SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[BonzaiDuck]

This strikes me as a rather ridiculous argument on your part frankly. (At least the specific way you're phrasing it beyond the point about the chuckleheads phrase.)

It has clearly always been understood that the US President can consider a candidate's judicial philosophy when making a selection as one of the factors. The main question has been whether the US Senate can consider a candidate's judicial philosophy at all or just other qualification such as experience and ability to show an effective legal mind when considering cases.

Now the question is whether a judicial candidate having fairly extreme judicial views is in any way a reflection on their abilities as a judge or its simply a reflection of their political ideology. At at minimum, at least until basically the last couple years it had been clearly understood by the majority of Senators that the President gets to pick a nominee when a vacancy opens and while some might argue you can reject a nominee purely based on having truly extreme political views, it should be accepted that the ultimate pick will not be what they would ideally like politically or what a President of the other party would pick if in office.

(The Republicans today seem to coming much closer to adopting a view that they are ones who get to pick a nominee rather than the other way around. There certainly is nothing in the Constitution or the deliberations associated with it suggesting the founding fathers were thinking of the Senate blocking any possible nominee for basically a whole year simply in the hope of their party winning the Presidency.)

That should be enough to save my fingers, but I'm going to stick a thought in there for consideration: "Ideology [belief systems or simply "belief"] won't get you a dime for a cup of coffee.

I've seen three characterizations of judicial philosophy put forward: Conservative, Liberal, and Moderate. My problem with "literal interpretationist" views also derives somewhat from the "veil of ignorance" idea.

I simply cannot imagine the Founders deciding that the Constitution was simply cast in stone and not a "living document." They couldn't predict the future, and they knew it.

Then there's the notion of judicial activism. The Right accuses the Left of judicial activism in decisions that don't sit well with the Right's sense of morality. But scholars -- not only Liberal pundits -- point to judicial activism on behalf of special, powerful or concentrated interests.

So the arguments against the "living document" notion always seem to arise when one side simply doesn't like a decision of the court. Yet there seems to be more involved in these decisions than simply some group's obsession with a moral principle, a judicial philosophy or ultimately a political ideology.

Don't want change? Make the Constitution seem as limited in meaning as possible, while raising the limited meaning to a pedestal. If you do want change, don't sit around waiting for the court to make a decision. Vote in elections, and communicate your desires.

 

[Aegeon]

Of course there is. It's politics, son. The dems would do it if the situation was reversed.

You can speculate on this point, but notably there is really zero true evidence that this would be the case with as noted relatively recent history including Justice Kennedy getting easily confirmed in an election year. (Historically other nominees were easily confirmed early in the 20th Century much close to the Presidential Election.) This is truly a unique position that the Republicans are taking.

It will also have real consequences for the court (especially) if they actually stick to it and it actually worked with a new President not even able to nominate a candidate until January 20th with it taking more time for the Senate to properly examine the Candidate and his/her qualifications if they want to be truly responsible before confirming them. In the meantime with the new Supreme Court session opening ordinarily in October you will be likely looking at a whole bunch of additional 4 to 4 ties with a practical consequences between the Constitution likely being interpreted differently in different Court Circuits or a bunch of cases being excessively delayed due to concerns about a tie.(Keep in mind a newly appointed Justice can't participate in any rulings for cases where he/she was not yet confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice when oral arguments were actually heard.)

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, screw the constitution. It was written by a bunch of dead white guys, so it can't be valid. Let's just make sh*t up as we go. Any evolved person knows that the world will be better when the elites take full control from the subhuman masses.

So, the Bundy militia has the correct interpretation, or what?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Just reminding you that your belief system shares a lot more with those folks' than my own. We both know they're stupid fucking crazy, something for you consider when evaluating that overlap.

Sorry, but I don't view the world with such concerns. The "stupid fucking crazies" among us in no way taints me...or, for that matter, others who don't necessarily share my opinions. Perhaps this is something that you would do well to consider....instead of trying to smear me by "association" in such an intellectually perverse way.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry, but I don't view the world with such concerns. The "stupid fucking crazies" among us in no way taints me...or, for that matter, others who don't necessarily share my opinions. Perhaps this is something that you would do well to consider....instead of trying to smear me by "association" in such an intellectually perverse way.

When you lay down with the dogs expect to get some fleas.

