Justice Souter to retire
-
That'll teach you, Alo...
That'll teach you, Alo...
Figured it was best to let them exhaust their knowledge on the subject early in the process. Cal's given us Angela Davis, T's given us Wikipedia, Steve's given us Bill Ayers. Now, the real discussion can begin.
To be honest, I don't like the fuzzy "compassion" talk that Obama's been using since the beginning of the campaign. It sounds good, but I'm not sure what it means re: what kind of justice he'll nominate.
I think Akhil Amar would be a great SCt justice, but he's someone who sticks to the type of "abstract legal theory" Obama seems to dismiss in his mini-speech. Anyway, he probably killed his chances when he wrote that he would have voted with the minority in Roe v. Wade.
-
I was surprised to see Kimba Wood's name being thrown around again today. I wonder if she'd finally get the call.
Looks like Sotomayor is the odds-on favorite, though, huh? Would also give him a relatively easy confirmation, which I'm guessing they're looking for. They've got plenty of other battles to fight.
-
Once went to hear Sotomayor deliver a speech and engage in a Q&A. Obviously very smart and a knowledgeable jurist. Not sure how great she'd be in the confirmation hearings, though. On the charm/charisma scale, she's more of an Alito than a Roberts.
-
That'll teach you, Alo...
Figured it was best to let them exhaust their knowledge on the subject early in the process. Cal's given us Angela Davis, T's given us Wikipedia, Steve's given us Bill Ayers. Now, the real discussion can begin.
To be honest, I don't like the fuzzy "compassion" talk that Obama's been using since the beginning of the campaign. It sounds good, but I'm not sure what it means re: what kind of justice he'll nominate.
I think Akhil Amar would be a great SCt justice, but he's someone who sticks to the type of "abstract legal theory" Obama seems to dismiss in his mini-speech. Anyway, he probably killed his chances when he wrote that he would have voted with the minority in Roe v. Wade.
Aloysius said:
Anyway, he probably killed his chances when he wrote that he would have voted with the minority in Roe v. Wade.But it's good to know that ideology and quotas (not any kind of respect for the constitution nor understanding of the reasons roe might be bad law) are out in the open as official requirements.
WSS
-
Do you know what a quota is? It doesn't seem like you do.
There's certainly no quota here.
And why shouldn't ideology be a factor? Of course ideology is a factor. Among many others.
-
Do you know what a quota is? It doesn't seem like you do.
There's certainly no quota here.
And why shouldn't ideology be a factor? Of course ideology is a factor. Among many others.
Do you know what a quota is? It doesn't seem like you do.
There's certainly no quota here.
That's as tiresome as ever.
Making a decision based on increasing the number of women (or any mionority) to the court is quota ish.
And why shouldn't ideology be a factor? Of course ideology is a factor. Among many others.
It might as well I guess. Original intent is probably an ideology. Depends on what you want.
I'm being serious by saying the constitution is little more than a relic today and probably for many years back.
I'm not even sure we'd be beter off if we went back to Marshall....
WSS
-
Marc Ambrinder:
"...Let's face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.
...His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.
...Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Less known but equally potent candidates would be Stanford's Pam Karlan, an intellectually brilliant liberal, and Johnnie Rawlinson, an appeals court judge and the first African American woman appointed to that circuit. Of all these candidates, Wood and Karlan are probably the brightest lights, and Wood would be most palatable to conservatives. Cato's Ilya Shapiro, a former Wood student, said that she'd offer a "seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, this making her the best nominee for supporters of constitutionalism.
If Obama has a short list, it is probably much longer than mine, and includes many judges I haven't considered.
Watch for Vice President Joe Biden, a former chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, to play a significant role in this process. Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, has more experience vetting potential nominees than just about anyone else in Washington, and the process of compiling an initial list of nominees has been given to his office.
Two very senior administration officials politely refused to comment or speculate about Souter or possible appointments. I am told that orders have come down from the top -- as in the chief of staff's office -- that no one is to talk about this to reporters.
So what's the process going to be like? Will it be partially public -- the White House having decided to selectively leak the names of certain more conservative jurists that Obama meets? Will he meet with a range of folks? Will he meet with a pro-life judge? Or -- does he segregate politics from the process entirely?
First, Obama compiles his list. Then, he tries to keep the list a secret. Does he begin to compile vetting teams before Souter formally steps down? Unclear -- although the VP's office already has some staff capacity.
The public will be treated to a three-act play; Act 1 -- who SHOULD Obama pick? Act 2 -- who DOES Obama pick? Act 3 -- what does the GOP do? Spoiler alert! Don't call this is a battle; Obama's going to get his nominee confirmed. The question is whether he does so while enhancing his status and his party."
Marc Ambrinder:
"...Let's face facts: there are many qualified center-left jurists who are women. Obama will be under enormous pressure to name a woman to replace Mr. Souter, especially given the illness of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89.
...His first judicial appointment may tell us about his newest decision: Obama nominated Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice David Hamilton to the 7th circuit; the White House portrayed Hamilton as a jurist respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, although Republicans in Washington were skeptical.
...Among those who might make the list of replacements: incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein, a brilliant constitutional law prof who now works at Obama's Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appellate judge Diane Wood, and Leah Ward Sears, the chief justice of Georgia's Supreme Court. A dark horse might be Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York. Less known but equally potent candidates would be Stanford's Pam Karlan, an intellectually brilliant liberal, and Johnnie Rawlinson, an appeals court judge and the first African American woman appointed to that circuit. Of all these candidates, Wood and Karlan are probably the brightest lights, and Wood would be most palatable to conservatives. Cato's Ilya Shapiro, a former Wood student, said that she'd offer a "seriousness of purpose and no ideological ax to grind, this making her the best nominee for supporters of constitutionalism."
Actually, this Emily Bazelon article makes me think that Republicans would demagogue like hell if Wood were nominated.
-
I'd tend to think that Obama, being of this legal world and familiar with many of the players and their opinions, already has a very short list of nominees that dates back to before the election. I wouldn't be surprised if the vetting had already taken place, or the decision already made.
Not being of this world, I'm going to defer to Tupa and Alo on the eventual pick. I'd only be forwarding something I read and agreed with, and that's only so interesting.
-
Oh, please don't defer to me on this stuff. As Tupa can attest, I pretty much don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
But you're right that the snap judgments on whether a nominee is a "good pick" or not are mostly pointless. Only scholars and people working in the White House are familiar enough with the potential justices' work to point out all the possible controversial opinions/articles that could get a nominee Borked.
Fortunately, the confirmation process affords enough time for enterprising law students to put together analyses of a nominee's major cases. A few years ago, a bunch of Yale law students put together a thorough, critical account of Alito's judicial record. I'm sure some young Federalist Society members will do the same for whoever becomes Obama's nominee.
-
I haven't studied Con Law since college. So I'm out. Those were some great classes though.
And yet everyone I know who was a lawyer at the time warned me not to be a lawyer. Many described how much the business end of the job was squeezing out the legal end, so much that they didn't much feel like a lawyer anymore. Plus, they never saw the sun.
I like seeing the sun.
-
No matter who makes the appointment or who gets appointed, they all have various opinions on the litmus test issues. I suppose there is no getting around that.
The problem I have with many in the judiciary is the seeming attack on black letter law and the effort to shade things gray.
Over the years many have proclaimed the constitution is a living, breathing document. I tend to disagree and think it is more static than some suggest.
That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common. For the most part, the constitution should be viewed as black letter and we shouldn't keep chipping at the buttress issues as sooner or later, the whole document will fall. Status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.
While many of the justices in the past may not have met my personal approval for what ever reason, I think by a large they all understand the weight of the position and once appointed, they all seem to take a step or two towards the center.
That is especially true when one political side of the court seems to gain a numbers advantage. There are usually one or two who will swing the other way as I don't think any of the justices want to be a part of a run away court that attacks the country and document they are there to uphold.
Also, as we have seen in the past, once appointed, there is no political pressure any longer. Some may think that is dangerous, but I trust that once a person has been elevated to such a position, the really bad apples have been weeded out and exposed.
If a really bad candidate is nominated, the senate can knock that down easy enough, and trust they would....members of either side taking part.
