That and it seems like the longer we give Obama the benefit of the doubt the more he moves toward the extremes of the Unitary Executive. I’m surprised all those interviews Cheney does and no one asks him how the Unitary Executive is different from a dictator.

I agree it is up to the Congress (just the Senate) to approve or reject nominations to the federal judiciary.

I doubt Obama wonders why people who have been his adversaries all along are now finding fault with his first Supreme Court nomination. I think he knew what to expect, and made a calculated decision weighing the political pros and cons of each of the finalists in addition to their qualifications.

I think we have to hold Obama accountable for keeping his promises as best we can here in our small part of the Internet.

I don’t see him moving towards the unitary executive, far from it. I see him trying to undo the consolidation of power the Bush and Cheney put into the presidency.

The president as an individual still has incredible power since he’s a one person branch of  our  tripartite government.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/6653/Executive-Branch-Divisions-Executive-Branch.html

Collectivism is slavery…

I’ll be happy to finish second to anyone that wants to play Foos, if they give it their all.

I’ll be happy to recognize a judge, supreme or lessor, if they hold up the Constitution at their peril!

Should that not be the question?

Whoa, judge that without ones senses or moral compass.

I’m really curious about the fact that potential candidates cabinets are not set prior to the election, and why not?

Watch the fools indict and assault the very document within which their liberties are founded.
Observe them utilize all the tools to escape mans humanity to man and bring such a level of assault to the poetry of life in our time as to revisit past ignorance.

Recall = Voice.

Let’s see now… we’re both – you pick the identifier (age, gender, race, ideology, education level, etc.) – similar, so you must be as honest, fair, unbiased, worthy, etc., as I am, so all will be OK+++ if you are my judge.

What did ever happen to judicial outcomes – in the highest court in the land – based on legal merit?

The Supremes aren’t a sewing circle… aren’t a 12-step program… aren’t a welfare agency… aren’t supposed to decide cases on who had the worst upbringing… aren’t supposed to consider psychobabble instead of behavior as an adjudicative mechanism… you know???

It’s the United States Supreme Court for God’s sake.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

This is interesting. It doesn’t say a darned thing about upholding the law and principles of the Constitution. There is no “support and defend” clause as there is in the oath that congressmen take. It only says that the justice will ‘perform the duties’ described. The thing is, if you read the Constitution, there are no ‘duties’ for a supreme court justice. They don’t even have to show up to vote. There are no guidelines. Policy-making, as this nominee would apparently like to do, is fair game. And there is no constraint to actually uphold the constitution.

All I can say is WOW.

—W—

Other than that Obama hyped up it being a milestone difference that she was also Hispanic, and born poor and the right wing responded to all the hype.

No big deal except various interest groups get to spin it for fund-raising purposes.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/05/27/cbs-decides-sotomayor-no-liberal-cant-be-easily-defined-political-label

I agree with some but not all of the National Lawyers Guilds positions. I could carefully read their reviews of lawyers in the last Pennsylvania election, and vote for most of the judges on their list but use their lawyer’s comments to make a different selection in two cases, even though I had questions about others as well.

The first time I could ever look at candidates and not just blindly accept the word of someone I don’t totally agree with. Or try to find something specific in different lists.
http://www.nlgphilly.org/main.html

RichardKanePA