Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:13pm PT
|
A recess appointment doesn't bypass the need for Senate confirmation. It merely delays it, and allows the appointee to serve prior to confirmation. There is nothing especially nefarious about it, although it has an air of political maneuvering.
There are a dozen pros and as many cons to using it.
Since the Senate leadership has acted childishly, and declared that every candidate Obama might select is unacceptable, a recess appointment could be the right thing to do.
People already think - and know - that the courts in America are becoming more and more politicized. If Obama skillfully used a recess appointment to bypass an intransigent Senate, the public might applaud the move as pragmaticism over fanaticism.
Yes, the conservatives would whine and bitch and moan about how unfair that would be. But, they always complain when the the playing field, tilted in their favor, starts to level out a tiny bit.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
|
Obama should nominate a moderate that's been unanimously confirmed for a lower court. Republicans will not allow a vote. It will backfire just like the government shutdown fiascos. Dems will be motivated to go to the polls. More Independents will realize the current Repubs are obstructionist and fanatical and vote dem.
The Repubs need to lose a few more elections until they finally realize they need to move towards the center. Some will realize compromise is what makes government work, but most will just do it to win elections. Unfortunately until that happens I think both parties will go towards the extremes which is bad for most people and the country.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:44pm PT
|
There are at least two Justices that are on the short list that fit those criteria, I believe.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:48pm PT
|
I agree, Norton, that the 4-4 tie favors the left currently, because every case the SCOTUS is hearing this term is not before the court as a matter of right. Rather, they are before the court because a majority of the court agreed to hear the case (i.e. granted a writ of certiorari), or agreed to issue a stay of the challenged rule.
A technical correction:
A grant of cert does not require the vote of a majority of the Court; rather, it requires four votes. It's a weird, non-intuitive rule that the Court just made up--it has no basis in the Constitution or any law, and if you don't like it, that's too bad--remember the Court is not accountable to anyone or any thing, they just do whatever they want.
At least legal giants like Scalia told the American people that Court was usurping their power, and tried to restrain it. That's why the libs hated him--the libs are basically statists who want to impose a top down model of control on us, the People (with them controlling the top of course).
Scalia believed in a real democracy, with all that entails, including that sometimes the People make laws that the liberal elite don't like. Now if the People tried to make a law that was truly against the real Constitution (the one written down and enacted by the People, not the one invented by the libs), Scalia would find such a law to be unconstitutional and strike it down. That's what happened in the Citizens United decision, where the libs tried to take away our right to free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and in Scalia's most excellent Heller decision, where he prevented the liberal legislature from violating the Constitution by infringing our right to bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
But if the real Constitution just doesn't say something about a subject, such as abortion or sodomy, then the legislatures elected by the People are free to make whatever laws they see fit.
Remember that Scalia never in his life voted for to restrict anyone's ability to have an abortion or to engage in sodomy--he simply voted to allow legislatures to legislate as they saw fit on those subjects because they are outside the scope of the Constitution.
What a wonderful philosophy and a wonderful man--we should all take a moment to give our deepest thanks for what he did for our country.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:53pm PT
|
Well, after watching the Charlie Rose program last night (and the interviews with Scalia), I'm a bit more inclined to agree with your appreciation, blah.
But on this point...
"...the libs are basically statists who want to impose a top down model of control on us, the People (with them controlling the top of course)."
...your victimization is showing.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 12:59pm PT
|
The republican requirement that all their people religiously follow the party line is strong justification
for voting a straight Democratic ticket. There will be no "good" republicans.
If someone is on the republican ticket, you know what you will get.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Lassitude 33
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:11pm PT
|
Interesting that it took this long for the conspiracy nuts to take up the Scalia death.
Conspiracy theories that Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered on Saturday are circling the internet.
The predominantly right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe foul play might have been involved point out that Scalia's cause of death has not been officially determined, as an autopsy was not ordered.
Some have noted that Scalia, who died at 79, was pronounced dead over the phone and was allegedly found later with a pillow over his head, while others point out that Scalia had declined a security detail for his weekend visit to the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Texas.
The theories first began to swirl after John Poindexter, who owns the ranch Scalia was staying at, said he found the jurist under a pillow, although he looked "as if he was taking a nap. "
"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled," he told the San Antonio Express-News.
Scalia was alone at the time of his death because he had declined a security detail from US marshals, which provide security for Supreme Court justices.
GOP presidential front-runner and business mogul Donald Trump is among those who have fanned flames on the theory.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:18pm PT
|
I find the comments about "following the party line" interesting, considering that Republican-appointed justices have broken ranks on 5-4 decisions, but justices appointed by Democrats have not, at least since Kennedy appointed Byron White.
I agree with your evaluation of Scalia, Blahblah. The blowback from your critics doesn't surprise me, though. Statism and freedom seem to be in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps that's why the left doesn't read "Congress shall not" the same way Justice Scalia did.
Also, I know it takes four votes to grant cert. It takes a majority to issue a stay, however, and two of the cases to which I referred (the EPA power plant and immigration amnesty cases) were stayed prior to the rulings of lower courts.
