Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Later this afternoon, I'll be messengering over some documents I need you to look at. I don't thinks it should take you too much time, but it may take a little research. Oh, and I need your comments in time for my nine o'clock Monday morning. I'm out of town this weekend, so you won't be able to call me, but I'm sure this is no big deal. Thanks!

P.S. If you aren't using your basketball tickets Saturday afternoon, I have some friends in town that would sure like to go!

Its okay- you can trust me to ensure nothing bad happens to your corporation! We're Biglaw, and we will make sure Mega-corp keeps sailing smoothly ahead. In fact, since you sound tired, you don't need to look at the documents I prepare, we'll be sure to double proof read!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't rehnquist dissent in Roe itself? Not that he'll be around when the next opportunity arises.

How will Bush not get to appoint anyone? Are you saying that the Chief's seat will remain vacant for 4 years? I don't see that happening. As obstructionist at the Dems are and as willfully blind to the lack of a sufficient majority that the R's are, Rehnquist's successor will be sworn in by Thanksgiving of this year. And Bush will get at least one more appointment--either Stevens or O'Connor (or both) will need replacing in 2006 or 2007.

Did Rehnquist resign? I thought he was still trying to hang on. This guy will hang on as long as he can. In any case he was the one I thought Bush would get to replace. I think Stevens and O'Connor will hold on until the next President.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Of course the court has changed since Casey (1992??), but I seem to recall a count that had Kennedy being the determining factor. And not being all that committed to what he was doing.

Basically, some people have boiled his logic down to ...if we announce that Roe was a mistake, we'll look stoopid. Nevertheles, I don't even recall who was who in Casey. A long time ago.

So your two hidden anti Roe sitting members are Kennedy and Rehnquist?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Since when did you start working in a corporation? If I had known that, I'd have been a lot nicer to you.

Your loss. Though, in reality, not much of one -- I have very little power. At least at this point.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
So your two hidden anti Roe sitting members are Kennedy and Rehnquist?

Rehnquist is one. Believe me, I'm distant enough from the Court that I base my thoughts on what I read... and a lot of that was back when I had time to read stuff other than the papers. Which is to say, I wasn't thinking "Rummy? Stimpy?, dammit... what's his name agin?". Rather, just that there was a close case not so long ago that almost did it.

I'm assuming the 4th dissenter in Casey has since retired, but I can't remember who it was and who the replacement is.

Kennedy is a wild card. Seriously, I think one could envision that him and one or two others just want the solid numbers and the solid rationale in-place to overturn Roe. Not because they think Roe was right in the first place, but because they don't like overturning precedent, and they don't (editorial comment: and shouldn't) want to zigzag on this and appear like they are appeasing a political constituency.

So, what I think gets this done is:
1.) Enough time to make it something other than politically reactive;

2.) 5 people to sign onto a single opinion that says "this ain't none of our business, and never was" (as compared to multiple concurrences that make it seems like nobody really agrees on the law);

3.) and a plausible rationale for overturning and discrediting precedent... mebbe viability or sumthing.

I'm comfortable with 1 and 2, and a little sketchy on what they would use for 3.

But I'm comfortable that nobody in those robes can offer a coherent defense of an incoherent opinion.

Hello

[silent but deadly]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did Rehnquist resign? I thought he was still trying to hang on. This guy will hang on as long as he can. In any case he was the one I thought Bush would get to replace. I think Stevens and O'Connor will hold on until the next President.

Rove should go up there and beat the three of them silly. Get the fuck out of there already and let Bush get some new blood up there.

Steven Calabresi and and James Lindgren had it right in an op-ed in the WallStreetJournal last Friday entitled Supreme Gerontocracy.

Some excerpts from the same:

It has been almost 11 years since the last vacancy opened up on the Supreme Court. The current group of justices has served together for longer than any other group of nine justices in American history………

………….Two of the current justices are in their 80s, two in their 70s, and four more between 65 and 69…….The current Court is a gerontocracy -- like the leadership cadre of the Chinese Communist Party.

……………………. While mental incompetence was rare in the first century on the Court, since 1898 it has become a regular occurrence for justices who serve more than 18 years; by one estimate about a third were mentally incompetent to serve before they finally retired.

We think this is unacceptable. No powerful government institution in a modern democracy should go for 11 years without any democratic check on its membership………………………

………………. Tomorrow, a conference of scholars (most of whom are committed to this idea) will meet at Duke Law School to discuss various proposals for such an [Constitutional] amendment. …………….
For 180 years through 1970, we had Supreme Court tenures of about 15 years, a practice that worked well. Now that this system has broken down, it is time to restore some sanity to the process of selecting our justices. A first step would be to institute reasonable term limits for the members of the Supreme Court.

Damn straight!

[Hank Chinaski]

so i thought maybe we could review-

Earlier this week Ty pointed to one his deep thinker's very astute analysis that decided while Bush will achieve a Democracy in Iraq- it wasn't worth it.

I think it nice to reivew how his boys (and girl) have moved.

• Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?

• Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?

• Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?

While I am mortified by some of the social decisions driven by the perceived red state fundamentalism, that can be tempered. Given the reins of this country back to the wiggle-brained cannot be repaired. Those of you who "might" vote Dem because of spending know you won't because it''s clear that what drives their big umbrella is a belief that the world is all good people except for us-
The Dems deserve to be in therapy but not the White House.

[Hank Chinaski]

[

[Gattigap]

NYT:

• WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.
  
  Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

You're right, Hank. This social policy stuff isn't really driven by GOP leadership, and can be easily tempered. I don't know what we were worried about.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Background reading from my home state.

I never said the tort crisis was anything other than insurance industry and corporate hype. I just wondered how all the folk yelling about how we're all paying the costs would feel about sharing the rewards if tort "reform" were enacted.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
several of the libs here work for corporations. they spend about half their works days posting, so in effect they are being paid money they do not earn. in fact they are stealing from the public. yet when it comes to inheritance tax they are all over not letting people get money they haven't earned.

Actually, they're stealing from the shareholders. You and the law firm types are stealing from your partners. I am one of the very few here who can say that I'm not stealing from anybody.

So, your point was?

[chad87655]

Has anyone else noticed that since Terri Schinndler was murdered while Jeb et al sat on their hands, almost all of the Republicans come off as wimpy little impotent mama boy pussies?

With the exception of Tom DeLay.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, they're stealing from the shareholders. You and the law firm types are stealing from your partners. I am one of the very few here who can say that I'm not stealing from anybody.

So, your point was?

How many incorrect assumptions did the T-man just make about me?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand the connection between the cap and insurance premiums, but what is the connection between the cap and the others?

Well, the health care providers and the pharm companies all whine that their costs are so high because of, in part, the rapid rise in med mal premiums. Since premiums are going down, they should be able to lower their costs. Same for the health insurers -- lower costs, lower premiums.

See? Everybody wins.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How many incorrect assumptions did the T-man just make about me?

I'll guess at leasst one less than you made in your posts about "all the libs" on the board.

p.s., If you want to come out, just pm me. I'll give up my info if you give up yours. Then we needn't make any more incorrect assumptions about each other.