Page 1 of 1
Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:32 pm
by _bcspace
Scalia 76
Alito 62
Thomas 64
Kennedy 76
Roberts 57
Ginsburg 79
Breyer 74
Sotomayor 58
Kagan 52
So we have two conservatives and two liberals who are in their 70's. Of course we have to hope the two conservatives want to serve for four more years and they live that long. We actually want to hope the same for the two liberals to give the next president (GOP) that opportunity. Seems unlikely as Ginsburg is barely more than a barely awake skull in a jar at this point.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:34 am
by _moksha
Perhaps if we placed some portion of Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer in canoptic jars we could rename them:
Supreme Court Justice Elkenah,
Supreme Court Justice Libnah,
Supreme Court Justice Mahmackrah,
and Supreme Court Justice Korash.
That way they could issue opinions forever from the all-seeing eye on the Washington Monument.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:43 am
by _EAllusion
It's a minor medical miracle that Ginsburg is still alive. She's retiring for certain. Breyer might, but I haven't read any court-watchers who've said he plans to yet. Ditto for Kennedy.
Someone as fat and old as Scalia can't be too long for this world. I have him in my death-pool this year. He's probably got a not insignificant shot of dying in the next four years. It would be absolutely shocking if he ever stepped down first, much less during a Democratic administration.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:47 am
by _Quasimodo
EAllusion wrote:Someone as fat and old as Scalia can't be too long for this world. I have him in my death-pool this year. He's probably got a not insignificant shot of dying in the next four years. It would be absolutely shocking if he ever stepped down first, much less during a Democratic administration.
Doesn't Scalia go hunting with Dick Cheney? That alone would put him in the high risk category.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:53 am
by _MeDotOrg
I'm re-posting an idea that Rick Perry floated during his candidacy that I think has merit:
A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further,
this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.Read more
at the New Yorker
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:40 am
by _ludwigm
bcspace wrote:Scalia 76
Alito 62
Thomas 64
Kennedy 76
Roberts 57
Ginsburg 79
Breyer 74
Sotomayor 58
Kagan 52
Children...
Monson 85
Eyring 79
Uchtdorf 72
Packer 88
Perry 90
Nelson 88
Oaks 80
Ballard 84
Scott 84
Hales 80
Holland 71
Cook 72
( and the kids :
Bednar 60
Christofferson 67
Andersen 61)
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:04 pm
by _EAllusion
I favor 20 year term limits on federal judicial appointments.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:30 pm
by _MCB
Question: Who would enact such limitations? Would it require a constitutional amendment?
Now I read it. Yes, it would.