Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
How many DJT Supreme Court Confirmations Are We Looking At?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How many SCOTUS confirmations for DJT?
Just Gorsuch.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
2
22%
 22%  [ 2 ]
3
66%
 66%  [ 6 ]
4
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
5 or more
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 9

Author Message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Leading Democrat members could offer that holding off on nominations is appropriate when there will be a change in president. That is, in the last year of a president's second term. This would match the delay for Scalia's replacement. But I guarantee you they wouldn't uphold that agreement if the tables were turned.

This really makes no sense. The constitution says the president gets to nominate a replacement. It says nothing about "unless an election is soon". It would be much better if everyone just followed the constitution - the president nominated a new appointee, and the senate considered the nominee and voted.

But since the republicans ignored their constitutional obligations four years ago, we are now in some bizarro world where everyone is making up rules as they go. The democrats want the republicans to treat their made-up justification to ignore the constitution in 2016 as an actual law, and the republicans want to just refine their made-up rules to allow themselves to do whatever they want again without blatantly admitting that they just made it up in 2016 to get what they wanted.

The only practical solution is to amend the constitution to be more clear, so that it isn't possible to get away with ignoring it. That will take a while though.

If I were Trump, I would nominate someone super conservative. If they actually get through, great. But if they are rejected, Trump can tell all the conservative voters that they better vote for more republicans in congress if they want to get nominee's like that through. Seems like a win-win for him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 250
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While both parties are in a deep hypocrite and denial mode, what is really going to bite the Democrats is the change in rules that Dirty Harry Reid implemented when he changed the filibuster rules on confirmation of the judiciary appointments.
_________________
Pronouns: My Lord, His Lordship

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18556

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
This really makes no sense. The constitution says the president gets to nominate a replacement. It says nothing about "unless an election is soon".
I agree. Obama nominated Garland.

richk449 wrote:
It would be much better if everyone just followed the constitution - the president nominated a new appointee, and the senate considered the nominee and voted.
I agree that the constitution should be followed, but not selectively.

richk449 wrote:
But since the republicans ignored their constitutional obligations four years ago, we are now in some bizarro world where everyone is making up rules as they go.
If it started 4 years ago, you'd have a point.

The Democrat controlled senate altered the rules to allow simple majority passage of the ACA. A Republican at the time warned them they might come to regret that decision.

richk449 wrote:
The democrats want the republicans to treat their made-up justification to ignore the constitution in 2016 as an actual law, and the republicans want to just refine their made-up rules to allow themselves to do whatever they want again without blatantly admitting that they just made it up in 2016 to get what they wanted.
It isn't law, and it isn't "made up." The senate determines processes. For a long time, there were agreed upon rules that governed how things happened. Democrats made up the rules to force through the ACA. Now they want to complain about a rule they made up?

My recollection of 2016 is that objections were mostly minor because everyone pretty much knew Clinton was going to get elected. At the time, I actually thought it would have been better to wait given that there was going to be a different president.

So, "law" is certainly not a credible objection by current Democrats, because it isn't law, and there is no law supporting their position. Democrats made up senate rules to suit their partisan goals, so that isn't a credible objection.

The only reason the 2016 Garland nomination didn't occur is because of the Democrat rule allowing simple majority on critical decisions. Republicans have controlled the senate since 2014.

If you didn't realize when the ACA was forced thorough, maybe now you realize why so many people were opposed to the manner in which it was passed.

richk449 wrote:
The only practical solution is to amend the constitution to be more clear, so that it isn't possible to get away with ignoring it. That will take a while though.
Not only practical, but I think it is the only possible "solution." The problem is in selectively choosing which rules the senate should abide by. In many ways, the constitution has minimal requirements allowing for the details to be worked out by elected office and politics. For a while it seemed that it was mostly an up-and-down vote and not a crucible of character assassination. At this point, I'm concerned about the manner in which it would become constitutional.

