|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:09 AM Original message |
Can the next President designate another Justice as the "Chief Justice" of the Court? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hobbit709 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:12 AM Response to Original message |
1. Only if he steps down or croaks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kentuck (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:13 AM Response to Original message |
2. Good question ThomWV... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
notadmblnd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:40 AM Response to Reply #2 |
9. Wasn't he one of the whiners in regards to pay? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:15 AM Response to Original message |
3. Constitution doesn't say, and I believe the appointment is treated like any other, which means it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LakeSamish706 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:15 AM Response to Original message |
4. As far as I know though, there is nothing to say that they couldn't increase.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tsuki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:21 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. FDR threatened that. There was a lot of back blow. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
floridablue (996 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:21 AM Response to Reply #4 |
6. Congress can do that with a constitutional change but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:34 AM Response to Reply #6 |
8. No, it's not a constitutional change |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
johnfunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 04:45 PM Response to Reply #4 |
19. Make it thirteen, not nine or eleven... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lonestarnot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:27 AM Response to Original message |
7. Not gona happen. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
L. Coyote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 09:55 AM Response to Original message |
10. Can all judicial appointments since Junta Day, 2000.12.12, be reviewed? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
montanacowboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 10:23 AM Response to Original message |
11. If it could be proven that the 2000 election was illegal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DavidDvorkin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 12:16 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. The 2000 election occurred when the Electoral College voted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 01:52 PM Response to Reply #11 |
15. Nope |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aquart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 02:01 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. Who would throw it out? The Supreme Court? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rosemary2205 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 12:18 PM Response to Original message |
13. the only way to remove a Justice is impeachment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wizard777 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 03:58 PM Response to Reply #13 |
17. But they have the lowest burden of impeachment. They don't even have to commit a crime. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rosemary2205 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 04:36 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. Oh I'm sure they could be removed for bad breath if congress wanted to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JerseygirlCT (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 12:24 PM Response to Original message |
14. Nope. We're stuck with him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
baldguy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 04:48 PM Response to Original message |
20. We sould get used to the fact that it will take 50-100 yrs to repair the damage Bush has done. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
suston96 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jun-01-08 06:14 PM Response to Original message |
21. I think the Constitution says "during good behavior". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:27 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