Current Topics
Saudi Arabia - yet again
by rporter314
Today at 01:45 PM
fix the telemarketing thing
by pdx rick
Today at 09:09 AM
Trump's Great Speech
by pondering_it_all
Today at 12:33 AM
American Nations
by Greger
Yesterday at 08:14 PM
Next Trump Clusterfork: Tax Reform
by Greger
Yesterday at 03:55 AM
Trump and Russia
by pondering_it_all
05/20/17 10:58 PM
just stuff - maps
by jgw
05/20/17 06:22 PM
Seth MacFarlane Is Headed to Space with 'The Orville' on Fox
by Golem
05/20/17 04:28 PM
How is Trump President?!
by Ken Condon
05/20/17 05:41 AM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2017
by pondering_it_all
05/19/17 06:26 PM
Is this the most violent movie year in history?
by rporter314
05/19/17 05:30 PM
Ridley Scott Will Curate a Night of New Science Fiction Programming for TNT
by Golem
05/19/17 03:23 PM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Golem
05/18/17 06:13 PM
Trump Forum
by rporter314
05/17/17 09:30 PM
Black students at Harvard to hold their own commencement
by jgw
05/15/17 09:00 PM
Forum Stats
6220 Members
57 Forums
15910 Topics
274706 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#300373 - 04/04/17 05:11 AM Radioactive Jurists
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15177
The headlines today are about the GOP going "nuclear" over the Gorsuch nomination - which it appears the Democrats have the votes to filibuster. Going Nuclear for Neil Gorsuch - the Atlantic (See "Nuclear Option" - Wikipedia. Senator McConnell claims that such a filibuster is "unprecedented" - it's not. Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster.

What has been little noted is that for the last 40 years, at every juncture, it has been the Republicans who have abused the power over judicial nominations. When they have controlled the Senate, they push through radical nominees - when they don't, they stall nearly all the nominees.

Ronald Reagan made more judicial appointments than any other President. In the 1990's, however, an unprecedented number of judicial appointments by President Clinton were blocked by Republicans.
Quote:
With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats. They argue that this refusal to even consider President Clinton's nominees was just as effective in blocking them as a filibuster.
npr

Then during the Bush administration, the Republicans pursued ideological purity in judicial nominations. When Democrats took issue, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened the "nuclear option" to eliminate Democratic objections. Then, when Obama was elected, they were right back to blocking and slow-walking nominees, no matter how qualified. Even after the "nuclear option" was invoked by Majority Leader Reid in 2013 for lower court nominations, by the end of Obama's second term, 60 nominees had still not made it to the bench. (The GOP regained control of the chamber in 2015.) Of course, the treatment of the Merrick Garland nomination was the most egregious example in history.

As a result, the federal judiciary, since 1980, has tilted decidedly right notwithstanding Democratic presidencies.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#300376 - 04/04/17 09:02 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6590
Loc: North San Diego County
I am hoping the Republicans do go nuclear and change the rule.

Because there won't be any going back in the future, and most of the time Democrats are in the majority in the Senate. When a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate are both present, Republicans will not be able to block any Supreme Court appointment the President wants to make. (And that could be as soon as 2020.)

For some reason, Republicans seem to very short-sighted. This will blow away their usual tactics to control the Court.

Top
#300379 - 04/04/17 11:15 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6020
Loc: Highlands, Tx
may not matter if conservatives in the short gain control of the SC with highly qualified idiot-ological nominees.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#300391 - 04/04/17 07:17 PM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1590
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I tend to believe that its a good thing to get rid of a system where one senator can simply stop any given piece of legislation by rambling on. I think the last one was Ted Cruise who read Dr. Suess to the senate, for hours. Simple majority is the way to go and its up to the voters to even it all out. If they cannot, then we are all screwed no matter what, and irregardless of who is in charge. Senators are supposed to be in the a senate where debate and discussion controls it all - not political desires. As long as that isn't true everything else doesn't count.

Top
#300403 - 04/05/17 12:05 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6590
Loc: North San Diego County
Agreed. The Senate was set up as the Gentlemen's Club of Government. They are all supposed to be elder statesmen, more interested in ideas than in people. (The interests of The People are represented in The House.) That's why they need to have discussions and consensus to accomplish anything.

But if the members are not going to discuss issues and work for the good of the country, why bother? They have to BE gentlemen. If they are not, then the Senate has no purpose.

Top
#300412 - 04/05/17 04:15 PM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: pondering_it_all]
TatumAH Offline
newbie

Registered: 02/18/11
Posts: 368
Loc: Upstate NY
Gorsuch plagiarism problem

Defenders are saying not really plagiarism, just sloppy writing, just what you want in a SC Justice.

Tat
[quote]Gorsuch's Plagiarism Is Worthy of Embarrassment

Itís probably naive to think that there could be a nuanced conversation about Judge Neil Gorsuchís citation of sources in his 2006 book, "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia." But thatís precisely what we need.

Thereís no doubt that in at least one extended passage, Gorsuch, President Donald Trumpís nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, copied wording from an article in the Indiana Law Journal with only trivial changes and without citing the article. Thereís even a footnote thatís replicated verbatim from the article, down to the exact same use of ellipses in citing a pediatrics textbook. In academic settings, this would be considered plagiarism, albeit of a fairly minor kind. And the citation of the textbook -- a primary source -- while failing to cite the article -- a secondary source -- implies knowing borrowing, rather than an accident.

Yet itís also true, as Gorsuchís defenders are insisting, that the unattributed borrowing seems to consist only of the presentation of rather dry facts -- and not any argument or original idea borrowed without attribution, which would be heavy-duty plagiarism. The defenders are also right that this sort of paraphrase is actually fairly common in judicial opinions and even some legal academic writing. Itís poor form not to cite a secondary source from which youíve mined primary sources. But itís also not the end of the world, or a profound violation of the sort that would call Gorsuchís integrity or judgment into question.
_________________________
There's nothing wrong with thinking
Except that it's lonesome work
sevil regit

Top
#300560 - 04/09/17 04:24 PM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: TatumAH]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15177
It's Justice Gorsuch, now. What remains to be seen is if he will, given his elevated perch, remain the ideologue he has been (in the "molderyness" of Antonin Scalia) as an Appeals Court judge, or will be moderated in his view. One can hope for the latter, but I fully expect him to join and exacerbate the rightward trend of the court.

The Court is not what it once was, and it does not appear likely to be that way in our lifetimes. Merrick Garland would have been a much better (and not just more liberal) Justice. I remember when Sandra Day O'Connor's elevation to the Court caused such ripples because she was "so conservative." Ah, those were simpler times.

I hope that there is a real swing in the Senate in 2018 and McConnell's shenanigans come back to bite him, hard. I look forward to the next Democratic President having the opportunity to appoint 3-4 Justices without opposition. I live in a dream world where disaster has not claimed all three branches of government...
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#300562 - 04/09/17 04:38 PM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8492
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I live in a dream world where disaster has not claimed all three branches of government...


_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you know what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#300572 - 04/10/17 01:01 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ken Condon Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 3691
Loc: Eugene, OR
Talk about a second take. When I first glanced at the topic heading I read it as Radioactive Jesus.

Never mind......
_________________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Top
#300574 - 04/10/17 02:19 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6590
Loc: North San Diego County
It's no worse than when Scalia was on the bench. Kennedy was the swing vote and sometimes Roberts would even surprise you, with his regard for legacy and precedent. We're back to that, but the new guy might turn out more liberal than you think. The court's history is littered with justices who became more liberal after lifetime appointment. Much to the disgust of the Conservatives who appointed them.

In particular, I bet he feels no loyalty at all to Trump and is perfectly willing to vote against him. Justices tend to be much more interested in principles than in politics. If Trump's guys come to the court with some BS legal theory based on fairy dust, they will lose because the Justices care more about the reputation of the court than they do about the man in power at the moment.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 31 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
agentfity, ojixadybi, tjgraylaw, AndyEmisa, lubluodPix
6220 Registered Users
A2