Law The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v2: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[RockstarChris]

one down, hopefully 2 more to go.

 

[PHATV]

Need another version, brother. See post #1125. Just create it with same title and put "V2" at the end of it. Or "Gorsuch V2, Now A Sitting Justice On The SCOTUS", whatever.

 

[HomerThompson]

Barf.

 

[Arkain2K]

Need another version, brother. See post #1125. Just create it with same title and put "V2" at the end of it. Or "Gorsuch V2, Now A Sitting Justice On The SCOTUS", whatever.

LOLOL! Don't sweat it bud, keep looking around this neighborhood and you'll soon realize that I'm somewhat an expert at this thread-starting thing in the last couple of years.

We've decided to let this discussion run its course, since the train pretty much arrived at the final station here. In the unlikely event that it continue going with new developments and somehow pushes 60, then we'll split it into two, one for the older posts pertaining to Obama's pick and the other for Trump's pick. Carry on!

 

[Arkain2K]

Neil M. Gorsuch sworn in as 113th Supreme Court justice
By Robert Barnes and Ashley Parker | April 10 at 12:08 PM

​

Colorado appeals court judge Neil M. Gorsuch took his oaths to be the Supreme Court’s 113th justice Monday morning, first in a private ceremony at the court and later at a Rose Garden ceremony with the man who nominated him, President Trump.

At the first, private event in a grand room inside the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered the oath that all federal employees take. All eight justices and most of their spouses were on hand, as well as Maureen Scalia and Eugene Scalia, the widow and son of the justice Gorsuch is replacing, Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch’s wife, Louise, held a family Bible, and his daughters Emma and Belinda looked on.

On a sunny spring day at the White House Rose Garden, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, for whom the 49-year-old Gorsuch once served as a clerk, led him through a second oath that justices take to impartially interpret the laws “and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.”

A Marine Corps string quartet played softly in the Rose Garden as the Trump West Wing poured in to watch history.

“It’s a privilege to have you here to join in this historic moment on this very beautiful spring day,” Trump said, introducing his pick to the high court. “Spring is really the perfect backdrop for this joyful gathering of friends because together we are in a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country.”

Both Trump and Gorsuch, in their remarks, noted the historical nature of Kennedy swearing-in his former law clerk. “That’s sort of a big deal, isn’t it?” the president said. “That’s sort of good.”

Gorsuch spoke of the pride he felt taking the oath from his early boss. “I cannot tell you how honored I am to have here today my mentor, Justice Kennedy, to administer the judicial oath, a beautiful oath, as he did for me 11 years ago when I became a circuit judge,” Gorsuch said.

In brief remarks that were largely devoted to thanking others, Gorsuch thanked the team that helped usher him through the Senate confirmation process (“for their humor, for their sage advice, for their faith”), both his “dear friends” and former law clerks (“you know your names are etched in my heart forever”), and the Scalia family (“I will never forget that the seat I inherit today is that of a very, very great man”).

In some ways, Gorsuch is the prototypical justice. He is the 109th man to hold office among the 113 justices in the court’s history. All but two of the men were white. He is a favorite of the conservative legal establishment and has family roots in Republican politics.

Like five of his colleagues, Gorsuch attended Harvard Law School — the others went to Yale. He was hired as a Supreme Court clerk by fellow Coloradan Justice Byron White. Because White had retired by then, Gorsuch was loaned to Kennedy for the 1993-94 term.

He becomes the first former clerk to serve on the court alongside his boss.

Gorsuch is different in other ways. Coming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, he is the court’s only Westerner. Kennedy and Justice Stephen G. Breyer are native Californians, but as Scalia once wrote in an opinion listing the court’s lack of geographic diversity, “California does not count.”

He also provides the court with something it has lacked since 2010: a Protestant. Gorsuch was raised as a Catholic, but he and his family attend an Episcopal church in Boulder. He joins five Catholics and three Jews on the court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c361fe-1ddb-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Even with Justice Neil Gorsuch, centrist Supreme Court endures
By Noah Feldman | Bloomberg View | April 10, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy administers the judicial oath to Judge Neil Gorsuch as his wife Marie Louise Gorsuch holds a bible and President Donald Trump looks on during a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday. Earlier in the day Gorsuch, 49, was sworn in as the Supreme Court’s 113th associate justice in a private ceremony. ​

With the swearing-in Monday of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court’s configuration shifts to … a 4-4 balance with a single centrist justice as the swing vote. If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s been the normal state of affairs since 1986, when Justice Antonin Scalia joined, and on some issues all the way back to Richard Nixon’s administration.

