Supreme Court appointments have never not been political.
I’m not sure any president has appointed any justice without regard to ideally. Garland was Obama’s attempt to put someone right enough to the spectrum that Mitch would bite.
All of the “liberal” justices were appointed by democrats. All the conservative justices by republicans. These positions have always been political appointees. The hope is that given it is very difficult to impeach a Justice that they are not bound by the idealogical that got them to the bench and are free to make wise decisions on the basis of their interpretation of law.
The idea of impartiality is a fairytale. The best you can hope for is that they apply the law consistently within their philosophy so the textualists are always textualists and the contextualists are contextualists even if it doesn’t suit them.
So how is the packing of the Supreme Court with Justice aligning to their view Monstrous
Great post. All of the bloviating from the left on this one is simply that they want their political judge in instead of the GOPs political judge. They can't really say that, of course, so they need to come up with a palatable message to rally the believers - and that message is "hypocrisy". It's a valid message to give, just not a very compelling one.
I'm going to ignore the waft of fresh bull#### that's emanating from this thread, but speaking of hypocrisy, Lindsey Graham went on Fox News to beg for money. So funny to watch him fight for his political life. I want him out as much as Trump. What a spineless turd.
Hannity talking about "them" breaking precedent is quite the laugh as well.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Bolevi, I can only assume that you are intentionally ignorant to the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican Party and how their actuons four years ago shaped this debate. The Court is political, but until now the process of filling vacancies and refusing to confirm a justice hasn't been. I understand that you view this as a team sport with winners and losers, but make no mistake this goes against the fairness that is required to make an effective government operate.
I will admit that I fall under the more liberal side of the spectrum in the states, but that is only because I can read and see the injustices that are ongoing.
Bolevi, I can only assume that you are intentionally ignorant to the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican Party and how their actuons four years ago shaped this debate. The Court is political, but until now the process of filling vacancies and refusing to confirm a justice hasn't been. I understand that you view this as a team sport with winners and losers, but make no mistake this goes against the fairness that is required to make an effective government operate.
I will admit that I fall under the more liberal side of the spectrum in the states, but that is only because I can read and see the injustices that are ongoing.
On the contrary, I've said on many occasions in this thread that I view the Republican actions as hypocritical and cynical. The difference it seems is that I'm also willing to acknowledge that the Democrats did exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the Republicans had the power to do things, and the Democrats did not.
My refusal to ignore hypocrisy wherever it exists seems to indicate I do not view this as a team sport in any fashion. I have my opinions on policy, but I'm willing to be honest about what I see. That seems like a pretty rare thing around here. People are either happy to live in self-delusion or they are so partisan they don't care about their own side's nonsense.
On the contrary, I've said on many occasions in this thread that I view the Republican actions as hypocritical and cynical. The difference it seems is that I'm also willing to acknowledge that the Democrats did exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the Republicans had the power to do things, and the Democrats did not.
My refusal to ignore hypocrisy wherever it exists seems to indicate I do not view this as a team sport in any fashion. I have my opinions on policy, but I'm willing to be honest about what I see. That seems like a pretty rare thing around here. People are either happy to live in self-delusion or they are so partisan they don't care about their own side's nonsense.
Hypocrisy
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Supreme Court appointments have never not been political.
You're mistaking the interpretive preference with the politics of the individual and their willingness to apply those politics on the bench. There is a massive difference. For example, John Paul Stevens was nominated by Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford and was a registered Republican. He was confirm in 13 days by a Democrat senate (99-0). Stevens ascribed to neither the textual or contextual schools and instead floated between as the case deemed necessary, because at times, context matters. Stevens was a registered Republican but refused to speak politics. As it would turn out, even though he was appointed from the right, Stevens was one of the most balanced justices and provided a great deal of wisdom in his opinions.
Quote:
I’m not sure any president has appointed any justice without regard to ideally. Garland was Obama’s attempt to put someone right enough to the spectrum that Mitch would bite.
