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

[Cubo de Sangre]

Er, the evidence that what you claim doesn't exist? Wouldn't it be easier for you to actually produce some? I mean, if you weren't just repeating talking points and actually had any.

And, no the rest of the post was key. Again, try to imagine that you're not a raging hack. You see the issue with one side blocking all nominations and trying to cripple the normal functioning of the gov't and the other side trying to operate as intended, right? It's important for Democrats to not copy Republican obstructionism (again, to those of who want what's best for America and believe in American values), but simply giving in all the time isn't workable either.

You would do better to say which part of that you're disputing since #2 had at least three claims. If you're disputing all three then I can see at least one of them where you'd be the guy to bring the evidence. Please expound upon your umbrage.

The right thing to do is hold confirmation hearings and do what's best for the entire nation. Not doing one's job because someone else doesn't isn't "not giving in". It's spite. It's petty. If it's a negotiation tactic to improve the system then get a deal in place so it doesn't happen again. Is that the stated goal and what's the deal they're looking for? Otherwise it's just being childish and hypocritical.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You would do better to say which part of that you're disputing since #2 had at least three claims.

No sketchy ethics were exposed, and obviously there was foreign influence that had nothing to do with "exposing sketchy ethics."

The right thing to do is hold confirmation hearings and do what's best for the entire nation.

Agreed, but do you understand the issue? If only one party is holding confirmation hearings and doing what's best for the entire nation, the other party rules the judicial branch regardless of what happens in elections. Now, it's your party so you see that a good thing, but in principle at least, I think you can see the problem whether you admit it or not. So, like I said, the solution is not to make a situation where the gov't is broken no matter who is in office but rather to do your part when you can but also to try to fix things. Hence my agreement with rod's point.

Not doing one's job because someone else doesn't isn't "not giving in". It's spite. It's petty. If it's a negotiation tactic to improve the system then get a deal in place so it doesn't happen again. Is that the stated goal and what's the deal they're looking for? Otherwise it's just being childish and hypocritical.

I have no idea what they're looking for, but you're wrongly characterizing it as spite. There is a legitimate moral hazard issue here that you're just pretending not to be able to see.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No sketchy ethics were exposed, and obviously there was foreign influence that had nothing to do with "exposing sketchy ethics."



Agreed, but do you understand the issue? If only one party is holding confirmation hearings and doing what's best for the entire nation, the other party rules the judicial branch regardless of what happens in elections. Now, it's your party so you see that a good thing, but in principle at least, I think you can see the problem whether you admit it or not. So, like I said, the solution is not to make a situation where the gov't is broken no matter who is in office but rather to do your part when you can but also to try to fix things. Hence my agreement with rod's point.



I have no idea what they're looking for, but you're wrongly characterizing it as spite. There is a legitimate moral hazard issue here that you're just pretending not to be able to see.

You characterize the DWS resignation and Donna Brazile dismissal however you like. Point stands that the emails in question reflected only upon the democratic side. Now go ahead and tell me what foreign influence you're referring to that justifies holding up government.

I understand your issue. I'm not biased in your direction and can make up my own mind as to this particular situation, regardless of what I think of the general principle you've touched upon. Not every battle is a good one to fight and not every tactic used to fight a worthwhile battle is the right one. So unless dems are presenting a plan to legislate avoidance of the same situation in the future I see no reason to dismiss the element of childishness.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You characterize the DWS resignation and Donna Brazile dismissal however you like. Point stands that the emails in question reflected only upon the democratic side. Now go ahead and tell me what foreign influence you're referring to that justifies holding up government.

I guess you missed the news, but the Russian gov't hacked the DNC and worked with a media partner to release and mischaracterize the illegally acquired material. Given the extraordinarily close election (with the loser actually winning the popular vote by a pretty large margin and losing the electoral vote by an extremely thin one), it's pretty indisputable that the election outcome was affected (additionally, the misinformed public just associated "Clinton" with "emails" and some vague "scandal"). Now, whether it justifies extraordinary measures seems to me to be a personal matter, and I've already stated (on multiple occasions) that I personally don't think it does, and that isn't the issue we've been discussing. I noted that your assertion was false, and that you were not describing the moral hazard point accurately (seeing it as a matter of revenge rather than of not rewarding bad behavior and thus encouraging more of it).

