USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Please dont feed the geriatric trolls
But it's so much fun to see what he'll post next!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Quick summary of the current composition of the Court:
BIRTH APT YR80 NAME (APPOINTER)
1933 1993 2013 D GINSBURG (CLINTON)
1936 1986 2016 R SCALIA (REAGAN)
1936 1988 2016 R KENNEDY (REAGAN)
1938 1994 2018 D BREYER (CLINTON)
1948 1991 2028 R THOMAS (BUSH)
1950 2006 2030 R ALITO (DUBYA)
1954 2009 2034 D SOTOMAYOR (OBAMA)
1955 2005 2035 R ROBERTS (DUBYA)
1960 2010 2040 D KAGAN (OBAMA)
The key here is that there is a ten-year gap in age between Breyer and Thomas. Four current justices (2 D, 2 R) will turn 80 by 2018, so it is reasonable to assume if the next president is a two-termer he or she will replace at least three and maybe all four. Assuming no surprises, that means the new stable configuration of the Court, which will last at least a decade through the mid 2020's through 2030's, will be either 6-3 D or 7-2 R: two starkly different choices.
Quick summary of the current composition of the Court:
BIRTH APT YR80 NAME (APPOINTER)
1933 1993 2013 D GINSBURG (CLINTON)
1936 1986 2016 R SCALIA (REAGAN)
1936 1988 2016 R KENNEDY (REAGAN)
1938 1994 2018 D BREYER (CLINTON)
1948 1991 2028 R THOMAS (BUSH)
1950 2006 2030 R ALITO (DUBYA)
1954 2009 2034 D SOTOMAYOR (OBAMA)
1955 2005 2035 R ROBERTS (DUBYA)
1960 2010 2040 D KAGAN (OBAMA)
The key here is that there is a ten-year gap in age between Breyer and Thomas. Four current justices (2 D, 2 R) will turn 80 by 2018, so it is reasonable to assume if the next president is a two-termer he or she will replace at least three and maybe all four. Assuming no surprises, that means the new stable configuration of the Court, which will last at least a decade through the mid 2020's through 2030's, will be either 6-3 D or 7-2 R: two starkly different choices.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Please Opie, If I was running things I wouldn't sentence you to death. More likely a gulag in a nice climate where you will have a choice of either listening to "I'd like to teach the world to sing" over and over again, or constant videos of Mike Dukakis' best campaign speeches!
Please Opie, If I was running things I wouldn't sentence you to death. More likely a gulag in a nice climate where you will have a choice of either listening to "I'd like to teach the world to sing" over and over again, or constant videos of Mike Dukakis' best campaign speeches!
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Quite frankly, I don't give a **** about the D or R makeup of the court as long as they start making some rational decisions. It's not like the Ds on the court are incapable of making colossally stupid rulings.
Quite frankly, I don't give a **** about the D or R makeup of the court as long as they start making some rational decisions. It's not like the Ds on the court are incapable of making colossally stupid rulings.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I've underlined your flaw.
GHW Bush put Souter on the court expecting a conservative. In the epic words of Gomer Pyle -- "SURPRISE, SURPRISE."
Then W Bush put on Roberts and he dealt the conservatives a massive blow in the "Obamacare" decision.
You put a black robe inside the Washington Beltway and all bets are off.
I've underlined your flaw.
GHW Bush put Souter on the court expecting a conservative. In the epic words of Gomer Pyle -- "SURPRISE, SURPRISE."
Then W Bush put on Roberts and he dealt the conservatives a massive blow in the "Obamacare" decision.
You put a black robe inside the Washington Beltway and all bets are off.
How many are not graduates of Harvard Law?
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Remains to be seen what happens if the court is packed with liberals.
It depends. If history, including recent history, shows us anything it is that when the court appointments become lopsided in favor of conservatives, a few of them seem to find a way to see the more liberal side of cases and give some balance to the court. That's not to say it suddenly becomes a liberal court, but you see a lot of 5-4 decisions in which the conservative wing's decision is muted somewhat by what were anticipated to be conservative votes. Those shifts may come in different areas, as they did/do for O'Connor or Kennedy, or they may be complete shifts like they were for Souter, Blackmun or even Earl Warren.
Remains to be seen what happens if the court is packed with liberals.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Of course we all wish they'd just be good jurists, but the problem is the ideology has always been baked in and it's only getting more extreme. The days of the Court being seen as anything but another political body are long gone. Law is not "above it all," it's just as vulnerable to political use and abuse as every other institution.
Of course we all wish they'd just be good jurists, but the problem is the ideology has always been baked in and it's only getting more extreme. The days of the Court being seen as anything but another political body are long gone. Law is not "above it all," it's just as vulnerable to political use and abuse as every other institution.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
History has shown that Dems are much better at getting their liberals on the courts than Reps are at getting conservative thinkers on the court. If Bork had been strongly liberal rather than conservative, he'd have been on the bench without much fuss, IMHO. I do agree that if we get another two term president, that they will have the opportunity to reshape the court significantly.
