nother reason to vote Obama

Another reason not to vote for either of these morons.

Maybe we can get some people in there that have heard of the constitution before.

Another reason not to vote for either of these morons.

Because not voting will keep them both out of office.

What?

There are more than two candidates for president. What an idiot.

Joe,

I think that you play a lawyer or something on the internets so let me ask you:

Given Obama's knowledge of Constitutional Law, what additional qualifications should he have for you to consider him a good judge of who should be on our Courts?

What additional qualifications does one need for you to not consider him a moron considering your educational background?

Not a dis, just a question.

We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

No. we need somebody that knows the fucking constitution inside and out. Black, gay, old, and the inability to use a rubber should not be qualifications for the court.

No. we need somebody that knows the fucking constitution inside and out. Black, gay, old, and the inability to use a rubber should not be qualifications for the court.

Well that would make Obama the most qualified person in our history.

Vote wisely Chair......

"Given Obama's knowledge of Constitutional Law, what additional qualifications should he have for you to consider him a good judge of who should be on our Courts?"

You can "know" Constitutional Law and still be disagreed with by others in terms of who you think should be on the Supreme Court. One of my Constitutional Law teachers was a scholar in the field but at one point, told the class that "the Constitution should be scrapped and re-written." In other words, the fact that you have taught the class does not make you qualified or at least generally acceptable to all Americans when it comes to appointing justices to the SC.

Assuming Dems control the Senate I don't think we'll see another conservative regardless of who's plugging the White House crappers.

Well that would make Obama the most qualified person in our history.

Vote wisely Chair......

#8 | Posted by Manypaths at 2008-10-07 03:40 PM | Reply

Really? How so?

Being balck, or knowing what it's like to be gay, or a single mommy should never even be mentioned as a "need" for what a SCJ should have in their resume.
In fact, I'd suggest that anyone that thinks that (Obama) isn't qualified to vote for dog catcher, let alone appoint a SCJ.

Cynthia McKinney is where it's at. I want to know more about those 5,000 people with the single GSW to the head that she's been barking about.

"Part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court."

That is what Obama said about who he would nominate to the SC. Regardless of your politics, does it sound like a good idea?

Sorry folks, it's done been decided.

TAKITEZ has spoken! McPOW and PaLyin will win every state AND most importantly, Chuck Norris' vote.

Well that would make Obama the most qualified person in our history.

Vote wisely Chair......

#8 | Posted by Manypaths at 2008-10-07 03:40 PM | Reply

Really? How so?

In response to your:

No. we need somebody that knows the fucking constitution inside and out.

Given his history, Obama's knowledge of the Constitution is superior to any Prez. Candidate that I can remember.

Correct me if I am wrong. It is vastly superior to the guy that finished 5th from the bottom of his class in Gentleman College.

The court is roughly balanced on important constitutional issues, with four consistent conservatives, four liberals and, in the middle, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who leans right on many issues but often joins liberals on some of the court's most controversial decisions.

Replacing liberals Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter with similar-minded justices would infuse the left wing of the court with younger leadership but leave the basic balance intact.

I believe that maintaining a reasonable balance of power within the SCOTUS may be one of the most important issues we face in this or any other election.

I want to know more about those 5,000 people with the single GSW to the head that she's been barking about.

#11 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Huh? She's the one that filed the articles of impeachment, right?

What does your statement mean? I'd be happier than a puppy with two peters if you would explain what you are talking about.

Why is it that the Bush Cult Hates Balance?

I would think that the highest court in the land should represent all the people rather than just one small segment (cult). Why is this so unpalatable to them? Are they afraid that in the arena of ideas they can't win in a straight up fight?

There are more than two candidates for president. What an idiot.

Are you planning on being as much of an asshole when you actually practice law?

That is what Obama said about who he would nominate to the SC. Regardless of your politics, does it sound like a good idea?

Sure! I liked O'Connor.

What does your statement mean? I'd be happier than a puppy with two peters if you would explain what you are talking about.

#16 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-10-07 04:01 PM | Reply

I'm promoting the real candidate of change, Cynthia McKinney.

