timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah this is my thought as well. I don't understand Jon Mx's argument/prediction that Obama has to appoint a liberal.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Either that or target a politically advantageous demographic. A Hispanic justice perhaps. Or someone popular with Ohioans would be a brilliant move if there were such a person- could help both with the Senate majority and the presidential election in 2016. Does LeBron have an interest in jurisprudence?
Mohawk
Footballguy
This whole business about having to replace a conservative with a conservative is ideological BS. Thurgood Marshall, one of the more liberal judges, was replaced by Clarence Thomas, very conservative in his votes, if not in words. He has yet to utter a word from the bench!
OOPS! Didn't see your post Ramsay! Thanks!
OOPS! Didn't see your post Ramsay! Thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Lot of ways Obama could go here. Depends what his goals are, I guess, and just how obstructionist he expects the GOP to be. In some ways, it's kind of a non-story until he actually nominates someone.
Obviously, I'd prefer someone more libertarian leaning. Specifically, someone who holds personal liberties in very high regard, especially as opposed to government interests.
Obviously, I'd prefer someone more libertarian leaning. Specifically, someone who holds personal liberties in very high regard, especially as opposed to government interests.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't know about Fox, but Drudge appears to be all over the "Scalia was assassinated" story. So who's the rube now?
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Michael Savage and Alex Jones are both on the story. So there must be something to it.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Listen, I understand that this sort of speculation can be dangerous, but sometimes it's important. 79 year old fat men with stressful jobs who seem angry a lot don't just drop dead.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
We considered assassinating Thomas but figured "how would anyone know?"
pantagrapher
Footballguy
The chances republicans would undertake a prolonged Weekend at Bernie's strategy was too great a risk.
Jobber
Footballguy
All it would take is for Bader Ginsburg to say "Hey Clarence, mind running down the street and grabbing me some skittles?"
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Or maybe RBG putting [censored] on Thomas's Coke can.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Because Obama is a liberal and if successful would be the most important thing in his legacy. The long term impact would be way bigger than even Obamacare. There is very little chance Obama will cave to moderate Republicans. He hasn't done it yet and he is not about to start now.
cstu
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
How are we defining "moderate" here? I feel like jon_mx would define Kennedy as a moderate. If we're using that as a definition, then I agree Obama won't nominate a moderate.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Not to mention all the times they've blamed Obama for trouncing on the Constitution, and now what they're proposing is basically not only trouncing the Constitution but also wiping their ### with it beforehand and making sure the poo stains are specifically smudging out Article 3.
timschochet
Footballguy
But this still makes no sense. If Obama nominates a liberal there is no chance it gets approved; therefore it would not be the "biggest thing he's ever done"; it would be a historical footnote like Fortas, Bork or Miers. Obama's only chance of getting a pick approved would be a centrist; otherwise he loses the chance altogether and his only effect is energizing Dems for the election.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Would Republicans rather lose the upcoming Presidential election, plus the house and senate (which could happen if they act like a bunch of babies) than allow a liberal judge to take the seat? Weird question because if that all happens they'd never get a conservative in there anyhow. Sounds like they're ####ed either way.
msommer
Footballguy
Obviously this is why Obama had Scalia assassinated. Are you only discovering this now?
Obama is in better shape with a 4-4 tie than a centrist. The key circircuit court which will decide the most of the important cases is strongly liberal. Taking a chance a centrist may side with Kenedy on important issues like the use of executive orders would put in jeapordy obama's rules on things like immigration and climate change. A 4-4 tie is as good as a win.
Scoresman
Footballguy
I'm a little slow on the uptake when it comes to politics. I'm still waiting for proof of his birth certificate.
Sand
Footballguy
Allowing a liberal judge in would be fatal to conservative causes for decades to come. So hell yes they should risk it, but they don't have to act like babies in doing so.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
GB her, but Ginsburg is probably the next to go. If Republicans are so confident that they will win the next election (as they seem to be), it's clearly not fatal for decades if they get to replace Ginsburg. It cancels out in that case.
Higgs
Footballguy
Just a guess on my part, but I think the Republicans are just posturing here. Obama will nominate someone, and the Republicans will either vote to approve (if a Moderate) or vote to reject if a Liberal. I don't think they will filibuster, no matter what they are threatening now.
Assuming a Republican wins. Ruth did liberals no favor by not retiring. But it will still be a bigger fight than even the Thonas hearings to replace her.
dparker713
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
Agreed.
They're making a show of it for now, but the GOP leaders know that trying to block for no particular reason will backfire on them in a huge way.
Obama should nominate a liberal. The court desperately needs it. Not like the GOP would shy away from nominating an extreme conservative like, say, Scalia.
Hopefully, thankfully, we will no longer have a court that finds a way to declare that corporations are people.
Higgs
Footballguy
I don't have any problem with Liberals from a political standpoint. I lean to the Conservative side but I have several liberal beliefs on issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage etc. This is why I have voted for Liberals in the past, both in federal and local elections.
But when it comes to Liberals as judges, I have no use or tolerance for them. A Liberal judge is usually someone who tries to legislate from the bench, and I want no part of that. If you want to institute social justice on a particular issue do it the right way and pass a Law in the Congress.
There doesn't need to be a Liberal or Conservative test when it comes to the Judicial. The test should be on how diligently they have adhered to their prescribed role in the process, which is merely to interpret the Laws that are passed elsewhere. End of rant.
Skoo
Footballguy
Yeah, that Scalia never tried to legislate from the bench. Only a liberal would ever do that
That guy was basically a Republican politician who was also a Supreme Court Justice.
Ideally, it wouldn't matter if a Supreme Court Justice was Liberal or Conservative, because they would look at every case objectively. But as we all know, this is impossible.
The court has been conservative for quite a while now, and have handed down some big decisions. Time to bring the SCOTUS into the 21st century IMO.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The bolded is a common partisan fallacy. Liberal judges are no more or less "activist" than conservative judges - Scalia's huge body of jurisprudence being one of the best examples of this. Whether or not a judge is "legislating from the bench" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, subject to his own preconceived notions as to what is and is not "judicial activism" in a given case. Generally speaking, an "activist judge" is one who has ruled unfavorably to those who have deemed him an "activist" and nothing more.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
We've had debates on judicial activism before and it's a waste of time because everyone who is debating is working off of a different definition of activism.
In any event, I'm not sure Scalia is the battleground judicial conservatives want to pick in the "legislating from the bench" debate. I think Scalia was generally supported the rule of law and limited judicial "activism" (a good thing as far as I'm concerned), but as DW eloquently posted in one of these threads, he often strayed from his stated principles as well. For example, his opinion in Boyle where he created the government contractor defense out of whole cloth was the very type of thing he claimed to hate when liberals do it. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
cosjobs
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
I'm very disappointed in Ginsburg for not retiring last year. She'll have done the country a great disservice if a Republican wins.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This one is a litmus test for me. I see Citizens United as an extremely clear-cut first amendment issue. When the court upheld McCain-Feingold originally, I was only half joking when I said that everybody in the majority should be impeached.
This isn't the 18th century when "free speech" just meant individuals writing little pamphlets. In the 21st century, free speech clearly includes radio, television, the internet and other media. It also includes groups of people working together for a common cause in addition to individuals, which is of course what corporations do. So yeah, I'm going to be all for Republicans blocking this nomination if Obama sends up an anti-CU justice. (State-sanctioned racial discrimination is my other litmus test, for the record).
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Scalia twice voted to invalidate the ACA, a democratically enacted law. He voted to invalidate McCain/Feingold. Cletius is absolutely right. Scalia did what every justice does. He reads the Constitution and applies it to a completely novel fact pattern that is not contemplated by the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't tell us whether the individual mandate runs afoul of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses (a common sense reading of those clauses suggests it does not). The Constitution doesn't tell us whether a corporation's expenditure of money toward electioneering activities violates the First Amendment.
Similarly, the Constitution doesn't tell us whether the use of infrared imaging on the exterior of a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment. I agree with Scalia's conclusion in that case, but it had nothing to do with simply interpreting the Constitution. It had to do with applying Constitutional values into a modern context. Scalia was no less activist than Kennedy or Breyer. He just screamed the loudest when accusing others of judicial activism.
I tried to pick a relatively nonpartisan example. I can't agree, even a little bit, that finding that a law exceeds Congress's enumerated constitutional powers (eg, the health care mandate) constitutes legislating from the bench. That type of check and balance on Congress's power is one of the most crucial functions of the judicial branch. Now, reasonable minds can differ on the constitutional issue, but that's a separate issue, at least in my view.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Specific examples aside, I think RHE is absolutely right. "Judicial activism" usually is just a synonym for "invalidating a law that I liked." This is one issue where the FFA has changed the way I approach things. I've basically scrubbed that term from my vocabulary because of the discussions we've had here.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
The extent of the checks and balances in the Constitution is a "Constitutional" issue. It's fine to want to limit Congress' powers, but there was no argument that the individual mandate violated the necessary and proper clause by imposing an affirmative obligation that had a thing to do with the original understanding of the necessary and proper clause. It was a distinction made up by Randy Barnett out of whole cloth. That you find it important just proves what we've been saying. You have a political preference, so you find the legal reasoning persuasive. I also have a political preference. I find the legal reasoning absurd.
In this case, I have a lot of company among conservative jurists and legal scholars like Richard Posner and Charles Fried who also find the legal reasoning absurd.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I have no particular desire to debate the merits of the case with you (though I'd personally submit that the Court's opinion in Wickard is the opinion which most deserves the repeated "absurd" label). I can respect that there are arguments in favor of the constitutionality of the mandate, though you presume too much to call my views on it politically motivated, in that I support the policy behind the mandate but can still think the mandate exceeds Congress's circumscribed powers.
My only point is that policing the power of the legislative branch is not what I would call legislating from the bench, which I think is a little more specific and narrow than the term "activism" (which I share IK's thoughts on, as I noted a few posts ago). For example, the creation of a brand new right or immunity (eg the contractor defense in Boyle) without legislative support would clearly qualify as legislating from the bench in my view. However, perhaps that is also too loaded of a phrase.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Voting to strike down laws is a ridiculous definition of "judicial activism". By that definition, Brown vs. Board of Ed was judicial activism.
bigbottom
Footballguy
I guess you can argue that it's a ridiculous definition, but it's certainly not an uncommon one. One of the most oft-cited examples of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, an opinion that struck down a Texas law outlawing abortion.
