jadewahoo wrote: 
Quite frankly, I am thrilled with this ruling for the reasons you stated above.  Its right for the right reasons.  And it also reinforces State's Rights and the 10th as well.

I admit to the cheap shot on the left, but the silence over this ruling everywhere has had me a bit mystified, and as we know that doesn't take too much to accomplish. 

 jadewahoo wrote: 
Well said

 kurtster wrote:Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time.

 kurtster wrote: 
Well, good! Businesses should be punished for hiring illegals. They send buses to the border and cart them in and make slaves out of them.

How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? 

The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration.  In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. 

Where is the celebration ?  The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. 

The silence is deafening ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill.

 romeotuma wrote: 
No  just speaking for myself.

Is there a reason you are sounding confrontational about this?  Or am I misinterpreting?

 romeotuma wrote: 
All good points but none that could be discerned from your original post.

 romeotuma wrote:
Um, yeah...in 1918, reversed in 1941. Did you have a point or something?

 hippie wrote: 

 kurtster wrote:  

Although the most recusals in a first term would apply to a Solicitor General, the principle would spread further than that — for instance, folk considered and/or nominated by Geoerge W. Bush had been serving in his administration in legal capacities that likely would have required them to recuse themselves from numerous cases in first term (Former AG Gonzalez, former President's counsel Meiers).

There also have been a lot of Justices who ascended from the Circuit Courts of Appeals, most notably from the D.C. Circuit, from which Chief Justice Roberts came.  As a result, these newly minted Justices have to recuse themselves from cases decided by them in that capacity.  I doubt that anyone wants to exclude Circuit Court judges from serving on the Supreme Court unless they first resign from the bench and do somethng else for a few years.    

Less problematic, but still a source of recusals would be an academic (e.g., law professor) who has opined definitively on an issue before the court.          

So, a slippery slope . . .

 kurtster wrote: 

Anyone know if she plays golf?

Hey look over there, a squirrel.

 steeler wrote: 
Yes.

It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate.  She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.

 melissab wrote: 

Horny.

 kurtster wrote: 

This is primarily due to the fact she served as Solicitor General.  Can't argue the cases (even if you did not physically appear before the Court in each of them) and decide them. 

Are you arguing that a recent Solicitor General should be disqualified from consideration until enough time has passed to eliminate recusals?

  

  

 hippiechick wrote: 
As evidently, do you.

 hippie wrote: 
Hiya sweetie, how you?

 hippiechick wrote: 

Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get.

 kurtster wrote:  I don't know how they're suggesting the Justice pro tem would be appointed. Maybe on a rotating schedule. If they had to go through Congressional approval, there'd be gridlock. Well, even MORE gridlock.

 kurtster wrote: 
I see you have been watching Fox again

 cc_rider wrote: 
Who appoints the temporary Justice ?  That could lead to whomever is in charge finding the right one to support the ruling desired.  That is not good.  It would cast to much doubt on the integrity on decisions.

We elect ours here in Ohio as well, BTW.  I know one of ours personally.  Hope I never get in a situation where I have to look at him from across the bench.