Simply google that lass and find out what the 5,000 dead Katrina victims conspiracy is all about. She just addressed it a week or 2 ago...

Yeah, I saw that CHair.

She's a fucking wacko.

I love the rebuttal:

"So she is to have us think that 5000 Americans disapeared and nobody has noticed it until now?"

Again, she's a fucking wacko!

Mccain and Palin, rule wisely and leave Roe v. Wade alone.

most importantly, Chuck Norris' vote

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer, too bad he has never cried.

Barring the unexpected, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts aren't going anywhere Scalia will do his best to hold on for 4, 8, or 12 years, as needed.

Obama will be replacing Stevens and Ginsberg pretty much immediately, and probably Breyer for younger blood before the end of his first term (and he won't be a putz like Clinton and appoint someone who's already 60). Kennedy and Souter? Damned if I know.

This really doesn't change the balance of the court one iota. I rather prefer the 5-to-4 knife-edge narrow judgements we get now, and so, voting Obama seems like a good idea for maintaining balance.

There are more than two candidates for president. What an idiot.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-07 03:30 PM

Yer the idiot if you even think one of these two candidates will not be the next President. It is extremely important that the Democrats get the WH back.

And the Supreme Court is just one thing that hangs in the balance. But, it is one of the more important things. Not enough attention is being paid to this.

Good article.

And the Supreme Court is just one thing that hangs in the balance. But, it is one of the more important things. Not enough attention is being paid to this.

Didn't Obama run ads guaranteeing abortion would become outlawed if McCain was elected President? I agree not enough attention was being paid. Regardless of the balatant lies by Obama.

Two reason NOT TO VOTE FOR McCAIN: This and a hotheaded warmonger with one finger on the button.

Two reason NOT TO VOTE FOR McCAIN: This and a hotheaded warmonger with one finger on the button.

Well one was a war monger and served his Country in his twenties. The other admitted it was a moral failure on his part being on dope and alcohol in his twenties. I would think one who has served would know firsthand when and if to use the military. The other... Not so sure.

the damage that would be done to constitutional interpretation as a result of a 6 or 7 conservative majority court would be disastrous...

Didn't Obama run ads guaranteeing abortion would become outlawed if McCain was elected President?

I believe you are right Crispee but that is because Obama IS paying attention! Those ads have since faded into the background in my state. But, then again we aren't a battleground state so he doesn't need to play them here any more.

California Gets It!

California is going Obama!

Flop Ears will appoint terrorists and racists to the Supreme Court because he hates America and the blue eyed devils.

'Flop Ears will appoint terrorists and racists to the Supreme Court; he hates America."

Thommy, I think you're unlikely to be first in line. But maybe behind Bin Laden, Jeremiah Wright, that Ayers guy and the one who shot up the Florida clinics. . herm

Let their punishments fit their crimes!!!

The "Anti Democratic" US supreme Court should be declared "Null & Void" after their blatant aiding & abetting of the Fascist Bush Regime! But first all the members of the US Supreme Court should be rounded up and horse whipped within an inch of their sleazy-slimy fucking lives - then deport the lot of them directly to Iran or Zimbabwe!!!

AntiCadillac-
Since the Supreme Court is part of our democratic republic as outlined by our constitution and its amendments, isn't it a defined and integral part of our democracy as a co-equal branch of government?

buh-bye fundies.

don't like america? get the fuck out.

The last thing we need is a more conservative Supreme court so we can overturn Roe vs Wade.
The purpose of the court exists to bring legal battles to this level and have them decided on iif lower courts can't do it such as Appelit or appeals courts. The idea of having the supreme court reverse itself is not morally correct and makes no sense uinless you make a Utra-supreme
court.

Joel,

Supreme court reversals came in vogue during FDR's presidency. Hell, he concocted his whole court-packing scheme as a means of attempting to load the court with lackeys so that he could get many facets of his 'New Deal' through the Legislative process and have them survive the legal challenges when similiar measures over the prior 150 years had been attempted, and ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

This trend of 'loose interpretation' of the Constitution ran rampant with the Warren court - no, I am not talking about Brown, so check your potential knee-jerk response.

