1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Elena Kagan nominated to replace Stevens

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by WaylonJennings, Apr 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Poor John Danforth, a good man who had to hurt his rep by carrying the water for Thomas. And I see nothing but perniciousness in the filibuster, no matter the user. Must be a vestige of the Roman tribunes
     
  2. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    I'm sure Led Zeppelin can find plenty of willing bassists. Oh wait ...
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    If he does nominate a moderate, I don't think it will be to kowtow to Republicans, it will be to please moderate Democrats.

    He (Obama) showed he's willing to fight for what he wants with the Health Care legislation.

    The bigger question is whether the Senate is up for another fight.

    Would love to hear what Harry Reid and others will communicate to Obama.

    Schumer will press for a liberal.

    Spector -- not that anyone should care -- publicly said that he'd prefer Stevens to serve one more year so that they didn't have to deal with this before November's elections.

    So, it doesn't look like he's up for a fight. I'm not sure how many others are having already made several tough/unpopular votes.
     
  4. fishhack2009

    fishhack2009 Active Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Hopefully whatever person is nominated, we can have a nice, civil debate and then an up-or-down vote.

    Frankly, I'm tired of the posturing and hypocrisy both sides show when it comes to the filibuster. When either is in power, they're pointing and screaming that everything deserves an up-or-down vote. And when they're in the minority, all of a sudden the filibuster is fine and dandy again.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    The funny thing is, no matter how much they demonize it, they'll never get rid of the filibuster.

    They like it.

    If they only need 50 votes, your vote isn't as important.

    You can't hold up your colleagues or the President with deals like the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" if they don't need your vote.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Obit?

    But your point stands. They should have been ready with an article.
     
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Why would they have an obit?
     
  8. Oggiedoggie

    Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Michael Steele's GOP fundraising cash register woke him up going "Cha-Ching!"

    Now, he knows why.
     
  9. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    I agree with Dershowitz here. All of the current Supreme Court justices spent time as federal appellate judges prior to appointment. A wider net would be good. There is significant value in elevating a state supreme court justice, in having on the court a politician or two adept at consensus building, and people who come from the courtroom.

    There is little diversity of experience on the court when nearly all the justices go: law school--->a short stint in BigLaw----> a few years as a professor---->federal appellate judge---->Supreme Court

    Unfortunately, this nomination is going to come right before an election in which many Democratic senators are facing significant challenges. The Senate will pressure Obama to come up with a safe nominee and the safe nominees are those who've followed the above path. It's much easier to pick apart a politician's previous statements or the cases a seasoned litigator has handled than it is a federal judge's opinions.
     
  10. fishhack2009

    fishhack2009 Active Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    I think the point Waylon's making is that many larger papers put together an "obit" for famous people in advance ... especially a person as old as Stevens. That way, when the person does die, the legwork is done. It may sound creepy ... but it's done. You put together their life history, and then top it with quotes when it becomes necessary.
     
  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?


    . . . the last thing the GOP wants. They love to be able to stir up the base with it.
     
  12. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Re: Can we talk about John Paul Stevens?

    Please. Excepting women's issues, O'Conner was a dead-nuts big-business vote all the way down the line.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page