Current Topics
Charolottesville
by Jeffery J. Haas
1 second ago
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2017
by Golem
55 minutes 59 seconds ago
Anonymous declares war on the alt-right in new video
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 11:10 PM
STLV17: Brannon Braga On How Kirk Should Have Died, ĎStar Trek: Enterpriseí Regr
by Golem
Yesterday at 03:16 PM
Round Table for August 2017
by NW Ponderer
Yesterday at 02:05 PM
Trump Forum
by rporter314
Yesterday at 02:46 AM
24 Novels That Are Crying Out To Be Turned Into A TV Series
by Golem
08/15/17 04:56 PM
Nazism versus Communism
by Jeffery J. Haas
08/15/17 05:05 AM
The 13 Alfred Hitchcock movies you need to watch in your lifetime
by NW Ponderer
08/15/17 02:31 AM
'Bonnie and Clyde' at 50: Ultraviolent gangster film changed American cinema (ph
by Golem
08/15/17 02:23 AM
If You Are Married to a Trump Supporter, Divorce Them
by pondering_it_all
08/14/17 03:43 AM
shutdown
by Jeffery J. Haas
08/14/17 03:00 AM
Five facts about the newly-leaked U.S. climate change report
by matthew
08/11/17 11:24 PM
Trump and Russia
by rporter314
08/11/17 10:27 PM
Happy Birthday, United States Coast Guard
by jgw
08/10/17 09:14 PM
Forum Stats
6241 Members
57 Forums
16005 Topics
276128 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: 15364
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: 6827
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: 6164
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: 1632
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: 6827
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: 379
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: 15364
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: 8569
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 understand 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: 3708
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: 6827
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
#300577 - 04/10/17 03:58 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: NW Ponderer]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15364
I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not. Alito and Thomas have bee ln just as ultra- conservative as expected, and Gorsuch has proven to be as conservative or more so than Scalia. Moreover, he's extended the bad composition of the court for the foreseeable future.
_________________________
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
#300579 - 04/10/17 10:54 AM Re: Radioactive Jurists [Re: pondering_it_all]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6164
Loc: Highlands, Tx
I think NWP is right. If you go back to his confirmation hearings, he said time and again he would follow the law as written, not as intended. Thus the law had better provide precise instructions.

The Constitution does not provide precise instructions for everything, and where there are no instructions, J Gorsuch will not provide legal opinions of obvious intent.

Thus as in the ice road trucker, the law was not meant to present an ethical dilemma for a trucker, then reward the company for the truckers failure to commit suicide.

When J Gorsuch reads the new 2nd amendment, he will see the first phrase with a double line through the words.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Who's Online
1 registered (Jeffery J. Haas), 43 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Albertpkr, kechua, burkha, bikrami, inekifoh
6241 Registered Users
A2