Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 - 10:30am PT
|
The assumption that President Trump will nominate someone more to the stodgy old GOP's sensibilities is a Far Side Stretch.
He's already said that his sister would make a fine supreme court justice.
Curt
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 - 11:40am PT
|
Haha, Trump's sister is 78 and is a "senior" judge (which means at least partially retried).
Trump later explained that he was joking about appointing his sister, even though she is in fact well qualified for the Supreme Court (federal court of appeals judge, by far the most common path to Court; she was appointed to the court of appeals by Clinton!).
Along the same lines, lots of people think Hills would appoint ol' Billy Boy (who I suppose you could say is at least sort of qualified, although not in the same obvious way that Trump's sister is). There is precedent: consider President/Justice Taft.
Edit:
Good article in liberal rag Slate today:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/merrick_garland_would_shift_the_supreme_court_left_a_lot.html
Eric Posner (he's not the judge, but rather his son) explains in more detail some of the concepts that I've raised.
To those of you that that think the "liberal" justices are "moderate" and the "conservatives" are "whacko"--Posner will set you straight. They're all pretty much the same; the libs are no better at all than the conservatives.
Also, this Maynard guy is a card carrying liberal and no one Hills appoints will be any worse, for the very simple reason that all the libs vote the same, all the time (that's not literally true, but it's close enough to the truth for discussion purposes).
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2016 - 05:38pm PT
|
well, it appears that the republicans are shooting themselves again
with Scalia gone and their refusal to consider any nominee presented by President Obama, the Supreme Court's difficulty to muster the votes to overturn lower courts in decisions that would favor conservative ideas is in trouble
perfect example is the court's ruling today, another 4-4 tie that favors union activity
with a ninth justice in place the odds of a 5-4 overturning the lower court increase
and the lower court's ruling stands at 4-4 and stands again at 5-4 to not overturn
I don't get it, McConnell's insistence on not replacing a justice is now hurting his party,
apparently that is secondary to denying the President's nominee a hearing
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/politics/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association-union-fees-supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2016 - 05:45pm PT
|
I like seeing the Supreme Court rendered irrelevant. It's the best thing that could happen to it.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2016 - 06:55pm PT
|
That's a silly thing to say.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2016 - 08:18pm PT
|
Karma rules!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 01:53am PT
|
It's certainly a big improvement over the court we had with Scalia.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 07:23am PT
|
I think that what Chaz is saying is that, with a few notable exceptions, most rulings are just
providing more job security for the lawyer ruling class. I mean do we really need 9 million
laws to provide us with an orderly society?
If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered).
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-criminal-unfair-column/70630978/
I do realize this is a bit of thread drift, but it is relevant to my argument.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 07:32am PT
|
Everyone in the district of criminals knows Scalia was taken out.
Americans are clueless.
They have no clue who Poindexter is and his connections.
They do not know the methods that their govt. has to take out anyone and make it look like natural death.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2016 - 08:33am PT
|
I think that what Chaz is saying is that, with a few notable exceptions, most rulings are just
providing more job security for the lawyer ruling class. I mean do we really need 9 million
laws to provide us with an orderly society?
If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered).
Actually, yes, we need most of those laws.
And part of the reason why eagles are so plentiful is that there isn't much of a market to sell eagle feathers, thanks to laws (which yes, have warts and loopholes) prohibiting their possession and sale. I'm fine with that--I like Eagles.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 10:18am PT
|
I think that what Chaz is saying is that, with a few notable exceptions, most rulings are just providing more job security for the lawyer ruling class. I mean do we really need 9 million laws to provide us with an orderly society? It is worth noting that so few cases that even deal with a federal issue that could be heard by the Court actually wind up before the Court. The number of lawyers who would actually argue a case before the Supreme Court is a tiny, tiny portion of the population of lawyers.
Plus, it may come as a surprise to many folks, but lots of people out there need lawyers because people are a mess, they create messes and they are incapable for a variety of reasons from fixing those themselves.
Also, blahblah's citation to a Slate article by Eric Posner is not very persuasive (neither the cite nor the underlying article). That article, contrary to what blahblah contends, does not provide any facts or real discussion that Garland would be a liberal justice. Rather, it cites a a law review article that, shockingly, concludes that conservative justices uphold conservative laws and strick down liberal ones, whereas liberal justices do the opposite. The Slate article does not discuss any of Garland's prior decisions in detail nor provide any other evidence to support it's main contention that he would move the Court to the left.
There's another whole big kettle of fish that one could discuss about the law review article, that some of the laws struck down by liberals justices likely relate to expansion of 4th amendment rights, laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, etc., but that is a bit of thread drift.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2016 - 10:39am PT
|
Also, one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to simplify laws. They take many of their cases because different jurisdictions have different holdings, so they try to come up with common rules, thus reducing conflicts and legal clutter.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 02:27pm PT
|
I think that what Chaz is saying is that, with a few notable exceptions, most rulings are just
providing more job security for the lawyer ruling class. I mean do we really need 9 million
laws to provide us with an orderly society?
