Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 27, 2014, 05:51:55 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  Cheif Justice Scalia?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: Will we have a new chief justice by end of March?
Yes, Scalia   -14 (32.6%)
Yes, Thomas   -4 (9.3%)
Yes, somebody else   -14 (32.6%)
No, the old man hangs on.   -8 (18.6%)
No, the issue will drag out.   -3 (7%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 40

Author Topic: Cheif Justice Scalia?  (Read 3841 times)
Beef
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2645
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -6.70

P
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2004, 06:08:39 pm »
Ignore

I'm guessing Kennedy for chief, some ultra-conservative I don't even want to think about for associate.

I hope Bush will start to work towards unity by appointing a moderate (albeit pro-life constructionist) associate.

It may be a fool's hope, but that would unquestionably be the best and smartest thing he could do.

If the Democrats start filibustering anyone who doesn't pass a 100% pro-choice litmus test, they can say goodbye to about 7 seats in 2006.  I for one will start writing letters to Feingold, like every day.  I voted for him.  Twice.  He owes me.
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2004, 06:59:31 pm »
Ignore

I've been talking to some people with medical qualifications; From the article they reckon that Rehnquist simply won't survive much longer than about a year, and may well be too ill to officiate at the inauguration; In this instance, the honour falls to Justice Stevens as the ranking Justice.

Any attempt to put Scalia or Thomas in as CJ will be filibustered for a month of Sundays. Kennedy is the likely nominee for the job, unless Bush does a deal to get a conservative Associate Justice in exchange for Breyer or Ginsbury or Souter to be Chief Justice. Though I understand that Souter may step down during this term anyway.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3297
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2004, 07:07:44 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes
Logged
Beef
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2645
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -6.70

P
View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2004, 07:15:10 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

Yes.  The Senate could change their rules on how many votes are needed for cloture.  It's not like it's in the Constitution.  However, they would need 60 votes for cloture on the rule change ;-).
Logged

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2004, 07:17:20 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2004, 07:18:57 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

Yes.  The Senate could change their rules on how many votes are needed for cloture.  It's not like it's in the Constitution.  However, they would need 60 votes for cloture on the rule change ;-).

Ah, you could adpt a rule that permits a majority to suspend any adopted rule; it depends how the rules are witten.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3297
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2004, 07:20:59 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.

Yes this is what I was thinking of  I read somthing on this it sounds very complex but possible.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2004, 07:28:39 pm »
Ignore

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.

Yes this is what I was thinking of  I read somthing on this it sounds very complex but possible.

You have to get to the right person, generally someone with an exceptionally understanding of history, the ability to understand rules and precedents, the ability to think outsode of the box, and the morals of a boa constrictor.  ;-)
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27980
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2004, 12:53:21 am »
Ignore

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Rococo4
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1497


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2004, 01:32:29 am »
Ignore

(in regards to who should be chief justice)

It will be Thomas.   Think about it.  Bush will make the Dems either let him go through and make their white base mad (because Thomas is "too conservative"), or they will have to fight his confirmation and upset some of their black voters.  we would win either way.

it would be a brilliant move.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2004, 01:34:06 am by Rococo4 »Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2004, 06:59:53 am »
Ignore

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55
If I remember correctly the Senate, unlike the House, doesn't vote on its rules every two years, but only when one side is pushing for a change (wrote a paper on this once). Anyways, it would be impossible to force cloture on a vote to abolish cloture. You'd never get the 60 votes needed.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
dougrhess
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 442


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2004, 08:26:15 am »
Ignore

Don't forget that Spector is head of the committee that will vote on a new Justice and new Chief Justice.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2004, 08:45:57 am »
Ignore

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55

Well, If the GOP can do it, it would be possible for the Dems to do it as well.  The mere threat to do it may be enough to convince the Dems not to filibuster in ths case.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Light Touch
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 342


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2004, 04:56:40 pm »
Ignore

My order of probability:

1.  Kennedy
2.  O'Connor
3.  Thomas
4.  Scalia
5.  everyone else

Kennedy is the logical choice, except that he's not a woman or black.  I think Bush will *want* to give it to O'Connor or Thomas.  O'Connor's health is an issue, but I've heard talk that she may stick around until she draws her last breath.  Thomas has the old issues.  Saying Scalia's name just scares everyone (though he's one of my favorites, particularly how he writes his colorful dissents).
Logged

http://www.badnarik.org
"...our Commerce Clause's boundaries simply cannot be "defined" as being "'commensurate with the national needs'"...  Such a formulation of federal power is no test at all: It is a blank check."  -Justice Clarence Thomas, United States v. Lopez (1995)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2004, 05:00:24 pm »
Ignore

The constitutionalist judges who are getting old should retire before 2009 so that young, like-minded people can replace them.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines