Quote:

---

Leading senators on the Judiciary Committee signaled a contentious hearing starting Monday on Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, with some Republicans saying a GOP filibuster was possible.

Democrats countered that no nominee from President Barack Obama would have satisfied Republicans.

In an exchange on CNN's "State of Union," Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey chided Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas over what Menendez joked were unattainable GOP standards.

"I think if John and some of his colleagues in the Republican caucus had 10 angels coming from above swearing that this person was the most qualified ... for the Supreme Court, was a centrist and would follow the rule of law and obey precedent, they would say 'too extreme,' " Menendez said.

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

Quote:

---

One of the great successes of the legal wing of the conservative movement is the widespread connection in the mind of many citizens and pundits of "liberal" judicial philosophy with "activism," and "conservatism" with "strict constructionism." They'd have us believe that "liberal activist" and "conservative constructionist" are basically redundancies, and that there simply is no such thing as a conservative activist. This is patently untrue.

There is a very simple explanation for why a conservative may be activist and a liberal statist--the state of the law. The Warren Court wanted to overturn precedents, and so it ruled laws passed by Congress and (especially) state legislatures unconstitutional. And as the Court of that era slowly and sometimes not-so-slowly changed the law, the justices by definition needed to be less activist as the state of the law became more amenable to their views--precisely because they had changed the law.

But guess what? The Rehnquist Court did the same thing, as Republican-appointed justices found the laws passed by state legislatures and (especially) Congress during the years of the Great Society and thereafter to be out of line with the political and judicial philosophies they brought to the bench. Accordingly, they ruled to change the law too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/Sl6iADfvtsI/AAAAAAAAAFk/WINbXri3
E1U/s400/SC-federal.JPG

The most activist Court? A: The Late Rehnquist Court, which in terms of the annual average number of federal statutes overturned by the Court ranks first. Though I only show data from the Roosevelt Court forward, Late Rehnquist has the highest score of any Court era going back to the days of John Jay. So much for modern conservatives' deference to legislatures and the disdain for "judge-made" law."

---

Quote:

---

The political right has been remarkably successful with its attack on judicial activism. Whether any particular claim proved true or not, it has served to mobilize the far right "social issues" wing of the party. This, in turn, has helped conservatives and Republicans accomplish two major things.

First, it has led Republican presidents to look further to the right for nominees to the federal bench. Look no further than President George Bush saying he admired justices in the mold of the Court's two most conservative – Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – and then appointing Chief Justice John Roberts and Sam Alito. It has also put Democrats on the defensive, leading them to nominate judges who are more moderate than many in the liberal wing of the party would prefer. As a result, the federal courts have shifted significantly to the right in both their makeup and in their judgments in recent years.

Second, it has helped conservatives win elections. George Bush's win in 2000 has been attributed, in part, to the use of "wedge" issues and mobilization of the conservative "base" – just the people campaigns about judicial activism are aimed at.

All the sudden, though, the Roberts Court has given the left a new lease on its argument that it is actually the conservative judges who are making up the rules and mangling the Constitution. In 2006, the five-person conservative majority on the Court rolled back years of precedents without even acknowledging they were doing it. They upheld a congressional ban on late-term abortions (what sometimes is called "partial birth abortion") even though the Court just a few years earlier had struck down a similar, nearly indistinguishable, law. They interpreted campaign finance restrictions on corporations so narrowly the remaining law was meaningless. They said taxpayers could not sue over George Bush's "faith-based initiatives" even though such suits against Congress had long been okayed.

To liberal critics, that sort of willful dismissal of precedent is the very definition of judicial activism. Even Justices Scalia and Thomas – though they agreed with the results in these cases – called out their colleagues for not being honest in overturning precedents.

Then came this January's big decision in a case known as "Citzens United." In that case, the Court struck down a congressional law limiting corporate influence in elections – this time explicitly established precedents. The President pointed a finger at the justices in his State of the Union address (prompting an angry shrug from Justice Alito, and – later – a public rebuke from the Chief Justice). Polls showed the decision in Citzens United was wildly unpopular – even among Republicans.

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

Quote:

---

11th Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity.

12th Revises presidential election procedures.

13th Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

14th Defines citizenship and deals with post–Civil War issues.

15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax.

17th Allows senators to be directly elected.

18th Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment)

19th Allows for women's suffrage.

20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment".

21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment.

22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, he can be elected to a further two terms).

23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College.

24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes.

25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession.

26th Establishes 18 as the national voting age.

27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress.

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

Quote:

---

nearly all justices would be from the 'New England establishment' - graduates of Ivy league colleges (most from Harvard).

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

Quote:

---

Id like the supreme court to in some way represent the population.

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

Quote:

---

would like people in the Supreme Court who AREN'T PARTISAN. IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE. Individuality, intelligence and/or wisdom and/or common sense would also be a plus.

---

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off