WOW! Obama better pick a replacement that's about 40 years old, has good genes, is smart as hell, and more liberal than I am!
I have a feeling multiple justices will be retiring. (the liberal ones anyway) You got Obama with a 60 vote Senate, might as well do it now.
A 40 year old is not likely to be qualified. Good genes? This job will age you fast. Smart as hell? I have news for you...they are all very smart. More liberal than you? Is that possible?
Hey! If Clarence Thomas can get confirmed, there's bound to be a 40 year old flaming liberal judge that's more than qualified out there, somewhere.
I know he's too old, but I'd love to see the winger reaction to Bill Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice.
He would be awesome. So would Mario Cuomo. But I think we need more diversity on the court. They're practically all white men. We need more women and more people of color.
My one memory of Clarence Thomas. In my senior year of high school we went to DC and sat in on a case. Clarence Thomas was literally sleeping. His eyes were shut, head facing towards the roof, as lawyers were arguing the case. I seriously was entranced and I wish someone had gotten a cell phone in there with a camera. I couldnt take my eyes off him. I thought ok, maybe the guy is tired and his eyes shut for a second. Nope they stayed shut for a good 2 minutes. Every person in my group was just staring at him. Seriously, what supreme court justice openly sleeps during a trial? I've never liked Thomas but more than the Anita Hill thing (which was terrible), that just made me hate the guy more than anything. Sleeping through cases, sheesh... And he is one of the final arbiters of this country's laws.
Thomas was at the U for a few days a week or two back and gave a couple talks. He's undeniably a charismatic fellow, and he's not stupid by any stretch (or if he is, he hides it well). He seems genuinely to believe in his judicial philosophy, one aspect of which is that oral arguments don't matter at all. 'Course, I think I disagree with pretty much everything he's ever written...
so you disagree w/ him when he wrote, in his Kelo Dissent: [rquoter]The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect “discrete and insular minorities,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages “those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms” to victimize the weak.[/rquoter] and in Raich: [rquoter]Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use mar1juana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for mar1juana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. <snip> Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the mar1juana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of mar1juana.[/rquoter] Andy Moon would be so lucky as to have a Souter replacement that is as Liberal as Clarence Thomas.
I think it is about time to have more than 1 woman on the court. Seriously this is 2009 there are tons of perfectly qualified people out there.
Love the "impromptu" announcement by Obama. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ki8ymrhgVZY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ki8ymrhgVZY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
