Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed

[tarheelsxxiii]

A serious question for our lawyer members: I have seen posters discussing "good" Supreme Court picks...are there any current SC justices that you think are bad justices? If so who and why?

Bad, in terms of qualifications?  Not really.  They’re all very talented people.  The ones that might not be the intellectual heavyweights of their peers are Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. 

Bad in terms of how they approach the law?  Sure.  I think too often “culture war” cases are decided by ideology, rather than by the law and the Constitution.

Someone may have asked earlier, but what's the likelihood of a non-judge (e.g. Senator) getting a bid?

The only way that happens is if, for whatever reason, it’s the only way to get a Justice confirmed, in my opinion.  That’s unlikely.

More likely than a Senator is a practicing lawyer who isn’t a judge, like recent nominees Kagan and Harriet Myers.

I really think it will be Amy Coney Barrett, who was top three last time.

Thanks.  What do you think is the likelihood that happens before the election? 

[Ogaju]

A serious question for our lawyer members: I have seen posters discussing "good" Supreme Court picks...are there any current SC justices that you think are bad justices? If so who and why?

Bad, in terms of qualifications?  Not really.  They’re all very talented people.  The ones that might not be the intellectual heavyweights of their peers are Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. 

Bad in terms of how they approach the law?  Sure.  I think too often “culture war” cases are decided by ideology, rather than by the law and the Constitution.

A judge is supposed to call balls and strikes and interprete the law.  The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States  perform a different role since the historic Marbury vs. Madison case in which the Court gave itself the power of judicial review. The court became the arbiter and voice of the US Constitution. The Court therefore not only interpretes the Constitution but applies the words of the archaic document to an ever evolving society. In that sense this court makes laws that impacts society as a whole. To do this monumental task you need great minds, independent minds, and minds with moral clarity. Most of the political hacks that are placed on the court today fail this test, in my opinion. Roberts is living up to the ideals of the institution perhaps because it is his Court, his legacy so he is mindful of how history will judge his court. He is also probably the most brilliant of the current corp of justices. Honestly, Thomas I do not believe was qualifed for the court when he was nominated. He has probably grown into the position but the GOP who fast tracked him to the position did the nation a disservice with that nomination as they have with the politicizing of the court.

There was a time when you got on the Supreme Court based on merit, now it is based on your politics. You are not getting any Holmes, Warrens, or Blacks anytime soon.

[Roy H.]

A serious question for our lawyer members: I have seen posters discussing "good" Supreme Court picks...are there any current SC justices that you think are bad justices? If so who and why?

Bad, in terms of qualifications?  Not really.  They’re all very talented people.  The ones that might not be the intellectual heavyweights of their peers are Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. 

Bad in terms of how they approach the law?  Sure.  I think too often “culture war” cases are decided by ideology, rather than by the law and the Constitution.

Someone may have asked earlier, but what's the likelihood of a non-judge (e.g. Senator) getting a bid?

The only way that happens is if, for whatever reason, it’s the only way to get a Justice confirmed, in my opinion.  That’s unlikely.

More likely than a Senator is a practicing lawyer who isn’t a judge, like recent nominees Kagan and Harriet Myers.

I really think it will be Amy Coney Barrett, who was top three last time.

Thanks.  What do you think is the likelihood that happens before the election?

There’s time to get it done in theory.  RBG was confirmed within six weeks.  If McConnell has the votes, he’ll get a vote in.

Does he have the votes?  Murkowski is definitely a no.  Reportedly Collins and Romney are.  So, among swing votes Corey Gardner will be a big one.  And of course, Graham and Grassley have said previously that they wouldn’t support a vote, although opinions certainly evolve.

[indeedproceed]

My eyes will be focused clearly on the most eligible bachelor in all the land, Lindsey Graham.

[Ogaju]

My eyes will be focused clearly on the most eligible bachelor in all the land, Lindsey Graham.

He has been very quiet lately. The hypocrisy of the GOP is nauseating, but we all knew this would happen. The entire Merrick Garland thing was nonesense.

[ozgod]

RIP. She was a throwback to the days when the Senate could still work together, to be confirmed 96-3 by both Republicans and Democrats, including Mr McConnell. Those days seem like 100 years ago.

[Erik]

My eyes will be focused clearly on the most eligible bachelor in all the land, Lindsey Graham.

This is why politicians shouldn't put themselves into corners. It's just a bad strategy.

I think someone like Lindsay Graham is going to have to go back on his word now, otherwise, what is the point of being a sitting Republican senator if it's not to put Conservative leaning judges in? If they're all going to be honorable all the time and elect straight down the middle highly intelligent constitutionalists, that's great. It doesn't happen on either side, though.

There's time for political theater and then there's the time to go do your job. I believe for poor Lindsay, he's going to have to look dumb here.

I don't know what Romney is doing at all. He's definitely not trying to get re-elected that's for sure. If he blocks a judge + the impeachment, he's done IMO. He probably just doesn't care.

This should be interesting.

[Neurotic Guy]

It’s remarkable when you consider that the person who could be considered among the most influential people in the history of the United States is a Senator from the 26th most populous state in the country - a state of 4.5 million people, a state with fewer people than the greater Boston area, a state who re-elected him with a grand total 800,000 votes in 2014. 

Mitch McConnell presided as minority leader over a successful policy of complete obstruction, and followed up as majority leader with unprecedented control over every bill to reach the senate floor in a tightly divided senate. His crowning  achievements will be the bookend SCOTUS appointments, one in which he successfully blocked a qualified nominee for with 11 months before the presidential election claiming “the people should decide” and one in which he’ll fast-track a Trump nominee with 46 days to go before the presidential election claiming “Donald Trump should decide”.   There really can be no comparable hypocrisy in American history with anywhere near the social and political impact. 

I am a left-leaner who favored the confirmation of both Gorsuch an Kavanaugh believing that we should try to take politics out of the SCOTUS confirmation process. RBG was confirmed under Clinton by a 97-3 vote.   What’s right is right, and supporting McConnell in the process that he is clearly embarking is ethically bankrupt and dangerous to our democracy. Let 350,000,000 Americans decide rather than 800K Kentuckians.

There is no whataboutism that could compare to what may happen in the next 6 weeks, or worse, in a lame duck senate.  Shame on Dems for their own obstruction for sure, but MCConnell’s manipulation can’t be right for America.  If America votes DJT back in, you’ll have your 6th conservative and a lock on everything social conservatives want over the next 20 years.  Do it right.

[Erik]

Then theyll complain about the electoral college...

In reality, Mitch represents the party not Kentucky. If it isn’t Mitch, it would be someone else. They just had to pick someone from a safe state to do the dirty work.

You realize that these “discussions” that congress have are essentially figuring out who can’t afford to look like ****. I liken it to that scene from Training Day where they’re figuring out who’s taking a bullet and who is the shooter.

[Neurotic Guy]

Then theyll complain about the electoral college...

In reality, Mitch represents the party not Kentucky. If it isn’t Mitch, it would be someone else. They just had to pick someone from a safe state to do the dirty work.

You realize that these “discussions” that congress have are essentially figuring out who can’t afford to look like ****. I liken it to that scene from Training Day where they’re figuring out who’s taking a bullet and who is the shooter.

Has the dirty work been this dirty and with equivalent impactful consequence?  I’m not talking about impactful decisions, butimpact from pure hypocritical political manipulation.  “Politics is ugly” doesn’t provide a rationalization that works. It’s always / will be ugly.  This is manipulation that goes beyond ugly and will impact this country long beyond the daily influences of those currently in power.   Yes, he is a party representative - one who has had unprecedented power and influence on our country far in excess of the power he, or any senator, ought to have.  Point being it isn’t Mitch alone that has created the current landscape but he sure as heck took it, ran with it, and had has, with both brilliance and ethical indifference, brought it to a new level.

[Erik]

From my POV, both parties were aligned on general country direction and politics was tame until ACA. That was the very first shot at a major power grab in government expansion in my lifetime. After that, bipartisanship effectively ended. So to the counter point of kraidstar earlier, you have no idea how upset conservatives and libertarians still are with the ACA. He took a major dump on the middle class in support of people near the poverty line. There were good portions of it, don’t get me wrong. But the overall effect of it was a disaster.

[keevsnick]

Couldn't McConnell have waited a day or two before making any statements about replacing RBG? Just give a day or two to reflect on her life and accomplishments out of respect for the person. Talk about replacing her on Monday.

Meanwhile a few hours after her passing, Biden decided not to wait and be classy as well. Both sides clearly only care about power.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-joe-biden-says-supreme-court-successor-must/amp/

Can we stop doing this? If I have to read one more person "Both sides" this I'm gonna blow a blood vessel. You can speculate all you wnat, but only one side decided to freeze a supreme court nomination for 10 months in an election year and then went back on that same principal with only 45  days till an election. Its disgusting, and the republican's did it, not democrats. So can we stop pretending both sides are equally corrupt? They arent.

I mean if you have to tell yourself that in order to continue to support republican policies then fine, go ahead, but thats your failing. Stop trying to push  it onto the rest of us. I'm not referring to the poster here specifically, just anybody who's gonna try to excuse this by "both sidesing" this thing.

[keevsnick]

A serious question for our lawyer members: I have seen posters discussing "good" Supreme Court picks...are there any current SC justices that you think are bad justices? If so who and why?

Bad, in terms of qualifications?  Not really.  They’re all very talented people.  The ones that might not be the intellectual heavyweights of their peers are Thomas, Kagan and Sotomayor. 

Bad in terms of how they approach the law?  Sure.  I think too often “culture war” cases are decided by ideology, rather than by the law and the Constitution.

Someone may have asked earlier, but what's the likelihood of a non-judge (e.g. Senator) getting a bid?

The only way that happens is if, for whatever reason, it’s the only way to get a Justice confirmed, in my opinion.  That’s unlikely.

More likely than a Senator is a practicing lawyer who isn’t a judge, like recent nominees Kagan and Harriet Myers.

I really think it will be Amy Coney Barrett, who was top three last time.

Thanks.  What do you think is the likelihood that happens before the election?

There’s time to get it done in theory.  RBG was confirmed within six weeks.  If McConnell has the votes, he’ll get a vote in.

Does he have the votes?  Murkowski is definitely a no.  Reportedly Collins and Romney are.  So, among swing votes Corey Gardner will be a big one.  And of course, Graham and Grassley have said previously that they wouldn’t support a vote, although opinions certainly evolve.

Thats the kindest way of calling someone a liar I've ever read. But ya, politicians have a way of saying one thing when presented a hypothetical and doing something else when given an actual chance.

[Roy H.]

Then theyll complain about the electoral college...

In reality, Mitch represents the party not Kentucky. If it isn’t Mitch, it would be someone else. They just had to pick someone from a safe state to do the dirty work.

You realize that these “discussions” that congress have are essentially figuring out who can’t afford to look like ****. I liken it to that scene from Training Day where they’re figuring out who’s taking a bullet and who is the shooter.

Has the dirty work been this dirty and with equivalent impactful consequence?  I’m not talking about impactful decisions, butimpact from pure hypocritical political manipulation.  “Politics is ugly” doesn’t provide a rationalization that works. It’s always / will be ugly.  This is manipulation that goes beyond ugly and will impact this country long beyond the daily influences of those currently in power.   Yes, he is a party representative - one who has had unprecedented power and influence on our country far in excess of the power he, or any senator, ought to have.  Point being it isn’t Mitch alone that has created the current landscape but he sure as heck took it, ran with it, and had has, with both brilliance and ethical indifference, brought it to a new level.

Only because of opportunity.  It was Harry Reid who filibustered qualified judicial nominees, and it was Harry Reid who ended the filibuster under Obama.

[Neurotic Guy]

From my POV, both parties were aligned on general country direction and politics was tame until ACA. That was the very first shot at a major power grab in government expansion in my lifetime. After that, bipartisanship effectively ended. So to the counter point of kraidstar earlier, you have no idea how upset conservatives and libertarians still are with the ACA. He took a major dump on the middle class in support of people near the poverty line. There were good portions of it, don’t get me wrong. But the overall effect of it was a disaster.

Hardly a disaster (pre-existing conditions will save my life as one example of a valued key element). ACA is imperfect but fixable and in the right direction, and addressed a universally agreed upon problematic healthcare system.  But your point is about what kicked off or solidified a break in bipartisanship.  Fine — is that the rationale for McConnell’s dangerous hypocrisy then — “You started it“? Actually, in DJTs America that’s just about where we stand from a political maturity standpoint.