|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 29, 2022 1:07:03 GMT -5
The fact is that Manchin and Sinema both have voted for everyone of POTUS' judiciary nominations of which there have been a great deal. There is no reason to believe this time will be any different. In particular since it is likely that POTUS will nominate someone who has already survived one nomination process.
Absent ill health on the part of any of the current justices this is likely the last appointment until after 2024 when Thomas will be 76 and Alito 74 and they may begin to consider retirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 29, 2022 12:27:04 GMT -5
If you buy that argument, then Judge Kobes is unconstitutionally sitting on the Eighth Circuit because Pence cast his tie breaking confirmation vote, since there’s no constitutional basis that any Article III judge should have a different rule. And, frankly, I don’t buy that argument. I'm not saying I buy the argument. I don't actually even remember this ever being debated, but I guess that's because none of the SCOTUS votes were that close. It would just be fun to see if a whole bunch of politicians or legal scholars would suddenly change their opinion based on who was doing the voting (the way the filibuster went from essential to a threat to democracy with a single election). |
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jan 29, 2022 22:41:04 GMT -5
I don’t think Manchin and Sinema would break ranks; they’ve voted for almost all of Biden’s nominees, some of whom have been ridiculously unqualified and left-wing, like that horrible Lhamon fool at Education.
Interestingly, there’s still the filibuster. Confirmations only take a majority vote now, but remember that the committees are equally divided. Meaning that if the Judiciary Republicans all vote no, then there needs to be a motion to discharge the committee. That’s not a confirmation vote, it’s an ordinary motion. Which can be filibustered.
Even so, I don’t see a big controversy being made about it. I’m as conservative a Republican as anyone, and I’d be fine with a liberal replacing Breyer if they’re qualified.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 29, 2022 23:29:22 GMT -5
Tribe has some pretty weird legal arguments these days. He would argue Pence couldn't and Harris can. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 29, 2022 23:32:52 GMT -5
Sinema and Manchin will vote to confirm the next justice, unless a video of her stabbing someone to death turns up. Those two can repair some damage with their caucus with those votes without suffering much back home, especially if one or two Republicans also vote yes.
Prediction: No other retirements until 2025.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 30, 2022 7:04:17 GMT -5
If you buy that argument, then Judge Kobes is unconstitutionally sitting on the Eighth Circuit because Pence cast his tie breaking confirmation vote, since there’s no constitutional basis that any Article III judge should have a different rule. And, frankly, I don’t buy that argument. Why not? The tie breaking language is in Article I but is absent in Article II. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jan 30, 2022 8:55:41 GMT -5
If you buy that argument, then Judge Kobes is unconstitutionally sitting on the Eighth Circuit because Pence cast his tie breaking confirmation vote, since there’s no constitutional basis that any Article III judge should have a different rule. And, frankly, I don’t buy that argument. Why not? The tie breaking language is in Article I but is absent in Article II. Pixie Because A2 simply states that advice and constant of the Senate is necessary (except for treaties which require 2/3 for consent). How that happens is an A1 issue. A1 states, related to the composition of the Senate: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” So, consent, when the Senate is equally divided, means the President of the Senate gets a vote. Notable here is also that consent for treaties requires 2/3 of the Senate, which eliminates the prospect of an equally divided Senate. Also notable is that the VP vote provision is not under the legislative process portion of the senate in A1, but rather under the general provisions of how the Senate is constructed. Either of those could have been chosen. Rather, the Framers put the VP vote provision in the general Senate procedure and made consent for appointments a majority vote (cloture is obviously by Senate rule, so we really don’t need to go there, as it isn’t constitutional). So no, by text and structure, I don’t buy it. |
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Jan 30, 2022 13:35:39 GMT -5
The vote is not going to be 50/50. See interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Graham (R-S.C.) — a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to endorse J. Michelle Childs, a U.S. District Court judge in his home state of South Carolina. He also said she was very well qualified and not an affirmative action vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jan 31, 2022 6:48:53 GMT -5
It's going to be Judge Jackson.
