|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:46 AM Original message |
Want to see Republicans really scream? Dump Roberts as Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
babylonsister
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:47 AM Response to Original message |
1. Could he do that? Do you know if there's precedent? I like it! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:50 AM Response to Reply #1 |
4. I don't know of any reason he couldn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rurallib
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:05 AM Response to Reply #4 |
22. nothing about it in the constitution is there? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DainBramaged
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:49 AM Response to Original message |
2. Want to see Republicans really scream, make them learn to spell....... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:49 AM Response to Original message |
3. No can do. John Roberts is CJ for life |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:50 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Where's it say so? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:56 AM Response to Reply #5 |
11. The Constitution of the United States |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:58 AM Response to Reply #11 |
15. That is not what it says at all - there is no mention what so ever of a Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:02 AM Response to Reply #15 |
18. The position is referenced at least once, when the Constitution states s/he shall |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:26 AM Response to Reply #15 |
36. HE hold the office of Chief Justice of the United States |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Historic NY
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:36 AM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Hey we could always try the power of prayer like the other side...... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:59 AM Response to Reply #11 |
16. I don't think it's very clear. The title/position has little actual importance. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:02 AM Response to Reply #16 |
17. And that power alone can sway a vote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:03 AM Response to Reply #17 |
19. I agree that it can but am skeptical that it ever has or ever will. nt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blogslut
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:51 AM Response to Original message |
6. I'm not sure it works like that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:54 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. I'm not either but the Constitution, Article III, is silent on it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blogslut
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:56 AM Response to Reply #10 |
12. I realize people love to slam the source but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:04 AM Response to Reply #12 |
20. your citation doesn't say a word about the Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blogslut
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:27 AM Response to Reply #20 |
28. Okay |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:04 AM Response to Reply #12 |
21. Removing him as Chief Justice wouldn't remove him from the bench. nt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:57 AM Response to Reply #10 |
13. Article III is very clear on it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:05 AM Response to Reply #13 |
23. nonsense - nowhere does it mention the position of Chief Justice and beyond that .... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hosnon
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:08 AM Response to Reply #23 |
26. It's anything but clear either way, I agree. And didn't the Court rule that it has the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:27 AM Response to Reply #23 |
37. Chief Justice is his OFFICE |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MyNameGoesHere
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:51 AM Response to Original message |
7. I think the position of Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Greybnk48
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:52 AM Response to Original message |
8. Can the President do that? I don't know very much about the Supreme |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:58 AM Response to Reply #8 |
14. Only the Congress can remove him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
droidamus2
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:34 AM Response to Reply #14 |
29. Missing the point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 06:24 PM Response to Reply #29 |
43. Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 of the United States Constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:38 AM Response to Reply #14 |
30. Not saying remove him from office |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 06:15 PM Response to Reply #30 |
42. His office is CHIEF JUSTICE, not Associate Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:18 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. It does not declare him specifically Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:24 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. You're leaving out Article II, Section2, Paragraph 2, too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:33 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. Yup it's very clear |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:38 PM Response to Reply #47 |
50. But there's already a Chief Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:44 PM Response to Reply #50 |
53. No he just hold the office of a Justice on good behavior. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:51 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. Wrongo, junior, there is one CJ and 8 Associate Justices n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:53 AM Response to Original message |
9. No can do. Hell, just out the guy... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:07 AM Response to Reply #9 |
24. Yes, I loved how he formed "an instant family" ... complete with perfectly matched adopted kids. eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madinmaryland
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:16 AM Response to Reply #9 |
27. Easy, joey. Sounds like you've been drinking too much of that red sox kool-aid! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:23 AM Response to Reply #9 |
35. Out him? I think everyone knows Roberts is a chicken molestor. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Deep13
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:08 AM Response to Original message |
25. Well, Bush never let legal reality stop him! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gidney N Cloyd
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:41 AM Response to Original message |
31. There sure doesn't seem to be anything specific blocking a demotion to regular supreme ct justice. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gaedel
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 09:55 AM Response to Reply #31 |
32. The only thing that I see |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jeepnstein
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:01 AM Response to Original message |
33. Impossibly dumb political move. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uzybone
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:08 AM Response to Reply #33 |
34. More and more ridiculous ideas sprout up in this place every day |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:29 AM Response to Reply #34 |
38. Unconstitutional ridiculous ideas at that! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:29 AM Response to Reply #34 |
39. no kidding. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DefenseLawyer
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:41 PM Response to Reply #33 |
52. It can't be done |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sl8
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 10:43 AM Response to Original message |
41. "Choosing a Chief Justice: Presidential Prerogative or a Job for the Court?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:25 PM Response to Original message |
46. You mean dump the Constitution? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:34 PM Response to Original message |
48. he is Chief Justice for life per act of Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:37 PM Response to Reply #48 |
49. What act is this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WeDidIt
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:45 PM Response to Reply #49 |
54. Title 28, Chapter 1 of the United States Code spells it all out |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MattBaggins
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:52 PM Response to Reply #54 |
56. Well that states it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 07:40 PM Response to Original message |
51. Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice, that is his position. He would have to be reconfirmed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:40 PM Response to Original message |
57. There may be an argument to be made that Congress can regulate this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
struggle4progress
![]() |
Wed Apr-21-10 08:59 PM Response to Original message |
58. In practice, of course, Congress and the President can do what they want in this regard; but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 07:52 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC