Not being as familiar with her, I am not sure about Justice Kagan recusing herself, but I don't understand why Justice Thomas shouldn't recuse himself especially should the health care bill go before the Supreme Court. He has a tea party wife, I assume, adamantly against this bill. What? Husband and wife never talk? Never ask for favors? (wink wink). I know the SC Justices are appointed for life, but are there never any circumstances that are questionable?? Or are they always "right." Maybe a legal scholar can enlighten me, cause on the surface it sure does not sound "fair."

TIS

What about Rick Scott, who had one of the greatest campaign slogans ever, which was: "Hey, they never indicted me."

Now there's a guy who knows healthcare. His prior experience was running a healthcare company, which defrauded the federal government out of about a billion dollars. It was the biggest Medicare fraud in the history of Medicare.

You gotta love Flori-duh, Don T.

Sure some Supreme Court rulings end up being 'questionable', depending upon which side of a given case you're on. The problem is that the Supreme Court of the U.S. is, as they say "..The highest in the Land..." and once they've reached a decision or decided NOT to hear a case, then there's nowhere else to go from there.

You raise a good question about Supreme Court Justices though (both State and Federal), and if you're really interested in being 'enlightened' by a 'legal scholar', (which I doubt)...should read Mark Levin's book, 'Men In Black'.

Well, you're the last person I'd consider a "legal scholar" or take any advice from, but I know your "need" to chime in, especially on political threads.

I'm guessing I'm not alone in concluding that YOU Apple, are (one of) the rudest people here on the BB. Thankfully though, most people here won't let one bad Apple spoil the rest.

Have fun in your sandbox all by yourself!!!


TIS

No, no!! You misunderstood...I am referring to Mark Levin, author of the book I recommended as a 'legal scholar'. Certainly not me!!!

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

As for 'chiming in'...isn't that what we all do here? Otherwise there would be plenty of short threads!

Apple

Let's not be making personal attacks here. People's posts sleak for themselves.

As for the question at hand, the Supremes have ultimate authority. People wanted Scalia to recuse himslf from a case involving Cheney after they went hunting together. Scalia did not recuse himself. So that's that. There is no apealing it.

Rhenquist, with whom I disagreed about everything was correct to recuse himself from N.Y. Times v. Nixon (Pentagon Papers case) because he was working against the Times before he was appointed to the court, and at the time said in good conscience he could not be fair. Sadly, that level of integrity is reduced on all sides.

I'm not a legal scholar but I am the SC Justice (here on these boards) ( ) and I'll give it a shot.

The appointments to the Court are politically motivated. They may not be Republican vs Democrat issues but generally conservative vs liberal issues involving legal matters. The president submits a nominee to the Senate and they will eventually vote on the nominee. This often adds to the political edge that it is supposed to guard against, but I guess it is the best checks and balances that we have.

Personally, I like Diana, Mary and Flo as the best Supremes.

Just a few facts.

SCOTUS justices are not appointed for life. They serve "during good behavior". They can be removed from the bench through the Constitution's Impeachment Process. Only one SCOTUS justice has been subjected to that process: Samuel Chase in the early 1800s. He was not convicted by the Senate.

The Congress can change the SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction if it chooses to. It never has as far as I know.

And Apple, I have read Levin's Men in Black. It is over 200 pages of an ideological rant directed against liberals which is not unexpected from that high-pitch voiced ideologue. In light of Article III, Section 2. paragragh 2 of the Constitution, how can Levin (or anyone) conclude that the SCOTUS can not conduct judicial review. Preposterous.

I respect your opinion, which is not surprising, nor would it be I am sure, to Mark Levin. To your credit, at least you HAVE read the book for whatever reason you chose to do so at the time.

As for your question, I'm afraid it would be up to Mr. Levin to answer (which he probably did in the book).

However it's been quite a few years since I opened it, now migh tbe a good time for review, (once I shake all this sand outa my clothes)...in light of the current 'climate'.

Levin does answer it Apple by simply stating that Marshall's Marbury decision in 1803 should not be construed as a gateway for judicial review (but only when he disagrees with the substance of such review). Of course, as I stated in my previous post above, he ignores the Constitution's Article III, Section 2.

Fair enough, olivant. I won't pretend to be qualified to address it, although he does describe in detail how Marshall went beyond the specifics of the case. Maybe someday, you can call Levin's show & confront him w/ that...am sure he's up to the challenge.

