Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[noharleyyet]

I almost included that same point, but figured I would leave you a softball, so your remark made me smile.

...appreciate the intellectual crumbs

 

[VikingsGuy]

...appreciate the intellectual crumbs

Happy to play the role of your “straight man”.

 

[SAJ-99]

@wllm1313 is on point - it is a double-edged sword.

In my view, "precedent honoring" (stare decisis) is like an earlier thread about "right vs privilege" as that related to the Bill of Rights. It is a label (I distinguish that from the actually underlying legal theory that serves a purpose, just not the one wielded by the pundits) that adds little actual value/understanding/rigor to the discussion and is primarily used as a preference-supporting rationalization. If all precedents were honored, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land, as would forced sterilizations, a very limited view of the 2A, etc. Many many legal positions today that we take for granted involved at some point overturning a prior precedent - this is an unavoidable (and positive) reality. And, let's be clear - those that demand fealty on the issue of Roe precedent, in turn openly advocate for the reversal of Citizen's United and Heller precedents. It is not stare decisis they demand, it is their preferred outcome - it is simply verbal gamesmanship offered by both sides when they find it useful.

I think Amy Barret did hit on the right view of the issue of precedent in an article she wrote a while back - and I paraphrase very loosely - if a justice believes a legal text (constitution or law) to be wrongly interpreted then they should consider correcting such mistake while weighing such correction against upsetting the societal expectation interest of the prior holding, but a justice should never reverse precedent where there is not sincere legal disagreement in the ruling, but rather where the desire for change is based upon a judge-held urge to expedite change that is more properly done by the democratic legislative process.

As for the hypocrite label - both sides equally own, as both sides have equally reversed their earlier positions.

As for both Lees (and Cruz), zero chance they are appointed to the supreme court in the next 5 years regardless of election outcome.

Quick question for someone in the business, do you think public opinion sways SCOTUS member decisions? Or maybe just Roberts? One example was striking down DOMA (2013) and declaring same sex marriage legal (2015) coinciding with public opinion on the subject rising above 50%. I don't think anyone could have ever imaging the subject coming up in the 1950s, 60s, etc. Polls of Americans come with considerable degrees of nuance, but most support Roe v. Wade, the gun ownership (2nd A), hunting, etc. It would be nice to debate the details/limitations rather than broad concepts themselves.

 

[VikingsGuy]

do you think public opinion sways SCOTUS member decisions?

I think it has always been the case. I believe that Dred Scott v Stanford was in part decided in fear that to rule in favor of Scott would fan the flames of southern succession. The SCOTUS 180 degree reversals on the commerce clause cases in the face of FDR's threat of court-packing are another example of a context-aware and politically affected court. The reversal of Plessy (Brown v Board of Education) absolutely correlated with a more generalized sentiment in favor of the emerging civil rights movement - there had been earlier chances to fix Plessy that were passed over. I think same-sex marriage cases followed a similar path - ruling after societal writing was on the wall.

And in a democracy, it is a good thing (to a point) that our least democratic (and slowest changing) branch of government displays some awareness and humility towards public sentiment.

In contrast, even some supporters of Roe agree that it was a ruling that got ahead of social acceptance, and we have seen the decades-long battleground it created. If the court had waited 10 years it may be water long under the bridge. (and remember 20 mostly high population states already had legalized abortion in some form at the state legislature level at the time of Roe)

 

[3855WIN]

A justice before the election should be good for the 2A.

 

[Shangobango]

I thought that the Republicans were whiney little b words when President Obama put forth Garland and they wouldnt give hime a vote and I think that the Dems are being whiney little b words now with there foot stomping tantrum about President Trump putting someone forth.

I thought that the whole process was set forth fairly clearly. Just because “ your side” is not in control of the process doesn’t mean you get to scrap it.

 

[thusby]

Don't care who it is, as long as they are centrist.

 

[runningmt]

Funny how the republicans are in such a hurry to replace justice Ginsburg immediately when they blocked Obama from filling a justice seat for a year. Because they said it couldn't possibly be done during an election year.
Nothing hypocritical about that, right?

If you think the problems in our democracy started with Trump and his bobos, and is exclusive to just one particular party, then you need to read a lot more history.

I agree wholeheartedly, however I also believe in taking responsibility for the present, or the idea that the “bucks stops here”. If we’re always blaming the current situation on the past, we’ll never fix the future. Whoever is currently in charge should be accountable for the current problems.

This hasn’t occurred in many decades.

 

[runningmt]

Don't care who it is, as long as they are centrist.

Therein lies the problem, the pick won’t be centrist.

 

[SAJ-99]

I thought that the whole process was set forth fairly clearly. Just because “ your side” is not in control of the process doesn’t mean you get to scrap it.

I think what we are seeing is that each side takes the approach of competition rather than cooperation. This administration didn’t start that but it certainly accelerated the pace greatly. It leads us down a dangerous road where we don’t make progress, we just keep flipping from one paradigm to another based on which party is in charge. The center disappears because the system forces everyone to chose a side. The variety and depth of issues are complex and impossible to completely comprehend for anyone, so we pick a single issue or maybe two and vote that way, and many just vote for perceived strength of the leader. Our Democracy is fragile. If it isn’t dead already it may soon be. We already show the traits of an oligarchy on the economic side and elected a reality show hosting, middling NY real estate developer with authoritarian tendencies as president. Then everyone complains about the two party system but everyone votes along those lines because of the narrowness of the margin. It seems like a spiral we can’t escape from.

 

[Nameless Range]

Our Democracy is fragile. If it isn’t dead already it may soon be. We already show the traits of an oligarchy on the economic side and elected a reality show hosting, middling NY real estate developer with authoritarian tendencies as president. Then everyone complains about the two party system but everyone votes along those lines because of the narrowness of the margin. It seems like a spiral we can’t escape from.

I believe we can escape from it, and I believe there are Americans out there who could lead us away from it, they just haven't stepped forward yet and I hope they do. We need leadership. Maybe cognitive dissonance.

Your post made me think of a short story an AI researcher named Eliezer Yudkowski posted the other day:



In his day, Agent 3203.7 had stopped people from trying to kill Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon, and even, in the case of one unusually thoughtful assassin, Henry David Thoreau. But this was a new one on him.

"So..." drawled the seventh version of Agent 3203. His prosthetic hand crushed the simple 21st-century gun into fused metal and dropped it. "You traveled to the past in order to kill... of all people... Donald Trump. Care to explain why?"

The time-traveller's eyes looked wild. Crazed. Nothing unusual. "How can you ask me that? You're a time-traveler too! You know what he does!"

That was a surprising level of ignorance even for a 21st-century jumper. "Different timelines, kid. Some are pretty obscure. What the heck did Trump do in yours that's worth taking your one shot at time travel to assassinate him of all people?"

"He's destroying my world!"

Agent 3203.7 took a good look at where Donald Trump was pridefully addressing the unveiling of the Trump Taj Mahal in New Jersey, then took another good look at the errant time-traveler. "Destroying it how, exactly? Did Trump turn mad scientist in your timeline?"

"He's President of the United States!"

Agent 3203.7 took another long stare at his new prisoner. He was apparently serious. "How did Trump become President in your timeline? Strangely advanced technology, subliminal messaging?"

"He was elected in the usual way," the prisoner said bitterly.

Agent 3203.7 shook his head in amazement. Talk about shooting the messenger. "Kid, I doubt Trump was your timeline's main problem."

 

[SAJ-99]

I believe we can escape from it, and I believe there are Americans out there who could lead us away from it, they just haven't stepped forward yet and I hope they do. We need leadership. Maybe cognitive dissonance.

Your post made me think of a short story an AI researcher named Eliezer Yudkowski posted the other day:



In his day, Agent 3203.7 had stopped people from trying to kill Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon, and even, in the case of one unusually thoughtful assassin, Henry David Thoreau. But this was a new one on him.

"So..." drawled the seventh version of Agent 3203. His prosthetic hand crushed the simple 21st-century gun into fused metal and dropped it. "You traveled to the past in order to kill... of all people... Donald Trump. Care to explain why?"

The time-traveller's eyes looked wild. Crazed. Nothing unusual. "How can you ask me that? You're a time-traveler too! You know what he does!"

That was a surprising level of ignorance even for a 21st-century jumper. "Different timelines, kid. Some are pretty obscure. What the heck did Trump do in yours that's worth taking your one shot at time travel to assassinate him of all people?"

"He's destroying my world!"

Agent 3203.7 took a good look at where Donald Trump was pridefully addressing the unveiling of the Trump Taj Mahal in New Jersey, then took another good look at the errant time-traveler. "Destroying it how, exactly? Did Trump turn mad scientist in your timeline?"

"He's President of the United States!"

Agent 3203.7 took another long stare at his new prisoner. He was apparently serious. "How did Trump become President in your timeline? Strangely advanced technology, subliminal messaging?"

"He was elected in the usual way," the prisoner said bitterly.

Agent 3203.7 shook his head in amazement. Talk about shooting the messenger. "Kid, I doubt Trump was your timeline's main problem."

Couldn't agree more. Trump isn't the problem, he is the result. It would be comical if I was looking at it from outside, like an alien from another planet. The country and world face incredibly difficult problems and decides to elect a reality show host who promises to shake up the political system viewed largely as corrupt, but essentially just makes it more corrupt and self-serving. Then a large percentage of voters double-down on that support in the reelection. I couldn't make this stuff up. And America isn't the only country taking the path. Other countries have elected comedians, sports stars, and pop stars, so it isn't new. But most of them had some political experience. We just jumped in headfirst.

 

[noharleyyet]

Let's cut to the chase...Hillary and 'in the bag' arrogance is why Trump got elected. Anyone remember this; “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

It was gonna be a rout and the court would've been packed with blue for decades...fact.

Not my quote; If one of them would just come out and say, “Yeah, we were being obstructionist because we could, and now we are going to facilitate a quick nomination, because we can. Suck it Dems. Win the Senate or stop bitching,” it would at least feel like there was finally some intellectual honesty."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Let's cut to the chase...Hillary and 'in the bag' arrogance is why Trump got elected. Anyone remember this; “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

It was gonna be a rout and the court would've been packed with blue for decades...fact.

Not my quote; If one of them would just come out and say, “Yeah, we were being obstructionist because we could, and now we are going to facilitate a quick nomination, because we can. Suck it Dems. Win the Senate or stop bitching,” it would at least feel like there was finally some intellectual honesty."

The kind of intellectual honesty I wish we’d get from Mitch et al.

 

[Shangobango]

I think what we are seeing is that each side takes the approach of competition rather than cooperation. This administration didn’t start that but it certainly accelerated the pace greatly. It leads us down a dangerous road where we don’t make progress, we just keep flipping from one paradigm to another based on which party is in charge. The center disappears because the system forces everyone to chose a side. The variety and depth of issues are complex and impossible to completely comprehend for anyone, so we pick a single issue or maybe two and vote that way, and many just vote for perceived strength of the leader. Our Democracy is fragile. If it isn’t dead already it may soon be. We already show the traits of an oligarchy on the economic side and elected a reality show hosting, middling NY real estate developer with authoritarian tendencies as president. Then everyone complains about the two party system but everyone votes along those lines because of the narrowness of the margin. It seems like a spiral we can’t escape from.

I see your point.

It is not like we are being presented with great choices though. Look at the candidates that won the nominations this time and last. A lose/lose situation for the top office in the land both times.

If our republic fails then the blame rests squarely on the American people for being mindless fools.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I see your point.

It is not like we are being presented with great choices though. Look at the candidates that won the nominations this time and last. A lose/lose situation for the top office in the land both times.

If our republic fails then the blame rests squarely on the American people for being mindless fools.

Ranked choice voting... discuss

 

[noharleyyet]

If our republic fails then the blame rests squarely on the American people for being mindless fools.

How so? Who really has a choice save for holding your nose and pulling the lever?

 

[Shangobango]

How so? Who really has a choice save for holding your nose and pulling the lever?

Because the choices that are presented are there because they are winning the primary elections. They are winning in the primaries because people are voting for them. They are in the primary elections because it is deemed that the people will get behind them.

The candidates we have are a direct reflection of the American populace in my opinion.

 

[Shangobango]

Ranked choice voting... discuss

Haven't ever given it any thought. I will have to do a little research before I can participate in an informed discussion on the subject.

 

[Randi]

Because the choices that are presented are there because they are winning the primary elections. They are winning in the primaries because people are voting for them. They are in the primary elections because it is deemed that the people will get behind them.

The candidates we have are a direct reflection of the American populace in my opinion.

But that still is the point Noharleyyet was making. Voting does not just happen every four years in Nov. Regardless of when one votes noharleyyet was indicating that the choices we are given are not all that great. You hold your nose and vote at the primary and again in Nov. etc etc.

Look at what happens to the people the media dont like or the other party dont like, look at what happened at the last Supreme Court hearing.

Who wants their children in the audience hearing an exaggerated ( or possibly it never even happened ) event played out in crude details about something you may or may not have done when you were 16. 17. 18 years old.

Good people are saying, thanks but no thanks to public office.

Who wants to be a police chief in Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago, now. Defund the police!!! ---- but ask them why they didn't respond when you called them because of a trespasser in your back yard. They are probably downtown trying to stop a riot, or maybe they have taken early retirement, in mass, since their are some out there trying to murder them.

Good people dont want to serve, so we hold our nose and pull the lever