Future of the SC

MommyLiberty5013

thoughts after Scalia passing?

smerka

If Congress doesn't approve a nominee before November, I will voting for a Democrat.

vlagrl29

I think its sad that it went straight to politics

MommyLiberty5013

smerka said:

If Congress doesn't approve a nominee before November, I will voting for a Democrat.

Both Cruz and Rubio pointed out last night that it's been 80 years since a lame duck president appointed a SC Justice. Is this true? I have no idea. But, it's interesting if that is what the precedent happens to be.

smerka

That is true. But there is no reason Obama shouldn't nominate and get someone approved in the next 11 months. According to the Constitution, it is his job. Plus the new President's first 100 days would be occupied by this and not what he/she actually wants to get done if Obama doesn't get someone approved.

smerka

Well I'm wrong and so is Rubio. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/rubio-exaggerates-sayig-its-been-80-years-lame-duc/

labro

It was the last thing I expected to read about this weekend. I think everyone keeps expecting RBG to die or retire so when it happened to Scalia first I was in shock. I also think it's sad how fast it turned into a political game....of course it would have....it almost always does. But Scalia was the father of 9 children, he was the most senior SC judge. I feel like everyone could have shown more respect for him and then later got down to beating each other up over the nomination.

short+sassy

labro said:

It was the last thing I expected to read about this weekend. I think everyone keeps expecting RBG to die or retire so when it happened to Scalia first I was in shock. I also think it's sad how fast it turned into a political game....of course it would have....it almost always does. But Scalia was the father of 9 children, he was the most senior SC judge. I feel like everyone could have shown more respect for him and then later got down to beating each other up over the nomination.

Actually, it always immediately turns into a political game when a Supreme Court justice has to be replaced...either from retirement or a death.  Because that is the ONLY time the Executive and Legislative branches will have input into the Judicial branch.

In fact, that is one of the things that drive me nuts in elections is when politicians (from either side) will blather on and on about issues that they have ZERO control over...abortion and same sex marriage are the two biggies that come to mind.  Those fall under Supreme Court decisions.

So, when a SC judge needs to be replaced, it is a rare time when politicians will have sway over future SC rulings...first in the President's choice for a replacement and then by the Legislative branch having "yea or nay" voting power.

labro

short+sassy said:

labro said:

It was the last thing I expected to read about this weekend. I think everyone keeps expecting RBG to die or retire so when it happened to Scalia first I was in shock. I also think it's sad how fast it turned into a political game....of course it would have....it almost always does. But Scalia was the father of 9 children, he was the most senior SC judge. I feel like everyone could have shown more respect for him and then later got down to beating each other up over the nomination.

Actually, it always immediately turns into a political game when a Supreme Court justice has to be replaced...either from retirement or a death.  Because that is the ONLY time the Executive and Legislative branches will have input into the Judicial branch.

In fact, that is one of the things that drive me nuts in elections is when politicians (from either side) will blather on and on about issues that they have ZERO control over...abortion and same sex marriage are the two biggies that come to mind.  Those fall under Supreme Court decisions.

So, when a SC judge needs to be replaced, it is a rare time when politicians will have sway over future SC rulings...first in the President's choice for a replacement and then by the Legislative branch having "yea or nay" voting power.

I was incredibly disappointed in Sen. Mitch McConnell and others saying that they would block any appointees until the next President has taken office, especially so immediately after his death. I understand this is game, but honestly, it's ridiculous. Do they plan to continue to sit on their hands in the event a Democrat is elected president?

hoffse

I have to say, I had to stay away from FB for most of the weekend because some people's reactions to his passing were absolutely appalling.  Some of my "friends" were actually celebrating. One person posted "Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead."  I unfriended them.

Of course it's deeply political, and he needs to be replaced eventually - but they could have at least waited until he was in the ground.

I'll also say that I disagreed with him on several issues, but that man was a brilliant jurist.  He's the author of some of the best legal writing in the last 100 years.  In law school I used to read his dissents first because they usually helped me better understand the majority position.  Plus, they were really entertaining.  The man had a very keen sense of humor.  I actually cried this weekend when I learned he was gone, because I realized he would never pen another fiery dissent.  The thought of never reading another one was very upsetting for me, my H, and other attorneys I know.  

By all accounts he was well-loved and well-respected from the people who knew him.  His best friend on the Court was RBG, even though they were political opposites.  He treated his clerks well (I know a couple of them).  He was a brilliant legal scholar, and he could give any legal historian a run for their money.  Agree with him or not, our country lost somebody profoundly intelligent, thoughtful, and kind this weekend.  To see people celebrate it made me realize how skewed our politics have gotten.

As for a republican or democrat appointee, it makes no difference to me. The media would have you think that most Supreme Court decisions are split 5-4, but they are not.  Most are unanimous, and they have gotten increasingly unanimous in recent years.  They split on only a handful of big cases per year, and most of the time those "big" cases are only big to the legal community, not to everybody else.  Plus they can overrule themselves.  That's about to happen with Quill (goodbye tax-free Amazon sales).

Much of the time the Supreme Court is looking at issues based on the law as it currently is, which makes Congress' role more important IMO.  Sometimes they they decide issues based on a constitutional question, and their position is more a product of how they understand constitutional philosophy than whether they are a democrat or republican.  

And let's not forget that every question that is posed to them is in the context of surrounding facts.  Very often the facts muddy the legal question.  It's rare to have a pure legal question posed to the court, where the facts of the case don't qualify their answer in some way.

Put it all together, and we have very few truly groundbreaking decisions that forever change our legal landscape.  That is not to say that never happens - just look at what Brown v. Board of Education did - but these truly monumental decisions seem to come around only once or twice a decade.

Ultimately, a lot of what the Supreme Court decides can be overruled by Congress simply by tweaking their own statutes.  People don't realize this, but Congress often fixes things the Supreme Court strikes down.  And for those few things that don't have a statutory work-around, Congress and the people still hold the trump card by way of constitutional amendment.  This is why we have a federal income tax.  The Supreme Court originally struck it down as unconstitutional, so we amended the constitution to permit it. 

hoffse

short+sassy said:

Actually, it always immediately turns into a political game when a Supreme Court justice has to be replaced...either from retirement or a death.  Because that is the ONLY time the Executive and Legislative branches will have input into the Judicial branch.

In fact, that is one of the things that drive me nuts in elections is when politicians (from either side) will blather on and on about issues that they have ZERO control over...abortion and same sex marriage are the two biggies that come to mind.  Those fall under Supreme Court decisions.

So, when a SC judge needs to be replaced, it is a rare time when politicians will have sway over future SC rulings...first in the President's choice for a replacement and then by the Legislative branch having "yea or nay" voting power.

No, the President appoints and the Senate confirms every single federal judge out there - that's all district court and circuit court judges, in addition to the Supreme Court.  Every state has at least one judicial district.  Many have more than one.  Each district has multiple federal judges that serve it.

Actually, if people want to fight the political fight over judges, they should focus on the circuit court judges instead of the Supreme Court.  They have the final say in 99.9% of court cases that get appealed. 

hoffse

This is what should be important right now, instead of fighting over who is going to take his place:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_02_14-16