quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It's not Gorsuch I refer to, but the purists in the hinterlands who demand a vote on repealng Obamacare every day, who demand Congress do something on every issue they face, even when effective action is hopeless, because the votes weren't there, who howl with disgust and outrage at any compromise and refuse to support the weak kneed bowelless sissies who dare to vote for such travesties, who demand the President conduct all out war against anyone of either party who can't or won't toe their line. These citizens either reject the notion, or have never heard it, that politics is the art of the possible.

Your description above aptly describes both the progressive/extreme left democrats as well as the extreme republicans. Some day many of us will look back and remark that we survived the Obama administration, and that it was a wild time in the US history. That is almost all of us except for the 10+ officers that were assassinated by haters inspired by the BLM and Obama.

Gorsuch is a more than worthy successor to Scalia.

Ginsberg and Breyer need to retire soon.

They look tired, they need a long vacation, enjoy life. Maybe Kennedy can retire and give a protege a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Gorsuch is a more than worthy successor to Scalia.
Ginsberg and Breyer need to retire soon.
They look tired, they need a long vacation, enjoy life. Maybe Kennedy can retire and give a protege a chance.

Term limits?

A new role: The retired justice

President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court has inaugurated a predictable political battle. As with all such Supreme Court nominations, the public debate has been bitter and heated. Some Democratic senators have already promised to use the filibuster to fight or even block Gorsuch's appointment, just as the Republican Party blocked consideration of President Barack Obama's choice for the vacant seat.

Yet there is a way to cool down the debate on this and all future Supreme Court nominations. As part of a deal between both parties allowing Gorsuch's nomination to go forward without a filibuster, Congress could pass a constitutional amendment limiting all Supreme Court justices' time on the bench to a set term of 18 years.

Individuals across the political spectrum, from liberal legal scholar professor Erwin Cherminsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law, to conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, have already noted the benefits of such an amendment. Most important, this amendment will prevent justices from practicing "strategic retirement," that is, retiring only when they can hand off their seat to the president and political party of their choosing.

Right now every new appointment to the court is fraught not only because of the time a single justice spends on the bench, but because, if a justice is able to hand off their seat to a like-minded justice, he or she could help shape the court for generations.

The explosive political crisis following Justice Antonin Scalia's death, one of the few deaths as opposed to retirements in recent Supreme Court history, shows what happens when the expectations of strategic retirement are upset. It provided Democrats one of their few opportunities to change the political complexion of the court, and Republicans reacted with particular vigor against the possibility of losing the "conservative" seat. A set time for retirement, by contrast, would make long-term liberal and conservative seats impossible.

A constitutional amendment is necessary because the founders could not imagine our modern world of judicial retirement. This is not merely because medical advances have allowed judges to enjoy longer and healthier lives, but because the founders did not predict our system of retirement pay for judges.

When the Constitution was first passed, there was no provision for judicial retirement, and most justices remained on the bench to collect their full salaries until the day they died. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said he did not think judicial pensions would be "expedient" in a new democracy. Yet, over the next two centuries, pensions were adopted and expanded to encourage elderly judges to leave the bench.

According to professor Artemus Ward of Northern Illinois University, deaths on the U.S. Supreme Court were still the norm up until 1954 when Congress agreed to protect all judges' full pensions at the same rate as their salary. Immediately afterward, deaths on the court became the rare exception, and retirement the new normal.

Scholars estimate that up to 70 percent of U.S. Supreme Court retirements since the 1950s have been strategic. Since we are not returning to an era before judicial pensions, an amendment providing limited terms for justices is the only way to prevent this new manipulation of retirement.

Lifetime appointments to high courts are rare in other countries and exist in none of our states. A constitutional amendment ensuring that each appointment to the Supreme Court would have only 18 years to run, and that a death or early retirement would only allow a replacement to fill out the remaining years of the term, would defuse the more strident debates about judicial nominations to our highest court. It would also prevent the court from becoming locked in persistent ideological divides for generations.

Judge Glock is a visiting professor at the College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20170207-story.html

Congress can't pass Constitutional Amendments, only pass proposals, Professor. Those must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I just want Gorsuch to follow the damn constitution and not make up or twist words to force his decisions to reach the outcome he desires. Wherever that may lead.

You mean you don't want Gorsuch to be another Rogers Roberts?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SapperSteel,

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I just want Gorsuch to follow the damn constitution and not make up or twist words to force his decisions to reach the outcome he desires. Wherever that may lead.

You mean you don't want Gorsuch to be another Rogers?

If you mean Roberts, yes

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Congress can't pass Constitutional Amendments, only pass proposals, Professor. Those must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.

Right, JALLEN.
A two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate PLUS three-fourths of the States is a high hurdle....

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

https://www.archives.gov/feder...egister/constitution

Age of Justices

Ginsberg 84
Kennedy 80
Breyer 78
Thomas 68
Alito 67
Sotomayor62
Roberts 62
Kagan 56
Gorsuch 49

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Congress can't pass Constitutional Amendments, only pass proposals, Professor. Those must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.

So much for the prof's hopes to go down in history as the man who rationalized America.

Like they used to say at IBM: RTFM!

This article may shed some light on why Schumer thought he had a chance to win.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...such/article/2007596

Yet in the days before floor debate began, his nomination was in jeopardy. Three Republican senators wouldn't commit to vote for the "nuclear option" to prevent a Democratic filibuster from blocking Gorsuch's confirmation.

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both pro-choice on abortion, raised the fear that ending the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee could lead to an anti-abortion majority on the court.

Bob Corker of Tennessee had a different concern. He "waved the banner of tradition," a lobbyist said. He defended the filibuster as a worthy tradition of the Senate that promotes compromise and bipartisanship. Killing the filibuster in Supreme Court nominations could lead to eliminating it entirely, even in debates over legislation. McConnell insists this won't happen.

At the heart of the turmoil sat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He sought to make a deal with the holdouts. If they joined all 48 Democrats and voted against the nuclear option, he would allow Gorsuch to be confirmed.

Then, if Trump picked a second nominee, one who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the three Republicans and the Democrats could use the filibuster to block the nominee's confirmation. Or something like that. The precise terms of a deal are unclear. But "there was no deal that could be made that wasn't a bad deal," McConnell says.

Though it created anxiety in the Gorsuch camp, the proposed deal went nowhere. Actually it never materialized at all. The offer to let Gorsuch sail through was unconvincing since he was likely to be confirmed with or without Schumer's help.

Schumer is a PROVEN liar. There should never be any "deals" made with him.

As for Collins ugg...why dosen't she just come out and say she is a democrat? I lived a long time in Maine and it disgusts me that she is a senator. I used to write her letters when gun control bills came up and I always got the same canned response. "As a lifelong Mainer who grew up hunting...blah blah blah, but..." there was always a "but". She needs to go away.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
This article may shed some light on why Schumer thought he had a chance to win.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...such/article/2007596

Yet in the days before floor debate began, his nomination was in jeopardy. Three Republican senators wouldn't commit to vote for the "nuclear option" to prevent a Democratic filibuster from blocking Gorsuch's confirmation.

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both pro-choice on abortion, raised the fear that ending the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee could lead to an anti-abortion majority on the court.

Bob Corker of Tennessee had a different concern. He "waved the banner of tradition," a lobbyist said. He defended the filibuster as a worthy tradition of the Senate that promotes compromise and bipartisanship. Killing the filibuster in Supreme Court nominations could lead to eliminating it entirely, even in debates over legislation. McConnell insists this won't happen.

At the heart of the turmoil sat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He sought to make a deal with the holdouts. If they joined all 48 Democrats and voted against the nuclear option, he would allow Gorsuch to be confirmed.

Then, if Trump picked a second nominee, one who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the three Republicans and the Democrats could use the filibuster to block the nominee's confirmation. Or something like that. The precise terms of a deal are unclear. But "there was no deal that could be made that wasn't a bad deal," McConnell says.

Though it created anxiety in the Gorsuch camp, the proposed deal went nowhere. Actually it never materialized at all. The offer to let Gorsuch sail through was unconvincing since he was likely to be confirmed with or without Schumer's help.

This reveals expressly the sole issue that has dominated Federal Court nominations for the last 40 years, the horrifying prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade.

