|
Post by acttwo on Jun 28, 2018 13:41:54 GMT -5
We have an adult message board??? đ±Guess I should go through these comments more carefully. What exactly have we been discussing? Yes, I must be missing something. Then again, I never found law that stimulating, at least not in an "adult" way! More in a "I think I'm going need a pot of coffee to slog through this brief" way.
|
|
|
Post by gbrlaw on Jun 28, 2018 13:51:41 GMT -5
Gonna pick him first before someone else does: Thomas Hardiman. Ok you got him, but per Wikipedia he married into a prominent democratic family, did a student exchange to Mexico, and volunteered at Legal Aid to help migrants. In todayâs world that translates to âhe helped Ms-13 infiltrate the border so they could rape and kill children.â Thatâs a lot of baggage. Sad, but true. I should steer clear of MS-13 members, rapists, murders, etc. On the plus side, he's young, wrote a strong Second Amendment dissent, and is relatively boring, so he's still my bet.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 28, 2018 13:56:59 GMT -5
We have an adult message board??? đ±Guess I should go through these comments more carefully. What exactly have we been discussing? It requires a special link. You don't have it?
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Jun 28, 2018 14:19:19 GMT -5
Ok, Gary, just to show my Chicago-ness, I suggest Justice Beauregard Burnside III. And Romberg can be his clerk. I assume you like the image of a snoring Justice with his silent partner. But what of poor little Macintosh? Ok, it's not fair for Gary and me to discuss the ideal Supreme court without letting everyone else in on it. Hence, behold the court we were discussing: i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/42/88/0d4288efe3387e1c122048c6bc738fdd.jpgOk, having a time of this, I can't seem to embed the photo itself. Anyway, take a look, especially you, christina, as you and I are lacking the special link that makes this an adult thread, and ask yourselves, haven't we all, at least once, thought this is an accurate depiction of the SCOTUS? And in case anyone thinks I am being serious, I assure you this is offered for giggles only and bring a smile to all.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 28, 2018 14:20:09 GMT -5
After reading the list of 25 nominees I'm feeling old and unaccomplished. When you're 18 and read about someone in their late 40s or in their 50s being nominated for SCOTUS, the natural thought is that they're "old". I'll just say I'm at the age now that a substantial number of attorneys on Trump's short list are younger than I. And they've obviously accomplished much more than I. Maybe this will be a night to develop a new career plan!
There have been two nominees for SCOTUS who were just 32 years old at the time. William Johnson, nominated by Jefferson, and Joseph Story, nominated by Madison. Both were confirmed. Two nominees were in their 70s. One declined the nomination and the other withdrew. The oldest nominee who was appointed was Harlon Stone, nominated by FDR at age 68 to be Chief Justice. He had been an associate justice nominated by Coolidge 16 years earlier. Lewis Powell was nominated by Nixon, and took the bench as an associate at 64, so he would be the oldest Justice to ascend to the bench.
The oldest one on Trump's list is Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.) Young, 67, is a former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.
My guess is Trump will go for someone who is likely to have a lot of years ahead of him. Gorsuch was 49 when he was nominated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 14:20:48 GMT -5
A couple of observations: On the Electoral College it was said:
"The electoral college is actually not a historical anomaly. It was deliberately designed the way it is. Our Founders were perhaps the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered in one place in the history of humankind. They could do math. "
That had nothing to do with the original notion--the original concern was a fear that a demagogue could inflame the passions of the people so that a demagogue could be elected, and a safety measure was needed to override an ill choice.
That is relevant to the difference between having electors who can in theory vote their conscience versus counting electoral vote wins as automatic electoral votes, but it doesn't explain the rejection of a national popular vote in favor of a state-based system of apportioning electoral votes. The latter consideration exists for the same reason the delegates rejected both the New Jersey (equal representation by state) and Virginia (purely population based) Plans for apportioning Congress. Because the US is a hybrid sovereign/union of several sovereigns, and not a single, unified sovereign, proper respect to the states' (at least partial) sovereignty counseled in favor of a state-based system for electing the leader of the union of states.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 14:31:50 GMT -5
I assume you like the image of a snoring Justice with his silent partner. But what of poor little Macintosh? Ok, it's not fair for Gary and me to discuss the ideal Supreme court without letting everyone else in on it. Hence, behold the court we were discussing: goo.gl/images/DfWXNxI am sorely disappointed that did not take me to a picture of John Oliver's dog Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 28, 2018 14:32:42 GMT -5
After reading the list of 25 nominees I'm feeling old and unaccomplished. If you really want to feel old and unaccomplished, read Ronan Farrow's Wiki entry.
|
|
|
Post by greendog on Jun 28, 2018 14:41:53 GMT -5
It's not a popular vote complaint to point out that the choice does not represent the will of the majority of his constituents. This isn't merely looking at it as a Hillary vs Trump issue. Do you think the president represents the social and political views of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein voters, another ~6 million voters? There are a number of unprovable what ifs regarding the last election. What if it had been a popular vote and campaigns were run differently? What if people didn't think Hillary had the election wrapped up, considered the potential consquences of the election, and showed up to vote instead of sitting at home in apathy? What if every Johnson and Stein voter didn't vote their conscience and chose between Hillary or Trump? None of these questions are answerable or even relevant. Trump won the electoral college, he is rightfully the president, he (along with Congress) has the duty to fill the empty seat, and neither a majority of the population nor the voting population chose him to be in this spot. Let's not forget Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote or Abe Lincoln for that matter in his first term. Wilson, Truman, Cleveland, Garfield are others. It is not a big deal. It happens and they were still the President. I think the main thing that hurt Mrs. Clinton was her health. She just could not campaign for weeks at a time. Remember when President Obama and others had to campaign for her. These things happen. Just ask Nixon, he should have stuck to radio. Always remember politics are never fair. I think we should abolish political parties-they just lead to fights. I think it is hilarious when a state has a dem and rep. senator. They are party obligated to vote against each other most of the time. What about their state's citizen's wishes?
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jun 28, 2018 14:42:26 GMT -5
After reading the list of 25 nominees I'm feeling old and unaccomplished. When you're 18 and read about someone in their late 40s or in their 50s being nominated for SCOTUS, the natural thought is that they're "old". I'll just say I'm at the age now that a substantial number of attorneys on Trump's short list are younger than I. And they've obviously accomplished much more than I. Maybe this will be a night to develop a new career plan! There have been two nominees for SCOTUS who were just 32 years old at the time. William Johnson, nominated by Jefferson, and Joseph Story, nominated by Madison. Both were confirmed. Two nominees were in their 70s. One declined the nomination and the other withdrew. The oldest nominee who was appointed was Harlon Stone, nominated by FDR at age 68 to be Chief Justice. He had been an associate justice nominated by Coolidge 16 years earlier. Lewis Powell was nominated by Nixon, and took the bench as an associate at 64, so he would be the oldest Justice to ascend to the bench. The oldest one on Trump's list is Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.) Young, 67, is a former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. My guess is Trump will go for someone who is likely to have a lot of years ahead of him. Gorsuch was 49 when he was nominated. The 32-year-old nominees were at a time when life expectancy was about 36, though, so I wouldnât worry about that as a comparison for professional success. Heck, just making it out of childbirth and then to age 5 meant you were doing pretty well for yourself. No antibiotics, no vaccines (Jenner cow pox exception for some, I guess), no sewers, and the absolute horror...no central air conditioning. Interesting fact about Lewis Powell was his wife didnât want him to take the seat because of the pay cut. He was making bank in Richmond. As far as the late forties/early fifties age of some on the short list (I saw one who is 40, which is my age), itâs certainly a little bit humbling. But, I knew I wasnât going to sit on the Supreme Court on my first day as a 1L. I mean, the football conference for my law school is the SEC and not the Ivy League. What can you do?
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 28, 2018 15:20:31 GMT -5
We have an adult message board??? đ±Guess I should go through these comments more carefully. What exactly have we been discussing? The adult board is quite popular with that "friendly" office in Mt. Pleasant.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 28, 2018 15:24:20 GMT -5
Well then Iâm bound to have that link somewhere!
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 28, 2018 20:17:16 GMT -5
Well if the cert doesn't get issued soon, I'm going to polish up my resume and email it to Donald!
