Originally Posted By Mr X WooHoo, another chance for a young liberal Justice! Pack that court, Barack! <--is hoping for Goodwin Liu
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304222504575173803522442196.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...news_wsj</a>
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Am I the only one who feels somewhat disconnected from this announcement? I really wish the hearings of the supreme court were broadcast on television, then I could connect names with a sense of who these people really are. - Anatole
Originally Posted By mousermerf For a moment I thought "Justice Stevens" was someone from some wrestling federation or something..
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I really wish the hearings of the supreme court were broadcast on television, then I could connect names with a sense of who these people really are*** According to Scalia (one of the guys I'm guessing has a lot to do with the non-televisation), if they could have gavel-to-gavel coverage that'd be fine, but they don't want the media to have the ability to "sound-bite" them. But of course, that already occurs in print anyway. Besides, anyone can attend a session while in Washington (either a full hearing or just 5 minutes, though why anyone wouldn't want to hear the full experience which is just 30 minutes is beyond me). So it's not as though there are any secrets. Just no cameras.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Watching coverage on TV would be more realistic for most people... and I can understand Scalia's concern. They could do that on the web right now and stream the hearings live. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Labuda "WooHoo, another chance for a young liberal Justice! Pack that court, Barack! " AMEN to that! And, speaking of Scalia... I don't like that dude.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Who wants to bet that Boehner and the senate republicans will obstruct the nomination of whoever the president chooses - no matter who it is? And the irony will be that - just like justice Sotomayor - the next nominee will be more centrist than Stevens, which will effectively move the court to the right. That won't matter to republicans - when Obama names someone, they'll be opposed.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I don't see this as that big a deal. Whenever a Justice leaves office when a President on the same side of the spectrum is in office, it's almost certain that a similar type of judge will be appointed as a replacement, keeping the current balance in place. It's only when someone from the opposite side of center leaves office that it gets interesting. As far as TV coverage goes, it's not Scalia's doing. It's been longstanding policy that there is no photography allowed in ANY federal courtroom when court is in session. That applies to still cameras and motion pictures / TV. And, it applies from a local federal district trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court. I'm sure we're all familiar with the "sketch artist's conception" drawing of federal defendants and witnesses on the stand whenever a federal trial is covered in the media - this is because of the "no photography" rule. I don't know how long it's been in place, but it's been at least decades.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< ***I really wish the hearings of the supreme court were broadcast on television, then I could connect names with a sense of who these people really are*** According to Scalia (one of the guys I'm guessing has a lot to do with the non-televisation), if they could have gavel-to-gavel coverage that'd be fine, but they don't want the media to have the ability to "sound-bite" them. But of course, that already occurs in print anyway. Besides, anyone can attend a session while in Washington (either a full hearing or just 5 minutes, though why anyone wouldn't want to hear the full experience which is just 30 minutes is beyond me). >>> When I visited DC for the first time, I went to a Supreme Court session. It was rather uninteresting, as it consisted only of the swearing in of some new members to the Supreme Court Bar (which is apparently separate from the general Federal bar and all state Bars) and not an actual case, but I did get to see most of the Justices in person.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As far as TV coverage goes, it's not Scalia's doing*** Oh, I realize it's not his doing, but I do recall reading a thing or two about his take on it, and why it should remain so. I also understand the "no photographs" rule, but personally I think that should be waived as far as the SCOTUS is concerned (since it is, after all, the court of the people...and the final one at that). I'm cool with making exceptions as warranted, but for regular "policy" trials I don't really see why we all can't see what is going on there. We can see all the goings on in the House and Senate, after all. Why is the Supreme Court any different? On the other hand, people could pick up a paper or click a link and read it at their leisure. But somehow video is more compelling, and might serve to engage some folks who otherwise would not be aware of the proceedings.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Whenever a Justice leaves office when a President on the same side of the spectrum is in office, it's almost certain that a similar type of judge will be appointed as a replacement, keeping the current balance in place*** Here's an interesting argument about how the balance is not only in "in place" these days, but has been moving to the Right for decades... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFgiTowgHQw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...iTowgHQw</a> Oh, and on an unrelated subject, Professor Liu is currently being held up in Congress by the Republicans following his nomination to the 9th Circuit by President Obama (wow, surprising!). He'd be MY pick to succeed Stevens, for SURE!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The court has been moving right slowly for the last 35 years. Stevens himself, appointed by Ford as a centrist, has said that he didn't change over the years. It was the Court that moved right so that after initially being thought the centrist, by the end he was thought of as perhaps the most liberal member. Carter didn't appoint any justices. Which means until now the only Democrat who did was Clinton, and his picks were not particularly liberal, compared to people like Brennan and Marshall. Meanwhile, some very hard right picks like Scalia and Thomas ( who replaced Marshall!) made it on. When Stevens could be considered the leader of the liberal wing, that in itself tells you how far (albeit gradually) the court moved to the right.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>When Stevens could be considered the leader of the liberal wing, that in itself tells you how far (albeit gradually) the court moved to the right.<< Bingo. Which is also a microcosm of the country as a whole. What used to be John Birch-style crazy is now just mainstream conservative. Moderates are labeled liberals, and true liberals are just socialists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 On the other hand, ideas that were once thought radical left - an end to segregation, same-sex marriage, and (ironically, given the recent battles) Medicare - are now either completely accepted by a majority of Americans or soon will be. So I don't really buy that the country as a whole has moved right. On some things we have (the very idea of taxing even the highest incomes at more than about 30% is nearly politically unthinkable now), but on others we've clearly moved left over the years. SCOTUS on the other hand; no question. A slow march right over the last 35 years.
Originally Posted By barboy CALLING ALL OR ANY 15th LEVEL D&D MAGIC USERS OUT THERE...... Please cast a resurrrection spell to bring forth Earl Warren from the grave. If you lack the powers we'll settle for William Brennan. And be careful for I don't want you to accidentally materialize one like justice Peter Daniel---leave those smelly rotten corpses in the grave where they belong.
