Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ginsburg's illness could lead to Obama appointment

Some presidents are handed the chance to remake the Supreme Court for a generation, if enough justices leave. Others wait in vain to make even one appointment.

President Barack Obama took office with a strong prospect that his first four years in office could bring two or more openings on the high court, though he may well be replacing aging liberal justices with younger ones.

Barring the unexpected, the court's balance of power - four on the left, four on the right, one in the middle leaning right - is not likely to change significantly.

Word of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's illness on Thursday, just two weeks after Obama's inauguration, set off an inevitable round of speculation about whether she will have to retire sooner than she would wish - and whom Obama might tap as her successor.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... s0208.html

I'm praying for this.

I figured Stevens would go first, but Ginsburg,ll do.

With his vetting track record so far, I'd expect to see him nominate some "token" political payoff to appease his "supporters" for 2012. Someone who'll attract the voters...

...to keep the "inner city" vote...


...or the Queen of Ethic's, Oak Park's...


...or, someone to dback's liking (hey, If Gupta's qualified to be Surgeon General, why not...)


...or to appease the feminist beeotches who threw Hillary under the bus and now have to deal with their inner-turmoil over craving to discard their faux life ethos just for one night's taste of that chocolate candy...

...lotta truth to this last one...would replace a woman with another woman, and a flaming communist with a flaming feminist communist. Would be a great fit...

...or the ultimate political payback...


An Obama appointment to the SCOTUS...it's a conservative pundit's dream.

We can only hope Obama appoints someone as qualified and as competent as Ginsburg or Stevens

Also hope that dopes like Scalia and his minions (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) decide to retire...


Judge Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.


• Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


• Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.


• Pam Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University.


• Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

Either Wardlaw or Sotomayor would be the court's first Hispanic justice.

Other court watchers have mentioned Elena Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean whom Obama has nominated as solicitor general, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Georgia Chief Justice Leah Sears.

This is the disaster the sheep who voted for BHO never really considered.

travelinman67 wrote:I'm praying for this.

I figured Stevens would go first, but Ginsburg,ll do.

With his vetting track record so far, I'd expect to see him nominate some "token" political payoff to appease his "supporters" for 2012. Someone who'll attract the voters...

...to keep the "inner city" vote...


...or the Queen of Ethic's, Oak Park's...


...or, someone to dback's liking (hey, If Gupta's qualified to be Surgeon General, why not...)


...or to appease the feminist beeotches who threw Hillary under the bus and now have to deal with their inner-turmoil over craving to discard their faux life ethos just for one night's taste of that chocolate candy...

...lotta truth to this last one...would replace a woman with another woman, and a flaming communist with a flaming feminist communist. Would be a great fit...

...or the ultimate political payback...


An Obama appointment to the SCOTUS...it's a conservative pundit's dream.

Disaster?

This is why having a majority of the Senate, and the White House was IMPERATIVE. The Country could not survive another Scalia type pick.

dbackjon wrote:Disaster?

This is why having a majority of the Senate, and the White House was IMPERATIVE. The Country could not survive another Scalia type pick.

you are right.....it is so wrong to have a judge who actually DOESN'T LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! OH THE HORROR!

THE COUNTRY COULDN'T SURVIVE IT....GIVE ME A BREAK

citdog wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Disaster?

This is why having a majority of the Senate, and the White House was IMPERATIVE. The Country could not survive another Scalia type pick.

THE COUNTRY COULDN'T SURVIVE IT....GIVE ME A BREAK

\

Of course, that would make you happy, right?

dbackjon wrote:

citdog wrote:

THE COUNTRY COULDN'T SURVIVE IT....GIVE ME A BREAK

\

Of course, that would make you happy, right?

You sound like those republicans you're constantly bashing....intimidating with fear....

dbackjon wrote:

citdog wrote:

THE COUNTRY COULDN'T SURVIVE IT....GIVE ME A BREAK

\

Of course, that would make you happy, right?

