Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A deep bench of substitute justices goes unused

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 08:30 AM
Original message
A deep bench of substitute justices goes unused
Justice John Paul Stevens has been retired from the Supreme Court for more than a month. Maybe it's time to bring him back.

Or perhaps Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Since she left in 2006, she's been crisscrossing the nation denouncing the evils of electing judges rather than appointing them, and serving on important federal and state commissions.

Along the way, she's filled in and decided cases with almost every federal appellate court in the nation. Save one. The one to which she was appointed in 1981.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) is pondering whether a change is needed. He's considering legislation that would allow a retired member of the Supreme Court to replace a justice who has recused himself -- or herself -- in a particular case.

This would avoid the court potentially splitting 4 to 4 on a case and, Leahy hopes, encourage justices to recuse themselves more often when there is an appearance of partiality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/08/AR2010080802629.html?hpid=topnews
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. after her vote in bush v gore, I don't want her near the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's a terrible idea.
Just what we don't need is litigants jockeying to recuse current members to get back some justice no longer on the bench.

Either they're one of the nine justices or not. If the congress wants to increase the number of justices, they could do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I wonder what the constitutional challenges to this would be and if any would stick. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC