Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at the US Supreme court from a Commonwealth point of view it is surprising just how political it is.
Bush put into office after that mess they called an election in Florida because there was five GOP appointed judges on the court.
It was surprising to read that it was not possible for the Supreme court to order another election instead of a head of state being appointed by the court.
So is the US Supreme court a straight court like when the English Law lords sat, or would they be expected to back the party that appointed them making them a political body ?
Looking at the US Supreme court from a Commonwealth point of view it is surprising just how political it is.
Bush put into office after that mess they called an election in Florida because there was five GOP appointed judges on the court.
AGAIN, Gore lost to Bush 7-2 with at least two liberals going with the large majority.
NEXT BS LINE PLEASE...
AGAIN, Gore lost to Bush 7-2 with at least two liberals going with the large majority.
NEXT BS LINE PLEASE...
From Wikipedia
Remedy
Quote:
The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C.§ 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5."
Four justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented as to stopping the recount. Two of those four dissenters (i.e. Justices Breyer and Souter) acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.[36] The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.[23]
Partisan hacks. Thomas Jefferson was right.
The five members most likely in most cases to favor state power over federal power chose the power of the federal government. The four members who tend to prefer federal power over state power sided with state power. What blatant hypocrites, every one of them.
This is eyebrow raising, a judge commenting on which candidate she wanted to win.
(On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas' wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solictor-General.)
Are Supreme court judges' wives/husbands encouraged to be active in politics in the USA ?
Looking at the US Supreme court from a Commonwealth point of view it is surprising just how political it is.
Bush put into office after that mess they called an election in Florida because there was five GOP appointed judges on the court.
It was surprising to read that it was not possible for the Supreme court to order another election instead of a head of state being appointed by the court.
So is the US Supreme court a straight court like when the English Law lords sat, or would they be expected to back the party that appointed them making them a political body ?
I don't really understand your question. If you are asking, are supreme court justices politicians promoting certain programs to get elected, no, the Supreme Court is not political. If you are asking, do justices try to influence each other, that their view of the constitution is the proper one, yes, they are political.
Once appointed, justices are beholden to no one. It frequently happens that justices appointed by Presidents with a certain ideology, rule with Justices appointed by a President with an opposing ideology.
Well, no wonder you don't get it. You think it takes a constitutional scholar to figure it out.
Too funny. Check it out folks, Mr. Einstein here believes he knows more about the Condtitution than Supreme Court justices. Gales of laughter!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