Within the constitutional framework the only place the American right has got any kind of power is SCOTUS. This is as good as certain for the next two years, probably four, possibly six and maybe even eight or more.

They brought it on themselves with their cynical and obnoxious politics so I, for one, have no sympathy for them at all. They would have the ignorant, useless Bush and the arrogant Cheney and now they pay the consequences of that decision. Like most everybody else I remember the gloating and triumphalism that greeted all their victories. They proved then that they couldn't win graciously and they're proving now that they can't lose graciously either. What a bunch of odious jerks they are.

I bet Stevens and Ginsberg are relieved that they can retire now without putting their replacements in the hands of Bush and that horrible base that he and Rove so successfully cultivated. We all owe them a vote of thanks for hanging on.

The economy will come around sooner or later---the Supreme Court appointment will affect America for generations. The Supreme Court appointments are the most important issue of this election---more important than the economy--more important than the war.

This trend of 'loose interpretation' of the Constitution ran rampant with the Warren court - no, I am not talking about Brown, so check your potential knee-jerk response.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-10-08 05:19 AM | Reply

I think you need to check the curretnt court for "loose interpretations"---when the ignore the second amendment and make up their own version---and when the make up the law about government being able to take your land for some roller rink if it want to. That's called "Activist Judges"---and was loaded by Bush family with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. Our nation will suffer from those appointments for centuries.

I would think one who has served would know firsthand when and if to use the military. The other... Not so sure.

#28 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-10-07 05:33 PM | Reply

Being in the military doesn't make you a genius. Neither does sitting in a prison cell for five years. Neither does finishing 894 out of 899 members of your class. Neither does crashing five planes.
McCain has shown throughout his career that his judgement is faulty. That's how you end up 894 out of 899 in your class. That's how you crash five planes. His judgement on Iraq and Afghanistan has been consistently faulty.

Obama has made excellent judgement calls throughout his career. That's how you get to have two degress from two Ivy league schools. That's how you get to be President of the Harvard Law Review. That's how you make the right call on Iraq.

The important thing for the President of the United States is to have good judgement. McCain has proven to be a failure in that department.

I would think one who has served would know firsthand when and if to use the military. The other... Not so sure.

#28 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-10-07 05:33 PM | Reply

In addition, your logic didn't pan out with W. He served, and certainly didn't know when to use the military or how to use the military effectively.

Your logic is proven faulty.

The Supreme Court appointments are the most important issue of this election---more important than the economy--more important than the war.

hogwash. only sheep like you believe that.

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2008-10-08 09:18 AM

I'm tempted to ask you to elucidate your views on the importance/significance of appointments to the United States Supreme Court but, honestly, I couldn't be bothered.

nother reason to vote Obama

#1 | Posted by truthhurts

The Conservatives have been allowing appointees in with little objection. Not anymore. I don't think Obama will be able to get a single justice appointed before his 4 years are over.

" I don't think Obama will be able to get a single justice appointed before his 4 years are over."

Wanna bet?

"The Conservatives have been allowing appointees in with little objection. Not anymore. I don't think Obama will be able to get a single justice appointed before his 4 years are over.
#45 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-10-08 12:44 PM"

Ask your civics teacher to explain how the process works. I'm sure she/he will be happy to oblige.

"Obama has made excellent judgement calls throughout his career. That's how you get to have two degress from two Ivy league schools. That's how you get to be President of the Harvard Law Review. That's how you make the right call on Iraq."

Yeah, great judgement. You mean like when he SUED Citibank to FORCE them to make loans in bad areas. What a great round of judgment that was...force lenders to make loans to people who cannot afford to pay it back in areas where the property value does not adequately secure the loan. All in a days work for the first agitator.

Then he said that health care is a right...where the hell is that in the Constitution? What a scholar he must be...

" You mean like when he SUED Citibank to FORCE them to make loans in bad areas."

No...he sued because the bank was involved in an illegal activity: redlining.

