Miami

Monday, July 25, 2005

Term limits for Supreme Court

I want a flash poll of our posters, 18 year term-limit for supreme court justices, yes or no?

Me: Yes.

Why? The dems will most certainly dip below the 50 year old mark to appoint a justice on their next opportunity.

While I like the idea of myself becoming a justice while in my 30s, I think this makes a lot of sense and prevents some sort of race to the bottom for justices in terms of age.

Interesting article from today's WSJ: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007012


"The secrecy that shrouds the high court can also allow someone to turn his chamber into a nursing home, as William O. Douglas did in the 1970s. He was so determined to hang on until a new president could appoint someone philosophically compatible with him that he refused to leave after an incapacitating stroke. This is not only irresponsible, but for, say, a liberal justice hanging on through a series of Republican presidents, it is directly at odds with the preferences of the electorate. In Douglas's case, his colleagues were so concerned that they informally agreed that during the last year of his service none of the court's decisions would be valid if his was the deciding vote. They finally pressured him to resign in 1975. A weakened Thurgood Marshall often looked to his fellow octogenarian William Brennan on how to vote because he no longer could hear well enough to understand the arguments other justices made during their conferences"

"The various proposals to impose term limits have interesting variations on the same theme. All would exempt sitting justices from any limits, ending arguments that one president could "pack the court." Almost all would set the limit at 18 years, with one seat opening up every two years. Some proposals would seek to change the Constitution, others maintain a mere statute would suffice if the principle of life tenure were retained by giving retiring justices the right to serve on a lower federal court after 18 years.
A major advantage of term limits is that they would limit the temptation for justices to remain in office if the presidency is occupied by someone they are ideologically opposed to. Each president would get to appoint at least two justices. That would end the anomaly of some presidents being unable to make any appointments for an entire term (Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush in his first four years) while others (William Howard Taft) get to appoint four during a single term in office. Confirmation battles, now routinely toxic, might become less so because the stakes would be reduced, with everyone knowing the nominee would serve 18 years instead of a possible 35 or more.
Had a simple 18 year limit been in place when each of the current justices on the court were confirmed, William Rehnquist would have retired in 1990 followed by John Paul Stevens three years later. Sandra Day O'Conner would have left the court in 1999 and Antonin Scalia would have stepped down last year. David Souter, who some conservatives call one of the biggest mistakes made by the first President Bush would have to step down in the final year this President Bush will be in office. "

Thursday, July 21, 2005

London

Well, it appears at first glance that we are faced with another terror plot in London. While this is no where as deadly as 2 Thursdays ago, it still is going to make major waves across the continent and the US. First off, I am writing on nothing really other than assumptions. I assume that, with this latest series of failed bombings, that it appears to be a copy cat crime. Copy cats are scary, because that can mean people in the main stream are supporting the terrorists. Also, it jumps out at me that these people haven't attacked US mass transit. We've all been on the DC metro. There's no security there, a bag could sit unattented to for hours. NYC subway maybe even less secure, with it being as old as it is.

Anyway, just a few thoughts as we enter into a new round of attacks.

I just hope that the UK and Blair don't get scared into stepping down.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Nugent Run?

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/eyeonpolitics18e_20050718.htm

Matt, it looks like this is your dream come true. We missed two hurricanes on the cruise and had a great time. This weekend I'm going to be in Oxford, so y'all should come Saturday night (I'll be moving out of the house, but you could stay there).

Let us know how NYC is Colvin.

Friday, July 08, 2005

DeWhiner

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050708/NEWS01/507080407/1077&template=printpicart

Don't know if everyone read what SW Ohio's Congressional Delegation said following the attacks in London yesterday but there they are. DeWine seems to come off like a pompous lawyer asshole. He just pisses me off so much. Fuck RINO.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Oxford?

I'm glad that I can bring so much diversity to this board

Ok, I am moving to my "penthouse" in Cleveland on July 25, and I still need to move all my stuff out of Oxford. I was thinking about coming to Oxford on Saturday, July 23 to move stuff out and thought it would be fun to have "one last night" in Oxford. Colvin will be leaving shortly thereafter and we will all be starting new things, so I think it would be a lot of fun. Narco, you should even try to get off work and Nolan, i know you aren't doing shit. You all could stay in our house, all of my furniture is still there. Let me know what you think.

Atlas Shrugged is great, I'm in the middle of Fountainhead right now and it is definetely not nearly as good. Any recommendations for additional books to read over the summer?

Here's a pic from Lincoln Day too. Damn we look good. Esp Purn's hair.