He's just 69, a mere pup by SC standards but he wants to get out while he is still young enough to enjoy retirement apparently. This announcement shouldn't change the present make-up of the Supreme Court but I suppose it still is the first chance a Democratic president has to make a SC appointment since 1993. And with firm majorities in Congress, Obama's choice will have no problems getting affirmed barring a crazy, radical pick (say someone like William Ayers or nuts like that). It will also be interesting to see if any Republican senators approve his pick since apparently a lot are still bitter he opposed Alito and Roberts.
I said last year that the Supreme Court was the #1 reason I was so happy to see a Democrat win the presidency last November. Seven of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans although on balance, the current court is pretty fair down the middle. Souter was nominated by G.H.W. Bush but definitely is one of the more liberal justices so his leaving shouldn't change that balance too much.
And I still imagine that future Obama justices would also come from the left, since the most likely future retirees would be Ginsberg and Stevens. Unless Kennedy or Alito retire, that balance shouldn't change too much under an Obama presidency.
But it will be interesting nonetheless to see who Obama picks. I imagine it will be a woman and I suspect it won't be quite as liberal a pick as say a Ginsberg.
ETA - Obama's pick could be this woman --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood
Diane Wood grew up in Houston and was a UT Law 1972 graduate. I suspect some of you on the board know her or went to school with her.
I think he'll appont someone who'll make Ginsberg look like Robert Bork.
I'll bet you're wrong. And I have absolutely no problem admitting I'm wrong if you're right, and I would hope you would do the same if I'm correct.
But I need a point of comparison - where would Diane Wood rank as compared to Ginsberg?
(05-01-2009 12:42 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I'll bet you're wrong. And I have absolutely no problem admitting I'm wrong if you're right, and I would hope you would do the same if I'm correct.
But I need a point of comparison - where would Diane Wood rank as compared to Ginsberg?
That's fair.
I don't know Wood that well, but what I do from her writings suggests that she buys into a couple of Ginsberg's favorite themes--that our constitution is somehow outmoded and that we should be harminizing our law with international legal principles. Off that, I would say she's about a push with Ginsberg.
I would not say that Wood fulfills your prediction of a moderate. I would consider Hillary probably as close to that as he is likely to get, and I would not expect Hillary to be the first SCt justice he appoints, although I would expect to see her there at some point. I would consider Kagan to be the other extreme. Interestingly, Kagan's online bios indicate that she has never actually tried a case.
(05-01-2009 12:42 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I'll bet you're wrong. And I have absolutely no problem admitting I'm wrong if you're right, and I would hope you would do the same if I'm correct.
But I need a point of comparison - where would Diane Wood rank as compared to Ginsberg?
Wood is clone of Ginsberg. I bet Obama "swings for the fence" and nominates current SG Elena Kagan.
Obama will get another pick as well in a few months when Ginsberg retires.
IMO Bush 41 screwed up whrn he nominated Souter. He should have nominated Edith Jones.
Appointments are'nt always based solely on legal scholarship considerations. I remember a docudrama on Brown vs. Board of Education. The Chief Justice dies on the eve of oral arguments and Thurgood Marshall and his team are wondering who the new appointment will be. The consensus is it will be the Dean of the Harvard Law School. Finally, someone says, 'You're thinking like lawyers; you have to think like a politician.' He says it will be Earl Warren who, as Governor of California, had been Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1948 and was is owed something (in addition to his other qualificaitons). Likewise, IIRC, Warren Burger played a big role in securing Minnesota's delegation for Ike in 1952 against Taft. There were rumors last fall that a deal had been struck whereby if Clinton withdrew, she would be Obama's first appointment to the Court.
(05-01-2009 06:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know Wood that well, but what I do from her writings suggests that she buys into a couple of Ginsberg's favorite themes--that our constitution is somehow outmoded
Didn't Hugo Chavez say the same thing about Venezuela's constitution?
That's the trouble with constitutions -- they're always getting in the way of what we all know is really best for the people.
On the other hand, one could argue that a law professor who considers the constitution old-fashioned is actually a refreshing change from one who considers it infinitely malleable (and therefore perfectly up-to-date). At least the former view recognizes that the document has some modicum of meaning.
(04-30-2009 11:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I said last year that the Supreme Court was the #1 reason I was so happy to see a Democrat win the presidency last November. Seven of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans although on balance, the current court is pretty fair down the middle.
This doesn't make sense. Given that (as you say) the Supreme Court is currently balanced, and that the Court was your #1 concern in the November election, then you should be UNHAPPY that a Democrat won the White House. Wouldn't we be much more likely to get a respected centrist jurist when the president and Senate are of opposite parties, then when they are the same? Especially since, as you point out, Obama's voting record on prior Supreme Court appointments shows that as a senator, he was more concerned with partisanship than with quality (not singling him out -- that might be true of most senators.)
Perhaps actually having to lead will cause Obama to mature in his thinking -- or "evolve", to use a favorite word of legal observers from the left. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Sheila Jackson Lee... you heard it here first
(05-01-2009 07:49 AM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]Appointments are'nt always based solely on legal scholarship considerations.
I would say they are never based solely on legal scholarship considerations. The hurdles an appointee must clear are first are race, sex, and stance on abortion. Legal scholarship becomes a consideration only later, as a partial tiebreaker.
I think we can expect one of the better qualified (not neccesarily the best) female and/or black and/or hispanic (2 of the three is better) pro-choice judges.
If we get a white male pro-life choice, I will donate $1000 to the University. Anybody think i will have to come up with the $$$?
I wish that only legal scholarship and character considerations went into it, but alas, that is not the real world.
No it makes perfect sense. Yes, a few Republican appointees through the years have voted towards the left and hence, we have a fairly balanced court currently. I don't believe it's fair that over the past 30-35 years we've had 22 years of a Republican in the White House and 13 of a Democrat, yet the Republican have been able to make 7 of the current 9 picks.
But who do you think McCain would have replaced Souter (or Ginsberg or Stevens) with? There is no way in hell we could have had a balanced court had a Republican won and it's still very much a possibility if this is only a 4 year Democratic White House.
ETA- and I understand what you're saying with the Senate being controlled by the Democrats but wasn't there a Democratic majority with Roberts?
(05-01-2009 08:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2009 11:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I said last year that the Supreme Court was the #1 reason I was so happy to see a Democrat win the presidency last November. Seven of the current 9 were appointed by Republicans although on balance, the current court is pretty fair down the middle.
This doesn't make sense. Given that (as you say) the Supreme Court is currently balanced, and that the Court was your #1 concern in the November election, then you should be UNHAPPY that a Democrat won the White House. Wouldn't we be much more likely to get a respected centrist jurist when the president and Senate are of opposite parties, then when they are the same? Especially since, as you point out, Obama's voting record on prior Supreme Court appointments shows that as a senator, he was more concerned with partisanship than with quality (not singling him out -- that might be true of most senators.)
Perhaps actually having to lead will cause Obama to mature in his thinking -- or "evolve", to use a favorite word of legal observers from the left. But I wouldn't bet on it.
O Owl,
A white male wouldn't necessarily floor me. But you're probably right about White, male, AND pro-life.
Hambone,
I hadn't thought of Lee. It's not that far fetched, and she is a graduate of Yale and the U of Virginia Law School.
There was an interesting article awhile back on the Warren Court making the case that a strength of the Court was that many of it's members had prior elective experience - Warren was a governor, Hugo Black a senator, etc. which gave them practical experience as well as a recognition of the need to work towards consenus building.
I listened to part of the press conference, and the Press Secretary was saying that O would be looking for someone with practical experience so that when it came time to make rulings, they would have empathy with people who would be affected by those rulings.
Is empathy the way we want our laws interpreted? If so, then I really, really see no need for legal scholarship considerations. I can see empathy and law being on opposite sides of several issues, such as immigration cases, abortion cases, death penalty cases, and many others. I have served as juror and grand juror, and sometimes I have had to vote against my empathetic feelings on the basis of law.
(05-01-2009 03:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I listened to part of the press conference, and the Press Secretary was saying that O would be looking for someone with practical experience so that when it came time to make rulings, they would have empathy with people who would be affected by those rulings.
Is empathy the way we want our laws interpreted? If so, then I really, really see no need for legal scholarship considerations. I can see empathy and law being on opposite sides of several issues, such as immigration cases, abortion cases, death penalty cases, and many others. I have served as juror and grand juror, and sometimes I have had to vote against my empathetic feelings on the basis of law.
Agree totally.
I'm guessing practical experience and empathy are just code words that do mean liberal (although I still want to wait and see who the choice is). Dubya's code words were strict constitutional interpretation which meant conservative. This is likely just a response to that.
(05-01-2009 03:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I listened to part of the press conference, and the Press Secretary was saying that O would be looking for someone with practical experience so that when it came time to make rulings, they would have empathy with people who would be affected by those rulings.
Is empathy the way we want our laws interpreted? If so, then I really, really see no need for legal scholarship considerations. I can see empathy and law being on opposite sides of several issues, such as immigration cases, abortion cases, death penalty cases, and many others. I have served as juror and grand juror, and sometimes I have had to vote against my empathetic feelings on the basis of law.
(05-01-2009 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Sheila Jackson Lee... you heard it here first
As her constituent, I would be happy to see her go.
(05-01-2009 02:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I would say they are never based solely on legal scholarship considerations. The hurdles an appointee must clear are first are race, sex, and stance on abortion. Legal scholarship becomes a consideration only later, as a partial tiebreaker.
I unfortunately agree. The abortion litmus test continues to disturb me, especially since both parties intently refuse to address the actual issue, which is that as a general rule there is NO good outcome to an unwanted pregnancy. Obviously ideology will play a part to some extent, but it is ridiculous that it gets boiled down to any one issue, and especially that abortion is the single issue.
The only Lee from Houston that should even come within sniffing distance of the SCOTUS is Lee H. Rosenthal, a wonderful federal district judge.
(05-01-2009 04:00 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2009 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Sheila Jackson Lee... you heard it here first
As her constituent, I would be happy to see her go.
She can do far more harm at SCt than where she is.
I was her constituent for several years. I had a matter arise where I felt that help from my congressperson would be useful. I contacted her office and was told, pretty much in no uncertain terms, that if I wasn't black, they weren't interested.
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]No it makes perfect sense. Yes, a few Republican appointees through the years have voted towards the left and hence, we have a fairly balanced court currently. I don't believe it's fair that over the past 30-35 years we've had 22 years of a Republican in the White House and 13 of a Democrat, yet the Republican have been able to make 7 of the current 9 picks.
I don't understand this logic. First, if the American people vote a Republican (or Democrat) into office for 22 of 35 years, then that at least implies that the Republican (or democratic) candidate's view more closely reflected those of the majority of the electorate. While I realize that those who are clearly on the left may feel under-represented... that is what happens when your candidate doesn't attract 50.1% of the vote. How would it be fair IN ANY WAY to usurp the power of a properly elected official just because it was someone elses turn?
