<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sorry Arlen, But You Can&#8217;t Return Supreme Court Justices</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:29:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Pierce</title>
		<link>http://dailywrit.com/2007/07/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Pierce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">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&#039;t supposed to have any effect on the current makeup of the Supreme Court but rather, consistent with Senator Schumer&#039;s recent posturings, was supposed to have an impact on future hearings. I&#039;m sure Specter isn&#039;t going to go as far as Schumer, who seems to want to vote no on any nominee who won&#039;t be forthcoming about how to vote in potential cases not yet heard, but given the timing it&#039;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/sorry-arlen-but-you-cant-return-supreme-court-justices/comment-page-1/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>SCOTUSblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">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&#039; jurisprudence and his noteworthy opinions this term, highlighting the importance of history for Justice Thomas&#039; decisions. The 9th Circuit is wary of the &quot;repeated efforts&quot; 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>
  