When it come to the big issues, I don't think politicians are as partisan as we think. This is a big issue.
I honestly don't think members of either party are just going to rubber stamp their Presidents nomination if in their heart of hearts they know the person is a bad or unqualified candidate who is going to cause the country harm.
I can't recall all the nominations, but I don't really remember any who were simply unqualified or unable to have performed the job, and I don't recall any who were elevated to the position who were simply unqualified or took a radical activist position, because the sitting justices tend to rein those people in a bit because as stated earlier, the history and weight of the position tends to make people step away from the fringes and move more towards the center.
No doubt that over the years there have been decisions I didn't agree with, and took a opposite view of the law and how it was written, but I don't think any majority opinion was baseless nor well thought out. At most I have thought the interpretation was stretching the bounds past what I would have though reasonable.
-
No matter who makes the appointment or who gets appointed, they all have various opinions on the litmus test issues. I suppose there is no getting around that.
The problem I have with many in the judiciary is the seeming attack on black letter law and the effort to shade things gray.
Over the years many have proclaimed the constitution is a living, breathing document. I tend to disagree and think it is more static than some suggest.
That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common. For the most part, the constitution should be viewed as black letter and we shouldn't keep chipping at the buttress issues as sooner or later, the whole document will fall. Status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing.
While many of the justices in the past may not have met my personal approval for what ever reason, I think by a large they all understand the weight of the position and once appointed, they all seem to take a step or two towards the center.
That is especially true when one political side of the court seems to gain a numbers advantage. There are usually one or two who will swing the other way as I don't think any of the justices want to be a part of a run away court that attacks the country and document they are there to uphold.
Also, as we have seen in the past, once appointed, there is no political pressure any longer. Some may think that is dangerous, but I trust that once a person has been elevated to such a position, the really bad apples have been weeded out and exposed.
If a really bad candidate is nominated, the senate can knock that down easy enough, and trust they would....members of either side taking part.
When it come to the big issues, I don't think politicians are as partisan as we think. This is a big issue.
I honestly don't think members of either party are just going to rubber stamp their Presidents nomination if in their heart of hearts they know the person is a bad or unqualified candidate who is going to cause the country harm.
I can't recall all the nominations, but I don't really remember any who were simply unqualified or unable to have performed the job, and I don't recall any who were elevated to the position who were simply unqualified or took a radical activist position, because the sitting justices tend to rein those people in a bit because as stated earlier, the history and weight of the position tends to make people step away from the fringes and move more towards the center.
No doubt that over the years there have been decisions I didn't agree with, and took a opposite view of the law and how it was written, but I don't think any majority opinion was baseless nor well thought out. At most I have thought the interpretation was stretching the bounds past what I would have though reasonable.
That doesn't mean it is entirely static and can't bend as modern, unforeseen needs arise, but that isn't that common.
Sure it is.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not that I care if y'all have guns or not, but the notion that we need a well regulated Militia is antiquated as all hell. This is offered as a mere example, not to get the NRA Krew all riled up.
Come on, I have a hard time believing those who wrote the Constitution didn't have the foresight to allow changes as need be.
-
Things can change. And usually it is to allow more rights....Civil Rights, Woman Rights, abortion.
It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.
That is what can't change.
It is a static document in that regard.
You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.
-
Things can change. And usually it is to allow more rights....Civil Rights, Woman Rights, abortion.
It is a more modern trend to take rights away that are written in to the constitution.
That is what can't change.
It is a static document in that regard.
You are confusing the right to bear arms with a militia.
-
It doesn't mean it doesn't either.
The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.
Militias are very necessary.
The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.
-
It doesn't mean it doesn't either.
The National Guard is a militia....those are state units....a neighborhood watch is a militia of sorts.
Militias are very necessary.
The rights of people to own arms is very necessary.
-
mz. said:
The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.
-
What good is the Constitution if it can be politically
adjusted to take out certain parts Obama doesn't like?
But let Bush try to change it... oh... and all hell would break loose.
The politics of self-serving power control is out of the bag, and running
wild like a crazed rhino.
-
mz. said:
The right is there. The need on the other hand is very questionable.No it isn't, anymore than someone saying the right for women to vote is questionable.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login