The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[leswp1]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If it harms no one, do it.
Protect the weak from the strong.

Think these would work?

Nope. Someone will always think of some excuse

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I don't doubt that to a certain extent. I also don't doubt that they'd be appalled that the federal government has grown to the size it has, wields as much power as it does and has amassed as much debt as it has.

True, but they would also be appalled by a lot of Modernity. They'd hate the universal franchise: they would wonder how on earth we can expose the future of the nation to the mere whim and opinion of people who don't own an acre or a barn owl. And before the conservatives get too self-congratulatory, they'd hate capitalism. They felt the nation was a balanced organism that had natural boundaries -- in the same way that government should be delimited, so should business. Even a proto-industrial financier like Hamilton would hate that the only God left in America is the almighty dollar. Finally and most tellingly, consumerism would leave them more disgusted than the most radical modern environmentalist.

If you were born after 1900 the odds are very good that the Founders would not understand most of your values, and those they did understand they would loath.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Interesting, there is a lawsuit pending against Obama's so-called "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate technically was not in recess), and over 40 Senators have joined the suit by filing an amicus brief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1432468.html

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Interesting, there is a lawsuit pending against Obama's so-called "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate technically was not in recess), and over 40 Senators have joined the suit by filing an amicus brief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1432468.html

Sure. That's a reflection of how screwed up Washington is. They pass a law then the party that's ticked about it passing refuses too allow an appointment to the position that needs to be filled to run the agency, basically neutering the law.

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" is the new "troubling"

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Interesting, there is a lawsuit pending against Obama's so-called "recess" appointments to the NLRB (when the Senate technically was not in recess), and over 40 Senators have joined the suit by filing an amicus brief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1432468.html

I predict the suit goes no where. I think it was Truman who made recess appointments in the split second the Congress was adjourned. This is less egregious than that.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I predict the suit goes no where. I think it was Truman who made recess appointments in the split second the Congress was adjourned. This is less egregious than that.

Perhaps, perhaps not....that was secondary, the primary item of interest was that it was not the Senators who filed the suit, they merely filed an amicus brief to the original suit, which was from a private business who was adversely affected by the ruling that only was possible because of the supposedly unconstitutional appointments. Not sure that the Senators themselves would have had "standing" to file any suit on their own. There have been a surprising number of 9 - 0 rulings this year, primarily because of cut-and-dried procedural issues. It is my understanding that technically Congress was not adjourned.....most recess appointments happen when most Reps and Sens are out of town, and these particular appointments were made while most of them were still in DC. We'll see....if you give me odds, I'll probably take the bet....my $5 to your $12.50? and the vote is at least 6 - 3?

It's funny, one side always says it's the obstructionist Senate, while the other side always says it's the stubbornness of the President for not choosing a mutually-acceptable candidate. After all, Roberts and Alito received Democratic votes to confirm, and Sotomayor got Republican votes to confirm as well. Heck, Scalia was confirmed 97-0.

Even something "less egregious" than an unconstitutional appointment may still be unconstitutional in its own merits; one does not generally offer up as a defense, "well, maybe I did assault someone, but at least I didn't kill hiim." or pick a less extreme analogy if you want.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" is the new "troubling"

"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like."

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

There have been a surprising number of 9 - 0 rulings this year...

Really? By what standard is it surprising?

In 2009, nearly half the decisions the court made were 9-0. Likewise 05-06. Here's the stats from October 2010. 48% 9-0, with 13% 8-1.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Really? By what standard is it surprising?

In 2009, nearly half the decisions the court made were 9-0. Likewise 05-06. Here's the stats from October 2010. 48% 9-0, with 13% 8-1.

Does that take into account concurring opinions?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

In more important SCOTUS news, search on "hitting."

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like."

My someone is testy. Did I forget to genuflect properly?

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Even something "less egregious" than an unconstitutional appointment may still be unconstitutional in its own merits; one does not generally offer up as a defense, "well, maybe I did assault someone, but at least I didn't kill hiim." or pick a less extreme analogy if you want.

No, but one often offers up "John Doe did Y and received no penalty. I did Y or something less than Y, so I should also receive no penalty." Call it what you will, stare decisis, legal precedent, common law, judicial restraint - there's all sorts of reasons not to expect anything different than before.

This is especially so when it comes to political questions. SCOTUS rarely if ever gets involved in questions of pure politics, which this surely is. If it didn't strike it down 50 years ago, it isn't going to now, either.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Does that take into account concurring opinions?

No, because concurrances, like dissents, really don't mean anything when it comes down to it unless it's the rare 4-1-4 split.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about my side." "Troubling" means "I'm telegraphing a talking point about the other side." Both words mean "I'm going to hide my personal opinion behind a fake objectivity." See also "Some suggest..."

Just translate "interesting" to "Me like" and "troubling" to "Me no like."

That's an *ahem* interesting take on this.