Think I probably read that a while back and forgot. Appreciate the reminder.

Interesting rumour regarding filling Scalia's seat; there is a bit of politicking going on as the judge has - in the past - been fulsomely endorsed

Senator Grassely who has the say-so on whether the confirmations go ahead as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?rref=us

"The president is expected to make his selection in the next couple of weeks, a decision that could reshape the court for decades ..."

 

I don't think so. I think it will reshape the court until the next justice steps down. We don't know who that is, and who the president will be that would replace him/her.

"The president is expected to make his selection in the next couple of weeks, a decision that could reshape the court for decades ..."

 

I don't think so. I think it will reshape the court until the next justice steps down. We don't know who that is, and who the president will be that would replace him/her.

 

With two octogenarians on the Court I think the NYT was reaching for well worn phrases without putting a lot of effort into the reality of the scenario

The notorious RBG (Ginsberg) is the most likely next retirement, IMO.

Edited March 3, 20169 yr by iNow

The notorious RBG (Ginsberg) is the most likely next retirement, IMO.

 

Only five of the current justices would be allowed to serve in UK courts due to age - and another two or three would be kicked off for being complete and utter bozos

 

 

Senator Grassely who has the say-so on whether the confirmations go ahead as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee

He is up for re-election this year, with Republican control of the Senate at some risk, and the judge involved is well respected in his State - (also fulsomely praised by him, not three years ago).

 

In addition, one of his campaign memes is battling gridlock he blames on Obama.

 

If this judge is nominated and accepts the nomination, this is going to be fun to watch.

Only five of the current justices would be allowed to serve in UK courts due to age - and another two or three would be kicked off for being complete and utter bozos

I've heard some interesting ideas lately (largely via political podcasts) that introduce the idea of a term limit for SCOTUS judges. Nothing too short, but long enough to have a meaningful career and help avoid some of the "judge for life / get a young person appointed and you lock it in for decades" issues we face today.

 

Scalia was there for 30+ years. What would happen if we introduced something like a 17 year limit?

 

Note: There's also a lot of talk right now about the possibility of nominating/approving nobody to replace him, effectively changing the makeup of the court to only have eight total justices. Fascinating to consider, but apparently there's historical precedent.

I've heard some interesting ideas lately (largely via political podcasts) that introduce the idea of a term limit for SCOTUS judges. Nothing too short, but long enough to have a meaningful career and help avoid some of the "judge for life / get a young person appointed and you lock it in for decades" issues we face today.

 

Scalia was there for 30+ years. What would happen if we introduced something like a 17 year limit?

 

Note: There's also a lot of talk right now about the possibility of nominating/approving nobody to replace him, effectively changing the makeup of the court to only have eight total justices. Fascinating to consider, but apparently there's historical precedent.

Either way, it's just political wangling for either party to get the upperhand, isn't it? Sad really, justice should be free from political bias. I think it's already been said, that politicians should make policy and justices should decide if those policies are legal and constitutional, not whether they agree politically/personally with it or not

Edited March 4, 20169 yr by StringJunky

I shared this recently in a thread focused on political affiliation in the judiciary. Same point applies here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93520-political-affiliation-in-the-judiciary/#entry905962

They'd likely say they're unaffiliated, just using the "correct" interpretation of the constitution... That its unrelated to party or politics, even though some parties and politicians happen to share their stance/approach.

Edit: Just realized that's your thread. Lol. Oops.

Either way, it's just political wangling for either party to get the upperhand, isn't it?

Not really - at least, not like it's been recently, for one of the Parties.

 

There used to be a safety factor built into the high general intellectual status required of a respectable nominee, including wide experience, which coupled with the lifetime appointment put them outside the ability of political operatives to reliably predict their behavior. So we had key judges in the Muhammed Ali case, for example, successfully advocating for a decision quite at odds with the political desires of the faction that had appointed them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_II (Note as well the influence of this Justice, a strict adherent to precedent and nominated to be so, on future decisions of the Court such as Roe v Wade).

 

In the modern day we see such nominations as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Harriet Meiers, and the Court diminished. Compare, for example, this nomination with that of his ideological and philosophical predecessor Harlan above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito Note the difference in quality, and apparently consequent increased political predictability of ruling.

Edited March 4, 20169 yr by overtone

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35823234

 

Judge Garland, 63, is the chief judge of the Washington appeals court and a former prosecutor.

He was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997, winning confirmation in a 76-23 Senate vote. Prior to that, he served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

 

We shall see how the Republicans respond

The "Biden Rule"?

 

Since when did Republicans hang on anything Joe said, no less a rule that doesn't exist in law.

 

Lies, lies and more lies from the obstructionist Party of No.