|
Is Anna Nicole still dead, Wolf?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
CuwiKhons posted:What part of being elected directly wouldn't involve partisan politics? Potential justices would have to give their opinions on poo poo in order to get elected and then bam, people vote on party lines. And guess what? Campaigning costs money and justices would have to campaign in order to get their name out there. Where does that money come from? Hint, it's donated by people who want that justice to vote favorably on their poo poo. Which is exactly what happens right now with elected judges at the state level. Elected judges are the loving worst. Well, yes, if you have an electoral system for judges you do away with one element of judicial independence. It comes from a different school of thought, namely that government should be fully democratic. I'm not entirely sure which is right, but I tend to err on the side of judicial independence which is why I support appointment by a judicial board as my preferred system. That said, if you do go the democratic route you don't have to have a system that mirrors partisan elections and could, for example, have the public confirm or reject judicial nominees rather than the Senate, and even introduce additional measures to shield it from partisan interference like having the nominees introduced by an independent judicial board.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is still no way someone gets confirmed... Almost certainly not, but if they hold hearings and can't find anything disqualifying it becomes even more politically damaging to deny the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Almost certainly not, but if they hold hearings and can't find anything disqualifying it becomes even more politically damaging to deny the nominee. Too whom? Seriously what non partisans really care? This tactic is par for course for the republicans and no one will be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Too whom? Seriously what non partisans really care? This tactic is par for course for the republicans and no one will be surprised. It's precisely the non-partisans who will be most susceptible to "why isn't this nominee getting a vote if there's nothing wrong with them?" and it will continue to come up every time the court issues a 4-4 decision, and when Hillary or Sanders repeatedly references it as an ongoing issue in the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's precisely the non-partisans who will be most susceptible to "why isn't this nominee getting a vote if there's nothing wrong with them?" and it will continue to come up every time the court issues a 4-4 decision, and when Hillary or Sanders repeatedly references it as an ongoing issue in the election. I hope you're right but I don't think enough people pay attention. The GOP has been nothing but rewarded for their extremism when it comes to obstruction of nominees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I hope you're right but I don't think enough people pay attention. The GOP has been nothing but rewarded for their extremism when it comes to obstruction of nominees. Yeah, but the Supreme Court is the one nominee regular people actually know about and care about even a little bit. Even most lawyers can't really work up much caring over appeals court nominations, despite how important those are (and despite that Roberts keeps castigating the Senate over the vacancies caused by the slowed nominations). I mean it could easily not make a difference but if it's got a chance of making a difference hearings can only help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. Tons of fake moral outrage along the lines of "b-but it's the JOB of the PRESIDENT to nominate a new justice!! how dare these evil republicans try to prevent this!" or "they confirmed sotomayor and kagan, why wouldn't they confirm this one?!?! treason!!" And everyone disingenuously pretends to not know why the conservatives are not going to simply let Bamma stack the court with another liberal rubber stamp, replacing the previously conservative rubber stamp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. I mean this is still a hijacking of american democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:appointment by a judicial board How do you propose that the judicial board be selected?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. We know why, it's just an illegitimate reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:How do you propose that the judicial board be selected? Either by the members of the board, by a separate independent recruitment commission, or some combination of the two. If I was actually trying to design such a system instead of spitballing on the internet I'd look at the countries around the world that use these type of systems and see which work best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Obama has ceased giving fucks:quote:An exasperated Obama lamented how the opposition to a future nominee is just the latest example of the gridlock in Senate, particularly when it comes to nominations. “We’ve almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate has become," he said. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-supreme-court-nominee-219345
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Either by the members of the board, by a separate independent recruitment commission, or some combination of the two. If I was actually trying to design such a system instead of spitballing on the internet I'd look at the countries around the world that use these type of systems and see which work best. How would you appoint the members of the independent recruitment commission then? Is it independent commissions all the way down? Supreme Court nominees are picked by a judicial board which is selected by an independent recruitment commission which is presumably appointed by a separate independent recruitment board to recruit the recruitment board, and so on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama has ceased giving fucks: Please nominate Oprah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:How would you appoint the members of the independent recruitment commission then? No, the initial recruitment process would probably involve inviting representatives of the American Bar Association, National Lawyers Guild, state bar associations, sitting judges, prominent legal scholars, and other qualified parties. That would seed the commission (and the recruitment committee if it existed) and from there it'd follow a set procedure. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, the initial recruitment process would probably involve inviting representatives of the American Bar Association, National Lawyers Guild, state bar associations, sitting judges, prominent legal scholars, and other qualified parties. I thought you said you wanted a more democratic process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
foot posted:I thought you said you wanted a more democratic process. Sort of. I said that I thought a system with more democratic input would be better than leaving it entirely to politicians as it is in the current system, but also that an independent judicial board would be my preferred system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The next election isn't even underway! They haven't even chosen the candidates! Primaries are in fact part of the election and once people start winning delegates yes, the election is fully underway. The election doesn't start once the two major parties finalize their choices for president. Thug Lessons posted:That's supposition but were it the case I'd chalk it up to the American public's love affair with nightmare retributive justice rather than something inherent to judicial elections. There's a reason other first world countries don't leave their highest authorities of legal interpretations up to popular vote. It's not because you're some sort of enlightened guy, it's because you're an idiot and so is the average voter. The GOP on their best(?) day of obstructionism is still going to give Obama's nominee more critical thought than the average voter. You're sitting there and arguing in all seriousness that the SCOTUS being an elected position wouldn't suffer the same corruption and influencing that state supreme courts and other elected judges encounter constantly. If you truly believe this then you're the perfect example of why your idea is terrible. oswald ownenstein posted:This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. Hail to the king.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Sort of. I said that I thought a system with more democratic input would be better than leaving it entirely to politicians as it is in the current system, but also that an independent judicial board would be my preferred system. Politicians' behaviour is a symptom of the behaviour of the electorate, not the cause. Direct election of judges basically hands control of the judiciary to USA Today and FOX News. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Sort of. I said that I thought a system with more democratic input would be better than leaving it entirely to politicians as it is in the current system, but also that an independent judicial board would be my preferred system. So you would have the pool of candidates limited by an unelected council of experts or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama has ceased giving fucks: quote:“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” he said. But he was sure to throw in, “What is also true is Justice Alito is on the bench right now.” God DAMNIT politico why must you make typos like this. For a split second I dared to dream.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think these are entirely comparable because the Supreme Court's most prominent role is to decide what are essentially issues of policy and legislation, so they can't just run on law and order, lock 'em up messages like trial judges. Anyway what I'd prefer would be to have an independent judicial commission appoint justices like they do in the UK, (where it hasn't produced an Orwellian nightmare like people seem to assume it would), but in the specific case of the Supreme Court I'd say that democratic input would be superior to the current system where the Court's composition is determined by partisan politics and happenstance. The UK has parliamentary sovereignty and the judiciary can't strike down primary legislation. It's quite a bit easier to take politics out of judicial appointments when the political inclinations of justices are mostly inconsequential and they have much less to be accountable for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:We know why, it's just an illegitimate reason. It's really not and to pretend that it would be otherwise with an R in the white house and a D controlled senate is inane. Like Ginsburgh dying and about to be replaced by Trump with a conservative justice? Come on. Schumer was running his mouth about doing this with conservatives replacing conservatives iirc. Two liberals replacing two liberals was approved under Obama np. If the left thinks they're gonna get to replace a con with a lib....just lol..not while the senate is R controlled. In fact there isn't actually a mandate for the number of justices anyway, is there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:In fact there isn't actually a mandate for the number of justices anyway, is there? The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. Bryter fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:It's really not and to pretend that it would be otherwise with an R in the white house and a D controlled senate is inane. Like Ginsburgh dying and about to be replaced by Trump with a conservative justice? Come on. And yet when push came to shove the Dems still voted to confirm Bush's lovely choices. Except Harriet Miers who had bi-partisan opposition because everyone was horrified at how bad a pick she was. Even creepy Clarance was confirmed. The GOP debate made the GOP's argument really clear. If Obama appoints someone it won't be an arch conservative monster like Scalia and as such it puts the War on Women, Gays, and Minorities in jeopardy. E: If the GOP was smart they'd welcome that because once the courts can't be used as a tool for those actions it lets them start pandering to groups they currently neglect yet will need if they want to stay in power as demographics keep changing. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Bryter posted:The UK has parliamentary sovereignty and the judiciary can't strike down primary legislation. It's quite a bit easier to take politics out of judicial appointments when the political inclinations of justices are mostly inconsequential and they have much less to be accountable for. If you want an example of a court that has the full power of judicial review as well as appointment by an independent commission, there's Norway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And yet when push came to shove the Dems still voted to confirm Bush's lovely choices. Except Harriet Miers who had bi-partisan opposition because everyone was horrified at how bad a pick she was. Yes they confirmed Bush appointing a couple of conservative-ish people to replace conservative-ish people. Big concession. Obama didn't even have to fight to get his two liberal rubber stamps in because they were replacing other liberal rubber stamps. This is an entirely different situation and everyone knows it but not everyone is being honest about it - which is weird because mewling about it with some false moral highground isn't going to change anything. Reminds me of that Bill Burr bit on Conan about Lance Armstrong and the guy with the jowels saying "this is reprehensible!!" I'm glad the side I mostly align with won the senate, and I'll happily support the senate blocking any liberal appointee for as long as they have power - even into 2017 if Bernie or Hilldawg wins. No amount of bitching about obstructionism will change that because I'm not an idiot and I know what adding another liberal justice to the SC will mean down the road. oswald ownenstein fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There's a reason other first world countries don't leave their highest authorities of legal interpretations up to popular vote. It's not because you're some sort of enlightened guy, it's because you're an idiot and so is the average voter. The GOP on their best(?) day of obstructionism is still going to give Obama's nominee more critical thought than the average voter. Yes, if you're not particularly fond of democracy and believe rule by elites is preferable, you aren't going to want election of Supreme Court justices. I don't share that view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Primaries are in fact part of the election and once people start winning delegates yes, the election is fully underway. The election doesn't start once the two major parties finalize their choices for president. What aspect of the US electoral mechanics mention the primaries of those two parties? I'm non-American, I thought it was just an internal party choice. If a party decided to run its primary 2 years before the election, would that make it an election year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yes, if you're not particularly fond of democracy and believe rule by elites is preferable, you aren't going to want election of Supreme Court justices. I don't share that view. Elites like the bar association?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So you would have the pool of candidates limited by an unelected council of experts or something? Yes, or not even really have candidates at all and have the board appoint judges directly. If it's not working out, the public can exercise control by passing a law that changes the appointment system. Such a system would only really work in an environment where people had confidence in jurists to make the right decision and believed in judicial independence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
The bar association is garbage and judicial independence is a fiction. They would probably be less political if you elected them but I don't know why you would want "non political" judges. They don't exist. Politics infuses us all and the law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Elites like the bar association? Yeah, I actually think that's a case where it's appropriate. I see the judicial system as sort of like a scientific or technical community - you want the people who are the smartest, most knowledgeable and most competent in charge. I see them less as an elite than experts. Barring that, I'd like to see a democratic system where the people who are going to be determining American law are only installed with the explicit consent of the American people. The current system, where the Court's makeup is determined by politicians that seize on acts of fate like justices randomly dying to exert their political will, is in my view the worst. As an aside, even if you're committed to keeping the current system, one really simple thing you could do to make this less of an issue would be to give the justices fixed terms and/or fixed retirement ages, hopefully coinciding with election schedules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
I would say direct election of judges would be the worst personally but I suppose a public veto would be tolerable. As would perhaps fixed terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Radish posted:Well I bet she knows Scalia now that he's history. motherfucking touchdown
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:No amount of bitching about obstructionism will change that because I'm not an idiot and I know what adding another liberal justice to the SC will mean down the road. I think the hilarious part is that an overwhelming number (12 out of 16) of justices since 1970 were appointed by Republican presidents. To complain about this being unfair is dumb as gently caress. The country voted in Republicans; Republicans got to appoint justices. The country votes in a Democrat; he's not allowed to appoint a justice. If this is about numbers, Reagan got three and Nixon got four. HW got two in a single term. I mean, sure, several of the GOP appointees turned out to be more liberally oriented but that certainly wasn't the intention of the nominations. Why should the Dems be punished for Republican incompetency? And why should Republican incompetency be allowed to obstruct a constitutional process?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would say direct election of judges would be the worst personally but I suppose a public veto would be tolerable. As would perhaps fixed terms. When I talk about democratic control a public veto is what I have in mind. I'd be open to other proposals however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:This whole situation is so hilarious whenever you read comments from people on the left - especially on reddit. The conservatives who are trying to claim that the reason for blocking this for 11+ months is anything but political are similarly disingenuous. You're right that if the tables were turned the Dems might try the same thing but let's not pretend that both sides aren't crafting a message to fit their preferred political narrative. It might end up being a wise decision to block the nominee if the Republicans win but if they don't you're hosed. Refusing to vote on a nominee for 11 months is already unprecedented, trying to block a nominee for the entirety of the next presidency simply isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's precisely the non-partisans who will be most susceptible to "why isn't this nominee getting a vote if there's nothing wrong with them?" and it will continue to come up every time the court issues a 4-4 decision, and when Hillary or Sanders repeatedly references it as an ongoing issue in the election. So you argue that this time will be different? It will not be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:16
|
|