quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
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.

Actually, they're supposed to be individuals representing their constituents, and their constituents are NOT the entire party.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by toms:
I hope Judge Gorsuch has both long life and memory.

And that he will hold a grudge over what he has been put through by the commie leftists!

If he does, they picked the wrong guy.

JAllen is right. Judges don't make decisions that way. And they shouldn't.

+1

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.

Yes. Just 1 or 2 SCOTUS appointments by Hitlery would have turned the House and Senate into window dressing, as the Left would legislate everything through the court system.



.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
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?

The federal judiciary has been pretty much purged of those who might be philosophically sympathetic to over turning it, I would think, given the antics described above.

It's not up to the Chief Justice. It is "one man, one vote." He might be a persuasive rascal, and be able to convince others that it is settled law, time to move on and tend to other issues, or maybe not. It takes 4 Justices to take a case. They only decide ~70 cases a year with full opinion after argument.

As much as we like to think of these cases as reflecting the right law, logically following fixed principles which have only to be recognized, stated and applied, it is true, and has been, that the Supreme Court follows the election returns, often at a respectful lagging distance. Koremstsu comes to mind, Plessey v. Ferguson, cases that have come to be regarded as aberrational, but in the spirit of the times.

Maybe the pendulum will swing the other way for awhile. If you have the votes they do things your way, eventually.

Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-)

but now,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...or-opposing-gorsuch/

On April 7 the NRA made clear Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) can count on facing an advertising onslaught during his re-election campaign because of his decision to vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

Tester is one of the red state Democrats whom the NRA put on notice prior to the confirmation vote.

Tester voted against Gorsuch. And the NRA is making the case that Tester voted against protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans in the process.

Here is my thoughts on SCOTUS and how their rulings are generally biased by political ideals...

So many of the cases come down to 5-4 or 6-3 splits, and usually along political ideologies. These are supposedly the most learned legal minds, appointed for life and the final arbiter of major issues. Yet more often than not, the decisions reached could be settled by a simple coin toss and statistically reach the same outcome.

One of the things that really struck me during Justice Gorsuch's (boy I like the sound of that!...) hearings was that the 10th circuit rulings were unanimous something like 97%of the time and that he was on the majority 99% of the time. This is what I would expect from a legitimate Supreme Court who honestly ruled based on equal application of law, mostly unanimous or near unanimous outcomes such as 8-1 or 7-2.

To me, a Supreme Court split of 5-4 (regardless of which side I agree with...) means that at least half of them aren't qualified and shouldn't be there.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Here is my thoughts on SCOTUS and how their rulings are generally biased by political ideals...

So many of the cases come down to 5-4 or 6-3 splits, and usually along political ideologies. These are supposedly the most learned legal minds, appointed for life and the final arbiter of major issues. Yet more often than not, the decisions reached could be settled by a simple coin toss and statistically reach the same outcome.

One of the things that really struck me during Justice Gorsuch's (boy I like the sound of that!...) hearings was that the 10th circuit rulings were unanimous something like 97%of the time and that he was on the majority 99% of the time. This is what I would expect from a legitimate Supreme Court who honestly ruled based on equal application of law, mostly unanimous or near unanimous outcomes such as 8-1 or 7-2.

To me, a Supreme Court split of 5-4 (regardless of which side I agree with...) means that at least half of them aren't qualified and shouldn't be there.

I'm surprised there aren't more decided in a 5-4 split. The cases at the Supreme level raise important Constitutional issues, very often because the circuits have come to different results on the same issue. These typically involve picking between two or more important values that conflict.

An example is Miranda, which brought the value of efficient law enforcement up against fair trial, right to counsel, due process values. Which do we want? Someone has to chose. There is no one answer that is Constitutional and no others. Those are the easy one! Reasonable men disagree, even learned judges, which should take priority in which circumstances.

The Supreme Court Will Always Split 5-4

Everyone knows that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court often divides 5-4 -- an even split between liberals and conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the swing vote. But here's a puzzle. Over recent decades, and under many different chief justices, the share of 5-4 splits in the Court's docket has been fairly constant -- on average, in the vicinity of 20 percent.

Is the Court always split between liberals and conservatives, or is there some other explanation?