 

[KONE]

mischaracterize the illegally acquired material.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I guess you missed the news, but the Russian gov't hacked the DNC and worked with a media partner to release and mischaracterize the illegally acquired material. Given the extraordinarily close election (with the loser actually winning the popular vote by a pretty large margin and losing the electoral vote by an extremely thin one), it's pretty indisputable that the election outcome was affected (additionally, the misinformed public just associated "Clinton" with "emails" and some vague "scandal"). Now, whether it justifies extraordinary measures seems to me to be a personal matter, and I've already stated (on multiple occasions) that I personally don't think it does, and that isn't the issue we've been discussing. I noted that your assertion was false, and that you were not describing the moral hazard point accurately (seeing it as a matter of revenge rather than of not rewarding bad behavior and thus encouraging more of it).

Since there's no evidence of Trump colluding with criminal hacking then I don't see how some other candidate's baggage coming back to haunt them creates a national emergency that warrants further handicapping of SCOTUS. It lacks credibility and (most importantly) a plan.

Thanks for providing your impression of accuracy as it pertains to the obstructionism on your team's side. When it appears there's a purpose other than getting even I'll be pleased.

 

[Rod1]

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it bro

When you give a lifetime appointment to a judge who must first be widely-recognized on both sides of the political spectrum for their sterling reputation and character as an honorable judge, they can continue doing their job as the interpreter of the law until the day they die without fear of political retribution from the corruption-prone politicians who nominated/voted for them.

Supreme Court judges in many other countries are liable to become a mouthpiece for the Executive branch (especially to the President whom he owes his job to). I'm happy to say that is not happening here in the U.S, as we have seen newly added members of the SCOTUS having no qualm about immediately ruling against the same administration who just put them in office.

For that, the United States Supreme Court usually have more respect and trust from the general public than both the Presidential office and Congress combined.

1.- Yes, it has created a very high standard but it has also created homogeneity in the court as pointed by Scalia and Sotomayor. Also you say what not broken? shall i remind you that there has been almost a year with a missing judge leading to an even court which makes it effectively broken.

2.- A system of lifetime pension and forced retirement also shields judges from political backlash.

3.- Countries where Supreme Court justices become mouthpieces are countries with severe dysfunctionality, no recognized working democracy where judges have lifetime pensions and forced retirements become mouthpieces. On the other hand, lifetime tenures have caused problems in countries like Venezuela, where even an eventual removal of Maduro would have a dysfunctional court which will probably lead to a cancellation of powers.

4.- Not a really high bar considering the fact that congress approval rates are rock bottom and that half the country hates the president due to bipartisanship.

5.- That being said, i think its unfair how political figures of older generations monopolize power, i think Trump has it right when he says that there should be term limits to congressmen, i just think the same should happen with judges.

 

[Arkain2K]

1.- Yes, it has created a very high standard but it has also created homogeneity in the court as pointed by Scalia and Sotomayor. Also you say what not broken? shall i remind you that there has been almost a year with a missing judge leading to an even court which makes it effectively broken.

2.- A system of lifetime pension and forced retirement also shields judges from political backlash.

3.- Countries where Supreme Court justices become mouthpieces are countries with severe dysfunctionality, no recognized working democracy where judges have lifetime pensions and forced retirements become mouthpieces. On the other hand, lifetime tenures have caused problems in countries like Venezuela, where even an eventual removal of Maduro would have a dysfunctional court which will probably lead to a cancellation of powers.

4.- Not a really high bar considering the fact that congress approval rates are rock bottom and that half the country hates the president due to bipartisanship.

5.- That being said, i think its unfair how political figures of older generations monopolize power, i think Trump has it right when he says that there should be term limits to congressmen, i just think the same should happen with judges.

The fact that we're one justice short has more to do with Congress's incompetent rather than the Supreme Court's integrity. Even if we have, say, a 10 or 20-year term limit for SCOTUS justices, the stooges in Congress would still be pulling the exact same shit they're doing right now whenever a seat opens up, and then we're back to square one.