History has shown that Dems are much better at getting their liberals on the courts than Reps are at getting conservative thinkers on the court. If Bork had been strongly liberal rather than conservative, he'd have been on the bench without much fuss, IMHO. I do agree that if we get another two term president, that they will have the opportunity to reshape the court significantly.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Not really. This is one of those moldering cheese wedges of conventional wisdom that should be thrown out. Ruben Tejada gets hits sometimes too -- that doesn't change the background condition that he sucks.
There's a reason the current Court keeps lining up 5-4 exactly along appointment partisanship lines. As much as we want to think each justice comes to each decision without bias, this misses the point that bias isn't "bias" -- it is already intertwined with their judicial philosophy. If you see Gubmint Overreach everywhere then you vote different than if you're a Wise Latina. Ideology is biography -- there is no "outside" to stand and observe oneself from. The fact that the two closest friends on the Court are by all accounts Ginsburg and Scalia illustrated this beautifully. If they, in their private and sincere discussions, can't reach any sort of an apolitical neutrality of perspective, then at some point you have to start doubting that "apolitical neutrality of perspective" is a real thing, as much as we all desperately want it to be.
Not really. This is one of those moldering cheese wedges of conventional wisdom that should be thrown out. Ruben Tejada gets hits sometimes too -- that doesn't change the background condition that he sucks.
There's a reason the current Court keeps lining up 5-4 exactly along appointment partisanship lines. As much as we want to think each justice comes to each decision without bias, this misses the point that bias isn't "bias" -- it is already intertwined with their judicial philosophy. If you see Gubmint Overreach everywhere then you vote different than if you're a Wise Latina. Ideology is biography -- there is no "outside" to stand and observe oneself from. The fact that the two closest friends on the Court are by all accounts Ginsburg and Scalia illustrated this beautifully. If they, in their private and sincere discussions, can't reach any sort of an apolitical neutrality of perspective, then at some point you have to start doubting that "apolitical neutrality of perspective" is a real thing, as much as we all desperately want it to be.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
And that's all I'm saying.
No, this is a myth on the right. Scalia was Bork ideologically; he was appointed 98-0. Bork's problem wasn't his juridical philosophy, it was that he was an overt political hatchet man directly wired into the GOP: Harriet Myers with brains. The liberal equivalent would be Carter nominating Noam Chomsky. That guy's going to have problems getting on the Court no matter who sends him up.
And it's not like the GOP hasn't pushed Their Man onto the Court in the past: Rehnquist was Darryl Issa with more powerful friends.
And that's all I'm saying.
No, this is a myth on the right. Scalia was Bork ideologically; he was appointed 98-0. Bork's problem wasn't his juridical philosophy, it was that he was an overt political hatchet man directly wired into the GOP: Harriet Myers with brains. The liberal equivalent would be Carter nominating Noam Chomsky. That guy's going to have problems getting on the Court no matter who sends him up.
And it's not like the GOP hasn't pushed Their Man onto the Court in the past: Rehnquist was Darryl Issa with more powerful friends.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
So are you saying it's not possible to have different perspectives and still be apolitical?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
This is a good point, although I would usually ascribe it less to "muting" than the strategy of trying to find solutions that will not become immediately dated. Like car dealers, justices are "not selling you one car, but the next ten cars," and they are tethering their language to defensible principles for future Courts, regardless of makeup. Nobody wants to be remembered as the author of Dred Scott, Plessy, or Lochner.
This is a good point, although I would usually ascribe it less to "muting" than the strategy of trying to find solutions that will not become immediately dated. Like car dealers, justices are "not selling you one car, but the next ten cars," and they are tethering their language to defensible principles for future Courts, regardless of makeup. Nobody wants to be remembered as the author of Dred Scott, Plessy, or Lochner.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
History speaks for itself. Few (I can't think of any off the top of my head) Dem appointments vote conservative, while a significant number of Rep appointments have ended up voting pretty liberally.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I'm kinda saying it's not possible to be apolitical. We strive to ground our choices in the facts, but our very choice of facts is already mediated by our values.
Maybe a better way to say it is it's impossible to be value-neutral. There are gradations, of course. Antonin Scalia is a lot better than Anne Coulter.
We do our best, but objectivity is a goal that always is receding.
I'm kinda saying it's not possible to be apolitical. We strive to ground our choices in the facts, but our very choice of facts is already mediated by our values.
Maybe a better way to say it is it's impossible to be value-neutral. There are gradations, of course. Antonin Scalia is a lot better than Anne Coulter.
We do our best, but objectivity is a goal that always is receding.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
This could just be the Science Education Effect: the more you actually learn the more "liberal" you are.
(Though I'm not sure when it became "liberal" to be capable of understanding basic science.)
This could just be the Science Education Effect: the more you actually learn the more "liberal" you are.
(Though I'm not sure when it became "liberal" to be capable of understanding basic science.)
Last edited:
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
No, the more you learn the more you learn.
Unfortunately, today, bias-laden indoctrination is masked as "learning" or "education" from all quarters.
This could just be the Science Education Effect: the more you actually learn the more "liberal" you are.
No, the more you learn the more you learn.
Unfortunately, today, bias-laden indoctrination is masked as "learning" or "education" from all quarters.
- Status