More importantly would be in the makeup of the court itself. I could be mistaken, but I believe the only constitutional requirement for the court is a chief with the number of justices unspecified. Schumer's recent threats strongly signal another attempt to stack the court. That's much more concerning the simple majority control.

richk449 wrote:
If I were Trump, I would nominate someone super conservative. If they actually get through, great. But if they are rejected, Trump can tell all the conservative voters that they better vote for more republicans in congress if they want to get nominee's like that through. Seems like a win-win for him.
In 2016 I hadn't considered a repeat of the debacle that was Gore's contesting of the 2000 election. At the time, it didn't matter much to me if the choice was made by Obama or Clinton, but I thought deferring to Clinton (the presumptive winner) was a courtesy to the office worth observing. I was obviously mistaken given how critical it is to have the full 9 members.

I think he should nominate whomever he / the party wants, and the vote should go through in a similar manner as was afforded to Obama's appointees.

I think citizens on the left and right have a vested interest in reviewing the partisan politics that led to the current "made up rule" of simple majority. But that looks bad for the left, because the Democrat party wasn't interested in any compromise to pass ACA.

I'm not seeing any indication by the Democrat House or Senate that they have any interest in giving up simple majority rule. Given that the Democrat party controls the House, I think they ought to come up with a procedure return to the previous normal where both sides required compromise. They get to take the high ground, recognize the mistaken they made (gaining credibility) and then work on a compromise with the senate to pass a motion in both houses that gets members on record. Each new session of congress could start by a new vote with the current members.

I believe it was 90s Clinton who was the last to see meaningful compromise. The left obstructed under Bush, Republicans returned the favor under Obama. Under Trump, Democrats have not only offered zero compromise, they've gone on the offensive to try and undermine our democracy.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
I agree that the constitution should be followed, but not selectively.

richk449 wrote:
But since the republicans ignored their constitutional obligations four years ago, we are now in some bizarro world where everyone is making up rules as they go.
If it started 4 years ago, you'd have a point.

The Democrat controlled senate altered the rules to allow simple majority passage of the ACA. ...

richk449 wrote:
The democrats want the republicans to treat their made-up justification to ignore the constitution in 2016 as an actual law, and the republicans want to just refine their made-up rules to allow themselves to do whatever they want again without blatantly admitting that they just made it up in 2016 to get what they wanted.
It isn't law, and it isn't "made up." The senate determines processes. For a long time, there were agreed upon rules that governed how things happened. Democrats made up the rules to force through the ACA. Now they want to complain about a rule they made up?

There is nothing in the constitution about a super-majority requirement for ordinary legislation. It wasn't until the last hundred years that it even became a thing, and the last 50 that it was used regularly.

Quote:
The only reason the 2016 Garland nomination didn't occur is because of the Democrat rule allowing simple majority on critical decisions. Republicans have controlled the senate since 2014.

As I am sure you know, the democratic senate rule change specifically exempted supreme court appointments. So it is explicitly incorrect to say that "the only reason" Garland wasn't voted on was because of that law. It was the republicans who changed the law with regards to supreme court appointments. Not that any of this is relevant.

Quote:
If you didn't realize when the ACA was forced thorough, maybe now you realize why so many people were opposed to the manner in which it was passed.

The ACA was passed by budget reconciliation, which has been law since the seventies. It has nothing to do with the nuclear option or the constitution.

Quote:
So, "law" is certainly not a credible objection by current Democrats, because it isn't law, and there is no law supporting their position.

Agreed. That's what I already said: "The constitution says the president gets to nominate a replacement. It says nothing about "unless an election is soon". It would be much better if everyone just followed the constitution - the president nominated a new appointee, and the senate considered the nominee and voted."

Quote:
richk449 wrote:
The only practical solution is to amend the constitution to be more clear, so that it isn't possible to get away with ignoring it. That will take a while though.
Not only practical, but I think it is the only possible "solution." The problem is in selectively choosing which rules the senate should abide by. In many ways, the constitution has minimal requirements allowing for the details to be worked out by elected office and politics. For a while it seemed that it was mostly an up-and-down vote and not a crucible of character assassination. At this point, I'm concerned about the manner in which it would become constitutional.

More importantly would be in the makeup of the court itself. I could be mistaken, but I believe the only constitutional requirement for the court is a chief with the number of justices unspecified. Schumer's recent threats strongly signal another attempt to stack the court. That's much more concerning the simple majority control.

It would be good if there was a grant compromise.

Quote:
richk449 wrote:
If I were Trump, I would nominate someone super conservative. If they actually get through, great. But if they are rejected, Trump can tell all the conservative voters that they better vote for more republicans in congress if they want to get nominee's like that through. Seems like a win-win for him.
In 2016 I hadn't considered a repeat of the debacle that was Gore's contesting of the 2000 election. At the time, it didn't matter much to me if the choice was made by Obama or Clinton, but I thought deferring to Clinton (the presumptive winner) was a courtesy to the office worth observing. I was obviously mistaken given how critical it is to have the full 9 members.

I think he should nominate whomever he / the party wants, and the vote should go through in a similar manner as was afforded to Obama's appointees.

Now I am confused again. You think Trump's nominee should get the same treatment as Obama's appointment of Garland?

Quote:
I think citizens on the left and right have a vested interest in reviewing the partisan politics that led to the current "made up rule" of simple majority. But that looks bad for the left, because the Democrat party wasn't interested in any compromise to pass ACA.

Majority vote in the senate isn't "made up" - it is what the constitution says. As for the ACA, democrats desperately wanted to compromise, since they had a very slim majority. The whole approach (basing it on republican proposals) was intended to foster compromise. They only passed the bill they did after republicans made it explicitly clear that they would not support any sort of compromise, and would fight tooth and nail to prevent any health care law from being passed.

Quote:
I believe it was 90s Clinton who was the last to see meaningful compromise. The left obstructed under Bush, Republicans returned the favor under Obama. Under Trump, Democrats have not only offered zero compromise, they've gone on the offensive to try and undermine our democracy.

Yea, Newt was pretty accommodating of Clinton when he shut down the government to get his way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18556

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Not that any of this is relevant.
That's the only part that is relevant. The issue is senate judicial decisions. The constitution has minimal specifics and allows the senate to govern themselves by establishing their own procedural rules (Article 1, Section 5).

We seem to agree that the rules are not immutable and are merely agreed upon practice. That something was agreed upon 100 years ago, or 50 or 10 makes no difference to what occurs today or tomorrow.

But agreed upon practice is not without consequence. The most recent catalyst came when Democrats were unwilling to give up the compulsory aspect of the ACA, changed the rules, and passed it. They could have given up the compulsory, kept the rules, and tried a different approach. They didn't. Fine. People liked it, others didn't. That's the way it works.

Setting aside opinion on appropriateness, Republicans were in control and responded by changing the rules on judicial decisions. Just as Democrats were within their authority to do so for the ACA, Republicans were within their authority.

That establishes the validity, correctness and legality of how those events occurred. Sucks to be us.

Next is the matter of Garland. Article 2, Section 2 only states that the president has the power to appoint with the advice and consent of the senate. It doesn't get more specific than that. What is meant by "advice and consent" is not expanded upon and offers no limitations or requirements.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

So excluding other non-binding Calvin-ball rules the senate chooses to establish, simple majority determines what happens in the senate. Including how they handle judicial nominees.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
But agreed upon practice is not without consequence. The most recent catalyst came when Democrats were unwilling to give up the compulsory aspect of the ACA, changed the rules, and passed it. They could have given up the compulsory, kept the rules, and tried a different approach. They didn't. Fine. People liked it, others didn't. That's the way it works.

ACA was passed through the budget reconciliation process, which has been a law since the 70s. What changes to the rules are you referring to?