There have been many. It used to be that people were more concerned about the justice's bona fides in jurisprudence, their expertise in law, and their time on the bench, to make a selection. That was when the court was non-political, and it wasn't that long ago. There was no litmus test on particular issues (Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, etc.) that justices had to pass. It was about their skill and knowledge in doing the job and being able to remain impartial and make interpretations fairly. The textual/contextual aspect was probably the most controversial thing brought up during confirmation.
Quote:
All of the “liberal” justices were appointed by democrats. All the conservative justices by republicans. These positions have always been political appointees. The hope is that given it is very difficult to impeach a Justice that they are not bound by the idealogical that got them to the bench and are free to make wise decisions on the basis of their interpretation of law.
This is inaccurate and you are strictly relying on existing labels. For example, Charles Whittaker was appointed by Eisenhower and he turned out to be very liberal in his perspective. Conversely, William Brennan, also an Eisenhower nominee was extremely conservative in his votes. What got them their nominations was their body of work, not their political leanings.
Quote:
The idea of impartiality is a fairytale. The best you can hope for is that they apply the law consistently within their philosophy so the textualists are always textualists and the contextualists are contextualists even if it doesn’t suit them.
No, it is not. People can have their political leanings so long as they do not allow them to cloud their judgement when reviewing the facts. You are taught to do this in social sciences and I'm certain it is taught in law school. Arrive at the subject matter as a blank slate and follow the facts as they are presented. Make no pre-determination and rely on only the information presented and the arguments made in the court room. Regardless of being a textualist or a contextualist (I lean to the latter, as context always matters) should be irrelevant while hearing the facts and the arguments. When making interpretation that is your foundation. At no point should your political indentation come into play. Facts are not liberal or conservative, at least they never used to be.
Quote:
So how is the packing of the Supreme Court with Justice aligning to their view Monstrous
Because justice is supposed to be blind and impartial. There are supposed to be no preconditions established on how you feel about certain case law from the past, and selected on how you would vote should that issue come past the bench again. Your textual perspective is one thing, but acknowledging your would be predisposed to voting one way on an issue, with hearing the arguments, is another. When the courts are being packed with people who admittedly harbor a predisposition to making judgements on certain cases likely to come across the bench, that is monstrous. That is someone incapable of being impartial and making judgement on facts before them, so should preclude them from the highest court in the land.
My refusal to ignore hypocrisy wherever it exists seems to indicate I do not view this as a team sport in any fashion. I have my opinions on policy, but I'm willing to be honest about what I see. That seems like a pretty rare thing around here. People are either happy to live in self-delusion or they are so partisan they don't care about their own side's nonsense.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
FDR threatened to pack the court with extra justices. It has always been political. You hope that a life time appointment will allow them to not be beholden to anyone when making decisions. In general this has worked.
Just because it is always political doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect the judges to interpret the law without bias.
FDR threatened to pack the court with extra justices. It has always been political. You hope that a life time appointment will allow them to not be beholden to anyone when making decisions. In general this has worked.
FDR threatened to pack the court to counter the movement to fill the court with old conservatives who were supporting the robber barons. The court was not acting in the people's best interests and that was problem as the court had proven to be non-functional. This had massive support by the electorate and common folk. See, context matters. It was actually very similar to the shenanigans we are seeing play out right now.
Quote:
Just because it is always political doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect the judges to interpret the law without bias.
Again, the appointments were traditionally focused on the nominee's bona fides not on their political identification on predetermination to vote on specific issues. As soon as you make a selection on a predetermination requirement, that is undue influence through political identification. This has rarely happened in the past.
I'm going to ignore the waft of fresh bull#### that's emanating from this thread, but speaking of hypocrisy, Lindsey Graham went on Fox News to beg for money. So funny to watch him fight for his political life. I want him out as much as Trump. What a spineless turd.
Hannity talking about "them" breaking precedent is quite the laugh as well.
I know that Canadians cannot donate to political campaigns, but there seem to be enough Americans in these threads that I feel compelled to post this:
Please donate to Jaime Harrison's campaign in South Carolina. He's got Lindsey Graham on the ropes and this recent about face on senate confirmation of SCJ nominees could be the final nail in the coffin for Lady G. The two most recent polls have it as a dead heat or a 1% lead for Graham.
FDR threatened to pack the court to counter the movement to fill the court with old conservatives who were supporting the robber barons. The court was not acting in the people's best interests and that was problem as the court had proven to be non-functional. This had massive support by the electorate and common folk. See, context matters. It was actually very similar to the shenanigans we are seeing play out right now.
Again, the appointments were traditionally focused on the nominee's bona fides not on their political identification on predetermination to vote on specific issues. As soon as you make a selection on a predetermination requirement, that is undue influence through political identification. This has rarely happened in the past.
I know the history of FDRs plan, it entirely backs my point hence why I brought it up. If the same shenanigans happened 100 years ago this isn’t exactly a new thing.
Bonafides May have been the public focus and people would have been much more discrete in the past but the thought process of how the rulings the appointed Justices would make and how that would shape America has always been a consideration of the president when appointing and senate when confirming. The quiet part is just said out loud today.
You probably have a pool of 100 people who have the bonafides to be Supreme Court justices. So picking politically does not mean selecting an unqualified person.
Last edited by GGG; 09-22-2020 at 08:53 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Yet we are seeing highly unqualified people making the lists, which is why the confirmation votes are so closely split. That is the artifact of political appointment. Want to know who was a political appointee rather than one appointed on their bona fides? Look for partisan results from the confirmation process.
Yet we are seeing highly unqualified people making the lists, which is why the confirmation votes are so closely split. That is the artifact of political appointment. Want to know who was a political appointee rather than one appointed on their bona fides? Look for partisan results from the confirmation process.
But it's so divided now. Is there ANY judge that one side can nominate today without the other side opposing?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Yet we are seeing highly unqualified people making the lists, which is why the confirmation votes are so closely split. That is the artifact of political appointment. Want to know who was a political appointee rather than one appointed on their bona fides? Look for partisan results from the confirmation process.
Gorsuch was 55-45. I’d argue he is very qualified to hold the position. Partisan or not?
Sontemeyer - 68-31
RBG - near unanimous
Clarance Thomas 52-48. I’d argue very qualified but also extremely political.
Gorsuch was 55-45. I’d argue he is very qualified to hold the position. Partisan or not?
Sontemeyer - 68-31
RBG - near unanimous
Clarance Thomas 52-48. I’d argue very qualified but also extremely political.
I can’t go further back in time than that
Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard. I have never seen such unsubstantiated and manufactured outrage in my life. We are way beyond having qualifications mean anything in these appointments anymore it is more about the identity politics than anything.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tjinaz For This Useful Post:
Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard. I have never seen such unsubstantiated and manufactured outrage in my life. We are way beyond having qualifications mean anything in these appointments anymore it is more about the identity politics than anything.
A rape allegation from college years that never resulted in anything, and was disputed.
Meanwhile, a charged rapist is a national hero. I know, I know, criticizing a dangerous criminal who was shot by the police is verboten. But it's interesting how he gets the benefit of the doubt and that idiot BK didn't.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard. I have never seen such unsubstantiated and manufactured outrage in my life. We are way beyond having qualifications mean anything in these appointments anymore it is more about the identity politics than anything.
I believe on a balance of probabilities that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford.
A rape allegation from college years that never resulted in anything, and was disputed.
Meanwhile, a charged rapist is a national hero. I know, I know, criticizing a dangerous criminal who was shot by the police is verboten. But it's interesting how he gets the benefit of the doubt and that idiot BK didn't.
Well, the standard for being appointed to the supreme court should be higher than to not get killed by police.
The democrats approach to that whole hearing was a costly mistake though and probably cost some senate races in 2018. And really, there was no end game. If they succeeded in disqualifying Kavanaugh, it would have probably been someone worse.
