SCJ Antonin Scalia Died

[lumpy]

the idea that Bork was "borked" is also right wing partisan nonsense. He was not fit for the position, thank goodness the Dems had some spine for once. Really? The guy that didn't have the moral backbone to stand up to Nixon's Saturday night massacre was fit for dogcatcher? Please. Never mind his political ideology was so radical as to be un-American and even shocked the Republicans of the time.

I didn't know this before, but 7 Republicans (out of 45) voted against Bork's confirmation. Supports what Eric says.

And Kennedy, nominated after Bork, was confirmed 97-0. That's in a Democratic-majority Senate.

Also news to me: Scalia was confirmed 98-0.

"Both sides do it" is objectively wrong.

[joosttx]

Many years ago on another forum, a user named Bulgron posted the following....I thought then, and still think to this day, that it is one of the best things that I've ever read online.

"Let me see if I can clear that up for you.

A Democrat is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some social and economic things: race, sexual orientation, wealth, and freedom from religion. But the real, unofficial desire is to force everyone to rely on the government for their income, healthcare, housing, and other basic necessities, by encouraging businesses to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. This makes everyone dependent upon government so that the people have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Democrats. In this way the Democrats can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do.

A Republican is someone who greatly desires a large, powerful, ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that can then be used for reform. The official desired reform is in some economic and social things: business freedom, freedom of religion, the protection of the unborn, and the normalization of what happens in other peoples' bedrooms. But the real, unofficial desire is to encourage large corporations to leave this country through an abuse of the tax code and inappropriate business regulations. The Republicans then promise to create jobs by reducing the size of government (which they never do). This causes Americas, who want jobs, to have no choice but to perpetually re-elect Republicans. In this way the Republicans can control the people, and get quite wealthy doing it, which is what they really want to do."

Once again it's the journey not the destination that matters.

[guido]

"Both sides do it" is a fiction concocted by "centrist" commentators to try to justify their existence.

[BBB]

By way of contrast...

In Australia the Prime Minister (or effectively the party in Government) will select a Judge to sit on the High Court (our highest court). We have a compulsory retirement age of 70 for judges in this country, so selecting a judge is a fairly routine process. As I understand there is fairly broad consultation before a Judge is selected. Usually, but not necessarily the selection will reflect, to a degree, the sitting government's ideological bias. The nominee does not get grilled by Parliament and the process is not put to a vote. In the last 40 years there really has only been two controversial choices, but for the most part a spot on the High Court does not cause ripples in the political process.

The High Court has an odd number of justices and hence if one retires (or dies), then they will sit with an odd number to ensure there is not a split decision. This is an administrative arrangement and a sensible one. It also avoids any conflicts of interest. For example a very recent appointee was a the Judge at first instance in relatively high profile case in the Federal Court. The result was appealed and the decision reversed. A further appeal was made to the High Court. Naturally she could not sit on the appeal and hence 5 rather than 7 justices heard the matter. In this way, the justice system continues to function and cases heard and determined.

While we do not have the same level of public interest cases that cause so much controversy in Australia (abortion, gun laws etc) and hence an appointment to our highest court is not such a politically charged process, it does seem odd to expect the incumbent not to exercise his power for the balance of the year. We will have an election later in the year in Australia and should there be an unexpected retirement or death on the High Court, no one would be suggesting the PM hold off appointing a new judge until after an election (and in any event, the current PM will more than likely win the election in any event). There are many facets to exercising power and they should not go on hold on account of an election months and months down the track.

[Saab2000]

Thanks for the lesson in Australian ways! Our method hasn't always been so divisive or divided in the US I don't think but it seems to me that since about 1990 the US has become more and more polarized and politics have taken a much, much nastier and more personally derogatory tone. It no longer matters that in reality, much more unites us than divides us and people focus on the dividing points, not the uniting points. It is sad that people see themselves as belonging to one party or another more strongly than identifying themselves with their nation.

And this comes from me, a US citizen who is decidedly not a particularly patriotic American because of the more international family in which I was raised. I wish we could focus on what unites, rather than what divides us.

[rwsaunders]

In case this wasn't mentioned previously, if you didn't attend either Harvard or Yale (law schools), Vegas will be betting against the likelihood of you serving as a Suprme Court Justice.

Supreme Court justices admit their bench could be more diverse - LA Times

[Jonathan]

In case this wasn't mentioned previously, if you didn't attend either Harvard or Yale (law schools), Vegas will be betting against the likelihood of you serving as a Suprme Court Justice.

Supreme Court justices admit their bench could be more diverse - LA Times

He is some more trivia for you....only one current Justice has ever presided over a jury trial.

[Saab2000]

He is some more trivia for you....only one current Justice has ever presided over a jury trial.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking this would be Justice Sonia Sotomayor.... I think she was a prosecutor.

[Jonathan]

Off the top of my head I'm thinking this would be Justice Sonia Sotomayor.... I think she was a prosecutor.

Correct, but to be clear I was referring to presided as a judge.

[Sbti]

I just read that if the current boss doesn't get it done, when Donny T is elected, he has already announced "Supreme Court Justic Judy Sheindlin" will be nominated. I am not sure if this is true..

Hey, if she can't make it, Squirrelhead could nominate Judge Wapner. He's only 96 years old. Reality TV'ers gotta' stick together.

Wapner..... Judge Wapner...definitely Wapner....definitely.

[rwsaunders]

He is some more trivia for you....only one current Justice has ever presided over a jury trial.

Sotomayor? Also, Kagan is the only current SCJ not to have previously been a judge.

[jclay]

Thanks for the lesson in Australian ways! Our method hasn't always been so divisive or divided in the US I don't think but it seems to me that since about 1990 the US has become more and more polarized and politics have taken a much, much nastier and more personally derogatory tone. It no longer matters that in reality, much more unites us than divides us and people focus on the dividing points, not the uniting points. It is sad that people see themselves as belonging to one party or another more strongly than identifying themselves with their nation.

Policies, influence peddling and legal decisions resulting in rapid migration of industry to other nations, the loss of what used to be limited to blue collar jobs but which now includes white collar jobs, the increasing concentration of wealth in a tiny portion of the population and flat growth in wages for the vast majority, and such as that will generate societal stressors and political polarization. It's how civilizations are lost. This is fairly illustrative in the context of US politics of the last hundred years even if the run up to the election and support of a particular candidate is the vehicle; if you react to the title you'll likely miss the larger concepts.

Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think | Benjamin Studebaker

[UnfilteredDregs]

I can see that dissenting opinions are not welcome here. What a pile on.

Anybody that gets on board with either party should have their heads examined.

How is insisting that the government not do it's job is a valid dissenting opinion?

[Doug Fattic]

The Republican Iowa senator’s argument that this is payback for the way the Democrats dealt with Bork is an ingenious way of making it appear that the situations are equal and that the Dem’s did it 1st is a complete distortion of the total picture (a skill most politicians have in abundance). For starters Bork's candidacy did come before the Democratically controlled senate. Bork was super controversial because as acting attorney general he fired the special prosecutor investigating Nixon’s break-in of Watergate (the name of the apartments where the Democratic party had a headquarters). Nixon - who was desperate to avoid turning over the oval office voice recorded tapes that would have proved his guilt – first ordered the real Attorney General to fire Cox (the special prosecutor) but he refused because it was illegal to do so. His assistant resigned for the same reason too. History knows this as “The Saturday Night Massacre”. In his memoirs Bork said that Nixon had promised him a seat on the Supreme Court if as now acting Attorney General (he was 3rd in line) he was willing to carry out this order to help conceal Nixon’s guilt. So what a surprise that Democrats didn’t want to put a candidate on the SC that had bad blood all over his hands whatever else his qualifications might have been. Nixon had to resign before he was able to nominate Bork to the SC. I lost respect for Reagan when he nominated Bork. Common sense should have told him to pick someone else. Someone that didn’t have a track record of doing something illegal to help his party. It was the 1st really contentious SC nomination that I remember. Reagan’s miscalculation started to make justice approval much more political.

[Cookietruck]

^ great post.

all i can say is, if i spent many many years and large amounts of money to bring a case all the way the supreme court and it ended up being an 8 judge panels, i would be pissed.
some things i can think of, affirmative action, abortion laws/rights, voting rights...i think all that stuff is coming to the court soon...lol and it's all from Texas if i'm not mistaken woop woop!!!

[choke]

He is some more trivia for you....only one current Justice has ever presided over a jury trial.

Yet another piece of trivia - there is no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to be a lawyer.

[bcm119]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I would fully support the partisan cat fight going on now if the tables were turned because the risk of rolling back the clock on things like gay rights and abortion and separation of church and state would be worth every sleazy low blow partisan trick in the book to avoid. It's very noble of us straight, white, employed male american citizens to poo-poo the partisan bickering in Washington, but for the millions of people in this country whose rights and ways of life depend on the progress of social issues, every dem obstruction and delay would be justified. If the tables were turned, don't pretend we'd all be for having a republican appointed SCJ just to appear like the party of integrity. As a liberal, I'd want my representatives fighting tooth and nail to prevent a conservative leaning SC, and I don't blame the other side for using the same tactics-- I just don't agree with their agendas.

[joosttx]

How in the hell this thread remains unlocked and a rapha thread is for sure to be locked after 3 pages. Nice work guys

[spopepro]

I'm possibly the farthest to the left of anyone here... But with this FBI v. Apple encryption battle brewing I will miss having a staunch and knowledgeable constitutionalist on the bench.

Which, I suppose, highlights the dangers of attaching oneself to a party. Or at least the poor process we have where 2 parties are formed coalitions of mostly similar interests *before* the people vote as opposed to parliamentary systems where they have to broker coalitions after the election.

[Jonathan]

I'd support nominating Sandra Day O'Connor. She says she retired too soon. Her tenure wouldn't be long, the next president would likely get to replace her. The fullcourt could get back to work.