[Discussion] Supreme court vacancy

Thread about the current (2016) Supreme Court vacancy and the issues surrounding filling it.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
JC wrote:

Republicans are going to remove the filibuster option regardless of if Democrats use it to delay Gorsuch or not.

I agree. I am not sure why anyone would think different.

Most important midterms ever coming up. Democrats have got to figure out how to get people motivated more than every 4 years. Especially in an election where popular vote is the only thing that matters. Just getting enough people to show up will equal a win.

I think Democrats need to filibuster, obstruct, whatever is possible every last thing even if losing is inevitable. Make this administration and the extremist GOP fight for every last millimeter. How many times are we going to cave before finally, finally, finally begin to realize that the GOP (especially now) is never going to participate in any sort of reasonable compromise.

Let's not be this anymore:

IMAGE(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/cartoons/mr_fish_democratic_backbone.jpg)

Baron Of Hell wrote:
JC wrote:

Republicans are going to remove the filibuster option regardless of if Democrats use it to delay Gorsuch or not.

I agree. I am not sure why anyone would think different.

Because maybe Daddy won't hit them if they're good.

Well, this looks interesting:
This is what Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was like in college

A look at Gorsuch’s time as an undergraduate at Columbia University in the 1980s shows that conservatives have ample reason to be so trusting of him. Gorsuch was an active and vocally conservative participant on campus. He heatedly defended the Reagan administration through its worst controversy, criticized apartheid protesters, scorned black movements, and even founded a publication known for attacking campus activists. He also made arguments about the separation of powers that could provide an insight into what he would do on the Court.

I should have known that in the modern climate saying something to the effect of "This GOP decision doesn't look so bad, I don't think that the Democrats should veto it" was inviting disaster.

Neil Gorsuch Not A Typical Nihilist Donald Trump Nominee | Rachel Maddow

As it turns out, the Daily Mail jumped the gun and that was apparently a joke: No, Neil Gorsuch did not start a ‘Fascism Forever’ club at his Jesuit high school.

It does mean that he was tasteless enough as a teenager to think that sounded like a joke, but that's probably not something we can hold against him forever. The Kissinger quote is real, but sarcastic.

Trump's SCOTUS pick may just backfire on him.

Article wrote:

All this adds a twist to Gorsuch's nomination. In picking him, Trump chose the short-lister most likely to bolster the judiciary's claims over the executive branch in the power to say what the nation's regulatory law is. Presently, Justice Clarence Thomas is the only active member of the Supreme Court to call for a reversal of Chevron, although the chief justice and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer at times have shown some interest in domesticating the doctrine. It would go too far to say that Gorsuch would shift the tide on judicial deference, but he would add another thoughtful voice to the skeptical chorus.
In getting his way on the nomination, Trump may be less likely to get his way on the law. At a time when people across the ideological spectrum have concerns about the stability and rule of law, Gorsuch's jurisprudence may come as a welcome relief.

Gremlin wrote:

As it turns out, the Daily Mail jumped the gun and that was apparently a joke: No, Neil Gorsuch did not start a ‘Fascism Forever’ club at his Jesuit high school.

It does mean that he was tasteless enough as a teenager to think that sounded like a joke, but that's probably not something we can hold against him forever. The Kissinger quote is real, but sarcastic.

So... he was the equivalent of a 4chan edgelord in high school? Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... feeling much better now... *goes back to hiding in the bunker* (Not sure if serious or not anymore...)

Demosthenes wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

As it turns out, the Daily Mail jumped the gun and that was apparently a joke: No, Neil Gorsuch did not start a ‘Fascism Forever’ club at his Jesuit high school.

It does mean that he was tasteless enough as a teenager to think that sounded like a joke, but that's probably not something we can hold against him forever. The Kissinger quote is real, but sarcastic.

So... he was the equivalent of a 4chan edgelord in high school? Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... feeling much better now... *goes back to hiding in the bunker* (Not sure if serious or not anymore...)

Oh come on.

Think of the vast array of dumb/offensive/racist/misogynistic things you said and did when you were a teenager, that you would never do as an adult.

Nomad wrote:

Trump's SCOTUS pick may just backfire on him.

Article wrote:

All this adds a twist to Gorsuch's nomination. In picking him, Trump chose the short-lister most likely to bolster the judiciary's claims over the executive branch in the power to say what the nation's regulatory law is. Presently, Justice Clarence Thomas is the only active member of the Supreme Court to call for a reversal of Chevron, although the chief justice and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer at times have shown some interest in domesticating the doctrine. It would go too far to say that Gorsuch would shift the tide on judicial deference, but he would add another thoughtful voice to the skeptical chorus.
In getting his way on the nomination, Trump may be less likely to get his way on the law. At a time when people across the ideological spectrum have concerns about the stability and rule of law, Gorsuch's jurisprudence may come as a welcome relief.

Trump fires people who try to prevent him from breaking the law, what does the Judiciary's opinion matter to him?

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

As it turns out, the Daily Mail jumped the gun and that was apparently a joke: No, Neil Gorsuch did not start a ‘Fascism Forever’ club at his Jesuit high school.

It does mean that he was tasteless enough as a teenager to think that sounded like a joke, but that's probably not something we can hold against him forever. The Kissinger quote is real, but sarcastic.

So... he was the equivalent of a 4chan edgelord in high school? Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat... feeling much better now... *goes back to hiding in the bunker* (Not sure if serious or not anymore...)

Oh come on.

Think of the vast array of dumb/offensive/racist/misogynistic things you said and did when you were a teenager, that you would never do as an adult.

Like joke about how I liked fascism... then potentially be hired by a fascist?

Given the number of folks around Trump who cater to exactly that crowd... including plenty who have grown up thinking Obama is a seekrt mooslim and more... I think the expectation of growth and thus maturity is something we should probably let go of as an expectation of adults.

More so when we have a President who still acts like a 12 year old when someone calls him on on literally anything.

Eh.

I struggle to draw a through line from the person I was a teenager to the person I am today. Which is as it should be.

Pick an 'ism - I could find instances of me being that 'ist as a teenager, and I couldn't find you an instance of it in the last decade. I am barely the same person. I assume that trend continues as I put more distance between that kid and this man.

Which means that clutching our pearls over something someone said 40+ years ago just seems downright absurd. Maybe I'm projecting too much.

Mixolyde wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Trump's SCOTUS pick may just backfire on him.

Article wrote:

All this adds a twist to Gorsuch's nomination. In picking him, Trump chose the short-lister most likely to bolster the judiciary's claims over the executive branch in the power to say what the nation's regulatory law is. Presently, Justice Clarence Thomas is the only active member of the Supreme Court to call for a reversal of Chevron, although the chief justice and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer at times have shown some interest in domesticating the doctrine. It would go too far to say that Gorsuch would shift the tide on judicial deference, but he would add another thoughtful voice to the skeptical chorus.
In getting his way on the nomination, Trump may be less likely to get his way on the law. At a time when people across the ideological spectrum have concerns about the stability and rule of law, Gorsuch's jurisprudence may come as a welcome relief.

Trump fires people who try to prevent him from breaking the law, what does the Judiciary's opinion matter to him?

That's the point. I'd like to see him try and fire a Supreme Court Justice.

I dunno, maybe the general administration's current lack of emotional maturity is making me attribute it unfairly to Gorcuch... but given his "smaller government because that's how Jefferson would have wanted it" while "the government WILL make you suffer through your terminal illness because of my religious beliefs", it's hard for me to give him much credit yet. *shrug*

Jonman wrote:

Eh.

About where I'm at with it. He sounds like he was kind of annoying as a teenager, but it was pre-internet and apparently mostly afflicted on authority figures and teachers.

Now, if something comes out during questioning, that's a different story. Nail him to the wall.

(Then there's the stuff I'm not addressing: the Garland thing is likely to be a far bigger factor here than any merit Gorsuch may or may not have.)

Jonman wrote:

Eh.

I struggle to draw a through line from the person I was a teenager to the person I am today. Which is as it should be.

Pick an 'ism - I could find instances of me being that 'ist as a teenager, and I couldn't find you an instance of it in the last decade. I am barely the same person. I assume that trend continues as I put more distance between that kid and this man.

Which means that clutching our pearls over something someone said 40+ years ago just seems downright absurd. Maybe I'm projecting too much.

Yet Trump still acts like a 12 year old.

Jonman obviously hasn't been to his high school reunions
My 10 year reunion everybody was inspiring. So many of my classmate went off to explore the world whether through schooling or just having completed schooling or through travel.
My 20 year reunion circled around how most people that had expanded their horizons had moved back home and started reviving the same old high school cliques and juvenile conquest "glory days".

Nomad wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Trump's SCOTUS pick may just backfire on him.

