Reply With Quote
akhil amar is cool. he would adjunct at pepperdine law every now and again. when i took the Con Law seminar, we used his book as our text, but he wasn't around during that semester.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/b...iginalist.html
akhil amar is cool. he would adjunct at pepperdine law every now and again. when i took the Con Law seminar, we used his book as our text, but he wasn't around during that semester.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/b...iginalist.html
Last edited by spurraider21; 07-09-2018 at 11:55 PM.
His article is pretty silly though. There's probably no need for a compromise to get Democrat votes.
i doubt it. i think they'll continue to be petty and not give a single vote, force mcconnel to yet again go nuclear for a supreme court nominee
keep in mind there was no doug jones last time
There was some question if the right would be on board with Kavanaugh but after much deliberation Sean Hannity has decided to support Donald Trumps nominee. So that ends the suspense.
One trick pony
If the Supreme Court is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just?
By Lee Epstein and Eric Posner
Ms. Epstein is a political scientist and law professor at Washington University.
Mr. Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
The court has recently entered a new era of partisan division.
If you look at close cases — 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 — going back to the 1950s to illustrate this division, you will see that the percentage of votes cast in the liberal direction by justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents has skyrocketed.
And the same trajectory applies on the other side: The percentage of votes cast in the conservative direction by justices who were appointed by Republican presidents has also shot up.
The trend is extreme — and alarming.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological biases of Republican appointees and Democratic appointees were relatively modest.
The gap between them has steadily grown, but even as late as the early 1990s,
it was possible for justices to vote in ideologically unpredictable ways.
In the closely divided cases in the 1991 term, for example, the single Democratic appointee on the court, Byron White, voted more conservatively than all but two of the Republican appointees, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist.
This was a time when many Republican appointees — like Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — frequently cast liberal votes.
In the past 10 years, however,
justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them.
Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with
his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice,
it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan ins ution.
For the first time in living memory,
the court will be seen by the public as a party-dominated ins ution,
one whose votes on controversial issues are essentially determined by the party affiliation of recent presidents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Another ins ution ed up, in ed up America in decline.
iow, partisan politics is Above The Law
Collusion
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed to retire if Trump promised to replace him with Brett Kavanaugh
A source who was told of the discussions said Kennedy felt comfortable retiring after the Trump team assured him Kavanaugh would be the pick.
The Trump administration has been negotiating Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement for months, according to a new report.
Kennedy agreed to retire at the end of the term that concluded last month once he received assurances that President Donald Trump would replace him with a former law clerk, reported NBC News.
On Monday, the president held up his end of the bargain by nominating Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative former Kennedy clerk.
https://www.alternet.org/bombs -s...lace-him-brett
Is Kennedy so stupid not to know that Kavanaugh's 100% 5th vote will destroy ALL of Kennedy's "progressive" votes ASAP?
CNN’s Berman Grills Raj Shah:
Did Trump Know Kavanaugh Argued Against Investigating Presidents?
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-ber...ng-presidents/
White House doesn’t deny report Trump made secret deal with Kennedy over retirement, replacement
It's not supposed to work like this.
During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning,
White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that
outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired,
Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
If NBC’s report is true, it means
Kennedy would effectively have been given control over a SCOTUS seat for 60 years — the 30 years he served,
and the 30 or so the 53-year-old Kavanaugh will likely serve on the court if confirmed.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anth...-13fd59473ecf/
just wainting for ruth to retire!
LOL no proof
trump did talk to kennedy and about a replacement but do you really think trump promised who he would pick
btw the whole "we must reject this judge because of abortion views" is a really ty argument, imo, on behalf of the democrat lawmakers.
i mean, imagine if every time a democrat nominated a justice, republicans said "we must reject this judge because of abortion views."
that's not the measure by which we decide if somebody is qualified to be a supreme court justice. now if democrats just want to play hardball because of the merrick garland bull , then just say that.
They are playing the Roe v. Wade precedence card.
If if the Democrats come out with a win on this ANd the November elections I would be shocked. The Republicans have shoved them a corner.
yeah and i'm saying it's a ty and unpersuasive card for anybody but their base
If this Catholic asshole is rejected, Leonard Leo has 20+ other anti-abortion politicians in the queue
last president got a Catholic in
Sen. Mazie Horono, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday she would be open to voting for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
"The burden of proof is on him, which means that I am leaning no but maybe he can convince me to vote for him. This is a big burden on him to show me he can be fair and objective," Hirono said on CNN’s "New Day."
“The president has a power to nominate, but we have the power and responsibility to confirm this person. But with that responsibility comes, as far as I am concerned, the Senate hearing, the one-on-one meeting that I will have with him, and because of his record and the fact that he has been vetted by two highly conservative groups who want to overturn Roe v. Wade and repeal the Affordable Care Act, among other things, he bears the burden of proof," Hirono said.
The two conservative groups Hirono referred to are the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. In May 2016, Trump released a list of possible Supreme Court choices that those groups had vetted. Kavanaugh’s name was added later to that initial list, The New York Times editorial board noted.
Other Senate Democrats have been more critical of Kavanaugh. “I will oppose him with everything I’ve got,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday.
i do realize that democrat leaders are somewhat boxed in, though.
like sure, obstructing at every step doesn't reflect well... but after the mcconell put them through re: garland/gorsuch, its really hard to offer any goodwill to republicans at that point.
it is funny trump said he would pick from the 25 list and he got elected
not sure what the problem is people wanted his picks to get confirmed
the people spoke
The people voted for Clinton by almost 3 million votes. The people were silenced.
abortion has divided USA since Roe. Along with racism, it's fundamental to the Repug base.
Completely logical to reject a SCOTUS anti-abortionist.
yeah and by your ty logic, as abortion has divided USA since Roe, it would be completely logical for conservatives to reject a SCOTUS pro-abortion nominee on those grounds alone
trump won the states needed
he would have spent time in cal and got more votes but popular vote does not count in the usa
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions