NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193).

I am sorry to see him go, and I am a bit surprised as I assumed Justice Ginsburg would be the first to retire out of the current nine for medical reasons. I am also not looking forward to the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight as the Republican Party might try to re-inject culture-war issues back into the political discourse.

How do you guys feel about the upcoming retirement, and who (or what manner of person) should replace Justice Souter?

The Republican Party doesn't have the power to prevent a nominee based on ideology. If they want to oppose a nominee, they'll have to do it on merit.

The Republican Party doesn't have the power to prevent a nominee based on ideology. If they want to oppose a nominee, they'll have to do it on merit.
And considering that they apparently don't even know what "merit" is anymore...

His announcement is quite surprising, but one can't fault his timing.

I hope.

Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193).I am also not looking forward to the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight as the Republican Party might try to re-inject culture-war issues back into the political discourse.

How do you guys feel about the upcoming retirement, and who (or what manner of person) should replace Justice Souter?

I wouldn't worry much about the Republican Party trying to re-inject the culture war into the mix. To be honest, I don't recall them making a big fuss over Clinton's nominees. The real SCOTUS fights usually happen when there's a Republican President (Reagan, Bush, Bush) and then the acid test begins. After all, the term and practice of, "Borking", began with Teddy Kennedy.

What manner of person should replace him? We probably wouldn't agree on the best qualifications. I would like someone who reads the U.S. Constitution to find reasons for judicial decisions, rather than looking abroad at the laws of other countries. Someone who understands that the "living" aspect of the Constitution is that it can be amended.

The Republican Party doesn't have the power to prevent a nominee based on ideology. If they want to oppose a nominee, they'll have to do it on merit.

No, they don't have the numbers in the Senate to filibuster a nomination anymore, but it does give the Republican Party an issue to focus their energy on. I imagine they will do what they just tried to do to with HHS Secretary Sebelius and attempt to hold up the nomination on wedge issues for some political gain (for example, the Republicans held up Sebelius's nomination over abortion). If it weren't for the pandemic scare, I believe they would have continued delaying Sebelius's appointment as HHS Secretary.

doesnt really affect the balance of the court. Both the justices tend toward the liberal side of the court.

I wouldn't worry much about the Republican Party trying to re-inject the culture war into the mix. To be honest, I don't recall them making a big fuss over Clinton's nominees. The real SCOTUS fights usually happen when there's a Republican President (Reagan, Bush, Bush) and then the acid test begins. After all, the term and practice of, "Borking", began with Teddy Kennedy.

What manner of person should replace him? We probably wouldn't agree on the best qualifications. I would like someone who reads the U.S. Constitution to find reasons for judicial decisions, rather than looking abroad at the laws of other countries. Someone who understands that the "living" aspect of the Constitution is that it can be amended.

Reagan's appointees were voted in 98 to 0 and 97 to 0. Or at least the two still serving

No, they don't have the numbers in the Senate to filibuster a nomination anymore, but it does give the Republican Party an issue to focus their energy on. I imagine they will do what they just tried to do to with HHS Secretary Sebelius and attempt to hold up the nomination on wedge issues for some political gain (for example, the Republicans held up Sebelius's nomination over abortion). If it weren't for the pandemic scare, I believe they would have continued delaying Sebelius's appointment as HHS Secretary.

But did that help their cause or hurt it?

Reagan's appointees were voted in 98 to 0 and 97 to 0. Or at least the two still serving

Yeah, Reagan didn't go very bold. I forget who his first choices were supposed to have been.

To be honest, I don't recall them making a big fuss over Clinton's nominees.


You know why? Because unlike Regan or Bush, Clinton went to the leadership of the opposing party and put all of his potential nominees before them. He would only chose the one the republicans said they could support. That's how you get a nominee in with out much fuss. Republicans couldn't be bothered to do that. Bush in particular thumbed his nose at the democratic leadership and chose whoever he damn well pleased like or lump it. That is how you start a fight.

So, if Obama behaves like Regan and Bush, expect a nasty fight by the republicans. But if he acts like Clinton, there will be few problems.

There wouldn't have been a filibuster even if the republicans had the numbers. Those only tend to come about when the appointment affects balance between conservatives and liberals.

But did that help their cause or hurt it?

