Even if he does pick a liberal and succeeds in his/her seating that will only restore balance. It won't turn t into a liberal court at all.

I'd read somewhere quite a while ago that his interest was in keeping the court in a holding pattern, rather than altering it's makeup. If a liberal retired, he'd replace them with a liberal. If a conservative retired, he'd replace him with a conservative. If a moderate retired he'd replace them with a moderate. I'm not sure if that is how it will actually play out though.

You don't always know how a lifetime appointment will work out.

And you believed him?

Republicans are going to appoint people who are much more likely to favor large corporations over individuals.

You don't always know how a lifetime appointment will work out. The idea being to keep them from being pressured. I just want somebody who follows the law, doesn't try to make it up.

I liked Roberts answer to one question. They were trying to ask if the little guy would win in his court, and he said he would decide based on the law. If the little guy was right he would win, and if the big company were right they would win.

It isn't supposed to be about picking winners based on ideology.

True. On the other hand, having a default position that between an artificial, legal person and a real, living, breathing person the latter should get the benefit of the doubt doesn't sound too ideological to me.

The ideological position, it seems to me, is to insist that since they're both legally 'persons', the e.g. 14th Amendment applies equally to them both, etc.

“[T]hose who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says, 'I am ideological'. […] As is well known, the accusation of being in ideology only applies to others, never to oneself.”

When one is IN an ideology, i.e. when one lives its truth, it's not an ideology.

True. On the other hand, having a default position that between an artificial, legal person and a real, living, breathing person the latter should get the benefit of the doubt doesn't sound too ideological to me.

You've become a goof. Everything has to be taken to the extreme. No middle ground whatsoever.

I am hoping for the biggest left wing goof ball available, summer Senate hearings would be great...

I am hoping for the biggest left wing goof ball available, summer Senate hearings would be great...

We haven't had many really interesting hearings lately.

That would be nice.

I am hoping for the most articulate, most intelligent, most even-keeled, wisest left-winger, especially on corporations-as-persons-deserving-of-Constitutional-rights-and-protections matters to tear the "moderates" and "conservatives" in both parties a proverbial new one.

Directive 10-289

"In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that--

"Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

"Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under pentalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

"Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

"Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufacturerd or sold afer the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.

"Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Barod.

"Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

"Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.

"Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisionswill be final."

I am hoping for the most articulate, most intelligent, most even-keeled, wisest left-winger, especially on corporations-as-persons-deserving-of-Constitutional-rights-and-protections matters to tear the "moderates" and "conservatives" in both parties a proverbial new one.

Yep. Here's an oddball scenario (partially with tongue planted firmly in cheek):

The current SecState hasn't exactly been without her own gaffes and missteps thus far. And despite assurances made in the aftermath of her loss to then candidate Obama in the primaries, that she would neither seek, nor had any plans for, being anything in a new Obama administration (including a possible Supreme Court appointment) except a Senator from New York, she accepted the post of SecState. So why not now Justice Souter's replacement? It is known, or at least it's been said the President wants to nominate another woman to the high bench, and she has the advantage of having already been vetted and confirmed to a high post by the Senate - this Senate. Frees him to choose a possibly better SecState, solves his SCOTUS appointment (also removing further a still possible future competitor in the bargain), and secures the seat to a liberal. She changed her mind once, why not again? SecState is good only as long as an Obama presidency - SCOTUS is for life. Hmmmm...

Yep. Here's an oddball scenario (partially with tongue planted firmly in cheek):

The current SecState hasn't exactly been without her own gaffes and missteps thus far. And despite assurances made in the aftermath of her loss to then candidate Obama in the primaries, that she would neither seek, nor had any plans for, being anything in a new Obama administration (including a possible Supreme Court appointment) except a Senator from New York, she accepted the post of SecState. So why not now Justice Souter's replacement? It is known, or at least it's been said the President wants to nominate another woman to the high bench, and she has the advantage of having already been vetted and confirmed to a high post by the Senate - this Senate. Frees him to choose a possibly better SecState, solves his SCOTUS appointment (also removing further a still possible future competitor in the bargain), and secures the seat to a liberal. She changed her mind once, why not again? SecState is good only as long as an Obama presidency - SCOTUS is for life. Hmmmm...

