CSNbbs

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/a...eme-court/

An interesting possibility. Clarence Thomas would have adequate company on the bench for the first time ever.

I was thinking Judge Judy would be more in line with Trump.

(03-04-2016 12:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking Judge Judy would be more in line with Trump.

Nah....

If he promised that...I might just vote for him in Nov.

Love the choice of Napolitano.
Knowing he said that might get me to switch my vote too.
Determining the composition of the SCOTUS will likely be the most important and lasting job that the next president will undertake as so many justices are aged.

If he set this as a promise -- including in that promise that he'd fight for his approval in the nomination process -- I would consider not voting Libertarian for President the first time ever. That's how much I respect *THE* Judge, Andrew Napolitano.

Obama should appoint Napolitano. And then watch republicans backtrack. Given that his libertarian views give him a fairly liberal position on a lot of social issues, it's not the furthest possible reach for Obama.

(03-04-2016 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama should appoint Napolitano. And then watch republicans backtrack. Given that his libertarian views give him a fairly liberal position on a lot of social issues, it's not the furthest possible reach for Obama.

But are Republicans smart enough to realize that "judicial restraint" is the thing that got ObamaCare jammed down their throats by a George W. Bush appointee? The GOP love of judicial restraint has been a dead end for some time. They need to pick up the libertarian banner of original intent judicial activism where the Articles of Enumeration are a cruel mistress that send countless pieces of federal legislation to the dust bin of history as "Unconstitutional".

What's his resume on the bench?

(03-04-2016 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]What's his resume on the bench?

Judge Napolitano would like appointing a seat of the SCOTUS to the CATO Institute. He is STRICT Constitutionalist, and he doesn't care what sacred legislation has to go if it does not have explicit authority in the Constitution. He'd say, correctly, "You'd need an amendment for that."

Judge Naplitano might as well be the Ron Paul of the Judicial Branch.

(03-04-2016 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama should appoint Napolitano. And then watch republicans backtrack. Given that his libertarian views give him a fairly liberal position on a lot of social issues, it's not the furthest possible reach for Obama.

LOL... yeah, like that would really happen? Obama doesn't want a libertarian or a constitutionalist... he wants a left-leaning activist.

I'd say that it wouldn't matter who appointed Napolitano (if anyone did), that would definitely be a "YES' vote for me if it was a guaranteed appointment, and I'd do everything I could to vote out anyone who opposed his appointment.

(03-04-2016 02:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2016 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]What's his resume on the bench?

Judge Napolitano would like appointing a seat of the SCOTUS to the CATO Institute. He is STRICT Constitutionalist, and he doesn't care what sacred legislation has to go if it does not have explicit authority in the Constitution. He'd say, correctly, "You'd need an amendment for that."

Judge Naplitano might as well be the Ron Paul of the Judicial Branch.

I was more after what benches he's served on.

(03-04-2016 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]I was more after what benches he's served on.

Quote:Napolitano was born in Newark, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Notre Dame Law School. He was admitted to the New Jersey State Bar Association in 1975.[3] After law school, Napolitano entered private practice as a litigator. Napolitano first taught law for a brief period in 1980–1981 at Delaware Law School (then-Widener). Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state's youngest then-sitting Superior Court judge.

As a judge, Napolitano issued several notable decisions. In State v. Barcia, Napolitano found that random DWI roadblock checkpoints were unconstitutional under both the Federal and New Jersey state constitutions, and sustained a motion to suppress drug and drug paraphernalia evidence found at such a stop.[4] In the case In re K.L.F., Napolitano found that New Jersey’s Frivolous Pleading Statute could be applied against the state as well as private litigants whose claims were frivolous.[5] In Cusseaux v. Pickett, Napolitano decided that a woman who was abused and mistreated by her husband has a civil cause of action against her abuser for the resulting battered woman syndrome.[6]

He resigned his judgeship in 1995 for private practice. He later pursued a writing, teaching, and television career. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years from 1989–2000. Napolitano is a distinguished visiting professor at Brooklyn Law School where he teaches courses on advanced and introductory constitutional law and jurisprudence, and has begun a renewed endeavor to developing his natural law jurisprudence.

Recent activity has been politics with a heavy constitutional slant:

Quote:From 2006 to 2010, Napolitano co-hosted a talk radio show on Fox News Radio with Brian Kilmeade titled Brian and the Judge. Napolitano hosted a libertarian talk show called Freedom Watch that aired daily, with new episodes on weekdays, on Fox Business Channel. Frequent guests on Freedom Watch were Congressman Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. Napolitano has promoted the works of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises on his program. The show originally aired once a week, every Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. on Fox News' Strategy Room.

On September 14, 2009, it became a show that aired three to four times a week. On June 12, 2010, it debuted as a weekly show on Fox Business. The show was one of several programs dropped in February 2012, when FBN revamped its entire primetime lineup.[7]

Thanks. Would he even be interested? And FTR, I actually like him...he seems like a straight shooter...at least on the talk shows I've seen him on.

(03-04-2016 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. Would he even be interested? And FTR, I actually like him...he seems like a straight shooter...at least on the talk shows I've seen him on.

He's a regular guest on our St.Louis Wednesday AM talk show.. and the host asked him if he'd be interested..

He didn't deny it, but he did say "Let's wait to see who gets elected".

(03-04-2016 02:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]As a judge, Napolitano issued several notable decisions. In State v. Barcia, Napolitano found that random DWI roadblock checkpoints were unconstitutional under both the Federal and New Jersey state constitutions, and sustained a motion to suppress drug and drug paraphernalia evidence found at such a stop.[4] In the case In re K.L.F., Napolitano found that New Jersey’s Frivolous Pleading Statute could be applied against the state as well as private litigants whose claims were frivolous.[5] In Cusseaux v. Pickett, Napolitano decided that a woman who was abused and mistreated by her husband has a civil cause of action against her abuser for the resulting battered woman syndrome.[6]

Home runs. Every last single decision.

Would be a great choice. Not nearly enough to get me to vote for Trump but would be nice nonetheless.

Everyone with a law degree dreams of nomination to the SCOTUS so I'm pretty sure Napolitano would be interested.
It's the equivalent of the Superbowl, World Series or Olympics for lawyers.

(03-04-2016 02:47 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2016 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. Would he even be interested? And FTR, I actually like him...he seems like a straight shooter...at least on the talk shows I've seen him on.

He's a regular guest on our St.Louis Wednesday AM talk show.. and the host asked him if he'd be interested..

He didn't deny it, but he did say "Let's wait to see who gets elected".

Well, if he actually said that, that just disqualified him in my book.

(03-04-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2016 02:47 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-04-2016 02:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. Would he even be interested? And FTR, I actually like him...he seems like a straight shooter...at least on the talk shows I've seen him on.

He's a regular guest on our St.Louis Wednesday AM talk show.. and the host asked him if he'd be interested..

He didn't deny it, but he did say "Let's wait to see who gets elected".

Well, if he actually said that, that just disqualified him in my book.

Why?