My nominee for the next SCOTUS opening

[.Shane.]

John E. Jones III

Bush Sr. appointee.

Wrote 2 of my favorite recent decisions:

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, basically gave a legal basis that "intelligent design" is creationism/scientific hokum.

Whitewood vs. Wolf, the recent decision that allowed SSM in PA.

I'm curious what someone like JR, who has much deeper knowledge of someone's judicial record, etc... has to think.

 

[Antilogic]

Is it common to promote someone directly from a district court to the Supreme Court? I mean, I know we used to pick senators, governors, and even former presidents, but I'm not sure on the figures for district court judges skipping the appellate level.

I do agree he seems to be pretty reasonable.

 

[Cutlass]

But Scalia and Thomas might not die in time.....

 

[Antilogic]

They are probably going to stick around for as long as they live, or at least until 2017 when a potentially Republican president could replace them.

Given the younger age of Supreme Court nominees and their increasing lifespans, the impact of judicial appointments is really significant (which oddly is an argument against Jones since he's already in his late 50s).

 

[Camikaze]

You guys need a mandatory judicial retirement age.

 

[Antilogic]

I wish it wouldn't come to that and we could just have a gentlemen's agreement not to exploit judicial appointments, but unfortunately that's becoming increasingly unrealistic.

 

[Camikaze]

They're not necessarily the same issue, though, as judicial appointments would be exploited with or without a retirement age; hanging on for a few more years simply lets the judge determine the direction in which the appointment will be exploited. Also, a mandatory retirement age doesn't just prevent judges from choosing their retirement age to suit a political agenda (though they can of course retire early if they're approaching their forced retirement), it also reduces the risk of the law being determined by people with Alzheimer's. Like in The West Wing. In Australia a mandatory retirement age of 70 was introduced in a referendum after one old codger stayed on the bench for 46 years. He only quit when he broke his hip and the Chief Justice refused to have a wheelchair ramp installed for him.

 

[.Shane.]

You guys need a mandatory judicial retirement age.

I agree. Or a 1 time term limit, like, say 20 years.

 

[JollyRoger]

John E. Jones III

Bush Sr. appointee.

Wrote 2 of my favorite recent decisions:

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, basically gave a legal basis that "intelligent design" is creationism/scientific hokum.

Whitewood vs. Wolf, the recent decision that allowed SSM in PA.

I'm curious what someone like JR, who has much deeper knowledge of someone's judicial record, etc... has to think.

The guy was backed by Santorum, but he would be an interesting choice if say Scalia or Thomas kicked the bucket and President Obama or President Clinton wanted to troll the GOP Senate into striking down a W appointee. Then Obama or Clinton could nominate a real liberal and it would be much tougher for the GOP to reject a 2nd pick.

I do not know enough about the guy's record on other stuff, but maybe he is the next Stevens.

 

[.Shane.]

The guy was backed by Santorum, but he would be an interesting choice if say Scalia or Thomas kicked the bucket and President Obama or President Clinton wanted to troll the GOP Senate into striking down a W appointee. Then Obama or Clinton could nominate a real liberal and it would be much tougher for the GOP to reject a 2nd pick.

I do not know enough about the guy's record on other stuff, but maybe he is the next Stevens.

The whole backed by Santorum thing is pretty funny.

It will be interesting to see what happens in 2017 if the Dems hold the WH. If the GOP gets it, I'm sure we'll see a couple retirements from the right side of the bench, but after holding on for 8 years, I'm curious to see if any of them will retire knowing the Dems would be in power at least until 2020.

 

[JollyRoger]

The olds on the right are Scalia and Kennedy. I don't see either of them retiring during a Democratic administration (or maybe not retire at all). I would certainly die on the bench if I had the gig.

 

[.Shane.]

Wow, Ginsburg is older than them both!

I do think that, a lot of times, they hold on and, once an election is determined they give in, thinking, not another 4 years. But Scalia is nothing, if not, dogged, so, yeah, I could see him riding it into the grave. Kennedy, not so much.

 

[Antilogic]

They're not necessarily the same issue, though, as judicial appointments would be exploited with or without a retirement age; hanging on for a few more years simply lets the judge determine the direction in which the appointment will be exploited. Also, a mandatory retirement age doesn't just prevent judges from choosing their retirement age to suit a political agenda (though they can of course retire early if they're approaching their forced retirement), it also reduces the risk of the law being determined by people with Alzheimer's. Like in The West Wing. In Australia a mandatory retirement age of 70 was introduced in a referendum after one old codger stayed on the bench for 46 years. He only quit when he broke his hip and the Chief Justice refused to have a wheelchair ramp installed for him.

I think the answer there is yes and no; I think it could be argued it is a bit exploitative to be pushing down the age of the nominees so they hold onto their seat for a longer period of time, but that's of secondary concern to the ideological bent. In the good old days, though, the parties were more mixed ideologically so they tended to produce more sane people than the likes of Scalia.

The olds on the right are Scalia and Kennedy. I don't see either of them retiring during a Democratic administration (or maybe not retire at all). I would certainly die on the bench if I had the gig.

JR for the supreme court. Would certainly make the decisions shorter and easier to read.

Wow, Ginsburg is older than them both!

I do think that, a lot of times, they hold on and, once an election is determined they give in, thinking, not another 4 years. But Scalia is nothing, if not, dogged, so, yeah, I could see him riding it into the grave. Kennedy, not so much.

On Ginsburg, I think the calls for her retirement now are a bit ridiculous, but if the Dems hold the presidency until 2020 I think the chances of her retirement are pretty fair.

I agree there on Scalia and Kennedy. Scalia is a die-hard, he will likely stay on until death or he is otherwise incapable of carrying out the job. I could see Kennedy retiring during any GOP administration or even during a Democratic administration if they win both 2016 and 2020.

 

[JollyRoger]

The nomination fight to replace Scalia if it is a Democratic President will be epic. I am sure the media will concern troll the need to fill the seat with another Scalia to keep things fair and balanced.

 

[metatron]

I wish it wouldn't come to that and we could just have a gentlemen's agreement not to exploit judicial appointments, but unfortunately that's becoming increasingly unrealistic.

I've made this thingy on some other occassion and it fell victim to timing/esprit d'escalier:

Spoiler :

 

[Cutlass]

The nomination fight to replace Scalia if it is a Democratic President will be epic. I am sure the media will concern troll the need to fill the seat with another Scalia to keep things fair and balanced.

I don't know that there is another Scalia that wouldn't look like an utter buffoon when going through confirmation. Even Scalia didn't look like Scalia until he'd been on the bench a decade.

 

[JollyRoger]

Scalia was suspicious of the latest Voting Rights Act reenactment because it was passed unanimously in the Senate. Given the Senate vote of his confirmation I can see his point.