|
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on Jan 31, 2022 7:17:19 GMT -5
A Man thinks Merrick Garland has been cheated his chance and must be considered, even if he must change his face to do so. The many faced God can help him do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 31, 2022 8:36:54 GMT -5
Why not? The tie breaking language is in Article I but is absent in Article II. Pixie Because A2 simply states that advice and constant of the Senate is necessary (except for treaties which require 2/3 for consent). How that happens is an A1 issue. A1 states, related to the composition of the Senate: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” So, consent, when the Senate is equally divided, means the President of the Senate gets a vote. Notable here is also that consent for treaties requires 2/3 of the Senate, which eliminates the prospect of an equally divided Senate. Also notable is that the VP vote provision is not under the legislative process portion of the senate in A1, but rather under the general provisions of how the Senate is constructed. Either of those could have been chosen. Rather, the Framers put the VP vote provision in the general Senate procedure and made consent for appointments a majority vote (cloture is obviously by Senate rule, so we really don’t need to go there, as it isn’t constitutional). So no, by text and structure, I don’t buy it. I'm mulling it over in my deliberative way. I'm tending to agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 31, 2022 11:48:52 GMT -5
The vote is not going to be 50/50. See interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Graham (R-S.C.) — a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to endorse J. Michelle Childs, a U.S. District Court judge in his home state of South Carolina. He also said she was very well qualified and not an affirmative action vote. Getting a confirmation hearing is at least half the real battle here, so the fact that Graham sees one happening is good news for Ds. Of course, as pointed out above, the Rs could still filibuster this in committee. Therefore, the matter really lays with Mitch McConnell, who can tell us if it is an OK time to have a confirmation hearing, or if the founders had secretly forbidden confirmation hearings within 9 months of a mid term when it’s the year of the rat and Aquarius is no longer in retrograde. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jan 31, 2022 14:35:32 GMT -5
Sorry, I forgot to put this vacancy in Plan B, other jobs.
However, everyone seems to know about this. Note: No actual client or litigation experience required! (Ask Justice Barrett). And if you're rejected, you are notified in a timely fashion!
Of course the final interview(s) can be a bit harsh, but what bennies and perqs! And once in the job is yours for as long as you can keep hanging on.
Which brings to mind: there are permanent law clerk positions with the US Courts (and some state courts). You aren't a judge but you get to write, and some who've done it say it's not an overly arduous gig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 31, 2022 23:34:13 GMT -5
The vote is not going to be 50/50. See interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Graham (R-S.C.) — a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to endorse J. Michelle Childs, a U.S. District Court judge in his home state of South Carolina. He also said she was very well qualified and not an affirmative action vote. Getting a confirmation hearing is at least half the real battle here, so the fact that Graham sees one happening is good news for Ds. Of course, as pointed out above, the Rs could still filibuster this in committee. Therefore, the matter really lays with Mitch McConnell, who can tell us if it is an OK time to have a confirmation hearing, or if the founders had secretly forbidden confirmation hearings within 9 months of a mid term when it’s the year of the rat and Aquarius is no longer in retrograde. Had to give it an upvote; it made me laugh. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 1, 2022 2:32:29 GMT -5
A Man thinks Merrick Garland has been cheated his chance and must be considered, even if he must change his face to do so. The many faced God can help him do this. Garland wanted to be AG for whatever fool reason and thus the ship has sailed on him being on SCOTUS. Also at 69 years old he is too seasoned. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 1, 2022 2:47:35 GMT -5
I don’t think Manchin and Sinema would break ranks; they’ve voted for almost all of Biden’s nominees, some of whom have been ridiculously unqualified and left-wing, like that horrible Lhamon fool at Education. You mean Amherst and Yale graduate Catherine Lhamon, who clerked for a Federal judge, worked for the ACLU for a decade, served as Assistant Secretary of Education in the Obama administration for 2 & 1/2 years, and then served on the Commission on Civil Rights before returning as Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights? I mean the last Secretary of Education held no advanced degrees and other that being richer than Midas had no expertise or other qualifications that would qualify her to run a government agency much less the Department of Education. So maybe Catherine Lhamon is really qualified for her current position and you just don't like her politics which is your right. However, let's not mistake political opinion for facts. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 1, 2022 11:55:18 GMT -5
I worked for Catherine Lhamon earlier in my career. Of course she is well educated and extremely bright. She was also a pleasure to work for--kind, considerate and pleasant. She only got confirmed to return to Education last summer when VP Harris cast a tie-breaking vote because under her leadership, she distorted Title IX enforcement from where it was under her Obama predecessor. Without arguing the merits here (let's avoid politics), it was very controversial, spurred hundreds of lawsuits, and created a cottage industry in Title IX administrators on college campuses (the day I heard from Bob, I was in talks with a university about taking such a job).
Not every smart person makes a good Supreme Court nominee. If one Democrat said no, she wouldn't be confirmed. Some who voted for her last summer might not in an election year. POTUS will nominate someone who gets confirmed without controversy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Feb 1, 2022 12:47:02 GMT -5
I worked for Catherine Lhamon earlier in my career. Of course she is well educated and extremely bright. She was also a pleasure to work for--kind, considerate and pleasant. She only got confirmed to return to Education last summer when VP Harris cast a tie-breaking vote because under her leadership, she distorted Title IX enforcement from where it was under her Obama predecessor. Without arguing the merits here (let's avoid politics), it was very controversial, spurred hundreds of lawsuits, and created a cottage industry in Title IX administrators on college campuses (the day I heard from Bob, I was in talks with a university about taking such a job). Not every smart person makes a good Supreme Court nominee. If one Democrat said no, she wouldn't be confirmed. Some who voted for her last summer might not in an election year. POTUS will nominate someone who gets confirmed without controversy. Oh it won't be her. I was responding to the attack on her as unqualified for her position at Ed. I think it will almost certainly be Judge Kentaji Brown Jackson. I will be extremely happy if that is the choice. As an aside I think the biggest failure of the Justices as a group is that they do not hire clerks from State Schools or even law schools that aren't that top tier. It diminishes the pipeline into the judiciary to a garden hose. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 1, 2022 15:27:25 GMT -5
@gaidin You described the reason why second-tier alums don't get SC clerkships in your comment on Catherine Lhamon: She went to Amherst and Yale. Face it--this country is enamored with Skull and Bones, not the Rambling Wreck.
If Biden nominates me, I promise to get all my clerks from University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School, where POTUS attended!
|
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Feb 1, 2022 18:13:20 GMT -5
I don’t think Manchin and Sinema would break ranks; they’ve voted for almost all of Biden’s nominees, some of whom have been ridiculously unqualified and left-wing, like that horrible Lhamon fool at Education. You mean Amherst and Yale graduate Catherine Lhamon, who clerked for a Federal judge, worked for the ACLU for a decade, served as Assistant Secretary of Education in the Obama administration for 2 & 1/2 years, and then served on the Commission on Civil Rights before returning as Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights? I mean the last Secretary of Education held no advanced degrees and other that being richer than Midas had no expertise or other qualifications that would qualify her to run a government agency much less the Department of Education. So maybe Catherine Lhamon is really qualified for her current position and you just don't like her politics which is your right. However, let's not mistake political opinion for facts. I mean the Catherine Lhamon who presided over a reign of terror for every male on college campuses, who deprived them of any semblance of due process if they are accused of sexual assault; deprived them of the right to cross-examine, the right to be presumed innocent, you know, all those very basic things. Things that even SSA litigants are entitled to. I don’t think her politics has much to do with that - we should all support those things regardless of political beliefs. (California Governor Jerry Brown, Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have enshrined much of the Lhamon rules into state law). Politics has nothing to do with it. Under her reign, any guy could be “Duke Lacrossed” at any time and have no recourse except to give up their entire educational future. I may be passionate about this issue, but I have volunteered with a group of mothers whose sons went through the Lhamon-induced kangaroo court system. I’ve heard the horror stories, guys who could only hold their knees and cry; I’ve even heard some suicide and attempted suicide stories that can be laid at this woman’s feet. So I don’t really care if she got into Harvard or Yale or Stanford or the Pontifical Angelicum. Thats just my response to the response; now back to the main topic. I think it will be Judge Jackson or Judge Childs, and I would support either one if I were a Senator. |
|
