Granholm mentioned as Ginsburg replacement
Yep, the Democrat Michigan governor is on a short-list of possible replacements for ailing Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Wait until she does to the law what she did to the Michigan economy.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidWeekly Standard
» ‘No Precedent for the Government Ordering Private Companies to Offer a Product for Free’Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not Conservative
I wonder if the Republicans will have the courage to use the Nuclear Option like the democrats did?
Or will John McCain give us another Gang of Fourteen and reach out across the aisle?
Everyone appointed by the ONE will be uber liberal.
And in the rears with the IRS.
ah yes that seat is now 4evermore a female seat. As dims don’t consider Justice Thomas a real black will he have to replaced by a black?
all kidding aside:
how SICK of them to wish her poorly
I think you have that reversed. The so-called “nuclear option” was a tactic threatened by REPUBLICANS to circumvent a Democratic filibuster.
You guys got two shiny new uber conservative (but clearly qualified) Justices. We deserve to get our uber liberal replaced by another.
As the Supreme Court goes, so goes the country. This is another consequence of elections. Ginsburg is a biased, liberal who should never have been on the bench in the first place. Replacing her with another liberal is not suprising and still keeps the balance the same as it was. Unfortunately, there are conservatives who are probably going to be going soon and will be replaced with loonies. That is truly scary. We no longer have anywhere to go to get fairness in our court system.
Who wishes her ill?
So, what is the total backlog count of judges that the Dems didn’t vote on under Bush?
93 ???
And Prince Harry said how many times that they had agreed to move forward by such-n-such date? And another date and another date and another ……
The Dems apparently planned it well for not voting up or down on the confirmations thinking that they will have the upper hand after Bush is out.
Too bad the GOP can’t think ahead.
.
True. Fortunately, Ginsburg is as uber as you can get. So ANYONE appointed will likely be less uber.
Michelle,
Being a Michigan resident, I am so tempted to say PLEASE TAKE OUR GOVERNOR. . .PLEASE, PLEASE!
Then consider what you mentioned:
Where ever Govenor Granholm winds up working turns out to be a lose-lose propostion.
Still, Michigan’s economy is so – so bad.
Please Michelle, we turn to you for for the wisest course to take!
David
What Craig said. Ginsburg is a former ACLU (ie, Communist Front Group) abortion rights lawyer.
RB-G also believes SCOTUS Justice’s should be influenced by foreign law and foreign case law precedent.
Granholm can’t be worse, the only difference being she should have 4 decades or more on the Court.
Kennedy isn’t perfect, by a long shot, maybe 50/50, but he is currently the swing to keep truly Marxist and anti-constitutional bills passed by the ObaMarxist and Botox Pelosi from becoming law.
He, and Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito, well, praying for their health is praying for the survival of the United States as a constitutional representative (ie, small “r” republican) democracy with some version of a free market economy.
Considering how far left Ginsburg already is, I don’t think they could pick anyone further left of her.
Wonderful – an bona-fide internationalist for an internationalist Court.
Grrrrrrrrrr….Granholm! Just more Obama ‘paying’ all of his supporters.
I wish Ginsburg a quick recovery and return to the bench. I know she is ultra liberal but she is better than Granholm.
I’m afraid those prayers are in vain…we reap what we sow…I think we’ve out of the blessings our forefathers were granted…
On February 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am, chapoutier said:
Mr. Chapoutier is absolutely correct and Jenny Granholm is the perfect choice. She vetoes the ban on Partial Birth Abortion on Friday and then passes out communion wafers on Sunday at St. Mary’s. A true believer. She will be available for accession to the Supreme Court as soon as the last 40 acres are paved over which will transform what was previously known as Michigan into what will now be known as The Parking Lot of the Americas.
No, Chappy, the Nuclear Option WAS the filibuster. The Republicans – led by John McCain – didn’t have the guts to shoot it down.
Just keep this in mind when Obama names a replacement with ACLU ties for any of the judges, should they vacate his/her seat:
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
~Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU
The Republicans need to stand firm on this: if the nominee is not a Constitutional originalist, then they should resist to their utmost. We can’t afford any more political expediency. Fight for principle, period.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the Harriet Miers nomination get derailed for several reasons? I seem to recall that Miers was not a “constitutional scholar” and “never served on the bench” as some of those.
Let’s check Jennifer Granholm’s CV. Gee, those items are missing as well. Oh, but she was Harvard Law. End of search.
Sidebar: I thought Miers was wrong for the position as well.
No Chap, you don’t. Let us hope she does well (the tumor was 1 CM in diameter and was discovered by accident during a follow up on her colon cancer surgery) and she survives until we can get rid of this boil on the ass of society (Obama) and get someone with more than one neuron in his or her head so we can finally have a rational Justice in that seat.
Ginsberg is an embarrassment to human kind. I just hope she lives long enough to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick, and not a minute more.
Chappy, the only thing Liberals deserve is a sound ass kicking for saddling this country with these morons.
You are wrong.
Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.
When do we get Bork back, Bubba?
There is zero chance that either Ginsburg or Stevens stays past Obama’s first term.
Unfortunately the fool in charge will get at least 2 appointments.
You assume he will survive his first term. The way he’s going, pissing people off right and left, and surrounding himself with criminals, there is a strong chance he’ll either be assasinated or impeached.
You’re correct. All the liberals on the court may retire or die in the next four years – to be replaced by raging marxists.
So then Biden appoints them. Feel any better?
I suspect he may die of natural causes given the rumors he is chain smoking and has a propensity for hard liquor. That’s a prescription for stroke. If he is stressing out this badly after his first two weeks in the Oval Office, it does not appear he is stout enough for the job. What did we all say about the Press’ vetting of him? Non-existent. He has no record of accomplishment.
The court appointees nominating process shouldn’t change with every new congress. Obama will and should have his way with new judges unless they can be proven unworthy. An activist court (Positive Law) system is returning and there isn’t anything we can or should do about it. This is the constitutional process, like it or not.
***
How about a contest for the worst possible (from a conservative standpoint) replacement for Ginsburg?
***
Rocketman choices–all equally bad–are:
***
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Cynthia McKinney, Michelle Obama, Shaila Lee Jackson, Governor Blagovitch, Jacques Chirac, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez.
***
Try to top this list for bad. The Senate would probably confirm some of them!
***
John Bibb
***
I thought Ayers was the Justice in waiting, according to RedPill.
Granholm is Canadian-naturalized citizen. Can she be considered for SCOTUS?
FamilyMan,
You are correct in the constitutional process aspect. However, it is quite ironic (and sad) that liberals tend to use only portions of the constitution that work in their favor. The rest is subject to interpretaion and international consensus.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Michigan’s (my home state) economic woes were caused by Granholm. At least in the Detroit area, our entire economy revolves around the Big 3. When they’re doing poorly, everyone is doing poorly.
Recently, Granholm has been making an effort to attract the film industry to Michigan, and she’s used conservative principles (tax cuts) to do so. She’s definitely not an ideologue.
Also, I don’t think the skills required for governing and those for jurisprudence are necessarily related.
On February 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am, heldmyw said:
That’s what I was thinking – wouldn’t Obama be reluctant to make such a nomination, out of fears of it rehashing his own problems with that issue?
I’m sorry to be tedious with this but;
We will have an extreme activist court with Obama as President. There are no other options. What we need is a Supreme Court case that is argued and won using the constitutional fundamentals of Natural law. Until that precedent is established, social and moral conservatism will continue to flounder.
Dohrn’s the lawyer in the family.
Doesn’t matter. There is no constitutional mandate that a Justice be an attorney, or have even attended law school (I looked this up while trying to see if a naturalized citizen could in fact sit on the Court… I could find nothing that said ‘no’).
Obama could nominate the dog catcher to the Court… and there are enough brain-dead numbskulls in the Senate to confirm.
I don’t know why you have to hate on dog-catchers. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
You state this over and over again, but never give any specifics. Could you illuminate what form those fundamentals would take?
Are you kidding me? Obama was probably born in Kenya and he’s the president..Grandolhm being a naturalized citizen – pfft.
So what are Jennifer’s qualifications? She was the AG of our state but I don’t recall that she was ever a judge. I suppose keeping Michigan blue while running it into the ground blaming Bush all along is qualifications enough, do you actually think she’s qualified?? Maybe in the way we supported Harriet Myers…..oops, we didn’t, because she wasn’t qualified, will you use the same standards?
Really, now, why Granholm? I hear Blago is looking for work, now that his gig as an actor ERRRRR talk-show tagalong came to an abrupt end. After all, Granholm is gainfully employed. By putting Blago on the SC, Obamalamadingdong can keep a campaign promise to “save jobs.” Go for it, Barry! You can’t lose!
*out*
Remember, after Robert Bork was slandered by The DWI Killer aka Fat Teddy as a racist (he would bring back segregated lunch counters) and rejected for the Court by a Demonrat Senate for being conservative, forcing Reagan to turn to the obviously less qualified Anthony Kennedy, a Republican Senate gave clear sailing to the ACLU/Marxist RB-G.
Because Republican interpreted the role of the Senate as advise and consent, they didn’t reject a hyper-partisan who had a legal background.
Talk about playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules in a gunfight.
And the Demonrats repaid the courtesy by slowing down the appointment of Bush judges/justices who were qualified simply on ideology.
If the GOP ever gets the Senate back, (may never happen, may have a one party Zimbabwe style US with sham elections dominated by ACORN), I sincerely hope the Republicans learn a lesson.
BTW, I believe the Senate minority can request a full reading of the Porkulus bill before it is voted upon.
If they neither attempt a filibuster or at least delay it and reveal how wasteful it is by requesting a public reading, than the minority leadership are idiots.
Granholm isn’t particularly Liberal. Or particularly Conservative. She is, however, incapable of making a decision.
During Michigan’s year-plus with no clear indication of what sort of business taxes the state would eventually agree upon – a tax limbo which drove hundreds of businesses to either leave the state or simply not locate there to begin with – Granholm was nowhere to be found. She would very occasionally say she was “studying” the problem, then disappear again, while allowing a sharply divided legislature to bat it around and get nowhere for months on end. Heaven forbid that she should show some leadership, take a stand and shove a plan through the legislative logjam.
When the city of Detroit pleaded for the Governor to intervene in the Kilpatrick scandal and use her Constitutional powers to remove him from office, she once again announced that she was “studying” the request – and vanished from sight until a guilty verdict made any decision by her moot – prolonging a crisis which drove an already-battered Detroit even further into the economic tank.
So, would she make a decent Supreme Court Justice? Hard to say. It’s surprising to hear she has any judicial experience – she’s never brought it to bear during her tenure as Governor. But she is not likely to become a firebrand of Liberalism on the Court. Given her behavior as Governor, I would expect to find her avoiding public scrutiny and going along with the majority opinion foisted on her, rather than exhibit any independence of thought or actual leadership.
In short, she would certainly not be a brilliant jurist, by any stretch of the term. She may, however, be one of the less objectionable choices Obama could make for the court, given her penchant for not actually making decisions of any sort and for basically doing what the majority tells her to do.
It would also get her the Hell out of Michigan, which can only be a good thing for that state. Under her tutelage, Michigan has been a national leader – in unemployment and the depth of it’s recession, which preceded the national recession by years and shows no sign of abating anytime soon, thanks – once again – to a complete lack of leadership or even innovative suggestions from the Governor’s office.
Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Please, please take “Cool Cities” Jenny off our hands. What a useless joke she is. The worst part is she’s “Catholic” like Nancy “500 million jobless” Pelosi – which means she doesn’t see anything wrong with being pro-death while receiving Holy Communion.
Ahhh ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Wow I can’t stop laughing. Granholm? GRANHOLM!?! What a joke. I am so glad I got of Michigan when I did.
Going home to visit is always a drepressing experience.
Another good reminder why it is a great thing that Anuzis did not get RNC chair. If he can’t unseat Granholm, who has presided over nothing but failure, then I wouldn’t even dare imagine how he would fare come mid-term elections.
Every liberal mind in this country KNOWS that Granholm (Grimhope)is by far, the BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST in the legal field, and the reason Michigan didn’t excel under her tutelage, was because of all the majority Republican intransigence….and Ted Nugent’s influence!
/sarc off
One main supporter of Natural rights was President Lincoln, who used it as the foundation of his arguments against slavery. Slavery clouded the understanding of Natural Rights because it caused people to question what the Founders intended by “We.” The Constitution should have forbade slavery because it was contradictory to Natural Law. President Lincoln believed that the Founders fully understood the rights which all men, including Negroes, were entitled. He stated, during his speech at Springfield, Illinois on June 26, 1857, that “…the Founders meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.” The former statement, which I assert is true, completely contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scot v. Sanford (1857) in which the Court ruled that the black man is not entitled to rights because he was not included in the Declaration of Independence. This is clearly judicial m isinterpretation of the principles of Natural Law as well as the philosophic foundations of the United States.
We’re glad we got out of Michigan too!
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution covers this topic. As far as I can tell, there are no age or citizenship prerequisites for the job.
She most certainly is a typical liberal ideologue with down the line support for the unions that have killed our state, whether auto workers or teachers.
She is unwilling attract business to the area by cutting corporate taxes – the single-business tax was abolished over her strong objections – preferring to use tax rebates and abatements for specific concerns like Google or flashy movie productions. She’s using my tax dollars to subsidize George Clooney coming to town to make a movie. The idea of cutting taxes to get industrial manufacturers to locate in the state to make PERMANENT jobs never crosses her mind because it’s anathema to her liberal genetics.
As for her Canadian origins; some Supremes have a preference to looking to foreign laws to base their judgments, so why not have a real foreigner bring their views to the table? It’s not as if they’re looking at the US Constitution as meaning anything anymore. She’ll vote for socialized health care because that’s what they have in her homeland. If Congress can’t get it done, Jenny G and four other Supremes can. Take that, Diana Ross!
Slightly OT – guess who Ginsburg’s BFF is? Antonin Scalia! That’s right – they and their spouses vacation together, cook dinner together…it’s kind of like Chap and Irish Rose…
Can you believe how bad it has gotten here in Michigan? We have unemployment at 10.6% and growing, are losing population, the auto industries are struggling to survive, and we have granny Stabenow, whose husband of a different name is up on prostitution charges (can you really blame him for looking around) with nothing better to do than trying to revive the Unfairness Doctrine! And good riddance to Granholm, who raised taxes in this climate, spent all kinds of time helping Obama debate, who has no clue about business and who simply dives for the next photo op! Her IQ has to be under 100.
Coincidentally, Ruth’s husband was my tax law professor.
How do you reconcile that with the 5th amendment “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It seems to put limits on private property and is not derived from natural law.
“Syllabus: In this course we will cover the multitude of ways to avoid paying taxes – unless you want to be head of the IRS, haha.”
Time to start checking the taxes of that short list. Wonder how many have “oversights”.
Besides, since Ginsburg was the first Jewish woman on the Court, I would think it’s only fair to replace her with a female Muslim.
First Jeiwsh woman is kind of weak, when just off the top of my head, Brandeis and Frankfurter (more?) got their first and were Jewish, and O’Connor got their first as a woman.