Quote:
Next is the matter of Garland. Article 2, Section 2 only states that the president has the power to appoint with the advice and consent of the senate. It doesn't get more specific than that. What is meant by "advice and consent" is not expanded upon and offers no limitations or requirements.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

So excluding other non-binding Calvin-ball rules the senate chooses to establish, simple majority determines what happens in the senate. Including how they handle judicial nominees.

Garland was never voted on by the senate. No hearings were even held.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1415

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely (as citizen of the U.S.) I would agree with Senator Romney:
A conservative society deserves a conservative Supreme Court!

But from the Constitution point of view:
Why isn't it in the U.S. that the president at the end of his first term is allowed to exchange the majority of the Supreme Court ?

This makes sure the next government gets an opposing Supreme Court, but not if the people vote for continuation of the government. If the people think a heavy lifting of changes are needed and the second term of a presidency is approved then a Supreme Court turns same sided.
_________________
ultra left enrich
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18556

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Garland was never voted on by the senate. No hearings were even held.
I didn't claim there was a vote or hearings for Garland. Can you refer to the requirement that specifies when the vote or a hearing should occur? My understanding is that mob-rule simple majority controls when any proceedings occur. Republicans have wanted to bring things forth that Democrats have refused, so it is up to the party in control of the body to decide what, when and if.

I'll have to do some research on the ACA, but at this point like you mentioned, it isn't relevant. Simple majority party in control wins, regardless of prior tradition and agreed upon rules.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Surely (as citizen of the U.S.) I would agree with Senator Romney:
A conservative society deserves a conservative Supreme Court!

Eh, it's not that simple. The supreme court members are appointed by the president. Presidential elections in the US are structured in a way to give a significant advantage to rural states, which tend to be more republican. So the result is that conservatives get more appointees to the court than liberals. The last time a republican that wasn't already in the whitehouse won a popular presidential vote was 1980.

Quote:
But from the Constitution point of view:
Why isn't it in the U.S. that the president at the end of his first term is allowed to exchange the majority of the Supreme Court ?

This makes sure the next government gets an opposing Supreme Court, but not if the people vote for continuation of the government. If the people think a heavy lifting of changes are needed and the second term of a presidency is approved then a Supreme Court turns same sided.


The supreme court is a check on the other branches - so if the president appointed his own entire court, and won re-election, that would be a huge conflict of interest.

The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though. There is discussion of going to fixed terms (say 15 years) so that the turn-over will at least be regular, and each appointment will be less important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we should let the daytime talk shows pick the next Justice. The audiences for Ellen and Jerry Springer could nominate, the bitches on The View could "advise and consent", and the judges on The Voice could confirm.

Those groups are probably pretty representative of Democrats anyway.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Judge Judy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zixnub
n00b
n00b


Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Brasschaat, Belgium

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:

... - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.


Pope be like.
_________________
https://github.com/udevbe/greenfield
https://github.com/udevbe/westfield
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 250
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.

You act like this is a new thing. Politics has been part of the SC equation since John Adams.

And again you show your dislike of the Constitution. :wink:
_________________
Pronouns: My Lord, His Lordship

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
richk449 wrote:
The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.

You act like this is a new thing. Politics has been part of the SC equation since John Adams.

The average life expectancy in 1800 was 29 years. Today it is 79 years. A lifetime appointment has a very different meaning now than it did when the constitution was written.

Quote:
And again you show your dislike of the Constitution. :wink:

I like the constitution a lot. It got a shockingly large number of things right, and most of the things it got obviously wrong have been corrected. But it's not perfect.

A wise man once said:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. it deserved well of it’s country. it was very like the present, but without the experience of the present: and 40 years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions ... but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind ... we might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


I favor using the mechanisms in the constitution to fix the things that are still issues. I was just thinking about amendments. Maybe I'll dig up the amendment thread, and add to it.


Last edited by richk449 on Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 250
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Old School wrote:
richk449 wrote:
The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.

You act like this is a new thing. Politics has been part of the SC equation since John Adams.

The average life expectancy in 1800 was 29 years. Today it is 68 years. A lifetime appointment has a very different meaning now than it did when the constitution was written.

Quote:
And again you show your dislike of the Constitution. :wink:

I like the constitution a lot. It got a shockingly large number of things right, and most of the things it got obviously wrong have been corrected. But it's not perfect.

A wise man once said:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. they ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. it deserved well of it’s country. it was very like the present, but without the experience of the present: and 40 years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions ... but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind ... we might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


I favor using the mechanisms in the constitution to fix the things that are still issues. I was just thinking about amendments. Maybe I'll dig up the amendment thread, and add to it.
Great quote. And I completely agree with your sentiment of using the mechanisms in the Constitution to bring it to today's reality. That is also why I believe in justices in the vein of Scalia and Thomas.
_________________
Pronouns: My Lord, His Lordship

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1611
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Old School wrote:
richk449 wrote:
The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.

You act like this is a new thing. Politics has been part of the SC equation since John Adams.

The average life expectancy in 1800 was 29 years. Today it is 79 years. A lifetime appointment has a very different meaning now than it did when the constitution was written.

Average is irrelevant. There were a lot of unhealthy poor people at the time. What is relevant then, you ask? Well, the only Justice appointed around the time you mention was John Marshal, who served as Chief Justice for 34 motherfucking years. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. How do you like them apples, Mister?
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Old School wrote:
richk449 wrote:
The supreme court was supposed to be non-political - hence the lifetime appointments. That doesn't work so well these days though.

You act like this is a new thing. Politics has been part of the SC equation since John Adams.

The average life expectancy in 1800 was 29 years. Today it is 79 years. A lifetime appointment has a very different meaning now than it did when the constitution was written.

Average is irrelevant. There were a lot of unhealthy poor people at the time. What is relevant then, you ask? Well, the only Justice appointed around the time you mention was John Marshal, who served as Chief Justice for 34 motherfucking years. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. How do you like them apples, Mister?

Huh? That's a terrible metric. Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices_by_time_in_office and review the length by time. The first five justices were 3k, 2k, 8k, 2k, 0.5k, 3k, 0.2k days (average of 2.7k days). The most recent seven were 12k, 13k, 9k, 11k, 11k, 7k, 10k days (average of 10.4k days). That's a 4x increase.

Even your cherry-picking attempt is a fail: Alfred Moore was appointed in 1800, and lasted for four years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 250
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It makes no difference what the life expectancy is. The reason of the lifetime appointment was to keep the justices independent of politics.
_________________
Pronouns: My Lord, His Lordship

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
It makes no difference what the life expectancy is.

What do you mean it makes no difference? Obviously the length of time a justice serves makes a difference in how important each appointment is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sort of funny how wisdom improves with age, right up until dementia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 250
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Old School wrote:
It makes no difference what the life expectancy is.

What do you mean it makes no difference? Obviously the length of time a justice serves makes a difference in how important each appointment is.
The lifetime appointment was intended to make the jurist independent of the President that appointed them and independent of politicians that come after.

James Madison wrote:
In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; second, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

_________________
Pronouns: My Lord, His Lordship

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18556

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Huh? That's a terrible metric. Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices_by_time_in_office and review the length by time. The first five justices were 3k, 2k, 8k, 2k, 0.5k, 3k, 0.2k days (average of 2.7k days). The most recent seven were 12k, 13k, 9k, 11k, 11k, 7k, 10k days (average of 10.4k days). That's a 4x increase.

Even your cherry-picking attempt is a fail: Alfred Moore was appointed in 1800, and lasted for four years.
So what would you like as a cutoff for mandatory retirement, and what makes that cutoff reasonably objective rather than subjective?

I don't recall if it was my impression, or something I've specifically read about the founding, but I think of both the senate and supreme court as being institutions of "slow change", resulting in a more "stable society" that didn't change depending on the mood of the day. I favor the slow change approach because I think it more reasonably adjusts to society over time rather than jerking back and forth as is somewhat observable in the house of representatives. I offer that as an example of what I would consider a reasonably objective stance as opposed to a random number like, 62 or 65 y/o.

Also, your 2.7k number is somewhat skewed low. Jay, Blair and Johnson resigned. Had they died in office, they would have been there for 40yrs, 10yrs, and 37yrs. Rutlege served twice but was never confirmed. Had he died in office, it would have been an 11 yr term. Using your numbers with those numbers, I see 3k, 14.5k, 7.5k, 3.5k, 4k, 3.5k, 13.5k, 5k, 5.5k. If I didn't transpose anything incorrectly, that's 6.6k, which makes 10.4k only about 1.58x increase.

Given that life expectancy is skewed significantly by deaths at a young age and that reduction of infant mortality has had a huge impact on life expectancy, a ~1.5x increase doesn't seem particularly outrageous.

EDIT: The numbers I used were for Wilson, Jay, Cushing, Blair, Rutledge, Iredell, Johnson, Paterson, Chase (substituting year of death for end of term for those who resigned).
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
So what would you like as a cutoff for mandatory retirement, and what makes that cutoff reasonably objective rather than subjective?

A 15 year appointment sounds reasonable. I don't think I can defend that number as "objective" - it is just a reasonable choice.

Quote:
I don't recall if it was my impression, or something I've specifically read about the founding, but I think of both the senate and supreme court as being institutions of "slow change", resulting in a more "stable society" that didn't change depending on the mood of the day. I favor the slow change approach because I think it more reasonably adjusts to society over time rather than jerking back and forth as is somewhat observable in the house of representatives. I offer that as an example of what I would consider a reasonably objective stance as opposed to a random number like, 62 or 65 y/o.

That's a fair point. An alternative solution would be to add more justices. Added in a fair way, of course.

Quote:
Also, your 2.7k number is somewhat skewed low. Jay, Blair and Johnson resigned. Had they died in office, they would have been there for 40yrs, 10yrs, and 37yrs. Rutlege served twice but was never confirmed. Had he died in office, it would have been an 11 yr term. Using your numbers with those numbers, I see 3k, 14.5k, 7.5k, 3.5k, 4k, 3.5k, 13.5k, 5k, 5.5k. If I didn't transpose anything incorrectly, that's 6.6k, which makes 10.4k only about 1.58x increase.

Also a fair point. Although Kennedy is still alive, so that would increase the recent numbers also.

Quote:
Given that life expectancy is skewed significantly by deaths at a young age and that reduction of infant mortality has had a huge impact on life expectancy, a ~1.5x increase doesn't seem particularly outrageous.

What really matters is the lengths of the terms, so the original 4X is the important result. When the constitution was written, justices served for around ten years. Now they serve for around 40 years. The importance of each nomination is much higher now that it was previously.

EDIT: The numbers I used were for Wilson, Jay, Cushing, Blair, Rutledge, Iredell, Johnson, Paterson, Chase (substituting year of death for end of term for those who resigned).[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Adams, the second president, nominated three justices. Two of those justices served more than 30 years, Bushrod Washington and John Marshall.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president, also nominated three justices. One served just over 30 years, William Johnson.

James Madison, the fourth president, only nominated two justices. One served 33 years 219 days, the other 23 years and 50 days.

...

FDR nominated nine justices, of those William O. Douglas served 36 years and 211 days, the longest of any justices. Another served 34 years and 29 days.

Some justices have chosen to retire under a president of the same party as the one that nominated them. RBG could have followed that practice, but for some reason chose not to.

If the legislators weren't relying on the court to legislate, you wouldn't be feeling the pain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1415

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flysideways wrote:
If the legislators weren't relying on the court to legislate, you wouldn't be feeling the pain.
Yes,
it is the lazyness of Congress regarding abortion and other issues I don't know (me non US) ... it is weird that every democracy on earth had the discussions about these problems but the U.S. did not in parliament ...
_________________
ultra left enrich
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum