T Nation

Justice Souter to Retire

[quote]Mhatch wrote:
Obama is entertaining the idea of picking someone that has no judicial experience at all? What the fuck, I know it’s not required, but one would think having some experience would be needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30557519/
[/quote]

You should actually read an article when you post it. Nowhere did it even allude Barack Obama was entertaining a non-judge. The only mention of a non-judge being selected was a quote by Arlen Specter saying the candidate technically need not be a lawyer if they had the right credentials.

haha if you were going for flash over substance you should have at least linked to the story about Justice Al Gore

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/05/mr-justice-gore.html

[quote]borrek wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
Obama is entertaining the idea of picking someone that has no judicial experience at all? What the fuck, I know it’s not required, but one would think having some experience would be needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30557519/

You should actually read an article when you post it. Nowhere did it even allude Barack Obama was entertaining a non-judge. The only mention of a non-judge being selected was a quote by Arlen Specter saying the candidate technically need not be a lawyer if they had the right credentials.

haha if you were going for flash over substance you should have at least linked to the story about Justice Al Gore

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/05/mr-justice-gore.html
[/quote]

the court has been far too silent on the impending man-bear-pig crisis

[quote]borrek wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
Obama is entertaining the idea of picking someone that has no judicial experience at all? What the fuck, I know it’s not required, but one would think having some experience would be needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30557519/

You should actually read an article when you post it. Nowhere did it even allude Barack Obama was entertaining a non-judge. The only mention of a non-judge being selected was a quote by Arlen Specter saying the candidate technically need not be a lawyer if they had the right credentials.

haha if you were going for flash over substance you should have at least linked to the story about Justice Al Gore

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/05/mr-justice-gore.html[/quote]

“I would like to see more people from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge,” said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Leahy and other senators appearing on Sunday’s news shows said someone with a wide breadth of experience - women and minorities in particular - would be a plus. That ECHOES COMMENTS last week from President Barack Obama, who will nominate the next justice.

It says he has made comments agreeing with senators on the matter.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
forlife wrote:

Supreme Court judges are among the most powerful people in the country, and the timing of their appointment can make an enormous difference.

I completely disagree with this. [/quote]

I agree.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Some guy somewhere wrote:

The sky is blue.

Other guys wrote:

I disagree.

Some numbskull wrote:

I agree.

…and life goes on aboard the good ship PWI Lollipop.
[/quote]

lol

You know that this may have some effect that I didn’t think about originally. Despite his liberal leanings, Souter was a business guy. Obama will likely replace him with a pro-plaintiff’s job. I would not be surprised to see a change in the court’s approach to punitive damages. Our clients are not happy.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Some guy somewhere wrote:

The sky is blue.

Other guys wrote:

I disagree.

Some numbskull wrote:

I agree.

…and life goes on aboard the good ship PWI Lollipop.

lol[/quote]

The Montana Gun Law has the potential to literally shake the SC to its foundations. Does the Federal Gov’t have the right to regulate commerce that is entirely within a state? The issue of States’ Rights could and will come to the SC very soon and all HELL is going to break loose.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Some guy somewhere wrote:

The sky is blue.

Other guys wrote:

I disagree.

Some numbskull wrote:

I agree.

…and life goes on aboard the good ship PWI Lollipop.

lol

The Montana Gun Law has the potential to literally shake the SC to its foundations. Does the Federal Gov’t have the right to regulate commerce that is entirely within a state? The issue of States’ Rights could and will come to the SC very soon and all HELL is going to break loose.

[/quote]

If the states really cared about their rights, they would get their elected officials to bar the supreme court from hearing certain cases. All it would take is a simple majority (barring a philibuster) to effectively end the supreme courts ruling on abortion, commerse that is intrastate, elections, gun laws, or anything else they shouldn’t be ruling on. These are the same people that could do away with federal law and punishment that should be left to the states.

To me, this is just a bunch of postering until someone puts pressure on those that can actually do something about it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The Montana Gun Law has the potential to literally shake the SC to its foundations.
[/quote]

To literally shake it to its foundations? I dunno, those are pretty hefty-looking foundations.

If it was the Montana Militia with a fertilizer bomb, I’d say maybe. But a law? Nah.

:stuck_out_tongue:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Montana Gun Law has the potential to literally shake the SC to its foundations.

To literally shake it to its foundations? I dunno, those are pretty hefty-looking foundations.

If it was the Montana Militia with a fertilizer bomb, I’d say maybe. But a law? Nah.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Ahhh…my ever linguisticly accurate friend…do ye seethe with rage when the word “literally” is bastardized into a concept so alien from its original intent? Do ye toss and turn and writhe in literary pain? Nay, ye must remember to be gentle and comforting with ye exhortations of vocabularic enforcement rather than wield the sword in wrath.
[/quote]

Wrath is a sin, my friend. Most of the time, on this board anyway, I wield the sword in mirth.

And anyway, why beholdest thou the black that is in thy brother’s kettle, but considerest not the black that is in thine own pot? Like you’ve never nit-picked a carelessly-written post for comic effect.

:stuck_out_tongue:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Some guy somewhere wrote:

The sky is blue.

Other guys wrote:

I disagree.

Some numbskull wrote:

I agree.

…and life goes on aboard the good ship PWI Lollipop.

lol

The Montana Gun Law has the potential to literally shake the SC to its foundations. Does the Federal Gov’t have the right to regulate commerce that is entirely within a state? The issue of States’ Rights could and will come to the SC very soon and all HELL is going to break loose.

If the states really cared about their rights, they would get their elected officials to bar the supreme court from hearing certain cases. All it would take is a simple majority (barring a philibuster) to effectively end the supreme courts ruling on abortion, commerse that is intrastate, elections, gun laws, or anything else they shouldn’t be ruling on. These are the same people that could do away with federal law and punishment that should be left to the states.

To me, this is just a bunch of postering until someone puts pressure on those that can actually do something about it.[/quote]

Mmmm…how do you figure that? The cases and controversies the Supreme Court can hear is governed by the Constitution…unless you’re talking about state mobilization to the extent of a Constitional amendment that redefines the state/federal relationship on partiuclar issues. I don’t see how a ‘majority’ is going to cut it. I believe the South tried to claim SCOTUS had no authority to hear cases on segregation and that its decisions had not weight when they came down. Didn’t work…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Mmmm…how do you figure that? The cases and controversies the Supreme Court can hear is governed by the Constitution…unless you’re talking about state mobilization to the extent of a Constitional amendment that redefines the state/federal relationship on partiuclar issues…

There is what should be an ironclad amendment already in place that defines the state/federal relationship. It’s been sitting there in plain sight since 1791.[/quote]

My understanding is that a very broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause almost always trumps the tenth amendment.

If the U.S. government decided to pass a law requiring young and middle-aged adult citizens to smoke, it could be upheld as constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. Oxygen tanks are sold across state lines. Widespread failure to smoke by the young and middle-aged has an adverse effect on the amount of interstate commerce in oxygen tanks for the elderly, and depresses the price of oxygen tanks that are sold across state lines. Therefore, requiring citizens to smoke while they are young and middle-aged would be within the powers of the U.S. government under the Commerce Clause. Isn’t that pretty close to the logic that was used to uphold a federal law that forbade a farmer from growing wheat in excess of the quota, for his own consumption?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.