|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Loretta Lynch will be very controversial. She has given the right some fodder since becoming AG.
ThinkProgress has a good article on it.
quote:Loretta Lynch As Scalia's Replacement? | Crooks and Liars Oh is that an ad?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Some of the latest scuttlebutt involves Republican Nevada Gov. Brian
White House, GOP Lock Horns on Supreme Court Nomination - WSJ by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh is that an ad? No, if it was an ad it would look like this:
quote: Do you not know what click-bait is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Democrat Harry Reid backs Republican for Supreme Court | CNN Politics
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Now, this one would be interesting. Sandoval is not a teabagger and is more liberal on social issues than a lot of Dems, too.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Supreme Court: Here's who should replace Antonin Scalia | CNN
quote: The article goes on to say that opposing Posner would be very difficult because of his tremendous statute, that it would avoid the need to point an apparent moderate who might later out philosophically the opposite of what the President intended (as did Souter and Brennan) and that Posner is too old to stay on the Court for a long period of time if there is some regret. Interesting analysis. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Interesting, I like the idea of an "elder statesman" tradition for picking a SC judge -- if it would catch on.
... an apparent moderate who might later out philosophically the opposite of what the President intended (as did Souter and Brennan) ... You mean there is hope for Roberts? IIRC several judges became increasingly liberal over time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I'd like to see someone on the court who has a demonstrated record of putting jurisprudence, consistency and practical considerations above political philosophy, but I'd settle for someone who just wasn't crazy. There must be some really crazy judges in the lower courts that considered the Texas case just now coming before the Supreme Court, and this New York Times editorial lays out the basic details pretty well: Showdown on Abortion at the Supreme Court. I'll attempt to summarize.
The Texas law states as its goal the protection of women's health. To that end the law requires that abortion clinics meet all the standards of outpatient surgical centers and that their doctors have local hospital admitting privileges. The legal wrangle involves whether these requirements are necessary for women's health or if they're instead designed to set a standard too high for most abortion clinics to meet. Evidence that the law's goal isn't as stated, to protect women's health, is that clinics in Texas that perform procedures with a far higher complication rate than abortion are not bound by any similar requirements, and that abortion clinics across the state are closing down, making legal and safe abortions less available or even unattainable. In 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Supreme court ruled against restrictions that impose an "undue burden" on women, including "unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion." It also said that abortion laws "must be calculated to inform the woman’s free choice, not hinder it." Still, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court approved the Texas law, ruling that "any conceivable rationale" was sufficient justification regardless of any effect on a "woman's free choice" or any burden. There must be some real crazies sitting on that court. Before Scalia's death the Supreme Court would have upheld the Fifth Circuit ruling, and the 4-4 tie that seems likely now would have the same result by leaving the Fifth Circuit ruling in place. But a 5-3 outcome isn't impossible if Kennedy switches sides. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Justice Kennedy can expect a lot of mail ... from both sides.
Yikesby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ruling that "any conceivable rationale" was sufficient justification regardless of any effect on a "woman's free choice" or any burden. There must be some real crazies sitting on that court. ... Evidence that the law's goal isn't as stated...
Not quite "real crazies". Just some motivated judges opinion on what they believe the standard of review is. What they have stated is essentially the rationale basis test which is the test to be applied when the right at issue is less protected that are fundamental rights such as first amendment rights. The courts have always balanced a states rights vs individual rights as part of the analysis with respect to abortion. For non fundamental rights, the rational basis test is the correct test, and the court often accepts reasons that are quite obviously pretexts. About the only reasoning that won't survive a rational basis test is one that is clearly either illegal or irrational. (For example maintaining racial purity was a clearly illegal rationale) Truth is a secondary issue here (if rational basis is the standard). The problems here are that 1) the judges in the circuit court clearly applied the wrong standard and 2) a measure that effectively prevents abortions in huge portions of the state the size of Texas, and this measure clearly does exactly that, most likely won't be upheld at the Supreme Court, so the measure probably won't base any kind of enhanced scrutiny. I believe you pretty much nailed the issue in the remainder of your post. In summary, the right in question here may fall short of fundamental, but the Supreme Court has already said that 'rational basis' is not the right standard. Maybe something like intermediate scrutiny is applicable.
But a 5-3 outcome isn't impossible if Kennedy switches sides. I think this is the most likely outcome. ABE: I should have said I think this is a likely outcome. Not clear if it is the most likely outcome. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
. But a 5-3 outcome isn't impossible if Kennedy switches sides When you say "switch sides", you are aware that Kennedy wrote the opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, right? I know we talk about liberal vs. conservative, but Kennedy's position is a bit more nuanced that is, say Thomas' position on abortion. Kennedy agreed that the state had an interest that supported some restrictions, but that those restrictions could not substantially burden a 'fundamental right to chose'. Perhaps switching sides in this case would mean joining the other three conservatives. Also, let's not forget that the Fifth Circuit is probably the most conservative of all of the federal circuit courts. 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
|
The worst that can happen here is that a 4-4 tie leaves the decision intact for the fifth circuit only. No other circuit would be bound by the Supreme Court decision if the vote is tied.
Another possible outcome is that if there is a tie, the Justices won't decide the case until a new Justice is appointed. In fact, that's a fairly likely outcome. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: When you say "switch sides", you are aware that Kennedy wrote the opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, right? At the time I only knew what was in the editorial, which said Kennedy co-wrote the opinion.
I know we talk about liberal vs. conservative, but Kennedy's position is a bit more nuanced than is, say Thomas' position on abortion. Kennedy agreed that the state had an interest that supported some restrictions, but that those restrictions could not substantially burden a 'fundamental right to chose'. Perhaps switching sides in this case would mean joining the other three conservatives. Looking this up now, Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld regulations that had been challenged under Roe. It was viewed as an opportunity to overturn Roe, but it reaffirmed Roe, despite that it upheld 4 of the 5 regulations challenged. This is too confusing for me to parse and I'm not going to try to dissect it. All I meant about changing sides is that a 4-4 vote could become 5-3 if Kennedy doesn't vote with the conservative side of the court. The editorial excerpted statements from the Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion he co-wrote that they suggested he might want to keep in mind as he thinks about the Texas case:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
This is too confusing for me to parse and I'm not going to try to dissect it. It is a rather complicated thing to unravel. None of the opinions in this case were fully adopted by all of the members of the majority. To add some pessimism about what Kennedy might do, since Casey, Kennedy has seldom seen a restriction that he did not think was okay. I think he is something like 20 for 21 in upholding new restrictions. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1129 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
Here is an interesting time line.
Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat Has Been Vacant For More Than 400 Days - The New York Times According to data compiled by NY Times, the Senate has done something, even if it's just a filibuster, when a nomination has occurred during an election year. George Washington nominated and had approved two new justices to court during his last year in office. Even John Tyler, constantly opposed by the Senate during his tenure, was able to get multiple candidates voted on (admittedly rejected). At least that Senate would make a stand on something. According to Wikipedia, Tyler actually nominated and had confirmed a Justice with less than a month left in his term. This happened in February - AFTER the election. Andrew Jackson nominated a Justice on his LAST FULL DAY IN OFFICE and that Justice was approved. Another post-election nomination was by Martin Van BurenWikipedia Van Buren nominated Daniel during his last week as president, and Daniel was appointed as a Justice before his predecessor was even buried. Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison both successfully nominated a Justice after the election. If the Senate needs a precedent to do their job, here's a few. Geez, at least vote the nomination down.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024