Discussion:
Did JFK Appoint Anyone To The Supreme Court ?
(too old to reply)
Raymond
2012-01-07 02:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Did JFK Appoint Anyone To The Supreme Court ?
Yes ..... Byron White and Arthur Goldberg in 1962.

Frequently, the appointment of justices is an attempt to fix a current
political problem that just winds up resulting in three more political
problems over the next couple of decades. Perhaps there is no better
example of this than Richard Nixon’s attempts to overturn the
“liberal” Warren Court through the appointments of Justices Burger,
Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. Most of the hallmark opinions of the
Warren Court are still good law today, and it was the Burger court that
decided the controversial case Roe v. Wade. In this sense, Nixon’s
appointments were a failure.

On the other side of the spectrum, liberal darling John F. Kennedy
appointed Byron White to the Supreme Court. White was known for opposing
the doctrine of substantive due process, specifically the idea of a right
to privacy. He dissented from Roe v. Wade and argued, along with Justice
Rehnquist, that Federal anti-discrimination laws did not prohibit private
schools from segregating by race. As you may suspect, White is not
considered a liberal darling.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_justice_nominations/

The Great Colonial Blunder
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article. II.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT, and all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall
be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, IN
THE COURTS OF LAW, or in the Heads of Departments.

Maybe the greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court
judges are appointed and approved. The president should not be the one to
appoint anyone, so eventually powerful for life, to such a high office.
Judges are nominated for political reasons only and not because they have
exceptional legal acumen. In fact, it is generally because of their
narrow-mindedness, on many issues that they are candidates in the first
place. All too often a political hack lawyer, like Clarence Thomas, is
appointed because he or she is in tune with the political philosophy of
the executive and his gang of bandits, or because some ethnic or religious
element has to be satisfied . As well, the American people may be the
losers when a hostile Senate rejects a worthy presidential appointee.
Would you ask the president to nominate a surgeon to operate on you if you
had a severe medical condition that required an expert in the field needed
to save your life? Hell no, you would ask other surgeons and specialists.
I hope.

Theoretically, a jurist should not be involved in the political spectrum.
Yet, when a president appoints members of the Supreme Court, it is only
reasonable to believe that he or she will appoint people who reflect his
or her view or political agenda. After all, the president has been voted
into office on a platform that the citizens agree with and therefore the
president should do all he can to make sure that his philosophy is put
into place.

What better way to do it than to appoint jurists who agree with him. The
problem is that the president can, at the most, serve for eight years, and
Supreme Court jurist scan serve as long as they live.

SEE:
Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life
By Roger Cossack
Law Center Contributing Editor
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/

Several states have chosen to make judges, even state Supreme Court
judges, stand for election every so often. Their theory is that the
judiciary, like all other representatives of the people, should have
to answer to the people by getting votes. Several years ago,
California voters wisely ousted Chief Justice Rose Bird and three
other justices.

We should start all over by calling for a Constitutional Convention
and a new document.

"Some men are born great,
Some achieve greatness,
and some have greatness
thrust upon 'em."

Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

And , How about Separation of Powers?

Separation of Powers in the Constitution

The framework of government outlined in the Constitution of 1787
presupposes the separation of powers, gives expression to it, and in so
doing further refines the meaning of the doctrine.Yet, when we examine the
actual operation of the various branches, we discover that there is very
little separation of anything other than the physical locations of their
official offices.

There is no such thing as separation of powers. Our government is similar
to a sexual daisy chain. One sucking on the others private parts. The
Supreme Court appoints the president who appoints the judges to the court,
who is approved by the Senate, who can vote to remove or save the
president's ass , etc, etc. They are all joined together at the wallet or
the purse - or perhaps even both.

This is especially true when the Congress and the corporate owned hooker
in the White House are of the same party. It becomes rubber stamp justice.