There has been a cabal of Senators, mostly Democrats, who have refused to consider anyone for a federal judgeship who might consider the possibility of hearing or thinking about any hint or suggestion that the ruling might be revisited, weakened, watered down or dissented from. Each candidate has been scrutinized very thoroughly, writings, opinions, speeches, associations, education, religion, for any signs that any such thought might receive a sympathetic ear.

From Bork to the present, they have refused uncompromisingly to allow anyone to be confirmed who might be unsound on this point, regardless of party or other factor.

Besides that, anyone who makes a deal with Schumer is a fool.

^^^^
Exactly JALLEN. Just more proof that no matter what they say the democrats regard the courts as a political body to be controlled and not arbitors of the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This reveals expressly the sole issue that has dominated Federal Court nominations for the last 40 years, the horrifying prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Exactly. And my personal opinion (IANAL) is that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed decision. I don't have a pony in the show, but I think it probably should be overturned.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This reveals expressly the sole issue that has dominated Federal Court nominations for the last 40 years, the horrifying prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Exactly. And my personal opinion (IANAL) is that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed decision. I don't have a pony in the show, but I think it probably should be overturned.

flashguy

That may explain the intensity of the effort to be certain no judge will ever have any hint of sympathy to consider dong so, whether it is Constitutionally suspect or not.

The last time we saw intensity like this in the Senate was the civil rights battles pitched by Senators from the old Confederacy.

quote:

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both pro-choice on abortion, raised the fear that ending the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee could lead to an anti-abortion majority on the court.

Didn't they already have just such a majority prior to Judge Scalia passing?

I guess they fear the Republicans will act as they do, installing their own version of Sotomayor/sycophant and that possibility scares the shit out of them.

quote:

Originally posted by 83v45magna:

quote:

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both pro-choice on abortion, raised the fear that ending the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee could lead to an anti-abortion majority on the court.

Didn't they already have just such a majority prior to Judge Scalia passing?

Nobody can say for sure, of course. It might depend on the exact question presented.

I think most Court watchers and entrail inspectors thought there were 4 votes supporting the present Roe v. Wade. Where the rest might end up was less clear, IIRC, but all it takes is one.

The religious make up of the Court has been 6 Roman Catholics, 3 Jewish. Scalia was, of course, a Roman Catholic. Gorsuch apparently was raised Catholic but attends Episcopalian services.

For the record, 'deal making' like that described above is not deal making, its colluding with the enemy. Either they (Collins and Murkowski) are Republicans acting with the GOP, or Dem's acting against it.

We need a much larger senate majority after the 2018 elections so that the opinions, votes, and very existence of Dem's masquerading as Repub's (i.e. Collins and Murkowski) can be excluded from the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by 83v45magna:

quote:

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both pro-choice on abortion, raised the fear that ending the filibuster of Supreme Court nominee could lead to an anti-abortion majority on the court.

Didn't they already have just such a majority prior to Judge Scalia passing?

Nobody can say for sure, of course. It might depend on the exact question presented.

I think most Court watchers and entrail inspectors thought there were 4 votes supporting the present Roe v. Wade. Where the rest might end up was less clear, IIRC, but all it takes is one.

The religious make up of the Court has been 6 Roman Catholics, 3 Jewish. Scalia was, of course, a Roman Catholic. Gorsuch apparently was raised Catholic but attends Episcopalian services.

I'm asking for a personal opinion here. Do you actually think, even if Ginsberg were to be replaced in a year or so with a solid conservative justice, that the court, even with that conservative majority make up, would find it in themselves to overturn Roe Vs. Wade? I too believe Roe Vs. Wade was a terrible ruling, but I do not believe even that court would have the courage to overturn it. Roberts in the BarryCare decision seemed to place some weight on the impact of SCOTUS decisions on the public. That leads me to wonder if the Chief Justice would ever agree to overturn a decision as far reaching as Roe Vs. Wade has become.

Your thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
^^^^
Exactly JALLEN. Just more proof that no matter what they say the democrats regard the courts as a political body to be controlled and not arbitors of the constitution.

Oh don't kid yourself, just as many Republicans want the court to support their political agendas, and while they spout belief in the law and Constitution, they really want political results.

Both sides are equally guilty of that nonsense.