I am not sure it did either, except perhaps on the political margins. The HHS nomination process was not covered very thoroughly by the MMS. Once the pandemic scare came up, and news coverage focused on the removal of the pandemic funding in the stimulus bill, the Republicans dropped the issue fairly quickly and the defection of Senator Specter pushed many other stories off the figurative/literal front page.

Interesting. I too thought Ginsburg would bail first.

I wonder if the teabaggers will come out and teabag congress for a con appointment.

Interesting. I too thought Ginsburg would bail first.

I wonder if the teabaggers will come out and teabag congress for a con appointment.

The Constitution says he who holds the tea bag can dismiss SCOTUS appointees.

You know why? Because unlike Regan or Bush, Clinton went to the leadership of the opposing party and put all of his potential nominees before them. He would only chose the one the republicans said they could support. That's how you get a nominee in with out much fuss. Republicans couldn't be bothered to do that. Bush in particular thumbed his nose at the democratic leadership and chose whoever he damn well pleased like or lump it. That is how you start a fight.

So, if Obama behaves like Regan and Bush, expect a nasty fight by the republicans. But if he acts like Clinton, there will be few problems.

That's funny, I could have sworn greed and death was just chiding me about the lack of opposition to Reagan's nominees.

The thing is that prior to the 1980s, a President's pick for a Supreme Court Justice (unless the person had TOTALLY disgraced themself) was practically rubber-stamped by the Senate. In my living memory, which ain't perfect but goes all the way back to LBJ, there weren't many blow-ups over the nominees. Like I said before, the acid tests really began when Bork was nominated.

That's funny, I could have sworn greed and death was just chiding me about the lack of opposition to Reagan's nominees.

The thing is that prior to the 1980s, a President's pick for a Supreme Court Justice (unless the person had TOTALLY disgraced themself) was practically rubber-stamped by the Senate. In my living memory, which ain't perfect but goes all the way back to LBJ, there weren't many blow-ups over the nominees. Like I said before, the acid tests really began when Bork was nominated.

there were no real fights until the republicans took the Senate.
Because the democrats wouldn't need to filibuster a nominee, they could just vote no. Well at least for When republicans appoint.
Also another issue was Roe V wade was not in jeopardy until Bushes appointments.

Yeah, Reagan didn't go very bold. I forget who his first choices were supposed to have been.

I believe O' Connor and Kennedy.

That's funny, I could have sworn greed and death was just chiding me about the lack of opposition to Reagan's nominees.

You mean like Bork? The guy you mentioned in your first post here?

Interesting. I too thought Ginsburg would bail first.

I wonder if the teabaggers will come out and teabag congress for a con appointment.

As a tea party attendee (I understood the humor in the term "teabagger" being that I play Halo.) I do not plan to protest over this. My reason for protest was the massive spending. This does not have to do with it.

doesnt really affect the balance of the court. Both the justices tend toward the liberal side of the court.

True, the balance of power won't change much and I am probably reading too much into such an early story. If the process is handled properly by Obama, it probably won't be dramatic. I have a feeling that the whole thing could snowball into something ugly.

I have a feeling that the whole thing could snowball into something ugly.

I highly doubt it. While some of the conservatives have been re-energized, we are mostly still pretty weak.

The thing is that prior to the 1980s, a President's pick for a Supreme Court Justice (unless the person had TOTALLY disgraced themself) was practically rubber-stamped by the Senate. In my living memory, which ain't perfect but goes all the way back to LBJ, there weren't many blow-ups over the nominees. Like I said before, the acid tests really began when Bork was nominated.

That's because the supreme court wasn't considered particularly important until the latter half of the 20th century. But once it became important, the fights began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_Supreme_Court_candidates

Throughout much of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was considered the least powerful branch of the government, and nominations to that body, although important, were not the source of great political controversy as they are today. Furthermore, Clinton's Supreme Court nominations were the first by a Democratic president since President Lyndon Johnson's controversial and failed nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1968.

Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193).

I am sorry to see him go, and I am a bit surprised as I assumed Justice Ginsburg would be the first to retire out of the current nine for medical reasons. I am also not looking forward to the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight as the Republican Party might try to re-inject culture-war issues back into the political discourse.

That implies that injecting culture-war issues into the political discourse isn't there modus operandi. Hopefully the Democrats will have learned something from earlier in the year and not try to "compromise" with the right-wing wackjobs who will oppose the appointment of a sensible, actually pro-Constitution people.

