SCOTUS Justice Stevens retires, Obama gets second appointment..

[Olo401]

Kinda figured this was coming, either from Stevens or Ginsberg.. Let the battle begin!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us...tevens.html?hp

In a brief letter to President Obama, whom he addressed as “my dear Mr. President,” Justice Stevens said he was announcing his retirement now because he had “concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next term” in October.
...
The retirement by Justice Stevens, 89, had been widely expected, because he did not hire the usual number of clerks for next year’s term. The White House has been quietly evaluating potential nominees for months. Among those rumored to be in contention for the nomination are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and several appeals court judges, including Diane Wood and Merrick Garland.

A soft-spoken Republican and former antitrust lawyer from Chicago, Justice Stevens has led liberals on a court that has become increasingly conservative. He was appointed by President Gerald Ford in December 1975 to succeed Justice William O. Douglas, who had retired the month before. He is the longest-serving current justice by more than a decade.
Before joining the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens had been an appeals court judge. He served in the Navy in World War II.

[Antithesis]

Why would you highlight certain parts in black? Most of us are using blacksmart. I think you are purposely trying to hurt our eyes. You devil.

[Olo401]

Why would you highlight certain parts in black? Most of us are using blacksmart. I think you are purposely trying to hurt our eyes. You devil.

Oh didn't mean for that to happen.. when I copied the text it carried over some linked text that stayed blue when I removed the link.. Fixed now.

[*Shinzon*]

Stevens was a good judge and good a great man. It'll be hard to replace him.

[oldoldman]

The SC is trying to fill the court with darky appointees!

[Kuya]

Meh, it wasn't a conservative judge that left.

[Olo401]

Meh, it wasn't a conservative judge that left.

Don't tell Stevens that.. he and O'Connor were both true judicial conservatives, unlike Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito who are all ideological activists.

[quannum]

Don't tell Stevens that.. he and O'Connor were both true judicial conservatives, unlike Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito who are all corporate whores.

fixed for accuracy

[Rothbardian]

Don't tell Stevens that.. he and O'Connor were both true judicial conservatives, unlike Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito who are all ideological activists.

Talk about Orwellian. While I am not a big fan of those 4 (And much prefer Judge Napolitano who fucking kicks major ass), they at 'least' try and convey a sense of constructionism, whereas the others are blatantly activists.

Take for instance Heller vs. DC. 5-4. Stevens the Big-Gov. liberal voted to keep the ban obviously against the 2nd Amendment which holds "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....THAT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"

A fucking two-year old can interpret that.

While Scalia obviously himself interpreted it wrong also -- Giving the majority decision yielding that, yes, Congress can make laws to interpose on the natural right of self-defense and for the strictest purpose it was written for -- the defense against a tyrannous State. Here he writes:

"[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Bull-fucking-shit. Anyways, I hate the SCOTUS and it really doesn't matter who sits there. The SCOTUS has been turned into an Oligarchial regime where 9 men hold ultimate authority on interpretation which goes against Madison and Jefferson. For fucks sake can't any of these Justices read the Federalist Papers? Even I am no means a Federalist, but fuck.

Why is there even a label of conservative/liberal for a SCOTUS. Aren't they supposed to be impartial and constructionist? Anyways, all the justices are activist, just in their own ways. At least Scalia, et. al. aren't as Big-Gov as the others, but fuck it if they aren't themselves Big-Gov' ass-holes. (See: Scalia decision on California Medical Marijuana, etc. with only dissenting from those four being Thomas)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Don't tell Stevens that.. he and O'Connor were both true judicial conservatives, unlike Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito who are all ideological activists.

How can you call them activists when they attempt to adhere to how the court has always interpreted things? Wouldn't the activists be the one's who don't?

[Correction]

I'm basically an anarchist

Just post this from now on, I think we get it.

[Rothbardian]

Just post this from now on, I think we get it.

My post had nothing to do with Anarchism. Save that little jargon for when I actually speak of Voluntaryism.

[Shuvo]

They should replace him with Al Gore only b/c I wanna be able to say Here comes JUSTICE GOOOOOOOORE.

[Pirian]

They should replace him with Al Gore only b/c I wanna be able to say Here comes Justice GOOOOOOOORE.

EXCELSIOR!

http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_...-superhero.jpg

[Rothbardian]

I propose everyones favorite Judge and Judicator, so says I am the Law --

http://koti.mbnet.fi/wiitanen/I-am-the-law.jpg

[Beckwin]

How can you call them activists when they attempt to adhere to how the court has always interpreted things? Wouldn't the activists be the one's who don't?

are you talking about the recent decision by conservatives on the bench to allow unlimited corporate political financing, which was different from a hundred years of precedent?

oh right, then shut the fuck up

[Rothbardian]

are you talking about the recent decision by conservatives on the bench to allow unlimited corporate political financing, which was different from a hundred years of precedent?

oh right, then shut the fuck up

To be fair, where in the Constitution does it prohibit the amount of money given to a political campaign? Are you sure you want an oligarchial SCOTUS? Let's even look at the practicality of the situation. Do not the corporations all ready buy most of the campaigns, not only through ownership of Media (And Government granted privilege through licensing I might add), and other entities, but through out-right advertising and campaign contributions? At least this makes it more open. As it is now they just funnel money through a million different organizations, perhaps now we can get a more accurate picture (not that we don't all ready know the dealio).

That said, I am 100% against LLC's. I am for Joint-Stock companies. The whole thing is a huge fucking mess, might as well head towards liberty, than heading towards more totalitarianism in order to fix....more totalitarianism?

Anyways, I think old-media is dead. New-media (Internet) is taking over, and good-riddance to the fucking NYT, WaPo, and MSM. But I do agree with you, all 9 Justices are activist agitators for their own political whims. I think Thomas is the most constructionist of the nine, and if I had to support one of them, would most likely be him, however, they are all horrible, especially Thomas in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. FUCKING JOKE. Gimme some good ol' Judge Napolitano loving in thar'

[Beckwin]

constructionism is bullshit, so are federalist papers. also, pretty sure the legislature can pass laws; nothing in the constitution says that they can't pass a law regarding campaign finance.

[Rothbardian]

constructionism is bullshit, so are federalist papers. also, pretty sure the legislature can pass laws; nothing in the constitution says that they can't pass a law regarding campaign finance.

If constructionism is bullshit why even have the amendment process when the SCOTUS can de-facto change the Constitution on its whims? That goes against James Madison the author of the Constitution, and of the 13 colonies who voluntarily agreed to form the Federal Government on that basis. You can't just change the contract mid-way through on one parties sole discretion (Fed.Gov). The Constitution, is a contract. Also, I'm sure you are well aware, but the Constitution grants specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government. If the power is not expressely codified then they do not have authority. Hence, the 9th and 10th amendments, and the whole document itself. Remember, we just got done fighting a war against tyranny and British Imperialism. The last thing most of them wanted is to have tyranny on their doorstep instead of across the ocean (rememeber...most).

I'm curious...do you support McCain-Feingold?

[Beckwin]

I support campaign finance regulations and ideally would like to see elections largely publicly funded.

the constitution grants powers to the fed gov't, including the ability for the legislature to make laws. campaign finance is not exempt.

constructionism is bullshit because madison is not the only person in US history that matters, especially when you're just cherry picking quotations to support your conservative brand of activism.