Last four Chief Justices have been appointed by Republicans!

[Buck Turgidson]

It's true.

• Earl Warren - Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
  
• Warren Earl Burger - Richard Nixon (R)
  
• William Hubbs Rehnquist - Ronald Reagan (R)
  
• Roberts - Shrub (R)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

[WI_DEM]

1. Earl Warren was a surprise for Ike

he later said it was the "worst damn decision he ever made." Also Ike appointed another great liberal, William Brennan to the court. All in all, Ike did ok, even if he didn't realize it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Justices are for life, but is the Chief role a life position?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chiefness aspect is not written into law as "for life". Anybody know?

[WI_DEM]

3. All the justices of the SC are life positions, including CJ

[Buck Turgidson]

4. Yep, its for life.

Reading from the Wikipedia, Roberts will be the Chief Justice of the United States until he dies, retires, or is impeached and convicted by the Congress.

[category5]

14. Yep...Roberts will be CJ until almost half of US people

currently living are dead. Sounds awful!

[Wabbajack]

15. The term is

" The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

Taken literally Scalia and Thomas would need to resign.

[onenote]

5. repubs have controlled the WH for a majority of that time

Since 1952: 33 years of Repub Presidents and 20 years of Dems (if I did my math correctly).

onenote

[Buck Turgidson]

6. I think your numbers are correct but,

why should a lame duck with less than 40% approval rating get to appoint two people to the Supreme Court including a Chief Justice.

[TheVirginian]

7. Because he won the Presidential election...?

And the Constitition empowers the winner of the Presidential election (a.k.a. the President) to nominate people to fill vacancies on the SC.

[Buck Turgidson]

9. Oh lookie here...

We got ourselves a regular constitutional scholar. Filibusters are legal, too. I was sorta hoping that the Dem's would unanimously vote against Roberts.

Welcome to DU there, Ms. TheVirginian.

[Silverhair]

10. It takes 41 votes to uphold a filibuster, and...

some of our Democratic Senators are from very deep red states. A high profile filibuster like that could cost them their next election, to be replaced by a Republican. Political fact of life. Unpleasant but true.

[Buck Turgidson]

17. Baloney,.. A filibuster is just what the doctor ordered.

Pollsters have told party leaders that a show of opposition against Bush's next nominee could be crucial to restoring enthusiasm among the rank and file on the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701652.html

I don't accept your notion of a "political fact of life". Ask Tom Daschle what happens when you go along to get along. It's time for the Democrats to stand up on their hind legs and become the opposition party.

[Silverhair]

18. Daschle didn't go along to get along.

He fought Bush, and in doing so established himself as too far to the left for his deep red state. Other Democrats in such red states have certainly noticed. They want to get reelected.

A senator from any state represents his/her state first. They are the ones that elected him/her. So if someone from California writes to a senator from Montana (I think MT has a Dem Senator. I don't feel like looking it up at the moment.)against something, and someone from Montana also writes for the same thing, then the senator from MT will pay more attention to his/her constituent.

Who can do more harm to a Senator from MT? A very angry base in CA base, or the general voting public in MT?

That said, we need to make out case, strongly and loudly. But don't expect to be able to Bork any of W's nominees.

[Buck Turgidson]

20. Bork 'em or not. But we need to fight. Now.

Did you read the quote from WaPo above?

I'll put it in real simple terms. Sixty percent of the voters disapprove of Shrub. That means if you want to be reelected, then it is better to be the opposition.

[Silverhair]

21. Now break that down state by state.

What a CA voter thinks is of little matter to a MT senator. CA people don't vote in MT.

Also, it is possible to dissaprove of W and still be a conservative. Conservative don't like a lot of federal spending and are complaining that W is spending like a Democrat. (That's the way they put it.) Such voters are NOT about to start voting Democratic.

Please suggest which senators in red states you think may support a filibuster.

What can we do to them if they don't? In answering the last question, please remember that they are in deep red states.

[ComerPerro]

22. LMAO. Are you posting in character?

[Buck Turgidson]

23. "I'm not saying that we won't get our hair mussed..."

Gen. Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

President Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war.

Gen. Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

[TheVirginian]

16. To be technical...

There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says "The Senate shall have the right to filibuster." But they are legal.

And its Mr. TheVirginian.

[Silverhair]

11. Where in the constitution does it say...

that a POTUS must have a greater than (fill in number of your choice) approval rating, or be able to stand for reelection, to be able to make appointments to SCOTUS? I don't find that in my copy of the Constitution. Perhaps yours is different.

[onenote]

12. because it would be political suicide

for Democrats to force the Supreme Court to operate with two vacancies for the next three years. Every President is a "lame duck" in his second term. But if that was used as an excuse not to confirm appointments, there would be hell to pay. The Repugs probably would end up winning a filibuster proof majority. Unpleasant but true facts of political life these days.

onenote

[Doctor_J]

8. Yes, the "liberal courts" are alot like the "liberal media"

- GOP bullshit

[Hippo_Tron]

13. LMAO so true

The religious wrong would shit themselves if the Warren court had the opportunity to rule on all of the cases that so anger them now.

[ladylibertee]

19. Very disturbing!

[noonwitch]

24. Yeah, but Ike and Nixon weren't part of the religious right

When Ike was president, there were just as many liberal republicans as democrats. The election of Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the religious right's takeover of the GOP.