Supreme Court of the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.

onejayhawk

Afflicted with reason
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
13,706
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
 
What the Democrats should do is announce as a block that Mitch McConnell has required them to filibuster any Republican nominee.
 
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.
 
Trey Gowdy? No? I had such hopes.
 
Could you appoint some non-Americans?

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

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.
 
That's also a strange jurisprudential mix to pick. Japanese in particular; their Supreme Court is quite notably deferential to the executive.
 
Okay then: the thermonuclear option happens. The filibuster is abolished for Supreme Court nominees by a simple procedural move.
 
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:
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?

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
 
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.
 
So you are suggesting the Supreme Court should have only 6 Justices? Deal - just have the two longest serving step down.
 
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.
So you would exclude UVa, Standford, Duke, Penn, NYU, Georgetown, even though they are all top law schools, because that is too much diversity.

So you are suggesting the Supreme Court should have only 6 Justices? Deal - just have the two longest serving step down.
Age before beauty. Anyone over 80 steps down.

J
 
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.
 
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:
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.
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:
Okay then: the thermonuclear option happens. The filibuster is abolished for Supreme Court nominees by a simple procedural move.

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.
 
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.
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom