Possible SCOTUS nominees

[LegalSmash]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/..._supreme_court

I am partial because I am the son of Cuban immigrants, but I would love to see a hispanic woman with that much experience on the high bench.

I REALLY like her commitment to constitutional integrity, her background, and the experience she brings.

Do you guys have any suggestions?

[PotshotPolka]

Well since I pretend I'm a blind man with poor hearing skills when it comes to racial issues, I'm still on the bench, mainly because she isn't a blatant liberal or advocate of any specific issue, which is probably why Obama may nominate her since it would leave relatively few points for Congress to nitpick on.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

Here's an opposition article I already dug up, but most of it looks kinda subjective.

EDIT: He just picked her on national television, so I guess it's official.

[Red Tampon]

Her resume looks good, but I could really give a shit about gender/race. That shouldn't be a factor and picking somebody to fill that template is a form of affirmative action in my eyes, and for a seat on SCOTUS no less which is kind of lame.

I also don't want the SCOTUS to make policy, which she seems to favor, also her race based remarks "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male" are pretty fucked up. We don't need activist judges.

But with Obama as Pres there's not much hope otherwise.

Race is too big a factor in her being chosen that it doesn't sit right with me. At least she is well qualified, but again, no activist judges please.



She couldn't back track fast enough. "you know you know" no we don't know, you just said it's where policy is made.

Come on Legal, put race aside, you hate activist judges. Her race shouldn't take precedence over that.

[LegalSmash]

Actually its her gender that is a big issue here, moreso than her race. Personally, I'd rather have a female hispanic than a white female because the latter in power tend to be fiercely leftist and liberal. As for my happiness over the issue, I am a hispanic, and its nice to see one of our own getting to such a prestigious position in government. I could care less if it was Obama or Cheney, or Bush that put her in. Although I will say, that I'd prefer it this way, because political appointees (like Gonzalez) can be royally fucked over (see Alberto Gonzalez) for the lulz whenever the CIC feels like it. It does not work the same way with the court. Rather than being the token minority to get offed this time when something goes wrong, its a minority in a position that requires skill and a great degree of deference.

The important factors for a judge to have are listed in the "bulwarks of justice". You have to understand that a judge's initial position position in front of the court is by no means what they will be on the bench: Eisenhower deeply regretted putting Earl Warren on the court because upon getting on bench he went on to preside over the most liberal court in US History. People expected the black judge to be liberal and he is by far the most conservative judge on the court right now.. it is a crapshoot really.

Regarding her experience: I love the fact that she has experience as a trial lawyer, I've seen some naysayers talk about her being a bully on the bench (TNR article posted by polka), but Scalia is similar on the bench, if not more of a bully, and many persons who look at the court impartially do not see that as a bad thing. We WANT the court to have a few persons who will badger advocates and really make them consider their arguments, and their respective client's position in the face of the greatest court in the land.

In my opinion, while law professors make great law professors, I do not necessarily believe that they make great judges anymore than a california Governor, a banker, or a high school educated farmer. I think that trial experience will be beneficial to bring to the bench, especially since the candidate appears to have both private and governmental work. Law Professor work is helpful to understand and write about minutia, but knowing the exact wording of something your clerk is going to do for you anyway is not going to be helpful to the court in determining a case regarding the DMCA, FOIA, FAR, or Patriot Act. We need judges who have gotten their hands dirty on more than one side of the ball.

Some persons consider the court should be like a dictionary, or a google for law, or an encyclopedia. To this I pose the question: then what is the point of the court if all it will do is point at what the statute is. For that, stop paying them, alter the constitution, and just put a search engine in their place. The court's purpose is to interpret statutory law and apply it to factual situations, creating precedent. This is the nature of common law, which our nation proscribes to, except for louisiana in their state matters.

The problem with a court that solely 'reads the law outloud' is its not common law style justice. A large part of law is determining what is equitable in a situation, and its the purpose of the judge to determine that. Having a judge that has experience seeking equity in court, is in my opinion a worthwhile venture. I'd take a family law attorney in the supreme court over a business man any day because the court gets to hear experts on issues of business, on the other hand, experience in dealing with family law is only learned through first hand work, and no textbook on earth can teach you to deal with clients outside of experiencing it yourself. This is not to say that businessmen don't belong in the court, they do, but where business expertise would be useful. Preconceived notions of knowledge on a subject seriously screw up supreme court decisions, look at the 1960s for example, with the cases regarding antitrust and mergers. The judges were quite terrified to let a 3% consolidation in the market occur... we live in an era where some companies own 70-90% of a market, WORLDWIDE. Back in those days, the judges felt they "knew what was good as per _______" and had no desire to listen to the expert in the seat, retarding American business growth throughout the 60-70 period.

There is little to argue about here, she has good qualities, in my opinion as an attorney. I think that the court could use a different kind of judge, in experience, background, and yes, ethnicity and gender. I'm honestly tired of "repeat judges" (Alito is known as "little scalia"), and truth be told, Sandra Day O'Conner was a pretty good judge, and didn't let her vagina get in the way of her job.

We'll see what happens at the confirmations.

[LegalSmash]

My big tests for a judge are:

1. Are marriage issues a STATE issue under police power, or do you feel need to make it a federal issue where race is NOT a factor.

-To me where race, religion, or gender (not orientation), are at issue, marriage issues CAN be federally dealt with where the state is unwilling to commit to proper preservations of rights (no preventing asians and jews from wedding).

2. Where corporate officers operate within the business judgment rule, should criminal liability, or civil liability be imposed for socially irresponsible behavior?

-No, but companies should not be propped up on tax dollars, ever.

3. Does the Criminal Justice System, paid for by the taxpayers serve a purpose of punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence?

-Depends on the criminal, but always should include punishment.

4. At what point do federal incentive programs impinge on state rights, and where conflict of interest or seperation of power issues arise, to which side does the judge go?

Strict Constitutionalism here.

5. Are teenagers to be considered to have the same rights as an adult?

- No.

6. To what degree is constitutional interpretation appropriate? Does the judge deviate on social issues as opposed to business issues?
- If there is a large deviation to either side, I find the judge unfit. The constitution is made to adapt, but the key there is ADAPT, not "GET THE FUCKING CRAYOLAS OUT AND LETS PAINT ON IT".

[broncoty]

5. Are teenagers to be considered to have the same rights as an adult?

- No.

[LegalSmash]

lol.

[PotshotPolka]

lol.

Well there is emancipation, but it is only provided in rare scenarios.

[LegalSmash]

Well there is emancipation, but it is only provided in rare scenarios.

Well, specifically, I am more concerned with children attempting to receive abortions, small scale surgery, dental procedures without proper notification of parents, when medical care is critical post-procedure. When the parent finds out that the kid died because of bleeding due to one, they sue the doctor, driving up his MP rate, and his general rate for everyone. At that rate, I'd rather just the idiot kid do whateveer they need to do with the parental heads up, in case he/she starts to bleed like a scieve .

[PotshotPolka]

Well, specifically, I am more concerned with children attempting to receive abortions, small scale surgery, dental procedures without proper notification of parents, when medical care is critical post-procedure. When the parent finds out that the kid died because of bleeding due to one, they sue the doctor, driving up his MP rate, and his general rate for everyone. At that rate, I'd rather just the idiot kid do whateveer they need to do with the parental heads up, in case he/she starts to bleed like a scieve .

Well in that case by all means, I just meant in regards to near of age individuals after say, their guardians are both deceased or deemed no longer fit to be so.