DAMN STRAIGHT.....UNLIKE YOU DBACK

dbackjon wrote:Disaster?

This is why having a majority of the Senate, and the White House was IMPERATIVE. The Country could not survive another Scalia type pick.

Hey, with Flavor Flav on, maybe The Flav can school Scalia on the concept of a living constitution...

...over a bowl of skunk.




Oh, Jeezus, I almost forgot...hey, she got a VIP pass to the Inaugration:

Openly communist, avowed revolutionary Medea Benjamin...

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Disaster?

This is why having a majority of the Senate, and the White House was IMPERATIVE. The Country could not survive another Scalia type pick.

Hey, with Flavor Flav on, maybe The Flav can school Scalia on the concept of a living constitution...

...over a bowl of skunk.




Oh, Jeezus, I almost forgot...hey, she got a VIP pass to the Inaugration:

Openly communist, avowed revolutionary Medea Benjamin...

WHO KNEW THAT MARTINA NAVRATIOLA WAS A PEACE ACTIVIST?

dbackjon wrote:Also hope that dopes like Scalia and his minions (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) decide to retire...

Maybe they could decide to get hit by a bus, instead.

dbackjon wrote:We can only hope Obama appoints someone as qualified and as competent as Ginsburg or Stevens

Also hope that dopes like Scalia and his minions (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) decide to retire...


Judge Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.


• Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


• Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.


• Pam Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University.


• Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

Either Wardlaw or Sotomayor would be the court's first Hispanic justice.

Other court watchers have mentioned Elena Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean whom Obama has nominated as solicitor general, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Georgia Chief Justice Leah Sears.

Wow, imagine that. A liberal supporting judges from Chicago, San Francisco, and New York. Could you be more predictable?

Honest question Jon, what is wrong with interpreting the Constitution they way the framers intended? Why do you support the ripping apart of the Constitution by supporting legislating from the bench? Did you support the Kelo decision?

I used to live in Michigan, so I feel I can speak about Jennifer Granholm more than you can. ARE YOU EFFIN KIDDING ME?!? The, I wish I could be an actor, well I'll give tour guides at Universal Studios, to my family was in politics, I'll go to law school and do the same. Really?!? I mean, hopefully Obama wouldn't be so stupid as to appoint someone like Harriett Myers (that happened when I was a first year law student...in Michigan...and I was more qualified than her).

ASUMountaineer - I don't beleive that Scalia, et al ARE intrepreting the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers intended. They intended for a living, breathing document that changed with the times - they were smart enough to know that they did not have all the answers at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

Scalia, et al, fit the criteria of "activist judge"

And why should judges from Chicago, New York, or Frisco be eliminated? Majority of our country lives in cities like those.

dbackjon wrote:ASUMountaineer - I don't beleive that Scalia, et al ARE intrepreting the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers intended. They intended for a living, breathing document that changed with the times - they were smart enough to know that they did not have all the answers at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

Scalia, et al, fit the criteria of "activist judge"

And why should judges from Chicago, New York, or Frisco be eliminated? Majority of our country lives in cities like those.

No, it's just funny you found three from the most liberal cities in America. Why not a judge from a small, conservative town?

Anyways, I disagree with you to a degree. The founders did intend for it to be a "living document." But, not the way liberals argue. They argue a small panel of judges should be able to amend the Constitution from the bench. Whereas the founders inteded the Constitution to be able to be amended (living) through legislative actions. I don't believe they intended certain clauses to be considered obsolete because certain groups feel it should no longer pertain, that's what an amendment is for.

Depending on your outlook, I guess you could argue Scalia is an "activist judge." But, whether you agree with his interpretations or not, he is generally consistent.

We've been over this, but I'll say it again. Liberals want the government to have more and more power, but then get bent out of shape when said government limits their freedom. What did you think would happen? You can't expect freedom to come from more governmental power. That is what the founders were afraid of. We can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we now like and only follow those. It's all or nothing...if you don't like something it CAN be amended, just NOT from the bench.

I want maximum freedom, for everyone--not just some (as liberals and social conservatives desire). I understand that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. However, people in office have a selective process when it comes to freedom (or inalienable rights). Just remember Jon, inalienable rights were endowed by our Creator, not by our government. They can no more bestow freedom than you can, but they can limit it. If you joined the dark side that wanted the government out of people's personal lives, you could see the light. Until you realize that it's your all mighty government that is preventing you from your "equality" you will always be a victim, and never have your freedom.

FREEDOM! It kicks ass.

You mean like David Souter?

i nominate Justice Jean Toal of South Carolina.......female.....and a States Righter!

dbackjon wrote:You mean like David Souter?

Exactly like David Souter...no. I mean, why not a well qualified, experienced conservative judge?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:We can only hope Obama appoints someone as qualified and as competent as Ginsburg or Stevens

Also hope that dopes like Scalia and his minions (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) decide to retire...


Judge Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.


• Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


• Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.


• Pam Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University.


• Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

Either Wardlaw or Sotomayor would be the court's first Hispanic justice.

Other court watchers have mentioned Elena Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean whom Obama has nominated as solicitor general, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Georgia Chief Justice Leah Sears.

Wow, imagine that. A liberal supporting judges from Chicago, San Francisco, and New York. Could you be more predictable?

Honest question Jon, what is wrong with interpreting the Constitution they way the framers intended? Why do you support the ripping apart of the Constitution by supporting legislating from the bench? Did you support the Kelo decision?

I used to live in Michigan, so I feel I can speak about Jennifer Granholm more than you can. ARE YOU EFFIN KIDDING ME?!? The, I wish I could be an actor, well I'll give tour guides at Universal Studios, to my family was in politics, I'll go to law school and do the same. Really?!? I mean, hopefully Obama wouldn't be so stupid as to appoint someone like Harriett Myers (that happened when I was a first year law student...in Michigan...and I was more qualified than her).

Uhhhh, because that shit was 200+ years ago. Conservatives by definition are soley interested in maintaining status quo. Progressives accept the challenge of change and employ critical ethical inquiry to accomodate.

Republicans = fearful of change, fearful of anything that requires thought and a decision that is not either black or white, kinda like robots.

D1B wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Wow, imagine that. A liberal supporting judges from Chicago, San Francisco, and New York. Could you be more predictable?

Honest question Jon, what is wrong with interpreting the Constitution they way the framers intended? Why do you support the ripping apart of the Constitution by supporting legislating from the bench? Did you support the Kelo decision?

I used to live in Michigan, so I feel I can speak about Jennifer Granholm more than you can. ARE YOU EFFIN KIDDING ME?!? The, I wish I could be an actor, well I'll give tour guides at Universal Studios, to my family was in politics, I'll go to law school and do the same. Really?!? I mean, hopefully Obama wouldn't be so stupid as to appoint someone like Harriett Myers (that happened when I was a first year law student...in Michigan...and I was more qualified than her).

Uhhhh, because that shit was 200+ years ago. Conservatives by definition are soley interested in maintaining status quo. Progressives accept the challenge of change and employ critical ethical inquiry to accomodate.

Republicans = fearful of change, fearful of anything that requires thought and a decision that is not either black or white, kinda like robots.

Ok, I never mentioned Republicans. Good try though...valiant effort. Republicans (as you love to bash them) are not conservative. You take one sentence out of all of that. Ok, that's cool. There's no accepting the "challenge of change" by "Progressives." Come on D, surely you don't believe your own BS your selling. No "progressive" in Washington cares about changing anything but they're own situation (increasing power and remaining in office). It's cool...I know you think Putin is a hero. The fact remains, as long as you continue to want the government to have more and more power, people like Jon will continue to lack the "equality" they desire.