Also, since the proposed change to term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment, I just don't see it happening unless Supreme Court somehow get itself into a scandal, and the people see no other option but to make the change to force them to retire early.

I would say this though: when our founding fathers decided that "the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior", which is interpreted to meaning justices get to stay on for life as long as they don't screw up, the life expectancy then was 50 to 60 years, not 80 to 90 like now. Mental sharpness does decline as people gets older, that's a fact. If she was a few years younger, perhaps the Notorious RBG would never have gone on air to tell the American people who they should and should not vote for President. Perhaps that's the best reason why SCOTUS justices should have a retirement age.

 

[panamaican]

1. All of them ever? Has he even nominated anyone. I think the hearing is how it's determined someone is good or bad so that's not a reason to not have them (confirmation hearings).
2. That could be never and the only "influence" in question is the exposing of sketchy DNC ethics. There's is no evidence of Republican ethics violations or collusion with foreign actors.
3. That's called spite. Spite is rarely considered a could reason. If ever.

None of those are as reasonable as waiting six months for the election to take place, with people knowing full-well that a SCOTUS position hangs in the balance. It's not like the R's were guaranteed a win.

None of that leads any rational non-partisan to think continuing to operate SCOTUS without a tie-breaking vote is best for the USA and we the people.

They are all good conscience reasons. But they are subjective. Your challenges are also subjective. Which is my point - you accept the subjective reasoning of one group but you reject the subjective reasoning of the other group. But for someone else, they reject the subjective reasoning of the 1st group and accept the subjective reasoning of the 2nd group.

And number 3 isn't spite - it's long term planning. If one group thinks that stonewalling will get them what they want and it does get them what they want, then they are emboldened to keep doing it. It's the same logic behind not negotiating with terrorists. You reward them for bad behavior, you make that bad behavior the new normal. To reset the balance, you have to deny them what they hoped to achieve and start fresh the next time around.

But even then it doesn't really matter to the larger point - you want to debate the pros/cons of purely subjective arguments. It's a fool's errand. People only reach subjective conclusions because they think they have more pros than cons. It's only hubris that makes us think otherwise. It's also an unwinnable argument and why we should never start going down that road.

The GOP created a subjective argument for delaying a nominee (subjective in that there's no objective standard that says that a lame duck President's nominees should be automatically not heard because of a potential new President - it's not in the law anywhere, it's a subjective political argument). The dem's will create a subjective argument for doing the same.

Which subjective argument a person aligns themselves with is an indication of their personal bias, not any intrinsic rightness/wrongness of the subjective positions themselves.

 

[panamaican]

1.- Yes, it has created a very high standard but it has also created homogeneity in the court as pointed by Scalia and Sotomayor. Also you say what not broken? shall i remind you that there has been almost a year with a missing judge leading to an even court which makes it effectively broken.

2.- A system of lifetime pension and forced retirement also shields judges from political backlash.

3.- Countries where Supreme Court justices become mouthpieces are countries with severe dysfunctionality, no recognized working democracy where judges have lifetime pensions and forced retirements become mouthpieces. On the other hand, lifetime tenures have caused problems in countries like Venezuela, where even an eventual removal of Maduro would have a dysfunctional court which will probably lead to a cancellation of powers.

4.- Not a really high bar considering the fact that congress approval rates are rock bottom and that half the country hates the president due to bipartisanship.

5.- That being said, i think its unfair how political figures of older generations monopolize power, i think Trump has it right when he says that there should be term limits to congressmen, i just think the same should happen with judges.

1) There's no required amount of judges under our constitution so technically it's not broken so long as we have at least 1 judge.

2) Not really. Forced retirement denies them the ability to practice teir craft at the highest level and presumes that the economic benefits of retirement outweigh the committment to the direction of the nation. Appointments for life means that they can make the "right" decisions without fearing that they will be replaced for doing so.

3) Too lazy to address this one.

4) But it's precisely the removal from the partisan forces that keeps them above those branches and it's precisely the partisan divide that cratered the approval numbers. The trust factor in the S.Ct. is proof of the importance of keeping politics out of it.

5) I disagree. Older generations have experiences that the younger generations don't. Each generation eventually gets it's chance to dictate the direction of country, I think that's reasonable.

 

[panamaican]

If you really believe all that why didn't you vote for Hillary?

Listen, I know that it's not in the Bible and so you're struggling with what's being said but I'll try to explain:

I said that I can come up with good conscience reasons to delay the appointments. I did not say that these were my personal reasons. It's a demonstration of the ease at which a subjective argument for anything can be created.

I've been warning you for months that you're losing your way. At this point, you're pretty much eating the apple and offering it to Adam. Turn back.

 

[ripskater]

Listen, I know that it's not in the Bible and so you're struggling with what's being said but I'll try to explain:

I said that I can come up with good conscience reasons to delay the appointments. I did not say that these were my personal reasons. It's a demonstration of the ease at which a subjective argument for anything can be created.

I've been warning you for months that you're losing your way. At this point, you're pretty much eating the apple and offering it to Adam. Turn back.

I'm just asking you a question, no need to be defensive. Refusing to go the route the of globalism and "social justice warrior" is not losing my way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Since there's no evidence of Trump colluding with criminal hacking then I don't see how some other candidate's baggage coming back to haunt them creates a national emergency that warrants further handicapping of SCOTUS. It lacks credibility and (most importantly) a plan.

Yeesh. This is an incredibly dishonest restatement of the argument, isn't it? If you don't think a foreign dictator illegally working to help one side in an election casts a shadow over its legitimacy, say so. That's a matter of opinion. But at least address the real argument.

Thanks for providing your impression of accuracy as it pertains to the obstructionism on your team's side. When it appears there's a purpose other than getting even I'll be pleased.

Huh? Were you on crack when you typed that?

 

[Rod1]

The fact that we're one justice short has more to do with Congress's incompetent rather than the Supreme Court's integrity. Even if we have, say, a 10 or 20-year term limit for SCOTUS justices, the stooges in Congress would still be pulling the exact same shit they're doing right now whenever a seat opens up, and then we're back to square one.

Also, since the proposed change to term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment, I just don't see it happening unless Supreme Court somehow get itself into a scandal, and the people see no other option but to make the change to force them to retire early.

I would say this though: when our founding fathers decided that "the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior", which is interpreted to meaning justices get to stay on for life as long as they don't screw up, the life expectancy then was 50 to 60 years, not 80 to 90 like now. Mental sharpness does decline as people gets older, that's a fact. If she was a few years younger, perhaps the Notorious RBG would never have gone on air to tell the American people who they should and should not vote for President. Perhaps that's the best reason why SCOTUS justices should have a retirement age.

1.- I think there would be less pressure to pull these antics if the position didnt guaranteed a judge would be there for 30-40 years. That being said there could be other mechanisms in place to ensure a judge is being chosen in a short period of time.

2.- My main point of contention is simply that judges appointments seem to be less democratic as life expectancy grows since its denying entire generations of their ability to choose, albeit indirectly, their judges.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

They are all good conscience reasons. But they are subjective. Your challenges are also subjective. Which is my point - you accept the subjective reasoning of one group but you reject the subjective reasoning of the other group. But for someone else, they reject the subjective reasoning of the 1st group and accept the subjective reasoning of the 2nd group.

And number 3 isn't spite - it's long term planning. If one group thinks that stonewalling will get them what they want and it does get them what they want, then they are emboldened to keep doing it. It's the same logic behind not negotiating with terrorists. You reward them for bad behavior, you make that bad behavior the new normal. To reset the balance, you have to deny them what they hoped to achieve and start fresh the next time around.

But even then it doesn't really matter to the larger point - you want to debate the pros/cons of purely subjective arguments. It's a fool's errand. People only reach subjective conclusions because they think they have more pros than cons. It's only hubris that makes us think otherwise. It's also an unwinnable argument and why we should never start going down that road.

