The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[Drew S.]

Are you really going to defend the R Senate?

They stole the seat, fair and square. I hope that in 2020 we can return the favor. (Sorry, Mrs. Thomas.)

It was a conservative seat. If it was one of the four liberal judges I could see the complaints.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It was a conservative seat. If it was one of the four liberal judges I could see the complaints.

There's no such thing. Scalia replaced Warren Burger.

 

[Armadillo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It was a conservative seat. If it was one of the four liberal judges I could see the complaints.

More to the point, it was a seat that the Senate decided not to hold hearings for until the new President was sworn in, which is in their purview. President nominates, Senate decides to confirm, not confirm, or even not hold hearings. Same would be true for a Democrat-led Senate. Hell, there isn't even a Constitutional mandate on how many seats the Supreme Court must have.

 

[unofan]

That's defending the Rs?

Harry and the Ds did it. That is a fact. Not an alternative fact. A fact.


And what did I follow it with? That both sides are MAD (mutually assured destruction) for doing it.

Yes they did, because if they hadn't, not only would the GOP have stolen a SCOTUS seat, but every other judicial opening as well because they were filibustering everyone and everything.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I am really happy with this pick. REALLY happy.

The two words I keep seeing in regards to Gorusch are "libertarian" and "Constitutionalist." Even Obama's former Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyl, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times endorsing him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

If you're a conservative who held the living hell out of their nose and voted for Trump because of SCOTUS, this is why.

The orange chimp got one right. Holy balls.

God I hate the way people throw the term "constitutionalist" around. For most it is just shorthand for "I want to see in in black and white--this time."

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Sounds like you were watching Wheel to me.

You must be loads of fun at comedy shows...

 

[unofan]

More to the point, it was a seat that the Senate decided not to hold hearings for until the new President was sworn in, which is in their purview. President nominates, Senate decides to confirm, not confirm, or even not hold hearings. Same would be true for a Democrat-led Senate. Hell, there isn't even a Constitutional mandate on how many seats the Supreme Court must have.

The Senate had a duty to advise. One could argue that by failing to take action, they implicitly consented.

Obama didn't want to go down that path, but if stealing seats becomes the norm, then it's only a matter of time until it gets tested.

 

[Armadillo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

God I hate the way people throw the term "constitutionalist" around. For most it is just shorthand for "I want to see in in black and white--this time."

To me, it means "what does the plain text of the Constitution say? Do that."

And I erred. Instead of "Constitutionalist," I should have said "originalist."

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

To me, it means "what does the plain text of the Constitution say? Do that."

And I erred. Instead of "Constitutionalist," I should have said "originalist."

Both are dumb. Taking out intent and context is lazy and dangerous.

edit: That is not my feelings on the dude just on the idea of being an "originalist" or constitutionalist". It reminds me of people who take every verse of the Bible as the literal truth.

 

[unofan]

To me, it means "what does the plain text of the Constitution say? Do that."

And I erred. Instead of "Constitutionalist," I should have said "originalist."

But only certain amendments. Scalia had no problem ignoring the 14th, for instance, even as he expanded the 2nd and defended the 1st and the 4th.

And his originalist interpretation assumes the drafters didn't intend for their words to cover future unknowable circumstances. Which is a highly doubtful assumption.

 

[Armadillo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Both are dumb. Taking out intent and context is lazy and dangerous.

There's way too much room for partisan invention if you go down that path. I mean, obviously there's SOME room for interpretation and applying the Constitution to modern life, i.e. speech on the Internet is just as protected as speech on a soapbox in 1776 Boston, but interpreting and applying the law AS WRITTEN is the best approach, IMO.

 

[Drew S.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Senate had a duty to advise. One could argue that by failing to take action, they implicitly consented.

Obama didn't want to go down that path, but if stealing seats becomes the norm, then it's only a matter of time until it gets tested.

Again, if they were replacing Ginsburg it would have been stealing a seat. They were just keeping the status quo.

 

[unofan]

Again, if they were replacing Ginsburg it would have been stealing a seat. They were just keeping the status quo.

They refused to vote on a highly qualified nominee because they didn't like the party of the president that nominated him. It was and remains an unprecedented action taken by one of the most hypocritical men to ever work in the Senate, and that is truly saying something.

It was a stolen seat. Unfortunately, the American public pulled the equivalent of jury nullification and signed off on the theft.

And I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if the court wasn't already 5-4 in your favor.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

There's way too much room for partisan invention if you go down that path. I mean, obviously there's SOME room for interpretation and applying the Constitution to modern life, i.e. speech on the Internet is just as protected as speech on a soapbox in 1776 Boston, but interpreting and applying the law AS WRITTEN is the best approach, IMO.

I will have to see how he tends to apply it to know. If he uses logic along with what the "original intent" was then I agree it can work. If he just uses the "words of the framers" as a way to halt all progress he deems personally wrong then it is dangerous and he should not hold the post.

And before it gets said, no that doesnt mean I think he needs to act progressive or anything...what I mean is just because the Framers didnt think of something doesnt mean it doesnt hold value. He doesnt have to be a part of making new law if that bothers him (I can understand that completely) but not every new law or protection granted is wrong either. This type of philosophy can work but you need to keep your personal politics out of it no matter if it is left or right. With his level of education I would hope he is that way but if he thinks Gays are icky and uses that as his basis to limit Gay Rights protections then even you as a Libretarian should be upset by that.

And can we stop with the "Liberal/Conservative" seat BS. There is no seat that is labelled as such. Scalia died and the seat opened...the Senators had a duty to fill and they sat on their lazy asses and refused to do so with no real precedent to back up their actions.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Again, if they were replacing Ginsburg it would have been stealing a seat. They were just keeping the status quo.

Um, no. I don't think you understand how the court works.

 

[unofan]

There's way too much room for partisan invention if you go down that path. I mean, obviously there's SOME room for interpretation and applying the Constitution to modern life, i.e. speech on the Internet is just as protected as speech on a soapbox in 1776 Boston, but interpreting and applying the law AS WRITTEN is the best approach, IMO.

So you're fine with a living document when you agree with it, but want an originalist interpretation when you don't. You'd make Scalia proud with that philosophy.

 

[Armadillo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

So you're fine with a living document when you agree with it, but want an originalist interpretation when you don't. You'd make Scalia proud with that philosophy.

Please, I beg of you, find ANYWHERE that I've said I view the Constitution as a "living document."

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Yeah Dillo would never say that.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

So you're fine with a living document when you agree with it, but want an originalist interpretation when you don't. You'd make Scalia proud with that philosophy.

That's exactly it. Strict construction when it works for me. It's a constitution, not a statute. The text itself cannot possibly expressly cover every situation the document was designed to cover.

 

[unofan]

Please, I beg of you, find ANYWHERE that I've said I view the Constitution as a "living document."

You acknowledged there's some room to apply it to modern things like the internet, something the founders couldn't have even conceived, let alone intended to cover. That's the essence of the living document theory, being able to apply it to modern situations.