Predictions of the 2004 campaign!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Agreed... along with Antonin Scalia

Scalia did not break the law. He didn't even violate ethics rules. However (my grammar is so bad tonight), he gave the appearance of impropriety (which is a serious no-no for the highest court in the land) as his son was closely connected to the Bush campaign. So was Thomas' wife. They could both be impeached for refusing to recuse themselves (but since the Republicans are so partisan and the Democrats have no backbone, it'll never happen). Both of them should have recused themselves to protect the integrity of the Court. While they their familial connections may have had nothing to do with their rulings, they damaged the Court's appearance of imparitality in many, many people's minds. This is something they are supposed to protect.

[Sava]

Scalia did not break the law. He didn't even violate ethics rules.

Well, what he did was wrong, regardless, and given the gravity of that decision, constitutes, IMO, an abuse and he should be removed at the very least.

[Kuciwalker]

(but since the Republicans are so partisan and the Democrats have no backbone, it'll never happen)

And we all know Democrats are never partisan at all, do we?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I couldn't find a quorum in the Constitution (I didn't even see where it specified nine justices).

The Constitution only says that there shall be a Supreme Court and that it shall automatically handle certain types of cases. It's makeup and the other types of cases it may hear are determined by Congress, and its member are appointed by the President subject to Senate approval. Constitutionally, almost everything about the Courts is left up to Congress.

We haven't always had nine justices, and during the FDR administration, after he got exasperated with SCOTUS for declaring all his programs unConsitutional, he began making noises about expanding the number of justices on the bench. At other times, Congress has threatened to disallow the Courts from hearing certain types of cases. Both times it produced a more pliable Court.

If Congress wanted, they could give the justices four year terms or make them retire automatically when they hit retirement age. They could forbid them from hearing any cases related to abortion. They could make them wear purple robes. The only thing Congress can't do is mess with SCOTUS' Constitutionally granted powers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

(but since the Republicans are so partisan and the Democrats have no backbone, it'll never happen)

And we all know Democrats are never partisan at all, do we?

They are, but they aren't very good at it.

[Sava]

And we all know Democrats are never partisan at all, do we?

You are turning into Imran with the whole "but the Dem's do it too" whining.

They are, but they aren't very good at it.

And they get bombarded with mud when they do.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by skywalker


**** the Constitution... from people who complain about the treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners

Yes, because we should all worship a 200+ year old piece of paper, but ignore violations of civil liberties.

Yeah, but you can't just say "let's ignore the parts of the Constitution I don't like". Either support an amendment voiding it or quit whining.

I want to see the whole thing scrapped and replaced.

I couldn't find a quorum in the Constitution (I didn't even see where it specified nine justices).

That's because it doesn't The power to interpret the constitution was added through interpretation of the constitution in 1803.

[MrFun]

What universe am I in, and what happened to my thread?

This is about Dean vs Bush -- not the 2000 campaign.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, because we should all worship a 200+ year old piece of paper, but ignore violations of civil liberties.

Those civil liberties aren't protected if not for that 200+ year old piece of paper .

This is about Dean vs Bush

Since we all agreed this will never happen, we moved on .

Now, if you were talking about Kerry vs Bush, we might have had something.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Since we all agreed this will never happen, we moved on .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Constitution only says that there shall be a Supreme Court and that it shall automatically handle certain types of cases. It's makeup and the other types of cases it may hear are determined by Congress, and its member are appointed by the President subject to Senate approval. Constitutionally, almost everything about the Courts is left up to Congress.

We haven't always had nine justices, and during the FDR administration, after he got exasperated with SCOTUS for declaring all his programs unConsitutional, he began making noises about expanding the number of justices on the bench. At other times, Congress has threatened to disallow the Courts from hearing certain types of cases. Both times it produced a more pliable Court.

If Congress wanted, they could give the justices four year terms or make them retire automatically when they hit retirement age. They could forbid them from hearing any cases related to abortion. They could make them wear purple robes. The only thing Congress can't do is mess with SCOTUS' Constitutionally granted powers.

PURPLE ROBES! PURPLE ROBES! PURPLE ROBES! PURPLE ROBES! PURPLE ROBES! PURPLE ROBES!

That would be funny

You are turning into Imran with the whole "but the Dem's do it too" whining

I wasn't justifying it, I was saying that you couldn't exactly criticise us.