Will Robert Bork and Harriet Meiers be vindicated when the GOP denounce Obama's choice to replace Stevens?

Isn't that what the GOP tried to do with his last nomination------they lost.`

With Geithner, Are we putting the Fox in the Henhouse? ?

He is either a crook or an idiot or both. Probably the latter. It is said to be an innocent mistake. That makes him an idiot. I guess it will not be the first time we had an idiot running the treasury. Paulson certainly qualifies in that category.

Joe Biden in 2016. Can we put aside his gaffes and focus on his intelligence, knowledge, and experience?

I sure as heck would never vote for the guy who took such an important leadership position in the effort to excoriate Judge Robert Bork. Indeed, any Democrat who opposed Bork is unacceptable to me.

what are qualifications of a Supreme Court justice?

From wikipedia, "Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices Article II of the United States Constitution provides the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. However, nominees whose views are perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"[2]. While the President may nominate anyone (there are no qualifications listed in the Constitution regarding prior legal or judicial experience, nor are there any exclusions of foreign-born nominees), the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas's nomination was hampered by allegations of sexual harassment, but the Senate eventually confirmed him by a vote of 52-48. Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. For example, a nominee may be filibustered. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination before even a committee hearing had been scheduled, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. Prior to that, President Ronald Reagan in 1987 withdrew the name of Douglas H. Ginsburg soon after the announcement of his nomination because allegations of marijuana use had arisen concerning him. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration through the current administration of George W. Bush, however, the process took much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasingly political role Justices are said to play.[1] When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life tenure. However, Justices may resign, retire, or be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose for the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death in 2005. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (for Chief Justice Rehnquist)."

What personal experience in life does Joe Biden ?

Joe's whole life has been one of service to the American people. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to a county council in 1970. Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972, and became the fifth-youngest senator in U.S. history. He was re-elected to the Senate in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, and 2002, and has served for the sixth-longest period among current senators. Biden is a long-time member and current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. His strong advocacy helped bring about U.S. military assistance and intervention during the Bosnian War. He voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, but later proposed resolutions to alter U.S. strategy there. He has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, and led creation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Violence Against Women Act. He chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. He wanted to be President, but lost in the primaries, so Vice President is the next best thing, and also the best step to becoming President. (Many former Vice Presidents make it to the Presidency: John Adams George Bush Thomas Jefferson Martin Van Buren Chester A Arthur Calvin Coolidge Millard Fillmore Gerald R Ford Andrew Johnson Lyndon B Johnson Theodore Roosevelt Harry S Truman John Tyler Richard M Nixon Personally, I hope he makes it (after Obama's 8 years!!)

Why do Supreme Court confirmation hearings tend to reveal so little about how the nominee would rule on cases?

Because Dems bastardized 200 years of what confirmation hearings were supposed to be about when they crucified Robert Bork. A nominees political and judicial philosophy had NEVER been an issue until then, only his qualifications as a jurist.

Who in United States history would have made a good President that never held the office?

(This is one of my previous best answers.) Justice Hugo L. Black. The rare example of a "liberal" SC Justice who interpreted the Constitution with the right amount of "judicial restraint." "Justice Black came to have significantly more respect for the limits of the Constitution than Justice Douglas and the other leading members of the Warren majorities ever showed." -- Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," p. 72. "No justice of the Court conscientiously and persistently endeavored, as much as Justice Black did, to establish consistent standards of objectivity for adjudicating constitutional questions." -- James J. Magee, "Mr. Justice Black: Absolutism on the Court," p. 194.

Bush like conservatives which group will you demonize next?

I think libsticker forgot some. Who will conservatives demonize next? Here is a partial list the left has demonized. I guess both sides should tone it down? Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson (and his trophy? wife), Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Dan Quayle, Samuel Alito, John Engler, Ward Connerly, Joe Lieberman, General Petraeus, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Walter Williams, etc. When will it end?

Why does any group that gains power and control end up corrupt?

When you say 'any' you automatically rule out modern groups based on shared power, such as US, which indeed is corrupt but precisely because they rejected that setup. Federalism is the latest change, and it leads to centralization of power. Judge Robert Bork ..[R]adical changes affecting individual liberty have occurred with respect to congressional powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. But those changes are different in kind and origin than those displayed in the alterations of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The idea of confining Congress to the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 (an idea reinforced by the 10th Amendment) is dead and cannot be revived. Contrary to some conservative fantasies, federalism was not killed by New Deal justices who perverted this aspect of the Constitution, but by the American people and the realities of national politics. The public wants a large and largely unrestrained national government, one capable of giving them what they want, irrespective of the limitations inherent in the enumeration of powers, and they will, sooner or later, get justices who will allow them such a government. The great engine of constitutional reform is mortality. (The boast that our Constitution has lasted for more than 200 years is largely empty. In no branch of government—legislative, executive, or judicial—are we living under the Constitution and the first 10 amendments as these were understood when ratified, respectively, in 1787 and 1791.) The decline of federalism as a judicially enforced doctrine has had profound effects upon individual liberty, both positive and negative... ...Although the idea of liberty, in one of its many forms, lies behind various decisions under the Bill of Rights, the idea is most clearly seen in later cases where the Court does not and cannot plausibly relate its decision to any actual text. Of these, the most notorious was the 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York striking down a state law setting maximum hours for bakers to work...[Justice Rufus Peckham] spoke for individual liberty in economic affairs and there is no reason in terms of philosophy to prefer other freedoms to economic freedoms. If the Court insists upon deciding cases according to philosophy rather than law—which it should not do—then it should consider reviving Lochner... ...The distinction between personal and economic liberties is obviously false. Property does not claim liberty, people who own property do; contracts do not seek liberty, people who want to enter into agreements do...

What Did Ted Kennedy do that merits such coverage?

As far as making "lots of political reforms in the fields of education, health care, and social services", well then, what the hell are you people on the left complaining about then?? He was in the Senate for FORTY SEVEN YEARS, and you all are STILL complaining about the same ol' things. And yeah, absolutely, buh-bye and good riddance, Ted...say hey to Mary Jo, although chances are, you won't be seeing her where you're going. The exact things liberals complain about today are these things that Ted Kennedy supposedly worked on his whole life... ever notice that? As noted in a previous answer, the things that TK supposedly accomplished: Equal rights for women Care for the elderly Health care for all Education Security for children (whatever THAT means) These are the EXACT things that Libs complain about today, after this guy has a 47 year career in the U.S. Senate. Oh wait, I forgot...with liberals, intentions are all that counts...we must NEVER examine the RESULTS of their "compassion". EDIT: And btw, if you want to know when all this "hate" started in the hallowed halls of the Senate, you need look no further than Ted Kennedy.... just ask Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas.

What Criteria does the President look for in a Supreme court nominee?

Assuming this is a serious question and you're looking for serious answers as opposed to political potshots . . . here are some of the things presidents consider: 1. Ideological similarity. Presidents tend to appoint justices who they believe, based on the proposed nominee's writings, will make decisions that the president would agree with. This can sometimes be difficult to predict, since it is considered unethical for proposed judicial nominees to make promises about how they would decide particular cases. In the past, some Supreme Court justices have made decisions that have surprised the presidents who appointed them. Harry Blackmun, for example, was nominated by Richard Nixon because he was expected to be a conservative justice, but yet he wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Similarly, David Souter was appointed by George Bush (senior) because he was supposed to be conservative, but he emerged as one of the Court's most liberal members. 2. Well respected in the legal community. People who graduated from "top teir" law schools near the top of their class are more likely to get nominated, as are people with long, prestigious resumes as things like Solicitors General, U.S. Attorneys, and the like. More often than not, presidents nominate federal judges from lower courts, because A. "Federal judge" is, in and of itself a prestigious position, and B. As a federal judge, a potential nominee will have already decided some important cases, and those decisions will give the president (and the Senate) some idea of what kinds of decisions the nominee might make if appointed. 3. Clean background: As a matter of routine, the FBI does an extensive background check on anybody being considered for a Supreme Court nomination, and if you have something embarrassing in your past, you are far less likely to be nominated. No president wants another Clarence Thomas (whose nomination was nearly defeated because of accusations of sexual harassment in his past). 4. Political considerations / demographics: The fact that she was a woman, and that she would enable Ronald Reagan to take credit for appointing the first woman to the Supreme Court, probably didn't harm Sandra Day O'Connor one bit. Nor, I'm sure, did George Bush have any desire to take political heat by filling the first black justice (Thurgood Marshall) with a white person. The politics of race, ethnicity, and gender definitely play a role in Supreme Court appointments. 5. Confirmability: It is a severe political blow for any president to nominate a Supreme Court justice only to have that justice rejected by the Senate. While the president may want to appoint someone who will fundamentally alter the ideological balance of the Court a certain way, if the President's party does not control the Senate, the president may have to opt for either a more "moderate" candidate, or a candidate who does not have as extensive a judicial record. In other words, no president wants to nominate the next Robert Bork.

Robert Bork?

Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork formerly served as Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, and circuit judge for United States Court of Appeals. In 1987, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but he was not confirmed by the Senate. Currently, Bork is a lawyer, law professor, best-selling author, and fellow at several prominent conservative organizations. Bork is best known for his theory that the only way to reconcile the role of the judiciary in American government against what he terms the "Madisonian" or "counter-majoritarian" dilemma of the judiciary making law without popular approval is for constitutional adjudication to be guided by the Framers' original understanding of the United States Constitution. Reiterating that it is a court's task to adjudicate and not to "legislate from the bench," he has advocated that judges exercise restraint in deciding cases, emphasizing that the role of the courts is to frame "neutral principles" (a term borrowed from Herbert Wechsler) and not simply ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments. Bork built on the influential critiques of the Warren Court authored by Alexander Bickel, who criticized the Supreme Court under Warren for shoddy and inconsistent reasoning, undue activism, and misuse of historical materials. Bork's critique was harder-edged than Bickel's, however: he has written, "We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." Bork's writings have influenced the opinions of conservative judges such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, and sparked a vigorous debate within the legal academy about how the constitution is to be interpreted. Bork may be best remembered for his contentious nomination hearing, which many believe kicked off the fight over judicial nominees.

What do you think of my fantasy Supreme Court team?

You at least need Wilt Chamberlain and Larry Bird on there

If we made ALL marriage illegal, would that make it fair in the minds of the gay marriage advocates?

In one sense, yes, the gay community simply wants to be treated EQUALLY with straight people, so if you take the right to get married away from everyone EQUALLY, then the activists would have nothing to complain about. But please, ... get real, ..... abolishing marriage for everyone is NOT going to happen. You've got to admit that you're just fantasizing about a kind of far-fetched world that isn't ever going to come true. "Once, after I gave a lecture on the Constitution at a law school, a student approached and asked whether I thought the Constitution prohibited a state from abolishing marriage. I replied no, the Framers assumed that the American people were not stupid enough to engage in any despotic insanities and did not bother to protect against every imaginable instance of them. He replied that he could not accept a constitutional theory that did not include a prohibition on the criminalization of marriage. It would have been appropriate to respond that in any society which had reached such a degenerate state of totalitarianism, one which the Cambodian Khmer Rouge would have found admirable, it would have hardly mattered what constitutional theory one held. The actual Constitution would have been long since swept aside and the judges consigned to re-education camps, if not worse. ..." -- Judge Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America."

How is the principle of the separation of powers put into practice in our government?

EXECUTIVE ENCROACHMENTS Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952) arose when President Harry Truman, responding to labor unrest at the nation's steel mills during the Korean War, seized control of the mills. Although a six-member majority of the Court concluded that Truman's action exceeded his authority under the Constitution, seven justices indicated that the power of the President is not limited to those powers expressly granted in Article II. Had the Congress not impliedly or expressly disapproved of Truman's seizure of the mills, the action would have been upheld. CONGRESSIONAL ENCROACHMENTS In Bowsher v Synar (1986), the Court invalidated a provision of the Balanced Budget Act that authorized Charles Bowsher, as Comptroller General of the U.S., to order the impoundment of funds appropriated for domestic or military use when he determined the federal budget was in a deficit situation. The Court concluded that allowing the exercise of this executive power by the Comptroller General, an officer--in the Court's view--in the legislative branch, would be "in essence, to permit a legislative veto." CONGRESSIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON JUDICIAL POWERS In Ex Parte McCardle (1868) the Court decided it lacked jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition of William McCardle, a Vicksburg, Mississippi newspaper editor arrested by military official for writing incendiary editorials about the federal officers then in control of Mississippi during Reconstruction. Although McCardle made his petition under the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act, Congress repealed the provision authorizing McCardle's petition AFTER the Court had heard arguments in his appeal. Although it was obvious that Congress repealed the provision in an attempt to specifically deprive McCardle of the opportunity to gain release from military custody, the Court nonetheless upheld the validity of the Act and found itself without jurisdiction. Many subsequent commentators, including conservative judge Robert Bork, have criticized the Court's decision in McCardle and have predicted that it would not be followed today.

Why are libs stepping up their maniacal and delusional attacks on Sarah Palin?

They are obsessed by destroying things that threaten them. Palin is a huge threat because she connects with common people. The left is all about hate and personal destruction. They didn't criticize the opinions of Robert Bork, they attacked him on a personal level. They didn't attack the policies of Justice Thomas, they dragged him through the mud. They didn't attack the policies of Ronald Reagan, they called him stupid, a cowboy, an ACTOR (and they said it with such distaste). They attacked George Bush with the same baseless types of attacks. They call Rush fat, they attacked Bob Dole for his crippled arm, a wound suffered in battle. It is just how they operate.