I believe there was a rumor to that effect late last year... she isn't goof ball lefty enough for my scenario...

I want Kindergarten masturbation lessons goof ball lefty...

The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that The Baby Jesus will nominate a flaming gay man to the Supreme Tier. The Baby Jesus already has a Bull Dyke as Homeland Security chief.

It goes against the current conventional wisdom, but for a longshot I like it. Empathy is big nowdays. It's too bad it extends to a lot of people that don't really deserve it. I heard Jon Stewart call Truman a war criminal, but they want to protect KSM's "civil rights" ?

Something is ass-backwards.

Jon Stewart is a top news anchor.

Something is ass-backwards.

News of Justice David Souter's plan to retire at the end of the Supreme Court's current term immediately set off one of Washington D.C.'s most cherished parlor games: speculating who will take his place.

Among those most often mentioned:











Dark horses: Some names offered by legal observers who have followed Supreme Court politics a bit more closely:

Souter Replacements: Obama's Five Likely Picks











Dark horses: Some names offered by legal observers who have followed Supreme Court politics a bit more closely:









I added photos and wikipedia links to this posting that were not part of the original article.

Souter Replacements: Obama's Five Likely Picks


Dark horses: Some names offered by legal observers who have followed Supreme Court politics a bit more closely:

I added photos and wikipedia links to this posting that were not part of the original article.

Cool. Required reading. Probably best this happens in a non-election year. Maybe some rational thought will ensue.

[indent][/indent]


Yeah, good luck with that.

Sometimes I end up watching a nanosecond because my channel changer only goes so fast, but he's up there with Olbermann and Maddow when it comes to lefty bias.

Mike Savage is right about one thing, Stewart would be a lampshade if he had been in Europe back in the 30s. Truman deserves better.

Cool. Required reading. Probably best this happens in a non-election year. Maybe some rational thought will ensue.

I can usually live with about half of what most judges do, but outside of them doing what I want I'd like to see them stick to a fairly strict interpretation of the law. At the same time I'd like to see the legislative branch limit the power of government that they use as a weapon against citizens. It's like we're just a cash cow with which to buy power.

I can usually live with about half of what most judges do, but outside of them doing what I want I'd like to see them stick to a fairly strict interpretation of the law. At the same time I'd like to see the legislative branch limit the power of government that they use as a weapon against citizens. It's like we're just a cash cow with which to buy power.

That is as stupid a statement as I've ever heard here.

Michael Weiner would be in a pile of gassed bodies too if he were a Jew, what the hell is the point?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Awaiting President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court pick, activists expect a less-spirited nomination battle than would have been anticipated if a conservative justice had stepped down or Democrats held a slimmer edge in the Senate.

Retiring Justice David H. Souter is part of the court's liberal wing, and his replacement by a Democratic administration probably won't change the ideological balance.

With Democrats holding a nearly filibuster-proof margin in the Senate, the confirmation process may be noisy. But it also may lack the same energy and tension were Republicans in a reasonable position to block the nominee.

That doesn't mean conservative groups won't use the occasion to air their views and communicate with their members.

Democrats doubt there will be much punch in a Republican-led pushback.

"I'd venture a guess that the most politically astute conservatives are not enthusiastic at the prospect of igniting a culture war over a Supreme Court nominee" under these circumstances, said Jennifer Palmieri, a former Clinton White House aide now with the Center for American Progress.

Souter, who is expected to return to his native New Hampshire, is the youngest of three members of the court who have figured in retirement speculation in recent years. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 76 and recently underwent cancer surgery. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89, the oldest member of the court.

But one of the ironies confronting Obama is that even replacing all three would not allow him to fundamentally alter the court's makeup on key cases in which there often are four judges predictably on one side, four on the other, and Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle, in effect the deciding vote.