CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Justice Roberts might step down??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justice Roberts might step down??

post #1 of 32
3/4/10 at 2:55pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...ring-step-down

Why? It would only help Obama.
Reply
post #2 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:02pm
If true, that would be MASSIVE. It would allow Obama to pack the court with liberals that could conceivably be on the bench for 25 years.
Reply
post #3 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:05pm
"Personal reasons", huh? Let's spend a few moments reading into that.
Reply
post #4 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:07pm
He likes tapping his foot in airport bathroom stalls!
Reply
post #5 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:07pm
Dead girl/live boy?
Reply
post #6 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:09pm
Unconscious horse.
Reply
post #7 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:10pm
Could be an illness, but the juicier options are so much more fun.
Reply
post #8 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:11pm
If only Alito, Scalia and Thomas could have shit come up.
Reply
post #9 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:11pm
Hey, who cares? I'm just hoping it happens!!!
Reply
post #10 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderson View Post
If only Alito, Scalia and Thomas could have shit come up.
No way. With six liberals on the court, letting them become irrelevant is a tastier fate.
Reply
post #11 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:17pm
I haven't seen anything on any of the big news sites yet. I wonder what's up...
Reply
post #12 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:19pm
Mainstream media falls behind the scrutiny of Radar Online and the Chud Politico Forum? I'd never imagine that.
Reply
post #13 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:20pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, this could be all bullshit. It was on the Drudge report's twitter though.
Reply
post #14 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:21pm
Or it could just be that the bigs are doing a bit more due diligence. Time will tell, I suppose...

ETA: I'd be more likely to call bullshit immediately if there was a concrete reason given.
Reply
post #15 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:29pm
Drudge has it, but just as a link to the Radar Online story.
Reply
post #16 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:33pm
Drudge is not a credible source.

CNN nor LA times is reporting anything.

Quote:
Update: RadarOnline.com has obtained new information that Justice Roberts will NOT resign. The justice will be staying on the bench.
Bullshit it was. Carry on, people.
Reply
post #17 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:35pm
Salon's Mike Madden is twittering about it, but since it's unsubstantiated, no one's touching it yet.
Reply
post #18 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:39pm
Maybe it's a nonstory, but if there is truth to it, my hypothesis would be that he has done what he was put there to do and now he can retire for a life of luxury bankrolled by all the now and future corporations that will reap massive benefits from his actions.
Reply
post #19 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:40pm
The update says it ain't happening.
Reply
post #20 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
No way. With six liberals on the court, letting them become irrelevant is a tastier fate.
Anthony Kennedy is not a liberal.
Reply
post #21 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:42pm
Why would he retire so young? Supreme Court Judges don't have to do shit. They staff out everything. They may have a decision already made and they ask staff to find the legal precedent to support their opinions. Being a Supreme Court Judge is a lot easier than people realize.
Reply
post #22 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:49pm
Little thing called: Money

Also, from what I know Supreme Court work is very difficult because of all the different kinds of laws you have to oversee.

Chewer lawyers can better explain this
Reply
post #23 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Anthony Kennedy is not a liberal.
He would be to write opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alan "nordling" cerny View Post
why would he retire so young? Supreme court judges don't have to do shit. They staff out everything. They may have a decision already made and they ask staff to find the legal precedent to support their opinions. Being a supreme court judge is a lot easier than people realize.
bwhahahahaha
Reply
post #24 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:53pm
double post.
Reply
post #25 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:53pm
Huh?

He's a moderate swing-voter, like O'Connor.
Reply
post #26 of 32
3/4/10 at 3:56pm
Yes, he's a moderate, I'm half-joking.
Reply
post #27 of 32
3/4/10 at 4:00pm
Wait ... you're not saying Roberts is a moderate, are you?
Reply
post #28 of 32
3/4/10 at 4:03pm
...


Quote:
Anthony Kennedy is not a liberal.
Quote:
He would be to write opinions.
Quote:
Huh?

He's a moderate swing-voter, like O'Connor.
Quote:
Yes, he's a moderate, I'm half-joking.
Reply
post #29 of 32
3/4/10 at 4:24pm
Sorry, my brain is still recovering from Tuesday's Lost.
Reply
post #30 of 32
3/4/10 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
If true, that would be MASSIVE. It would allow Obama to pack the court with liberals that could conceivably be on the bench for 25 years.
Well, according to this guy Obama can stack the court now under existing law.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opini...and_court.html

Quote:
This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.

The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.

Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democrats repealed that measure, raising the number to seven. It went to nine in 1837 to give Andrew Jackson two more seats. Civil War issues led to more fluctuations before the court settled at nine under President Ulysses Grant.

So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

The court's recent controversial decision equating corporations with individuals turned an already overly money-influenced campaign system into a veritable free-for-all of propaganda for corporate and vested interests. It was met with criticism by most legal scholars, praised only by corporate mouthpieces.

Even Barack "Can't We All Get Along?" Obama criticized the decision in his State of the Union speech. A lot of good that will do. The court has four hard-liners who are against what Obama strives for, and a so-called swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, who votes with them in the big cases.

As the court stands, it is reminiscent of the stonewall President Franklin Roosevelt faced in opposition to his New Deal legislation. Four entrenched reactionary justices, known as the "Four Horsemen," were not only anti-New Deal, but some demonstrated a personal dislike for FDR.

Justice James McReynolds reportedly stated in response to rumors that he would step down, "I'll never retire as long as that crippled son of a bitch is still in the White House."

In response, Roosevelt sought to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 and refused retirement, with a maximum size of 15 justices. The phrase "packing the court" became the pejorative that turned the public against FDR's plan.

The actual plan wasn't pushed, however, because of changes on the court. Justice Owen Roberts - seemingly intimidated by popular approval of the New Deal - voted with liberals in a decision supporting Washington state's minimum-wage law. Roberts' change of heart was called "the switch in time that saved nine."

The ideological balance of the court was changed for good with the retirement of another Horseman, Willis Van Devanter, and the confirmation of liberal Hugo Black in August 1937.

Had Roosevelt needed his court-packing plan, he would have had to do a better job of winning over the public. Secrecy undermined the proposal, including the president's failure to bring Democratic leaders into his confidence before a news conference announcing the plan. Kentucky Sen. Alben Barkley complained that Roosevelt was a "poor quarterback" on the court plan.

That's an easy enough mistake for Obama to avoid. He can easily be a quarterback for change on a court that will give the president continued grief as he tries to implement his agenda.

Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.

It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.
Reply
post #31 of 32
3/4/10 at 5:15pm
That's not a fight. That's pushing a boulder up a hill. They'd never let him get away with that and they'd have a field day talking about what kind of a monster he was for doing it, destroying democracy and what not.

God forbid the justices we have work with the service of citizens in mind, not corporations.
Reply
post #32 of 32
3/4/10 at 5:18pm
But don't you see, the court made it so corporations are people too!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Justice Roberts might step down??