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jun 28, 2018 22:47:12 GMT -5
To be clear, Breyer and Ginsburg were also appointed by someone who wasn't chosen by the majority of the voting population. But Clinton was chosen by a plurality of voters. There was not a candidate that the voters clearly preferred, which is a marked contrast to 2000 and 2016, when the losing candidate actually got more votes than the winner. Yes, I obviously understand the electoral college, but I still think it's pretty remarkable that 40 percent of the presidential elections I've voted in have been won by a candidate who got fewer votes than another candidate. (And to be fair in the representation of the facts, when Roberts and Alito were appointed, Bush 43 had won the popular vote once - it's just doubtful that he would have been president at that point had he not won in 2000, when he didn't win the popular vote.) The electoral college is actually not a historical anomaly. It was deliberately designed the way it is. Our Founders were perhaps the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered in one place in the history of humankind. They could do math. Not only is it not a historical oddity. In substance, it's not even a modern oddity. Modern English-style parliamentary systems essentially elect their prime ministers the way the American Speaker of the House is elected. The majority-party members of the lower house elect him or her after the members of the lower house have been elected by the public in single-member districts (like congressmen). So in England (and countries with similar systems), one party might get more popular votes in parliamentary elections but not get a majority of members in Parliament, meaning the PM can be elected by the members of Parliament of the party that got fewer popular votes. It happens often. They also had the idea that the second highest vote getter would be the VP, which almost led to Aaron Burr stealing the Presidency from Jefferson, when it was understood Jefferson was the Democratic Republican Presidential candidate. Let's not pretend every electoral idea was so brilliant that it withstood the lessons of time.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 2:07:42 GMT -5
Ok you got him, but per Wikipedia he married into a prominent democratic family, did a student exchange to Mexico, and volunteered at Legal Aid to help migrants. In todayâs world that translates to âhe helped Ms-13 infiltrate the border so they could rape and kill children.â Thatâs a lot of baggage. Sad, but true. I should steer clear of MS-13 members, rapists, murders, etc. On the plus side, he's young, wrote a strong Second Amendment dissent, and is relatively boring, so he's still my bet. Donât get me wrong. My very cursory and superficial review of the alleged top ten leads me to conclude that Hardiman is the most balanced of the pottential nominees (well the 10 I have read about). However, this is also why I think heâs unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 2:12:39 GMT -5
If I'm remembering my presidential history correctly, we've only had three presidential elections where the popular vote loser one the electoral college, and two of them have happened in the past 16 years. And given that, I don't believe we've ever had three, let alone four, SCOTUS justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Please correct me if I'm forgetting something and have my facts wrong. Even if you think all of this is awesome and good for the country, it's still quite remarkable because we just haven't been here before. From 1893 to 1895, there were 5 justices serving at the same time whom had been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote (Hayes and Harrison). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_compositionHmmmm just about the start of the lochner era, weird
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 2:44:57 GMT -5
jimmyjiggles, I'd like to respond to this comment you made: "I think the majority of âslamsâ (I think is what Christina said) have been directed at POTUS and his...ah...err unique style of governance and decision making. I do not think you should conflate that with a commentary on your values, which I should point out, I have no knowledge of, other than you describe yourself as a conservative. Indeed your ability to articulate yourself so well suggests to me that you are selling yourself quite short if you are conflating your views with the personage of the big boss." I'm not conflating my views with the personage of Trump. My post wasn't about the silliness I've seen written about Trump. Honestly, I roll my eyes at some of the stuff he says, does, and tweets. He does intentionally to get under people's skin, and it works. So, if someone wants to take a dig at him, I can shrug that off. What I have a harder time shrugging off are comments mocking people of faith, and the suggestion that conservatives shouldn't work for SSA. "Everyone wears magic underwear." "I continue to be amazed by the number of conservatives interested in working for the welfare office." "It's just interesting wanting to help administer redistribution programs you don't believe should exist and voting for politicians that want to cut your pay and benefits. Guess it's not that abnormal, plenty of Americans vote against their economic interest. It's almost like a pacifist joining the military." "Just like how I am morally opposed to the death penalty but took that job as an executioner. After all my taxes are already paying for it and if I donât apply someone else will just get the job!" Those were the comments that had been made prior to my post that were directed not at Trump but at conservatives. If you go back to my post, you'll see that I was directing my attention to those, and not to the Trump comments. Hopefully putting this to bed here but I have to make 2 points: 1: All but one of the above referenced posts were made by lolcopter. As her/his name suggests, he/she (Iâm on my phone and it doesnât show the little gender icons, so...) is something of a pot stirrer- dropping in, stirring up, checking out shortly thereafter, as he /she did on this thread. The religious commentary was clearly a step too far (full disclosure- I have Mormon lawyer friends who always make jokes about magic underwear and polygamy around me, and honestly it makes me feel weird because I donât feel comfortable laughing on matters that I really donât understand and seem offensive to others, even when coming from the group that should be offended). 2. I donât think it is offensive to ask why conservatives would want to serve in SSA or other non-military branches of government. I mean a lot of the rhetoric on the right would lead one to assume that no one with those views would work for the government, at least in those capacities. My reply to IF1 was basically a law school like retort showing the flaw of her logic on this issue. She also said that not all conservatives are anarchi-capitalists. This is really the best answer IMO. I do not identify as liberal, so the comparison may not ring true, but I would not be offended if someone suggested that it appeared liberals would not work for ICE, DEA, military, or the police. I think that by and large this is true - the overwhelming majority of people at these agencies at conservative. Itâs also true that this is a generalization, and there are lots of liberals who work for all these agencies. But I would not be offended by the suggestion; rather I would expalin that (as IF1 did) that there are varying degrees of liberals, and they, like everyone, are a mosaic of interests that cannot be so easily pigeonholed on one broad, and largely superficial, descriptor. Iâm not sure why that is offensive. It seems like a legit, if sophmoric, question.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 2:53:11 GMT -5
Well if the cert doesn't get issued soon, I'm going to polish up my resume and email it to Donald! Honestly, why not? Provoke the imminent constitutional crisis and get it over with. Hey there may not be a OHO commish, but a certificate signed by POTUS is even better, right?
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 3:01:59 GMT -5
After reading the list of 25 nominees I'm feeling old and unaccomplished. When you're 18 and read about someone in their late 40s or in their 50s being nominated for SCOTUS, the natural thought is that they're "old". I'll just say I'm at the age now that a substantial number of attorneys on Trump's short list are younger than I. And they've obviously accomplished much more than I. Maybe this will be a night to develop a new career plan! There have been two nominees for SCOTUS who were just 32 years old at the time. William Johnson, nominated by Jefferson, and Joseph Story, nominated by Madison. Both were confirmed. Two nominees were in their 70s. One declined the nomination and the other withdrew. The oldest nominee who was appointed was Harlon Stone, nominated by FDR at age 68 to be Chief Justice. He had been an associate justice nominated by Coolidge 16 years earlier. Lewis Powell was nominated by Nixon, and took the bench as an associate at 64, so he would be the oldest Justice to ascend to the bench. The oldest one on Trump's list is Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.) Young, 67, is a former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. My guess is Trump will go for someone who is likely to have a lot of years ahead of him. Gorsuch was 49 when he was nominated. Great point here about relative ages, but as pointed out life expectancy is a lot longer now. Still, younger is better when eyeing the impact you want to have on the future of the court. I agree that itâs likely to be a younger(ish) person. I think thatâs probably the most signficant data point in all this. Whatever other factors are at play, this would seem to be a significant factor. I do wonder though if there something like too young. I think when nominating you want someone set in their beliefs/jurisprudence. Is a 40-41 year old really experienced enough to be solid over the long term? I guess itâs a function of my old age that I am suspicious of 40 year olds LOL (thatâs right IF1 - LO fân L)!
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 29, 2018 3:11:34 GMT -5
Remember the movie âBack to the futureâ? Itâs like that only in reverse. In five years weâre going to be back in the Lochner era. We've been back in the Lochner era since Obergefell was decided. Hmmm I donât see any discussion of the right to substantive economic due process upon which almost all the Lochner cases relied, so please enlighten me.
|
|