supreme court

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

supreme court

Postby aunt betty » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:00 am

Has Obama appointed any? Tell me about it plz?
Cut self off from news a while back. Helps me keep calm.
Curious about what kinda freaks the president has been appointing and the freak's agenda.
The supreme court is a flaw in our system because we have no idea who a president will appoint until after we voted.
They wont even discuss their plans for government in a sensible manner so we can decide before its too late.
Issues change so quickly, our govt. is disfunctional and slow like paint drying in a rainstorm.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11696
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!


Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:13 am

He hasn't and I pray he doesn't.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:41 am

Sonia Sotomaior or is Sotomayor?
The road to diabetes will be sweet.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Re: supreme court

Postby WTN10 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:54 am

Obama has appointed two justices: Sotomayor and Kagan.

Kennedy is the current swing vote. He crosses ideological lines at times and gives either the Democrats or the Republicans the vote they need for a majority.

For example, he was the swing vote in the DOMA case. The four Republican justices voted against it, the four Democrat justices voted for it, and Kennedy was the tie breaker.

If Kennedy retires or dies before Obama's term is up, Obama will nominate the next justice to take his place. Obama will predictably pick a liberal Democrat to replace him, and the Democrats will have a solid majority on the Court, and the Republicans will never issue a relevant decision until one of the liberals dies or steps down while a Republican holds office.

If this happens, the Republicans will have to hope that Justice Ginsburg stays on the Court until a Republican president is in office to replace her. Justice Ginsburg is very old and reportedly not in great health. However, she may step down before Obama leaves office.

If she alone steps down, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. If both her and Kennedy step down while Obama is in office, the Court will be slanted very liberal for some time.

Hope also that nothing happens to Scalia. He's 77. By the time President Obama leaves office, he will be pushing 81.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:58 am

jaysweet3 wrote:Sonia Sotomaior or is Sotomayor?

Not in second term...thought that was his ?...my mistake
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:00 am

WTN10 wrote:Obama has appointed two justices: Sotomayor and Kagan.

Kennedy is the current swing vote. He crosses ideological lines at times and gives either the Democrats or the Republicans the vote they need for a majority.

For example, he was the swing vote in the DOMA case. The four Republican justices voted against it, the four Democrat justices voted for it, and Kennedy was the tie breaker.

If Kennedy retires or dies before Obama's term is up, Obama will nominate the next justice to take his place. Obama will predictably pick a liberal Democrat to replace him, and the Democrats will have a solid majority on the Court, and the Republicans will never issue a relevant decision until one of the liberals dies or steps down while a Republican holds office.

If this happens, the Republicans will have to hope that Justice Ginsburg stays on the Court until a Republican president is in office to replace her. Justice Ginsburg is very old and reportedly not in great health. However, she may step down before Obama leaves office.

If she alone steps down, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. If both her and Kennedy step down while Obama is in office, the Court will be slanted very liberal for some time.

Hope also that nothing happens to Scalia. He's 77. By the time President Obama leaves office, he will be pushing 81.

Won't there be like 4 of them 79 or older when Obama leaves?

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby WTN10 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:03 am

beretta24 wrote:
WTN10 wrote:Obama has appointed two justices: Sotomayor and Kagan.

Kennedy is the current swing vote. He crosses ideological lines at times and gives either the Democrats or the Republicans the vote they need for a majority.

For example, he was the swing vote in the DOMA case. The four Republican justices voted against it, the four Democrat justices voted for it, and Kennedy was the tie breaker.

If Kennedy retires or dies before Obama's term is up, Obama will nominate the next justice to take his place. Obama will predictably pick a liberal Democrat to replace him, and the Democrats will have a solid majority on the Court, and the Republicans will never issue a relevant decision until one of the liberals dies or steps down while a Republican holds office.

If this happens, the Republicans will have to hope that Justice Ginsburg stays on the Court until a Republican president is in office to replace her. Justice Ginsburg is very old and reportedly not in great health. However, she may step down before Obama leaves office.

If she alone steps down, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. If both her and Kennedy step down while Obama is in office, the Court will be slanted very liberal for some time.

Hope also that nothing happens to Scalia. He's 77. By the time President Obama leaves office, he will be pushing 81.

Won't there be like 4 of them 79 or older when Obama leaves?

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


Many are very old.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: supreme court

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:26 am

Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: supreme court

Postby WTN10 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:35 am

assateague wrote:Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.


You're high if you think this. Roberts gave him what he wanted, but not in the way that he wanted it, and took from him what he thought he couldn't lose. The result was a population who thought Obama had won and a President who couldn't complain without looking like an idiot.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: supreme court

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:49 am

WTN10 wrote:
assateague wrote:Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.


You're high if you think this. Roberts gave him what he wanted, but not in the way that he wanted it, and took from him what he thought he couldn't lose. The result was a population who thought Obama had won and a President who couldn't complain without looking like an idiot.



You're high if you think this is what the job of a SCOTUS justice is. Their job, quite simply, is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. Period. Not to give anybody what they want, nor should they even care if it LOOKS like they gave someone what they wanted. And if a president wants to complain, let him complain. It's not their job to concern themselves with that in the least.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: supreme court

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:35 pm

SCOTUS stopped voting based on Constitutionality a very long time ago. It is a bunch of political hacks with the possible exception of Kennedy. When votes fall along political lines every time with one abberation you know you have political hacks running the show. The votes should be mixed up a lot more if they were all voting strictly on Constitutional issues.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6654
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:57 pm

assateague wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
assateague wrote:Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.


You're high if you think this. Roberts gave him what he wanted, but not in the way that he wanted it, and took from him what he thought he couldn't lose. The result was a population who thought Obama had won and a President who couldn't complain without looking like an idiot.



You're high if you think this is what the job of a SCOTUS justice is. Their job, quite simply, is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. Period. Not to give anybody what they want, nor should they even care if it LOOKS like they gave someone what they wanted. And if a president wants to complain, let him complain. It's not their job to concern themselves with that in the least.

Yes, but WTN10 explained perfectly why in reality the courts are nothing more in practice than the third political branch of government. Most of them are little more than political hacks with a life time appointment. They need to be term limited like all other politicians.

The only thing that WTN10 missed is that Obama will not only appoint as hard a leftist as possible, they will be as young as possible so they can lock down that political office for as long as possible. Republicans should do the same. That is the racket and there is no benefit to pretending that it is anything else. It's just a bunch of politicians playing politics at every level of the court.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:22 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
assateague wrote:Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.


You're high if you think this. Roberts gave him what he wanted, but not in the way that he wanted it, and took from him what he thought he couldn't lose. The result was a population who thought Obama had won and a President who couldn't complain without looking like an idiot.



You're high if you think this is what the job of a SCOTUS justice is. Their job, quite simply, is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. Period. Not to give anybody what they want, nor should they even care if it LOOKS like they gave someone what they wanted. And if a president wants to complain, let him complain. It's not their job to concern themselves with that in the least.

Yes, but WTN10 explained perfectly why in reality the courts are nothing more in practice than the third political branch of government. Most of them are little more than political hacks with a life time appointment. They need to be term limited like all other politicians.

The only thing that WTN10 missed is that Obama will not only appoint as hard a leftist as possible, they will be as young as possible so they can lock down that political office for as long as possible. Republicans should do the same. That is the racket and there is no benefit to pretending that it is anything else. It's just a bunch of politicians playing politics at every level of the court.



LOL! So you would just want to make the situation worse. Nice.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:52 pm

slowshooter wrote:LOL! So you would just want to make the situation worse. Nice.
How is acknowledging reality going to make it worse? The argument for life terms was that it is the best way to reduce political influences. IT HAS FAILED! WTN10 clearly proved that.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby vincentpa » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:42 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
assateague wrote:Roberts may as well be an Obama appointee.


You're high if you think this. Roberts gave him what he wanted, but not in the way that he wanted it, and took from him what he thought he couldn't lose. The result was a population who thought Obama had won and a President who couldn't complain without looking like an idiot.



You're high if you think this is what the job of a SCOTUS justice is. Their job, quite simply, is to interpret the constitutionality of laws. Period. Not to give anybody what they want, nor should they even care if it LOOKS like they gave someone what they wanted. And if a president wants to complain, let him complain. It's not their job to concern themselves with that in the least.

Yes, but WTN10 explained perfectly why in reality the courts are nothing more in practice than the third political branch of government. Most of them are little more than political hacks with a life time appointment. They need to be term limited like all other politicians.

The only thing that WTN10 missed is that Obama will not only appoint as hard a leftist as possible, they will be as young as possible so they can lock down that political office for as long as possible. Republicans should do the same. That is the racket and there is no benefit to pretending that it is anything else. It's just a bunch of politicians playing politics at every level of the court.


They have. The last two appointments by Bush were young. They are basically the same age as Kagan and Sotomayor. Sotomayor may surprise later on. She may vote more for states rights than the other liberals. Look where she came down on prop 8. She is also more catholic than most on the left will admit.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7725
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:30 pm

vincentpa wrote:They have. The last two appointments by Bush were young. They are basically the same age as Kagan and Sotomayor. Sotomayor may surprise later on. She may vote more for states rights than the other liberals. Look where she came down on prop 8. She is also more catholic than most on the left will admit.
I actually was hoping someone would point that out. Because Bush was a practical politician and grasped the reality of things better than most give him credit. This is part of the reason he was so hated by the left. Republicans aren't supposed to play the liberals game as they would. This was one of them where after the brainfart that was Harriet Myers, whose nomination was killed by conservatives, and should have been chose as well as realistically possible. As far as surprising, they all might do that. In general, it is not surprising that when these people are given vast almost unchecked power that they are given that they it corrupts them. Power corrupts and they have a lot of it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:29 pm

Do they really have all that much power? For me, power would imply that they have a lot to gain personally. Unless they are getting kickbacks I don't see them as having any more power than a senior congressman...they certainly seem to have much less to gain personally from the decisions they make. Plus the supreme courst seems to have historically sided with congress unless something is really blatant (kind of a tie goes to congress sort of thing), and even that hasn't stopped congress from wiping their ass with the constitution.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:33 am

beretta24 wrote:Do they really have all that much power? For me, power would imply that they have a lot to gain personally. Unless they are getting kickbacks I don't see them as having any more power than a senior congressman...they certainly seem to have much less to gain personally from the decisions they make. Plus the supreme courst seems to have historically sided with congress unless something is really blatant (kind of a tie goes to congress sort of thing), and even that hasn't stopped congress from wiping their ass with the constitution.

