- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 12:45
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
quote:The Republican obstruction will break when John Roberts calls for the confirmation of Obama's pick. Roberts respects the non-political nature of the court too much to allow that poo poo to fly.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
... images of cars pulling up, a rager starting up in the rose garden...
and they're not invited.
time for goons to order pizza to goodwin liu's house
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 02:26
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
all I want for Christmas
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 05:45
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
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.
They absolutely can.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 20:34
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Law school does terrible things to people.
Scalia's only good thing was that he didn't couch his bigotry in legal jargon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
No, no matter how wrong he might be he was very, very talented at writing opinions. Again this may be something easier for lawyers to understand (but then again, it's a quality that's more relevant to being a good lawyer than being a good judge).
eh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 21:21
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
quote:Antonin Scalia was the most Orwellian jurist in American history. He was one of the most important members of the Supreme Court in American history, but not for any reason he identified. Scalia claimed to champion judicial restraint, originalism and the separation of law and politics. In fact, he was a judicial activist who struck down laws based on a contemporary constitutional vision that he campaigned for aggressively in both legal and political settings.
Scalia's professed adherence to judicial restraint masked a remarkably broad judicial activism. As Thomas Keck documents in THE MOST ACTIVISTSUPREME COURT IN HISTORY (see also Eric Segall’s fine piece in the Wake Forest Law Review), Scalia was among the least restrained justices who ever sat on the federal bench. He voted to declare unconstitutional land-use regulations, environmental regulations, campaign finance regulations, restrictions on speech outside abortion clinics, hate speech regulations, laws limiting state funding to religious organizations, affirmative action policies, majority-minority districts, crucial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, crucial provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and many other federal and state enactments. Scalia insisted that the federal government could rarely permit citizens to sue states in federal or state courts or require state officials to implement federal laws. Bush v. Gore probably belongs in a class of its own as an instance of judicial activism. Scalia’s last major opinion on the Supreme Court urged the justices to declare unconstitutional local bans on semi-automatic weapons.
Scalia insisted that he was guided by the original meaning of the Constitution, but his activist opinions often made no reference to practice in 1789 or 1868 or did so in ways that would cheer the heart of a living constitutionalist. He posed as Raoul Berger, but was far closer in spirit to Jack Balkin. Scalia’s denunciations of affirmative action never engaged with the substantial scholarly literature maintaining that the Republicans who framed the post-Civil War Amendments frequently enacted race-conscious programs. His aggressive attacks on regulatory takings never engaged with the scholarly debate over whether the conception of regulatory takings even existed in 1789. His support for corporate contributions in political campaigns refused to tackle antebellum legal decisions holding that states were free to restrict corporate charters in any way the people thought best for the public interest. He never sought to refute Saul Cornell's influential claim that the right to bear arms in 1791 was the right to be part of a state militia. As did most justices, Scalia appealed to broad general principles (free speech, formal equality) when they supported his pet causes, and appealed to particular historical practices when general principles standing alone might lead in a disfavored direction.
Scalia demanded from others a separation of law and politics that was missing in his practice. As Mark Tushnet observes, Scalia often wrote for the evening news or the blogs rather than for legal analysts. His opinions consistently included insults that mobilized conservative activists without advancing by an iota any legal argument. Scalia spent most of his time off the court campaigning for his constitutional vision in any forum that would offer him a podium.
Scalia was hardly unique in his activism and devotion to the political movements of his time. Think William Douglas and William Brennan during the late twentieth century or David Brewer at the turn of the twentieth century. Each was a judicial activist who identified with a political movement of that time and articulated that political movement’s constitutional vision. What set Scalia apart was his Orwellian insistence that he was the anti-Brennan/Douglas/Brewer, a justice who respected legislatures and whose jurisprudence was connected only to the political movements of the late eighteenth century that produced the Constitution of the United States. If he fooled some of the people some of the time early in his career, by the end he demonstrated the adage that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Just as the historical reputation of David Brewer and William Brennan are tied to the political movements whose constitutional vision they articulated, so will the historical reputation of Antonin Scalia depend on the fate of the Tea Party in American constitutional politics.
