Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:33 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
“One must question whether Justice Breyer has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by seeking congressional intervention to stop his colleagues from expressing their reasoned legal opinions with which he disagrees.”
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Does anyone know about Arlen Specter possibly investigating John Roberts and Samuel Alito over whether they were honest in their testimony before the U.S. Senate. Well, Specter said that he got the idea when he said he ran into Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado .
Here is a quote: “I only noticed it in a couple of cases,” Specter said of the court overturning or undermining precedents. But Breyer, in their Aspen conversation, said “there were eight.”
This is no way for a justice on the Supreme Court to conduct himself.
Breyer. Isn’t he the Clinton appointed justice?
There was a news report this past week suggesting Specter wants to investigate what both Roberts and Alito said in their confirmation hearings versus their decisions on a couple of cases this past month. Poor Arlan must feel betrayed that it is possible a Supreme Court Justice “might” rule against Senator Specter’s opinions/interests.
I don’t think even Scottish law has that provision so I don’t expect this to go anywhere. Arlan is bluster, without principle.
True, but... I have noticed from Breyer’s statements and his writings(published) outside of the court that he is firmly implanted in the Clinton/Liberal theology that if you want to “do good” you can ignore the Constitution. As time goes along, we see the leftist getting bolder about running over individual rights to satisfy their elitist attitude of "we know whats good for the poor misguided ignorant masses." One thing that’s got Breyer’s judicial panties in a wad is the courts rejecting of discrimination for “diversity” sake. Apparently Breyer must disagree with every decision that doesn’t go his way, after all he thinks he’s the smartest man on the court.
Yes, Clinton appointed him. He was born in 1938. He could be one to retire soon, along with Ruth Buzzy-Bader Ginsberg, born in 1933.
With the way things are now, most of the Justices won’t take the risk of an ideological opposite taking their place, so they’ll stay until they’re carried out feet-first. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist stayed on the bench in great pain to prevent Clintoon from appointing one of his stooges in his place, and that demonstrated enormous character. In the case of JP Stevens (who is older than Rehnquist) is trending towards 90, and that sorry old liberal fool should’ve retired 15 years ago. Breyer and Buzzy will try to match his longevity.
This master of no common sense has outlived his usefulness as an obvious communist social engineer. Breyer should pack his little red Maoist book and move to North Korea where he’ll be comfortable with a totalitarian dictatorship, and there are millions of poor souls he can torment.
Breyer couldn’t make up his mind whether to serve his country as an elected legislator or as a progressive appointed justice doing the work the Democrat politicians can’t.
Breyer couldn’t make up his mind whether to serve his country as an elected legislator or as a progressive appointed justice doing the work the Democrat politicians can’t.
Hiccup
Arlen Specter ia just one of many “Poster Boys” for term limits. He is becoming more and more senile and deranged.
Yes. But the NK people will surely be comforted by the fact that under a Breyer regime, they will be able to sodomize one another and kill their babies as sacred, God-given rights.
Breyer would, however, be very uncomfortable. As he would be NK, he would have to look to international decisions (including US precedent). This would be the first time that US precedent, especially the Constitution, played any role in his decisions.
None of the Libs on the court will voluntarily leave as long as GWB is President. Too bad.
It seems to me that if the FBI is not allowed to investigate William Jefferson’s legislative actions due to separation of powers, then Arlen Sphinctre is likewise precluded from investigating Justices Alito and Roberts for exactly the same reasons.
Very good point. Also, justices are appointed to the Supreme Court for life. They can be impeached, if Arlen (and his buddy Schumer) thinks he’s up to it, but he’ll have to show cause before he can call for impeachment. A fishing expedition won’t cut it.
Bottom line is, nothing they said in their confirmation hearings have been undone by their most recent decisions. They have an obligation to look at every case before them and rule on its CONSTITUTIONALITY. How the hell can Specter have a problem with that?
If Supreme Court justices voting differently after they’re confirmed is a crime, than Souter (Pres G H W Bush) and Stevens (Pres Ford) both have a lot ot answer for.
I have an idea for Arlen—lets investigate Breyer for suggesting that the Constitution should be trumped by International law. Maybe if Arlen and his buddies succeed in bringing in 50M+ new Mexican peasants, we won’t have to worry about that pesky Constitution anymore.
“In the case of JP Stevens (who is older than Rehnquist) is trending towards 90, and that sorry old liberal fool should’ve retired 15 years ago.”
True, but while Stevens shared the Clinton’s liberalism, he disliked the Clintons personally, regarding them as weasels. He was hoping that Gore would name his replacement.
