Page 1 of 2
Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:51 pm
by Beebs52
Regarding appointments to. I was under the impression that these people interpret the law strictly. Obviously past appts, both "conservative" and "liberal" have surprised party line peeps. That's a good thing.
I don't understand propounding appointing someone based on race or sex. The possible appointees may be eminently qualified, but I would think those appointees would be grossed out by that framework rather than their legal acumen.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:57 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:51 pm
Regarding appointments to. I was under the impression that these people interpret the law strictly. Obviously past appts, both "conservative" and "liberal" have surprised party line peeps. That's a good thing.
I don't understand propounding appointing someone based on race or sex. The possible appointees may be eminently qualified, but I would think those appointees would be grossed out by that framework rather than their legal acumen.
When deciding whether particular police conduct is "reasonable" (which is an issue that comes before the Court with some frequency), the perspective of a parent who's had to give their kids "The Talk" is probably different from the perspective of a parent who's never had that experience. Same for the perspective of people who have repeated experience with being stopped for "Driving While Black."
There is a lot of value to having both perspectives on the Court. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:05 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:57 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:51 pm
Regarding appointments to. I was under the impression that these people interpret the law strictly. Obviously past appts, both "conservative" and "liberal" have surprised party line peeps. That's a good thing.
I don't understand propounding appointing someone based on race or sex. The possible appointees may be eminently qualified, but I would think those appointees would be grossed out by that framework rather than their legal acumen.
When deciding whether particular police conduct is "reasonable" (which is an issue that comes before the Court with some frequency), the perspective of a parent who's had to give their kids "The Talk" is probably different from the perspective of a parent who's never had that experience. Same for the perspective of people who have repeated experience with being stopped for "Driving While Black."
There is a lot of value to having both perspectives on the Court. --Bob
I do understand that. But it shouldn't affect a particular decision not involving that. And all decisions don't revolve around that. Do I make sense?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:05 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:57 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:51 pm
Regarding appointments to. I was under the impression that these people interpret the law strictly. Obviously past appts, both "conservative" and "liberal" have surprised party line peeps. That's a good thing.
I don't understand propounding appointing someone based on race or sex. The possible appointees may be eminently qualified, but I would think those appointees would be grossed out by that framework rather than their legal acumen.
When deciding whether particular police conduct is "reasonable" (which is an issue that comes before the Court with some frequency), the perspective of a parent who's had to give their kids "The Talk" is probably different from the perspective of a parent who's never had that experience. Same for the perspective of people who have repeated experience with being stopped for "Driving While Black."
There is a lot of value to having both perspectives on the Court. --Bob
I do understand that. But it shouldn't affect a particular decision not involving that. And all decisions don't revolve around that. Do I make sense?
But in a surprising number of cases, the Court is fundamentally deciding what is "reasonable" or "undue." Having a broad swath of perspectives when making that decision matters (in my view) a lot. Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
Voting rights cases, for example, might have been decided differently if there were any Justices with a clue about what it means to have to take a two-hour bus ride to get the necessary ID, at the cost of a full day's pay. That information is in the record, but having that perspective in the room where decisions are made matters. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:42 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:05 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:57 pm
When deciding whether particular police conduct is "reasonable" (which is an issue that comes before the Court with some frequency), the perspective of a parent who's had to give their kids "The Talk" is probably different from the perspective of a parent who's never had that experience. Same for the perspective of people who have repeated experience with being stopped for "Driving While Black."
There is a lot of value to having both perspectives on the Court. --Bob
I do understand that. But it shouldn't affect a particular decision not involving that. And all decisions don't revolve around that. Do I make sense?
But in a surprising number of cases, the Court is fundamentally deciding what is "reasonable" or "undue." Having a broad swath of perspectives when making that decision matters (in my view) a lot. Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
Voting rights cases, for example, might have been decided differently if there were any Justices with a clue about what it means to have to take a two-hour bus ride to get the necessary ID, at the cost of a full day's pay. That information is in the record, but having that perspective in the room where decisions are made matters. --Bob
But you're discussing specifics that aren't actually pertinent to a specific case. And also possibly state specific. What case is involved?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:04 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:42 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:05 pm
I do understand that. But it shouldn't affect a particular decision not involving that. And all decisions don't revolve around that. Do I make sense?
But in a surprising number of cases, the Court is fundamentally deciding what is "reasonable" or "undue." Having a broad swath of perspectives when making that decision matters (in my view) a lot. Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
Voting rights cases, for example, might have been decided differently if there were any Justices with a clue about what it means to have to take a two-hour bus ride to get the necessary ID, at the cost of a full day's pay. That information is in the record, but having that perspective in the room where decisions are made matters. --Bob
But you're discussing specifics that aren't actually pertinent to a specific case. And also possibly state specific. What case is involved?
A relatively early (decades-old, at this point) case from the Midwest (I think Indiana) where the Court held, over a dissent, that such a bus trip isn't much of a burden.
The point is that cases are (or should be) decided based on facts and evaluations of those facts, and in the evaluative process (especially when talking about concepts such as "reasonable" or "burdensome"), life experience matters.
So, too, do moral values. It hasn't escaped my notice, or that of many other observers, that a Court that's on the verge of imposing a specifically Catholic view of morality on women across the nation happens to have 6 Catholic Justices, which is a number far out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. Flip it around -- I think a lot of people would find it notable if the Court had 6 Black Justices. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:01 pm
by jarnon
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:06 pm
by tlynn78
jarnon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
LMAO!!
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:34 pm
by BackInTex
jarnon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:36 pm
Remember, until 1981, every single Justice who ever served was a white man.
Thanks for the laugh.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:43 am
by earendel
So if we go by recent precedent, should the Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2022, will they refuse to consider any of Biden's nominations because "it's too close to an election" (per Mitch McConnell)? And if Biden wins a second term (or another Democrat replaces him), will the court have a vacancy until either a Republican is elected president or the Democrats regain control of the Senate?
And what about Naomi?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:55 pm
by Beebs52
earendel wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:43 am
So if we go by recent precedent, should the Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2022, will they refuse to consider any of Biden's nominations because "it's too close to an election" (per Mitch McConnell)? And if Biden wins a second term (or another Democrat replaces him), will the court have a vacancy until either a Republican is elected president or the Democrats regain control of the Senate?
And what about Naomi?
That about sums it up. Surely she's not in the shower.
I jest.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:19 pm
by bazodee
I have no problem with engineering more diversity on the Court, even for diversity's sake. Nonetheless, this episode leaves a bad taste. This nomination, whoever it will be, looks more like a quid pro quo than an attempt to diversify. No disrespect intended, but Rep. Jim Clyburn isn't the President.
There are eminently qualified African American women who can serve and no doubt, Biden will nominate one of them.
But I wish diversity were interpreted a little more broadly. How about a candidate who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale Law Schools? How about a nominee who isn't a sitting federal judge, but perhaps sits on a state Supreme Court? It almost seems a maxim that only people of color have "unique" experiences that bring a different perspective.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:25 pm
by Bob78164
bazodee wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:19 pm
I have no problem with engineering more diversity on the Court, even for diversity's sake. Nonetheless, this episode leaves a bad taste. This nomination, whoever it will be, looks more like a quid pro quo than an attempt to diversify. No disrespect intended, but Rep. Jim Clyburn isn't the President.
There are eminently qualified African American women who can serve and no doubt, Biden will nominate one of them.
But I wish diversity were interpreted a little more broadly. How about a candidate who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale Law Schools? How about a nominee who isn't a sitting federal judge, but perhaps sits on a state Supreme Court? It almost seems a maxim that only people of color have "unique" experiences that bring a different perspective.
One of the leading candidates is in fact sitting on the California Supreme Court.
And President Biden is not the first President to promise during his campaign to name a nominee from a specific demographic group. When Ronald Reagan was running for President, he promised to name the first woman to the Supreme Court if elected. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:36 pm
by Beebs52
bazodee wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:19 pm
I have no problem with engineering more diversity on the Court, even for diversity's sake. Nonetheless, this episode leaves a bad taste. This nomination, whoever it will be, looks more like a quid pro quo than an attempt to diversify. No disrespect intended, but Rep. Jim Clyburn isn't the President.
There are eminently qualified African American women who can serve and no doubt, Biden will nominate one of them.
But I wish diversity were interpreted a little more broadly. How about a candidate who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale Law Schools? How about a nominee who isn't a sitting federal judge, but perhaps sits on a state Supreme Court? It almost seems a maxim that only people of color have "unique" experiences that bring a different perspective.
What about Childs?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:50 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:36 pm
bazodee wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:19 pm
I have no problem with engineering more diversity on the Court, even for diversity's sake. Nonetheless, this episode leaves a bad taste. This nomination, whoever it will be, looks more like a quid pro quo than an attempt to diversify. No disrespect intended, but Rep. Jim Clyburn isn't the President.
There are eminently qualified African American women who can serve and no doubt, Biden will nominate one of them.
But I wish diversity were interpreted a little more broadly. How about a candidate who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale Law Schools? How about a nominee who isn't a sitting federal judge, but perhaps sits on a state Supreme Court? It almost seems a maxim that only people of color have "unique" experiences that bring a different perspective.
What about Childs?
Isn't she a sitting federal judge (South Carolina District Court) whose nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending? --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:20 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:50 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:36 pm
bazodee wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:19 pm
I have no problem with engineering more diversity on the Court, even for diversity's sake. Nonetheless, this episode leaves a bad taste. This nomination, whoever it will be, looks more like a quid pro quo than an attempt to diversify. No disrespect intended, but Rep. Jim Clyburn isn't the President.
There are eminently qualified African American women who can serve and no doubt, Biden will nominate one of them.
But I wish diversity were interpreted a little more broadly. How about a candidate who didn't graduate from Harvard or Yale Law Schools? How about a nominee who isn't a sitting federal judge, but perhaps sits on a state Supreme Court? It almost seems a maxim that only people of color have "unique" experiences that bring a different perspective.
What about Childs?
Isn't she a sitting federal judge (South Carolina District Court) whose nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending? --Bob
I know she's one under consideration. Didn't you see the list?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:29 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:20 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:50 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:36 pm
What about Childs?
Isn't she a sitting federal judge (South Carolina District Court) whose nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending? --Bob
I know she's one under consideration. Didn't you see the list?
Jackson, Childs, and Kruger are the three names I've seen floated. Of those, only Kruger is not currently a federal judge, which was one of the topics of jarnon's comment. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:36 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:29 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:20 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:50 pm
Isn't she a sitting federal judge (South Carolina District Court) whose nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending? --Bob
I know she's one under consideration. Didn't you see the list?
Jackson, Childs, and Kruger are the three names I've seen floated. Of those, only Kruger is not currently a federal judge, which was one of the topics of jarnon's comment. --Bob
What?
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:58 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:36 pm
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:29 pm
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:20 pm
I know she's one under consideration. Didn't you see the list?
Jackson, Childs, and Kruger are the three names I've seen floated. Of those, only Kruger is not currently a federal judge, which was one of the topics of jarnon's comment. --Bob
What?
Excuse me, I meant bazodee. --Bob
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:57 am
by silverscreenselect
Bob78164 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:25 pm
And President Biden is not the first President to promise during his campaign to name a nominee from a specific demographic group. When Ronald Reagan was running for President, he promised to name the first woman to the Supreme Court if elected. --Bob
You don't have to go nearly that far back. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Trump announced at a campaign rally that he would name a woman to replace her.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:03 pm
by Ritterskoop
I can live with the idea that the next nominee is already slotted into a particular demographic because for a long time, they were mostly slotted into the MAWG demo, so it's not so different from some of us getting on Millionaire because ABC wanted to broaden the appeal of the show (from the original MAWG-heavy contestants).
I understand that TV is not the same as the court, and I am OK with courts being a little more conservative than other branches of government, but if people are qualified, I don't mind trying to paint a more colorful picture.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:17 pm
by Beebs52
Also, and I'm sure I shall irritate whomever, so far, even given politically driven appts, which they all are at some point, these people are serious, intellectually, constitutionally driven jurists. No one is an appointee without some serious creds. Because any, any prez can't seriously think they'll fuck with that. They, scotus, all surprise you on various decisions.
This has nothing to to do with expanding the court, however...
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:41 pm
by Ritterskoop
Beebs52 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:17 pm
these people are serious, intellectually, constitutionally driven jurists.
I said something just like this to a leftish friend during a recent confirmation process of a more-right-than-not type.
My friend was mortified. I said, "You have got to trust that people at this level are genuinely doing their best. Well-meaning people are going to disagree on policy, but as long as they refrain from name-calling, and in fact do their best, that's what we expect and that's what we mostly get."
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:46 pm
by Ritterskoop
Not going back to see if I already said this...
I also don't believe in adding justices to get the number you want, although it is true there is nothing in the Constitution about how many there should be. I think they started with five, maybe?
Damn, play by the rules there are; when you try to rewrite the rules in the middle of the game, that is like trying to say the outcome wasn't a final score. Bitch to the ref for a minute, and then get ready for the next game.
For some reason, expanding the legislature feels different than the court, so if Puerto Rico and DC and Guam want representatives who can actually vote, I might be OK with that, but dadgum, if you do it, do it all at once so they don't have to keep messing around with the flag.
Re: Supreme Court
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:56 pm
by Bob Juch
Ritterskoop wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:46 pm
Not going back to see if I already said this...
I also don't believe in adding justices to get the number you want, although it is true there is nothing in the Constitution about how many there should be. I think they started with five, maybe?
Damn, play by the rules there are; when you try to rewrite the rules in the middle of the game, that is like trying to say the outcome wasn't a final score. Bitch to the ref for a minute, and then get ready for the next game.
For some reason, expanding the legislature feels different than the court, so if Puerto Rico and DC and Guam want representatives who can actually vote, I might be OK with that, but dadgum, if you do it, do it all at once so they don't have to keep messing around with the flag.
There were initially six justices.