True, the balance of power won't change much and I am probably reading too much into such an early story. If the process is handled properly by Obama, it probably won't be dramatic. I have a feeling that the whole thing could snowball into something ugly.

Well a president has to talk to the justice committee both majority and minority about his appointment. Not written in the Constitution that way, but if the president doesn't the senate gets a Senate must united attitude and votes down the nominee on protocol. Hasn't happened in a long while because president know to at least talk to the senate.

Obama isn't under much obligation anyways these are liberal justices they should be replaced with liberal justices.

there were no real fights until the republicans took the Senate.
Because the democrats wouldn't need to filibuster a nominee, they could just vote no. Well at least for When republicans appoint.
Also another issue was Roe V wade was not in jeopardy until Bushes appointments.

Roe v Wade? Pardon, but that's just the most visible tip of the conservative versus liberal culture war. Like same-sex marriage. Roe v Wade and the litmus test that accompanied judicial nominees stopped the States from deciding for themselves on what they wanted to do.

There's a lot of differences between the left and the right.

Rather than go over and over about the past, what are the qualities that the next SCJ ought to have.

Can we agree that we'd all like someone with integrity?

Can we agree that we'd all like someone with a deep sense of justice?

Can we agree that SC decisions should be based in U.S. law?

Can we agree that the laws are to be written in the Congress?

These are all that I hope for in a Supreme Court Justice.

you interpretations of the questions is what leads to the issues.

Roe v Wade? Pardon, but that's just the most visible tip of the conservative versus liberal culture war. Like same-sex marriage. Roe v Wade and the litmus test that accompanied judicial nominees stopped the States from deciding for themselves on what they wanted to do.

There's a lot of differences between the left and the right.

Rather than go over and over about the past, what are the qualities that the next SCJ ought to have.

I'll bet you that a lot of conservatives don't see abortion or marriage as conservative vs liberal cultural differences. In fact, I bet there are a lot of conservatives that wish the rest of conservatives would shut the fuck up about them so they can focus on issues that matter to them.

Can we agree that we'd all like someone with integrity? Yep.

Can we agree that we'd all like someone with a deep sense of justice? Yep.

Can we agree that SC decisions should be based in U.S. law? Nope. I want SC decisions based on the US Constitution.

Can we agree that the laws are to be written in the Congress? Yep. ANd it's the Suprece Court's role to affirm or refute the constitutionality of those laws when challenged in court.

These are all that I hope for in a Supreme Court Justice.

I'm looking for someone with the guts to go naked under those robes.

you interpretations of the questions is what leads to the issues.

Well, what do you hope for in a Supreme Court Justice?

I'll bet you that a lot of conservatives don't see abortion or marriage as conservative vs liberal cultural differences. In fact, I bet there are a lot of conservatives that wish the rest of conservatives would shut the fuck up about them so they can focus on issues that matter to them.

Well for me, I honestly don't care if gays get married. Let them. I don't give a fuck. Churches can't be forced to marry them, so it doesn't matter.

Abortion is an important issue for me, as I do believe a fetus is a human being. That being said, if I have to give that up to gain more traditionally conservative ideals (Small government, less restrictions on industry) I will, although begrudingly.

Well for me, I honestly don't care if gays get married. Let them. I don't give a fuck. Churches can't be forced to marry them, so it doesn't matter.

Abortion is an important issue for me, as I do believe a fetus is a human being. That being said, if I have to give that up to gain more traditionally conservative ideals (Small government, less restrictions on industry) I will, although begrudingly.

I suspect that the uneasy partnership between fiscal and social conservatives will get even uneasier as time goes by. That makes me happy. They represent opposing philosophies in my mind.

I suspect that the uneasy partnership between fiscal and social conservatives will get even uneasier as time goes by. That makes me happy. They represent opposing philosophies in my mind.

I see what you mean by that. The fiscal conservative would want more social freedoms as it ties into economic freedoms as well. For example, the drug problem. Fiscally, it would be more conservative to legalize drugs and therefore create a new possiblity for free-market capitalism.

Socially, however, it would be more conservative to keep illegal drugs just that: illegal. I tend to agree with this view more, but it has crossed my mind.

As a fiscal and social conservative, I have thought these issues myself. I believe that it's not necessary social conservatism that is so disliked by those on the left, but the way we present it.