John
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:24pm PT
|
The Fet +1
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:30pm PT
|
I find the comments about "following the party line" interesting, considering that Republican-appointed justices have broken ranks on 5-4 decisions, but justices appointed by Democrats have not, at least since Kennedy appointed Byron White.
Excellent point, and to add to it, remember that one of the lockstep liberal "4" votes of recent SCOTUS infamy was the dreaded turncoat Souter, appointed by Bush 41, and another was Stevens, appointed by Ford.
It's not just that Repub appointed justices vote with the libs, some of them were the libs!
Kennedy is flip-flopper who often votes with the libs, and even Chief Justice Roberts has his moments of weakness.
I think the Repubs have mostly learned their lesson, which the Dems seemed to learn decades before--I cannot think of a Democrat appointed Justice in modern times who was anything but a 100% liberal voter to the core.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:42pm PT
|
Maybe it's just that the Liberals judges vote without Bias,
and the Conservative judges vote with a bias that doesn't hold water within the constitution.
Please name one SCOTUS conservative judgment that anyone agrees with.
If their judgment is bad, then it means that they are Bad judges, so all this BS about them being of high intellect and good judgment is pure malarkey.
They make their judgments based on their far right wing Christian beliefs and faith (in magic) and right wing ideology sold to them by the Koch Brothers, not what the Constitution says
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 02:10pm PT
|
At least legal giants like Scalia told the American people that Court was usurping their power, and tried to restrain it. That's why the libs hated him--the libs are basically statists who want to impose a top down model of control on us, the People (with them controlling the top of course). I kind of threw up in my mouth reading blahblah's missive to Scalia's memory. What a load of hogwash my friend. I suspect someone was a member of the Federalist Society. Nothing else would explain such a complete divorce from reality when reviewing the man's records.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 02:33pm PT
|
It's a testament to human ingenuity that when we evaluate the information "justices appointed by republicans are more apt to side with justices who are appointed by democrats than vice versa" we can see it as evidence of the superiority of the conservative position as opposed to the superiority of the liberal position. If I turn my head and squint hard enough, up really is down!
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 02:33pm PT
|
Now if the People tried to make a law that was truly against the real Constitution (the one written down and enacted by the People, not the one invented by the libs), Scalia would find such a law to be unconstitutional and strike it down. That's what happened in the Citizens United decision, where the libs tried to take away our right to free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution
Right. The actual words of the constitution (not the one interpreted by justices) specifically says that the wealthy and corporations can give any amount of money to PACs and you can't even require that campaign donors be identified. It also specifically says that pornography is protected speech, but it states that the participants must be 18 years of age. Unless it requires that they be 21. Unless they are virtual actors. Unless the virtual actors look too underage.
The court also says you can't restrict the right to own a rifle. Unless it is fully automatic, in which case you can. Unless it is a semi-automatic that can be easily converted to an automatic. And unless you are convicted felon, in which case you can't. Unless your record has been expunged in which case you can.
It sure is a good thing that Scalia got the version of the constitution that included all the footnotes so that he can stay 100% within the bounds of what was actually spelled out by the text.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 02:46pm PT
|
That's what happened in the Citizens United decision, where the libs tried to take away our right to free speech
Huh?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 02:54pm PT
|
"Kennedy is flip-flopper who often votes with the libs, and even Chief Justice Roberts has his moments of weakness.
I think the Repubs have mostly learned their lesson, which the Dems seemed to learn decades before--I cannot think of a Democrat appointed Justice in modern times who was anything but a 100% liberal voter to the core."
Hard to find a better example of how the public sees the SCOTUS as highly politicized these days, no matter what the truth might actually be.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 03:08pm PT
|
Just more proof the Republicans are wrong about everything
They just got the facts mixed up with the lies, so the lies turned into the facts
and the facts are what's spewed by those nasty libs!!!
Those Bastards!!!
Wrong to the very core, that's where it starts
They start out with wrong information that fills out their ideologies and reality perspective, and everything that comes out of their brain is wrong from the get go because of their basic core of knowledge is BS misinformation.
It's like opposite land, where everything good is bad, and bad is GOOD!!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 03:10pm PT
|
It sure is a good thing that Scalia got the version of the constitution that included all the footnotes so that he can stay 100% within the bounds of what was actually spelled out by the text.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees--I don't think Scalia would say the Constitution can be purely mechanistically applied and so there's no role for interpretation, but rather that the courts should be careful in taking an expansive view of "interpreting" the Constitution in a way that would be unrecognizable to those who actually drafted and ratified it. For example, I think it's safe to say that from a Scalia point of view, there should be no right to sodomy under the Constitution because in fact sodomy was punishable by death at the time that Constitution (and any relevant amendments) were enacted. (I'm just using my notion of common sense in this example--I haven't actually looked at Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS case finding a constitutional right to sodomy.)
As a related point, much of Scalia's jurisprudence can be seen as trying to keep the power of the federal courts in check--the lib view is that the federal government has essentially infinite power, with the Supreme Court ultimately in charge of administering that power.
Scalia believed in checks and balances, a limited federal government, and a limited judiciary. Amazing that such a moderate and eminently reasonable worldview earned him the hatred of the libs, as evidenced by the horrible comments directed to him on this very thread.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!