Article wrote:

All this adds a twist to Gorsuch's nomination. In picking him, Trump chose the short-lister most likely to bolster the judiciary's claims over the executive branch in the power to say what the nation's regulatory law is. Presently, Justice Clarence Thomas is the only active member of the Supreme Court to call for a reversal of Chevron, although the chief justice and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer at times have shown some interest in domesticating the doctrine. It would go too far to say that Gorsuch would shift the tide on judicial deference, but he would add another thoughtful voice to the skeptical chorus.
In getting his way on the nomination, Trump may be less likely to get his way on the law. At a time when people across the ideological spectrum have concerns about the stability and rule of law, Gorsuch's jurisprudence may come as a welcome relief.

Trump fires people who try to prevent him from breaking the law, what does the Judiciary's opinion matter to him?

That's the point. I'd like to see him try and fire a Supreme Court Justice.

I get your point, he can't fire a justice. My point is, he ignores the law, and people under him are ignoring court orders and not being held accountable. So what does it matter if Justice's rule against him. He's going to push what he wants anyway unless there is a literal coup to stop him.

Gremlin wrote:

(Then there's the stuff I'm not addressing: the Garland thing is likely to be a far bigger factor here than any merit Gorsuch may or may not have.)

This is where I am. What the GOP did to Garland is absolutely ridiculous - this seat is Garland's and any pick who isn't Garland should be blocked. Let the GOP go nuclear, let them own that. Stealing a SCOTUS pick is a political heist, and the last thing the Dems should do is let the GOP get away with it. It should be treated bitterly resisted.

Mixolyde wrote:
Nomad wrote:

That's the point. I'd like to see him try and fire a Supreme Court Justice.

I get your point, he can't fire a justice. My point is, he ignores the law, and people under him are ignoring court orders and not being held accountable. So what does it matter if Justice's rule against him. He's going to push what he wants anyway unless there is a literal coup to stop him.

I was reading this and that got me thinking: has that ever happened? I don't remember anything from my classes in middle and high school but it's been a while. Has a President ever fired a Superme Court Justice?! I know some have stepped down because they felt they weren't up to the task anymore (advancing years and impending dementia, more often than not), but for the life of me, I can't remember anything like that.
Could he really do that? What's to stop him?

Like Bekkilyn and others, I too hope for a filibuster. It's the least the GOP deserves for blocking Obama's candidates and leaving a vacancy on the SCOTUS for an **entire year**.

It's only happened once. Sorta...

In 1805

The single justice impeached but subsequently not forced out was Samuel Chase, a longtime Maryland legislator who was appointed to the court as an associate justice by President George Washington on Jan. 26, 1796, and who served there until his death on June 19, 1811.

In 1804, eight articles of impeachment accused him of allowing his political views to interfere with his decisions.

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment if they choose to stay by not specifying a time or age limit of service. The purpose of a lifetime appointment was to give them freedom to make decisions without interference from the executive or legislative branches of government. But the Constitution leaves open the possibility of impeachment and removal by Congress. In U.S. history, one justice was impeached, but not convicted, and one justice resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Yep, nothing, the President can do, other than pressure Congress to impeach.

Yonder wrote:

Yep, nothing, the President can do, other than pressure Congress to impeach.

Or dox them and have Dumbledoofus's Army harass them until they quit.

Thanks for the info JC. Then I guess that if this does happen, Trump'll be making history...

FDR tried to stack the court in his favor by appointing more justices, but he wasn't able to get it past Congress.

The Constitution doesn't specify a size, so if Congress goes along, 45 could stack it with 11 more people of his own choosing, pretty much guaranteeing rulings he liked.

Might have been the pre D&D thread but there was that article saying we should have 18 or something.

Sorry but I just saw something that absolutely sealed my discontent with Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
In fact did anyone else see the "commercial" for Gorsuch for the Supreme Court?
No, just no. I don't care who was behind it. I don't want advertisements for Supreme Court nominees. NO WAY.
And I am open to the fact that prior nominees may have had ads for them and I would have just as much distaste for them. NO!

fangblackbone wrote:

Sorry but I just saw something that absolutely sealed my discontent with Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
In fact did anyone else see the "commercial" for Gorsuch for the Supreme Court?
No, just no. I don't care who was behind it. I don't want advertisements for Supreme Court nominees. NO WAY.
And I am open to the fact that prior nominees may have had ads for them and I would have just as much distaste for them. NO!

lovely. I'll bet it's a conservative group that paid for that ad. It's like NC trying to change the law to allow judges to have an (R) or a (D) next to their name during elections. What could possibly go wrong...