Before trying to answer this, we need to look at the data. Since 1981, there have been four years that stand out for an unusually high rate of 5-4 splits: In 1986, 1989, 2000 and 2006, around 30 percent of court decisions were divided that way. Four other years in the same period show an unusually low rate: In 1984, 1987, 1991 and 2005, less than 15 percent of decisions were 5-4 splits.

But those are the outlier years, and given the relatively small number of cases, it would be a mistake to make much of them. In the other 23 years, 5-4 splits fell in the narrow range between more than 15 percent and 25 percent or less. Over the past three decades, there has been no substantial trend toward either fewer or more 5-4 splits -- or even any sustained period during which the percentage of 5-4 splits was unusually high or low.

Extend the viewscreen back to 1946, and you see broadly similar patterns. From 1946 to 1980, 5-4 splits often ranged from 15 percent to 25 percent.

A potential explanation for this relative consistency over more than six decades is that both Democratic and Republican presidents appoint justices, and unless one party dominates the presidency for a sustained period, the Court will be pretty evenly divided between Democratic and Republican appointees. Since 2009, for instance, the Court has included five justices appointed by Republican presidents (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) and four appointed by Democrats (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor).

The problem with this explanation is that for most of the past three decades, the Court has been dominated by Republican appointees. In 1981, the Court had just two Democratic appointees (Thurgood Marshall and Byron White) and seven Republican ones (Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Warren Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens). In 2001, a similar 7-2 split favored Republican appointees. In other words, the percentage of 5-4 splits has not significantly declined when presidents of one party have been able to select most of the Court's members.

Which bring us to another explanation: The Court has been evenly divided on ideological grounds in part because Republican presidents have, intentionally or not, made some liberal or moderate choices. There is no question that Brennan (an Eisenhower appointee) and Blackmun (a Nixon appointee) showed quite liberal voting patterns. And many Republicans were disappointed by Stevens (a Ford appointee) and David Souter (named by George H.W. Bush). Maybe the persistent 5-4 divisions reflect persistent ideological divisions within the Court.

There is something to this explanation, but it is not adequate. To see why, imagine that over the next decade, the only two justices to retire are the liberals Breyer and Ginsburg, and that they are replaced by people who tend to agree with Scalia and Thomas. In that event, the Court would have six conservatives, and its center of gravity would shift sharply to the right. Would we see a reduction in 5-4 decisions? Don't be sure, because lawyers and lower court judges are alert to the Court's composition. If it became dominated by conservatives, we would see a very different set of rulings from the lower courts, whose judges are not inclined to make a lot of decisions that are likely to be reversed.

The point is that the cases that the Court hears will always consist, in large part, of issues that are difficult not in the abstract but in light of the Court's particular composition. In the modern era, a significant number of 5-4 decisions is likely -- at least if the justices are not working hard to suppress internal dissent (as they did before the 1940s), and if lower courts are not systematically ignoring the Court's thinking.

It follows that any Supreme Court will probably seem "evenly divided" in a significant number of important cases. In a hierarchical legal system, the Court will end up hearing disputes that are likely to split its current members -- even if their ideology changes radically over time.

This is the first of two essays.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg View's editorial board or Bloomberg LP, its owners and investors.



Link

Gorsuch will be sworn in as the Supreme Court’s 101st associate justice on Monday.

Chief Justice John Roberts is set to administer the Constitutional Oath in a private ceremony at 9 a.m.

Justice Anthony Kennedy will administer the oath at a public ceremony at the White House later in the morning.

http://thehill.com/regulation/...upreme-court-justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch will become the court’s most junior member.

Before the election and his nomination by President Trump to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch had a lesson from current junior justice Elena Kagan

At an event in Colorado last September, Kagan was being interviewed by Gorsuch and Timothy M. Tymkovich, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and described what it was like to serve as the most junior justice of the Supreme Court.

Kagan said the junior justice is assigned to the monthly cafeteria committee until the next justice is confirmed. The committee helps decide the meals for when the justices dine together during oral arguments.

Kagan said the role is “a way to kind of humble people.”

“You think you’re kind of hot stuff. You’re an important person. You’ve just been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court,”

“And now you are going to monthly cafeteria committee meetings where literally the agenda is what happened to the good recipe for the chocolate chip cookies.”

The junior justice also takes notes when the justices meet alone to discuss what cases to take and vote on.

The third task, which Kagan called the “most important junior justice responsibility”: They must open the door.

“Literally if I’m like in the middle of a sentence — let’s say it’s my turn to speak or something — and there’s a knock on the door, everybody will just stare at me, waiting for me to open the door," she said.

Kagan will pass the torch on to Gorsuch

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
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.

Actually, they're supposed to be individuals representing their constituents, and their constituents are NOT the entire party.

Then they and their damn constituents need to join the other party if their goal is to perpetuate the collapse of this country.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Gorsuch will be sworn in as the Supreme Court’s 101st associate justice on Monday.

Chief Justice John Roberts is set to administer the Constitutional Oath in a private ceremony at 9 a.m.

Justice Anthony Kennedy will administer the oath at a public ceremony at the White House later in the morning.

http://thehill.com/regulation/...upreme-court-justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch will become the court’s most junior member.

Before the election and his nomination by President Trump to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch had a lesson from current junior justice Elena Kagan

At an event in Colorado last September, Kagan was being interviewed by Gorsuch and Timothy M. Tymkovich, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and described what it was like to serve as the most junior justice of the Supreme Court.

Kagan said the junior justice is assigned to the monthly cafeteria committee until the next justice is confirmed. The committee helps decide the meals for when the justices dine together during oral arguments.

Kagan said the role is “a way to kind of humble people.”

“You think you’re kind of hot stuff. You’re an important person. You’ve just been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court,”

“And now you are going to monthly cafeteria committee meetings where literally the agenda is what happened to the good recipe for the chocolate chip cookies.”

The junior justice also takes notes when the justices meet alone to discuss what cases to take and vote on.

The third task, which Kagan called the “most important junior justice responsibility”: They must open the door.

“Literally if I’m like in the middle of a sentence — let’s say it’s my turn to speak or something — and there’s a knock on the door, everybody will just stare at me, waiting for me to open the door," she said.

Kagan will pass the torch on to Gorsuch

This made me chuckle. Never would've guessed they haze the rookie.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Kagan will pass the torch on to Gorsuch

Maybe they should leave the arrangement as it is given this is probably a better use of Kagan's 'capabilities'.

She can make sandwiches.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
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.

Actually, they're supposed to be individuals representing their constituents, and their constituents are NOT the entire party.

Then they and their damn constituents need to join the other party if their goal is to perpetuate the collapse of this country.

That's a nonsense argument. Just because someone doesn't support 100% of the GOP agenda, does not mean their goal is to "perpetuate the collapse of this country." It's not my goal to "perpetuate the collapse of this country," but I don't agree with everything that is part of the GOP agenda.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that if someone is not 100% aligned with the GOP, that they then are trying to destroy the entire country.

Sounds like bullying to me.

Can't they get a page or something to handle the door? Maybe a stenographer to take notes?

I'd like to think our justices time can be better spent than figuring out healthy menu choices...

Well with any luck he will not be the juinor justice for long.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Sounds like bullying to me.

Can't they get a page or something to handle the door? Maybe a stenographer to take notes?

I'd like to think our justices time can be better spent than figuring out healthy menu choices...

Only the Justices are permitted in Conference. No one else.

quote:

“And now you are going to monthly cafeteria committee meetings where literally the agenda is what happened to the good recipe for the chocolate chip cookies.”

Actually... if you like to eat, that committee might not be so bad....

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-)

but now,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...or-opposing-gorsuch/

On April 7 the NRA made clear Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) can count on facing an advertising onslaught during his re-election campaign because of his decision to vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

Tester is one of the red state Democrats whom the NRA put on notice prior to the confirmation vote.

Tester voted against Gorsuch. And the NRA is making the case that Tester voted against protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans in the process.

I sent Tester a letter urging him to vote for Gorsuch's confirmation, but he (his staff) e-mailed back that his constituents are largely in favor of blocking his appointment to the SCOTUS. Bullshit, and fuck Tester. I can't wait for his re-election campaign to begin and the current campaign to replace Zinke in the House - there's a battle brewing between 7 Republicans Republican and at least 8 Dimocrats - including front running poet/musician Quist.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Well with any luck he will not be the juinor justice for long.

Amen!