But would you agree that that in itself, among other things outlined in 'Men In Black' and elsewhere...would address the question posed by TIS:

"...are there never any circumstances that are questionable?? Or are they always "right." Maybe a legal scholar can enlighten me, cause on the surface it sure does not sound "fair."

I would think that no one Justice on the Supreme Court is either 'right 'or wrong'...they hear the cases, reach their decisions based upon discussion and their own interpretation of 'the law', submit their writings and the final decision is still reached by a vote.

And as JFK once said, 'Life isn't fair...'

Quick, someone go look to see if there is a blue moon. It must be the end of the world is near..... Apple said something with which I agree!

What is right? What is just? What is moral? Per the Constitution, the SCOTUS may hear appeals from lower courts. They render decisions by majority vote. A 5-4 vote is just as valid as a 9-0 vote. They render decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution. Whether they are right or not cannot be determined. But their decisions do become law. That's what we are left with.

I suppose what's right or wrong or moral would depend on the case they have at hand. They could all think differently. Like you say they are suppose to interpret. How do you not mesh your personal views in your "interpretation?"

I get that their decision is final and that they interpret the constitution, BUT they also are human and depending on the individual case, what would stop a SC Judge (on either side) from being biased. I have a problem believing they are infallible.

TIS

I do love my puppy dogs...offer the smallest treat, they scoot over and wag they darling little tails!!!

The little dears.

As a custodian of the law, you're not supposed to. That's why the nominees (most recently Kagan) are scrutinized by the hearing committee and relentlessy grilled on that very thing.
I think they TRY to separate their personal views from what is law but it doesn't always work that way (i.e. Ginsberg's STRONG dissent in Bush v. Gore)



Nobody claims they're infallible. But they ARE the final word in countless legal battles and why it is the dream of many attorneys to have the opportunity to argue before them.

Back to the sandbox...

I have not read Levin's book nor do I listen to his show. But out of curiosity if he or likeminded thinkers do not think that the SC should have judicial review then what does he think the SC is there for? What should they be doing in his worldview?

Again, you would have to ask him (or likeminded thinkers)...but again in reference to the case specified by olivant, Levin also explains in detail how the decision was orchestrated by Justice Marshall as a political move, and a masterful one at that. So in that particular case you apparently have the SC using the court to serve their own political agenda.

The following is a quote from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence V. Texas (2003). It is nothing if not a subjective expression of his personal feelings which, as many (including Scalia) would maintain, has no place as an element of the SCOTUS decision making process:

"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

So, it is probably true that no SCOTUS members, present or past, should be throwing stones. If Chief Justice Marshall's motivation can be questioned and criticized, certainly Scalia's can be also. Everybody - drop your stones.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

Are they little bitches?

Not if they get their way they aren't!

WASHINGTON – Texas congressman Ron Paul won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference for the second straight year Saturday and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second. Paul got 30 percent, while Romney got 23 percent of the votes of those attending the conference in Washington.

Others were grouped far behind. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson had 6 percent along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 5 percent. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels were at 4 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin got 3 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee got 2 percent. Palin and Huckabee are two high-profile Republicans who did not attend, while many potential candidates made speeches at the conference.

Actually, I affectionately refer to them as my little rotten apples.

The ones that don't fall far from the tree.

Heeeeere, puppy...JUMP!!!

That's a Goooooood Boy!!!



As for the CPAC poll...to hell with them all.
TRUMP for President!!!

(Since I STILL think Christie will not run...)

You can always tell the male puppies, they are always lifing their legs on everyone.

Apple you better watch out or someone will be calling the PETA people on ya!

No need to worry, fs. You can always line your pen with "The Daily Apple". It's great for paper-training.

Sounds like some sound advice, but I stay away from training puppies. Let those who have the time and like that kind of challage do it.

C'mon children, you know the rules....

....no biting....





.........and no fighting.....




....After all we don't want to see anyone have to take their toys and go home for the day......





...so please, let's play nice!

updated 2/14/2011 4:04:55 PM ET 2011-02-14T21:04:55

PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers are trying to widen the state's illegal immigration crackdown with a proposal to require hospitals to confirm whether patients are in the country legally. The National Conference of State Legislatures says it knows of no other states considering similar bills.

The proposal being heard late Monday by the Arizona Senate's judiciary committee would require hospitals to contact immigration authorities if a patient is an illegal immigrant.