Now that it is evident that Chief Justice Reinquist is suffering from a life threatening cancer...I think we should discuss the next four years of judge picking and more importantly cheif justice picking.

Do you think President Bush will choose one of the current judges to fill Reinquist's posistion, or bring somebody into the posistion.

And who do you think this will be?

My guess is that he'd make Scalia Chief Justice and then bring in someone else.

One thing is for sure. The person he picks will be a fanatical right wing christian.

Originally posted by Echo2
One thing is for sure. The person he picks will be a fanatical right wing christian. Better that than some liberal piece of shit with an agenda.

And fanatical right wing christians don't have an agenda?

bwahaha ROTFLMAO.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
My guess is that he'd make Scalia Chief Justice and then bring in someone else. Wasn't Scalia chosen by Clinton?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Wasn't Scalia chosen by Clinton?

Pretty sure it was Bush 41. Extremely unlikely Clinton would pick Scalia.

Upon review of the court's website, I have found that he was actually a Regan oppointee.

The Clinton choices were, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The Clinton choices were, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Interestingly enough, for all of this yammering about how the partisan Supreme Court appointed Bush in 2000, two of the dissenters in Bush v. Gore were Republican nominees (Stevens and Souter)

Is the count 7 conservatives and 2 liberals? I would imagine that so, if the two Clinton appointees were the only ones curently serving who was chosen by a democrat.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Is the count 7 conservatives and 2 liberals? I would imagine that so, if the two Clinton appointees were the only ones curently serving who was chosen by a democrat.

More like 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democrat appointees. 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 swing vote (O'Connor).

What is interesting is how often Presidents have been disappointed with Supreme Court appointees. Once they are confirmed in a job that has a life term, they can be very independent, which is what was intended. They tend to be more bound by precedent, and more deliberative than might have been supposed. This is not always true, but as a rule it is. It is a position that has brought out the best in the people who have held it many times.

Ok, I know that you serve on the court til death or resignation....but like, are they subject to impeachment or anything if they arent properly fulfilling thier duties?

Originally posted by Imagineer
What is interesting is how often Presidents have been disappointed with Supreme Court appointees. Once they are confirmed in a job that has a life term, they can be very independent, which is what was intended. They tend to be more bound by precedent, and more deliberative than might have been supposed. This is not always true, but as a rule it is. It is a position that has brought out the best in the people who have held it many times.

I agree it has brought out the best in some of the judges but I would add that it has also brought out the worst in some. But I like the idea of them being independant. Even if it means we have to put up with the few that have their own agenda.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Ok, I know that you serve on the court til death or resignation....but like, are they subject to impeachment or anything if they arent properly fulfilling thier duties?

Yep. As far as I know, no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, but a few federal judges have.

Would Congress precide over the trial or the other 8 judges?

Congress.

I remember back in the 1990's that they impeached a Federal Judge from Nevada who was serving time in a Federal prison for tax fraud. Until they impeached him, he was collecting his pay as a judge while serving time.