Quote:But who do you think McCain would have replaced Souter (or Ginsberg or Stevens) with? There is no way in hell we could have had a balanced court had a Republican won and it's still very much a possibility if this is only a 4 year Democratic White House.
ETA- and I understand what you're saying with the Senate being controlled by the Democrats but wasn't there a Democratic majority with Roberts?
Congress has no authority to appoint... only the authority to deny. Republicans COULD have simply trotted conservative after conservative at a Democratically controlled Congress, and would have been perfectly within the law. Souter was appointed by Bush 41... and he is pretty liberal. Your own evidence shows that at least two of the seven judges appointed by Rerpublicans have been more liberal than one would expect... so the system clearly isn't as one-sided as you are implying.
I can't give you a name... but I think McCain has clearly shown himself over the past few decades to be a centrist more than a far-right zealot. Especially with a solid Democratic majority in the congress, I suspect he would have appointed a slightly conservative hispanic female to head off a number of future changes. Many politically liberal hispanics are socially conservative due to their catholic background. They may not be married to it, but it is hard to escape completely.
In the alternative, I believe that the chances that Obama appoints someone with a fairly extreme view of the world this time are pretty good... because he is replacing a moderate liberal and has clear control of the Senate. The Republicans would not be able to stop the appointment of the left-wing equivalent of Robert Bork... and the dems may be thinking that while they MAY still have complete control when RBG retires, they may not... and if they don't, they can appoint someone in the mold of Souter.
(05-01-2009 02:59 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]O Owl,
A white male wouldn't necessarily floor me. But you're probably right about White, male, AND pro-life.
Hambone,
I hadn't thought of Lee. It's not that far fetched, and she is a graduate of Yale and the U of Virginia Law School.
There was an interesting article awhile back on the Warren Court making the case that a strength of the Court was that many of it's members had prior elective experience - Warren was a governor, Hugo Black a senator, etc. which gave them practical experience as well as a recognition of the need to work towards consenus building.
unfortunately, I wasn't trying to be funny... I may not be right... but I'm betting she'll get serious consideration at least privately. "Relatively" young black woman... which opens the door to replace the more liberal Ginsberg with a relative moderate and STILL pick up ground... and also take the gender and race picks away from the Republicans in the future.
I have heard that Hispanics are unrepresented, that women are underrepresented, and that it is needed to appoint a black who better represents black people than Thomas. When did the SCOTUS become a representative body? Is each justice supposed to safeguard the interests of their constituency, i.e., their race/sex? Whatever happened to the idea of appointing learned, fair-minded people who would interpret the law without regard to the individuals affected? I know it is an ideal, but if there is anyplace that ideals should be represented, it is in the SCOTUS.
The whole empathy thing gets me. If empathy overrules law, then nobody can ever have their home foreclosed, and nobody will ever have to pay their credit card bills (those nasty, unscupulous lenders!!! Punish them for making you spend too much!! Poor thing.)
What's wrong with appointing good people even if they are the wrong race/sex? If the best nine jurists in the country are all Asian women, that would be fine with me. Or all white men. Or all black men. As long as they are the best.
Yeah, I know, it has been explained to me many times that making appointments, Cabinet, judges, whatever, solely on merit is inherently evil. I just still fail to understand why.
(05-01-2009 08:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard that Hispanics are unrepresented, that women are underrepresented, and that it is needed to appoint a black who better represents black people than Thomas. When did the SCOTUS become a representative body? Is each justice supposed to safeguard the interests of their constituency, i.e., their race/sex? Whatever happened to the idea of appointing learned, fair-minded people who would interpret the law without regard to the individuals affected? I know it is an ideal, but if there is anyplace that ideals should be represented, it is in the SCOTUS.
The whole empathy thing gets me. If empathy overrules law, then nobody can ever have their home foreclosed, and nobody will ever have to pay their credit card bills (those nasty, unscupulous lenders!!! Punish them for making you spend too much!! Poor thing.)
What's wrong with appointing good people even if they are the wrong race/sex? If the best nine jurists in the country are all Asian women, that would be fine with me. Or all white men. Or all black men. As long as they are the best.
Yeah, I know, it has been explained to me many times that making appointments, Cabinet, judges, whatever, solely on merit is inherently evil. I just still fail to understand why.
I blame the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee for the concept of a "quota" because when Justice Marshall resigned, there was a Democrat “demand” for another African American Justice to replace him—hence Clarence Thomas. There wasn’t any such demand when Scalia or Kennedy were nominated.
I don’t think there should be a “quota” or any requirement that every gender, ethnic or socio-encomic group in the US gets “representation” at the SCOTUS.
People were advocating for Alberto Gonzales to be appointed to the Court when Rehnquist died simply because he is Hispanic. (Thank God Dubya didn’t do that.)
I prefer a “strict constructionst” but I know damn well it isn’t going to happen under Obama. I just hope he picks someone that is truly qualified instead of meeting some racial, social, “feel good” litmus test.
(05-01-2009 08:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard that Hispanics are unrepresented, that women are underrepresented, and that it is needed to appoint a black who better represents black people than Thomas. When did the SCOTUS become a representative body? Is each justice supposed to safeguard the interests of their constituency, i.e., their race/sex? Whatever happened to the idea of appointing learned, fair-minded people who would interpret the law without regard to the individuals affected? I know it is an ideal, but if there is anyplace that ideals should be represented, it is in the SCOTUS.
The whole empathy thing gets me. If empathy overrules law, then nobody can ever have their home foreclosed, and nobody will ever have to pay their credit card bills (those nasty, unscupulous lenders!!! Punish them for making you spend too much!! Poor thing.)
What's wrong with appointing good people even if they are the wrong race/sex? If the best nine jurists in the country are all Asian women, that would be fine with me. Or all white men. Or all black men. As long as they are the best.
Yeah, I know, it has been explained to me many times that making appointments, Cabinet, judges, whatever, solely on merit is inherently evil. I just still fail to understand why.
You're saying this... but I'll make it more cheeky...
It is an attempt to remove racial or sexual bias (as opposed to political bias) from a body where people are supposed to be admitted because they have a demonstrated history of having little or no racial or sexual bias
How well do we want stupid people represented on the SCOTUS??
(05-01-2009 12:42 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I'll bet you're wrong. And I have absolutely no problem admitting I'm wrong if you're right, and I would hope you would do the same if I'm correct.
But I need a point of comparison - where would Diane Wood rank as compared to Ginsberg?
I would say that the rumored names are all far closer to my expectation than yours. And I fear that the stuff about empathy is code for places we really don't want to go.
Maybe he will give me a pleasant surprise, though. I keep being told that he is going to do so someday.
So far, except to the extent that he seems to have been able to let the on-scene commander have more authority in handling the pirate hostage situation than his immediate predecessors did in similar situations, I've seen nothing to like. He's been pretty much exactly what I expected, and have great fear about where this is headed.
Millions of people with the mentality that they are entitled to everything--free--in an economy that can't produce enough to provide them jobs, does not a pretty picture make. I don't see how we are going to have a country worth living in when he gets through.
I'm not gone yet, because I still have hope that somehow this will all turn around. Unfortunately, I pretty much don't see anything but blind hope to go on.
I blame Shrub and the republican leadership more than anyone. If they hadn't screwed the pooch so badly, the American people would never have fallen for this.
Sorry if my rambling took this thread off topic. I'm just extremely discouraged and I have no idea what I should do about it.
Here's my problem with everything that is going down. The whole US economy depends upon our ability to attract foreign investment capital. Without it we bleed to death.
We don't save enough. Enormous government deficits eat up a disproportionate share of what we do save. We are the largest net importer in the world. This means a huge flow of cash overseas, and an undersupply of domestic investment capital. If the cash we send overseas doesn't come back as debt or equity investment by foreigners, we pretty much die.
We have always been able to attract foreign investment, even when our economics weren't the best, because the perception has always been that we have the lowest political risk. We follow the rule of law, and that means that our government is considered less likely to nationalize private investment, or to rewrite the rules in midstream to cut out certain investors, than anywhere else. With what has happened at Chrysler and in the financial sector, and what appears to be in the works at GM, and Obama's comments to the effect of wanting a supreme courty justice who modifies the law based on "empathy," we are sending some pretty powerful signals that the US may no longer be that place with little political risk. A few data points do not make a trend, but these plus a few more will. Once that happens, investing in the USA starts to look more and more like investing in Zimbabwe. Not long after that, life in the USA starts looking like life in Zimbabwe. I really, seriously believe the stakes are that high.
I know there are those on here who feel differently. I would like to engage on this issue and see how you think it can be overcome. But I do ask that such engagement be on th issues, and not the kind of ad hominem attacks that happen too often. I would really like to know how someone who thinks this can work sees it coming down.
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe it's fair that over the past 30-35 years we've had 22 years of a Republican in the White House and 13 of a Democrat, yet the Republican have been able to make 7 of the current 9
I don't know what to make of that. There are not party quotas for judicial nominations, nor has anyone every seriously suggested that there should be. I supposed there could be -- all it takes is an amendment to Article III.
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]But who do you think McCain would have replaced Souter (or Ginsberg or Stevens) with?
McCain with a Democratic Senate would almost certainly give us a more moderate, less extremist nominee than Obama with a Democratic Senate. Do you have any basis for disagreeing?
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]There is no way in hell we could have had a balanced court had a Republican won
On the general level: As you said, Republican presidents have made 7/9 of the current picks, and yet the court is balanced. To jump from that evidence to the conclusion that "there is no way in hell" that we could maintain balance under a Republican president -- well, I don't see much support for that logical jump. On the specific level: how exactly would John McCain and a Democratic Senate be more likely to unbalance the court than Barack Obama and a Democratic Senate?
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]wasn't there a Democratic majority with Roberts?
I'd say that proves my point.
(04-30-2009 11:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I said last year that the Supreme Court was the #1 reason I was so happy to see a Democrat win the presidency last November.
If your goal is to get another committed leftist on the Court, then yes the chances are greater when the president and 60 senators are all of the same (leftist) party, than when they are not. And if that is what you meant when you said that the Supreme Court was your #1 priority last November, then that's fine. But it may not be accurate to characterize that goal as a desire for balance or moderation on the Court.
George for a smart guy, you're not very smart here.
What in the world leads you to believe that Roberts is a centrist?
Yes if the Republicans had won in November, this pick would be a wash. But what do you think would happen when Stevens and Ginsberg retire? Having a democratic president is the only way we can maintain close to the present set-up unless as I've stated before, Kennedy and/or Scalia (or Alito) unexpectedly retire.
The LA Times (and countless others) have had stories on potential successors. Many do seem rather liberal but Kim Wardlow of California (and my alma mater UCLA) seems to be almost centrist in comparison. I would venture to say that if she was selected, that would be a very neutral pick for Obama.
BTW, my mother's first husband was at one point rumored to be a SC justice candidate. He was dean of Columbia's Law School and then later president of Columbia. Had Carter won in 1980, he very possibly would have been a selection by Carter (he is good friends with Mondale). I'll see him later this month at my brothers' wedding. I'll have to pick his brain about the selection at that point.
(05-02-2009 01:50 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe it's fair that over the past 30-35 years we've had 22 years of a Republican in the White House and 13 of a Democrat, yet the Republican have been able to make 7 of the current 9
I don't know what to make of that. There are not party quotas for judicial nominations, nor has anyone every seriously suggested that there should be. I supposed there could be -- all it takes is an amendment to Article III.
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]But who do you think McCain would have replaced Souter (or Ginsberg or Stevens) with?
McCain with a Democratic Senate would almost certainly give us a more moderate, less extremist nominee than Obama with a Democratic Senate. Do you have any basis for disagreeing?
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]There is no way in hell we could have had a balanced court had a Republican won
On the general level: As you said, Republican presidents have made 7/9 of the current picks, and yet the court is balanced. To jump from that evidence to the conclusion that "there is no way in hell" that we could maintain balance under a Republican president -- well, I don't see much support for that logical jump. On the specific level: how exactly would John McCain and a Democratic Senate be more likely to unbalance the court than Barack Obama and a Democratic Senate?
(05-01-2009 02:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]wasn't there a Democratic majority with Roberts?
I'd say that proves my point.
(04-30-2009 11:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I said last year that the Supreme Court was the #1 reason I was so happy to see a Democrat win the presidency last November.
If your goal is to get another committed leftist on the Court, then yes the chances are greater when the president and 60 senators are all of the same (leftist) party, than when they are not. And if that is what you meant when you said that the Supreme Court was your #1 priority last November, then that's fine. But it may not be accurate to characterize that goal as a desire for balance or moderation on the Court.
(05-02-2009 03:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]The LA Times (and countless others) have had stories on potential successors. Many do seem rather liberal but Kim Wardlow of California (and my alma mater UCLA) seems to be almost centrist in comparison. I would venture to say that if she was selected, that would be a very neutral pick for Obama.
I would call her less extreme leftist than some of the others. I would not use the words centrist or neutral to describe her. If she is the nominee, I would say she is probably somewhere in between what you expect and what I expect.
And I do agree with you, there is no way I would call Roberts a centrist. Roberts and Wardlow appear to be about equally distant from the center, on opposite sides.
By the way, what thoughts do you have about my concerns for the future of the economy?
Barring a worsening of the Swine Flu virus, I think the economy is getting better. I think we've passed our low point. I'm not sure if we'll see a significant improvement this year but by next year, I believe we'll be on solid ground again.
(05-02-2009 03:40 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Barring a worsening of the Swine Flu virus, I think the economy is getting better. I think we've passed our low point. I'm not sure if we'll see a significant improvement this year but by next year, I believe we'll be on solid ground again.
So, no concerns about the issues I raised in my post?
What countries would the Middle East (or China) be investing in? I don't see any better alternatives.
(05-02-2009 04:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]What countries would the Middle East (or China) be investing in? I don't see any better alternatives.
Most anywhere will work. The BRIC countries (Brasil, Russia, India, China) would be particularly good candidates.
The one thing we've always had going for us is the political risk calculus. If we lose that advantage, put a fork in us. And we are severely testing that now.
(05-02-2009 03:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]George for a smart guy, you're not very smart here.
What in the world leads you to believe that Roberts is a centrist?
Yes if the Republicans had won in November, this pick would be a wash. But what do you think would happen when Stevens and Ginsberg retire? Having a democratic president is the only way we can maintain close to the present set-up unless as I've stated before, Kennedy and/or Scalia (or Alito) unexpectedly retire.
Should I feel both appreciative AND insulted? I guess batting .500 is not too bad.
And what leads you to think that he is not -- unless by "centrist" you mean one whom the New York Times editorial page endorses, which is about like Pravda saying Yuri Andropov was a liberal.
If your point is that partisan presidents appoint partisan justices -- well, what do you think Obama is? In any case: please explain AGAIN why you think we are more likely to get a moderate, responsible justice when the president and senate are of the same party than when they are of different parties. The reasoning still escapes me.
It strikes that the combination of the most leftist president in post-war history, the most leftist Senate leadership in post-war history, a filibuster-proof Senate majority, a litany of interest groups champing at the bit to impose their litmus tests on the process, and a bar industry and media eagerly cheerleading for the same is hardly a recipe for moderation.
On the other hand, as I mentioned before, it is always possible that the burden of leadership forces leaders to act responsibly, rather than according to their previous track record of frivolity. Such was the theme of Shakespeare's Henry IV/Henry V trilogy, and we can always hope that such will be the case here. It may not be a likely hope, but it is possible.
These days it seems that we are frequently praying for (as Disraeli said about second marriages) "the triumph of hope over experience".
(05-01-2009 09:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]How well do we want stupid people represented on the SCOTUS??
Given that they are already well-represent in the other two branches, it is only fair that they come to dominate the judiciary as well.
(05-02-2009 04:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]On the other hand, as I mentioned before, it is always possible that the burden of leadership forces leaders to act responsibly, rather than according to their previous track record of frivolity. Such was the theme of Shakespeare's Henry IV/Henry V trilogy, and we can always hope that such will be the case here. It may not be a likely hope, but it is possible.
That's our best hope. And I think it has a chance of coming home with Obama, who I think on at least some level genuinely cares about what happens to America. Whether he really cares or just doesn't want his reputation to suffer is not clear, but in the end that doesn't really matter.
The concern I have is Pelosi and Reid. I'm not sure Obama can drag them along. And no, I do not believe either of them gives a darn about what happens to America, as long as they get to enact their socialist agenda.
I still have some faint hope that Obama may make a turnaround and become more of a centrist than Shrub was. I don't see that happening with Reid or Pelosi.
(05-02-2009 03:40 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Barring a worsening of the Swine Flu virus, I think the economy is getting better. I think we've passed our low point. I'm not sure if we'll see a significant improvement this year but by next year, I believe we'll be on solid ground again.
Yes, the American economy -- which at its best is essentially the product of the applied energy and creativity of the American people -- may indeed be resilient enough to overcome its own government.
But it is awfully early to tell. Remember that after the stock market slump of 1929 there were a few brief upticks, before the full effect of ill-considered policies kicked in and drove the world into a decade of depression. Remember also that 100 million people were killed before the recovery began. On that time scale, today is only the spring or summer of 1930 -- there could be a
great deal of misery ahead.
I think we can all agree that nominating justices is one of the most lasting measures of a presidency. Call me an eternal optimist, but I believe that if Obama believes Stevens and/or Ginsberg are retiring shortly, he will lean more towards the center with this pick. Tit for tat basically. He can pick one of his ultra-liberal pals to replace Stevens and Ginsberg so he can go a little crazy on this pick, if he chooses to do so.
I'll tell you what, picking someone more in the center might help the economy.
(05-02-2009 04:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]What countries would the Middle East (or China) be investing in? I don't see any better alternatives.
Should have answered this way the first time.
Pretty much anywhere. When things start to come back worldwide, there will be intense competition for investment funds. I anticipate that we will lose far more of those competitions than we have in the past, and we will remain stuck in the doldrums for 10 years or so. It really will not be pretty.
By the way, it's not the lady in Thailand making a dollar a day sewing together Nikes that concerns me; we can't really compete for those jobs, and we don't really want them. It's the high-tech jobs with a lot of value added that bother me; we should not be losing as many of them as we have in the recent past, but we'll be losing more in the future.
I don't think people realize just how much damage this whole Obama program is going to do to our standing as the favored destination for foreign investment. I don't think it's well understood by anyone who hasn't dealt extensively with multinational businesses.
The multinationals themselves aren't making a big deal out of it, becuase they don't really care. They will just move more of their operations elsewhere to deal with it. They can--and will--do that subtly enough to avoid outrage and revolution. There will be political efforts to stop them. The only effect those efforts will have is to discourage new guys from coming in to replace the old guys who have already gone.
(05-02-2009 05:02 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I think we can all agree that nominating justices is one of the most lasting measures of a presidency. Call me an eternal optimist, but I believe that if Obama believes Stevens and/or Ginsberg are retiring shortly, he will lean more towards the center with this pick. Tit for tat basically. He can pick one of his ultra-liberal pals to replace Stevens and Ginsberg so he can go a little crazy on this pick, if he chooses to do so.
I'll tell you what, picking someone more in the center might help the economy.
You have been way more optimistic than I have about Obama, and you've been way more inclined to see him moving toward the center.
I'd say he has a slightly better chance of moving to the center than Shrub (since Shrub's terms are over and he didn't), but only slightly. I would hope that he would, but so far I see nothing even remotely indicating any intent to move that way.
Most of the theory seems to be that he won't pick a "stealth" candidate like Souter, in case the candidate turns out like Souter (only opposite): that is, someone who was supposed to be one way but ends up leaning far the other direction. Instead, he's likely to pick someone with a very clear judicial philosophy that will be a leader on the new court.
I'm thinking he'll end up with what will basically be an activist judge, and liberal as I am, I really dislike those.
(05-01-2009 07:22 AM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]IMO Bush 41 screwed up whrn he nominated Souter. He should have nominated Edith Jones.
If by "nominate" you mean, never allow to decide an issue related to discrimination or to civil rights, you betcha.
(05-01-2009 04:58 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]The abortion litmus test continues to disturb me, especially since both parties intently refuse to address the actual issue, which is that as a general rule there is NO good outcome to an unwanted pregnancy.
From a legal perspective, I don't think the two sides are mirror opposites. One side believes that (while the judiciary can properly resolve conflicts between statutes and the Constitution), questions on which the Constitution is essentially silent are not really judicial issues. And in those cases, the questions are appropriately decided by legislatures. This side is more than happy to see this particularly thorny question worked out in the political process. Indeed, some would argue that the very reason for having a legislature is to hash out tough policy questions, through the inexact methods of political compromise.
And in fact, other questions that involve balancing competing rights to life and death are successfully worked out in the legislative arena. For example, the question of when a person is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense against another is a tough question. Each state decides it a little bit differently, and each changes its solution from time to time. No one has ever dreamed that the Supreme Court should (let alone must) pronounce a universal, irreversible policy regarding self-defense.
Another side of the debate apparently believes that no representative body -- not Congress, not a state legislature -- should ever be allowed to make policy on the issue, because there is a chance that a representative body would not produce that particular side's preferred outcome. This side believes that even though the Constitution is essentially silent on the matter, the Court should pretend that it's not -- provided that the Court strictly adheres to this side's preferred outcome.
Of course, one way to address the Constitution's silence on a matter is to amend the Constitution. I know that's a weird concept, but I am not making this up. In fact, that's exactly the approach taken by people who wanted to abolish slavery, or ensure that 18 year olds can vote, or that Congressmen cannot raise their own pay, or that soldiers cannot be quartered in private homes. It's not an easy process -- not least because it requires persuading thousands of elected politicians to agree with you, instead of just five unaccountable lawyers. But it has the admittedly quaint virtue of being the right process.
Gravy,
While I agree with your general premise that, in most cases, nothing good comes from an unwanted pregnancy, I disagree with your suggestion that is the actual issue. The actual issue, as I see it, is discussed in my response to George's comment below.
George,
While I agree with the basic premise of your post, I think you have missed an important issue here: one side of the abortion debate believes that the Constitution is NOT silent on the issue. The Fourteenth Amendment states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Given that Constitutional prohibition, the real question gets to be the definition of "any person". If the abortion candidate is "a person", then the Constitution clearly prohibits taking that candidate's life without affording the candidate due process. If the abortion candidate is not "a person", then the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply. Thus, one side says that the Constitution is NOT silent on the matter while the other side says that it is. Meanwhile, the courts have generally applied a "viable being" standard to decide whether the candidate is "a person" or not. That has then become a sliding scale based upon then current medical capabilities and has slowly worked toward the point of conception. Interestingly, fertility clinic staff and doctors would call just about any fertilized egg "viable" in that it could be implanted in the womb and grow into what everyone would agree is a human being. Abortionists look to the first breath outside the womb to determine "viability", arguing that until the candidate is "viable" without the host mother, then it is not a "person".
*DISCLAIMER* I have tried to present this issue as objectively and without undue bias as possible, but I suspect that my personal beliefs have crept in. Just so that everyone is clear on where I stand in this debate, I do NOT agree that the "viable being" standard is necessarily the proper standard or legally supportable, but given that we have to work in that context, I agree with the fertility clinic folks that, taken to its logical conclusion, "viability" is a matter of environment once the fertilization has occurred. Consequently, all fertilized eggs are "viable" in some context from the moment of conception. Given that, the Constitution applies to the fetus since the fetus is a person under that definition and the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to life unless taken away after due process. I don't see where there can be due process sufficient to override that right for a fetus (that due process obviously can be done with adults - murderers for example), so I don't see where abortion can be constitutionally supportable. Thus, while I see and understand the contrary argument, I don't think it passes Constitutional muster.
*Second note* Please note that I have NOT introduced any religious beliefs into the above discussion. If I were to do so, I would simply add that from a religious viewpoint, I believe that the fetus is an unborn child regardless of what the Constitution and science have to say. Thus, I would come down to the same conclusion from a religious as well as purely secular consideration of the issue.
(05-02-2009 05:02 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I think we can all agree that nominating justices is one of the most lasting measures of a presidency. Call me an eternal optimist, but I believe that if Obama believes Stevens and/or Ginsberg are retiring shortly, he will lean more towards the center with this pick. Tit for tat basically. He can pick one of his ultra-liberal pals to replace Stevens and Ginsberg so he can go a little crazy on this pick, if he chooses to do so.
I'll tell you what, picking someone more in the center might help the economy.
jmho, but if he's smart, he'll push his most controversial pick now. He still has the election support, and has a VERY friendly Congress.. In 6 months or 3 years, he may or may not.
(05-03-2009 10:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2009 04:58 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]The abortion litmus test continues to disturb me, especially since both parties intently refuse to address the actual issue, which is that as a general rule there is NO good outcome to an unwanted pregnancy.
From a legal perspective, I don't think the two sides are mirror opposites. One side believes that (while the judiciary can properly resolve conflicts between statutes and the Constitution), questions on which the Constitution is essentially silent are not really judicial issues. And in those cases, the questions are appropriately decided by legislatures. This side is more than happy to see this particularly thorny question worked out in the political process. Indeed, some would argue that the very reason for having a legislature is to hash out tough policy questions, through the inexact methods of political compromise.
And in fact, other questions that involve balancing competing rights to life and death are successfully worked out in the legislative arena. For example, the question of when a person is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense against another is a tough question. Each state decides it a little bit differently, and each changes its solution from time to time. No one has ever dreamed that the Supreme Court should (let alone must) pronounce a universal, irreversible policy regarding self-defense.
Another side of the debate apparently believes that no representative body -- not Congress, not a state legislature -- should ever be allowed to make policy on the issue, because there is a chance that a representative body would not produce that particular side's preferred outcome. This side believes that even though the Constitution is essentially silent on the matter, the Court should pretend that it's not -- provided that the Court strictly adheres to this side's preferred outcome.
Of course, one way to address the Constitution's silence on a matter is to amend the Constitution. I know that's a weird concept, but I am not making this up. In fact, that's exactly the approach taken by people who wanted to abolish slavery, or ensure that 18 year olds can vote, or that Congressmen cannot raise their own pay, or that soldiers cannot be quartered in private homes. It's not an easy process -- not least because it requires persuading thousands of elected politicians to agree with you, instead of just five unaccountable lawyers. But it has the admittedly quaint virtue of being the right process.
I agree, and will make an even more controversial comment.
I Believe abortion should be legal up to a point... and I'll let doctors argue about when that should be... but I also believe it is a travesty and a moral issue. I think I have the same general opinion about abortion as I do about gay marriage and "welfare moms". If someone wants a legal abortion and isn't asking the public to pay for their choices, then I shouldn't have a say in what they do. I'm not talking about "me having to put up with their choices"... I'm talking about my money going to support their choices. Only when they FORCE me into their bedroom do I have a say... and at that point, they should be subject to the will of the majority. The majority seems to say that abortions are legal but limited. So WHY do we fight so hard over this issue?? It seems to me that the amount of money spent arguing over abortions could be better spent having people who support them pay for them for those who can't afford them and telling the people who don't want them that their money isn't being used for them.... so they have no legal standing.
(05-04-2009 11:30 AM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]Just so that everyone is clear on where I stand in this debate, I do NOT agree that the "viable being" standard is necessarily the proper standard or legally supportable, but given that we have to work in that context, I agree with the fertility clinic folks that, taken to its logical conclusion, "viability" is a matter of environment once the fertilization has occurred. Consequently, all fertilized eggs are "viable" in some context from the moment of conception.
I would disagree with this point of your argument RiceDoc in that the truly logical conclusion of such stance would be that viability also lies within the existence of healthy eggs and healthy sperm in a sexually active and monogamous pair of persons. That, logic can and does run afoul of pragmatism and thus the reason that the Catholic church stands mostly alone in opposition to contraceptives.
Furthermore, I feel you may be playing with the words here. The court and the fertility clinics are talking about two different types of viability. One is the viability to implant itself in the womb and one is the ability to live on its own. I don't believe the two can be truly linked.
I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, before Roe v. Wade. I remember how many young girls went away, either to have their baby privately or to obtain an illegal abortion. That is not a landscape i would willingly return to.
At the same time, my pro-choice status has largely been based on an inability to decide what is the point at which a fetus which may be aborted at the will of the possesor immmediately and irrevocably becomes a human being, to whom that possessor now has a duty to protect and nurture. As i grow older, I find myself moving closer and closer to the idea that human life starts at conception, not as a religious belief but as a logical one. I am not yet and probably will never be so steadfast in that belief that i think it should be law, but I cannot see any other belief that deserves to be law, so i basically ignore the issue as a political issue. I don't care if the SC Justices lean one way or the other, I care more about how they will interpret/enact other laws.
I have always found it ironic that each and every pro-abortion advocate was themself once an abortable piece of tissue. Every poster on this board, every person you come in contact with, was once a discardable fetus. I find it amazing that many people who will fight for terrorist's rights will not fight to protect those (abortable tumors/babies).
(05-04-2009 11:30 AM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]George,
While I agree with the basic premise of your post, I think you have missed an important issue here: one side of the abortion debate believes that the Constitution is NOT silent on the issue. The Fourteenth Amendment states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Given that Constitutional prohibition, the real question gets to be the definition of "any person". If the abortion candidate is "a person", then the Constitution clearly prohibits taking that candidate's life without affording the candidate due process. If the abortion candidate is not "a person", then the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply. Thus, one side says that the Constitution is NOT silent on the matter while the other side says that it is.
I have to disagree there. The 14th Amendment does not prohibit private action to take life -- that's the job of criminal laws. (The general rule in criminal law is that private person is not allowed to kill someone else, but there are a few exceptions.) The 14th Amendment restricts
state action to take life. I have never heard anyone argue that the Amendment makes private abortion unconstitutional. In fact, it's very rare for the Constitution to prohibit any acts by private individuals -- enslavement being a notable exception.
George, I understand what you are saying and that is certainly a weak link in my argument. Having said that, if you accept the argument that life begins at conception, then any state law that allows for the "abridge(ment of) the privileges and immunities (including life in one of those categories - which depends on which argument you go with)" is unconstitutional. The "without due process of law" is a specific exception carved out for the categories of life, liberty or propertyl Likewise, again presuming life begins at conception, equal protection of the laws begins then too, including the criminal laws associated with murder, manslaughter, etc. It is the state action of allowing privatized abortion that is restricted. You read that to mean only that the state itself can't do the deed; I read it to mean the state can't authorize private actors to do what the state is forbidden from doing either. Otherwise you end up with things like the states can't print legal tender, but private banks can. I know, that is an example that has lots of legal history to it which I quite frankly am NOT up on and have not researched. But I think telling states that they cannot be an actor in performing abortions but may allow others to perform abortions is not reasonable. In fact, now that I type that, it strikes me that the death penalty crowd would be interested in that debate too since the states can, under the 14th amendment, exercise the death penalty but privatized death penalties are NOT allowed. This is simply a step further away than that!
(05-04-2009 02:37 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]any state law that allows for the "abridge(ment of) the privileges and immunities (including life in one of those categories - which depends on which argument you go with)" is unconstitutional.
...
It is the state action of allowing privatized abortion that is restricted. You read that to mean only that the state itself can't do the deed; I read it to mean the state can't authorize private actors to do what the state is forbidden from doing either.
...
since the states can, under the 14th amendment, exercise the death penalty but privatized death penalties are NOT allowed. This is simply a step further away than that!
I still disagree. The 14th Amendment is not a garden-variety criminal law statute. The reason private theft (taking or property), kidnapping (taking of liberty) and homicide (taking of life) (including private executions) are illegal is not because of the 14th Amendment, but because of state and federal criminal laws on those matters. The legislatures chould change those laws if they wanted to. The notion that the 14th Amendment directly restricts private actions would be a pretty sharp departure, as would the idea that the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to criminalize particular activities.
(05-04-2009 11:30 AM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]While I agree with your general premise that, in most cases, nothing good comes from an unwanted pregnancy, I disagree with your suggestion that is the actual issue. The actual issue, as I see it, is discussed in my response to George's comment below.
"Actual issue" was sloppy wording on my part. Yes, there is an actual legal issue, and there is value in establishing what the 14th amendment does and doesn't mean.
The point I was trying to make is that the two sides of the abortion issue have spent an awful lot of time and money trying to prove that the other side is more evil than them. It's a moot point if the pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place. It would be better and easier to prevent the problem than to come to a consensus about what to do after the problem occurs.
And then we'd have to find a different hot-button issue to indignantly evaluate SCOTUS nominees with.