Spokane7
62°
April 9, 2010 in Nation/World
Leahy: Supreme Court hearings should be in summer
WASHINGTON — The Senate chairman who oversees Supreme Court nominations says midsummer hearings will offer the best chance to avoid partisan fighting over Justice John Paul Stevens’ replacement.
Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy tells The Associated Press he will suggest the timing to President Barack Obama, who has not announced a nominee.
Confirmation hearings were held in midsummer for the last Democratic nominee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the last Republican nominee, Chief Justice John Roberts. Leahy says nobody can complain if Stevens’ replacement is considered by the Judiciary Committee on the same timetable.
© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Obama honors Medal of Freedom recipients as heroes 
J_Doe on April 09 at 10:32 a.m.
Hmmmmm….my post was online for about 20 mins…
Then it was removed…….NO vulgar, offensive language, etc
FIRST AMENDMENT is “alive and well” at the
Spokesman-Review I see…..
Interesting !
Political CENSORSHIP and the ACLU mean ANYTHING
to the Spokesman-Review?
Let’s see if my post gets re-posted or not !
misjustice on April 09 at 1:31 p.m.
J_Doe, I’m sure that you are just being picked on…
So, what pithy commentary did you offer on the upcoming hearings relating to the President’s Supreme Court appointee?
Please repost so that we may all enjoy your insight…
Shylock13 on April 09 at 2:31 p.m.
Please, all, read Article III of The Constitution and Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2. For example, The Constitution does not set a number of Justices who sit on the Supreme Court. Our founding fathers did not envision the Supreme Court becoming politicized—there were no political parties when The Constitution was adopted.
Sadly, appointments to the Supreme Court are now a contest between Conservatives and Liberals. Whatever political party has the votes in the Senate can get appointed whomever it wants. George W. Bush put on the Court two “conservative” Justices. Obama has so far named one “liberal” Justice, and is likely to appoint another liberal. Depending on circumstances, he could appoint one or two more “liberal” Justices.
It is, to me, dreadful that a Court formed to interpret The Constitution for all of us has become a political entity, one that will, in controversial cases, rule according to the Justice’s political leanings. Check the number of 5-4 votes
Suggestion: Supreme Court Justices should be elected nationally. Their terms should be ten years. The Court should choose its own Chief Justice. Such a system at least gives the people some say into what is supposed to be a government “of/by/for the people.” The Executive Branch is elected; the Legislative Branch is elected; the Judicial Branch SHOULD be elected!
misjustice on April 09 at 3:24 p.m.
Good idea Theodore, only problem is it would take a Constitutional amendment; and in a hyper partisan era that is HIGHLY unlikely!
Shylock13 on April 09 at 4:03 p.m.
I am afraid, misjustice, that you are correct. There should be a provision in the The Constitution for a national referendum. BUT I believe that Congress could pass such a bill (which, of course, it will not do). What are “the people” to do?
misjustice on April 09 at 4:38 p.m.
“Power” is closely guarded, by all 3 branches of government. And none will easily give over any power to us, the people. SCOTUS, especially, with life-time tenure will not agree to term limits.
Again, national referendum would require a Constitutional amendment; something that we could petition for but in all likelihood would not be able to realize…
The power of the Executive branch lives on, long after a President has left office, via lifetime appointments to SCOTUS…the gift that keeps on giving! Especially if relatively young jurists are appointed, they can serve 40 years or longer!
Shylock13 on April 09 at 5:21 p.m.
We agree!
misjustice on April 09 at 6:41 p.m.
Yes, Theodore, we do; and I appreciate your Constitutional acumen! Now, how do we progress our goals of an elected SCOTUS??? Any ideas? I especially like your idea of a 10 year term limit.
Our nation progresses significantly in the lifetime of a jurist, and the needs/focus of society change, and unfortunately, often times jurists do not reflect the society that they decide Constitutional questions for…
And I do not intend this in a partisan way…