US Election and Supreme Court

[geoschmo]

Jack Simth said:
Randallw: The Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President, but the appointments are subject to approval by the Senate (perhaps Congress as well, I'm not certain on the specifics).

Yes, Congress has the duty to confirm or not the justices that the President nominates. However, Congress is not in session right now. The president can appoint a temporary justice in what's called a "recess appointment". Once Congress convenes they would go through the confirmation process, but in the mean time he'd sit on the bench and his decisions would be binding just like he'd already been confirmed.

This would be a galactically stupid idea. Agree or not, everyone must admit that a sizeable portion of the US population does not view the current administration as legitimate. Having a temporary appointed judge pass down a binding decision in favor of the incumbant is quite possibly the only thing that could happen that would be worse then what we went through in 2000.

There has been rumbling from the Supreme Court that they will not be accepting any cases this time around. So if there is another disputed election it will probably be decided in whatever state supreme court where it happens. If it does go to Washington, Reinquist will be wheeled in strapped to a hospital bed if neccesary.

[Will]

geoschmo said:
If it does go to Washington, Reinquist will be wheeled in strapped to a hospital bed if neccesary.

More likely, they will simply refuse to hear the case. Which would mean the lower court's (State Supreme Court's) decision would stand and there would be no further Federal precident. I'm pretty sure most of the Justices still have a bad taste in their mouths after the 2000 decision, and they want no part of Round 2 in 2004. And I'm sure most of the US District Courts don't want any part of it either. And come to mention it, probably most of the State Supreme Courts...

Here's to hoping only legitimate lawsuits (eg. "observers" openly hassling voters) get heard, and lets hope there aren't even any of those.

Oh, and by the way, US people... go vote

Everyone else... if you can make it to Florida, you try too.

[Atrocities]

I have read that both parties expect law suites over this election. What has our great system of government come to?

[Phoenix-D]

Atrocities said:
I have read that both parties expect law suites over this election. What has our great system of government come to?

Roughly the same as its always been, actually. At least we don't have politicans killing each other off in duels any more.

[Will]

Phoenix-D said:

Roughly the same as its always been, actually. At least we don't have politicans killing each other off in duels any more.

What makes you think that's a good thing?

[Roanon]

Will said:What makes you think that's a good thing?

Exactly what I thought instantly when reading this

[dogscoff]

Atrocities said:
I have read that both parties expect law suites over this election. What has our great system of government come to?

I'm currently (re)reading "Against a Dark Background" by ain M Banks. It concerns (among other things) the world of Golter, where all government has either broken down or proved inneffectual and a "World Court" has stepped in to take the reins. Lawyers running the entire planet...

Everyone go out and read this book. It's great.

Personally, I'm just glad I'll be able to watch the news soon without watching Bush & Kerry on their "campaign trails". I wish they'd just get it over with, we all know Bush is going stay president, whether he wins or not.

[rdouglass]

I read recently that it may not be just Rhenquist but at least 2 others stand a very good chance of 'stepping down' within the next 4 years. That's a potential 1/3 of the whole Supreme Court being replaced in the next presidential term. That IMO is the biggest thing the next Prez will be involved with. So much so that it is highly influencing my vote.