|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Here is a list of Supreme Court Justices confirmed in an election year.
1. Oliver Ellsworth, 17962. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: I read the eulogy and I note the fairly faint praise. Example:
quote: That passage from the NYT was preceded by this beginning about how influential a figure he was:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
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 problemRead 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024