Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mr. (Justice) Breyer, Lobbyist
Red State ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110th; arlenspecter; ethics; lobbying; scotus; stephenbreyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Clintonfatigued

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)


21 posted on 08/04/2007 7:16:00 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
My point about increasing the size of SCOTUS was simply to regularize the influence of each president on the subsequent makeup of the court, without making that influence egregiously large or small. I think that there should be limitations on service on SCOTUS so that, as longevity increases, it doesn't end up being composed of 90 year olds with 40 years of tenure - and Alzheimers' Disease.

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.

22 posted on 08/05/2007 1:17:24 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
if the FBI is not allowed to investigate William Jefferson’s legislative actions due to separation of powers the power of the Congress, then Arlen Sphinctre is likewise precluded from investigating able to investigate Justices Alito and Roberts for exactly the same reason.
23 posted on 08/05/2007 1:24:01 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I think it was Pope Paul VI who made the rule that cardinals can't vote in papal elections after their 80th birthday.

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.

24 posted on 08/05/2007 4:30:01 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

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.


25 posted on 08/05/2007 4:37:42 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

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.


26 posted on 08/07/2007 2:53:27 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

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.


27 posted on 08/07/2007 2:53:37 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

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.


28 posted on 08/07/2007 2:53:37 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

See, that’s the thing: Rehnquist didn’t.

If he believed this, he would have retired during Bush’s first term.


29 posted on 08/07/2007 2:54:40 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zendari

He didn’t what ?


30 posted on 08/07/2007 3:13:54 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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.


31 posted on 08/07/2007 5:39:02 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: zendari

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.


32 posted on 08/07/2007 5:50:56 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

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.


33 posted on 08/07/2007 6:09:22 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: zendari

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.


34 posted on 08/07/2007 7:03:30 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson