CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Second Supreme Court Pick?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Second Supreme Court Pick?

post #1 of 18
3/22/10 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
Might as well start something else for the political circle-jerking to continue:

Sizing up the Supreme Court after Justice John Paul Stevens retires
Reply
post #2 of 18
3/22/10 at 1:30pm
New find... Judgepedia.

Marrick Garland

Diane Wood

Elena Kagan
Reply
post #3 of 18
3/22/10 at 4:42pm
It's probably just me, but as a law student not in the Ivy League... I'd like to see a judge from a school NOT from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford.
Reply
post #4 of 18
3/22/10 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
It's probably just me, but as a law student not in the Ivy League... I'd like to see a judge from a school NOT from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford.
Stanford isn't in the Ivy League, it only charges rates like it is and hopes nobody notices.
Reply
post #5 of 18
3/22/10 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Stanford isn't in the Ivy League, it only charges rates like it is and hopes nobody notices.
Well, in Supreme Court land... Stanford might as well be Ivy.
Reply
post #6 of 18
3/22/10 at 5:40pm
Thread Starter 
I'd want Kathleen Sullivan just to be nominated so some more fundies lose their goddamn minds about having a lesbian on the court.
Reply
post #7 of 18
3/22/10 at 5:44pm
I really hope that whomever Obama picks is actually a progressive. Sotomayor is basically a centrist. And the corporatist/"conservative" majority in the SCOTUS is out of control.
Reply
post #8 of 18
3/22/10 at 5:47pm
I'd put serious money on Kagen. She's already been vetted by the Senate, she's a woman, and she has not been a judge, which gives her everything that Obama would probably be looking for in a candidate.

The only more obvious choice is Clinton and there is no way in Hell that Hillary Clinton would prematurely nix any and all presidential aspirations. Plus, having a disbarred husband would probably be a headache for her, if she did decide to chuck any chance of ever being POTUS out the window.

Personally, I've been hoping for a Brennan or a Warren from this guy but Sotomayor's appointment sort of signals we are just never, ever getting that kind of appointment from him.
Reply
post #9 of 18
3/22/10 at 6:34pm
Well, the reality is if no one retires between now and June... it will probably be a Republican Senate that will pass the next SCJ. As I said in the Sotomayor thread, if Ginsberg doesn't opt to retire next, that means she wasn't happy with the Sotomayor pick and will hold out for different circumstances. She had announced she was holding out to retire until Bush was out of office to prevent a change in the court make-up and Souter had to talk with Ginsberg before his retirement to see if he could play cutsies. Ginsberg should be the next to retire, not John Paul Stevens.
Reply
post #10 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:28pm
lol Republican Senate
Reply
post #11 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:37pm
Thread Starter 
I don't even bother trying to make arguments, but you do realize that Supreme Court confirmation hearings tend to occur in the summer and early fall right?

And no way does Clinton get on the bench because of her age.
Reply
post #12 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:38pm
Haha I know. A Republican Senate, only in Snaieke's head does such a thing seem possible in 2010.


ETA- this was in response to the post by Pomp
Reply
post #13 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:39pm
Thread Starter 
Trying to engage Snaieke, about as worthwhile as trying to suck yourself off.
Reply
post #14 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:41pm
Someone who doesn't have him on ignore should let him know that there aren't even enough seats up for election in the Senate to give them the majority they'd need to do any of the things they plan to campaign on.
Reply
post #15 of 18
3/22/10 at 7:45pm
he's living in the dreamworld that carly fiorina is actually gonna beat barb boxer in California. lol
Reply
post #16 of 18
3/23/10 at 1:01am
So if its Kagan, the SC would be 6 Catholics & 3 Jews. Worth noting?
Reply
post #17 of 18
3/23/10 at 1:21am

I like that the exchange above was done by folks with all headshots for avatars. They all seemed completely appropriate for each respective post.
Reply
post #18 of 18
3/23/10 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
I don't even bother trying to make arguments, but you do realize that Supreme Court confirmation hearings tend to occur in the summer and early fall right?
They occur whenever there is an opening and the president has enough time to vet and nominate a replacement. Alito's happened in January; but the previous nominee to replace O'Connor, Harriet Miers, probably would have had her hearings in the late fall. Roberts was the first O'Connor replacement named and would have had his hearings in the early summer. But then Rehnquist died and Roberts became his replacement.

The Court is in session September through April and most retiring justices will wait until a session ends before their retirements are effective. The Senate generally holds nominations hearings before or after Congress's summer recess, as Congress pretty much takes off the whole month of August (Europe style!). If a justice dies, though, the nomination hearings could happen within a few months of that death, regardless of when that would be.

And that's much more than anyone wanted to know about this subject.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Second Supreme Court Pick?