Supreme Court

[Lemur]

Well, we have the Obama thread and the Senate thread, why not dedicate one to the Supremes? Complete the trifecta.

Seems that Justie Souter has decided to retire. I like Wonkette's summary best:

Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the one George Bush Senior picked without knowing that he was secretly a French liberal queer, will retire at the end of the current session because he wants to climb mountains in New Hampshire or something before dying of old age cancer. Now Barack Obama can put Bill Ayers on the bench, as has been his plan since he was conceived in a Kenyan labratory ostrich egg in 1961.

Thoughts?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, hopefully the worst will be getting a leftist replaced by a leftist.

Of course, any chance of a true constitutionalist is astronomical.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am always very uneasy about the idea of a court with no accountability, secure in their jobs for their entire life to be able to bend the laws of the country to their will with a simple vote. I know Jefferson has quotes about this, but if this thread is to be about the future of the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration and not general discussion about it then I will leave this post with no further additions.

-ACIN

[Lemur]

ACIN, I see no reason why we have to restrict ourselves when discussing the Supremes. By all means, bring on your observations!

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN, I see no reason why we have to restrict ourselves when discussing the Supremes. By all means, bring on your observations!

Well it is very late for me, so I will just post the appropriate quotes from Thomas Jefferson and come back tomorrow with a more detailed and thought out post.

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Letter to Abigail Adams (1804).

"You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820).

-ACIN

[Don Corleone]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

[Don Corleone]

In general, I believe the judiciary is severely imbalanced with respect to the other two branches. This is true regardless of which party is in office. Both parties rail against it while they are the minority party, and then both change their tune, on the note, when the tide shifts and they now wield that power. Thus shall it always be. The most anti-democratic branch shall always be the most powerful, because the parties that annoint these gods among men cannot resist the temptation to choose advocates of their positions. Both parties are equally guilty of this in my opinion.

[rory_20_uk]

Why did he quit? At a mere 69 he's an infant. I could understand if Obama had been in power for say 3 years and he wanted to ensure that a strapping 40 year old pinko-commie-flag burning-socialist-liberal-baby killer took his place but I thought these guys just keep going for years: the pay is good, work is easy and as has been pointed out there's almost no reppeal against whatever they decide to do.

The only thing I can think of is he's got early signs of dementia / other illness and wants to leave before he votes the Wrong Way by mistake.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good Riddance, Souter is a scuz-bucket. My least favorite jurist. At least Breyer has a sense of humor and didn't learn how to smile by reading a 900 page book about it.

Sotomayor might be an ok replacement.

[rvg]

I fully expect Obama to appoint a flaming bleeding heart liberal to fill Souter's seat, and have no problem with it: the balance in the court will remain unchanged.

[Don Corleone]

My money is on Janet Reno, in a stealth run.

[KukriKhan]

I am always very uneasy about the idea of a court with no accountability, secure in their jobs for their entire life to be able to bend the laws of the country to their will with a simple vote. I know Jefferson has quotes about this, but if this thread is to be about the future of the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration and not general discussion about it then I will leave this post with no further additions.

-ACIN

I'm uncomfortable with the life-time appointments, too. But, looking at the bigger picture of the fed gov't as a whole, it makes sense that each branch gets 'picked' a different way, to counter mob-rule, States getting uppity, Fed getting too top-down, etc.

House of Reps: direct popular vote by district
Senators: (the original scheme) direct vote by State Legislators
President: indirect vote by State Legislator-picked 'electors', informed by (but not bound to) popular vote.
Judges (minus Supremes): appointed for terms by Prez w/Senate OK
Supremes: appointed for life, to avoid political influence. Limited charter of deciding if x law abides the Constitution.

That makes for a goulash of motivations, duties charged, and loyalties - in other words: built-in checks and balances.

[drone]

"Hey Souter, don't let the door hit you in the on the way out!"

Good timing by Specter.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Sotomayor has a few question marks. I would much prefer Elena Kagan, but I find that unlikely as she just settled into the position as Solicitor-General (I believe). I think if Obama doesn't want to tick anybody off, his best choice would be Merrick Garland. Left-leaning, but widely respected on both sides.

However, I don't see that happening. Sotomayor will most likely get the nod, meaning we'll have another showdown on our hands. Which Obama will win.

[Spino]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

Amen!

Kelo versus City of New London is the worst SCOTUS decision in recent memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

Don Corleone for Supreme?

[drone]

Don Corleone for Supreme?

Don Corleone buys the judges, he doesn't become one himself.

[Lemur]

I'll bet that no matter who he picks, there will be outrage aplenty. Who wants to bet against me?

[KukriKhan]

We should start a "Next SCOTUS Appointee" pool.

I nominate (not because I favor her, but because I think she'd actively push for it, and Mr. O could eliminate 1 future opponent for 2012, whilst replacing a leftee with a leftee, (and a woman, to boot)) :

Hillary Clinton.

soto voce: Assuming Michelle O doesn't want the job

-edit-

Obama’s short list reportedly includes Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York, a Hispanic woman; Elena Kagan, Obama's solicitor general; Diane Wood, a federal judge with Reagan- and Clinton-era Justice Department experience; and Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Harvard Law grad who once served as a federal prosecutor.

Seriously: Please, not Granholm. We'd be in a whole mess'a trouble there, Son.

[GeneralHankerchief]

My money's on Sotomayor. Kagan will get the position sooner or later, but for now she's still being groomed to fill RBG's seat, most likely.

-edit- And Lemur, if it turns out Kagan is picked, I'll throw a side bet on the outrage being muted. Obviously there'll still be some from the far right, but they don't count.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll bet that no matter who he picks, there will be outrage aplenty. Who wants to bet against me?

Is there something wrong with outrage over judicial nominations?

Lemur, this country is outraged at the prospect of massive changes while at the same time we are clammouring for them. I'm suprised that someone as old as you are lacks so much perspective. When has so much change been slated that people could reasonably be expected to fit smoothly into the new groove? These are big changes, most people want some, most people are also confused and afraid. I'd imagine that as the years go on, many (but not all) of the changes will look very bad in hindsight and they will cost the Democrats seats in Congress, probably the big seat as well.

Not all of us have developed the same "dear leader" complex as you have for this one.

I could have sworn that political opposition was a hallmark of our democracy. The people who fear that democratic elected leaders have too much power will most likely fear that Democratic unelected leaders for life will have too much power. Everyone understands when Dems go ballistic over Conservative nominees.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Amen!

Kelo versus City of New London is the worst SCOTUS decision in recent memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The summary here makes it sound like it was a legally correct decision, and the outrage is because people don't like the result.

Conservatives complaining about judges not being activist??

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have read the summary on wikipedia, therefore I know all

[ICantSpellDawg]

The summary here makes it sound like it was a legally correct decision, and the outrage is because people don't like the result.

Conservatives complaining about judges not being activist??

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have read the summary on wikipedia, therefore I know all

Of course you would say that. The idea was bad, it was rejected by every organization under the sun and it wrote law over the land in direct opposition to the will of the people and the spirit of the Constituion; stomping out the concept of middle and lower class private property. Of course I would say that.

ACLU and NAACP are conservatives, eh?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seriously: Please, not Granholm. We'd be in a whole mess'a trouble there, Son.

What (beyond her being on a list of potential Obama picks ) invalidates Granholm? I've never heard of her (though being Governor of Michigan probably isn't a good sign).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course you would say that. The idea was bad, it was rejected by every organization under the sun and it wrote law over the land in direct opposition to the will of the people and the spirit of the Constituion; stomping out the concept of middle and lower class private property. Of course I would say that.

ACLU and NAACP are conservatives, eh?

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm uncomfortable with the life-time appointments, too. But, looking at the bigger picture of the fed gov't as a whole, it makes sense that each branch gets 'picked' a different way, to counter mob-rule, States getting uppity, Fed getting too top-down, etc.

House of Reps: direct popular vote by district
Senators: (the original scheme) direct vote by State Legislators
President: indirect vote by State Legislator-picked 'electors', informed by (but not bound to) popular vote.
Judges (minus Supremes): appointed for terms by Prez w/Senate OK
Supremes: appointed for life, to avoid political influence. Limited charter of deciding if x law abides the Constitution.

That makes for a goulash of motivations, duties charged, and loyalties - in other words: built-in checks and balances.

The key thing to note here, is that the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the ability to decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. They gave themselves that ability in the case Marbury vs Madison in I believe 1804? If all they did was make the final decision on difficult cases according to the law, then it would be great, but that one case put power of such an immense size in their hands which was not planned by those who drafted the Constitution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

It means that the Constitution means what it says. It means that, other than what is already listed, the electorate has to ammend in new constitutionally protected rights in order for those things to be constituitonal rights. They don't just come out of nowhere. In addition, constitutional rights and their original meaning should be preserved AT ALL COSTS by the courts, until the electorate rescinds the rights themselves by the appropriate majority.

The electorate did this with Black and Female emancipation. The Supreme Court exists to clear up where inconsistencies arise with regard to the original meaning of the Constitution verses the original meaning of the ammendments as they pertain to current law.

Eminent domain laws (and the constitutional protections) were created to protect people from having their land taken except under the most extreme circumstances. Kelo v. New London essentially cheapened that sentiment and endangered the personal property of everyone in the nation in spite of the clear guidelines and purpose of the protections. Further, the property that was "soooo important" was never developed after the eviction. How important could it have been?

Nobody is disputing the right of the government to take personal property under extreme circumstances using and convert it to public use, but to sell it to private developers in exchange for the potential tax revenue is absurd. There is little protection from private developers pushing local governments to simply take peoples property based on false promises and sheister business models. Your good buddies were the majority in that decision. Those evil conservatives were the degenerate nay-sayers. (and Sandra Day).

The Best Quotes:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." (O'Connor)

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power."


Are you sure that you read that Wiki article?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

The bill of rights:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1) The court held that the govt taking land and giving it to a corporation to build on was public use, since it would improve the economy or something.

2) Public use meant for things the public used; roads, etc.

3) The use of the land was not public, but for a private company.

The most damning thing, of course, is that there was nothing built on the land seize; it sits vacant. Any judge nominated should be asked for their opinion on this case.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you sure that you read that Wiki article?

It indicated that the ruling followed a strict interpretation of the law, and that the problematic results of the ruling should be fixed via the legislature. Of course it's a wiki article so...

[ICantSpellDawg]

It indicated that the ruling followed a strict interpretation of the law, and that the problematic results of the ruling should be fixed via the legislature. Of course it's a wiki article so...

"strict interpretation" is not comically going aroud words as they read and are meant in order to completely make the words irrelevant.

The same justices find a god-given RIGHT to abortion in the Constitution, but can't find a reason to enforce eminent domain? Houston, we have a problem.

Public use is public use, private use is private use. Any company can now say "hey, I want to do something for the public. Take that guys land and sell it to me so that I use it to better the public." They can then do whatever they'd like with their private property, until a larger corporation comes along...