Reply With Quote
He will be missed; prac ioners before that Court, of any political stripe, hold Justice Stevens in the highest of high regard.
Let the nomination/confirmation battle begin.
Supreme Court John Paul Stevens to retire
CNN
...not unexpected but newsworthy!
He will be missed; prac ioners before that Court, of any political stripe, hold Justice Stevens in the highest of high regard.
Let the nomination/confirmation battle begin.
I'm rooting for Solicitor General Elena Kagen.
I predict certain posters on this board will post other people's blog saying how horrible the next nominee is.
And some will post other people's blogs about how great the next nominee is.
You'll post a YouTube.
darrin wants to see the birth certificate.
You'll reply by asking me whether I posted it from work.
Do you ever actually start a thread?
clambake will continue his streak of irrelevant posts.
history has shown that birth certificates hold great importance you.
Nah, we've pretty much concluded that's what you do. I might comment on it, but you have proved you won't answer any questions like that. Too embarrassing, I suppose.
Not too often. Most of the subjects are covered here sooner or later. Thread starting isn't necessarily an indicator of quality.Do you ever actually start a thread?
Knowing Obama, he'll put up a mild left-center judge, and the Republicans will act like he's trying to confirm Ralph Nader or Michael Moore.
http://www.concurringopinions.com/ar...successor.htmlThe Stevens Resignation Is Not Contingent Upon the Confirmation of a Successor
posted by Tuan Samahon
The Above the Law blog has posted what purports to be a letter from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens to President Obama announcing the Justice’s resignation.
Interestingly, the resignation is not contingent upon the successor’s confirmation and appointment. “I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 371(b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.” (emphasis added).
That means the Court will operate at eight justices if no successor is confirmed and appointed in time for October with the “liberal” bloc of the Court down a vote.
Update: Over at the New Yorker news desk, Jeffrey Toobin thinks this non-contingent method of resignation was intended to aid President Obama in timely securing a replacement. In 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren resigned contingent upon his successor’s confirmation (the same technique used by O’Connor, among others). I assume that Chief Justice Warren also intended to benefit President LBJ by providing a parachute should the Fortas confirmation fail (as it did). Who is right, Stevens or Warren? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. Which helps a President more, contingent resignation or an unconditional resignation?
But it's not required for a SC Justice.
he'll ask to see his or her law degree, and film footage of the graduation ceremony
Who cares. Obama will put another dem in. Nothing changes.
The complexion of the Court is more intricate than one justice's political affiliation, depending on the issue. I doubt Obama nominates someone as or more "liberal" than Stevens.
it's required for darrin.
No matter whom Magic Negro nominates, the Repugs will block/filibuser/NO!, like they have been doing to his other nominations, judicial and otherwise, in an effective attempt destroy Magic Negro.
McConnell and others are already trying to intimidate MN.
I say MN pack the court the way he wants, and the way dubya packed the court against citizens/employees/consumers/America.
Yeah, Dems are known for their rubber stamping of Republican nominees to the SCOTUS.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP leader, pledged to use the forthcoming confirmation process to "make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law."
http://www.salon.com/news/the_numero...ory/index.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
