Justice Stevens Retire?

[thatsrightimirish]

"From the Evans-Novak Political Report: "The rumor around Washington -- originating from undetermined sources some time around the beginning of 2006 -- is that Justice John Paul Stevens wants to be replaced by a Republican President, just as he was appointed by one, Gerald Ford. Stevens, a consistent liberal voice and vote on the high court, was also rumored to have wanted to step down after the 2006 election, so as to avoid making his replacement into a political issue. Although there is no way to determine whether Stevens actually intends to retire, it is not unlikely that one of the nine justices will in the next two years."

To push a nomination through a Democratic Senate, Bush may choose a U.S. Senator, a suggestion once recommended by incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Ont he short list: Mike DeWine (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Mike Crapo (R-ID) or Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

"Another senator then on Bush's short-list -- and still on it -- is Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A member of the Judiciary Committee, Cornyn once served as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court and was also elected attorney general of that state"
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/13/will_justice_stevens_retire.html

:beer:

[MrCoffee]

1. noooooooooooooooo

even the rumor makes me :cry:

[zreosumgame]

2. If Nancy let's that one go by too...

well fuck her then.

[LA lady]

5. What do you expect her to do?

It's the Senate.

[zreosumgame]

8. keep any nominee tied up in commitee, refuse to send to the floor

hell, shut off the friggin lights when any repuke trys to hold a meeting concerning the nominee (count on someone as good as KKKarl Rove)

[MrCoffee]

9. seriously, you're not earning any points.

Read the Constitution.

[zreosumgame]

16. seriously I could give a crap about points

read below then go get a beer and stop taking yourself so dammed seriously. LOL WTF are you to award 'points'?

[MrCoffee]

22. i'm the one who didn't show their ass in here.

[GainesT1958]

24. But the fact is...

Under the Constitution, the House has absolutely NO say in this; only the Senate gets to review and confirm or reject presidential nominees to the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court.

B-)

[eyesroll]

10. And exactly how is REP. Nancy Pelosi supposed to keep a SENATE nominee tied up in committee?

This is mind-boggling.

[eyesroll]

6. Umm...Nancy Pelosi has no say in Supreme Court picks.

President nominates.
Senate confirms (or doesn't).
House doesn't participate.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtConfirmationFAQ.shtml#q9

Yeah, fuck Nancy. :eyes:

[mentalsolstice]

7. I'm not sure what Nancy has to do with it?

According to Art. II of the Constitution, the President has the power to appoint a justice "with the advice and consent" of the Senate. The House has nothing to do with this process.

[zreosumgame]

11. does the Senate not confirm the nominee's?

Sorry if i am confused but it is the whole advise/consent stuff right? I realize there has not been much of that for the last 6 years, but that does not mean the Senate should be lap dogs to dumbaya does it?

[zreosumgame]

13. nope I had the right idea, wrong house! LOL

DOH!!!!!! rewind and erase

:silly:

[Hosnon]

15. Pelosi is a member of the House, not the Senate. The Senate confirms appointments. nt.

[zreosumgame]

19. read before posting...it wwould have helped me!

:boring:

[terrya]

12. The Senate votes on Supreme Court nominees.

Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House of Representatives.

It's from this document called the United States Constitution.

[zreosumgame]

14. yada yada yada blah blah blah see above

[smalll]

36. Whoa.

So after saying about Nancy Pelosi, "fuck her" for absolutely no good reason, and then attempting to defend your pointless bashing for a few posts afterwards, you finally remember (D'oh) about the whole bicameral-legislature thing, and post a little mea culpa. OK. But then you feel the need to come back and mock (with smileys, no less!) a couple of posters who simply and calmly point out your error to you, because they didn't "read the whole thread"?!?!

Ignorance, thy name is zero. Will Pitt is right (see post 20.) And let me take you to task for another piece of misguided ignorance: your apparent love of uncalled-for apostrophe esses in the subject lines. (Grammar, people say? And are about to call me elitist. But give me a minute here.) There is nothing wrong with bad grammar or spelling errors or anything of the sort. What IS wrong is when people like you just LOVE to put useless apostrophe esses in SUBJECT LINES or HEADLINES where there is absolutely NO need for them. I know exactly what's going on with this: people think, "Hmm... this is a subject line. Pretty "important." So let me take some time here, make sure it sounds important, looks formal, stylish and imposing. Why yes! Let's add an apostrophe! Look how high-toned and up-market it looks sitting there! Dadgummit, that'll let people know they're dealing with one high-class intellectual!"

If Nancy let's that one go by too...

does the Senate not confirm the nominee's?

[WilliamPitt]

20. I love arrogant displays of ignorance.

I love them about as much as I love arrogant displays of ignorance used as a cudgel to bash Democrats. Really makes me happy.

Or something.

:grr:

[TahitiNut]

27. I prefer iggerant displays of arrowgance..

:dunce:

:popcorn:

[ContraBass Black]

28. "The gas pedal is the one on the right."

"Shut up! Now, if I stomp my foot down on this here left pedal and this car still doesn't move, I'm taking it to the junkyard."

[TahitiNut]

33. (The OTHER 'right'.)

:eyes:

[aquart]

3. Thanks, but no thanks.

And Justice Stevens should give himself a good slap and snap out of it.

[renate]

4. why on earth would Stevens want to be replaced by an (R) president?

Makes no sense that he would make that choice. Two more years isn't long... hang in there, Justice Stevens!

[WilliamPitt]

17. THIS

is why some of us were pleading with people to vote for so-called DINOs during the last election. Six of the nine sitting Justices are above the age of 60, and three (I think) are between 70 and 85. We're going to see some of them leave relatively soon.

This is why winning matters.

[MrCoffee]

23. i wish i had your confidence in our new Judiciary Committee

the attitude during the Gates' confirmation did not leave me much hope. I know the new Congress hasn't seated yet, but still...

[thatsrightimirish]

25. Gates testified before the armed services committie

who consists of Bayh, Clinton, etc. The Judicuary committie has Leahey, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstein, McCaskill, etc

[MrCoffee]

26. yes, i know...my point was more to the attitude of Democrats

after the election. This could have been the first big showdown between the newly-empowered Congressional Democrats and the WH.

I realize it's a stretch to expect the 109th to do much before the 110th is sworn in, but i'd have liked to see a little more fight.

I dunno, maybe it's just me.

[cali]

34. You must not be familiar with

Senator Leahy. He did a good job when he was chairman briefly after Jefford's became an independent. He has stated quite clearly that he has no intention of letting an right wing ideologue get through his committee. He's already been very active on other vital issues.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Gates will go when the President says, won't he?

If so, he matters far less than a supreme court justice.

[TahitiNut]

29. Chickens. Count. Hatch?

:think: :crazy:

(Pun intended.)

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Well, if a 'Moderate' isn't appointed.he/she AIN'T making it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee!

Patrick Leahy already said so.:7 He's the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.:woohoo:

[Selatius]

21. Bush will try to sneak a far-right judge onto the court making it 5-4 conservative

He just needs to find a stealth candidate who plays the part of liberal real well.

[TahitiNut]

31. Senators like Hatch or Cornyn won't have to 'sneak' - they'll run right past the tackle.

The Senate is notorious for giving "their own" the benefit of the doubt certainty. That's why DeWine, Martinez, Crapo, and Graham are even mentioned. Abominations? Sure. Shoo-ins? Probably. Watch the Dems lie down and whimper.

[moc]

30. Cornyn?!?!?!?

Please kill me now.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Cornyn? The guy who compared gay people to turtle fuckers?

Great. So- now, as for his "moderate" social views:

Does he merely want birth control made against the law, or does he also think women who take the pill should get the Death Penalty?

[SoCalDem]

35. What about Lieberman?? He'd do it.. n/t

[WI_DEM]

38. I hate to say it, but he probably would be as good a choice as we could hope to get

[zreosumgame]

39. Yes I was a dunce, no question about it before. But Harry must not let this

be a complete judicial coup. the balance now is bad enough don't you think?