Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

True.  But the founding of the evidence is done by the House and they don't have any rules for their side.  The Senate is the jury the house is the prosecution.  Once the House finished their part of the case the Senate could have vote no right then and Trump wouldn't have to present his side of the case.

The reason that it relevant is that each side uses the rules to their own benefit.  I mean is it fair to have only one witness allowed to testify on your behalf?

And I am not a Trump fan just a Republican.

But none of this has anything to do with who decides what the Senate will vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If he has zero votes he can block it from getting to the floor. What's your understanding of how something gets to the floor if it's not brought there by the Majority Leader? Can someone else bring it to the floor? If so, who?

Bills pass with fewer than 60 votes because people often vote for cloture even if they're going to vote nay on the bill.

Then it should be changed.  In practical terms though if the Majority leader is going against the wishes of  his own party all the time or is overriding a vast chunk of his own party then he won't be majority leader for long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NightStalkers said:

Then it should be changed.  In practical terms though if the Majority leader is going against the wishes of  his own party all the time or is overriding a vast chunk of his own party then he won't be majority leader for long.

No Majority Leader does that. McConnell will go against the wishes of the Senate as a whole, but generally won't go against the wishes of the majority of Republicans.

If 67% of the Senate likes some legislation but only 49% of Republicans do, it won't come up for a vote. But if 51% of Republicans like it, and it has enough support to pass, a vote will be scheduled. (Though unless 60% of the Senate agrees to vote on it, the vote may be blocked via filibuster.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No Majority Leader does that. McConnell will go against the wishes of the Senate as a whole, but generally won't go against the wishes of the majority of Republicans.

If 67% of the Senate likes some legislation but only 49% of Republicans do, it won't come up for a vote. But if 51% of Republicans like it, and it has enough support to pass, a vote will be scheduled. (Though unless 60% of the Senate agrees to vote on it, the vote may be blocked via filibuster.)

I gotta believe if half his cauces is wanting something then he lets it through or even 35 percent.  And as far as i know the rules of the senate have only been changed by the Harry Reid change.  So the Dems have to have been doing the same things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senate rules have changed more recently than under Harry Reid. 

In 2019 McConnell changed the Senate rules to speed up some lower level confirmation hearings, and did so on a 51-49 vote. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The two parties don't follow all the same conventions.

By the way the Hastert Rule is the House not the Senate.  Pelosi said she is doing the same thing.  And the House has an escape provision.  If just unlikely to be used as it takes 218 votes from the majority party to get the provision used and no Speaker is going to be fighting that much of their side...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

The Senate rules have changed more recently than under Harry Reid. 

In 2019 McConnell changed the Senate rules to speed up some lower level confirmation hearings, and did so on a 51-49 vote. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees

Yes that jibes with what he told Harry Reid when he got rid of the filibuster for his court appts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NightStalkers said:

By the way the Hastert Rule is the House not the Senate.  Pelosi said she is doing the same thing.  And the House has an escape provision.  If just unlikely to be used as it takes 218 votes from the majority party to get the provision used and no Speaker is going to be fighting that much of their side...

I think the only time she has done this was the rules package that would require a majority of the majority to remove her from power. That makes sense, considering it is her party that should decide who is in a leadership position.

In other instances, she has been adamant about not following the Hastert rule. 

In 2003 Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[1] In May 2007 Pelosi said, "I'm the Speaker of the House...I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."[13] She also said at that time, "I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say 'the majority of the majority does this or that.' We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."[13] Pelosi's former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, "On the larger issue of the 'majority of the majority,' she has talked about that for quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process... That's the kind of Speakership she wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think the only time she has done this was the rules package that would require a majority of the majority to remove her from power. That makes sense, considering it is her party that should decide who is in a leadership position.

In other instances, she has been adamant about not following the Hastert rule. 

In 2003 Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[1] In May 2007 Pelosi said, "I'm the Speaker of the House...I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."[13] She also said at that time, "I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say 'the majority of the majority does this or that.' We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."[13] Pelosi's former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, "On the larger issue of the 'majority of the majority,' she has talked about that for quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process... That's the kind of Speakership she wants.

LOL we are looking at the Same Wiki :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

You are right.  My point is there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Over time, I buy this statement.  It's a very "water is wet" statement actually.  In this case I don't.  It doesn't seem to apply at all.  As MT points out, the GOP is not doing what they said just 4 years ago and the Dems are essentially saying "Why aren't you using the precedent you were claiming then, now?"  That's very different.  When your position is essentially "I didn't do my job before, but am deciding to do it now" you have some major mental gymnastics to work through to make it something else.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many ways - it does not matter.

 

All politicians say and do things to hold onto power.  This is no different.  The Trump Party base will reward candidates who do whatever it takes to win.

The question is whether "independent" voters care enough.

I think, in this case, true independents will care - and it will cost the GOP.  It remains to be seen if that has an overall impact though.  If the Dems do not retaliate in some form, then it will probably be worth the loss in the Senate.  But, if the Dems push back - then it will be for naught - at least until the next election cycle. 

 

If this is a landslide election, the Dems will feel emboldened.  But, if this is a narrow win for the Dems, I expect they will be too timid to respond in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think, in this case, true independents will care

Sure

37 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

and it will cost the GOP.

If there were actually more than a handful of these people.  I don't think there is.

40 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

f this is a landslide election, the Dems will feel emboldened.

I don't think this is true either!  Obama's "elections have consequences" wasn't really followed by the "mandate" behavior that the GOP claims and uses to push through stuff even when that mandate is less than half the vote.   (Sure Reagan eventually captures the Anderson vote ;)  in '84...)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Sure

If there were actually more than a handful of these people.  I don't think there is.

I don't think this is true either!  Obama's "elections have consequences" wasn't really followed by the "mandate" behavior that the GOP claims and uses to push through stuff even when that mandate is less than half the vote.   (Sure Reagan eventually captures the Anderson vote ;)  in '84...)  

I think there are a lot of former Republicans who don't feel comfortable in the Trump party.  If I had to guess, I would say Trump Party is about 25%, with another 10% that are never-Dems.  I would guess Dems are about 40%.  So, that leaves ~25% of people who will vote based on how they feel in any given election.  Sure some (many?) have leans - but I don't think those are insurmountable.

The polling is suggesting close races in places where they're shouldn't be close races.  That suggests, to me, there is a groundswell of support for "Not Trump" - and most of that movement is coming from the 25%,

Lets consider that the Trump Party rushes through a SC justice.  I think the Trump party will be very happy, but less enticed to get to the polls in November (or sooner).  That opens the door to a real swing via turnout.  Given that about 50% of the people vote - if that drops on one side, and goes up on the other side - that has an over-sized influence on the election.  That could lead to the kind of landslide blowout that gives everyone a false sense of the state of the nation.  But, it would embolden Democrats to enact their agenda.  (It might be overconfidence - but it would be there).

 

So, what does that mean?

1.  Legislation gets pushed through that deals with thorny issues.  Abortion legislation would be at the top of the list - and I think the Dem, right to choice position is shared by a majority of Americans, so this won't cause heartache in the heartland.  Yes, Mississippi and Alabama will be angry, but that's not a political hot spot.

2.  Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.  Both of these can be couched in terms of providing better representation for a lot of Americans who are underrepresented right now.  I am also in favor of PR getting statehood just so they can deal with their own financial crisis with the same tools given to other states (but not currently permitted by PR).

3.  Judicial Reform - many will call this court packing - but realistically, we should be at 13 Justices - one for each Judicial Circuit, and perhaps its time to get some Jurists from the West Coast, and Mid West on the bench.  I would also not be opposed to looking at the 9th Circuit and determining if that should be broken into two circuits.

 

It certainly takes some bit of follow-through - but with the audacious moves by the GOP fresh in their minds - I think the Dems will be up for bold action, rather than business as usual.  You will also have some populists agitators keeping pressure on the Dem leadership to make these kind of changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

So, that leaves ~25% of people who will vote based on how they feel in any given election.

Exit polling consistently puts this number (independents without a discernible lean)  at less than a half of this, usually less than a third.  And while this tidbit could help your argument most of these end u being "band wagon" voters that vote for the winner.  (Even in those "surprises" of 2016 this seemed to somehow happen.)

Now party bases not being excited and staying home is actually relevant.  Problem is that it is seldom a problem for the GOP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sinn Fein said:

To be fair 25% is less than a third...

😉

 

Less than a third of 25%.  (i.e. around 8%)

I don't think this particular survey was exit polling, but it comes to the same conclusion -

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

Quote

Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Less than a third of 25%.  (i.e. around 8%)

I don't think this particular survey was exit polling, but it comes to the same conclusion -

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

 

Right - but that includes leaners - which I alluded to in the original post.  I think almost everyone is at least a leaner.

But, leaners are subject to shifting sands.  So, in any given cycle, I think the direction of the lean is susceptible to movement.

 

Even more important though - turnout.  I think this ends up being the Trump Party rubbing the noses of the Dems in the ####.  And I expect a bigger turnout among Dem voters and Dem leaners than Trump voters.

2018 was not an aberration - it was the result of a more inspired party taking action.  Biden is not the best standard bearer here - but Trump replacing Ginsberg will be just the thing to shock apathetic  Dem voters into action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Right - but that includes leaners - which I alluded to in the original post.  I think almost everyone is at least a leaner.

But, leaners are subject to shifting sands.  So, in any given cycle, I think the direction of the lean is susceptible to movement.

 

Even more important though - turnout.  I think this ends up being the Trump Party rubbing the noses of the Dems in the ####.  And I expect a bigger turnout among Dem voters and Dem leaners than Trump voters.

2018 was not an aberration - it was the result of a more inspired party taking action.  Biden is not the best standard bearer here - but Trump replacing Ginsberg will be just the thing to shock apathetic  Dem voters into action.

Right I agree on the turn out being the key.  I just don't agree that you win by pulling in "true independents".  That the cause and effect is backwards.  "True independents" don't pick the winner but they do tend to go with the winner.

I think trying to appeal to the center has proven repeatedly to be a losing strategy.  The only similar losing strategy is believing that "this time is different".  Knowing this doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, shadrap said:

there is no rule that says the nominee for SCOTUS  has to undergo questions in a hearing.  just saying McConnell could bring it to a vote without the vetting process from congress.  man would some heads explode then.

Meh.  Why bother with questioning or any sort of vetting if Mitch and the Republicans are flip-flopping back to a Presidential deference approach to the process?  It's not like intelligence, philosophy, or judicial temperament matter anymore when it comes to Trump's SCOTUS picks.  Just get one of Scalia's old law clerks in there and call it good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Meh.  Why bother with questioning or any sort of vetting if Mitch and the Republicans are flip-flopping back to a Presidential deference approach to the process?  It's not like intelligence, philosophy, or judicial temperament matter anymore when it comes to Trump's SCOTUS picks.  Just get one of Scalia's old law clerks in there and call it good.  

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

I have said repeatedly Garland should have gotten a vote.  But in McConnell's defense the Republican senate was saying they weren't going to vote for Garland.  After Harry Reid killed the filibuster for judicial appointees it only took 50 votes to get Garland a hearing.  This means that the republicans had more than 50 to vote against Garland.  The SAME thing was threatened by Biden.  He had enough votes in 1992 to make it stick.  Personally i think any President's nominees should get a vote no matter the situation in the Senate.  They don't have to pass anyone but they should vote.

In the end Harry Reid's decision to kill the filibuster is the problem.    Kavanaugh and whoever is nominated now would be blocked.  He did it because he wasn't able to get his lower court judges through.  The Republicans warned him if he did this it would be used against Democrats  just like he was doing to them at the time.  Do you think Trump would have some many judges cleared through so far  without this?

As for 1869  are you referring to the 15th Amendment?  If so that wasn't bipartisan vote.  The  vote gaurenteeing the right to vote was passed purely  in Congress by Republicans.  Not one Democrat in the House and the Senate voted for it.  Some Abolitionists voted against it because it didn't go far enough.

 

Just about the nuking of the filibuster - also have to remember that McConnell had been blocking nominations just as he would Garland, that's where that started. I think in 2016 Obama may have gotten all of 8 or so judges confirmed for the whole year? Meanwhile McConnell just pushed through 8 or so judges in a week last week.

The point about Biden in `92 - ok so have the vote, that's the point. That's the whole Constitutional point.

About 1869 - that was when the court was expanded to 9 justices from 7. That was the Judiciary Act of 1869.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

Comey deserved to be fired for how he handled HRC email investigation.  He should have never commented publicly on the investigation.  If you don't charge someone with something then you don't comment on their conduct.  (That is the pro HRC part)  But he also was supposedly preparing a letter of exonoration before the investigation finished.   ...

Thanks for the overall comment and I'm not ignoring any of it, as it is well thought out - however Barr and others in the DOJ have been regularly discussing the Durham investigation for some time. And Barr coordinates with the President on it. The problem there, as with the Garland nomination, is the fraudulent bases these thing are done on. Trump in fact favors not only interference but political direction and control over the DOJ, and frankly I'm fairly certain he expects the same out of the courts. Seemed preposterous in a pre-2017 world but not anymore as he is quite simply getting away with it. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2020 at 5:10 AM, tri-man 47 said:

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

Sorry, just seeing this as I usually stay out of this forum.  Not being a person who ever had the desire to be any kind of judge, let alone a SC Justice, it’s hard to put myself in her shoes.  I think that most people in that position would find a way to justify not removing herself from contention.  Doing so would require an extraordinary act of principle that I believe most of us lack.  Sorry to be so pessimistic.

By the way, I’ve heard from a couple of friends that the Washington post has contacted them to get information on her.  Just awaiting my email now.  :lol: 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2020 at 7:10 AM, tri-man 47 said:

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

  • Like 7
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

Its completely irrelevant to the conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, krista4 said:

Sorry, just seeing this as I usually stay out of this forum.  Not being a person who ever had the desire to be any kind of judge, let alone a SC Justice, it’s hard to put myself in her shoes.  I think that most people in that position would find a way to justify not removing herself from contention.  Doing so would require an extraordinary act of principle that I believe most of us lack.  Sorry to be so pessimistic.

By the way, I’ve heard from a couple of friends that the Washington post has contacted them to get information on her.  Just awaiting my email now.  :lol: 

When Betsy DeVos was nominated for Secretary of Education, the only call I got was from our old college's student newspaper.  :kicksrock:

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

Except for Kennedy who had a carefully choreographed exit with his hand picked successor. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks for the overall comment and I'm not ignoring any of it, as it is well thought out - however Barr and others in the DOJ have been regularly discussing the Durham investigation for some time. And Barr coordinates with the President on it. The problem there, as with the Garland nomination, is the fraudulent bases these thing are done on. Trump in fact favors not only interference but political direction and control over the DOJ, and frankly I'm fairly certain he expects the same out of the courts. Seemed preposterous in a pre-2017 world but not anymore as he is quite simply getting away with it. 

Barr I am kind of ok with him.  He is consistent on Flynn and McCabe.  Both he saying shouldn't be charged.  Both lied to FBI agents.  The Media doesn't look at McCabe in fact CNN hired him.  Both are guilty of the same thing.  That was why McCabe was fired and if i remember right Barr wasn't AG yet so the FBI itself found that he lied.  The Durham investigation Barr has not said much other than it was ongoing and that there was something there.  On other things i think Barr has been too much on TV.  

Trump is an idiot.  Plainly said

As for Interference Holder came out and plainly said he was Obama's wingman.

Edited by NightStalkers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just about the nuking of the filibuster - also have to remember that McConnell had been blocking nominations just as he would Garland, that's where that started. I think in 2016 Obama may have gotten all of 8 or so judges confirmed for the whole year? Meanwhile McConnell just pushed through 8 or so judges in a week last week.

The point about Biden in `92 - ok so have the vote, that's the point. That's the whole Constitutional point.

About 1869 - that was when the court was expanded to 9 justices from 7. That was the Judiciary Act of 1869.

Thanks for the 1869 part didn't know that.  The filibuster I think is a weapon that both sides had used or could use for Judicial appts.  

One of the things that I don't like though is how both sides shop for judges when a president  uses Executive orders.  A lot of EO's are done because Congress doesn't do it's job or makes a law that is certain enough not to give the Executive branch so much wiggle room.  It has gotten to a point in the last 2 admins that a POTUS declares an emergency and just changes the law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2020 at 9:07 AM, Zow said:

Whole lotta frizz going on there. :lmao: 

I do find it strange that her classmates don't remember her a whole lot. Law school classes aren't huge (at my graduation there were less than 5 or so classmates of mine where I didn't recognize them and they were likely from the part-time program we had designed for students working full-time). . 

 

On 9/21/2020 at 9:15 AM, dawgtrails said:

Columbia Law has over 1000 graduates a year I think.

Hamline had like what? 17? :)

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

Edited by krista4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, krista4 said:

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

I'm going to list 5 things and I'd like to see if you can remember them in the next few minutes.

Person.  Woman.  Man.  Camera.  TV.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shadrap said:

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for McCain over Obama - I despised that Obama voted against the appointment of Roberts. This issue is whether a prospective justice is qualified. Roberts was perhaps the most qualified nominee ever. Obama even acknowledges this in the opening of his written reasoning why he didn't vote to appoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things we haven't talked about - because nobody really gives a #### about it - is what the background should be of the new justice. Obviously this is "should" because its purely hypothetical. 

Anyway, my point is I wish someone with criminal defense experience would be nominated. I read that there are 3 justices with prosecution experiences. And a ton of federal court judges have prosecution experience. But little representation from the other side of the courtroom. 

I think it would be beneficial to have that voice on the S.Ct.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'm going to list 5 things and I'd like to see if you can remember them in the next few minutes.

Person.  Woman.  Man.  Camera.  TV.

 

10 minutes ago, krista4 said:

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

Ok, go.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, whoknew said:

One of the things we haven't talked about - because nobody really gives a #### about it - is what the background should be of the new justice. Obviously this is "should" because its purely hypothetical. 

Anyway, my point is I wish someone with criminal defense experience would be nominated. I read that there are 3 justices with prosecution experiences. And a ton of federal court judges have prosecution experience. But little representation from the other side of the courtroom. 

I think it would be beneficial to have that voice on the S.Ct.

For me - its less about background, and more about legal scholarship, and open mindedness.

 

In my ideal world, I would find candidates from non-Ivies - but still hold them to a rigorous scholarship requirement.  I want jurists who can think, parse language, and can synthesis competing arguments.

Being a Supreme Court Justice is not really like being a lawyer - its like being a law school student for the rest of your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

For me - its less about background, and more about legal scholarship, and open mindedness.

 

In my ideal world, I would find candidates from non-Ivies - but still hold them to a rigorous scholarship requirement.  I want jurists who can think, parse language, and can synthesis competing arguments.

Being a Supreme Court Justice is not really like being a lawyer - its like being a law school student for the rest of your life.

I get that but we all bring our background everywhere with us. And background and experience contributes to our biases. 

We have lots of people on the federal bench biased towards the prosecution based on their background and experience. It'd be nice to have an offsetting voice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I get that but we all bring our background everywhere with us. And background and experience contributes to our biases. 

We have lots of people on the federal bench biased towards the prosecution based on their background and experience. It'd be nice to have an offsetting voice. 

I agree FWIW.  If I were picking a nominee, having a defense background wouldn't be the #1 thing, but it would be a plus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...