This time, of course, the configuration results from the Republican Senate’s unprecedented and successful gamble to block President Barack Obama from filling Scalia’s seat. His pick, Judge Merrick Garland, would have given the liberals a clear, consistent majority for the first time since the days of Chief Justice Earl Warren — unless and until President Donald Trump had the chance to replace one of the court’s liberals.

It’s nevertheless worth exploring the fascinating phenomenon of the enduring centrist court, and asking the question: Is it an accident? Or is it a feature of the Supreme Court in its current condition, when liberal and conservative justices are all activists?

The court’s composition follows from a feature of constitutional design that includes some luck, namely that justices can serve for life and that the president who’s in office gets to nominate the replacement (or used to). If the presidency changes parties with some regularity, and justices retire or die on an arbitrary schedule, that should ensure some balance.

The first condition has been fulfilled since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four times and picked an astonishing nine justices if you include a chief who was already on the court. If you start with Harry Truman, the longest run of one party in the presidency has been twelve years, for two terms of Ronald Reagan and one for George H.W. Bush. Otherwise, the presidency has typically flipped parties every eight years, with Jimmy Carter’s single term leading to the only shorter flip.

The second condition hasn’t been fulfilled perfectly, because some justices retire when they like the president who will replace them. But there has been surprisingly little of that strategic choice by the justices, despite the politicization of the process. Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in office, as did Scalia. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired because of her husband’s failing health.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stayed on the court past Barack Obama’s presidency despite being well into her 80s and having survived not one but two bouts with cancer. If that’s not a rejection of the strategic approach, I don’t know what is.

But beyond constitutional structure, there’s another extraordinary, non-accidental fact about the centrist court: It’s been maintained in large part by individual justices’ drift to the center.

The most salient example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. He’s the swing vote today, as he has been since O’Connor retired a decade ago. But for nearly 20 years before that, Kennedy wasn’t perceived as the swing voter — O’Connor was. Kennedy was considered a reliable conservative, with a few outlying liberal opinions on equality for gay people and the abortion compromise in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, in which he wrote a joint opinion with O’Connor and Justice David Souter.

It’s not that Kennedy just seemed more liberal when O’Connor retired. He actually became more liberal. His liberal opinions in recent years on abortion and affirmative action prove this definitively. Each represented a real shift leftward from his earlier opinions on the same subject.

Kennedy’s shift had internal theoretical motivations, no doubt, grounded in the development of his jurisprudence of equal dignity. But it also resulted from the natural impulse to influence and power that comes from being the swing vote.

The court’s way of setting precedent gives enormous power to the swing voter. If there’s no majority opinion, the narrowest opinion for the result that gets five votes becomes controlling precedent.

Even if the swing voter joins the majority opinion and writes a separate concurrence, his or her narrow opinion has a way of becoming the majority opinion in future cases, as the other justices try to win the votes of the swing justice.

O’Connor made new law in this fashion. One example is her “endorsement” theory of the establishment clause. Originally introduced in a solo concurrence in a case where she provide the fifth vote, it was adopted a few years later by the majority in another case.

The upshot is that the center-most justice, measured by ideology, will always have an incentive to tack toward the middle under the existing system. For the moment, that is still Kennedy.

But when Kennedy is no longer in the center, some other justice may emerge to take center stage, literally.

I’m not guaranteeing a centrist court forever. But if Justices Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer can hold out until a Democratic president is elected, or if a Democratic Senate denies Trump any appointments until a Democrat replaces him, we may see the centrist Supreme Court remaining into the distant future.

Maybe the American people want it that way.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/10/even-with-justice-neil-gorsuch-centrist-supreme-court-endures/

 

[Pwent]

RBG NEXT

 

[lecter]

Won't be the last justice Trump puts on the supreme court <cheer>

 

[Greoric]

Won't be the last justice Trump puts on the supreme court <cheer>

Who else is in line to retire within 3 years??

