Who do you think Obama should choose to replace Supreme Court Justice Souter?
I wold have to go with....Sonia Sotomayor.......................
Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx housing projects in a poor neighborhood whose mother was a nurse and her father was a blue collar worker. President Obama is looking to appoint someone who can bring their life experiences to the court, and Sotomayor certainly fits the bill. Most judges on the court grew up in affluent areas and had to overcome little diversity.
Sotomayor did not let her diabetes diagnoses at age 8 stop her; she graduated from Princeton University and afterward Yale Law School. She served as an Assistant DA in NYC and her credentials are impeccable.
Do you think all Supreme Court justices should have past judicial experience?
A great many former members of the Supreme Court never had judicial experience before becoming Justices on the high court. John Marshall, William O Douglass, Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, and many, many others had never been judges and yet became some of the most important members the court has ever known. Past judicial experience counts for nothing. Judges on the high court do not preside over trials, but must listen to arguments. What's needed is not a thorough understanding of judicial proceedings but the law itself.
How did Ted Olson get where he is today without a fancy degree from an Ivy League School?
Just FYI, Berkely may be a public school but it is highly competitive and their law school is considered top notch.
Profile of the Class of 2012
Number of Applicants: 7,960
Number in Class: 292
Median LSAT: 168 (75th percentile: 170 / 25th percentile: 165)
Median GPA: 3.83 (75th percentile: 3.95 / 25th percentile: 3.69)
Why does Sonya Sotomayer oppose contibutions to polical campaigns but support donations to terrorists?
I love how you don't understand the issue at stake in this case, and use your own failure to understand to blame Sotomayer for ... well, for what? Do you understand that corporate contributions to political campaigns will destroy our democracy? And that this has nothing to do with the standard for "material support for terrorism," under which even people who were forced against their will to provide goods or services to terrorist groups are at risk for denial of their asylum claims?
The problem here is that libertarian lickspittles worship corporations, to the point that they will allow corporate money to flood our political process. This reveals something we already knew: conservatives in general, and libertarians specifically, love the rich and the powerful more than they love democracy.
Can the president have a court issue a writ of mandamus to the senate to advise and consent on a nominee?
This is a political question, and you cannot use the court for political issues. The court will not tell the senate, or house, when, where, or how to act. There is no deadline on when to act. Some bills (as with appointments) languish for years.
The Supreme Court stays away from the internal workings of the other branches, and only intervenes when there is a violation of a core right (e.g., equal protection, etc.). Thus, the Florida voting case (an internal, state, political question) was surprisingly taken by the US Supreme Court, which had previously refused to intervene in such instances. It reasoned, however, that the voting rights, and equal rights of each voter, was implicated, taking it away from the political realm.
The president is left with the power of the puipit, and the power of the people to demand that their own congressmen and senators act, in order to get their nominees through. Not surprisingly, it is much easier to get a vote when your own party is in power, but even then, with the minority threatening a filibuster (both parties do this when in the minority), extremists can be blocked. No court has ever expressed any interest in intervening in such situations.
In general, who decides which cases the Supreme Court will hear in a particular term?
I have a book and a set of audio tapes called "May it Please the Court" which are transcriptions and tapes from actual arguments in front of the Court. It is a group decision. Thousands of cases are submitted. The clerks of the Justices review these submissions and narrow the field. The 9 justices then review the pool to decide which cases to hear. Don't bother looking for a copy of the book and tapes that I have. Shortly after it was illegally released, contrary to law regarding the Supreme Court, it was withdrawn from publication. A couple of years later, I ran across another boxed set at a thrift store and snapped it up to give to a Lady Friend of mine. I paid $75 for my set, and &7.99 for the copy at the thrift store. They simply did NOT know what they HAD, or they COULD have gotten a LOT more!
What kind of work does a solicitor do in commercial law?
Solicitors traditionally have been the first point of contact for anyone who needs legal services, they provide generalized services like help writing wills, buying a house, etc. They used to refer issues to the barristers but that isn't required anymore.
Barristers provide specialist opinions on difficult legal problems, draft the more complex documents for use in court and act as advocates in court. Barristers are also relied upon to give definitive legal advice where a solicitor may not be able to.
Why is the Administration fighting to block Justice Kagans emails on Obamacare when she was solicitor general?
For the same reason they are trying to remove thomas from the case they know she should remove herself from it and they know she supports it and will pass it as a favor to being appointed to the court.
Do you agree with Reagan's solicitor general that Bush broke the law by sanctioning torture?
Yes, I do. And Obama is in violation of international laws and treaties by NOT prosecuting the torture that was ordered as a war crime...
And for those confused by the definition of waterboarding as torture, it has been torture since the Spanish Inquisition, and has been defined, explicitly, by courts of law as torture. The US put Japanese to death for waterboarding.
Why did Solicitor General for the U.S.Justice Dept lie to us about receiving a call from his wife on 9/11?
What a frigging wing ding.
"Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington."
Yeah, other than the big effing hole in the Pentagon. You grand conspiracy types astound me.
My fiance's Philippine annulment is now at the solicitor general, how long before it's final?
Annulment cases are also under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General (SG). If the SG didn't find any suspicious elements or adverse judgment in the case, the SG would return the documents back to RTC for continuing action in the proceedings. The RTC judge can ask the SG to expedite the review if it's taking so long. Allow 2 weeks from receipt of SG, otherwise ask your fiance's lawyer to request status from the RTC judge.
Normally, RTC judge can release the decision for final and executory after 30 days from SG. After getting the final copy of court decision, ask your fiance's lawyer to work on submitting these documents to NSO and local registrar offices where the original marriage certificates were filed. This is to change the original status to annulled marriage of the former marriage. You can wait however for the RTC personnel to send the copies to the respective agencies but it would take so much time.
What is the difference between the US Attorney General and US Solicitor General (besides the name)?
The US Attorney General is the cheif law enforcement officer in the US. He is in charge of interpreting and enforcing the laws of the nation.
The Solicitor General works for the Attoenys General. He is the cheif appellate lawyer of the US. His job is to represent the United States on appeals from trials and before the Supreme Court. Your average Solicitor General can look forward to making forty arguments before the Supreme Court in his tenure.
The United States Solicitor General is the individual appointed to argue for the Government of the United States in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, when the government is party to a case. The current Solicitor General is Paul Clement. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the Solicitor General is the fourth-ranking officer in the United States Department of Justice, behind the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General. Despite this formal "rank", the solicitor general is removed from the administrative duties of the Justice Department, focusing instead on advocating for the federal government before the Supreme Court. Part of the solicitor general's duty is to be the attorney representing US federal government agents and agencies in cases appealed to the Supreme Court.
Will US have its first woman Solicitor General, that's too an Indian?
Here we call it Attorney General.
Honestly, I don't think this position is subject to a glass ceiling like other positions have been. Consider that other Cabinet-level positions (the Cabinet is the President's Secretaries and advisors) such as Surgeon General and Secretary of State have already been occupied by women. There are many women in high-profile legal positions - in fact, one of the difficulties in filling a government role is that corporate workers would have to take a pay cut. Consider the amount of money Michelle Obama makes in private practice versus the paltry salary of a cabinet member.
As a cabinet-level position, the US Attorney General would be a presidential appointee. The current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, came into office barely one year ago and will likely be ousted in January when Obama brings in his new cabinet. It's up to Obama, and I think that the Congress would be receptive to a woman in this position.