I only wish some of the conservative judges were going to leave during Obama's term(s), as opposed to all liberal ones.

I only wish some of the conservative judges were going to leave during Obama's term(s), as opposed to all liberal ones.
You know what I hope? When Obama figures out who to appoint, he turns out to be as big a disappointment to him, as Souter was to GHWB.

Supreme Court Justice Al Gore! I like the sound of that.

You know what I hope? When Obama figures out who to appoint, he turns out to be as big a disappointment to him, as Souter was to GHWB.

You know what I hope? When Obama figures out who to appoint, he turns out to be as big a disappointment to you as Souter was to you

:)

You know what I hope? When Obama figures out who to appoint, he turns out to be as big a disappointment to you as Souter was to you

:)
That's uncharacteristically vindictive of you. But, I can take it. With the amount of screening that goes on today, we'll certainly get what's intended -- a justice well to the left of Ginsburg.

That's uncharacteristically vindictive of you. But, I can take it.

Hey, I got Clarence Thomas so now it's your turn. :p

I nominate LG!

I only wish some of the conservative judges were going to leave during Obama's term(s), as opposed to all liberal ones.

They generally don't.
If it can be avoided judges avoid leaving until someone who is likely going to pick a replacement judge with similar views as them. Judges plan these things out carefully.

That's uncharacteristically vindictive of you. But, I can take it. With the amount of screening that goes on today, we'll certainly get what's intended -- a justice well to the left of Ginsburg.

Well?

That would balance out Alito as there is nobody to the right of him.

Well?

That would balance out Alito as there is nobody to the right of him.

I find Clarence Thomas and Antonin Gregory Scalia to be more right, due to strict constructionist(of the Constitution) tendencies.

I nominate LG!

A Supreme Court Justice that throws pies, just might be the ticket to ending crime!
:)

I only wish some of the conservative judges were going to leave during Obama's term(s), as opposed to all liberal ones.

Obama could try stacking the court like FDR tried to do. With a 60 seat majority, it could work. Put enough "liberal" justices on the court, and Scalia becomes irrelevant.

Obama could try stacking the court like FDR tried to do. With a 60 seat majority, it could work. Put enough "liberal" justices on the court, and Scalia becomes irrelevant.

It would be just as wrong now as FDR was. Scalia does an important job, keeping the court considering other points of view, and sometimes he's right in his conservatism. A thoroughly stacked court, being non-representative of the American people, would only bring that aspect of government into disrepute.

That's uncharacteristically vindictive of you.
When normally non vindictive, unpolitical people are spiteful towards you, it's a good sign you're a partisan hack.

I nominate LG!

I reluctantly accept. :)

Im hoping we get a Godless Commie Judge, Ive been having fun with them lately :)

It would be just as wrong now as FDR was. Scalia does an important job, keeping the court considering other points of view, and sometimes he's right in his conservatism. A thoroughly stacked court, being non-representative of the American people, would only bring that aspect of government into disrepute.

It may not be the right thing to do, but there is nothing really preventing him from doing it. Assuming he wanted to use his political capital, I don't really see major obstacles in his way. And he would be ensuring the "proper" reading of the constitution for many years to come.

Obama could try stacking the court like FDR tried to do. With a 60 seat majority, it could work. Put enough "liberal" justices on the court, and Scalia becomes irrelevant.

and what happened to to FDR court stacking attempt ?
It was defeated 76 to 20. He couldn't even muster most of his party to support the measure.

FDR was pretty slimy. When he wouldn't stack the court he ordered the treasury secretary to manipulate the economy to make it look worse than it was.*


better source that claim
*source:
McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937 page 56-66

It may not be the right thing to do, but there is nothing really preventing him from doing it. Assuming he wanted to use his political capital, I don't really see major obstacles in his way. And he would be ensuring the "proper" reading of the constitution for many years to come.

Well, there is one thing: the Senate. Much as they may currently like Obama, I'd have to question whether they'd let something like this through for anyone.

First, good riddance to an imposter who was nominated to the SC under false pretenses. Outside of raising taxes, Souter was President Bush 41's biggest mistake.

Second, thank God it wasn't Scalia or Thomas, or even Kennedy. Replacing one extreme liberal with another won't, God willing, change the present power structure to any great extent.