By all accounts, Scalia was an honorable public servant who was gracious in private life and committed to advancing the common good as he saw it in public life. He had an exceptional capacity for friendship across ideological divides and there was never a hint of scandal in his behavior. A great many public officials might emulate those behaviors. Nevertheless, Scalia did more to cheapen than enrich public discourse. His judicial rants, even if they were of little concern to his colleagues, further polarized a too polarized polity. His false professions of judicial modesty converted appropriate debates over how the court should be activist into an historically silly debate over whether the court should be activist. His false professions of neutrality converted appropriate debates over which contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land into an absurd debate over whether any contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land. His false professions about the separation of law and politics obscured the myriad ways in which constitutional law does and should bleed into constitutional politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 14:07
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review.
so does Scalia
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 14:46
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
nice
also nice:
quote:If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.
“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”
The pressure he and other groups are putting on lawmakers comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement almost immediately after Scalia’s death, signaling that Republicans would delay the confirmation process, regardless of the nominee, until after a new president has been inaugurated.
“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”
For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.
“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.
One key choice for Republican lawmakers is whether to go through the motions of considering a nominee -- though hearings and other vetting -- before blocking them in a vote, or whether GOP leaders should refuse to even begin the process in the first place. McConnell’s statement, which was quickly followed by statements made by other Republican leaders echoing his logic, suggested they were planning for a full stonewall -- no hearings, no nothing
Outside conservative groups with influence on Capitol Hill -- and particularly those that inhabit its far-right flank -- were quick to cement the line McConnell drew.
“Senator McConnell is right, under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action, the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- said in a statement posted Monday.
The Family Research Council is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.
“The Senate is under no obligation to consider them,” Travis Weber, the director of the FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, said in an interview with TPM. “President Obama can nominate people until his heart’s content and they have no obligation to look at them one way or another, given the gravity of the moment.”
Some reports have suggested that some Republicans are already wavering on McConnell’s tough line, pointing to comments made by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), but legal activists dismissed that analysis as overstated.
“The headlines about the fracturing are more wishful thinking than anything else,” Severino said. “If you really look at the full statements, I think it’s remarkable how the Republican senators are speaking with one voice on this issue.”
According Levey, FreedomWorks is preparing to target senators who look like they’ll back down from the fight, while bolstering those who hold to McConnell’s tough initial line.
He said his group sent out an alert to its activists across the country Monday evening that resulted in 14,000 emails to McConnell’s office, and that, aside from email pressure, they are planning events in senators’ home states.
Levey also threatened to primary senators who don't toe the line.
“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,” Levey said.
As Rory Cooper, a GOP strategist, wrote on Medium, part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.
But the outside groups pushing the tactic also argued it’s a more principled approach to blocking a nominee that Republicans will inevitably block in a vote anyway.
“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 14:57
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Has the funeral been scheduled yet? Obama needs to name a nominee already so these right wing jerks can put up or shut up.
2/20, I think
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:37
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Alito is the worst tbqh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 18:23
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
yeah, he's just a festering pile of bile with no redeeming qualities
scalia was at least at times possessed of wit and humor
Scalia rarely voted against the interests of the right wing of the Republican Party. Alito is purely a partisan hack.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Has he ever been asked about Raich? I'm sure I know what he'd say but...
He's dead, Jim
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:39
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Yes. They are allowed to hold their hearings in a timely manner. But they are not disallowed from holding them in an untimely manner, there's no speed requirement like there is for court cases, unless I'm unaware of existing precedent on it. Either way, it's not there as a strict reading, only possibly implied as being necessary for the actual functioning of the system.
I'm not saying it's right, but the Constitution has no recourse here.
crossposting:
The problem with the Republican argument that they don't have to, e.g., vote on Obama's nominee because it's not Constitutionally required is that while technically true, it nevertheless violates norms of how our government functions. This is just one of many practices of the Republican Congress that, while within the scope of the text of the Constitution, go against the ethos of the historical practice of government that has gotten us to where we are today. Something Republicans may want to consider is that there are also norms that forbid other parts of government from doing certain things that would not be outside the text of the Constitution. For instance, one norm is that the President does not proactively announce that he will grant a federal pardon to anyone who commits an act of political assassination in a federal jurisdiction against legislators of the opposite party. The text of the Constitution doesn't forbid this, nor does the pardon power contain a check by either of the other two branches. The President doing so would do violence to our form of government though. So too have the Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:56
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
I don't disagree, but calling that "constitutional" is misleading. I realize I'm being pedantic, but it's important when deciding the recourse the other branches of government may have.
I'd describe it as "not unconstitutional" at least. And Congress could always impeach, but they can impeach for things that aren't constitutional violations, so welp
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:11
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
it's a dumb non-story that I don't know why "random loon says thing" got any coverage
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 13:28
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 12:45
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
It'd be much easier to put poison in the humidifier chamber of the CPAP
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 18:02
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:49
