Point 1: Yeah, like Justice Roberts, who really did a show with that "I'm a centrist" and "I respect precedent" thing in his confirmation.

 

Point 2: Yeah, Stevens started in 1975. Doesn't mean he wasn't by far the most liberal member of the court.

 

Point 3: If you think that nothing has changed since the 1980's in the vetting of these candidates to make sure that a Republican isn't appointing a Democrat or vice-versa...you're simply wrong.

 

points 1 and 3 contradict themselves

points 1 and 3 contradict themselves

The Senate wasn't the ones doing the vetting. The Bush Administration knew exactly what they were getting with that Chief Justice; a guy who would make Scalia and Thomas look like cowards. He just was smarter than the Senate in his confirmation hearings. Which is probably not as hard as we'd like to think.

the courts of the 60s and 70s were very liberal. It's not surprising that a moderate candidate at the time became a very liberal member of the court considering what happened after that.

The Senate wasn't the ones doing the vetting. The Bush Administration knew exactly what they were getting with that Chief Justice; a guy who would make Scalia and Thomas look like cowards. He just was smarter than the Senate in his confirmation hearings. Which is probably not as hard as we'd like to think.

 

well Obama should be able to get a liberal pick in that case; as there are more Democrats in the Senate and the GOP is a bunch of stupid rednecks. shouldn't be too hard to outsmart a bunch of hicks, especially for a genius like Obama.

The Senate wasn't the ones doing the vetting. The Bush Administration knew exactly what they were getting with that Chief Justice; a guy who would make Scalia and Thomas look like cowards. He just was smarter than the Senate in his confirmation hearings. Which is probably not as hard as we'd like to think.

 

 

I dunno man, that guy is wicked smart. Talking about years and years of Supreme Court history/cases without notes is pretty impressive.

well Obama should be able to get a liberal pick in that case; as there are more Democrats in the Senate and the GOP is a bunch of stupid rednecks. shouldn't be too hard to outsmart a bunch of hicks, especially for a genius like Obama.

Frankly, that's really my side's best hope...that Obama can nominate someone who does the exact same thing Roberts did except from the other side.

 

Because in an election year, with the Republican base already fired up, if the Republicans can hold together 41 votes for a filibuster of a justice, that's a huge fundraiser for them.

the courts of the 60s and 70s were very liberal. It's not surprising that a moderate candidate at the time became a very liberal member of the court considering what happened after that.

Here's a good piece by Cass Sunstein on that.

In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

 

First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

 

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

 

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

 

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

 

To say the least, all this would represent a radical change in the Court's composition -- so radical that liberals cannot even fantasize about it. But this radically changed Court would be essentially identical to the supposedly conservative Court of 1980!

 

Here is another way to demonstrate the point. In 1980 Stevens often operated as the Court's median member; in many cases he (along with Powell) was the Justice Kennedy of that era. But Stevens is frequently described as the most liberal member of the current Court. If he qualifies for that position, it is not because of any significant change in his own approach, but because of a massive shift in the Court's center of gravity.

I dunno man, that guy is wicked smart. Talking about years and years of Supreme Court history/cases without notes is pretty impressive.

 

No one is saying Roberts isn't smart.

No one is saying Roberts isn't smart.

Just that talking your way around the Senate isn't that much of a challenge.

well, in this situation, they are going to threaten no anyway, they'll be right around election time.

well, in this situation, they are going to threaten no anyway, they'll be right around election time.

The sound of it so far is that the Dems want to get this done fast, perhaps before the Court's term ends. If it goes to the Fall, 1/3 of the Senate will be off campaigning, so it'll be almost impossible to have anyone in place before the start of the Court's next session. And Stevens is actually leaving in June, he's not staying on until the replacement is named like O'Connor did.

This process is going to be hell.

 

This will be the worse confirmation process of all time. I will not post or read any buster thread about the candidates or process. People will be banned.

The sound of it so far is that the Dems want to get this done fast, perhaps before the Court's term ends. If it goes to the Fall, 1/3 of the Senate will be off campaigning, so it'll be almost impossible to have anyone in place before the start of the Court's next session. And Stevens is actually leaving in June, he's not staying on until the replacement is named like O'Connor did.

 

health care was going to be done last summer.

health care was going to be done last summer.

They got Sotomayor's nomination through on schedule though.

They got Sotomayor's nomination through on schedule though.

 

capital was way higher then.

 

And the media will do the "obama should elect a moderate" bulls***.

I'm hoping for Judge Judy. If the Supreme Court needs anything...it's a street-tough, no-nonsense television judge.

 

 

 

 

/green

"There is much at stake, as the court's interpretation of the Constitution in the coming years could significantly affect the implementation of domestic polices approved by the president and Congress over the past year."

Senator Sessions, perhaps suggesting that ACA repeal will be an issue during the confirmation hearings.

JPS turns 90 in 11 days. Didn't leave himself much retirement time.

He reportedly loved his job.

Edited April 9, 201015 yr by JorgeFabregas

Thinking outside of the box.

I enjoyed that JPS was old school and not giving lectures all across the country.

I'm really tired of seeing federal judges get nominated. Pick someone else this time please.

 

Ginsburg will probably retire too so that'll refresh the liberal wing for a while. None of this is actually that important until/unless Obama gets re-elected and then we have to start looking at guys like Scalia or Kennedy, and THEN it'll get rough.

I'm really tired of seeing federal judges get nominated. Pick someone else this time please.

The media will always speculate about why they don't nominate someone who's not a judge. Then, you nominate a political figure from somewhere, and you get hammered for nominating a politician.

 

Of course, you could just nominate someone who's totally 100% unqualified. We haven't seen that in a couple years.

Obama probably already knows who he wants to nominate. And they're just going through the vetting now to be safe.

 

Oh, and I found it kind of funny that Stevens was confirmed 98-0. Ha! I wonder what the odds are of that happening this time around.

Obama probably already knows who he wants to nominate. And they're just going through the vetting now to be safe.

 

Oh, and I found it kind of funny that Stevens was confirmed 98-0. Ha! I wonder what the odds are of that happening this time around.

Yeah that changed in the 80s but still even Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all had pretty easy confirmations. You'd think, based on his record since then, that the Dems would've put up a fight against Scalia, but he also had a 98-0 confirmation.

And who started the real "politicing" of SCOTUS nominees? It took one hour for the Borkinization of SCOTUS nominees to begin by one Ted Kennedy.