First Lady Michelle Obama: Supreme Court at stake in election

[wingrider]

"We cannot forget the impact the Court's decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose," she said in a ringing defense of the president's record.Asked about similar statements in the past, the White House has denied that they reflect any newfound White House support for gay marriage. Kristina Schake, the First Lady's communications director, said Tuesday that it "refers to the importance of the Supreme Court for deciding many issues."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/first-lady-michelle-obama-supreme-court-stake-election-220019736.html

for once I have to agree with her, we need to appoint another conservative judge to the bench will help make decisions on whether or not the infringements on civil liberty by the NSA, NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other things are in fact constitutional, also to investigate whether the federal government has the right to spy on and keep records on every American citizen such as they are doing in that Computer center in Utah, so yes Michele I have to agree that the next presidential appointment to the Supreme Court is very important for the freedoms and Liberties of Americans,

[MMC]

IMO one of the first things that needs to be done. Is to repeal the part about these guys being lifetime Judges. Time for the American People to Step up and tell these guys. There are no more Free Rides. Moreover we need to get it passed that over age 62 that these Judges need to take a psychological evaluation every 3 years starting from age 62. They want to fight it.....then we come back with NP. But we will not tolerate any that falloff into senitlity or have any other medical problems that prevent them from doing their job.

As this country keeps moving in its opposite directions with the main two ideologies in this country. Perhaps it would be better if it was made mandatory that there would be like 3 judges from both spectrums. At all times.(unless we drop the two party system) that it would be the Job of any President to maintain that balance always. With a clause that Any US President cannot stack the SCOTUS. Thus being allowed to choose only those that are independant and have no ties to any political party whatsoever and to be allowed to go thru only after being vetted by Congress.

[Stoney]

I disagree that their life time appointment should be stripped. That would take us another step closer to democracy as the 17th Amendment did. I think that's intuitive, but dangerous.

I'd like to say that we need to keep the justices to their oaths of office. But beyond something that is so blatant that it can't possibly be called conforming with the Constitution that's not going to happen, and even then partisan's would not let them be accountable.

Its natural that we seek the perfect. But we need to do so cautiously.

[MMC]

I disagree that their life time appointment should be stripped. That would take us another step closer to democracy as the 17th Amendment did. I think that's intuitive, but dangerous.

I'd like to say that we need to keep the justices to their oaths of office. But beyond something that is so blatant that it can't possibly be called conforming with the Constitution that's not going to happen, and even then partisan's would not let them be accountable.

Its natural that we seek the perfect. But we need to do so cautiously.

While I agree with some of what you say Stoney. We have come to a point in time. Where we cannot take any chances when it comes to Human failings. Clearly as it stand now. There is nothing in any way to to make sure these Judges are mentally fit to even sit on the bench. How long would it go if one was to go senile? Who would know? Most of these people are well up in their ages. While Wisdom may be looked upon, there are a host of medical problems that affect Seniors in the way they think and do things. Enough so that such is prevalent in their mind even as they make any type of decisions. Even for the simplest of things.

Moreover there is nothing that would remove the Function of the SCOTUS or taking from the Constitution with what I suggested. They would still have to take Oaths and still remain as a Check and balance with the other branches of Government. Giving these people a free ride financially is not required at all.

[OFBUACMKA]

Anything less than a lifetime appointment for a Supreme Court Justice makes him a politician and that could have a devastating effect on our system.

[Alias]

Anything less than a lifetime appointment for a Supreme Court Justice makes him a politician and that could have a devastating effect on our system.

Agree. You can't have USSC justices in the political arena. That's why Obama is such a coward. He can spew his political rhetoric about the USSC and strike them while they have to remain silent.

[OFBUACMKA]

Agree. You can't have USSC justices in the political arena. That's why Obama is such a coward. He can spew his political rhetoric about the USSC and strike them while they have to remain silent.

You'd think a "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR" would know better...

[MMC]

Remarkably Obama got little more than a day or two in the Media with his remarks on the SCOTUS. Wherein that should be looped over and over. Every Media Source should have been on him over it. Say what, Chastize the Supreme Court, Brow Beat the Supreme Court, Use the bully Pulpit.


Even the Supreme Court Should have Sent him a Letter Explaining what the Check and Balances were for his Azz or anyones thats sits in the White House.. Despite him being a Harvard Attorney. Play to the media over the SCOTUS and some shiznit he wants passed.

I was a bit irked when Sessions allowed Kagen to become a Supreme Court Justice. All those Repubs should have boycotted that vote.

Also with all the mental illnesses today. Who's to say that none of them are afflicted with anything. It's not like they would let the cat out of the bag. If they have to have some time limit. I could see a decade. If things aint working out by then.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOWKbPDRdKw

Hit the Road Jack! :walk:

[Alias]

You'd think a "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR" would know better...

You'd think. The truth is he's a fraud and he is being exposed. Fun summer ahead.

[OFBUACMKA]

"If things aint working out"

I think you need to define this.

[MMC]

"If things aint working out"

I think you need to define this.

If they are not upholding the Constitution and performing their Service to the Country. :smiley:

[annata]

i hate the polarization of SCOTUS, as someone more clever then myself wrote
" HCare will be decided on which side of the bed Kennedy gets out of (left/right)."

SCOTUS CLAIMS impartiality -i don't see a lot of it with these 5-4 decisions. Hyperpartisianship is literally killing this country.

I refuse to join a party, partys are for politicians, and i'm not one. It all goes back to "elections have consequences", but that doesn't explain the polarization of the Court

[spunkloaf]

"We cannot forget the impact the Court's decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose," she said in a ringing defense of the president's record.Asked about similar statements in the past, the White House has denied that they reflect any newfound White House support for gay marriage. Kristina Schake, the First Lady's communications director, said Tuesday that it "refers to the importance of the Supreme Court for deciding many issues."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/first-lady-michelle-obama-supreme-court-stake-election-220019736.html

for once I have to agree with her, we need to appoint another conservative judge to the bench will help make decisions on whether or not the infringements on civil liberty by the NSA, NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other things are in fact constitutional, also to investigate whether the federal government has the right to spy on and keep records on every American citizen such as they are doing in that Computer center in Utah, so yes Michele I have to agree that the next presidential appointment to the Supreme Court is very important for the freedoms and Liberties of Americans,

Don't take this the wrong way but you simply don't know what you are talking about. When you speak of liberties and constitutionality, you're describing liberalism. Look it up.

[OFBUACMKA]

If they are not upholding the Constitution and performing their Service to the Country. :smiley:

I don't see their job as "upholding" the constitution so much as interpreting it.

The constitution, as we all know, is a living document - it needs to be interpreted in a manner consistent with its intent as it is applicable to a changing legal landscape. SCOTUS needs to interpret its intent, without regard to political pressure or personal bias.

Now honestly, I think the "personal bias" part is unrealistic - everyone has an opinion - but I strongly believe that the fact that Justices are in for life, or until they choose to step down, eliminates the "political pressure" to reach a certain decision.

[Alias]

i hate the polarization of SCOTUS, as someone more clever then myself wrote
" HCare will be decided on which side of the bed Kennedy gets out of (left/right)."

SCOTUS CLAIMS impartiality -i don't see a lot of it with these 5-4 decisions. Hyperpartisianship is literally killing this country.

I refuse to join a party, partys are for politicians, and i'm not one. It all goes back to "elections have consequences", but that doesn't explain the polarization of the Court

The left can't win the argument, so that is why we have such polarization. If you don't go along, then you're a racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic, etc, etc, fill in the blank. If all of us stupid, Christian red necks would just go along, everyone will be nice to us. I don't think so.

[spunkloaf]

The left can't win the argument, so that is why we have such polarization. If you don't go along, then you're a racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic, etc, etc, fill in the blank. If all of us stupid, Christian red necks would just go along, everyone will be nice to us. I don't think so.

Well, if people just started acting more intelligent they would not have to be so sensitive to the "stupid" remarks.

[MMC]

I don't see their job as "upholding" the constitution so much as interpreting it.

The constitution, as we all know, is a living document - it needs to be interpreted in a manner consistent with its intent as it is applicable to a changing legal landscape. SCOTUS needs to interpret its intent, without regard to political pressure or personal bias.

Now honestly, I think the "personal bias" part is unrealistic - everyone has an opinion - but I strongly believe that the fact that Justices are in for life, or until they choose to step down, eliminates the "political pressure" to reach a certain decision.


Totally understandable. Althought I would consider performing those duties as much of what you described. Also I was looking at what as I see as weaknesses with things the way they are now. As it surely has become poltical and even with Appointments to the Applelate Courts.

Also I look at as Service to Country.....which does not mean one has to work in the Service of the Country for Life. In any Specific field. They want to serve for life. Then they can look else where. Like with what I was thinking on with a decade of time.

[OFBUACMKA]

Totally understandable. Althought I would consider performing those duties as much of what you described. Also I was looking at what as I see as weaknesses with things the way they are now. As it surely has become poltical and even with Appointments to the Applelate Courts.

Also I look at as Service to Country.....which does not mean one has to work in the Service of the Country for Life. In any Specific field. They want to serve for life. Then they can look else where. Like with what I was thinking on with a decade of time.

There are usually ways to improve things. Lets not forget that if they do serve for life, it's because they choose to. Granted, they could have a lucrative post-SCOTUS life, but I'd like to believe that they see this role as the culimination of their lifes' work - where does one go from there?

Another consideration is - Justices are supposed to be the "best choice" for the role (political motives of thier nominators notwithstanding) - having a 10-year turnover may serve to dilute the quality of the justices serving.

[MMC]

Good point with the dilution of quality and you are right. There are ways to improve things. But getting both of these parties to agree on it would be another matter.

[Alias]

Well, if people just started acting more intelligent they would not have to be so sensitive to the "stupid" remarks.

Well, I certainly agree with that. The problem seems to be identifying who is intelligent and who is saying stupid crap.

[ramone]

Good point with the dilution of quality and you are right. There are ways to improve things. But getting both of these parties to agree on it would be another matter.

I can see good and bad of the lifetime appointments, my problem is that I'm not so sure that either side doesn't have some sort of sway to their beliefs. It's human nature to side with your beliefs. Obama has put in two in the last three years, I didn't agree with either one. Can they be impartial, I guess we will see when this mandate is decided later this year.

While the Constitution could be defined as a living document, the basic structure should be stuck to unless an amendment is added. Otherwise it is what it is and has served well, problem arises when people don't follow it.

[MMC]

I agree with you Ramone.....people are also a product of their Environments and all that comes with it.

[ramone]

I don't think they can separate the two. When these people are appointed they are not young people and are set in their ways. In a perfect world they could stay within the constitution and follow the law of the land. As it is they think it is outdated and even that old liberal went so far as to say that nobody should follow our constitution as a rule.

Now just how much can somebody who doesn't believe it is a document to be followed rule within the confines of it? Farther should they be there sitting as an acting Judge when the first stages of Alzheimer's disease sets in. I see this as a problem in which many cases could be overturned because of something like that. Not saying they do but they could be since there is a high rate of the disease in the world now days. Nobody would even know until it was too late and the decisions had been made.

You should not be allowed to die in office if you want, it is entirely too long of an appointment IMO.

[MMC]

I don't think they can separate the two. When these people are appointed they are not young people and are set in their ways. In a perfect world they could stay within the constitution and follow the law of the land. As it is they think it is outdated and even that old liberal went so far as to say that nobody should follow our constitution as a rule.

Now just how much can somebody who doesn't believe it is a document to be followed rule within the confines of it? Farther should they be there sitting as an acting Judge when the first stages of Alzheimer's disease sets in. I see this as a problem in which many cases could be overturned because of something like that. Not saying they do but they could be since there is a high rate of the disease in the world now days. Nobody would even know until it was too late and the decisions had been made.

You should not be allowed to die in office if you want, it is entirely too long of an appointment IMO.


Yeah I was thinking along the same lines. ALS or any other medical type conditions. In which if no one knows anything is going on. Who knows how the individual would vote or make any type of a decision. May even go against what the individual normally believes in. Or if, they even have take any type of medications. Depressants and or Medication based with Seratonin. Anything that could alters one's thinking.

[ramone]

ALS is not a mind altering ailment, my mother died of it so I know. The pain medication would be a factor but it would be evident before the muscle shut down. There are other things to consider here, not the least is just plain old age. I know and am friends with quite a few people who are much older than me. They do get forgetful and have preconceived notions on many issues. I like them but would never appoint one of them to a position of such authority, and I'd never appoint a young person to a position for life....I'd say a ten year appointment would be more than enough.

[wingrider]

I would go with a 20 or 25 year tenure , but,, the applicants have to be over 40 and under 60, and before you all jump on me about age discrimination, think about it... if most people are over 40 they are mature ... but with the stipulation, that at the onset of any form of a debilitating or medical issue that would impair their ability to make sound decisions, they should step down.

