On 04/04/2012 12:02 PM, Jerry Foote wrote: > The appointments to the supreme's should be from a pool of truly objective > judges. > Jerry
Who would determined the justices "truly objective" enough to be included in the selection pool, LOL, and would the "Deciders" of the pool, to coin a "W" phrase, be truly objective enough. LOL Theoretically, a President of the USA is elected by a majority of USA voters, and the President only nominates candidates, hopefully based on the best interest of those he represents. The senate has the final vote on who is allowed on the court. Once a justice is on the court, its for his lifetime, so a justice can vote his conscience independent of who/how he become a Supreme Court Justice. Regards, LelandJ > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Leland Jackson > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:52 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Obama says Supreme Court unelected > > On 04/04/2012 10:54 AM, Nicholas Geti wrote: >> Anytime the Supreme Court makes a decision they are active politically and >> making law. How else can one interpret that? Also the Republicans have > been >> complaining lately that the Court is too liberal. So much for your claim >> that they have been packing the court. > Both Republicans and Democrats have been packing the courts with > justices coming from backgrounds, where they have worked within one > administration or the other. This has divided the court into justices > that too closely affiliated with one political party or the other, > almost like alumni from two different university that support their > respective football teams. > > A Justice of the Supreme Court should be 100% devoted to upholding the > constitution and its protections; not winning a game for one's Alma Mater. > > This division of the Supreme Court along party lines is worrisome, (eg 4 > Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, and 5 Justices appointed by > Republican presidents). > > It is likely that the Democrats will lose the Senate during the 2012 > election. The Democrats have 21 seats up for grabs in the 2012 > election, as compared to only 10 Republican seats that will be put in > play. Even if President Obama wins re-election in 2012, it is likely a > Republican control senate would not even let an Obama nomination come to > the floor of the senate for a vote, let alone be confirmed. On the > other hand, If the Republicans win the Presidency in 2012, and have the > opportunity to places another Republican Justice to the court, it is > likely the American people will see even more aggressive assault by the > courts to limit their protections, freedoms, and due process. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Leland Jackson"<[email protected]> >> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [OT] Obama says Supreme Court unelected >> >> >> It seems to me that recent republican presidents, including "W", were >> successful in packing the court with enough right wing conservative, >> politically active justices to produce some really bad rulings, that do >> not serve the American people or American Constitutional Democracy. >> >> #-------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