Third, it WILL be another extreme liberal. The Dark Lord has already tipped his hand: he'll come up with another agenda-driven leftie liberal activist judge. Someone who will further his goal of shredding the Constitution, replacing the rule of law with class warfare and imposing a socialist state.

But then, 53% of the voters last November put the gun to the head of this country, and this is just another bullet in the chamber. And, M*A*S*H notwithstanding, suicide is not painless.

First, good riddance to an imposter who was nominated to the SC under false pretenses. Outside of raising taxes, Souter was President Bush 41's biggest mistake.

Second, thank God it wasn't Scalia or Thomas, or even Kennedy. Replacing one extreme liberal with another won't, God willing, change the present power structure to any great extent.

Third, it WILL be another extreme liberal. The Dark Lord has already tipped his hand: he'll come up with another agenda-driven leftie liberal activist judge. Someone who will further his goal of shredding the Constitution, replacing the rule of law with class warfare and imposing a socialist state.

But then, 53% of the voters last November put the gun to the head of this country, and this is just another bullet in the chamber. And, M*A*S*H notwithstanding, suicide is not painless.

Neither are your posts. I think I ruptured something laughing. :p

The Senate did not rubber stamp SC nominees until the 1980's. In fact, the 19th century had more nominees denied than we do now. For most of the 20th century, nominees were rubber stamped, so I am sure that all of our memories make it appear that only nominees starting in the 1980's were "borked." Of course, LBJ's first pick for Chief Justice was also denied ("borked" before there was that term, of course).

Here: "The biggest myth in the discussion of judicial battles is that the judiciary was previously placed on a pedestal. The historical record for Supreme Court nominees belies this argument. In fact, since 1789, 33 of the 148 nominees for the highest court have either been rejected by a vote of the Senate, had the voting on their nomination repeatedly postponed or filibustered into nonexistence or eventually bowed out.
In the 19th century, more than a third of the nominees went down to defeat."

It won't let me post the link I guess. It is the electionlawblog (dot ORG) site.

You know what I hope? When Obama figures out who to appoint, he turns out to be as big a disappointment to him, as Souter was to GHWB.

I hope he appoints a solid jurist, with a head on his shoulders, who doesn't let ideology get in the way of his interpretation of the Constitution. I was actually pleased with how Roberts turned out.

First, good riddance to an imposter who was nominated to the SC under false pretenses. Outside of raising taxes, Souter was President Bush 41's biggest mistake.

Second, thank God it wasn't Scalia or Thomas, or even Kennedy. Replacing one extreme liberal with another won't, God willing, change the present power structure to any great extent.

Third, it WILL be another extreme liberal. The Dark Lord has already tipped his hand: he'll come up with another agenda-driven leftie liberal activist judge. Someone who will further his goal of shredding the Constitution, replacing the rule of law with class warfare and imposing a socialist state.

But then, 53% of the voters last November put the gun to the head of this country, and this is just another bullet in the chamber. And, M*A*S*H notwithstanding, suicide is not painless.
of course it will be an agenda driven liberal. we already have enough agenda driven conservatives on the court.

I find Clarence Thomas and Antonin Gregory Scalia to be more right, due to strict constructionist(of the Constitution) tendencies.

Clarence? That guy does what he is told.

Scalia? The moron actually said No founding ever used the phrase seperation of church and state.

But as to being the right of Alito? Not really. He is the farthest right.

Clarence? That guy does what he is told.

Scalia? The moron actually said No founding ever used the phrase seperation of church and state.

But as to being the right of Alito? Not really. He is the farthest right.

Scalia and Thomas couldn't identify a constructionist if one hit them in the face with a hammer. Almost every opinion written by Scalia involves something to the affect of "I personally don't like this so it shouldn't be allowed.

Clarence? That guy does what he is told.

Scalia? The moron actually said No founding ever used the phrase seperation of church and state.

But as to being the right of Alito? Not really. He is the farthest right.

that's where I disagree, especially when you look at his appeals judge rulings.

Williams v. Price, where there was a voir dire issue that negatively effect a convicted African American. He granted a writ of Haboud corpus to him.
or

C. H. v. Oliva et al. where he held the schools actions of preventing a student from reading from the bible were correct.

or

ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 Where he said the City can not have a display with solely religious symbols.

I like this New Mitanni poster, he has to be in the Top 100 Satirists of the World.