 

[PokerGuy]

The main question has been whether the US Senate can consider a candidate's judicial philosophy at all or just other qualification such as experience and ability to show an effective legal mind when considering cases.

To my knowledge there is are no rules that govern what the senate should consider in determining whether to provide consent. That means they can consider any and everything, which includes "no reason at all", or "it is my political best interest".

Personally, I don't think the republicans should be talking about rejecting any candidate at this point. If obummer nominates an idiot as he did the previous two times, then shoot the nomination down. Rinse, repeat. If that process continues on to the election, then fine. If not, then not.

 

[dullard]

Modern Conservatives aren't really conservative considering that they have a radical reactionary agenda. I'm actually more "conservative" than all too many of them.

True, very few national figures have been conservative in most of our lifetimes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When you lay down with the dogs expect to get some fleas.

As if liberals don't have there fair share of crazies. You live in quite the bubble it seems...I imagine this must make all the vagaries and complexities of the world so much simpler for you. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that costs well beyond my means.

 

[Sunburn74]

So it's OK for Obama to weigh political ideology when making a SCOTUS nomination, but people are considered "chuckleheads" who happen to object to his nominee on the basis of political ideology? This just reeks of cognitive dissonance.

I think the better way to think about it is like this. Whoever Obama nominates represents the collective interests and opinions of the American people as he was directly selected by them for this very job. We expect him to weigh political ideology extensively in this decision because we weighed political ideology extensively in our decision to elect him (we do this with any president).

The argument that the people should have a say in the nomination of a supreme court justice put forth by GOP leadership is self satisfying. The people already had a say and chose! They chose the same thing 2x over the last 7 years!

 

[Genx87]

I think the better way to think about it is like this. Whoever Obama nominates represents the collective interests and opinions of the American people as he was directly selected by them for this very job. We expect him to weigh political ideology extensively in this decision because we weighed political ideology extensively in our decision to elect him (we do this with any president).

The argument that the people should have a say in the nomination of a supreme court justice put forth by GOP leadership is self satisfying. The people already had a say and chose! They chose the same thing 2x over the last 7 years!

Likewise the people elected a GOP majority in congress. So the people will get exactly what they voted for, a political split, and hopefully compromise.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

True, very few national figures have been conservative in most of our lifetimes.

Accuse me of twisting words, but I'm being candid.

I've moved from "just-Right" of Center -- Free Markets yada yada -- to darker-than-pink over almost 40 years and starting at 30. I still think of myself as a "qualified fiscal conservative."

You could call me an "Elliott Richardson Democrat," or a "Colin Powell Republican."

And I suppose I feel more comfortable with a "moderate" judicial philosophy:

[excerpted from WiseGeek]:

A judge who possesses a moderate judicial philosophy makes decisions that can be either conservative or liberal in nature, depending on the particulars of the case being handled. They do not commit themselves to one line of judicial thought; they can vote either conservatively or liberally. In cases that provide a particular challenge to the courts, judges with a moderate judicial philosophy often provide a swing vote, the deciding vote in a case that throws support behind one side of the philosophical spectrum.

I suppose by that one could make ideology a referential, modifiable tool, instead of the supreme objective. When that latter sort of talk prevails for any length of time, I don't know if I get angry, if I get a bit scared, or just unhappy.

As for Scalia, I think he verbally offered an excuse for himself. There were decisions that were "good Law," and decisions that weren't necessarily good for society.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I just heard Trumps Sister is a Federal Judge. The ultimate troll move to watch Republicans explode would be to nominate her.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think the better way to think about it is like this. Whoever Obama nominates represents the collective interests and opinions of the American people as he was directly selected by them for this very job. We expect him to weigh political ideology extensively in this decision because we weighed political ideology extensively in our decision to elect him (we do this with any president).

The argument that the people should have a say in the nomination of a supreme court justice put forth by GOP leadership is self satisfying. The people already had a say and chose! They chose the same thing 2x over the last 7 years!

Assuming that Obama is truly interested in the collective interests and opinions of the American people, one good look at the last midterms would indicate it would perhaps be best to wait to see what happens in November. Only another 8-9 months and we know what the American people want. What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Assuming that Obama is truly interested in the collective interests and opinions of the American people, one good look at the last midterms would indicate it would perhaps be best to wait to see what happens in November. Only another 8-9 months and we know what the American people want. What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

Let's get this straight: It is the role of the Executive to nominate Supreme appointments, so you want to encourage Obama to stop doing his job?

Is this about the Court? Or about Obama?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let's get this straight: It is the role of the Executive to nominate Supreme appointments, so you want to encourage Obama to stop doing his job?

Is this about the Court? Or about Obama?

Let's get this straight: Sunburn74 believes it's about the will of the American people and I responded accordingly.

 

[dullard]

What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

The constitution is what is at stake here.

Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the constitution:
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court"

It doesn't say he might nominate (I might win the lottery, but then again I might not). It doesn't say he may nominate (I may choose to wear a pink dress, or I may choose to wear a black suit). It doesn't say he will nominate but only if it is convenient for whatever reason (nearby election for example). It doesn't say he should nominate (but can wiggle out if he wants to, like I should eat broccoli but instead eat steak). It says the president SHALL nominate.

When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word "shall" is generally imperative or mandatory.[Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969)] http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/

He has no choice. He must nominate someone, or he is breaking the constitution.

I think preserving the constitution is more important than whatever the political flavor of the day might be.

 

[HomerJS]

I hope Obama puts forth Loretta Lynch. lol

It would be really hard for Republicans to stall this one. In addition to the optics they couldn't come with one single reason to turn her form for AG.

 

[HomerJS]

Assuming that Obama is truly interested in the collective interests and opinions of the American people, one good look at the last midterms would indicate it would perhaps be best to wait to see what happens in November. Only another 8-9 months and we know what the American people want. What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

That already happened when Obama was elected in 2012 to serve a 4 year term. Are there any others duties the POTUS should not fulfil for 25% of his/her term?

 

[Sunburn74]

Assuming that Obama is truly interested in the collective interests and opinions of the American people, one good look at the last midterms would indicate it would perhaps be best to wait to see what happens in November. Only another 8-9 months and we know what the American people want. What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

But why is the current president any less a representative of the will of the people as the next president? At what time point exactly does a president lose that quality? Is it the first year? The second year? The 7th year? Remember he won 2 elections here.

Even if the people go a completely different direction in november it doesn't mean that president lost the ability to represent them or was un-representing them or dis-representing (i realize these are not real words) them in anyway. If you have a wife of 10 years who dies and then you re-marry someone who was completely different than her, does it mean your first wife was not your representative in her last few days, months, years? Because you chose someone younger or older or smarter or dumber, does that mean your first wife by default of being different was un-representing you in all her wifely duties? Should you tell her "you're getting up in age. Why don't you leave the naming of our next dog or cat or leave the decision of our next type of car to your potential replacement?"

 

[Bowfinger]

That already happened when Obama was elected in 2012 to serve a 4 year term. Are there any others duties the POTUS should not fulfil for 25% of his/her term?

I saw a meme that said Republicans feel Obama should only get 3/5ths of a term (because he's black, you see). I laughed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That already happened when Obama was elected in 2012 to serve a 4 year term. Are there any others duties the POTUS should not fulfil for 25% of his/her term?

Obama has his mandate and Republicans in the Senate have theirs.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Pure conjecture represented as fact in the usual "they're just as bad" frame. Whether McConnell will do so or not is also conjecture at this point

Dem = my sh*t don't stink. They bloody well would and you'd be cheering them on for doing it. I'm still waiting on a reply from you in another thread about what things you'd be willing to compromise on politically. All you provided was more braindead partisan BS. A couple other did give replies but you did your usual duhflection.

 

[dullard]

Obama has his mandate and Republicans in the Senate have theirs.

So, Obama should nominate. And the Senate should advise and give consent if they think the person is right for the job or reject if not. They should both do their jobs as the constitution demands. They should not, in any circumstance, defer and pray for a different election outcome.

 

[FerrelGeek]

So, the Bundy militia has the correct interpretation, or what?

Not saying they do. I've never weighed in on their actions. That's why we have courts. But the courts shouldn't make sh*t up to suit their ideologies (in a perfect world).

 

[nickqt]

Even better: Eric Holder.

The exploding heads will be visible from the ISS.

Meh.

Want to see heads explode? Nominate Professor Anita Hill. Now that'd make for an interesting Supreme Court.

Dem = my sh*t don't stink. They bloody well would and you'd be cheering them on for doing it. I'm still waiting on a reply from you in another thread about what things you'd be willing to compromise on politically. All you provided was more braindead partisan BS. A couple other did give replies but you did your usual duhflection.

Nice projection!