Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

Everybody wants to go back in history to precisely the moment when their tribe was being victimized by the other tribe at their worst, and start their blame narrative from that point. That gets us nowhere.

We now have a nomination process so badly broken that, from here forward, both parties will nominate Supreme Court justices as extreme as their numbers will allow, completely excluding input and buy-in from the other side. That should cause anyone who cares more about their country than their party to despair.

Advise and consent needs to be restored. From where we are now, I can't see the path back to that. Every nominee rammed through this broken system on a partisan vote makes the climb steeper.

I am absolutely in despair over this whole mess. For anyone who enjoys that, party on.

Excellent and depressing point. The whole process is broken and completely politicized. When I was a kid, I always assumed the SC represented the pinnacle of legal achievement for those appointed. I figured they were all the Michael Jordan's of the law--the best, fairest, most thoughtful legal minds the country had to offer. In short, I assumed they were different from politicians, and that their appointment wasn't entirely political, but represented a recognition of their outstanding merit, as those who could be trusted with the burden of serving, until death or retirement, on the highest court in our land.

I don't think that anymore. It was probably never true, but the system now is so broken, it seems clear the court selections are all about one side getting appointments who make legal decisions based on their personal ideology rather than on the law.

[cardboardbox]

it seems clear the court selections are all about one side getting appointments who make legal decisions based on their personal ideology rather than on the law.

when was the last time a SCJ wasnt appointed based on their ideology?

Maybe the states should confirm SCJ's rather than the senate.

[cardboardbox]

#bebest

#imweak

[B-Fly]

Excellent and depressing point. The whole process is broken and completely politicized. When I was a kid, I always assumed the SC represented the pinnacle of legal achievement for those appointed. I figured they were all the Michael Jordan's of the law--the best, fairest, most thoughtful legal minds the country had to offer. In short, I assumed they were different from politicians, and that their appointment wasn't entirely political, but represented a recognition of their outstanding merit, as those who could be trusted with the burden of serving, until death or retirement, on the highest court in our land.

I don't think that anymore. It was probably never true, but the system now is so broken, it seems clear the court selections are all about one side getting appointments who make legal decisions based on their personal ideology rather than on the law.

What's fascinating is how non-partisan the Supreme Court nomination, advice and consent practices were for so long and even so recently in the grand scheme of American history. FDR nominated the conservative Justices Frankfurter and Stone. Eisenhower nominated the liberal Justices Warren and Brennan. Nixon campaigned against the Waren Court's streak of liberal decisions, so the moderate career of Harry Blackmun probably took him by surprise, but neither he nor Powell were extremists. Ford nominated John Paul Stevens. Reagan nominated moderate O'Connor. Then he nominated Scalia, but the Democrats didn't really fight it because he was replacing the conservative Burger.

Things changed quite a bit after Reagan's Bork nomination less than two years later to replace the somewhat moderate Powell. Bork was universally perceived as an extreme right judicial ideologue, and the Democratic Senate just wasn't having it back-to-back with Scalia. Then Douglas Ginsburg got nixed for pot smoking and eventually we got Kennedy. Whether one views that as the first blood in making the nomination process hyper-partisan or whether one views that as the Democratic Senators playing an appropriate advise and consent role to draw a less extreme nominee is subject to reasonable debate, but they didn't give GHWB any real trouble when he nominated the largely unknown Souter to replace the liberal lion Brennan in 1990. Obviously liberals were very pleasantly surprised and conservatives distressed about how that turned out. The Thomas nomination to replace Thurgood Marshall was a complete mess for a lot of reasons and your thoughts on whether the Democrats handled that well or poorly may vary. I'm not sure where I come down on that one. But GHWB was definitely trying to make up for the Souter surprise. Clinton replacing Whizzer White with RBG was obviously a significant ideological shift on the Court, but the Republicans were in the minority and Ginsburg's career was so widely heralded that they couldn't/didn't put up much of a fight. Breyer was considered a moderate pick to replace Blackmun, who had settled in as center-left himself. GWB's replacement of Rehnquist with Roberts was mostly uncontroversial - obviously his replacement of the swing-vote O'Connor with the hard-right Alito caused much more consternation, but the Democratic opposition was mostly show. Obama's picks of Sotomayor for Souter and Kagan for Stevens were just holding serve.

Then came Scalia's death, Obama's nomination of the moderate and relatively old for a legacy-nominee Garland (about as uncontroversial and unobjectionable a nominee as any conservative could have possibly hoped to see from a Democratic president), and then the McConnell-led Senate GOP's outright refusal to consider the nominee. That was just shocking, and it's why so many Democrats are still so steaming mad about Gorsuch and now this vacancy where Trump is in a position to replace the center-right Justice who represents the Democrats'/liberals' only remaining hope for an occasional 5-4 victory or holding of the line against regression/retrenchment of long-recognized rights. Obviously, if Scalia had been replaced by Garland, there wouldn't be remotely the same concern/despair/fear regarding the Kennedy retirement as there is now.

[Hornsby]

Susan Collins indicated that she won't support a SupCo nominee that doesn't support Roe v Wade...

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said on Wednesday that she believes Roe v. Wade is settled legal precedent — and she believes judges should respect precedent.

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law. It’s clearly precedent and I always look for judges who respect precedent," Collins told reporters on Wednesday, referencing the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Her comments come after Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement quickly reignited talk of a possible fight over abortion.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394514-collins-i-look-for-judges-who-respect-precedent?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

But again, we'll see...once someone gets that lifetime appointment, things can change in a hurry.

