If you could get rid of one Justice, who would it be?

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Feb 21, 2015 6:20 AM GMT
    10983215_334571450065436_266843214475131
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 6:54 AM GMT
    Now, just who the hell do you think it will be? Actually, two of them. Then there won't be any blacks or Italians on the bench
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Feb 21, 2015 7:28 AM GMT
    I have no idea who you would pick. I would choose Scalia as a first choice. If I could choose a second one, I would pick Thomas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 7:29 AM GMT
    metta8 saidI have no idea who you would pick. I would choose Scalia as a first choice. If I could choose a second one, I would pick Thomas.


    my point!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 7:36 AM GMT
    Long dong silver doesn't do all that much, but sit there.
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Feb 21, 2015 7:53 AM GMT
    ^
    that is true and he is still pretty young.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 2:57 PM GMT
    Political ideology aside, if you can't stay awake during the State of the Union address and laugh it off as having had too much to drink at dinner then it's time to think about retirement.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Feb 21, 2015 3:38 PM GMT
    I would replace them all with atheists so as not to be biased with psychosis of imaginary beings getting in the way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 3:41 PM GMT
    metta8 saidI have no idea who you would pick. I would choose Scalia as a first choice. If I could choose a second one, I would pick Thomas.

    Ditto. Both of them are ethical embarrassments to the Court. Who put their own personal political agendas ahead of the Constitution, which they pervert with impossibly idiotic & unsupportable interpretations, that hopefully will not stand the test of time.
  • venusrider

    Posts: 68

    Feb 21, 2015 4:29 PM GMT
    Every last one of them. All have an interest in rewriting laws to fit whichever color of political agenda is current. This courts "opinions" are not law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 4:42 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    metta8 saidI have no idea who you would pick. I would choose Scalia as a first choice. If I could choose a second one, I would pick Thomas.

    Ditto. Both of them are ethical embarrassments to the Court. Who put their own personal political agendas ahead of the Constitution, which they pervert with impossibly idiotic & unsupportable interpretations, that hopefully will not stand the test of time.


    "Impossibly idiotic and unsupportable interpretations?" Just how many of their opinions, articles, a/o speeches have you actually read? You may well disagree w/ their "interpretations," but your criticism of them partakes even more of that which you levy against them. And, just what "ethical" errors have they committed?

    To answer the post's question, I like to see Ginsburg and Kagan go: the first a results-driven, committed leftist, whose permissive views have permeated all her opinions, both on the DCCA and SCOTUS; the second an inexperienced academic and politicienne who never practiced law and had no prior judicial experience.

    Juan Williams on J Thomas, from today's WSJ:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/juan-williams-americas-most-influential-thinker-on-race-1424476527?mod=hp_opinion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 4:50 PM GMT
    DefensiveEnd saidPolitical ideology aside, if you can't stay awake during the State of the Union address and laugh it off as having had too much to drink at dinner then it's time to think about retirement.


    To be fair, which I always try to be, I don't fault her for that. She's 81 and has had a tough go with cancer.

    I sure get sleepy after a big meal and if one puts a little wine on top of that, I'm in trouble regarding staying awake.

    However, I'm fine with Scalia, but I do think Long Dong Silver is a bit lazy. I have to admit, that's the one I'd like to see gone, replaced by another conservative, but one who does something.

    I prefer the top court to be a bit on the liberal side so it's sorta hard to pick another, but if I had to pick another, it would be Kagan as I just think she's unqualified.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 9:20 PM GMT
    Kagan should go.

    While I don't agree with Ginsberg's far left ideology, I admire her for refusing to retire while Obama is still in office.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Scalia or Thomas, two peas in a pod. I would like to get rid of both of them, but in this case I would pick Thomas first because of his age.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 1874

    Feb 21, 2015 9:40 PM GMT
    Thomas, he is in the back pocket of the Koch Brothers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    I do want the back and forth tension of it being 5 -4 or 4 -5. I think that's good for the proccess.
  • Muscles25

    Posts: 394

    Feb 21, 2015 10:49 PM GMT
    The lesbian one or two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 10:54 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI would replace them all with atheists so as not to be biased with psychosis of imaginary beings getting in the way.


    ^^^^
    Agree 100%

    But since the OP asked for just 1, I would say that right wing christian bigot Scalia. (Then IF we could have a second it would be that other repuke douchebag Alito)
    Maybe we'll get lucky and those two repukes will have a fatal accident before Obama leaves office. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 11:52 PM GMT
    The one who's really conservative and very anti-gay? Lol, not sure which one.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 22, 2015 2:04 AM GMT
    I'd celebrate if either Clarence Thomas or Scalia exited, but I think I'd be happier with Thomas, who I don't think should have ever been confirmed.

    icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2015 4:27 AM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidI'd celebrate if either Clarence Thomas or Scalia exited, but I think I'd be happier with Thomas, who I don't think should have ever been confirmed.

    icon_evil.gif

    I agree that Thomas is the more incompetent of the two, his opinions written for him by his law clerks. But he follows the lead of the stronger and more evil Scalia. Take Scalia away and Thomas may well become rudderless. Except for the advice on Court cases he unethically takes from his Teabagger wife.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2015 4:39 AM GMT
    Kagan. She has no real judicial philosophy of her own. Say what you will about the other Justices, but you can identify them with some sort of philosophy:

    Roberts: Textualist. Very process and detail oriented.

    Alito: Very law-and-order like.

    Kennedy: Pragmatist. Takes the best of both liberalism and conservatism when making rulings.

    Scalia: Subscribes to the originalist theory. Considered Ginsburg's conservative counterpart due to their friendship on and off the bench.

    Thomas: Believes courts should only interpret law. Strongly against judicial activism.

    Ginsburg: Subscribes to the "living Constitution" theory. Considered Scalia's progressive counterpart due to their friendship on and off the bench.

    Breyer: As an administrative law scholar, he believes courts should defer to the authority of agencies. LOVES the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

    Sotomayor: Criminal justice crusader. Believes strongly in the rights of the accused and that the system needs major fine-tuning.

    What real philosophy does Kagan have? Oh, yeah, she was picked to add more estrogen to the bench.

  • interesting

    Posts: 577

    Feb 22, 2015 5:43 AM GMT
    libertpaulian saidKagan. She has no real judicial philosophy of her own. Say what you will about the other Justices, but you can identify them with some sort of philosophy:

    ...

    What real philosophy does Kagan have? Oh, yeah, she was picked to add more estrogen to the bench.



    She probably was picked because she was a woman just as much as Clarence Thomas was picked because he was black. The nation (by virtue of the law of probability) is made up of actually 51% female and 49% male, yet before she came along, the court was made of 28.5% female (2 out of 7), yeah, the number is skewed because it's too small, but just an interesting tidbit.

    Was introducing "your" own philosophy a part of the requirements to be eligible for a position on SCOTUS? What about her that makes you think she has no philosophy? Genuine curiosity here.

    Perhaps this thread should be in News and Politics?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Feb 22, 2015 4:41 PM GMT
    venusrider saidEvery last one of them. All have an interest in rewriting laws to fit whichever color of political agenda is current. This courts "opinions" are not law.
    thank you +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2015 8:03 PM GMT
    As much as I dislike some of their opinions, I don't like the discussion of getting rid of any of them.