No, not really. I was reading an article unrelated to the thread title and found this throw in, parenthesized:
. (Side point: political writers wonder when the Republican party will produce its next really shrewd strategist, the one who knows how to pick his battles rather than getting mired in obstructive pandering to the base. Such a figure already exists. His name is John Roberts.)
Obama has no experience as a judge at any level.
Obama and Taft are two entirely different people.
Quote:
I think Obama could follow William Taft and would make an interesting Supreme Court Justice
Obama has no experience as a judge at any level.
Didn't stop Elana Kagan.
Or William Rehnquist.
And Bill was seriously considerating nominating Hillary.
John Roberts, detested by Republicans for doing what Republicans have been saying they wanted justices to do for two decades.
Quote:
John Roberts couldn't buy a republican vote at this point.
John Roberts, detested by Republicans for doing what Republicans have been saying they wanted justices to do for two decades.
Rather, two generations.
Quote:
I think Obama could follow William Taft and would make an interesting Supreme Court Justice
Obama has no experience as a judge at any level.
Well he didn't have any executive experience yet was elected president.
Quote:
John Roberts couldn't buy a republican vote at this point.
John Roberts, detested by Republicans for doing what Republicans have been saying they wanted justices to do for two decades.
Which is what?
Those were decided based on constitutionality as opposed to interpreting what the law said.
Except we know that it was intended to push the states to set up marketplaces. I agree the lawsuit was doomed to fail, but the Dems really played fast and loose on this bill. It's a shame, only because we did need healthcare reform, but not this. And not how this was done.
Quote:
I think Obama could follow William Taft and would make an interesting Supreme Court Justice
Obama has no experience as a judge at any level.
Obama was a constitutional law professor. It's an interesting idea.
I can't wait for Hillary's appointees. Move the Court further left. Move the Court with America.
Quote:
Ideological Political Conservatism. Let's suppose there was a Republican major piece of legislation. Out of 2500 words, 5 words were picked out by the judges and used to change a major part or key element. As such it distorted what was intend by a Republican Congress & what had been signed into law by the President. Republicans would be screaming judicial activism of the worst kind.
Except we know that it was intended to push the states to set up marketplaces. I agree the lawsuit was doomed to fail, but the Dems really played fast and loose on this bill. It's a shame, only because we did need healthcare reform, but not this. And not how this was done.
Yes, a few words hidden in a huge piece of legislation were purposely put there to push the states to set up their own exchanges. There could absolutely be no other explanation. That only makes sense to be people who love a good conspiracy theory.
As stated above, If the tables had been reversed, exact same people would have been crying foul.
I can't wait for Hillary's appointees. Move the Court further left. Move the Court with America.
Go team go
Quote:
In comment 12346524 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
I think Obama could follow William Taft and would make an interesting Supreme Court Justice
Obama has no experience as a judge at any level.
There's no requirement that Supreme Court justices have experience as judges, or that they even be lawyers. It's a recent tradition.
Obama was a constitutional law professor. It's an interesting idea.
He was a lecturer on the subject, with virtually no scholarship. Sticking a polarizing President on the Court would not convince America that it is something even remotely nonpartisan.
Quote:
In comment 12346755 Watson said:
Quote:
Ideological Political Conservatism. Let's suppose there was a Republican major piece of legislation. Out of 2500 words, 5 words were picked out by the judges and used to change a major part or key element. As such it distorted what was intend by a Republican Congress & what had been signed into law by the President. Republicans would be screaming judicial activism of the worst kind.
Except we know that it was intended to push the states to set up marketplaces. I agree the lawsuit was doomed to fail, but the Dems really played fast and loose on this bill. It's a shame, only because we did need healthcare reform, but not this. And not how this was done.
Yes, a few words hidden in a huge piece of legislation were purposely put there to push the states to set up their own exchanges. There could absolutely be no other explanation. That only makes sense to be people who love a good conspiracy theory.
As stated above, If the tables had been reversed, exact same people would have been crying foul.
I think it was a nearer-run thing than is supposed, but if the watchword is judicial restraint expecting them to invalidate this would certainly not be in keeping with that.
But its also low enough to make me worry about the Justices pandering to speaker fees in their spare time. Why are they allowed to take money to speak, when alomost every thing under the sun is a potential conflict of interest to them?
Ginsburg's 82
Scalia's 79
Kennedy's 79
Breyer's 77
The healthcare system is pretty good nowadays, but there's a good chance at least 1 of the above has some health issues in the next 9 years.
True. She won't retire, but if you were to predict a vacancy during the next term it would be her seat.
Close to 0% chance Scalia retires if HRC wins.
Close to 0% chance Scalia retires if HRC wins.
Scalia enjoys it too much. I wonder if Thomas is a little less enamored with being despised by so many.
I think Ledbetter is actually the perfect case to cite vis a vis thwarting the clearly stated intention of congress. In Ledbetter the court interpreted the phrase in the EEO law "shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred" to mean that only the initial decision, possibly made years before, to discriminate in paying of wages was a violation rather than than following precedent which was to view the issuance of each new discriminatory paycheck as a restart of the 180 day clock. They did so despite the fact that the clearly stated intent of title VII was to prevent wage discrimination. They did so despite the fact that comparative wage info is secret and impossible to assess immediately. They did so despite the fact that when they used a similar argument to protect protect corporate interests in another case (Lorance), congress immediately rewrote the law to repudiate that decision and make it non controlling.
The court's interpretation in Ledbetter could only be consistent with the intent of congress if the intent of title VII had been to allow employers to get away with wage discrimination if they could only hide it for the first 180 days it occurred. Deliberately ignoring the clearly stated intent of the law in order to achieve an effect in direct opposition to congressional intent is judicial activism at its finest.