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

Skip to comments.

Good News on the Law: Can President Obama Change the Supreme Court?
Good News Daily ^ | 11/7/08 | Stephen L. Bloom, Esq.

Posted on 11/07/2008 5:44:54 PM PST by LikeLight

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: Eagles6

Thanks!


41 posted on 11/07/2008 7:00:11 PM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
However, the real problem is that we NEED a "conservative-for-liberal," the status quo is killing 3500 babies EVERY DAY.

I understand. We need another pro-life Republican President.

42 posted on 11/07/2008 7:04:27 PM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight

Also, should Scalia become ill or Kennedy retire it will be a disaster.


43 posted on 11/07/2008 7:05:53 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Obama will not bother with the threat.

I know what you're saying but I still think he may.

[Vanity warning]

One of the things that always 'intrigued' me about FDR. First, I'm a believer in the idea that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor beforehand. (See: Stinnet's "Day of Deceit" and "Sacrifice at Pearl" History Channel).

If we're to buy that, then even FDR knew that according to the Constitution (and the force that it had at that time), that America had to be attacked first, before he could enter the war - something that Churchill had been begging him to do and something that he had wanted, despite some campaign rhetoric to the contrary. And to his credit, I guess, he did at least 'respect' the Constitution in that sense or he thought along Obama's lines that the 'essential constraints' were to great to overcome on that issue anyway.

While I'm all for the current war, I'd still like to see the US going back to the idea of Congress declaring it.

Love your handle :-)

44 posted on 11/07/2008 7:06:58 PM PST by Kent C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Also, should Scalia become ill or Kennedy retire it will be a disaster.

Yes, we need to be praying for the health of these men. They are the firewall for the next four years, at least.

45 posted on 11/07/2008 7:13:30 PM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PjhCPA

There is no rule saying how many justices there must be. With the senate’s backing, BHO could appoint more, with or without retirements.


46 posted on 11/07/2008 7:24:54 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight

This is good news and a thoughtful analysis.

It does ease my biggest worry about Obama’s Presidency somewhat.

It’s just going to be frustrating watching the parade of 5-4 votes continue.


47 posted on 11/07/2008 7:26:36 PM PST by News Junkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie

Appreciate the kind words, NJ. And, yes, the parade of frustration continues.


48 posted on 11/07/2008 7:30:38 PM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight

What if he expands the size of the court?
Dem President and House. Likely to be able to muster 61 votes in the Senate to ram through young judges.


49 posted on 11/07/2008 8:18:29 PM PST by Ingtar (For the first time in my adult life, I am NOT proud of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Read FDR’s Fireside Chat selling his court-packing plan to the American people:

http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/

You may have a point.


50 posted on 11/07/2008 8:58:50 PM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: eccentric

You are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Size_of_the_Court


51 posted on 11/08/2008 1:51:09 AM PST by Tensai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tensai

Good link, thanks.


52 posted on 11/09/2008 6:11:34 AM PST by LikeLight (http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Tensai

according tho Wikipedia: “...Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices....” Do you think a Democrat congress won’t change the size for a Democrat President?


53 posted on 11/09/2008 6:32:57 AM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 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