Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court of the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court of the United States

    This will be a heated topic in the coming weeks, because of the election of Donald Trump. The President-elect has given a lengthy list of candidates.

    He started with 11 in May.

    Steven Colloton of Iowa
    Allison Eid of Colorado
    Raymond Gruender of Missouri
    Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania
    Raymond Kethledge of Michigan
    Joan Larsen of Michigan
    Thomas Lee of Utah
    William Pryor of Alabama
    David Stras of Minnesota
    Diane Sykes of Wisconsin
    Don Willett of Texas.
    Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unusual move for a presidential candidate that underscores his efforts to appeal to conservatives.


    Most are state Supreme Court Justices or federal Appeals Court Justices. Currently, all eight SCOTUS Justices studied at Harvard or Yale. Many of these did not. It is also a very conservative list. Hillary Clinton, herself an Ivy League lawyer, said,
    The list includes extreme ideologues who, if given the chance, would likely roll back our progress in critical fights like marriage equality and health care, and would do devastating damage to a woman's right to choose, a union's right to organize, and everyone's right to vote.

    Trump added another 10 in September

    Sen. Mike Lee, Senator-Utah
    Neil Gorsuch, a judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Margaret Ryan, a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
    Edward Mansfield, a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court
    Keith Blackwell, a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
    Charles Canady, a justice of the Florida Supreme Court
    Timothy Tymkovich, chief judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Amul Thapar, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
    Frederico Moreno, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    Robert Young, chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
    The GOP nominee is expanding his list of possible nominees to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's empty seat on the court


    More diverse, but mostly more of the same.

    Will the next nominee be one of these? Note that Ted Cruz is not on the list. Sykes, Pryor and Gorsuch seem to have the most buzz.
    If not one of these, who else?
    What impact in the 2017 term and beyond?

    J
    Ad Astra per Aspera

    Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

    GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

    Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

    I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

  • #2
    I'd be shocked but very happy if it were Sykes.
    I'm just here for the baseball.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by chancellor View Post
      I'd be shocked but very happy if it were Sykes.
      Wanda Sykes would be an AWESOME justice!
      "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
      - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

      "Your shitty future continues to offend me."
      -Warren Ellis

      Comment


      • #4
        Nah - she would get boooed off the bench.
        It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
        Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


        "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

        Comment


        • #5
          The Senate has had more than enough time to advise. Huge failure by Obama if he rewards Republicans' bullshit tactics.
          If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
          - Terence McKenna

          Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

          How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DMT View Post
            The Senate has had more than enough time to advise. Huge failure by Obama if he rewards Republicans' bullshit tactics.
            I've been away but dont understand this. What choice does Obama have?
            "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

            "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

            Comment


            • #7
              Another "mandate"?
              It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
              Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


              "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

              Comment


              • #8
                Various sources, mostly left-leaning, have argued that the Senate has had their opportunity to advise the President and chosen not to exercise it and therefore the President is entitled to install Garland without explicit consent.
                In the best of times, our days are numbered, anyway. And it would be a crime against Nature for any generation to take the world crisis so solemnly that it put off enjoying those things for which we were presumably designed in the first place, and which the gravest statesmen and the hoarsest politicians hope to make available to all men in the end: I mean the opportunity to do good work, to fall in love, to enjoy friends, to sit under trees, to read, to hit a ball and bounce the baby.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mjl View Post
                  Various sources, mostly left-leaning, have argued that the Senate has had their opportunity to advise the President and chosen not to exercise it and therefore the President is entitled to install Garland without explicit consent.
                  Yep, and if Obama doesn't beat them at their own game to protect millions of women from right-wing officials his presidency takes a huge hit in my book.
                  If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
                  - Terence McKenna

                  Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

                  How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by onejayhawk View Post
                    Note that Ted Cruz is not on the list.

                    J

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mjl View Post
                      Various sources, mostly left-leaning, have argued that the Senate has had their opportunity to advise the President and chosen not to exercise it and therefore the President is entitled to install Garland without explicit consent.
                      I've heard it would only be for one year. So then next year Trump would be able to nominate someone. Which is why Obama isn't going to bother to do it. He's always been to worried about upsetting anyone but he ends up doing that when he compromises or gives in to the GOP demands/threats.
                      I'm unconsoled I'm lonely, I am so much better than I used to be.

                      The Weakerthans Aside

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mjl View Post
                        Various sources, mostly left-leaning, have argued that the Senate has had their opportunity to advise the President and chosen not to exercise it and therefore the President is entitled to install Garland without explicit consent.
                        That seems just under the circumstances, but by my read, the Constitution doesn't grant the president the power to bypass the Senate's function if they fail to act by an arbitrary date, and the Senate doesn't forfeit its power by choosing not to use it.

                        I agree completely that this - or any - nominee deserves a vote, and that the Republicans have behaved reprehensibly by abdicating their advice and consent role. But, given who is taking the reins in January, I think this is a particularly bad time to legitimize constitutionally sketchy precedents.
                        "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
                        "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
                        "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Steve View Post
                          Yet.

                          Originally posted by senorsheep View Post
                          That seems just under the circumstances, but by my read, the Constitution doesn't grant the president the power to bypass the Senate's function if they fail to act by an arbitrary date, and the Senate doesn't forfeit its power by choosing not to use it.

                          I agree completely that this - or any - nominee deserves a vote, and that the Republicans have behaved reprehensibly by abdicating their advice and consent role. But, given who is taking the reins in January, I think this is a particularly bad time to legitimize constitutionally sketchy precedents.
                          I disagree somewhat. There is a point where you have to say that it's too late for the outgoing President to make an appointment. The process takes three months or so, so under 100 days is probably not good. The question is the other direction. Is 257 days (16 March to 8 November) too much? It's close enough that there is a genuine argument. I would not go much further.

                          A recess appointment would be a can of worms.

                          J
                          Last edited by onejayhawk; 11-30-2016, 08:54 PM.
                          Ad Astra per Aspera

                          Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                          GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                          Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                          I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Pleasantly surprised Gorsuch did the right thing in siding with the left-leaning judges in seeing the deportation for violent crimes law Congress put forth was dangerously vague. It seems obviously the right call to me, and it is even consistent with a similar case in 2015 when Scalia basically made the same argument. But despite these facts, the other conservative judges voted in it's favor. Gorsuch was the deciding vote. Wannabe Dictator in Chief is not pleased, but at least he has refrained from ad hominim attacks of his SC pick on Twitter. Another vote the law not the politics move like this though, and I'll bet Trump attacks him.
                            Last edited by Sour Masher; 04-17-2018, 10:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                              Pleasantly surprised Gorsuch did the right thing in siding with the left-leaning judges in seeing the deportation for violent crimes law Congress put forth was dangerously vague. It seems obviously the right call to me, and it is even consistent with a similar case in 2015 when Scalia basically made the same argument. But despite these facts, the other conservative judges voted in it's favor. Gorsuch was the deciding vote. Wannabe Dictator in Chief is not pleased, but at least he has refrained from ad hominim attacks of his SC pick on Twitter. Another vote the law not the politics move like this though, and I'll bet Trump attacks him.
                              Until this vote, the Gorsuch pick was the one Trump victory on which pretty much the entire Republican "coalition" was united in praise for Trump. He's hoping this will be a blip and that he can always tout his Gorsuch pick as an applause line on the 2020 re-election trail, but he's got to be worried/pissed. That said, as a progressive I have no illusion that Gorsuch will be a Souter-like Justice. He's basically a nicer Scalia, strong enough in his conservative ideology to occasionally vote against the Republican Party agenda. That makes him better than Alito and Thomas, at least.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X