What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
132 Comments
- devans00, on 05/01/2009, -14/+98Thank you Supreme Court Justice David Souter for hanging on until Dubya's adminstration was gone.
Whew, dodged that bullet. - suprememilo, on 05/01/2009, -5/+37Al Gore should be put on the supreme court, just so we can create the most awkward moment ever!
- reed311, on 05/01/2009, -6/+33I always that Souter was on of the best justices. His stance against the Bush v Gore (worst Supreme Court decision in my lifetime, easily) was very admirable.
- JebusSaves, on 05/01/2009, -17/+44Awfully young to be retiring (for a supreme at least). Probably means Obama will get to name at least 3 justices -- here's hoping he goes young! 25 years of Obama justices would be great.
- Poochyfud, on 05/01/2009, -8/+32This is a good story, but it is annoying that it will only reach the front page via HuffPo instead of from an ACTUAL news source like CNN, the New York Times, or NPR. There were submissions from all of these places yet Diggers prefer HuffPo for some reason I cannot fathom.
- IAmTheGuy, on 05/01/2009, -0/+16I can guarantee at least one more justice will retire during Obama's first 4 years. So many of them were trying not to die will Bush was still in office.
- Bartboy919, on 05/01/2009, -6/+22I really hope Scalia leaves before Obama's tenure is up, but I doubt it.
- Sogui, on 05/01/2009, -6/+19Conservative justices are not social or economic conservatives, they are simply hard-liners when it comes to the constitution.
For a website that was circle-jerking it to Ron Paul submissions a year ago, why are conservative justices suddenly such a bad thing here? A conservative justice is more likely to be against gun control, unfettered free speech, and an expansion of the role of the Federal Government... all very hot button issues where diggers align with justices like Scalia.
(Just curious) - PterionFracture, on 05/01/2009, -4/+17If Obama knows what he's doing, he will appoint Zig.
For great justice. - inactive, on 05/01/2009, -3/+15Instead of someone dying, I just wish these judges would rule on the basis of preserving/interpreting the constitution in a logical way, not pandering to a ***** political party.
Partisanship is dumb as hell, either way it goes. - brownr21, on 05/01/2009, -0/+11If you mean real conservatives and not just religious tards, then maybe.
- novenator, on 05/01/2009, -7/+17It's just too bad the court is now in the hands of conservative ideologues. Even the 'moderates' on the court (which is supposed to be impartial and non-partisan) are considered on the 'liberal' side now.
- mc88, on 05/01/2009, -7/+17"25 years of Obama justices would be great."
You are no different from the neocons in your quest for domination over governmental and judicial processes. Under your plan as well as the far right, a large number of people get disenfranchised. I, for one, am tired of the
quest for absolute power on both sides of the aisle.
You can't balance the extreme right with the extreme left if you want to represent the majority of Americans. All you end up with is more of the extreme Love/Hate cycle that we've had for too many decades. - Bartboy919, on 05/01/2009, -7/+16Unlike Bush I, Im sure Obama will do his homework and not make a move as retarded as that.
- kingofinternet, on 05/01/2009, -10/+19Justice Souter is a legal genius and a true public servant. Thank goodness Bush I appointed him. And thank you for not stepping down until you were sure another Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts was appointed in your place.
- yellowfish04, on 05/01/2009, -0/+9FTA: "NPR's Nina Totenberg adds that Souter 69, has informed the White House ..."
Souter 69, as he was known around the halls of the Court... - cogentspirit, on 05/01/2009, -4/+13And this just makes Arlen Specter's defection all the more sweet. The republicans can't even hold a filibuster over Obama's head.
Losing Specter was a huge huge blunder on the part of Republicans. I hope he appoints a gay legal scholar to Souter's post. How f***** sweet would that be.
As Jon Stewart said, "it's supposed to taste like a **** Sandwich." - maz2331, on 05/01/2009, -0/+9None of the conservatives are leaving any time soon. Ginsberg and Stevens are the most likely others.
- HAL90000, on 05/01/2009, -0/+9Or just sane people.
I'm a guy and I would have ruled against the school. If anyone's strip searching a 13 year old girl, it's me. - lordmike, on 05/01/2009, -1/+9Depends what you mean by conservative.. your definition is technically correct, but that would also mean that the "conservatives" on the court now don't abide by that definition. They are quite "activist" when it suits their agendas...
- AlterLite, on 05/01/2009, -2/+9I hope he is happy back in New Hampshire. Then I hope that some developer comes along and uses Eminent Domain to take his property away from for economic development. After all, it was one of his votes (Kelo vs New London) that allowed a rich developer to take away anybody's land so long as the developer had friends in high places.
- sugarazor, on 05/01/2009, -1/+8Did you actually read what some of the male justices said?
We need more women on the court, and this is coming from a man. Qualified women, obviously. - zephyear, on 05/01/2009, -9/+16please please for the love of god obama, don't appoint some centre right "moderate" shill in order to be "bipartisian"
hopefully scalia retires/dies during this administration too and we can stop having these awful 5-4 conservative majority decisions - saady87, on 05/01/2009, -0/+7"Thank you Supreme Court Justice David Souter for hanging on until Dubya's adminstration was gone"
It's funny you mention that because dubya's dad appointed him. - brownr21, on 05/01/2009, -0/+7Seriously I just looked that case up and wow, one person was basically responsible for the whole ridiculous catastrophe that was the bush administration. I'd like to know who it was too.
I'll wipe my ass with their per curium. - traveler1217, on 05/01/2009, -0/+7Damn. Why couldn't it be Thomas or Scalia who gets the bye-bye? {:(
- inactive, on 05/01/2009, -2/+8As long as this "conservative" is by the constitution, not "morals", I'm in.
- geekee, on 05/01/2009, -0/+6Scalia all but said that he is not a proponet of making abortion illegal. He only claims there's nothing in the constituion to protect abortion rights.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 05/01/2009, -5/+11Now we need to -ahem- 'retire' Scalia - and his shadow*.
* When Scalia and Thomas go to a restaurant and the waiter takes their orders, Thomas always says: "I'll have what he's having"; even when he's asked before Scalia orders. - novenator, on 05/01/2009, -0/+6HP was the first to put it on their website. The NPR article is on Digg as well, I dugg them both (the NPR one first in fact). The NPR story can be found at: http://digg.com/politics/Supreme_Court_Justice_Sou ...
Even though it was put online later (despite NPR breaking the story on the air), it deserves a digg as well. - MFoody, on 05/01/2009, -0/+6They did. I'm not at all confident that Gore would have won had there been a comprehensive recount but there should have been a comprehensive recount and deciding to abort it on a partisan basis at the level of the supreme court was a grotesque miscarriage of justice that, people were paying enough attention, would have greatly damaged the reputation of the court as acting in good faith.
- traveler1217, on 05/01/2009, -0/+5Thomas eats out of Scalia's hand.
- sugarazor, on 05/01/2009, -4/+9Here's hoping for a woman, this case with the 13 year old girl getting strip searched showed why we need more women on the Supreme Court.
- broncfan23, on 05/01/2009, -3/+8Judge Andrew Napalitano
There should be no judicial activism, just following the Constitution. - Atario, on 05/01/2009, -3/+8Also, Huffington Post encourages people to digg their stories with a very prominent "Digg This" display -- even more prominent than their own up/down buttons.
Also, how is Huffington Post not an "actual" news source? They provide legitimate news (in addition to editorial content) and even occasionally break a story themselves. - davdev, on 05/01/2009, -0/+5I would hope he has learned his lesson on the tax issue, and I am certain the nominee will be vetted to an extent no other before him has. There is no way they can risk nominating someone who isn't squeaky clean .. at least in regards to taxes.
- suprememilo, on 05/01/2009, -1/+6I said so we can create the most awkward moment ever, why did you have to come in and make this political :p
- netant, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4You moron. After eight years, it will be a different set of players, for both parties.
- netant, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Its unlikely that the Supreme Court decision would have changed the outcome. From what I recall, Gore wanted to revalidate only two democratic districts. A year later, NY Times and a university researcher retabulated the votes, and found there weren't enough votes to change the outcome. Its ONLY when counting EVERY county that Gore would have gotten more votes. Also, this conclusion was made by maybe one or two people. The count may have changed in different people's hand. (Counting range of error.)
No, what made this decision EGREGIOUS was that there already was a process in place to determine votes. Florida could recount to its hearts content, but if it didn't have a final determination by a certain date, all the votes are discarded and the Florida state assembly & senate vote to determine who would get FL's electors. Since the houses were both majority Republican, Bush would have gotten the votes anyway. Even if FL gov't couldn't give the US Congress the final result, the US House of Reps vote to decide who gets FL's electors. At the very worst scenario, the POTUS would have been delayed by 2 weeks after his term starts. Which, btw, has happened before in US history!
The reason why the Supreme Courts' decision was unforgivable was that they deliberately interfered with an election. They made up a ridiculously tenuous argument that somehow there was an inequitable counting of votes, and the SC had the power to enforce the "equality" of every vote. What they did was a distinct ABROGRATION of states rights power to determine their electors, and changed how the Constitution normally determines an election. They basically took away the state's right to determine its electors, and invalidated the procedure of the US Constitution vis a vis US House of Reps. (Don't feel like hunting down the article #), which also usurps the federal legislative branch's power.
It was such a piece of garbage, even the presiding justice wrote that this ruling should not set precedent. - MacEnvy, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Yes he would be okay. At least Glenn Beck hates him, so it's a start.
- MacEnvy, on 05/01/2009, -2/+6Thomas just votes with Scalia anyway. Get Scalia out of there and you cut the head off the snake.
- traveler1217, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Actually, it was a 's*** taco', but it paints the same picture.
;) - mattsull, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5Not Souter!!!
- JigoroKano, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4I think both you and sogui are making a vast over-generalization.
For instance, I think Thomas is the most neo-con judge on the bench, but take this dissenting opinion:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
I couldn't agree with him more here. On this point he seems to be the only judge who doesn't have an interpretation of the Constitution that equates to the federal government having unlimited powers.
Also take the last big evolution trial in Dover. The judge was a church going Republican, but guess what? He did his job. I'm not saying that political leanings don't have an effect, but competence is far more important. - novenator, on 05/01/2009, -7/+11Agreed, but unfortunately, that conservative John Roberts looks like he will be the lead justice for quite some time.
- davdev, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4You don't think it is possilbe someone could emerge in the next eight years? They won't be needed until them, and Biden will be way to old to run anyway. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if Biden were a one term VP and is replaced with a "rising star" simply to gain experience for a run in 2016
- novenator, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5poochy, funny, the rest of Digg seems to *like* articles from the HP.
- FAT_PIGGY, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Judge Andrew Napalitano FTW.
- writeman, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3Your comment shows your ignorance about how the Supreme Court works. And as a matter of fact, they did rule against Bush on some important issues. For example:
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053610.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is