Justice Souter Retiring

basso, normally i think your posts suck a big fat d-ck.......but the spectacle of you posting C-Toms opinion excerpts, with some sort of faux accompanying knowledge/commentary - is supertotallymega-awesome in illustrating your poseurness.

I mean, for f-cks sake, I would never say "OMFG, listen to how this so-and-so interprets Verdi or whoever" (i admit I don't know sh-t about opera) and pretend to be a badass on thawebs........It is too much, even for me (even though I'm a well documented *******). But you just copy paste C-tom interps from blogs like it's going out of style. I f-n love it. I mean I know former clerks of his who willingly admit what a moron he is and how they hated it, and mind you these are solid reds, but wow........awesome.

Kudos for breaking new grounds in your realm of douchebaggery. It truly is sweeter than anything possible...........EVER.
.

 

Since George Bush put lefty lib Souter on the bench, I think it is only fair that Obama replaces him with a Scalia clone.

 

^^^
Then we are all set to criminalize gays, take away abortion rights, people can't suicide, no more medical pot.

 

Sam- do you think C-Tom was right in either case? if not, why not?

 

Sam, let's make an attempt to keep it civil in here. If you're reduced to cursing, it really takes away from any point you might be trying to make. You can do better. TIA

 

Put him on ignore like everyone else.

 

no he can't- he has no real argument, no wonder he avoids the actual question, and instead creates bizarre ad hominem attacks that only serve to underscore his unwillingness to engage on the merits.

 

First, there are just as many conservative voices calling for an end to the drug war as there are liberals, so your point fails there. In fact, one of the best articles on the subject was penned by William F. Buckley, not exactly a champion of the liberal cause.

If your intent was to prove that Thomas is liberal as a result of his voting record on medical mar1juana, you need to belly up to the bar and drink up your big, fat serving of FAIL!

 

If the people he treats like that (you and the idiotic troll twins) were willing to "engage on the merits" in this forum, I rather suspect he wouldn't act like he does.

 

You lost the right to have any type of honest debate when you started lying to make your points and posting other people's work as your own.

 

Thought this was a weird question to pose but humorous nonetheless. Gotta love google news bringing the best sources to the front of the search. What do people think of Kagan. I kind of like the idea of a great legal mind coming from somewhere else than federal judges and prosecutors.

Oh also, is Souter gay? Great of Sessions to be so nice to those gay people.

NATIONAL NEWS:
May 7th, 2009
Top Conservative In Senate Judiciary Panel Open To Gay Supreme Court Nominee
Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the newly-minted ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Thursday indicated openness to supporting a gay nominee to replace Supreme Court David Souter, who will retire this summer.

Two openly gay academics, Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan and former Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, have emerged as potential candidates for the post. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is pushing to have a gay nominee, which will be President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court appointment.

The Senate Judiciary panel will be key to confirming whoever will be the President's choice. Sessions was chosen by the GOP this week to take over as ranking Republican in the committee following Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-PA) decision to defect to the Democratic Party.

In an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Sessions was asked that if he is open to an openly gay Supreme Court nominee since he has said he could support a pro-choice candidate. "It depends on the personal ethics and standards and legal skill and ability. I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job."

Pushed to whether he'd "welcome" having the first gay justice, the senator said, "I don't think we shouldn't be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court. We're looking for a person who can gain the full respect of the American people, who can apply the law fairly... will be non-partisan, non-biased, not promoting any agenda --- personal, religious or moral --- and follow the law faithfully."

Sessions had told the Hill the previous day, "I'm not inclined to think that's an automatic disqualification."

Obama has said he will look for a someone "with a sharp and independent mind," and someone who honors constitutional traditions but has empathy for how laws affect people. His remarks have prompted debate about judicial activism, which conservatives say is tantamount to rewriting the Constitution and dismissing the authority of Congress and state governments.

As early as the campaign, Republicans had also criticized the President for his support for "activist judges" and opposition, as senator, to the confirmations of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two of the four justices who comprise the conservative wing of the court.

Pundits are also saying Obama is considering nomination a woman, since only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the female in the nine-member court, and her retirement is also being speculated. Ginsburg underwent surgery on Feb. 5 for pancreatic cancer.

Former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan, whom he earlier tapped to be solicitor general, and Sonia Sotomayor, a judge of Puerto Rican descent on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, are also reported to be on the list of candidates.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," the President said last week about Souter's resignation. "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Judiciary Committee, the same day told the Wall Street Journal, "By anybody's definition that would be judicial activism. Justices on the court should not be for rich or poor, management or labor, or women or men. They should be people who are impartial, and to be honest, [Obama] seems to believe they should be anything but impartial."

The White House said in a statement on Monday that the President had called Hatch and Specter as part of his "commitment to reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate" about a nominee.

Obama has so far appointed several openly gay officials to his administration, including Emily Hewitt as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Chuck Wolfe, CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, has denied that his group is engaged in a pressure campaign, according to GayPolitics.com.

"It's important to point out that 106 of the 110 justices that have served on the Court have been straight, white men," he said. "All we're saying is that maybe it's time we look around and consider nominating someone with different life experiences and different perspectives."

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/35/ARTICLE/51006/2009-05-07.html

 

^^^

Yes!

Spoiler

NSFW

 

Hey Sam - I came across this quote when looking over some SC stuff. Thought it was amusing.

"Beyond allowing sources who are not identified to throw darts at Sotomayor, Rosen's and Napolitano's citation of law clerks is problematic for a different reason, according to American University law professor Darren Hutchinson, who wrote, "[T]he use of clerks to determine whether a judge should receive a Supreme Court nomination is extremely problematic," because "[m]ost clerks have just graduated from law school, have never tried a case or practiced law, and do not have sufficient experience or knowledge of the law to make an informed assessment of a judge."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905060019?f=h_top

 

wrong thread, i can see how in your excitement, you made the mistake

 

It was in response to HayesStreet's article about Pam Karlan & Kathleen Sullivan. Check your excitement at the door.

 

my bad, no biggie, thought it was for the homosexuality thread

 

I certainly can see how that would happen. I edited my post to add arrows pointing to the article.

 

In just one hour, Sotomayor asked more questions than Thomas has in years.

Yesterday was Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first day on the bench, where she took an active role in oral arguments. Sotomayor “displayed no reticence on the first day of her first term on the court; in the two cases on the docket, she asked as many questions and made as many comments as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.,” reported the Washington Post. “The only sign of her newness was that she at times forgot to turn on her microphone before posing a question.” McClatchy also observed that in just an hour, she actually asked “more questions than Justice Clarence Thomas has asked over the course of several years.” Thomas has gone three years straight without posing a question during oral arguments.

 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. When is your "squirrel moment?"