Who would be the best person to appoint to the Supreme Court?

Robert Bork.

In 1961 both parents had to be a citizen for a child to get automatic citizenship. How is 0 a natural ctzn?

To be a natural born citizen of the US, you DON'T need to have ANY citizen parents. Birth on US soil is sufficient. Ruling after ruling, quote after quote from the founders down to legal scholars of today, say so. As recently as November 2009, in Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf James Madison, primary Framer of the Constitution: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other. ” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211 If Obama were indeed not eligible because he wasn't a natural born citizen, then where are the famed constitutional scholars crying foul? Where's the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, Karl Rove, Robert Bork, Ted Olson, Dick Cheney? Why are the only lawyers filing cases a mail-order lawyer/dentist, a poker-playing lawyer, a DWI lawyer, and a 9-11 truther? What about Bobby Jindal or Bill Richardon? Where's the outcry over their candidacies? It's because President Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born on US soil. Period.

Can you believe there are people who believe this false propaganda from the right wing?

I can believe that as easily as I can and do believe that there are people who believe the propoganda of left-wingers. Like the campaign, 25 years ago, to block Robert Bork's nomination.

What would you want in your ideal president?

The only skill I can think of which is important is the skill of great communicating -- i.e., like "the Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan. I don't even what to think about what kind of "weakness" would be okay. My ideal President would nominate someone for the Supreme Court like Robert Bork -- an individual very thoroughly educated in the history of how the Court has interpreted -- and MISinterpreted -- the Constitution and who is dedicated to, above all else, interpreting the Constitution objectively. And that President would very thoroughly explain to the public and to educate them what has gone wrong with the MISinterpretations. "I care deeply about how the Court interprets the Constitution, both technically and professionally. But I care even more what effect that interpretation has had upon the country; whether it has helped to hold it together or led to its divisions." -- Max Lerner, "Nine Scorpions in a Bottle."

What do you remember about Ronald Reagan?

I remember that he nominated Robert Bork for the U.S. Supreme Court (after he already appointed Bork to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bork had been serving for five years until the nomination to the highest bench). I remember that Reagan said (July 1, 1987), "Well, it's with great pleasure and deep respect for his extraordinary abilities that I today announce my intention to nominate United States Court of Appeals Judge Robert H. Bork to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. "Judge Bork is recognized as a premier constitutional authority. His outstanding intellect and unrivaled scholarly credentials are reflected in his thoughtful examination of the broad, fundamental legal issues of our times. When confirmed by the Senate as an appellate judge in 1982, the American Bar Association gave him its highest rating: 'exceptionally well qualified.' On the bench, he has been well prepared, evenhanded, and openminded. ... "Judge Bork, widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint, shares my view that judges' personal preferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations. The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them." Of course, ed-mike, your heroes, the liberal Democrat Senators, were the ones who threw conniption fits over that nomination -- conniption fits unlike any ever seen before. Senator Kennedy responded almost immediately to the nomination with an insane rant -- a rant which was merely the first salvo of the bloodiest war ever waged in American history over a Supreme Court nomination. Even the Washington Post editors ended up saying a few months later that the left-wing effort to torpedo Bork's nomination was so terrible that "the anti-[Bork] effort was almost enough to make you pro. ... [The] intellectual vulgarization and personal savagery ... profoundly distort[ed] both the record and nature of the man. ... [T]he time is ripe for a rigorous challenge to the lazy and dangerous cliches that often pass for policy wisdom ... among liberals these days." Max Lerner was one of the rare liberal journalists who supported Bork's nomination and who was dismayed at the fact that Bork was torpedoed. Lerner said that many of his fellow liberals were engaging in "Chicken Little polemics." After the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Bork and shortly before the vote in the full Senate, Lerner wrote, "It is now fairly clear that the Judiciary Committee sitting in judgment on Robert Bork reached the wrong conclusion, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong climate, obeying the wrong political passion, and targetting the wrong man. ... "In a sense the opening shot in the war against him was the victory of the Democrats in gaining control of the Senate in 1986. ... Bork's fate was decided even before the nomination went to the Senate committee. "I hear my friends say that Bork lost because of his ineffectual TV performance. Whether he did well or badly on TV is clearly the wrong question to ask. Yet a public that can't master the intricacies of constitutional law falls back on a candidate's TV performance as if they were watching a political campaign. "The fact is that if the fate of future judicial nominations is decided by pressure groups, on TV, this will have a devastating effect on the available talent for the federal courts. Constitutional scholars and sitting judges will begin to tailor their public views or decisions to the interest groups sitting in judgment on them." Do you remember any of that, ed-mike?

Do Presidents overturn Roe v Wade or does the Supreme Court. Hey, don't Senators confirm nominees?

LIncoln, there will no discussion on Yahoo of how our governmental system of checks and balances works. Shame on you for even trying to educate the masses. They need to blindly follow the logic that this issue overwhelms all others - economy, war, immigration. But yes, POTUS nominates SC justices, and the senate confirms them.

What ever happened to the defendant in Cohen v. California?

On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" inside the Los Angeles Courthouse. Inside the court room he had the jacket folded over his arm, only after exiting the room he put the jacket on and was then arrested. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibited "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct." The conviction was upheld by the California Court of Appeal, which held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace." After the California Supreme Court denied review, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari. [edit] The Court's decision The Court, by a vote of 6-3, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, overturned the appellate court's ruling. "[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions," it said, "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense." In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." (That quotation was later criticized by Robert Bork as "moral relativism.") [1] Harlan’s arguments can be constructed in three major points: First, states (California) cannot censor their citizens in order to make a “civil” society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Thirdly, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas—no matter how radical they may be. [edit] Blackmun's dissent In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Burger and Black, suggested that Cohen's wearing of the jacket in the courthouse was not speech but conduct (an "absurd and immature antic") and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The second paragraph of Blackmun's dissent noted that the Supreme Court of California construed section 415 in In re Bushman 1 Cal.3d 767, 83 Cal.Rptr. 375 (Cal, 1970), which was decided after the Court of Appeal of California's decision in Cohen v. California and the Supreme Court of California's denial of review. Blackmun wrote that the case "ought to be remanded to the California Court of Appeal for reconsideration in the light of the subsequently rendered decision by the State's highest tribunal in Bushman." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

Do you believe the right to privacy is implied in the Constitution of the U.S?

Procedurally, yes. Substantively, no. It often seems as if many people simply do not understand the difference between procedure and substance. If a law enforcement official suspects you of a crime -- any kind of crime at all -- and they proceed to investigate you, then you have certain rights that the officers must respect or else they are violating your "privacy." These are procedural issues, not substantive ones, and they are spelled out generally by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the case law which the US Supreme Court has handed down when it purported to be interpreting those amendments. In a substantive sense, the Third Amendment also guarantees "privacy," but only in one very narrow and specific way as spelled out there. What has happened in the U.S. Supreme Court is that there have been a handful of decsions which expanded the concept of "privacy" into substantive issues instead of just procedural issues. It began basically with Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, and then has continued with Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Roe v. Wade, 1973, and many others. In these various cases, the Court was NOT concerned with what procedures law enforcement officials had used to investigate crimes, but instead was concerned with what the legislature tried to prohibit people from doing. That is, the Court was attacking the substance of laws which had been made by legislatures, not with the procedures of enforcing those laws. The Court was effectively asserting more control over what laws legislatures may pass. Nothing in the Constitution addresses "privacy" in a substantive way (except maybe the Third Amendment, as I noted, which has a very narrow and explicit meaning). Nothing in the Constitution addresses "reproductive freedom," nor "the right to control your own body," nor "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life." Nothing in the Constitution gives permission for the Court to proclaim for itself that it has the "obligation ... to define the freedom of all." In both 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey and in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, the Court proclaimed: "Our obligation is to define the freedom of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The first part of the statement is false and the second part is absolutely hypocritical ! Since the Constitution does NOT, in fact, permit or obligate anybody to define liberty, what the Court has, in fact, been doing is imposing its own moral code on this country ! "A judge who looks outside the historic Constitution looks inside himself and no where else." -- Robert Bork.

Why are American politics so emotional and so not pragmatic?

Pragmatism was given the death sentence in 1987. Until that time Supreme Court nomination hearings had focused only on the nominee's fitness to judge. The Justices who voted unanimously to overturn official segregation in Brown v Board of Education had never been asked during their hearings about how they would vote on segregation. Justices who heard Mapp v Ohio, which (with other decisions) applied the Bill of Rights to the states, were never questioned about the matter. So, too, the Justices who decided Roe v Wade, legalizing abortion, and the Justices who decided Miranda v Arizona, requiring the "you have the right to remain silent...." warning, had never been questioned about their views on those issues. In all cases the Senate considered only the nominees' fitness to judge. The results were pretty good for civil liberties activists. Then came the Robert Bork nomination.Senators agreed that he was eminently fit to judge. But, one Senator managed to get the Senate to reject the nomination because he believed that Bork would rule in a manner that did not fit that Senator's constituents' views of the moment. In fact, the verb "to Bork" (meaning to ignore qualifications and maliciously malign the nominee) is credited to that Senator. This led to increasing partisanship on both sides. Issues were not to be decided based on merit, but rather on which political party would benefit the most. That was the birth of today's gridlock and the abandonment of pragmatism for emotional appeals. Who was that Senator? Why, none other than our current Vice President in the administration that billed itself as "post partisan."

Is anybody scared to death if for some reason Biden becomes pres?

The best word to describe Biden is "imprudent." This was never a major problem because he was only a Senator and one of 100, never having any personal power to make decisions on his own. Everyone in Washington however knew the guy was a complete loose cannon and a mean, spiteful jerk. He achieved power because he had been in the Senate for a long time, having been repeatedly elected from a small State where he had no competition for the Senate seat. Sooner or later, he was just going to get Committee Chairmanships because of seniority, and he did. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he routinely raked nominees for the bench over the coals for truly stupid stuff based on his faulty interpretations of the Constitution. He used the Interstate Commerce clause to federalize domestic violence in his Violence Against Women Act, a clearly ludicrous interpretation of the Constitution, based on his assertion that women worked for companies that did business across State lines. Geez. He allowed the hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to become 3-ring circuses that dragged in seamy, almost pornographic materials to demean the character of good men whose only faults were that he disagreed with their politics. He has done the same thing as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, humiliating witnesses, other Senators, and staffers in public, often before TV cameras, with demeaning questions and statements. Biden's idea of a "question" is a 19 minute statement followed by a request about whether the witness agrees with him. Then he cuts them off abruptly. Some of his so-called "foreign policy" proposals in the past were legendarily stupid and caused diplomatic problems, such as his suggestion that Iraq be cut into three new countries for each of the ethnic religious groups. His public statements on Iran were unbelievably ignorant of both established US foreign policy and that of our allies. Biden runs from the mouth without ever engaging his brain. The media gave him cover throughout the campaign by never discussing his past stupidities even though they had covered him well in the past and were well aware of his substantial problems. They didn't even report the ridiculous stuff he said during the campaign. During the vice-presidential debate, he made at least 10 major factual errors and there was NO mention of any of them in the media. NONE. Biden is a train wreck. Obama intends to send him abroad to speak with foreign leaders. He should re-think this plan. Biden will NOT stay on message. He thinks that HE knows more than anyone else and will do what HE thinks best, not what he is told to do by the Administration and State Department - because he's "smarter" than they are. God help us if Biden ever becomes president. The first thing I do every morning is pray for the health and safety of Barack Obama.

What are some factors that determine who is qualified to sit on the bench in the US Supreme Court?

There's no technical requirements proscribed by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution only mentions 1 judge, the Chief Justice. Every other federal judgeship, including the number of other Supreme Court judges is determined by Congress. They set the requirements, but essentially anyone appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate can be a Justice. There are, however, some informal near-requirements. Law school for starters. 25 of the 59 Justices that graduated Law School (it wasn't always common among lawyers, they used to apprentice instead) graduated from Harvard or Yale (including 11 of the current 12 Supreme Court justices, Stevens went to Northwestern, that's part of why Harriet Miers and her Southern Methodist University Law Degree got laughed out of the Senate before her confirmation hearings even began.) Most Justices also come from experience sitting on one of the 11 US Circuit Courts of Appeals. I don't know the statistics, but I think all 12 current justices came from that background. Few Justices reach the Supreme Court without being a judge first. Former President Taft is a notable exception. I suppose Obama could nominate Bill Clinton if he so chooses, but I find that highly unlikely. Supposedly, Obama did consider nominating the Solicitor General. Justice Thurgood Marshall was the Solicitor General when he was appointed, but he had previously been a federal judge as well. Many Supreme Court Justices early in their legal careers find themselves clerking for other notable judges, including then current Supreme Court Justices. Successful legal and political careers are also helpful, which is generally true for any judge. Becoming a judge isn't too different from getting any other political job. Some are elected, some are appointed, either way it's very political. The ones who reach the Circuit Courts are all very good at politics. The ones who reach the Supreme Court are even better at it. Generally, they need to have a good record without too many crazy decisions, however that's not always that important, so long as the President agrees with their judicial philosophy. It's very rare for the Senate not to confirm the President's selection so long as they meet the basic qualifications above. Even Clarence Thomas got confirmed and he was accused of sexual harassment. Judge Robert Bork was famously not confirmed by the Senate. To "bork" is not term for failing to confirmed a Supreme Court Justice. Bush withdrew Harriet Miers from consideration on fear that she would have been borked. It is VERY rarely done, however.

Where in the Constitution is the Right to Privacy guaranteed?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

Explain the difference between procedural and substantive due process . Is one more important than the other?

Procedural due process "is simply a requirement that the substance of any law be applied to a person with fair procedures by any tribunal that is hearing a case." (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America, 1990, p. 31.) The rights protected by it include the right to a fair trial, and in criminal cases, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the court should not convict unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to not have evidence introduced against you at trial if it was illegally obtained, the right to cross examine the witnesses who testified against you, and so on. Substantive due process is a very different concept and it has been applied by the US Supreme Court to strike down the substance of laws that the Justices don't like. The Court has struck down laws that banned people from working in bakeries more than 60 hours a week (Lochner v. New York), and laws that banned abortion (Roe v. Wade), and many others laws. The procedures for enforcing these laws was not what concerned the Court at all. More important? That's in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like laws that ban abortion, you might automatically approve of Roe v. Wade, and not bother to stop whether substantive due process is a legitimate way of interpreting the US Constitution. In my opinion, substantive due process is always wrong, all decisions that were based on it should be overturned, and the idea should never be used ever again.

What were the major issues and compromises at the Constitutional Convention?

Major issue: The Articles of Confederation are not working and must be fixed. compromises: 1) Scrap the current constitution aka "articles of confederation" 2) Two houses of congress, one based on equal representation 1 state 2 votes, the other based on population. 3) 2/5th rule. State slave population will be counted as 2 persons for each 5 slaves. 4) President not king, and shall act as if he is not the king. 5) Enumeration of rights- jefferson thought enumeration of rights was unnecessary in a "limited government" and any listing would inevitably omit certain ones and therefore some later judge (Bork, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, etc.) would claim that those listed are the only ones we have.

Are there any actual requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice?

not really...you have to be nominated by the PREZ and confirmed by the Senate usually the SCJ's are lawyers and usually have previous judicial experience as either a federal judge or as an Appellate state judge HOWEVER, every once in a while you get joke candidate such as Harriet Miers or someone too extreme for the Senate to affirm such as Robert Bork

Who has more power over political appointments, the President or the Senate?

The president appoints and the senate confirms or rejects them. Case in point was the borking of Supreme court nominee Robert Bork by senator ted kennedy and his staff.

What would happen if a supreme court justice died two months before Bush left office?

1) He would be able to nominate one. 2) The Democratic senate, smelling victory in November, would never vote to confirm. 3) If the death occurred while congress was adjourned, he would violate the spirit of the law [again] and appoint a justice like he appointed Bolton ambassador to the UN. 4) But assuming Bush's pick did not get confirmed, then yes it would be up to Obama to make the nomination 5) And the republicans in the senate would block ANY choice Obama made that was left of Robert [Mr Saturday Night Massacre] Bork.,

What are some good books that discuss political/social philosophies: liberal, conservative, libertarianism?

"The Tempting of America," by Robert Bork. He discusses how conservative and liberal judges have engaged in "judicial activism," aka, politically-motivated interpretations of the Constitution. He also discusses one libertarian-minded law school professor who advocates yet another kind of wrong-headed interpretation of the Constitution.

Can someone please give me some ideas on where to start with this paper topic? The significance of a?

The opportunity to appoint a justice is actually very rare. There are only nine justices and most stay for DECADES. Presidents who have the chance to make an appointment are usually expected to appoint a Left or Right leaning person in accordance with their own views. The appointee has to be confirmed by the senate so its not a sure thing at all. It might be useful to look at the last 5 or 6 appointees and how their process went. There are also some famous cases where the selected appointee stepped aside due to personal issues or because they process became too contentious. Lani Guinere (sp?) under Clinton and Robert Bork under Reagan (I think) are two famous failed appointments.

How do the Social Conservatives when the battle over the Traditional Conservatives?

I don't see anything irreconcilable. A conservative, in general, wants to conserve what government has traditionally done, and to conserve the traditional separation of powers. Conservatism has been interested in dis-empowering the federal government from the extraordinary increase in powers that have occurred under Democratic Party rule. But states have traditionally been exercising powers that the federal government did not exercise power over regarding topics like abortion and gay marriage. And those state powers were usurped by one branch of the federal government -- the US Supreme Court. Even George Will understood these very points. Judge Robert Bork wrote about these points a lot in his famous book "The Tempting of America."

How can a strict Constitutionalist justice even cast a decision?

Stricly speaking, the Constitution is law. Strictly speaking, if/when the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ..." then that is a legal command of what shall not be done. Strictly speaking, judges have the power to decide whether or not the legal commands of the Constitution have been violated. If Congress DID make a law which the Constitution told Congress NOT to make, then Congress violated the Constitution and the judges are correct in saying so. No one on the Supreme Court has ever said that judges do not have the power of judicial review and even the Court's firmest advocates of judicial restrain and narrow reading of the Constitution have supported the prospect that they CAN strike down laws in the name of the Constitution. "Strict constructionism" is not one of my favorite terms to describe someone who interprets the Constitution the way they should. I prefer words like "originalist" and "interpretivist." If you have any questions about what those words mean, I suggest you read Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America," and read John Hart Ely's "Democracy and Distrust." The term "strict constructionism," is an easily-misunderstood and mis-used phrase and I doubt that Scalia or Thomas truly fit the description.

What books did you read that formed your political opinions?

Two books most influential on me: George Will's "The New Season," 1987; and Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America," 1990.

How do you rate the Supreme Court Justices?

A+ Scalia- the best constitutional mind since Robert Bork A+ Thomas- brilliant> I love his lack of creativity, merely interpreting the law, not creating it out of thin air B+ Roberts- Moderate, but moments of brilliance B+Alito- See Roberts D Kennedy- A liberal, but sometimes is forced to reality F Sotomayor- Socialist, activist F Breyer- Socialist, activist F Kagan- Socialist, activist F- Ginburg- Communist,radical activist, tar and feathers anyone?

Is the media in full smear mode against Palin?

Absolutely, they are tripping all over themselves to smear her, take her out of context and prop up their candidate of choice. They even threw the beloved Clinton under the bus in favor of Obama. Sad. They should just report the news and not try to skew it.

The Supreme Court - the real reason Obama must win?

I think it's unlikely that Ginsburg, who is 75 and healthy (the life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 81) would retire or die during the next presidential term. It is even more unlikely that David Souter (age 69) would die or retire during the next Presidential term. John Paul Stevens, however, is old (age 88) and frail, and is expected to retire within the next Presidential term, however, it is highly unlikely that he will voluntarily retire before February 2011, when he would become the longest-serving Justice in U.S. history. So this issue really doesn't add any urgency from a Democrat's point of view for Obama to be elected. The only likely retirement or possible death in the Court is John Paul Stevens. This would be the loss of a liberal icon, but it would not be the downfall of the left-side of the Supreme Court. For this next presidential term, I think it's much more important that an equilibrium is kept between the Executive and Legislative branch, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen. If the financial crisis does not consistently show signs of improvement, then it is most likely that there will be a strong Democratic majority in the House, a continued Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Democratic President. Whether you agree with the Democratic Party's principles or not, checks and balances tend not to work out when there's no opposition.

Did you hear that the liberty-hating conservative segregationist jurist Robert Bork died today?

so we had Sen Inouye pass away, and this putz too who's number three?

Why are Republicans politicizing the judicial confirmation process?

Why did nearly all Democrats oppose Robert Bork? Why did the American Bar Association unanimously give Bork it's highest qualification rating in 1982 when Bork was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals but then a less-than-unanimous vote 5 years later when nominated to the Supreme Court? Was it because the ABA thought that Bork LOST some of his qualifications while serving on the Circuit Court, or was it because the ABA became politicized?

How did Robert Bork's nomination affect the Supreme Court?

It make future appointments much more political than previously.

Was the "Borking" of Robert Bork an honorable thing to do? Or should we eulogize the Honorable Judge?

What kind of a person would turn Robert Bork into a hero?

Did Bush get into office the first time by appealing to the hard-line religious right or "independent" voters?

Nope he was appointed by his fathers Supreme Court.

Will Obama's choice to replace Stevens on SCOTUS become another Robert Bork scenario?

Why would he nominate someone from the far left when he is a moderate?

Why do Democrats complain about GOP obstructionism with Kagan and yet conveniently forgot about Robert Bork?

False character assassination? Really? Do you know what they were attacking him for? First off, there was Bork's opposition to the federal government's right to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax). Then, there was his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito. Bork also received criticism for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy", which his role in the Saturday Night Massacre exemplified according to his critics. So, how does Kagan stack up to that, exactly? And how is an eye for an eye a good thing, anyway? Wouldn't the GOP want to show them that they're better than childish spats?

Why did the Democrats reject the great Robert Bork for the Supreme Court?

Because the Dems disregarded 200 years of tradition and decided that instead of confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court based solely on his merits as a jurist, they wanted to examine his politics and determine if he was sufficiently "in the mainstream of American legal thought" as they put it at the time. Translated, this meant they weren't willing to confirm a conservative, once again proving that leftists are indeed weasels.