[MMC]

I would go with a 20 or 25 year tenure , but,, the applicants have to be over 40 and under 60, and before you all jump on me about age discrimination, think about it... if most people are over 40 they are mature ... but with the stipulation, that at the onset of any form of a debilitating or medical issue that would impair their ability to make sound decisions, they should step down.

Oh I would agree with you there WR. None under 40 and yes none Chosen over age 60. Which if they came in under your time line. Then they would be in their 80's when they need to remove thmselves.

[BlackAsCoal]

Anything less than a lifetime appointment for a Supreme Court Justice makes him a politician and that could have a devastating effect on our system.

:0) As if their politics aren't already on vivid display.

"The Supreme Court is at risk .."

Wondered how long it would take to drag that meme out of the box.

[Peter1469]

If a Justice had a long tenure with no chance of another round, I don't think that there would be an effect on judicial independence. Say 20 years.

[2Ts]

If a Justice had a long tenure with no chance of another round, I don't think that there would be an effect on judicial independence. Say 20 years.

and then pols could predict exactly when they will have opportunity to change the crts? not a good thing

[Peter1469]

and then pols could predict exactly when they will have opportunity to change the crts? not a good thing

So you vote for the status quo?

[ramone]

:0) As if their politics aren't already on vivid display.

"The Supreme Court is at risk .."

Wondered how long it would take to drag that meme out of the box.

Actually politics are not on display, what they want you to see is on display. The rest is hidden and talked about in back rooms and decided without the republics input. How is the court at risk, I'm intrigued by this statement, would you care to elaborate on that?

[BlackAsCoal]

Actually politics are not on display, what they want you to see is on display. The rest is hidden and talked about in back rooms and decided without the republics input. How is the court at risk, I'm intrigued by this statement, would you care to elaborate on that?

With all due respect brother, nothing could be more obvious than their politics. Any question about their politics that the world isn't already aware of? Any question about how Clarence Thomas is going to vote?

The "Supreme Court is at risk" has been dragged out by every politician for decades .. particularly democratic politicians.

"This election is too important for you to sit it out or vote for anybody else other than who I tell you to vote for."

That BS is typically tossed out to fear the attack on "liberty" from the other guy. But with Obama's abysmal record on liberty .. that should be a joke.

[MMC]

With all due respect brother, nothing could be more obvious than their politics. Any question about their politics that the world isn't already aware of? Any question about how Clarence Thomas is going to vote?

The "Supreme Court is at risk" has been dragged out by every politician for decades .. particularly democratic politicians.

"This election is too important for you to sit it out or vote for anybody else other than who I tell you to vote for."

That BS is typically tossed out to fear the attack on "liberty" from the other guy. But with Obama's abysmal record on liberty .. that should be a joke.

Ah.....someone that actually has clarity and sees the truth for what it is.

[annata]

HC mandate is perfect ex., it's literally going to be decided by "what side of the bed does Kennedy get out of" (left right)[unknown quote].

Here's another cliche' "elections have consequences" - which tells the tale.
SCOTUS is supposed to vote on their interpretations, and use stare decisis as a weighted measure. all that said, it will be the usual 5-4 votes.

Symptomatic of our polarization. No ansewrs here -just highliting the chronic problem.

[OFBUACMKA]

:0) As if their politics aren't already on vivid display.

"The Supreme Court is at risk .."

Wondered how long it would take to drag that meme out of the box.

The point is that their politics shouldn't be on display.

Does this "meme" threaten the "Consitutional Law Professor" in some way?

[MMC]

The Supreme Court is at risk Alright.....especially with the failings of men and women as they get older and with their human condition of losing senses and faculties. It was always at risk giving these people life-time appointments and a free ride. They have shown they would rather take advantage of their position in life rather than Serve the People. All of the people.

[Alias]

When you have a justice sitting on the USSC who believes the US Constitution is out of date, then we have serious problems.

[BlackAsCoal]

The point is that their politics shouldn't be on display.

Does this "meme" threaten the "Consitutional Law Professor" in some way?

I agree that their politics should not be on display .. but they absolutely are.

Obama uses the meme to his advantage just like everyone else.

[MMC]

Which was apparent when he sent Kagan there. Which the GOP should have stood their ground and sent that Clintonite's azz packing.

[coolwalker]

Yes it is at stake and America can't afford for Obama to appoint someone...his minions are insane Marxist dunderheads.

[Peter1469]

She is correct. The SCOTUS issue is the only thing that might make me vote for Mitt.