|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Jan 26, 2022 12:41:23 GMT -5
...as another topic. Will another nominee to SCOTUS by a Democratic president be held up?
If this thread disappears, I shall assume it was too political.  |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 26, 2022 12:57:13 GMT -5
Aside from whether or not I agree with his opinions, I have always admired Justice Breyer's candor and willingness to consider opposing views. He even showed up from time to time in unexpected agreement with more conservative justices.
Supreme Court nominations have been pretty raucous since Bork, and getting worse. I hope the next nominee is treated better than some of the recent ones. In any event, we'll have an entertaining 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jan 26, 2022 14:24:56 GMT -5
Won't be held up, McConnell ended filibuster for SCOTUS in 2017 to get Gorsuch through after using it to block Garland. Dems will seat a replacement with VP being 51st vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Jan 26, 2022 14:32:29 GMT -5
Imagine if he nominated Obama  He's only 60, just saying. Seems like its headed toward having to be late 40s/early 50s now though. Willing to bet a large sum of money that we will be looking at Justice Stacey Abrahams. Biden pledged to nominate a black female. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 26, 2022 15:49:40 GMT -5
Pres won't nominate a politician. There would be way too much controversy. Actually, Obama would be like Howard Taft, ex president on Supreme Court. However, the hearings would be tough. No. I can say with confidence that Biden will fulfill a campaign promise by nominating a Black woman. She will be a sitting U.S. Court of Appeals judge or state supreme court justice.
If she weren't a Republican, my humble suggestion would be Judge Alyson Duncan of the 4th Circuit. Maybe after Biden leaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jan 26, 2022 16:11:27 GMT -5
I’m hoping for former GA Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, though she might be considered too old by now. I’ve appeared before her and she is very kind. She also wrote the dissenting opinion agreeing with my position. (Too bad it wasn’t a majority!)
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 26, 2022 17:58:58 GMT -5
I’m hoping for former GA Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, though she might be considered too old by now. I’ve appeared before her and she is very kind. She also wrote the dissenting opinion agreeing with my position. (Too bad it wasn’t a majority!) Too old by at least a decade, maybe two. The nominee will be in her late 40s to at most early 50s. |
|
|
|
Post by tom b on Jan 26, 2022 19:08:04 GMT -5
If she weren't a Republican, my humble suggestion would be Judge Alyson Duncan of the 4th Circuit. Maybe after Biden leaves.
She's 70, according to her biography on the U.S. Courts website, and she retired in 2019. And lest I be accused of ageism, I know folks in their 70's who can run rings, physically and intellectually, around people a third their age, and I'm sure she's one.
"Retirement" is the stage after senior status; her "pension" is fixed at the rate of pay in effect on the day that she retired, and she is not ordinarily subject to being called to service. As a Senior Judge of the Circuit, on the other hand, she would have enjoyed periodic pay raises and still would have been able to receive travel and per diem allowances if she sat by designation.
Respectfully, Tom B
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 26, 2022 19:27:10 GMT -5
If she weren't a Republican, my humble suggestion would be Judge Alyson Duncan of the 4th Circuit. Maybe after Biden leaves.
She's 70, according to her biography on the U.S. Courts website, and she retired in 2019. And lest I be accused of ageism, I know folks in their 70's who can run rings, physically and intellectually, around people a third their age, and I'm sure she's one.
"Retirement" is the stage after senior status; her "pension" is fixed at the rate of pay in effect on the day that she retired, and she is not ordinarily subject to being called to service. As a Senior Judge of the Circuit, on the other hand, she would have enjoyed periodic pay raises and still would have been able to receive travel and per diem allowances if she sat by designation.
Respectfully, Tom B
Wow. 70! She was a NC Court of Appeals Judge around age 40, then. Time flies. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jan 27, 2022 10:25:55 GMT -5
I frequently see Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's name in the mix, but I selfishly hope she remains in the D.C. Circuit as that court has more frequent impact on fed issues than the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 27, 2022 12:23:40 GMT -5
This is the least consequential SC nomination in my lifetime. The court’s balance is fixed for a few decades. The only drama for the next 10 years is when Thomas retires, and even that is a low stakes issue.
I think it’s maybe 50/50 that a confirmation happens at all. Easily see it getting stone walled to 2024.
The pick cannot be overly liberal. Basically it’s Manchin and Sinema’s pick, since they effectively control the senate. They aren’t going to green light a Stacey Abrams type figure (just in terms of being a divisive/ partisan seeming political figure).
The main skill set for whoever gets nominated should be writing dissents, since that is all they will be doing their entire career on the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 27, 2022 13:35:05 GMT -5
This is the least consequential SC nomination in my lifetime. The court’s balance is fixed for a few decades. The only drama for the next 10 years is when Thomas retires, and even that is a low stakes issue. I think it’s maybe 50/50 that a confirmation happens at all. Easily see it getting stone walled to 2024. The pick cannot be overly liberal. Basically it’s Manchin and Sinema’s pick, since they effectively control the senate. They aren’t going to green light a Stacey Abrams type figure (just in terms of being a divisive/ partisan seeming political figure). The main skill set for whoever gets nominated should be writing dissents, since that is all they will be doing their entire career on the bench. The pick will be confirmed, unless some skeleton emerges from the closet. Which is unlikely given how long they have likely been working on this. In fact, I'd guess they more or less know who they are selecting. Manchin and Sinema vote with the Democrats on almost everything, there is zero reason to believe they will oppose a Supreme Court pick (again, absent said skeleton). In fact, in all likelihood I'd say at least 2 or 3 Republicans will also vote yes. Only reason I am not completely confident is because the administration has been surprisingly inept at some basic things, but I am guessing they do this right. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jan 27, 2022 14:26:04 GMT -5
Certainly Collins, Murk and Romney are all likely confirmation votes (unless the pick is wholly unacceptable).
And, Garland in 2016 notwithstanding, Dem nominees are generally more gently treated and get more Republican votes in the post-Bork era than Rep nominees get Democrat votes (although there have been "general" consensus picks by both sides since).
Kagan was confirmed 63-37, +5 R.
Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31, +9 R.
Breyer was confirmed 87-9 (all but 11 Rs voted for, with 9 opposed and 2 NV)
Compare that to:
Barrett, 55-43, +3 D
Kavanaugh, 50-48 (only he and Stanley Matthews were confirmed by a single vote), +1 D
Gorsuch, 54-45, +3 D
Roberts, 78-22, +22 D
Alito, 58-42, +4 D
Thomas 52-48, +11 D
The days of Scalia, 98-0, and RBG, 96-3, are long gone, I'm afraid. The conversion of the process from an "advice and consent" one to that of a political weapon occurred during a shift in the position of the judiciary committee some decades ago. To pursue this line any further would, indeed, make this thread quite political for the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Jan 27, 2022 20:45:46 GMT -5
Not to minimize the significance of the decision about who will fill Breyer's seat, but with Schumer suggesting a 30 day time line for approval and the current CR expiring on Feb 18, I suspect we are going to get another CR instead of a budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 27, 2022 23:10:33 GMT -5
Not to minimize the significance of the decision about who will fill Breyer's seat, but with Schumer suggesting a 30 day time line for approval and the current CR expiring on Feb 18, I suspect we are going to get another CR instead of a budget. At this point CR is the rule and budgets are the exception. I mean, there for sure isn’t going to be a budget now, but there probably wasn’t going to be one anyway. Breyer probably only waited this long for the big legislation to go through. It didn’t, so now we’ll see if they can do this. I wonder if they won’t wait for confirmation hearing until closer to the announcement of the big decisions from this years docket for maximum drama. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 27, 2022 23:20:14 GMT -5
Certainly Collins, Murk and Romney are all likely confirmation votes (unless the pick is wholly unacceptable). And, Garland in 2016 notwithstanding, Dem nominees are generally more gently treated and get more Republican votes in the post-Bork era than Rep nominees get Democrat votes (although there have been "general" consensus picks by both sides since). Kagan was confirmed 63-37, +5 R. Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31, +9 R. Breyer was confirmed 87-9 (all but 11 Rs voted for, with 9 opposed and 2 NV) Compare that to: Barrett, 55-43, +3 D Kavanaugh, 50-48 (only he and Stanley Matthews were confirmed by a single vote), +1 D Gorsuch, 54-45, +3 D Roberts, 78-22, +22 D Alito, 58-42, +4 D Thomas 52-48, +11 D The days of Scalia, 98-0, and RBG, 96-3, are long gone, I'm afraid. The conversion of the process from an "advice and consent" one to that of a political weapon occurred during a shift in the position of the judiciary committee some decades ago. To pursue this line any further would, indeed, make this thread quite political for the board. Not to quibble, but Breyer is clearly the outlier in your data and is much closer to the late Bork era than our current political climate. Take him out and the numbers are the basically same ( even ignoring the fact that Garland was essentially -50 Rs.) Indeed, lay it out on a timeline and it’s more telling and consistent with the increasing politicization and polarization of the confirmation process, as you point out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jan 28, 2022 9:30:54 GMT -5
Well, if we take Breyer out (and assume that Scalia and RBG are washes as well), then we have to take out Roberts. Then, it is really clear - Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas garnered a total of 22 D votes (4.5 per) while Kagan and Sotomayor averaged 7 R votes. Neither of them was subjected to anything like Thomas or Kavanaugh's treatment. Or for failed nominees, nothing like Bork.
I mean, both sides send up nominally unqualified nominees (W's Harriet Meier's nomination comes to mind, no offense to her), but Robert Bork was arguably the most qualified Supreme Court nominee ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jan 28, 2022 17:29:50 GMT -5
Well, if we take Breyer out (and assume that Scalia and RBG are washes as well), then we have to take out Roberts. Then, it is really clear - Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas garnered a total of 22 D votes (4.5 per) while Kagan and Sotomayor averaged 7 R votes. Neither of them was subjected to anything like Thomas or Kavanaugh's treatment. Or for failed nominees, nothing like Bork. I mean, both sides send up nominally unqualified nominees (W's Harriet Meier's nomination comes to mind, no offense to her), but Robert Bork was arguably the most qualified Supreme Court nominee ever. I don’t understand why we would throw out Roberts. He was confirmed in 2005, Breyer was 1994, RBG 1993. Breyer and RBG are fairly contemporaneous (within 1 year), while Roberts. and Breyer are separated by more than a decade. So it makes no sense to me that you would disregard RBG but include Breyer. Moreover Alito was within a year of Roberts so why would we include him and then exclude Roberts? Anyway we will see what happens, given that the seat is largely inconsequential in the larger political scheme of things, it may a more tepid affair than recent history, |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 28, 2022 20:32:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jan 28, 2022 21:57:48 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. |
|
He's only 60, just saying. Seems like its headed toward having to be late 40s/early 50s now though.