[B-Fly]

Susan Collins indicated that she won't support a SupCo nominee that doesn't support Roe v Wade....

She might not, but at the same time Joe Manchin or Joe Donnelly might.

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

A day later, I'll try to put my most optimistic spin on this. I don't think Americans want to see the government back in American bedrooms, so I think even if Kennedy is replaced by an extreme-right conservative, the Court would not go so far as to allow states to pass or enforce laws re-criminalizing sodomy, for example, or banning the sale or distribution of contraception. So Lawrence v Texas and Griswold v Connecticut should be largely safe precedent at this point in American history. Obergfell v Hodges, the case requiring all states to allow same-sex marriage, is more at risk, but I am hopeful that the relative peace with which same-sex marriage has been implemented and accepted leaves us in a place where even Roberts and Gorsuch would be loathe to overturn it. It wouldn't surprise me, given the passion evident in Kennedy's Obergfell opinion and his public comments about it subsequently, if Kennedy discussed and sought assurances from Gorsuch, his former clerk, and the Chief Justice, that they would not overturn it. I hope so, at least. I think the narrow ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop will probably now get broader with a rightward Court shift, allowing private individuals/professionals/business owners to refuse goods or services that could be viewed as facilitating or endorsing same-sex marriage, but I don't think the Court (or the American people) will support denying goods or services to homosexuals (married or otherwise) unrelated to the "sacrament" of marriage, e.g., I don't think they'd let a hotel owner refuse a king-bed room to a gay couple. We'll see. As for Roe v. Wade, I dunno. I kind of feel like it's already been rolled back so dramatically over the years that I'd like to hope that the Court would view overturning Roe in its entirety as a step too far. While I certainly expect they'll permit states to pass lots of obstacles, hurdles, red tape and restrictions around abortion (since they've already been doing so), I hope...tenuously, but I hope...that they will not allow states to criminalize or otherwise ban abortion outright, at least not in the first or (dare I hope) second trimester. Poor women seeking abortion services will certainly be screwed out of government funding/support for free or low-cost abortion services, but they pretty much already are. Private charity will need to pick up the slack as the federal and state government try to make the abortion-services business as difficult as possible to sustain.

I disagree

[cardboardbox]

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, do the 5 conservative justices get secret service protection?

[B-Fly]

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, do the 5 conservative justices get secret service protection?

Their security is the responsibility of the Supreme Court Police, who are responsible for securing the Supreme Court building for the safety of Justices, employees and visitors, as well as providing personal protection for Justices around the clock.

[Bernie Brewer]

Their security is the responsibility of the Supreme Court Police, who are responsible for securing the Supreme Court building for the safety of Justices, employees and visitors, as well as providing personal protection for Justices around the clock.

I learned all I needed to about the SCOTUS Police in an outstanding legal manual entitled the Pelican Brief by legal expert John Grisham.

[cardboardbox]

Their security is the responsibility of the Supreme Court Police, who are responsible for securing the Supreme Court building for the safety of Justices, employees and visitors, as well as providing personal protection for Justices around the clock.

I hope thats enough.

[B-Fly]

I hope thats enough.

It was enough to protect the liberal Justices who forced schools to integrate, guaranteed abortion rights, protected pornographers, and set loose confessed criminals because they weren't advised of their rights before their confessions. Those guys received death threats against them and their family members constantly. And thankfully none of them or their family members were killed.

(I read a William Brennan biography last month and I'm getting a ton of mileage out of it in the Sports Bar today. )

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, bottom line is pretty simple here, McConnell is going to ramrod this thing through. BEFORE the next election...there's little that can be done about it save a Hail Mary from McCain and another GOP senator, if I understand my nomination process correctly.

What the Dems need to do now is to laser focus on the mid-terms and 2020. Don't allow the lower courts to be packed with Trump appointees, and hope that whoever is the new Supco justice isn't an ideology. End of the day, as Brian said, Kennedy is no great loss for the liberal side...his record in these recent votes shows that.

No ramroding necessary. A quick vote is the historical norm.

Several media sources have presented various names as the frontrunners: Thomas Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Gruender, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen, Raymond Kethledge, William Pryor. Hardiman is reputed to have been the alternate to Gorsuch. CNBC is reporting that it is down to Hardiman and Kavanaugh.

https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-replacement-front-runners/2018/06/28/id/868819/

More recent lists leave out Gruender, Kethledge and Pryor. Of the remaining five, two are women as Trump has announced. Both with very short judicial careers and are under age 50, as is Thapar. That said, both Barrett and Larsen clerked for Justice Scalia. Prior to his death, he may have put their names in someone's ear. Nominating a woman would give the process an extra dynamic.

J

[onejayhawk]

Nate Silver has an article out, though much of it deals with the impact on the November elections. If things go as Mitch McConnell has promised, everyone up for Senate election will be forced to take a position on the nominee.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-kennedys-retirement-help-republicans-at-the-midterms/

J

[cardboardbox]

Susan Collins indicated that she won't support a SupCo nominee that doesn't support Roe v Wade...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394514-collins-i-look-for-judges-who-respect-precedent?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

But again, we'll see...once someone gets that lifetime appointment, things can change in a hurry.

Or maybe she will?

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine will not apply an ideological litmus test to the next Supreme Court nominee, her spokeswoman said Thursday.

Collins’ position, which is consistent with her past practice on high court nominees, means she won’t factor a nominee’s support for the landmark abortion-rights ruling of Roe v. Wade into her confirmation decision.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/...court-nominee/