The GOP created a subjective argument for delaying a nominee (subjective in that there's no objective standard that says that a lame duck President's nominees should be automatically not heard because of a potential new President - it's not in the law anywhere, it's a subjective political argument). The dem's will create a subjective argument for doing the same.

Which subjective argument a person aligns themselves with is an indication of their personal bias, not any intrinsic rightness/wrongness of the subjective positions themselves.

I'm saying that your subjective reasons are inferior to the one that put us in this position today. Not all rationalizations are created equal. As for my acceptance, waiting six months for the election in order to give people a chance to factor the opening into their vote isn't terribly absurd. Holding up the court indefinitely with no stated demands is.

You can frame it however you want. Did the R's do something illegal? If not, then you seem to be conflating bad behavior with something you just don't like. I'm basing this on your posts where you've justified any and all questionable political tactics that came to light during the election season.

You're kinda of silly with this stance that all subjective arguments are equal and that they can't be effectively debated. But to be clear, you're saying all the reasons are bullshit or they're all valid?

Personally I'll take the subjective argument that's both based on something reasonable and has a plan/timeline. Most would call that superior to simply stalling.

Yeesh. This is an incredibly dishonest restatement of the argument, isn't it? If you don't think a foreign dictator illegally working to help one side in an election casts a shadow over its legitimacy, say so. That's a matter of opinion. But at least address the real argument.



Huh? Were you on crack when you typed that?

What's the "real" argument and why do you need to generalize in a way that leaves out important aspects? You don't care that foreigners own key American media outlets so what do you care if it's a foreigner who leaks facts to a foreign media outlet? If the candidate who triumphed was involved in something illegal then that's a problem. Do you have any evidence of such?

I was high on life.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

2.- My main point of contention is simply that judges appointments seem to be less democratic as life expectancy grows since its denying entire generations of their ability to choose, albeit indirectly, their judges.

The Constitution isn't something that's intended to be changed via the judiciary due to generational whims. A guy who'd been on the court since 1789 would probably have a better/more faithful grasp of the document than the first millennial appointee.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's the "real" argument and why do you need to generalize in a way that leaves out important aspects?

I don't need to generalize it in a way that leaves out important aspects. That is projection. Pan was throwing out one reason people might think extraordinary measures are justified there, and you willfully misstated what that reason was. There's really no way around that. Your (completely unsubstantiated) assertions about ethical violations are irrelevant to the point, but you're so biased you can't even bring yourself to state the argument correctly, even if just to reject it.

You don't care that foreigners own key American media outlets so what do you care if it's a foreigner who leaks facts to a foreign media outlet?

"Leaks facts" is more of the same. Do you think it's ethically OK to illegally access private data? And put your partisanship aside for a second and answer in a general way: Do you have any problem with a foreign dictator who is hostile to U.S. interests trying to influence our leadership selection process through criminal activities? Or is it just one of those things where you see victory as the only thing that matters and don't apply any ethics to your side (that would explain a lot of your conduct here)?

 

[Rod1]

The Constitution isn't something that's intended to be changed via the judiciary due to generational whims. A guy who'd been on the court since 1789 would probably have a better/more faithful grasp of the document than the first millennial appointee.

But the Consitution is indeed changed based on generational whims. Its not like 1960s was any closer to 1780s.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But the Consitution is indeed changed based on generational whims. Its not like 1960s was any closer to 1780s.

Sometimes we get those activist judges. What can you do? Honest people understand that the appropriate remedy to any grievances isn't to twist language but rather to follow the amendment process. Like anything though, corruption seeps in.

 

[panamaican]

I'm saying that your subjective reasons are inferior to the one that put us in this position today.

Which is a subjective opinion. Which is my point. You stating it is inferior doesn't make it so to someone else. This is the very point of the difference between subjective and objective opinion.

All objective opinions aren't equal but you and I aren't the arbiter of which subjective opinions are objectively superior/inferior to other people. To help illustrate the problem - what is the objective standard by which we are to judge these opinions? Objective meaning fact based and since this is a matter of Senatorial procedure, there should be some codified rule as well. I ask because it seems like you don't understand the functional difference between objective opinions and subjective ones.