But it's easier when you just get to barf up the Republican talking points, isn't it?

"Then he said that health care is a right...where the hell is that in the Constitution?"

...promote the general welfare.

Now, where is the right to marriage? Or are you willing to admit not ALL rights are enumerated in the Constitution?

Aw come on Dan ... post the whole preamble.

---------
The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"Then he said that health care is a right...where the hell is that in the Constitution? What a scholar he must be..."

I'm quite sure he could go head-to-head with you any day on constitutional law. I do not think he was saying it was a right already enshrined in the constitution but then freedom of speech wasn't either until the Bill of Rights but the right already existed. Rights exist independently of the recognition by governments. I believe that is why in the Dec. of Independence they are called "certain unalienable rights" and that was written well before the constitution.

DANNI

The framers of the Constitution wrote three aspects among the "inalienable rights" of man are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

The "LIFE" aspect can certainly hinge on whether or not you have health care

The "LIFE" aspect can certainly hinge on whether or not you have health care.

In my world it does.

The "LIFE" aspect can certainly hinge on whether or not you have health care

Health care or health insurance?

Fo many eberly without health care insurance You don't have health care.

Larry

how many?

I don't know Eberly. I ain't gots buts 8 fingers 10 toes and 2 thumbs to Count wid so it will be awhile Counting them out.

Larry

The preamble is exactly that - an introduction, it is of NO legal significance. It is intended to list the intentions of the framers in drafting the document...hence the words "to order to..."

Danforth:

"Now, where is the right to marriage?"

Probably right next to the Constitutional right to an abortion...or is that in conflict with that "right to life" that is referenced by Danni?

One thing that you folks need to realize is there are inherent rights and limited rights. An inherent right is one that you have and need only to assert (i.e. the right to a jury, the right to an attorney in a criminal proceeding, etc.). A limited right is one that the government cannot stop you from using, but is not guaranteed, like the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to own property. You only have these rights if some other criteria is met.

"The preamble is exactly that - an introduction, it is of NO legal significance. "

You're joking, right? If anything, the preamble is just as important, if not more important. It's the touchstone we're to return to when in doubt.

"Probably right next to the Constitutional right to an abortion"

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the 4th amendment both point to a woman having the final right over her own body.

"A limited right is one that the government cannot stop you from using, but is not guaranteed"

Where, exactly, is that enumerated in the Constitution?

"the right to marry"

And again, where is that "right" in the Constitution?

Worth noting, I think, that 101Chairborne refers to it as "the fucking Constitution".

I am not sure that is what the framers had in mind, but I guess it's an appropriate name for it if you are fixated, as some are, on the Roe v Wade question, since it involves fucking.

For some, the views of the US Supreme Court on personal health decisions are paramount.

For others, and anybody sane, the Constitution is a bigger deal with much broader implications for our freedoms.

Danforth,

Actually, I am serious. I would be interested in hearing about a Supreme Court Case where the court said "Well, it says right here in the preamble what the rule of law is...." It is an introduction, nothing more.

As to where the final right over her body...you should probably read Griswold v. Connecticut (I believe that is the one where the "right to Privacy" appears through the penumbra and emanations of the First and Fourth Amendments...Whichever case it is, I can assure you that the court never referenced the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble.)

As to the different kind of rights... The government CAN stop you from voting. You may have a "right" to an attorney in civil cases, (as in the court cannot keep you from having one), but you do not have the "right" to a free attorney. As to the Right to Marry, I suggest you consult Loving v. Virginia. The "right to marry" is a "fundamental right", and "necessary to the orderly pursuit of happiness" you will note that the court does not cite to the "pursuit of happiness" as a rule of law, merely a guiding principle.

Now, I am curious to hear how you reconcile the apparent conflict - if you believe the Declaration of Independence to be of legal significance", of the Right to Life, in the Declaration of Independence and the decision in Roe. Doesn't one person's liberty end where another's begins. Therefore, if there is a right to life, why is the right of the fetus to live trumped by the mother's right to "control her body"?