Yes, and all those 5-4 supreme court rulings created those 9 million laws. Wait. Wut?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
Also, one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to simplify laws.
Dirtbag, I would modify that slightly. The SCOTUS's job is to provide interpretations of controversial legal issues to guide future litigants and courts. The only cases the SCOTUS must take are controversies between states, where the court has original and exclusive jurisdiction (i.e. the court is the trial court). In all other cases, the litigants must seek permission for the court to hear the case.
In general, the court agrees to hear a case (in legal jargon, most of the time, grants a writ of certiorari) only for cases likely to have significance beyond the narrow facts of the case. The reason so many cases end up with 5-4 majorities isn't just because the ideologies of the court are divided. The court usually selects to hear cases where the circuit courts of appeals split. The court usually has no need to act on appeals where all the lower courts agree.
I say this, in part, because of my first-year law school experience. I took Criminal Procedure (a class with lots of SCOTUS decisions) in 1977 when the gap between ideologies on the court was much narrower. Nonetheless, I was convinced that my prof (Murray Schwartz, for Steve's benefit. Murray was a fantastic prof, but he taught exclusively Socratically) had a collection of 5-4 opinions going either way on all issues. When I would opine about how I would argue one of his hypotheticals, his reponse more than once was "That's an excellent argument, Mr. Eleazarian. Four justices of the Supreme Court agreed with you."
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2016 - 02:46pm PT
|
The court usually selects to hear cases where the circuit courts of appeals split. The court usually has no need to act on appeals where all the lower courts agree.
This was really the point I was trying to make. Thanks John, excellent post. That must have been an amazing class.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 03:45pm PT
|
Dirtbag, I would modify that slightly. The SCOTUS's job is to provide interpretations of controversial legal issues to guide future litigants and courts. The only cases the SCOTUS must take are controversies between states, where the court has original and exclusive jurisdiction (i.e. the court is the trial court). In all other cases, the litigants must seek permission for the court to hear the case.
John,
I don't think you've got it quite right.
The Supreme Court just a few days declined to hear the lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma, which claimed that Colorado's legalization of marijuana violated federal law.
SCOTUS didn't decide the case on the merits, and NE and OK can re-file in a federal district court if they so choose.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-turns-down-case-that-challenges-colorado-marijuana-law/2016/03/21/da8527e2-ef69-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html
I have to admit I thought the rule was as you wrote it until I learned otherwise . . .
The opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf
Oh, and Norton--you're even more out of it than you usually are by suggesting that the Repubs refusing to confirm Garland is somehow hurting them on cases before SCOTUS. True, they will now have 4-4 ties (which is a win or loss, depending on the lower court ruling). When Scalia was alive, they would win 5-4. When a lib's on the court, they'll lose 5-4.
That's a bit of a simplification as none of the justices are absolutely predictable as liberal or conservative--as I noted above, Scalia had a surprising (to some) penchant for siding with the accused in some criminal law cases, whereas apparently Garland sides for the government in crim caes (although he's a rock solid liberal on most issues).
I hope I explained that clearly and it's a pretty simple concept.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
|
Murray Schwartz, for Steve's benefit. That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Had Peter Arenella, who was a first year prof. (in 1987) and is now approaching 30 yrs. at UCLA Law. Crim Law and Procedure are great courses though.
|
|
Winemaker
Sport climber
Yakima, WA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2016 - 02:34pm PT
|
Breaking news:
"George Mason University President ngel Cabrera told the community in an email today that its law school will be renamed the Antonin Scalia School of Law in honor of the recently deceased justice."
Maybe, just maybe, they should have checked the acronym ..........or maybe they did.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2016 - 07:33pm PT
|
I did not know that Scalia attended Ole Miss. Wasn't he part nigra?
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
In October of 1956, an election year, President Eisenhower appointed William Brennan to the Supreme Court during a Senate Recess.
Brennan was confirmed with only one dissenting Senate vote (Joseph McCarthy) early the next year. Brennan was regarded as a great Supreme Court justice.
Obama should just do the same, and appoint Merrick Garland during a recess.
His choice of Garland is flawless. There is no legitimate opposition to Merrick Garland from either party.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is an idiot, or more like, a robot.
I-MUST-BLOCK-OBAMA . . . . I-MUST-BLOCK-OBAMA . . . . I-MUST-BLOCK-OBAMA
It's amusing that the so-called "Thurmond Rule", of not appointing judges in the last year of a president's term, has somehow, now, become the "Biden Rule".
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!