Is this necessary in the interest of institutional continuity or just a sign of (undue) haste? I mean, when a President dies his Vice-President is sworn in a.s.a.p. for obvious reasons. Do those apply here as well?
Well, I don't know if there has to be nine justices to make a ruling. Bush may be in a hurry if you don't need nine, because right now the balance has swung heavily in favor of the left-side.
I was hoping Scalia made Chief, so we could test out Roberts where it counts - actual rulings. Oh well, maybe less fighting with the Dems with only 2 processes instead of 3...
:duel:
Chief is a pretty meaningless title, afaik. He should just give that seat to one of the liberal Associate Justices (throw 'em a bone, you know) and get another constitutionalist in there.
Bush should give the job to Kanye West to prove that he does like black people. ~;)
http://www.freebeerandhotwings.com/videos.asp
The Chief Justice has one important function which is little known and its importance little understood. The Chief Justice decides who writes the majority and (if there is any) minority and/or dissenting opinions. While it may seem like a little thing, the written decision is what becomes the law.
It might be considered "undue haste" if the nomination were "new," but the Roberts nomination is already "in the pipeline" and they would like a new CJ by 1st monday in Oct if possib, so it won't be viewed improperly. A "new" nomination so soon would be tantamount to saying "we were just waiting for him to kip off and we've had this gal/guy vetted for 8 months (which may well be true, but wouldn't look good so you announce later). The nomination of a seated justice for CJ could have been done anytime after the funeral, but would have been viewed as too quick if done prior.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Seamus
Aenlic returns the first serve cleanly ... service break. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Might also add the CJ's role in "setting the tone" as she/he has significant input in meeting schedules, the procedures used in private decision sessions etc. Someone who can chair a meeting well has surprising power in an collegial discussion/argument.
Seamus
I don't understand the significance of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_J..._United_StatesQuote:
Duties
In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties:
* If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice.
* The Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside when the Senate tries an impeachment of the President of the United States.
* Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over the trial in the Senate that follows an impeachment of the President – Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1999 over the proceedings against President Bill Clinton.
* Presides over the impeachment trial of the Vice President if the Vice President is serving as Acting President (not a Constitutional responsibility but a rule of the Senate; no Vice President has been impeached, though Spiro Agnew resigned under threat of impeachment, and none has been Acting President for more than a few hours).
* Administers the oath of office at the inauguration of the President of the United States. This is a traditional, not a constitutional, responsibility of the Chief Justice. All federal and state judges, as well as notaries public, are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations.
* Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution.
* Serves as the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts. The Judicial Conference is empowered by the Rules Enabling Act to promulgate rules to ensure the smooth operation of the federal courts. Major portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence have been adopted by most state legislatures and are considered canonical by American law schools.
Doesn't sound like a very big deal to me, except in rare cases. Thanks for the info, though.
I understood that, but I don't take it to mean that they vote on some vague outline, and then whoever's Chief gets full license to write whatever the hell his own version of it is.
Is that really what you and Aenlic are saying happens?
I've pointed this out before, but the conservatives tend to ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The majority of SC Justices currently sitting were appointed by conservatives. Remember that before you go complaining that the SC is the tool of the left.
Quite frankly, I think you're just disappointed that every time a Republican President appoints somebody he hopes will be a stooge of the right willing to trample gays, subjugate women, and enshrine religion in public life, the judge actually turns out to be respectful of the spirit of your Constitution, and makes rulings as such rather than pandering to whichever particular President it was that "buttered their bread."
Ohhh, that's what rulings like the New London case were.... respectful of the spirit of the Constitution. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
I may be wrong, but in any kind of committee meeting, I always felt the person doing actually writing down the decisions had a lot of power. Committees - perhaps even of Supreme Judges - tend to leave somethings unstated - unsettled even. By contrast, when writing a decision, especially an argued one, there's a tendency to try to be comprehensive and rigorous. I always thought one of the reasons Stalin rose to power after Lenin's death was because he was the secretary - the detail man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Interesting. Thanks Aenlic, GC and Simon.
To add to Simon....
Remember the workloads these people have. The volume of reading required is simply staggering. To expect the voters in favor of a majority position to meticulously screen each word of a majority opinion -- one written by someone who already voted with them -- is optimistic. I'm sure they have them reviewed so that nothing completely at odds with their view goes uncovered, but I suspect that -- de facto if not de jure -- the writing justice can shape arguments for years to come with the tone of their opinion. Is this earth-shatteringly important compared to the vote? No, but I would not dismiss it either.
Seamus
You know, I see your question a bit more clearly, Proletariat. It's a valid question.
Let me try to explain it this way. They've been replaying an interview done with Rehnquist a couple of years ago on TV. It was a very enlightening interview. But I don't remember which channel it was on unfortunately; because I was doing the cliché guy with the remote channel surfing at the time. It's a wonderful look inside things. Rehnquist himself, when asked what his most important role is as Chief Justice mentioned only two things. The first that he gets to speak first in giving his opinion both in the court hearings and in private conference between the judges. Second, he spoke about the fact I mentioned, that he decides which of the individual justices actually writes the opinions, after they've staked out their various positions. He also talks about the process of negotiations between justices. How when the majority opinion is being drafted, the justice writing it will have to get input from the other judges on the majority and the minority. So, a justice can say that yes, he or she agrees with the decision except these two paragraphs with which he has a problem. It's up to the draft-writing justice to work out those difference. Then, as Rehnquist put it, there's always the chance that one of the other majority justices will then object to the new changes, and so on. He said the process itself is what makes the court work. Very interesting stuff. And that is why it is so very important who writes the decision. That justice's abilities to form a consensus and to work out the details is what directly results in the final written decision. Rehnquist seemed to think that it was the single most important facet of how the court works. At least, that was my impression.
Thanks again, Aenlic. Much clearer now. In my original post I was going to add the line, 'Is there something I'm missing?' at the end, and just now realized I didn't. Sort of looked like I was baiting instead of inquiring.
Oh, no. I understood it as a legitimate question. I just didn't do a particularly stellar job of explaining it on the first attempt. If you can catch that interview, it's a real winner. Rehnquist has all manner of interesting things to say. I may not like many of his opinions; but I have to respect his intellect and his honesty.
Interesting. How does Scalia rub ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
I have some difficulties with Scalia's honesty. His refusal to allow people to tape his public speeches doesn't seem to be the actions of someone who is comfortable with his own statements. That suggests a certain level of intellectual dishonesty. I could be wrong; but Rehnquist stikes me as much more honest than Scalia.
I have to admit that I found this recent satire in The Onion to be rather funny. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40087)
Quote:
Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish
August 31, 2005 | Issue 41•35
WASHINGTON, DC—A genie freed from a battered oil lamp by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted the conservative jurist a strict constructionist interpretation of his wish for "a hundred billion bucks" Monday. "Sim sim salabim! Your wish is my command!" the genie proclaimed amid flashes of light and purple smoke, immediately filling the Supreme Court building with a massive herd of wild male antelopes. When Justice Scalia complained that the "bucks" had razed the U.S. Supreme Court building, trampling and killing several of his clerks and bringing traffic in the nation's capital to a standstill for hours, the genie said, "Your honor, your wish is a sacred and unalterable document whose interpretation is not subject to the whims of society and changing social context."
I read that one earlier this morning. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the punchline was pretty dang weak. :shrug:Quote:
"Your honor, your wish is a sacred and unalterable document whose interpretation is not subject to the whims of society and changing social context."
Well I admit that the punchline was weak, but the idea was funny. I find the funniest parts of the Onion to be the weekly horoscope. Like the most recent one for Sagittarius:
Quote:
Sagittarius November 22 - December 21
It doesn't matter if you've done nothing wrong and been charged with no crime. CNN's Nancy Grace is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're guilty and should be "put down like a dog."
Scalia gave an interesting speech to the Chapman University law students last week. He talks about the Court ruling on moral issues:
Interesting stuff, if he really thinks this way. The cynic in me thinks he could also be blowing smoke with the Roberts confirmation coming up (this speech was before Renquist died).Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalia
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/30/sc....ap/index.html