1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

[RD] Supreme Court of the United States

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Nov 25, 2016.

  1. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,990
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    This will be a heated topic in the coming weeks, because of the election of Donald Trump. The President-elect has given a lengthy list of candidates.

    He started with 11 in May.

    Steven Colloton of Iowa
    Allison Eid of Colorado
    Raymond Gruender of Missouri
    Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania
    Raymond Kethledge of Michigan
    Joan Larsen of Michigan
    Thomas Lee of Utah
    William Pryor of Alabama
    David Stras of Minnesota
    Diane Sykes of Wisconsin
    Don Willett of Texas.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/index.html

    Most are state Supreme Court Justices or federal Appeals Court Justices. Currently, all eight SCOTUS Justices studied at Harvard or Yale. Many of these did not. It is also a very conservative list. Hillary Clinton, herself an Ivy League lawyer, said,

    The list includes extreme ideologues who, if given the chance, would likely roll back our progress in critical fights like marriage equality and health care, and would do devastating damage to a woman's right to choose, a union's right to organize, and everyone's right to vote.​

    Trump added another 11 in September

    Sen. Mike Lee, Senator-Utah
    Neil Gorsuch, a judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Margaret Ryan, a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
    Edward Mansfield, a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court
    Keith Blackwell, a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
    Charles Canady, a justice of the Florida Supreme Court
    Timothy Tymkovich, chief judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Amul Thapar, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
    Frederico Moreno, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    Robert Young, chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-expands-list-of-possible-supreme-court-picks/

    More diverse, but mostly more of the same.

    Will the next nominee be one of these? Note that Ted Cruz is not on the list.
    If not one of these, who else?
    What impact in the 2017 term and beyond?

    J
     
  2. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    40,674
    Location:
    US of A
    What the Democrats should do is announce as a block that Mitch McConnell has required them to filibuster any Republican nominee.
     
    cardgame likes this.
  3. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,697
    Location:
    Sydney
    Diversity of background amongst appointees is important, but it's strange that going to one of the top law schools would almost be a mark against a candidate. That's not the kind of diversity of background that should really be sought.
     
  4. CavLancer

    CavLancer This aint fertilizer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    Oregon or Philippines
    Trey Gowdy? No? I had such hopes.
     
  5. Zelig

    Zelig Beep Boop

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    15,179
    Location:
    Canada
    Could you appoint some non-Americans?

    Maybe a mix of some Canadians, Japanese and Scandinavian justices?
     
  6. plarq

    plarq Crazy forever

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,039
    Location:
    None of the above
    That is an interesting topic. But US is quite narcissistic about its political heritage, they would not let foreign inferior instructing them how to do legal stuff, maybe they will only accept foreign-born naturalized citizens.
     
  7. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,697
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's also a strange jurisprudential mix to pick. Japanese in particular; their Supreme Court is quite notably deferential to the executive.
     
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Then the nuclear option happens.
     
  9. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    40,674
    Location:
    US of A

    It's already happened.
     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Okay then: the thermonuclear option happens. The filibuster is abolished for Supreme Court nominees by a simple procedural move.
     
  11. AppleDumplingHead

    AppleDumplingHead Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,108
    This thread is already so far left, there's nothing to discuss. It's like Dem mental masturbation, and I feel icky just typing in it. All those fear tactics...

    The real danger to everyone is that 10-15 new "protected groups" are going to come along, sowing division, tugging on heart strings with their collective "hands out". Trump is so awful, why must Dems continue to push the envelope and be just as awful, in a different way?

    Moderator Action: If you feel that a thread is not worth posting in, you are welcome not to post in it. If you do choose to post, leave these snide comments out. FP.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2016
  12. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    15,398
    Location:
    Sydney
    But voters love obstruction, government shutdowns, tax cuts for the rich and botched military adventures ?
    The amount of Vitriol and underhanded tactics by the Republican congress has been epic, I have no problems paying them back with the tactful use of the same coin
     
  13. AppleDumplingHead

    AppleDumplingHead Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,108
    The fed should be 2/3 the size it is now, curtailed to only necessary components to pass and enforce policy. Most of these modern "where's mine?" issues should be left to states. It's not the fed's job to be everyone's collective "parent". It's become too much and the strain is damaging.
     
  14. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,262
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    So you are suggesting the Supreme Court should have only 6 Justices? Deal - just have the two longest serving step down.
     
  15. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,990
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    So you would exclude UVa, Standford, Duke, Penn, NYU, Georgetown, even though they are all top law schools, because that is too much diversity.

    Age before beauty. Anyone over 80 steps down.

    J
     
  16. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,262
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Given that all current appointees are from the top 2 law schools, it has hardly been a mark against. I went to a good, but non-elite law school. The top students had what it takes to someday do the job of a Supreme Court Justice. Instead, they had to settle for big firm gigs in Dallas.
     
  17. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,697
    Location:
    Sydney
    The distinction I'm trying to get at is between saying that Harvard & Yale shouldn't be mandatory prerequisites, and saying that Harvard & Yale grads should be blacklisted to avoid elitism. The former makes perfect sense; Australia's likely next Chief Justice didn't go to law school, but started out as a secretary in a law firm. That different academic background doesn't mean she's not amply qualified for the job. So of course, you wouldn't write someone off because they 'only' went to Chicago or Cornell, or some similar nonsense reason. But the sense I've got from the debate surrounding the Harvard & Yale duopoly, is that, if there is an entirely qualified candidate, but they happened to go to those schools, they should be skipped over in favour of someone who went through a less highly esteemed institution, because the court is packed enough with those east coast liberal elites. When looking for diverse appointments, that general logic does make some sense; if you have a court of 8 white males, it might be a good idea to look over a 9th in favour of a woman, or someone from a racial minority, or both. The court is lessened in the absence of that experiential diversity. But I don't think that applies in the case of a candidate's legal academic background - the court is not similarly lessened by consisting solely of Harvard & Yale grads. A Georgetown grad doesn't really provide the court with something important and new, simply by virtue of where they received their education. You need to avoid perpetuating the old boys' club, but that doesn't mean that having gone to the top law schools should act as a disqualifying factor for individual candidates - the possibility of institutional nepotism should just mean there's caution that others aren't locked out.

    The key misunderstanding is probably that there's only one person in the US qualified enough and capable enough to become a Supreme Court justice, and it's the role of the executive to find that one person. But of course there are probably hundreds of people in the US who are sufficiently able to perform the role. The executive gets to select from that group, and shouldn't artificially narrow it to just the top two schools.

    There's also the question of where you aim to address the elitism within the legal profession. A non-Ivy student may, straight out of the gate, have just as much capacity to achieve highly as a Harvard grad, but if they're locked out of the best clerking opportunities, top firms, etc., then they may not have had the same chance to capitalise on that potential, meaning that by the age of 50 they actually aren't as well equipped to take on a high judicial appointment. Rather than foisting them into those roles regardless, the better place to address that form of elitism is in the clerk appointment policies of judges, for example.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2016
  18. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,990
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Except that they aren't. Harvard, the most represented school, is not one of the top 2. Yale and Stanford are #1 and #2, in either order. Of course, it depends on your rating service.

    J
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2016
  19. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,532
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think procedural rules are set to at the start of a session of Congress. This would require the Senate to change filibuster rules while Obama still had 2 weeks in office. With 48 caucusing Democrats for those 2 weeks, it's not hard to imagine the seat being filled.
     
  20. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    10,990
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    That is correct. The rule is the first item of business. As to likelihood, there is none.

    In 2013 the Democrats passed the so-called nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on most appointments. SCOTUS appointments are the notable exception. However, there is no chance that the Senate will seat Judge Garland in those two weeks. They do not have the power to get the matter debated, much less set for a vote. This article covers some of the main points.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ice-on-president-elects-immediate-agenda.html

    The only option would be a recess appointment, which would be uncharted territory. Justice Ginsburg commented, "There is an existing vacancy, and President Trump will fill it." Reading between the lines of her public statements, I believe she is indicating that a recess appointment would not be welcome.

    Trump has been very firm that the nomination would be among the 21 listed. That would leave out Ted Cruz. Since Cruz spent considerable time with both Trump and the transition team, Trump may have asked for Cruz' input. Names with buzz are Sykes and Pryor from the first list and Gorsuch from the second.

    J
     

Share This Page