SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

Spoken like an activist using that as an excuse not to follow the original meaning.

You want to ‘evolve’ the Constitution- that's what the amendment process is for.

Not at all true - in no way do I want a judge to rule based on personal feelings vs the law. I just don't want a judge to not consider that we're in 2021 and not the 1790s and that society, technology, economies, etc... has all changed. That's how we got the Dred Scott Decision.

We better define "Originalism" b/c there are different theories on that according to Georgetown Law.

I like what Gorsuch has laid out regarding originalism

Originalism is a theory focused on process, not on substance. It is not “Conservative” with a big C focused on politics. It is conservative in the small c sense that it seeks to conserve the meaning of the Constitution as it was written.

https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-g ... stitution/

I prefer Scalia’s definition:

The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means, today, not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/anto ... lia_784740

Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.

[BDKJMU]

In a recent press conference Biden stated he will put forth a nomination by the end of February and that Harris will be working closely on advising him of the selection process.

Well, there’s not much to the selection process, as they are looking at the shortest short list ever. With picks being limited to somewhat qualified liberal black females, the short is what, maybe 3-4 names?

[Ivytalk]

In a recent press conference Biden stated he will put forth a nomination by the end of February and that Harris will be working closely on advising him of the selection process.

Well, there’s not much to the selection process, as they are looking at the shortest short list ever. With picks being limited to somewhat qualified liberal black females, the short is what, maybe 3-4 names?

I’ve only seen two names. Three if you count Kamala.

[CID1990]

Well, there’s not much to the selection process, as they are looking at the shortest short list ever. With picks being limited to somewhat qualified liberal black females, the short is what, maybe 3-4 names?

I’ve only seen two names. Three if you count Kamala.

Wouldnt that be both laughable and convenient at the same time… if Kamala was the appointee?

I think theyd even lose a couple Dem in the Senate if that happened. Surely Biden’s chaperones arent THAT stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I’ve only seen two names. Three if you count Kamala.

Wouldnt that be both laughable and convenient at the same time… if Kamala was the appointee?

I think theyd even lose a couple Dem in the Senate if that happened. Surely Biden’s chaperones arent THAT stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. There’s no WAY she gets confirmed.

[BDKJMU]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..

Because of a power-sharing agreement between Sen Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Judiciary Committee membership, staff and budgets are split in half. So, there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee, 11 each. If the Republicans chose to and they all voted together, they could hang a nominee up in Committee and the nominee would be in limbo, not voted out of Committee.

There is a way to get past that, but there’s still a big problem for the Democrats.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.

In today’s climate, there’s no way they’re getting 10 Republicans to cross the aisle if the GOP is holding firm on a nomination.

Given the bulldog history of Mitch McConnell when it comes to nominations, I think it’s safe to say that, depending upon the nominee, you may see Cocaine Mitch employ such a tactic.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

[Ibanez]

Not at all true - in no way do I want a judge to rule based on personal feelings vs the law. I just don't want a judge to not consider that we're in 2021 and not the 1790s and that society, technology, economies, etc... has all changed. That's how we got the Dred Scott Decision.

We better define "Originalism" b/c there are different theories on that according to Georgetown Law.

I like what Gorsuch has laid out regarding originalism


https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-g ... stitution/

I prefer Scalia’s definition:

The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means, today, not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/anto ... lia_784740

Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.

With Scalia's definition, there'd be no right to privacy or free speech on the Internet b/c it did not exist in 1787. Gorsuch's definition allows new concepts and ideas to be included.

IMO, if we're to go by what the text meant when it was adopted, " We the people" means white property owners. Again - that's how we get awul decisions like Dred Scott.

[Ibanez]

Well, there’s not much to the selection process, as they are looking at the shortest short list ever. With picks being limited to somewhat qualified liberal black females, the short is what, maybe 3-4 names?

I’ve only seen two names. Three if you count Kamala.

She can't seriously be on anyone's short list.

[Ibanez]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..

Because of a power-sharing agreement between Sen Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Judiciary Committee membership, staff and budgets are split in half. So, there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee, 11 each. If the Republicans chose to and they all voted together, they could hang a nominee up in Committee and the nominee would be in limbo, not voted out of Committee.

There is a way to get past that, but there’s still a big problem for the Democrats.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.

In today’s climate, there’s no way they’re getting 10 Republicans to cross the aisle if the GOP is holding firm on a nomination.

Given the bulldog history of Mitch McConnell when it comes to nominations, I think it’s safe to say that, depending upon the nominee, you may see Cocaine Mitch employ such a tactic.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

Why would 10 Reps have to cross the aisle, isn't a simple majority enough since the Republicans changed the rules in 2017?

[GannonFan]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..

Because of a power-sharing agreement between Sen Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Judiciary Committee membership, staff and budgets are split in half. So, there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee, 11 each. If the Republicans chose to and they all voted together, they could hang a nominee up in Committee and the nominee would be in limbo, not voted out of Committee.

There is a way to get past that, but there’s still a big problem for the Democrats.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.

In today’s climate, there’s no way they’re getting 10 Republicans to cross the aisle if the GOP is holding firm on a nomination.

Given the bulldog history of Mitch McConnell when it comes to nominations, I think it’s safe to say that, depending upon the nominee, you may see Cocaine Mitch employ such a tactic.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..


https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

How fascinatingly naive of you, GF. Please list all the things/people that have been nominated for positions in the past 12 years where there HASN’T been a “controversy”, even if its a contrived controversy (like Kavanaugh’s)….they will CREATE theatre in DC if there’s none readily evident.

[GannonFan]

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

How fascinatingly naive of you, GF. Please list all the things/people that have been nominated for positions in the past 12 years where there HASN’T been a “controversy”, even if its a contrived controversy (like Kavanaugh’s)….they will CREATE theatre in DC if there’s none readily evident.

Well, this is a Democratic pick, so since it's normally the Dems who get hysterical about these picks (again, the craziness they stooped to for the Kavanaugh pick and the flailing they did with Amy Coney Barrett), I don't think this will be that bad. I don't recall any real angst when Kagan and Sotomayor were picked, and like I said, neither of the two leading contenders are even close to a Sotomayor level. If Biden screws it up and doesn't pick one of the two leaders in the clubhouse then it could get interesting, but as incompetent as he is even I don't think he'll be allowed to mess this one up.

[Pwns]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... a-shapiro/

Are we going to ignore that Biden made an objectively terrible choice for VP and that's going to make people inevitably suspicious of his pick?

[GannonFan]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... a-shapiro/

Are we going to ignore that Biden made an objectively terrible choice for VP and that's going to make people inevitably suspicious of his pick?

VP is a purely political choice. As much as people like to read politics into the SCOTUS (and it's there, sure), there's a lot more objective things to look at in SCOTUS justice. If he picked Harris for the SCOTUS it would be as bad as when Bush initially picked Harriet Miers.

[BDKJMU]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..


https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

How is an affirmative action pick based soley on race and sex not controversial?

[GannonFan]

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

So what you’re saying is Biden is suppose to make an affirmative action pick based on race and sex.

What any POTUS is suppose to do is pick the best candidate available from the entire pool of legal jurisprudence, or at least comsider a range of candidates, not one based soley on race and sex that excludes 96%-97% or so of that pool, and will have an asterisk next to her name. Sotomayor might have been an affirmative action pick, but at least Obama was smart enough not to say it up front amd at least made the show of considering more than Hispanic females.

No, I didn't say he's supposed to make an affirmative action pick. That's the type of wordsmithing and hyperbole conclusion making that makes you a conk.

These two are already in that pool of qualified judges that he would pick from anyway. If he picked someone soley on race or sex (so outside this pool) then that would be an issue. These top two picks are already candidates who would be under consideration because they are fully qualified and excellent choices to be considered. When you type about Clarence Thomas do you put an asterisk on his name? Stop being a conk. You're starting to be the poster most equivalent to the donk counterpart in houndy, and that's not a flattering comparison.

[UNI88]

None of this matters if Biden just does what he's supposed to do and picks one of the leading two contenders. Neither is controversial, both are incredibly well qualified, and if anything, the far left would be more upset at these picks than the far right as they are much more moderate in their jurisprudence than a Sotomayor or someone else in that mold. Biden put himself in this bind when he decided to limit the choice based on race and gender - this pick will be more like a Roberts pick, a pragmatic centrist, than it would've been even a Ginsburg type, let alone a Sotomayor. Like I said, if anyone is going to be pissed about this pick it will be the far left who isn't going to be getting a likeminded firebrand. The GOP would be silly to obstruct anything at this point. They could win even more points by not obstructing and then saying that they are the party of rational thought compared to how the Dems have acted in more recent nomination fights.

How is an affirmative action pick based soley on race and sex not controversial?

Ganny has been pretty clear that they're qualified. They don't just check the race and sex boxes.

Are you trying to make the pick controversial so that you can justify opposing it regardless of the persons qualifications?

[Pwns]

VP is a purely political choice.

And KH fails miserably in that respect. She's not popular and not a good communicator and she squirms even when a podcaster asks her if Manchin is te real president.

Let's be real, Biden is the oldest president ever elected and is likely a voluntarily one-term guy and it was never supposed to be a conventional vice presidency. Instead of getting one of your party's rising stars a position where they can make themselves more visible to the public you blow it on a token pick. And it puts Biden in an awkward position of choosing backing her or backing someone more electable.

[Ibanez]

So what you’re saying is Biden is suppose to make an affirmative action pick based on race and sex.

What any POTUS is suppose to do is pick the best candidate available from the entire pool of legal jurisprudence, or at least comsider a range of candidates, not one based soley on race and sex that excludes 96%-97% or so of that pool, and will have an asterisk next to her name. Sotomayor might have been an affirmative action pick, but at least Obama was smart enough not to say it up front amd at least made the show of considering more than Hispanic females.

No, I didn't say he's supposed to make an affirmative action pick. That's the type of wordsmithing and hyperbole conclusion making that makes you a conk.

These two are already in that pool of qualified judges that he would pick from anyway. If he picked someone soley on race or sex (so outside this pool) then that would be an issue. These top two picks are already candidates who would be under consideration because they are fully qualified and excellent choices to be considered. When you type about Clarence Thomas do you put an asterisk on his name? Stop being a conk. You're starting to be the poster most equivalent to the donk counterpart in houndy, and that's not a flattering comparison.

GannonFan from the top rope!!!!!!!!!!

[BDKJMU]

So what you’re saying is Biden is suppose to make an affirmative action pick based on race and sex.

What any POTUS is suppose to do is pick the best candidate available from the entire pool of legal jurisprudence, or at least comsider a range of candidates, not one based soley on race and sex that excludes 96%-97% or so of that pool, and will have an asterisk next to her name. Sotomayor might have been an affirmative action pick, but at least Obama was smart enough not to say it up front amd at least made the show of considering more than Hispanic females.

No, I didn't say he's supposed to make an affirmative action pick. That's the type of wordsmithing and hyperbole conclusion making that makes you a conk.

These two are already in that pool of qualified judges that he would pick from anyway. If he picked someone soley on race or sex (so outside this pool) then that would be an issue. These top two picks are already candidates who would be under consideration because they are fully qualified and excellent choices to be considered. When you type about Clarence Thomas do you put an asterisk on his name? Stop being a conk. You're starting to be the poster most equivalent to the donk counterpart in houndy, and that's not a flattering comparison.

Its not wordsmithing and hyperbole when making an affirmative action pick is precisely what Biden announced he was going to do by saying he was going to make a pick based soley on race and sex.

And would they both be on the shortlist if race and sex were zero percent factors?

[BDKJMU]

How is an affirmative action pick based soley on race and sex not controversial?

Ganny has been pretty clear that they're qualified. They don't just check the race and sex boxes.

Are you trying to make the pick controversial so that you can justify opposing it regardless of the persons qualifications?

Are they the most qualified?

Biden made the pick controversial by announcing that he would make his pick based on race and sex, something you’d think in this day and age we’d moved past.

[GannonFan]

No, I didn't say he's supposed to make an affirmative action pick. That's the type of wordsmithing and hyperbole conclusion making that makes you a conk.

These two are already in that pool of qualified judges that he would pick from anyway. If he picked someone soley on race or sex (so outside this pool) then that would be an issue. These top two picks are already candidates who would be under consideration because they are fully qualified and excellent choices to be considered. When you type about Clarence Thomas do you put an asterisk on his name? Stop being a conk. You're starting to be the poster most equivalent to the donk counterpart in houndy, and that's not a flattering comparison.

Its not wordsmithing and hyperbole when making an affirmative action pick is precisely what Biden announced he was going to do by saying he was going to make a pick based soley on race and sex.

And would they both be on the shortlist if race and sex were zero percent factors?

Again, it is wordsmithing on your part. Biden is NOT making the decision SOLELY on race and sex, assuming he picks one of these leading contenders. These leading contenders are already on the shortlist, as they would be for any Democratic (and frankly it should be Republican) choice for the SCOTUS. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a twice graduate of Harvard, was editor on the Harvard Law Review, she's clerked for the SCOTUS, she's been successful in private and public practice, and she's sitting on the DC Court of Appeals, which is a typical avenue for a SCOTUS. She checks all the boxes that any nominee for the SCOTUS typically checks, she just also happens to be Black and a woman. Heck, she's even related by marriage to Paul Ryan. The other leading contender is Leondra Kruger, and she has the same qualifications other than she went to Yale and was editor on their law review and she's younger and on a state Supreme Court. If either of these two were white and male there wouldn't be any question if they were qualified or not.

[CID1990]

Interesting if true. Hadn’t heard this..

Because of a power-sharing agreement between Sen Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Judiciary Committee membership, staff and budgets are split in half. So, there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee, 11 each. If the Republicans chose to and they all voted together, they could hang a nominee up in Committee and the nominee would be in limbo, not voted out of Committee.

There is a way to get past that, but there’s still a big problem for the Democrats.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.

In today’s climate, there’s no way they’re getting 10 Republicans to cross the aisle if the GOP is holding firm on a nomination.

Given the bulldog history of Mitch McConnell when it comes to nominations, I think it’s safe to say that, depending upon the nominee, you may see Cocaine Mitch employ such a tactic.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01 ... ee-n513040

That’s a pretty nuclear option and I doubt it gets used.

If Breyer was a retiring conservative, then maybe. But McConnell is going to keep his powder dry on this one unless Biden nominates a goober. Jackson and Kruger aren’t goobers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Its not wordsmithing and hyperbole when making an affirmative action pick is precisely what Biden announced he was going to do by saying he was going to make a pick based soley on race and sex.

And would they both be on the shortlist if race and sex were zero percent factors?

Again, it is wordsmithing on your part. Biden is NOT making the decision SOLELY on race and sex, assuming he picks one of these leading contenders. These leading contenders are already on the shortlist, as they would be for any Democratic (and frankly it should be Republican) choice for the SCOTUS. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a twice graduate of Harvard, was editor on the Harvard Law Review, she's clerked for the SCOTUS, she's been successful in private and public practice, and she's sitting on the DC Court of Appeals, which is a typical avenue for a SCOTUS. She checks all the boxes that any nominee for the SCOTUS typically checks, she just also happens to be Black and a woman. Heck, she's even related by marriage to Paul Ryan. The other leading contender is Leondra Kruger, and she has the same qualifications other than she went to Yale and was editor on their law review and she's younger and on a state Supreme Court. If either of these two were white and male there wouldn't be any question if they were qualified or not.

Biden publicly stated he was only going to pick a black female, which was a dumb thing to publicly say. How often do you hear a CEO or head of a major organization publicly pronounce ‘I’m only going to hire a (insert your race and sex here)?

If Biden is intent on picking a black female, but had never stated it publicly beforehad, and also considered some who weren’t black females (at least publicly made a show of it), I don’t think most would consider her an affirmative action pick. With Biden stating beforehand only a black female, I think a majority will look at her as an affirmative action pick, even though they won’t say it publicly. Its actually a disservice to whomever he picks and to the SCOTUS.

If Obama only was only going to pick a Hispanic female when he picked Sotomayor (don’t know if that was the case or not) he was smart enough to never have publicly said that beforehand, so I don’t think most people look at her as an affirmative action pick. Just a dumb pick by Obama who was suppose to be a very smart POTUS (no way she could have been the smartest, most qualified Hispanic female out there). Looks like Trump maybe made a dumb pick with Kavanaugh, too

[UNI88]

Ganny has been pretty clear that they're qualified. They don't just check the race and sex boxes.

Are you trying to make the pick controversial so that you can justify opposing it regardless of the persons qualifications?

Are they the most qualified?

Biden made the pick controversial by announcing that he would make his pick based on race and sex, something you’d think in this day and age we’d moved past.

Who said they were the "most qualified"? How frequently is the most qualified person selected? Do you really believe that there's never been a more qualified liberal judge that wasn't nominated by a Republican President because of their ideology, not qualifications?