Jump to content

U.S. Elections: 9,444 days


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i don't get this colloquy. judicial appointments are always already inherently political events.  how could they not be?  FFS kids, this is one ofthe most severe matters of the polis.  worthless to recriminate the other side for doing exactly what the process envisions in the participation of the senate.

the remedy of course is for the president adjourn the non-participating legislature pursuant to art. II section 3 and fill vacancies pursuant to art. II  section 2, which process can go on indefinitely, a series of ad hoc commissions to the supreme court &c.

Sologdin,

Can the President force recess appointments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tempra said:

There has been 30 years of escalating rhetoric and obstructionism with regards to judicial nominations.  From Bork to Thomas' high tech lynching, the filibuster of Estrada, the Democratic blockade of Bush's CoA nominees (only ending with threats of invoking the Nuclear Option), the attempted filibuster of Alito (and his subsequent vilification)....

I also tend to think it started with Bork. But I think nominating Bork was the bad call. His jurisprudential views were really radical. The Senate Democrats were clear from the start that he would not be an acceptable nominee, Reagan nominated him anyway, he still got a vote, and his replacement nominee, Kennedy, was confirmed by unanimous vote.

If that's what the Republicans were doing now, I would have no objection.

Ultimately, I think publicizing the appointment power as *the* reason to vote for this or that President really screwed us here, because the public has developed an entitlement to having judges who supposedly believe this or that thing on this or that hot button issue, and now Senators are at risk of primary challenges on those grounds if they don't deliver the vote their base wants. Meanwhile the judges themselves might care far more about the 10th amendment and banking regulation, subject matter jurisdiction, or justiciability issues and are just mystified at all this concern disproportionately placed on abortion and gun rights. It seems politicized to them, and it should seem politicized to us.

I do agree that the filibuster of Estrada was a huge mistake. What individual is most responsible for that? Schumer? And why go there over that nomination, truly? I wish they'd changed the rules to bar the practice the very first time it was used.

But I think it all started with Bork. Seems like there was some kind of communication breakdown there.

And the current era is a different thing. All the history was over blocking nominees deemed "extreme." This stuff now is over blocking moderate nominees by the other party until you can get your own extremists on the bench.

ETA: Thanks for mentioning Estrada. I'm learning stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

That's your call.  Both parties have engaged in shenanigans regarding judicial appointments.  That is not claiming all actions are equivalent, but that both parties have done it.

That's true, but I'm not sure how useful that is. It's like saying that both Rob Stark and Walder Frey broke custom, so we should lay blame on them both. That may be true in a very limited sense, but Stark's transgression was within norms, while Frey's was shocking and destabilizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

That's true, but I'm not sure how useful that is. It's like saying that both Rob Stark and Walder Frey broke custom, so we should lay blame on them both. That may be true in a very limited sense, but Stark's transgression was within norms, while Frey's was shocking and destabilizing.

The norm used to be that we looked at the qualifications of the person appointed, not at their politics.  As Tempra pointed out plenty of "conservative" presidents appointed "liberal" Justices.  Cardoza and Hoover, Eisenhauer and Earl Warren (arguably the most important Chief Justice in history after John Marshall).  The point is this we should be looking at qualifications not at political histories. 

The Judicary is supposed to be independent and the political manipulation of the Judiciary by the two political branches is wrong regardless of which party is engaging in the manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've said for years the only issue for appointment should be qualification.  If the individual is qualified they should be confirmed regardless of their personal political beliefs or political affilations.

But with the Estrada nomination that Tempra mentioned, qualification was the issue, at least ostensibly. From Wiki:

Quote

Minority Leader Tom Daschle was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The stumbling block to Miguel Estrada's nomination all along was the administration's refusal to allow him to complete his job application and provide the Senate with the basic information it needed to evaluate and vote on his nomination."

All that is potentially bullshit since the ABA rated him well-qualified, but the fact remains that Estrada had never served as a judge prior to his nomination to the DC Circuit. And The Nation published allegations that he had screened out job clerkship applicants on political grounds as a clerk for Justice Kennedy. When he was asked out it at the hearings, he changed his answer from "no" in the morning to "it's possible" in the afternoon.

I still feel the use of the filibuster was wrong. But seriously, change the rules to exclude the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ariadne,

Hell I think the public Q&A of Judicial nominees is a farce anyway.  If they're qualified they're qualified.  If they're not, vote them down.  Actually, I think I'm going to raise this point of too much politics in Judicial nominess to my Anti-Abortion rights friends on facebook who claim that's why they're voting Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The norm used to be that we looked at the qualifications of the person appointed, not at their politics.  As Tempra pointed out plenty of "conservative" presidents appointed "liberal" Justices.  Cardoza and Hoover, Eisenhauer and Earl Warren (arguably the most important Chief Justice in history after John Marshall).  The point is this we should be looking at qualifications not at political histories. 

The Judicary is supposed to be independent and the political manipulation of the Judiciary by the two political branches is wrong regardless of which party is engaging in the manipulation.

Look, I don't really mind Republicans voting down a justice they think is too liberal--checks and balances and all that--but that's not what's on the table here. Prominent Republicans like Ted Cruz and John McCain are either hinting or outright asserting that they consider it a valid use of power to strip the next president of her constitutional right to make judicial appointments. That's not bloodying your opponent a bit; that's cutting off his legs and then murdering his family in front of him. It's feckless and destructive, and no major party should be even flirting with the notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Look, I don't really mind Republicans voting down a justice they think is too liberal--checks and balances and all that--but that's not what's on the table here. Prominent Republicans like Ted Cruz and John McCain are either hinting or outright asserting that they consider it a valid use of power to strip the next president of her constitutional right to make judicial appointments. That's not bloodying your opponent a bit; that's cutting off his legs and then murdering his family in front of him. It's feckless and destructive, and no major party should be even flirting with the notion.

Tracker,

I do. 

Judicial appointments are not supposed to be about politics.  They are supposed to be about finding the best people to be Judges.  This political bullshit is on the verge of ruining on of the best features of the US over the years out independent Judiciary. 

If we are going to make the desicion on who is and is not a judge or justice purely political... elect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ariadne,

Hell I think the public Q&A of Judicial nominees is a farce anyway.  If they're qualified they're qualified.  If they're not, vote them down.  Actually, I think I'm going to raise this point of too much politics in Judicial nominess to my Anti-Abortion rights friends on facebook who claim that's why they're voting Trump.

Beyond that, do they not understand the man enough to know he'll nominate his sister, whatever he says? She's certainly qualified. But not somebody they'd be all that happy with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Are there any similarities between what we're seeing now and the polls leading up to the Brexit vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, roughly half of the Brexit polls had 'Leave' winning; its just that nearly everyone ignored them.

There are only a tiny number of national polls that have Trump winning, right now its just the LA Times one actually, even Rasmussen is showing a tie and IBD/TIPP has moved all the way to Clinton +3. Also, its been months since there's been any state polls showing a Trump lead in any of the core Clinton states that add up to 272.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fez,

I agree I just can't see how Trump can win this. There are not enough filpable States for him to pull this out.
 

The historian, just to see what it's like to live through it, would half way like to see an election end up in the HOR.  If that happened today do you think the Electoral College would end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

I do. 

Judicial appointments are not supposed to be about politics.  They are supposed to be about finding the best people to be Judges.  This political bullshit is on the verge of ruining on of the best features of the US over the years out independent Judiciary. 

If we are going to make the desicion on who is and is not a judge or justice purely political... elect them.

Isn't there some space between those two positions? After all, judges are political creatures and they do set policy, so there is a political aspect to their appointment that can't reasonably be denied. That doesn't mean we have to treat them like legislators, but, yes, we should treat them like political appointees because that is what they are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The norm used to be that we looked at the qualifications of the person appointed, not at their politics.  As Tempra pointed out plenty of "conservative" presidents appointed "liberal" Justices.  Cardoza and Hoover, Eisenhauer and Earl Warren (arguably the most important Chief Justice in history after John Marshall).  The point is this we should be looking at qualifications not at political histories. 

The Judicary is supposed to be independent and the political manipulation of the Judiciary by the two political branches is wrong regardless of which party is engaging in the manipulation.

The thing is that there are way more qualified judges with impeccable credentials than there are spots in the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts.

And the fact is that Judges make rulings based on politics. And this has never been more clear than in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Oh sure, they're all smart enough to find someone legal justification for whatever decision they're making based on their judicial philosphies. Like it always is with lawyers (and if you believe Haidt, all people), the conclusion comes first, and then justification.

Politics is important, so why shouldn't it be a criterion?

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If Politics is truely the point of our Judges we should do away with the shame of a politically independent judiciary and just have direct election of Federal Judges.

Maybe not, but we could give Supreme Court Justics explicit 12 year terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

I agree I just can't see how Trump can win this. There are not enough filpable States for him to pull this out.
 

The historian, just to see what it's like to live through it, would half way like to see an election end up in the HOR.  If that happened today do you think the Electoral College would end?

I don't think the Electoral College will ever officially go away; too high a degree of difficulty in amending the Constitution. But if something really contentious ever did happen, like McMullin winning Utah and then winning a House vote to become President, that may be the impetus for enough remaining states to sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Which is the Compact where states sign on to it by changing their laws to say that their electoral votes will be given to whoever wins the national popular vote, but only when states with a combined at least 270 electoral votes have signed the Compact. 

Right now its 165 Electoral Votes, with New York being the most recent signatory in 2014. The problem is that other than the New York state senate, which is controlled by Republicans, all the states that have signed it have done so with Democratic legislatures and Democratic governors. There are a few more Democratic states that could sign it, but not enough to hit 270. And while there's been a couple cases of one Republican-controlled chamber approving it, most recently the Arizona House this year, the other chamber always killed it, and there's never been a Republican governor who approved it. 

So until Democrats start winning back control of some states, or something happens with the Electoral College that pisses off large numbers of Republicans, the Compact will continue to be inoperative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Isn't there some space between those two positions? After all, judges are political creatures and they do set policy, so there is a political aspect to their appointment that can't reasonably be denied. That doesn't mean we have to treat them like legislators, but, yes, we should treat them like political appointees because that is what they are.

I don't think there is.  I think that any speculation into the how or why of any potential deicsion hits the Judicial Canons that prohibit Judges and Justices from even the appearance of potential bias or predicision.  As I said on Facebook I would dearly love it if all Judicial Nominess would simply refuse to answer any questions that ask them to speculate about potential dicisions or how they make decisions. 

They are qualified for the position based on their prior behavior as Judges, or they are not.

WWTR,

Or perhaps a seniority system for moving from the Circuit Bench to the Court of Appeals and then the SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, roughly half of the Brexit polls had 'Leave' winning; its just that nearly everyone ignored them.

There are only a tiny number of national polls that have Trump winning, right now its just the LA Times one actually, even Rasmussen is showing a tie and IBD/TIPP has moved all the way to Clinton +3. Also, its been months since there's been any state polls showing a Trump lead in any of the core Clinton states that add up to 272.

Florida and North Carolina are also making me feel a lot better.  Nevada, Iowa and Ohio have all had very mixed polling, but NC and Florida are consistently showing Clinton ahead by ~3 points (aside from one outlier poll in each state, which you'd expect with that kind of lead).  A win in either one more or less seals it for Clinton.  And early voting is already happening in both, with nearly 1/3rd of the 2012 total votes in each state already submitted. 

Florida and North Carolina are definitely Clinton's big safety net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...