They get to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America on a routine basis. We fought a war for the right to do that. People risk and lost everything to do that. They just get to do it by pulling things out of their ass. They have the power to trump EVERY federal, state, and local legislature in the country. They get to order around every government executive from the Mayor of Wasilla to the President of the United States.

People who use power "for the benefit of others" have tended to be among the most destructive. The Soviet Union was not doing what they were doing to get rich. They thought that they could create a more perfect union by ordering the economy. They killed millions. What about abortion? The legislatures had outlawed it and they decided they could not do that.

The Supreme Court has vast power and the laws that we are all subject to would be wildly different if Republicans had appointed all 9 versus if Obama had appointed all 9. That is precisely what the rule of men and not the law looks like. It's not difference of opinion at the margin. That is incredible power and you can't simply choose to ignore it. You must comply or force may be used against you. The threat of force gives them the ultimate power of government at their disposal based on nothing more than 5 individuals simply saying it is so. That is dictatorial power because they answer to no one but themselves in practice.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:59 am

I get your point point but they only make a call on what is brought to them, and I'd argue their power is merely an extension of the branch that appointed them.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:17 am

beretta24 wrote:I get your point point but they only make a call on what is brought to them, and I'd argue their power is merely an extension of the branch that appointed them.

So the "conservative" justices are an extension of Obama's White House? :huh:

They are the embodiment of what Lincoln said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." And there is simply no truly reliable way to do this until they have that power. When people abuse the power entrusted to them, they generally error in the direction of using that power and in this case that means expanding the power and authority of the government in order to have greater control over other people. The same is true for legislators and executives. Power corrupts and when it does it means that the corrupt seek more power than they have in most cases. That's why of the people, by the people, and for the people evolves to Obamanation.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I get your point point but they only make a call on what is brought to them, and I'd argue their power is merely an extension of the branch that appointed them.

So the "conservative" justices are an extension of Obama's White House? :huh:

They are the embodiment of what Lincoln said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." And there is simply no truly reliable way to do this until they have that power. When people abuse the power entrusted to them, they generally error in the direction of using that power and in this case that means expanding the power and authority of the government in order to have greater control over other people. The same is true for legislators and executives. Power corrupts and when it does it means that the corrupt seek more power than they have in most cases. That's why of the people, by the people, and for the people evolves to Obamanation.

An extension of the pres that nominated them; i.e. if one party has control long enough to appoint a large majority its game over....although at that point it may be more a symptom than cause.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:54 am

beretta24 wrote:An extension of the pres that nominated them; i.e. if one party has control long enough to appoint a large majority its game over....although at that point it may be more a symptom than cause.
And that is my point. The outcome of your day in court is far too often determined by politics and not the law. It has become nothing more than the third political branch and we should treat it as such and act accordingly.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby beretta24 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:09 am

How would you propose acting accordingly?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5951
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: supreme court

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:51 am

beretta24 wrote:How would you propose acting accordingly?

Do you give politicians lifetime appointments? :no:

Do you give one party power to appoint the majority and therefore power over an "unbiased" panel? :no:

In an ideal world, we repeal the 17th amendment so the states have representation in Washington.

Then we have equal representation on that panel from the different parties and we don't give one person the power to appoint the entire panel.

Say for example we could give The House and Senate each 5 appointments and the President 2 appointments. In the House and Senate those 5 are split 3 from the opposition coalition (the one not aligned with the President) and 2 from the coalition aligned with the President. We could make it a 12 year appointment with 2 appointed (or reappointed) every two years.

This gives the States via the Senate, the people via the Representatives, and the President via his appointments all representation on the panel, but make it impossible for any group to dominate the outcome by simple majority rule since the minority coalition has equal representation.

We do things vaguely along this line for the Nuclear Regulator Commission and other things where we are really trying to keep politics out of it.

Of course, there is a great desire to put politics into it and that has been very true since FDR threatened to pack the court to get the decisions he wanted and he ultimately succeeded without having to actually pack the court. So it's not going to happen. Both sides simply want to win and dominate and this removes that potential.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16199
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: supreme court

Postby assateague » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:17 am

I don't know much about the NRC, so this may be a foolish question- I assume there is at least one political appointee heading the organization, but do they "stay out" of your day to day business? If not, are they at least a qualified nuclear engineer or something?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests