<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sorry Arlen, But You Can&#8217;t Return Supreme Court Justices</title>
	<link>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/27/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Pierce</title>
		<link>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/27/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/#comment-224</link>
		<author>Jeremy Pierce</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/27/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/#comment-224</guid>
		<description>I was under the impression that this wasn't supposed to have any effect on the current makeup of the Supreme Court but rather, consistent with Senator Schumer's recent posturings, was supposed to have an impact on future hearings. I'm sure Specter isn't going to go as far as Schumer, who seems to want to vote no on any nominee who won't be forthcoming about how to vote in potential cases not yet heard, but given the timing it's got to be along similar lines about how hearings will be conducted in the future and how easily senators should confirm presidential nominees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was under the impression that this wasn&#8217;t supposed to have any effect on the current makeup of the Supreme Court but rather, consistent with Senator Schumer&#8217;s recent posturings, was supposed to have an impact on future hearings. I&#8217;m sure Specter isn&#8217;t going to go as far as Schumer, who seems to want to vote no on any nominee who won&#8217;t be forthcoming about how to vote in potential cases not yet heard, but given the timing it&#8217;s got to be along similar lines about how hearings will be conducted in the future and how easily senators should confirm presidential nominees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCOTUSblog</title>
		<link>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/27/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/#comment-214</link>
		<author>SCOTUSblog</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/27/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/#comment-214</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Round-Up...&lt;/strong&gt;

Brent Kendall of the Daily Journal offers this article on Justice Thomas' jurisprudence and his noteworthy opinions this term, highlighting the importance of history for Justice Thomas' decisions. The 9th Circuit is wary of the "repeated efforts" t...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Round-Up&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Brent Kendall of the Daily Journal offers this article on Justice Thomas&#8217; jurisprudence and his noteworthy opinions this term, highlighting the importance of history for Justice Thomas&#8217; decisions. The 9th Circuit is wary of the &#8220;repeated efforts&#8221; t&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