The separation of powers has, and was intended to have, a dual purpose.
The first purpose is to prevent encroachments on individual liberty by a
tyrannical government. The second purpose is to promote effective and
efficient government through specialization of functions and other
adaptations that create a strong executive

Of the doctrine of the separation of powers, so familiar to readers of
Supreme Court opinions, the Constitution says not a word. In this it sets
itself apart from the constitutions of Virginia, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire (1784), whose pointed and unqualified language testifies to a
general acceptance of "this invaluable precept in the science of politics"
(Federalist, no. 47). Much of the controversy over drafting and
ratification turned on this question of meaning. At issue was not whether
the proposed Constitution embodies the separation of powers to some extent
(few denied that), but whether its separation is adequate, whether the
purposes for the sake of which separation of powers is indispensable are
indeed well served by the peculiar manner in which the Constitution
effects and compromises that separation. By the time the new government
was established, the terms in which much of the debate had been conducted
had themselves been redefined and clarified. The Constitution, far from
being a dubious exemplar of the separation of powers, became a classic
instance of the doctrine it never mentions.

Separation of powers? What separation of powers?

How can we have separation of powers when one group of corporate whores
has complete control of all three branches of an alleged peoples'
government? Checks and balances is a myth. For all its value, structure
alone does not guarantee that the national government will not encroach
upon the States' power and individual liberty.

The Myth of Separation of Powers by Donald Dale Henson, sui juris

Notice that instead of three separate and distinct classes of people each
with their own loyalties and with strong incentives to maintain their
powers and privileges so they can be passed down to descendants, we have a
single class of property owners doing everything. All the departments of
government are pointed in the same direction. There is no balancing of the
power amongst three separate classes.

During the past 130 years or so, we have seen the large property- owning
class slowly dissolve until now some 2 percent of the people own or
control some 90 percent of the wealth in the US. Most of us are now
peasants once again since almost no one owns property anymore. (Even those
who think they do only hold permission from the real owner, government, to
use the property temporarily.) The government- run public school system
has dulled everyone's senses to the point they will believe anything the
government or the media tells them. Control of the government has passed
into the hands of those whose only purpose is to increase their own power
and wealth at the expense of anyone too stupid to stop them. The judiciary
is in the control of these same people. So although we still have a
government controlled by a single class of people, the class has changed
from property owners to property stealers and our form of government has
changed from a republic to a democracy. Rather than the three classes
necessary to make a separation of powers government work, our unbalanced
system has turned into a 'tyranny of the majority' as all democracies
must. But the myth that separation of powers will work still holds with
most people even in the face of this strong evidence to the contrary.

Is it possible to base a government on a separation and balance of powers?
Yes. However, in order to form a government where the separation of powers
will work, we must identify three separate and distinct classes of people
each with their own loyalties and privileges and with a strong incentive
to maintain these loyalties and privileges. And these loyalties and
privileges must be diametrically opposed to each of the other two. Then
and only then can we design a government structure based on a separation
of powers. Until then, we must look for a different structure.

Donald Dale Henson

SEE:
Separation of Powers
CHAPTER 10
Introduction
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10I.html

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter"
--- Martin Luther King

Also SEE:
Law Professors Debate Reforming the Supreme Court Term limits,
reducing the number of clerks discussed
Friday, April 22, 2005

Durham, N.C. -- The United States Supreme Court was called a
"gerontocracy" at a Duke Law School conference April 9 th, likened to
the leadership cadres of the Chinese Communist Party. But that party
is a step up on the Court, said Northwestern University Law Professor
James Lindgren in defending the charge: Its leaders are required to
retire at 80, while justices serve for life.

"Reforming the Supreme Court?" brought together top constitutional law
and Supreme Court scholars for a spirited discussion of the costs and
benefits of life tenure for justices, and an exploration of possible
alternatives. Organized by law professors Paul Carrington of Duke and
Roger Cramton of Cornell, who have co-authored a statutory proposal to
limit Supreme Court terms, the conference was sponsored by the Program
in Public Law.
Cont'd
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.html

SEE:
Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life
By Roger Cossack
Law Center Contributing Editor
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/

" The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He, of
all men, should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the
universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we
presently imagine we own."
--- H.G. Wells
Outline of History

Let us prey
bigdog
2012-01-07 02:32:52 UTC
Permalink
 Did JFK Appoint Anyone To The Supreme Court ?
 Yes ..... Byron White and Arthur Goldberg in 1962.
Frequently, the appointment of justices is an attempt to fix a current
political problem that just winds up resulting in three more political
problems over the next couple of decades. Perhaps there is no better
example of this than Richard Nixon’s attempts to overturn the
“liberal” Warren Court through the appointments of Justices Burger,
Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. Most of the hallmark opinions of the
Warren Court are still good law today, and it was the Burger court that
decided the controversial case Roe v. Wade. In this sense, Nixon’s
appointments were a failure.
On the other side of the spectrum, liberal darling John F. Kennedy
appointed Byron White to the Supreme Court. White was known for opposing
the doctrine of substantive due process, specifically the idea of a right
to privacy. He dissented from Roe v. Wade and argued, along with Justice
Rehnquist, that Federal anti-discrimination laws did not prohibit private
schools from segregating by race. As you may suspect, White is not
considered a liberal darling.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_justice_nominations/
 The Great Colonial Blunder
 THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
 Article. II.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT, and all other Officers of the United States,
whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall
be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, IN
THE COURTS OF LAW, or in the Heads of Departments.
Maybe the greatest blunder in the Constitution is in how Supreme Court
judges are appointed and approved. The president should not be the one to
appoint anyone, so eventually powerful for life, to such a high office.
Judges are nominated for political reasons only and not because they have
exceptional legal acumen. In fact, it is generally because of their
narrow-mindedness, on many issues that they are candidates in the first
place. All too often a political hack lawyer, like Clarence Thomas, is
appointed because he or she is in tune with the political philosophy of
the executive and his gang of bandits, or because some ethnic or religious
element has to be satisfied . As well, the American people may be the
losers when a hostile Senate rejects a worthy presidential appointee.
Would you ask the president to nominate a surgeon to operate on you if you
had a severe medical condition that required an expert in the field needed
to save your life? Hell no, you would ask other surgeons and specialists.
I hope.
Theoretically, a jurist should not be involved in the political spectrum.
Yet, when a president appoints members of the Supreme Court, it is only
reasonable to believe that he or she will appoint people who reflect his
or her view or political agenda. After all, the president has been voted
into office on a platform that the citizens agree with and therefore the
president should do all he can to make sure that his philosophy is put
into place.
What better way to do it than to appoint jurists who agree with him. The
problem is that the president can, at the most, serve for eight years, and
Supreme Court jurist scan serve as long as they live.
Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life
By Roger Cossack
Law Center Contributing Editorhttp://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/
Several states have chosen to make judges, even state Supreme Court
judges, stand for election every so often. Their theory is that the
judiciary, like all other representatives of the people, should have
to answer to the people by getting votes. Several years ago,
California voters wisely ousted Chief Justice Rose Bird and three
other justices.
We should start all over by calling for a Constitutional Convention
and a new document.
 "Some men are born great,
  Some achieve greatness,
  and some have greatness
  thrust upon 'em."
  Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
And , How about Separation of Powers?
Separation of Powers in the Constitution
The framework of government outlined in the Constitution of 1787
presupposes the separation of powers, gives expression to it, and in so
doing further refines the meaning of the doctrine.Yet, when we examine the
actual operation of the various branches, we discover that there is very
little separation of anything other than the physical locations of their
official offices.
There is no such thing as separation of powers. Our government is similar
to a sexual daisy chain. One sucking on the others private parts. The
Supreme Court appoints the president who appoints the judges to the court,
who is approved by the Senate, who can vote to remove or save the
president's ass , etc, etc. They are all joined together at the wallet or
the purse - or perhaps even both.
This is especially true when the Congress and the corporate owned hooker
in the White House are of the same party. It becomes rubber stamp justice.
The separation of powers has, and was intended to have, a dual purpose.
The first purpose is to prevent encroachments on individual liberty by a
tyrannical government. The second purpose is to promote effective and
efficient government through specialization of functions and other
adaptations that create a strong executive
Of the doctrine of the separation of powers, so familiar to readers of
Supreme Court opinions, the Constitution says not a word. In this it sets
itself apart from the constitutions of Virginia, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire (1784), whose pointed and unqualified language testifies to a
general acceptance of "this invaluable precept in the science of politics"
(Federalist, no. 47). Much of the controversy over drafting and
ratification turned on this question of meaning. At issue was not whether
the proposed Constitution embodies the separation of powers to some extent
(few denied that), but whether its separation is adequate, whether the
purposes for the sake of which separation of powers is indispensable are
indeed well served by the peculiar manner in which the Constitution
effects and compromises that separation. By the time the new government
was established, the terms in which much of the debate had been conducted
had themselves been redefined and clarified. The Constitution, far from
being a dubious exemplar of the separation of powers, became a classic
instance of the doctrine it never mentions.
Separation of powers? What separation of powers?
How can we have separation of powers when one group of corporate whores
has complete control of all three branches of an alleged peoples'
government? Checks and balances is a myth. For all its value, structure
alone does not guarantee that the national government will not encroach
upon the States' power and individual liberty.
The Myth of Separation of Powers by Donald Dale Henson, sui juris
Notice that instead of three separate and distinct classes of people each
with their own loyalties and with strong incentives to maintain their
powers and privileges so they can be passed down to descendants, we have a
single class of property owners doing everything. All the departments of
government are pointed in the same direction. There is no balancing of the
power amongst three separate classes.
During the past 130 years or so, we have seen the large property- owning
class slowly dissolve until now some 2 percent of the people own or
control some 90 percent of the wealth in the US. Most of us are now
peasants once again since almost no one owns property anymore. (Even those
who think they do only hold permission from the real owner, government, to
use the property temporarily.) The government- run public school system
has dulled everyone's senses to the point they will believe anything the
government or the media tells them. Control of the government has passed
into the hands of those whose only purpose is to increase their own power
and wealth at the expense of anyone too stupid to stop them. The judiciary
is in the control of these same people. So although we still have a
government controlled by a single class of people, the class has changed
from property owners to property stealers and our form of government has
changed from a republic to a democracy. Rather than the three classes
necessary to make a separation of powers government work, our unbalanced
system has turned into a 'tyranny of the majority' as all democracies
must. But the myth that separation of powers will work still holds with
most people even in the face of this strong evidence to the contrary.
Is it possible to base a government on a separation and balance of powers?
Yes. However, in order to form a government where the separation of powers
will work, we must identify three separate and distinct classes of people
each with their own loyalties and privileges and with a strong incentive
to maintain these loyalties and privileges. And these loyalties and
privileges must be diametrically opposed to each of the other two. Then
and only then can we design a government structure based on a separation
of powers. Until then, we must look for a different structure.
Donald Dale Henson
Separation of Powers
CHAPTER 10
Introductionhttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10I.html
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter"
  ---   Martin Luther King
Law Professors Debate Reforming the Supreme Court Term limits,
reducing the number of clerks discussed
Friday, April 22, 2005
Durham, N.C. -- The United States Supreme Court was called a
"gerontocracy" at a Duke Law School conference April 9 th, likened to
the leadership cadres of the Chinese Communist Party. But that party
is a step up on the Court, said Northwestern University Law Professor
James Lindgren in defending the charge: Its leaders are required to
retire at 80, while justices serve for life.
"Reforming the Supreme Court?" brought together top constitutional law
and Supreme Court scholars for a spirited discussion of the costs and
benefits of life tenure for justices, and an exploration of possible
alternatives. Organized by law professors Paul Carrington of Duke and
Roger Cramton of Cornell, who have co-authored a statutory proposal to
limit Supreme Court terms, the conference was sponsored by the Program
in Public Law.
Cont'dhttp://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/04/Supreme.html
Beyond politics: Why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life
By Roger Cossack
Law Center Contributing Editorhttp://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/
" The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He, of
all men, should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the
universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we
presently imagine we own."
  --- H.G. Wells
  Outline of History
Let us prey
Former football star Byron "Whizzer" White and Arthur Goldberg.

Loading...