Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 122 (778011)
02-14-2016 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss
02-14-2016 1:18 PM


I'm sure that the candidates would love to use "picking Scalia's replacement" as a get out the vote strategy. I cringe when I think of Cruz replacing one of the current less conservative Justices. I assume that tea baggers are just as much in a frenzy over the possibility of Obama, Clinton, or Bernie picking Scalia's replacement.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 02-14-2016 1:18 PM ramoss has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 122 (778012)
02-14-2016 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Diomedes
02-14-2016 12:11 AM


Here is a list of Supreme Court Justices confirmed in an election year.
1. Oliver Ellsworth, 1796
2. Samuel Chase, 1796
3. William Johnson, 1804
4. Philip Barbour, 1836
5. Roger Taney, 1836
6. Melville Fuller, 1888
7. Lucius Lamar, 1888
8. George Shiras, 1892
9. Mahlon Pitney, 1912
10. John Clarke, 1916
11. Louis Brandeis, 1916
12. Benjamin Cardozo, 1932
13. Frank Murphy, 1940
14. Anthony Kennedy, 1988
Source
Note that this list includes Frank Murphy, nominated and confirmed in 1940, only 76 years ago. Note also that there were two nominated and confirmed in 1796 by a Senate that included at least two members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our current Constitution. If they thought this was a problem, presumably they would have spoken up.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Diomedes, posted 02-14-2016 12:11 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 122 (778013)
02-14-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
02-14-2016 1:33 PM


NoNukes writes:
I read the eulogy and I note the fairly faint praise. Example:
quote:
By the time he wrote his most important majority opinion, finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, even the dissenters were engaged in trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution, the approach he had championed.
That passage from the NYT was preceded by this beginning about how influential a figure he was:
quote:
All of these views took shape in dissents. Over time, they came to influence and in many cases dominate the debate at the Supreme Court, in lower courts, among lawyers and in the legal academy.
My interpretation of the two passages together? So influential were Scalia's conservative arguments over his career that by the time of DC v Heller even dissenters were applying some of his philosophies, such as original intent.
That was primarily because in DC v Helller Scalia departed from original meaning and relied on history in pretty much the same way he had bashed others for doing.
Yes, I recall, I was one of those at the time bashing Scalia for being a hypocrite, but I don't think an indirect reference to DC v Heller turns the respectful passage into "faint praise."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2016 1:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2016 7:31 PM Percy has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 122 (778014)
02-14-2016 2:23 PM


So many lists and numbers and all for naught. These things may have meant something in the past when the Senate was populated by statesmen who saw their duty to do the best for the nation and get an appointment set for the court's coming term. That hasn't been the case for more than 20 years +.
The Senate is populated by partisan warriors out to obstruct the other party, especially when it occupies the White House.
To the Republicans in the Senate, their view of what is best for the nation is to bet on the come, hold any nomination in abeyance, and hope they can get a Scalia junior on the bench next year. That leaves a court of 8 justices with a decidedly liberal lean but, with the right person in the White House, that can be rectified by early February 2017 before most of the major cases come up for argument.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 122 (778015)
02-14-2016 2:24 PM


The Republican Dilemma
In last night's debate Trump's proposed strategy for giving the Supreme Court appointment to the next president was "Stall, stall, stall." If they take that strategy they'll be walking a fine line. They only have to stall until the November presidential election, but to avoid hurting their chances they need substantive reasons, not contrived ones. If their actions are seen as thumbing their noses at the Constitution to better their own political causes then it could hurt them at the ballot box.
The outcome of the presidential election could be determined by who Obama nominates. If he nominates someone with too strong a liberal record then Republican target practice could be effectively disguised as well principled opposition. But if the nominee is well balanced then Republican opposition and delay would look like political posturing.
Concerning whether the Republicans will be successful in blocking Obama from replacing Scalia, the New York Times notes that "few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year": How Long Does It Take to Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 02-14-2016 2:51 PM Percy has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 21 of 122 (778018)
02-14-2016 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
02-14-2016 2:24 PM


Re: The Republican Dilemma
The name that a lot of people are floating is Sri Srinivasan He was confirmed to the U.S.C.A. for D.C. just under 3 years ago by a 97-0 vote.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 02-14-2016 2:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 02-14-2016 3:13 PM subbie has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 122 (778019)
02-14-2016 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by subbie
02-14-2016 2:51 PM


Re: The Republican Dilemma
I wonder what the confirmation vote for Bork's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court was back in 1982? Reagan nominated Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, but the Senate declined to confirm.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 02-14-2016 2:51 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 02-14-2016 5:25 PM Percy has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 23 of 122 (778022)
02-14-2016 4:51 PM


It's interesting to note the differences in the system in the UK, from that in the US. I'd be willing to bet a reasonable amount of money that not even 1% of the U.K. Population could even name one of our Supreme Court judges - much less have the remotest clue as to how conservative or otherwise their judgments have been.
That's not to say that the role of the judiciary is marginalised, or taken for granted - just that it is (pretty much completely) separated from politics. As a result, pretty dull for the media to report on the judges themselves, usually.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2016 6:26 PM vimesey has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 24 of 122 (778026)
02-14-2016 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
02-14-2016 3:13 PM


Re: The Republican Dilemma
According to this article, Bork was unanimously confirmed to the U.S.C.A. for D.C. by a voice vote; nobody even asked for a roll call vote.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 02-14-2016 3:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-15-2016 6:28 AM subbie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 122 (778028)
02-14-2016 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by vimesey
02-14-2016 4:51 PM


That's not to say that the role of the judiciary is marginalised, or taken for granted - just that it is (pretty much completely) separated from politics.
We've discussed the separation from politics related to the choosing of justices in a previous thread, and I don't want to rehash that discussion, but given the political nature of the cases that are brought before the court, there are bound to be political implications in the choice. Not sure what to make of the fact that people aren't interested in who the judges are.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 02-14-2016 4:51 PM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2016 2:35 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 122 (778030)
02-14-2016 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
02-14-2016 2:05 PM


My interpretation of the two passages together? So influential were Scalia's conservative arguments over his career that by the time of DC v Heller even dissenters were applying some of his philosophies, such as original intent.
I'm not questioning your interpretation. That's certainly what the author of the times said. But if the above passage is among the best things you can say about Scalia, then it is less than a compliment. Of course Justices apply original intent. Scalia did not invent the doctrine. Scalia's uniqueness is in his refusal to use other means, like legislative history in addition to original intent because he wants to avoid a "living constitution". But in this case the other Justices were applying original intent because Scalia would not. In other words, the other Justice's found Scalia's result driven analysis to be hypocritical. The Times spun that episode hypocrisy into some kind of compliment.
In my view, that's faint praise indeed. Surely there are some better moments to praise Scalia for.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 02-14-2016 2:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-14-2016 9:23 PM NoNukes has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 27 of 122 (778034)
02-14-2016 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
02-13-2016 5:39 PM


I Am Not Here to Praise Caesar but to Bury Him
Scalia was an asshole who completely lacked any empathy for women, minorities, the poor, the middle class, any human other than his extremely narrow view of anyone in the slightest deviating from his special relationship with the God in the mirror.
To see these paeans to evil is disturbing to say the least. I hate to imagine how much such phony tears will be shed over Trump, Kissengerm, or Trash Limbaugh for making everyone's life worse.
May they hope Jesus lied, as they do to themselves.
Edited by anglagard, : edit out extraneous words
Edited by anglagard, : lying to oneself is an ongoing problem, not a past tense problem

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 02-13-2016 5:39 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 122 (778035)
02-14-2016 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
02-14-2016 7:31 PM


NoNukes writes:
But if the above passage is among the best things you can say about Scalia, then it is less than a compliment.
Seemed like pretty high praise to me.
Of course Justices apply original intent.
I think what the Times article meant was that even Justices who didn't embrace original intent were forced to take it into consideration: "...even the dissenters were engaged in trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution..."
Scalia did not invent the doctrine.
My use of the term "his philosophies" wasn't meant to imply origination.
The Times spun that episode hypocrisy into some kind of compliment.
You're interpreting it as a backhanded compliment. To me it seemed genuinely complementary about his ability to imbue his ideas with force and power.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2016 7:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2016 1:15 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 122 (778037)
02-14-2016 9:58 PM


What if Obama suggests another woman lawyer who's husband happens to be an ex governor and US President?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2016 10:46 PM jar has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 122 (778038)
02-14-2016 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
02-14-2016 9:58 PM


jar writes:
What if Obama suggests another woman lawyer who's husband happens to be an ex governor and US President?
Only a President Sanders would consider such a notion, and I think Hilary would consider it humiliating.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 02-14-2016 9:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 02-14-2016 10:56 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024