Legalities

After all, Obama is going to face a problem similar to George W. Bush, in that he's looking at eight years of federal appeals court judges nominated by the opposing party....hey ABC you already have elected Obama for his second term?

"Tony mentions Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was expected to retire in President Carter's term. Instead, Marshall rode it out. Carter didn't get a single nomination, and the liberal lions William Brennan and Marshall both retired in the next administration of George H.W. Bush."

That's missing 8 years of Reagan in there between Carter and HW, but the point remains basically the same: some expected Marshall and/or Brennan to retire under Carter, but both stuck out not only Carter, but even 8 years of Reagan before retiring under a Republican president anyway.

Hey Mark, you read words much? Obama's pool of sitting appeals court judges is made up of eight years of Bush nominees (like Bush's pool when he took office was made up of eight years of Clinton nominees). Nobody's saying anything about eight years of Obama.

It's soooooooo sad that the worst president in the history of the United States put two Justices on the Supreme Court!

These judges who want our people to be held up to world court standards are traitors to the U.S. in my opinion. Our founders wanted the U.S. to be free from world influence and didn't we fight a war against precisely that?

Obama could appoint one or two justices during his next term or two, but the fact remains that confirmation requires a 2/3 Senate majority, i.e. 66 yes votes. The democrats missed the 60 vote majority to bypass any Senate debate on their pet bills, so they don't come close to 66 needed to confirm a presidential nomination for the Supreme Court without some republican support. The democrats will need to compromise their liberal agenda or the minority of republicans will always vote no to every Obama nomination. Isn't democracy great!

But thank God, that "worst president" made two of the best picks for Supreme Court Justices.

I believe ABC is saying obama will be looking at 8 years of appeeals court appointments from GWB, just like he had to look at 8 years of appointees from B Clinton

WRONG!! It does not take a 2/3 votes to confirm a Justice to any federal bench- Supreme Court, Appeals court or District court.

It takes 60 votes or 3/5 of Senators to invoke CLOTURE on a nominee, which basically means they are allowing an up or down vote on the nominee. After cloture has been invoked and passed a nominee only needs a majority vote to be confirmed.

For example- Sam Alito's cloture vote was 72-25 with 3 no votes but his final confirmation vote was 58-42. Basically a simple majority is needed after cloture is invoked. Clarence Thomas's confirmation vote was 52-48, just barely making it but it did make it because all they needed was a simple majority.

Also, 66 is not a 2/3 supermajority, it is 67. Come on, let's get the fact straight.

Robert, confirmation does not require a 2/3 vote. Alito was only confirmed 58-42, and before that, Thomas was only confirmed 52-48.

Aaron and Liberal Hater, why do you have to go and mess up a good argument by throwing in facts???

Look what liberals on the Supreme Court have given us. HAPPY HOLIDAYS in our schools, abortion on demand any where-anytime for anyone. The destruction of personal property rights. Pornography EVERYWHERE. God help us!

"Look what liberals on the Supreme Court have given us. HAPPY HOLIDAYS in our schools, abortion on demand any where-anytime for anyone. The destruction of personal property rights. Pornography EVERYWHERE. God help us!"

Yeah, and black children in white schools... horrid...truly horrid those liberal activist judges.

The Libs to to READ the Constitution. Judges do not make law. That is not the job of a judge. A judge and say yes this is legal...no this is not legal.....they can not say this is wrong..here is the solution. If they want to make laws then resign and run for a job as Congressman or Senator.

Sorry, I stand corrected. I was going by what some commentor on CNN said. However, after I did some research, I did read it's been proposed before. I either misunderstood, or the commentor was wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

Ron, tell it to Scalia, who pulls arguments out of his butt to push his radical right wing agenda. Even a challenged child can read the 2nd amendment and see that it is archaic law referencing only a collective right belonging to the States. If these people want an individual right to bear arms in the Constitution they should use the system as the framers intended and pass an amendment. No more fighting, no more arguing, no more ambivalence, no more hundreds of millions of dollars frittered away decade after decade arguing about it. Oh...right...that would require following the law, rather than judicial activism that craps upon the Constitution. I forgot, sorry, silly me. Fringe right-wing mantra: accuse your enemies of your crimes in order to hide them. Finding an individual right to personal liberty and the equality of those rights for all in the Constitution is not judicial activism as the fringe right-wing so often portrays. It is the essence of a true conservative's views (I would know, I am one, there are only 6 of us left). Strange that so many who claim to be conservatives have a problem with it.

No more ideological nuts to the Supreme Court please!

After the Supreme Court Ruling in the 2004 election stopping the recount in FL and then clarifying their decision would set no precedent for any other similar cases it is too obvious just how much politics has crept into our highest court. The ideological lines many of the big business suites are being decided by the republican majority on the bench has empowered big business against Average Americans parallel to the republican majority under George W.... It's also time for a good house cleaning in the highest court if total revolution in this country by the middle class working man is to be prevented. It would be a perfect time for a couple of republican justices to exemplify their love for this country and play a historical part to save the American Dream and retire.... But if they are like most republicans they will simply hump up and exhibit that arrogant self serving nature which created most of the problems we currently face. We are going to be needing a high court that will champion true justice for the American people during this trying time with the growing line of big business executives who will be attempting appeals from their conviction and sentenced for lengthy penal vacations as white collar criminals. These criminals will have a boat load of money and can be expected to try and buy our courts if we allow it.

if ever a case to keep someone on life support it will be if one of these judges get sick

Hmm, let's see if Obama, a so-called Constitional Law Professor himself, can nominate a jurist to the Supreme Court with better jurisprudence and respect of laws than the ones that were nominated by the worse president in the U. S. history? We are waiting and watching patiently.

I never thought of that whole business about the fact that Obama is dealing with eight years of Bush appointments to the Courts fo Appeals, and that might offer someone like myself reason for hope. Not that he'll appoint any of them to the Supreme Court, but he won't have the luxury of appointing liberal justices with long paper trails, since most of the ones with the long paper trails are Bush appointments. Thus, this increases the chances of a David Souter in reverse deal, which in my mind would be one of the greatest pieces of poetic justice ever. We're one vote away from getting the hell rid of the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, and I'd be rolling on the floor laughing if Obama appoints the judge who turns out to be the vote that we need. Given this set of circumstances, that's not impossible.