With longevity increasing, I'd say there's a good case for expanding the court to 11, and imposing 22-year term limits, staggered to produce a vacancy every 2 years. A two-term president would therefore name 4 out of the eleven justices . . . leaving it at nine would make 4 justices too much to give to one POTUS.Term limiting Justices would of course require a constitutional amendment . . .
I’m not sure about expanding the size of the court, I think 9 is fine. A lot of courts around the nation (state Supremes, at least) have an age limit of 70, although I think there are many jurists that are still productive at that age, and I think it would make sense to impose an age limit of 80 for the USSC. At that age, it is clear most start to slow down. That is also the age CJ Rehnquist was when he passed, and perhaps it would be well to call it the “Rehnquist Amendment” of 80.
If imposed, this is how it would break down for the current court:
John Paul Stevens (4/20/2000 — immediate retirement)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (8/10/2013)
Antonin Scalia (3/11/2016)
Anthony Kennedy (7/23/2016)
Stephen Breyer (8/15/2018)
David Souter (9/17/2019)
Clarence Thomas (6/23/2028)
Samuel Alito (4/1/2030)
CJ John Roberts (1/27/2035)
In addition to limiting the service of each justice, it obviously would be well while amending the Constitution to systematize the role of the Senate in confirmation. The present abuse by Senator Spector obviously should be explicitly verboten; it actually vindicates the old tradition of SCOTUS nominees refusing to talk to the Senate prior to confirmation.
They could institute something similar for Supreme Court justices--they wouldn't be able to vote after their 80th birthday. It could be called the Montini Rule (if it was called the Paul VI Rule some people would be confused, thinking it had something to do with the Virgin Islands). Justices wouldn't be required to retire, but they would if they couldn't vote.
Something along the lines of taking “senior status.” I still would like to call it the “Rehnquist Amendment.” That’s all you’d need is to compare it a Catholic procedure (no matter how correct it is) and have all the leftists howling about church & state nonsense — of course, they’d oppose the amendment because of Stevens (but if the bench were full of near-90 year old Conservatives, you know they’d be jumping on the bandwagon).
Heck, might be a good idea for Congress, too. Of course, Ted Kennedy won’t hit 80 until February 2012. His liver, however, hit that about 40 years ago.
It depends on what Breyer specifically said.
Verbally calling for an investigation into his Chief is unwarranted and poor conduct. But the way it appears, Breyer merely commented on the outcomes of cases, and Specter developed that ridiculous idea himself.
I’m sure he agrees with Schumer’s no nominee policy, but at least he hasn’t said it publicly.
It depends on what Breyer specifically said.
Verbally calling for an investigation into his Chief is unwarranted and poor conduct. But the way it appears, Breyer merely commented on the outcomes of cases, and Specter developed that ridiculous idea himself.
I’m sure he agrees with Schumer’s no nominee policy, but at least he hasn’t said it publicly.
It depends on what Breyer specifically said.
Verbally calling for an investigation into his Chief is unwarranted and poor conduct. But the way it appears, Breyer merely commented on the outcomes of cases, and Specter developed that ridiculous idea himself.
I’m sure he agrees with Schumer’s no nominee policy, but at least he hasn’t said it publicly.
See, that’s the thing: Rehnquist didn’t.
If he believed this, he would have retired during Bush’s first term.
He didn’t what ?
He didn’t stay on the bench to prevent Clinton from replacing him.
If he did, he was a complete idiot for chancing a Kerry election in 04.
Yes, actually that’s exactly what he did. He had no intention of allowing Clinton to appoint a successor and open up another seat as well. As it was, given the makeup of the Senate in ‘01, the safest date he could’ve waited until was 2003. Why he didn’t retire at that point, I’m not sure (but IIRC, it was partly because it had to do with finding the right successor). I don’t think anyone but the moonbats believed Kerry was going to be elected in ‘04.
Hmm? I don’t see any reason why he would have been involved in finding a successor.
Reagan and Bush I provided a fairly deep appelate bench; I don’t see any reason Sam Alito, for example, would have been a different nominee in Summer 03 rather than Fall 05.
Rumor has it that he stayed on to try to push O’connor out first, but if he did, he stayed on 2 years after Summer 03. Kerry did come reasonably close to winning in the end.
It was important to him that a successor of considerable ability be chosen. Because of the rodent war to keep Conservatives off the bench from day #1, that was also a contributing factor as to why he didn’t vacate earlier. It’s not just enough having a majority in the Senate, since there is more than enough of them to try to stop our nominees, a flagrant violation of the spirit of advise and consent. If we played the same hardball tactics as the rodents do, the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg would NEVER have reached the highest court, and she never should’ve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.