Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

sherpa-finn wrote:

josh wrote:

Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge.  Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.

Well, according to the British paper the Daily Mail (a conservative rag, but generally credible) "Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school."  

For the moment, I am going to put this into the "credible but yet to be confirmed' category of news.

And anyhow, Jesuit schoolboys will be Jesuit schoolboys. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-foun...

Did he grow up?

josh

sherpa-finn wrote:

josh wrote:

Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge.  Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.

Well, according to the British paper the Daily Mail (a conservative rag, but generally credible) "Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school."  

For the moment, I am going to put this into the "credible but yet to be confirmed' category of news.

And anyhow, Jesuit schoolboys will be Jesuit schoolboys. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-foun...

Being a fascist doesn't mean you can't be courteous and respectful in your personal dealings.

pookie

josh wrote:

Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge.  Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.

Apparently, Scalia's colleagues including the liberal ones adored him.  "Collegiality" among the judges may not be apparent to us from the decisions.

Gorsuch obtained a doctorate at Oxford under John Finnis who is perhaps the best known living advocate of natural law theory and is quite homophobic in his work.  Gorsuch seems nice enough but is extremely conservative and while he may not upset the apple cart right away I suspect he will be key to very problematic decisions on equal protection, voting right and labour.  The one silver lining is that he is a proponent of a stricter approach to evaluating executive power and the power of administrative agencies.  Bu he will likely defer to every perversion the GOP-controlled Congress can churn out.

josh

Apparently, Scalia's colleagues including the liberal ones adored him. "Collegiality" among the judges may not be apparent to us from the decisions. 

 

Yeah, ask Sandra Day O'Connor about that one.

pookie

josh wrote:

Apparently, Scalia's colleagues including the liberal ones adored him. "Collegiality" among the judges may not be apparent to us from the decisions. 

 

Yeah, ask Sandra Day O'Connor about that one.

Kagan, Sotamayor and Ginsburg are not my concern.  They can handle their male colleagues.

Gentility won't mitigate his dismantling Bill of Rights caselaw except for the majority's freedom of religion, and guns.   

NorthReport

Next Week's Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Will Be a Test for Democrats

Will members of the Senate Judiciary Committee stand up to Neil Gorsuch, or let Trump radicalize the Court for decades to come?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/gorsuch-supreme-court-conf...

josh

Gorsuch would merely put the court back to where it was a year or so ago.  The key battle would be if there was a vacancy in any of the Democratic seats, or Kennedy's.

NorthReport

Gorsuch is a disaster and the Democrats need to filibuster

All the other stuff Trump is doing is small potatoes compared to the damage he is going to do to the law in the USA with his appointments to the Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-constitution-originalism-20170...

NorthReport

In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts

Gorsuch’s ties to Hans von Spakovksy suggest a hostility to voting rights.  

https://www.thenation.com/article/in-emails-neil-gorsuch-praised-a-leadi...

josh

Not disagreeing.  But the question is, do you want to use up your ammunition on someone who is replacing Scalia, or save it in case there is a vacancy of a more moderate seat in the next couple of years.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I noticed this thread was active again... my first thought was that he had risen from the grave and zombie apocalypse had started.

NorthReport

The Democrats need to fight tooth and nail every inch of the way on every single issue just as the right-wing does, and which is often the reason why the right-wing end up winning power more often. 

Listening to the Trump lunatics and haters such as Sessons, Price, Bannon, Spicer, Conway, Fox News, etc., I wonder though if there are now irreconcilable differences in the USA and they each need to go their own separate way. I have heard California already wants out and there probably are other states as well. So many guns in civilian hands must also be of major concern.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/17/media/trump-administration-blocks-media/...

NorthReport
josh

Yes, but at least Clinton is not president.

josh

It appears that the Democrats will filibuster.

NorthReport

Good decision by the Democrats. Garland should have been confirmed and never ever give an inch to the GOP. Yes the GOP will probably get rid of the filibuster option, but what's the point of having it if you don't use it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If they do get rid of the filibuster option, the next Democratic president will actually be able to get stuff passed.  The U.S. could end up with single-payer after all.

NorthReport

Scary if true.

Napolitano told friends he was on Trump's Supreme Court shortlist

The benched Fox News personality has claimed the president told him he'd be considered for the next seat that comes open.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/andrew-napolitano-supreme-court-sh...

NorthReport

They ought to get another term rather than using 'nuclear option' 

The Democrats need to remember what happened to Garland and not give an inch.

Why would how they vote on Gorsuch have any bearing on the possible next nominee?

Gorsuch needs a straight flush to beat filibuster

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-236604

NorthReport

Reeling Republicans desperate for a win on Gorsuch

This is as close to must-win as it gets for President Donald Trump and the GOP after last week's health care debacle.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-republicans-supreme-court-...

NorthReport
NorthReport

Republicans hold all the aces right now so we should expect to see massive changes taking place in the USA probably through the Presidential powers.

Bannon's approach is working with the government being discredited everywhere. Maybe California could do something about the nutters in Washington.

Gorsuch battle brings Senate to brink of a new low

And there's no bipartisan 'gang' this time to save it from itself.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660

NorthReport

It seems like a given that the GOP will follow through on abolishing the filibuster.  And hopefully the Democrats will soon control the Senate.

 

The worst possible outcome for Democrats would be to allow Republicans to fill a vacancy with 50 votes while forcing their party to muster 60. And there is a lot of reason to believe this is the case right now. Barack Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, the highly respected and moderate jurist Elena Kagan, got the support of just five Republican senators, of which two were driven into retirement by actual or threatened primary challengers in part because of those votes. Once Democrats lost their supermajority, their ability to seat a justice probably disappeared with it.

In 2014, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Elle that she did not want to retire in part because she believed Senate Republicans would filibuster any left-of-center nominee to replace her:

Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.

Mitch McConnell wants to preserve an ambiguous situation where the norms say one thing and the rules say another. This is to his advantage, because he is a serial violator of norms. This isn’t a moral question — he’s a brilliant tactician and he’s very good at identifying political strategies that are legal but which have not been used due to social convention. If McConnell can use the threat of the nuclear option to make the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee a useless weapon for the opposing party, he can preserve it as a potential useful one for himself. If Democrats don’t make McConnell abolish the Supreme Court filibuster, he may use it to blockade their next nominee, and they will have only themselves to blame.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/if-gorsuch-isnt-filibustere...

josh

Democrats could always use the nuclear option themselves in that event.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To be fair, the filibuster is a bit like saying that any hockey team willing to skate around in a circle for seventeen hours automatically wins.  It would be impressive, but it wouldn't be hockey.

NorthReport

Part of the Dem's resentment: Not ok for Garland to proceed but ok for Gorsuch

If 60 votes are required to confirm Gorsuch in Senate and the Dems have 48 votes then just vote no. Why is there even a need for a filibuster? Or is the filibuster required to try and prevent the GOP from reducing that required vote count to a simple majority or 51 seats?

Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512629596/here-is-what-it-takes-to-confirm...

Too bad the Dems lost the Senate which allows Pence to do his dirty work

Pence casts tiebreaking Senate procedural vote on funding for abortion providers

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326505-pence-casts-tiebreaking-senate...

 

Cody87

NorthReport wrote:

Part of the Dem's resentment: Not ok for Garland to proceed but ok for Gorsuch

If 60 votes are required to confirm Gorsuch in Senate and the Dems have 48 votes then just vote no. Why is there even a need for a filibuster? Or is the filibuster required to try and prevent the GOP from reducing that required vote count to a simple majority or 51 seats?

Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512629596/here-is-what-it-takes-to-confirm...

Too bad the Dems lost the Senate which allows Pence to do his dirty work

Pence casts tiebreaking Senate procedural vote on funding for abortion providers

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326505-pence-casts-tiebreaking-senate...

 

With 60 votes the debate can be officially skipped which prevents the possibility of filibuster. So 60 votes are required to skip the filibuster, but only a majority is required to confirm him. 60 votes is sometimes referred to as a supermajority for that reason.

NorthReport

McConnell: 'Gorsuch is going to be confirmed' one way or the other

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/mcconnell-gorsuch-supreme-court-23...

NorthReport

Are the Democrats actually able to stop Gorsuch from getting to the Supreme Court?

Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster Gorsuch

If you’re a Democrat who wants to win your next election, maybe you don’t want the Supreme Court to endorse voter suppression.

https://thinkprogress.org/democrat-filibuster-neil-gorsuch-595bf188b9ea

josh

They can filibuster, but the Republicans will likely go nuclear and get him through.

NorthReport
NorthReport
josh

Democrats now have the 41 votes to filibuster.

josh

Gorsuch confirmed.  End of story.

NorthReport

Sorry Mr Garland.

Too bad!

Pages