 

[Dr J]

Yes, because now anything that happens Republicans will own it.

They'll have to own putting two justices of their choosing on the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 years? I'm sure they're OK with that, as is their base.

Civility and an attempt at bipartisanship was their best option here.

 

[Dr J]

Who else is in line to retire within 3 years??

Ginsburg and Kennedy are the most likely to retire/expire next, both over 80.

Even Breyer is pushing 80.

 

[Rod1]

They'll have to own putting two justices of their choosing on the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 years? I'm sure they're OK with that, as is their base.

Civility and an attempt at bipartisanship was their best option here.

Yup, unless there is a ruling that ends up pissing off people of course...

 

[Rod1]

Ginsburg and Kennedy are the most likely to retire/expire next, both over 80.

Even Breyer is pushing 80.

Midterms are not that far away though, i hope they find someway to win real quick.

The fun will start when Trump submits the budget, i mean its April 10th and still no budget whatsoever.

 

[GORETAURO]

Freedom just got a little safer

 

[Diamond Jim]

If Democrats take the Senate in 18' they should refuse any nominations by Trump. McConnell said you can't nominate someone with a year left in office. Why not two since we are making it up as we go?

 

[Dr J]

Yup, unless there is a ruling that ends up pissing off people of course...

What do you do at that point? The damage is done, and two justices are on the court for the next 30 years.

They tried to smear a good name and pissed off Republicans with their obstruction. By attempting to strike a deal--worst case scenario, Trump screws them over and we're in the exact same place we are now. Best case scenario, they get Garland in.

 

[Rod1]

What do you do at that point? The damage is done, and two justices are on the court for the next 30 years.

They tried to smear a good name and pissed off Republicans with their obstruction. By attempting to strike a deal--worst case scenario, Trump screws them over and we're in the exact same place we are now. Best case scenario, they get Garland in.

Ill accept that Gorsuch should had not been smeared, that was idiotic from Democrat part.

They should had simply stated that Garland deserved a vote, and blocked on that part. And pissing republicans is meaningless, republicans obstructed democrats without a reason for years.

 

[ehtheist]

I feel like some of you were so captivated by Trump's antics on the debate stage that you forget what Hillary Clinton's camp were promoting on the other side during the election.

FYI: The idea of extending the Nuclear Option to Supreme Court's nominees actually came from Hillary Clinton's VP, and no Democrats saw any problem with that idea at the time, when they thought Hillary would become the next President for sure, and the Dems would be controlling Congress without a doubt.

Funny how a short few months changes things around, isn't it.

---

Tim Kaine: Dems will use 'nuclear option' if GOP blocks Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court nominee
By Jordain Carney - 10/28/16

Hillary Clinton's running mate is predicting Democrats will go "nuclear" if Republicans try to stonewall a potential Supreme Court nominee by Clinton.

Tim Kaine on Friday said he believes Senate Democrats will change the chamber's rules if they run into GOP obstruction in 2017.

"If these guys think guys think they are going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy, or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say we're not going to let you thwart the law," he told The Huffington Post.

The historic move would let Supreme Court nominees bypass a current 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority.

Pressed as to he is saying Democrats will carry out a threat from outgoing Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to use the procedural "nuclear option," Kaine added, "I am predicting that if the Republicans continue to stonewall, then I think that will happen."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), asked this week if Republicans should consider a Clinton nominee, appeared to suggest letting the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia's death go unfilled for years.

The move earned the Texas Republican a wave of backlash from Democrats and broke with comments from some of his GOP colleagues — including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — who argue a Clinton nominee would not be automatically blocked.

Reid earlier this month said he has paved the way for Democrats to change the rules.

But any push to change the Senate rules would by led by Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who is expected to replace Reid as the leader of Senate Democrats and could become majority leader if his party wins control of the chamber on Election Day.

Asked about the nuclear option earlier this month, Schumer demurred, telling CNBC's John Harwood, "I hope we won't get to that. And I'll leave it at that."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...se-nuclear-option-if-gop-blocks-supreme-court

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....