Bork a better choice than Thomas for SCOTUS

[edhopper]

I doubt Thomas has voted any differently than Bork would have on any case.
But Bork (being dead and all) would now let Obama put in a "liberal" Justice, and we are stuck with Thomas .

[enough]

1. Good point. (nt)

[MADem]

2. Bork had to be denied, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

It was important that the point be made that that kind of shit was "not OK."

[BlueStreak]

3. SCOTUS should be term-limited

Most people don't realize there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about the structure or contract of the SCOTUS. It is all up to Congress to determine how many justices there are and how long they serve.

We have two problems today:
1) They are being appointed younger and living longer, effectively giving many a 40-year term

2) The court is so small that almost every decision come out with a predictable vote. Almost all the controversial decisions are 5-4 with the same justices on each side every time.

Here is my humble proposal:

- 15 justices
- Single 15-year term
- Other than death or resignation, there is one appointment every year
- The Senate has 90 days to take a vote. If they fail to take a vote, the justice is confirmed presumptively

With 15 justices, the outcomes would not be so "baked in the cake". With term limits, there would be no incentive to appoint inexperienced people to the court. With the mandatory voting period, Presidents would have more freedom to appoint the best people who have large resumes, because the Senate couldn't stall those to death.

A 2-term president could appoint a majority of the court, but in practice only 7 of any President's appointees would be likely to serve while the President is still in office. (The last one would join the court at the end of the presidency.) There is some small risk there. But with 15 term-limited justices, I think the court would be rather resistant to ideological packing. And if the court did tip too far, the electorate could correct that by electing a different kind of president the next time.

Personally, my view is that if we had an arrangement like that, I would have been less opposed to Bork. As part of a 15-person panel, I think a wide diversity of opinion is good. On a 9-person panel, that is just to much power for an extremist.

[BlueStreak]

4. Regarding Bork v Thomas

Thomas is a moron. He is a classic case of a guy who advanced not by his intellect or hard work, but because of his willingness to sell his soul. He says nothing on the court and contributes nothing. Therefore I think it is safe to say he influences nobody. He is simply one reliably vote for the extreme right fringe.

Bork, on the other hand, was a very deep thinker. His adversaries respected him. I think you are correct to say their own votes would be similar, but there are two differences. 1) I think there would have been a few cases where Thomas mindlessly cast the "Scalia vote" any Bork would have gone his own way based on his principles. 2) Bork would have influences others, particularly Kennedy, so with Bork on the court, we may have lost some of those narrow 5-4 victories.

[graham4anything]

5. Actually without Ralph Nader in 2000, Roberts and Alito never on court

New Hampshire 2000
Al Gore only lost because of Nader in Nov. 2000

forget 12/12/2000- it was all Ralph Nader

and I predict either Scalia or Kennedy shall retire soon, so Obama will pick 3 more, and Hillary will pick another 2 in her first term

by the end of her first term, it will be 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 and possibly 9 to 0 by the end of Hillary's 2nd term
including Chief Justice Barack Obama

Bork was a danger to America. No, it would not have been better.

but blame Ralph Nader and never vote for a 3rd party egotist again.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. We need a system for quick replies to bullshit like this that has been

shown to be false dozens of times, yet just like the Nigerian Prince needing your help to free up his fortune, is never allowed to die by those that have a need to believe in a fantasy.

Example: DU#1-16; The election of 2000 was eliminated through a judicial coup.

Saves a lot of typing time...

[graham4anything]

8. NO it wasn't. Dec. 12, 2000 came a MONTH AFTER NOV 2000

yes there was chicanory in December

but without Nader, Gore won fair and square election night

All you guys seem to forget how many electoral votes Gore won
Add the 4 from New Hampshire, Gore won

didn't matter about Florida

stop protecting Ralph.

and follow these easy steps

NOVEMBER COMES BEFORE DECEMBER

Al Gore would already have been partying by 12/12/2000 if not for Nader.

It's like 2004- Bush won by so many votes, Ohio didn't matter, no recount would have done what John Edwards made happen. Kerry lost

but without Nader, Al Gore won.

and anyhoo
Nader said both parties the same

WRONGO- the supreme court proved that

So, yes it was Nader's fault.

and no, Bork was not better than Thomas. Bork would have been chief justice
and the health care would not have passed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. This is so tiresome. It should be put under the CT classification.

Pat Buchanan got thousands of votes he himself said were clearly mistakes in nearly exclusive Democratic districts, so are you prepared to argue that Bush really won the vote if not for him?

The 2000 selection was a travesty and the year the United States of America died, but facing up to that is just too much for us to take. So blather on about how this one man is all to blame, while completely ignoring the dozens of other things that made it happen, and enjoy your cocoon of fantasy and avoidance.

Edit: I agree that Bork would not have been better.

[graham4anything]

12. It is simple raw numbers. Florida did not matter if NH went for Gore.

you can rave on about 12/12/2000 but its simple calander- November comes before Dec.

Look at the vote totals.
F--k CNN, they are Bush people as I am sure you remember what Bernie Shaw did to Dukakis
at the debate, and Wolfie was their main person back in 2000.

I blame Gore for not letting Clinton campaign
I blame even more Kerry for picking Edwards the single worst VP choice ever, even worse than Sarah though the two were simliar. Both were picked for their looks, and both were the single most vapid candidates ever.
And the relationship between Kerry and McCain BFFs forever redundant is mindboggling.


but Nader said both were one and the same
so don't blame Scotus if you don't blame Nader
because according to him, both were the same, therefore according to Nader, the 5 bad SCOTUS would have been picked by Gore.

and you know that is not true.
you do know that is just not true.


United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2000
Party Candidate Running mate Votes Percentage Electoral votes
Republican George Bush Dick Cheney 273,559 48.07% 4
Democratic Al Gore Joe Lieberman 266,348 46.80% 0
Independent Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke 22,198 3.90% 0
Others - - 6,976 1.23% 0
Totals - 100.00% 4

Gore was suppose to win NH
It was a major upset
you do the math

4 electoral votes, Gore was seated.


and can we honestly say what would have happened in 2004 had Gore won the election?
The other side would have said for four years that Gore stole it.
And would have gone for a rematch.
I don't think Bush would have gone away, he would have ran again

I have no real idea why Gore did not get his rematch, except that the party abandoned him because of the mistakes he made.

In reality, in 2000 Jesse Jackson should have been the nominee

and in 2004, Barack Obama should have been the nominee (as my button says).
Or Howard Dean. Dean wouldn't have let Bush define him, but it was a long shot anyhow

but yes, I do expect 8 or even 16 years after Obama of democratic presidency coming
the repubs have no way to win the electoral votes

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. I have looked at them, and Greg Palast has written the definitive work on the 2000 vote.

The SCOTUS, in a clearly blatant partisan coup, installed the loser as POTUS.

And the people, and of far more relevance, 'their leaders' allowed it. That is the only fact that matters. All of the rest of this speculative nonsense is simply bullshit fantasy over what might have been and ultimately amounts to nothing but an endless waste of time over pin-dancing angels to keep the reality away.

We elected a conman, who worked for madmen in 1980 and sold our nation for a fantasy. That's the bottom line.

[Ter]

7. If you think we're gonna have 16 years of Democratic Presidential rule you're living in a fantasy

n/t

[NYC Liberal]

10. I disagree

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's definitely not a "fantasy"

Look who the Repubs have lined up for 2016: the same bunch of clowns who ran in 2012 plus a few who are a bit more sane but have their own problems (Jeb Bush is..well, a Bush; Christie has the attitude of a bully; Rubio is just as extreme as any other Republican).

Unless the Repubs come up with a star within the next few years and change their tone, they will have the same problems as they did this year. They simply don't have a Reagan, a Clinton, or an Obama. The bar for them is higher because they will be running against the incumbent party. Assuming Obama remains even fairly popular and things (continue to) improve, our candidate will be running on his coattails -- which means we don't necessarily need a superstar candidate.

And if we win in 2016, then 2020 has an incumbent running.

Again, this is way, way early. But it's not fantasy.

[JHB]

9. We'd be stuck with Thomas anyway. Both of them would have been on.

Thomas was part of a strategy to put younger conservatives in the courts so that they'd be on the bench for decades.