First openly ACLU attorney appointed, I suspect. First to openly state the US Constitution should be interpreted with respect to treaties the US hasn’t signed, and foreign case law.
Per internet, 5 Jewish SCOTUS justices prior to Ginsburg.
And O’Connor beat her to being the first woman.
Just wanted to clarify, and I feel humbled not to have remembered Cardoza and Fortas. Goldberg, who didn’t enjoy the Court and retired after four years on the bench, I never heard of him before.
Just compensation is an exchange of property and not a denial.
If the Constitution demands just compensation for victims of eminent domain, then such victims must receive whatever is actually just, not what the framers thought was just, since the Constitution says to give “just compensation” rather than saying to give “what we consider just compensation.”
“Exchange” is certainly one way to say it. “Coersion” would be another.
Just because they offer up some cash doesn’t mean it wasn’t involuntarily taken.
Jamie Gorelic for Justice of the Supreme Court!
Hey why not? I mean, after all, so far all the messiah has managed is to appoint a boatload of Clinton era criminals. So why not go for the gold and appoint one that will really screw things up?
*Note to self, remind Mrs Twofoot to be buying ammo everytime she is out and about.
But does the natural law allow for the government to force exchanges of property?
Just compensation is an exchange of property and not a denial.
Not if you don’t want what they are offering. That is not an exchange in any meaningful sense.
It’s a forced exchange. Are forced exchanges part of the natural law?
If it was truly an exchange, there would be no need for the government to take it – they would just exchange it on the market.
slightly OT – I just read this:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to make his first trip to the presidential retreat at Camp David this weekend.
After 2 weeks the child needs a break..somebody helps us! He is all show and no go!
Wonder if she will have an 11th hour IRS Check sent in for something she owes. Lord Knows Obama’s track record on appointments has had that one tax evasion/cheat issue as a consistent thing lately.
A-freakin’-men
Naa, she’s paid her taxes which is why she’ll never get the nod!!!
I do not wish harm to her, but if Ginsberg must be replaced, imagine the difference if her replaclement were nominated by McCain or Huckabee, instead of Obama (who was 1 of only 21 Senators who voted against both Roberts and Alito).
This election was really about control of the Surpreme Court, but the Democratic Socialists did an effective job of making the election be about the enonomy.
From the standpoint of natural law, private property has never been considered an absolute right. The goods of the earth are supposed to serve human beings. Since the preservation of human life is always more important than things, there are instances where property rights must yield to other principles.
I’m 6 foot 5 inches and 230 pounds. Your 5 foot 8 inches and 180 pounds. We’re walking on the sidewalk and heading toward a collision. It would be prudent for you to yield to me because of the Natural Law of survival. If you step aside I will compensate you for your effort with a nod of my head. If you don’t step aside and we have a confrontation, than the sovereignty will decide the outcome under the constitution.
Mr obama: As a MI citizen who loves our state, please take this clueless b*tch, who has absolutely ruined our state, to Washington. She will fit right into your marxist regime.
Sincerely,
But the 5th amendment does not require that the property be taken to preserve human life. It merely requires that it be for “public use.” Is that part of natural law?
Public use is just what it sounds like. Roads, parks, government buildings, pretty much anything that falls under general welfare. That means it benefits everyone because everyone can use it. That doesn’t mean everyone will; it means everyone can. And it doesn’t mean a private business.
So, if your house is in the direct path of a proposed road (and there is no way to re-route the road) then you are required to give up your property if the government demands it. However, you will be “justly compensated” for it; that is, whatever you could have sold it for.
The Kelo decision flies in the face of this. So, like Juilliard v. Greenman, the Supreme Court is not above making a decision that will have negative effects on every citizen forever.
Now we’re going to get two young wackadoodle socialists to replace the two old wackadoole socialists on the court.
I used to know that my children had a future that included freedom. With the B.O. as president, I just hope the misery they have to suffer will be tolerable until their children can rid this country of socialism.