Johnny Punani2 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I think the deal brokered this week in the Senate has some things in it we aren't hearing about. One of which is the green light for Pres Bush to nominate Justice Scalia for the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Does anyone else think he is going to get the nomination and if he does will the Dems filibuster it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I know that a lot of people have been talking about Scalia as chief justice for a while. I can't deny that the man is brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black I know that a lot of people have been talking about Scalia as chief justice for a while. I can't deny that the man is brilliant. A brilliant but disappointing statist. Definitely NOT a libertarian rightist. However, it was nice to hear a rebuttal of the new trend in the SC, which is to interpret constitutional issues through the prism of the laws of foreign nations or customs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Can you filibuster the Chief Justice? What has he done to be considered "brilliant"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Joe Sick Can you filibuster the Chief Justice? What has he done to be considered "brilliant"? Oh my, like you will accept any response to your question. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 While I like Scalia, I hope he doesnt get the nod to Chief. Seems like wasted political capital to me. The left will have an impossible time justifying a filibuster on him since he was confirmed 98-0 before. So that might be the reason Bush would do it. Just to force their hand. My choice, if Rehquist retires would be to appoint Ted Olsen to Chief. That way, it would be only one confirmation battle. And when O'Connor steps down, it will either be Gonzales or Michael Luttig from the 4th Circuit. And God help the left if Stevens decides to retire before Bush is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I think this was part of the deal from the Gang of 14. Keep their options open for the big dogs like a Scalia situation would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 It wil lbe interesting to hear how 98-0 can turn into a partisan fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I'm a big fan of Scalia, I hope he gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Joe Sick Can you filibuster the Chief Justice? What has he done to be considered "brilliant"? Joe, read some of his opinions. Seriously. Even if you (probably) don't agree with what he has to say, his writing is on a level far beyond all of the other justices. The man (and his clerks) can construct arguments extraordinarily well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Chief Justice Scalia? Time to get that Canadian visa in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Rocky21 Chief Justice Scalia? Time to get that Canadian visa in order. Delta has flights daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Chief Justice's duties are more clerical than anything else. Why all the uproar? I don't agree with lot of Justice Rehnquist's opinions, but I think he has done a fine and fair job as a Chief Justice. Frankly, I think Justice Scalia will be fine as a chief justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by bearrock Chief Justice's duties are more clerical than anything else. Why all the uproar? No way. Chief Justice assigns cases to the individual justices. This is a huge responsibility, and one that can really influence the course of the law. The idea of Chief Justice Scalia really disturbs me. He is a brilliant man, but also an ideologue who is well outside the mainstream of legal thought. Can you imagine if Democratic administrations tried to nominate far-left law professors like Laurence Tribe, or Alan Dershowitz, or Katherine MacKinnon, to the federal court and then move them up to the Supreme Court? It would never happen in a million years. Well, that is who Scalia is - he is the right wing counterpart to Alan Dershowitz. But because he is on the right, somehow it is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Predicto No way. Chief Justice assigns cases to the individual justices. This is a huge responsibility, and one that can really influence the course of the law. The idea of Chief Justice Scalia really disturbs me. He is a brilliant man, but also an ideologue who is well outside the mainstream of legal thought. Can you imagine if Democratic administrations tried to nominate far-left law professors like Laurence Tribe, or Alan Dershowitz, or Katherine MacKinnon, to the federal court and then move them up to the Supreme Court? It would never happen in a million years. Well, that is who Scalia is - he is the right wing counterpart to Alan Dershowitz. But because he is on the right, somehow it is ok. Far left like Ruth Bader Ginsberg? She makes Dershowitz look like a Scalia clone. But if he was accepted 98-0 before, how can they spin it to Filibuster him now? Is that one of those "voted for him before I voted against him" kind of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I once had the privilege of watching a debate about a decade ago between Scalia and a panel of legal scholars regarding the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment when I attended Loyola Law School in LA. Scalia - agree with the man or not - is simply an outstanding legal mind, and he was a surprisingly engaging speaker. I'm wondering now whether a video recording of that debate is available given the relevance of the discussion today . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Predicto No way. Chief Justice assigns cases to the individual justices. This is a huge responsibility, and one that can really influence the course of the law. This is bit of an overstatement. Chief Justices do decide who gets to write for the majority and who gets to write for the minority, but the opinions are passed around to make sure the that the joining justices either agree or write a concurring opinion. Oftentimes the choice is made among the concurring justices themselves. Even if a particular Chief Justice had an agenda to influence a particular case, it would be difficult to influence how an opinion is written. Supposedly, there have been Chief Justices in the past who've destroyed collegiality among the justices by favoring one side over the other in terms of writing opinions, but I haven't heard of any chief justices influencing substantive legal decisions. But, if you've read or heard anything different, feel free to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Far left like Ruth Bader Ginsberg? She makes Dershowitz look like a Scalia clone. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Ginsburg is liberal in the same way that Kennedy and O'Connor are conservative - within the general mainstream. Scalia and Thomas are well to the right of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by bearrock This is bit of an overstatement. Chief Justices do decide who gets to write for the majority and who gets to write for the minority, but the opinions are passed around to make sure the that the joining justices either agree or write a concurring opinion. Oftentimes the choice is made among the concurring justices themselves. Even if a particular Chief Justice had an agenda to influence a particular case, it would be difficult to influence how an opinion is written. Supposedly, there have been Chief Justices in the past who've destroyed collegiality among the justices by favoring one side over the other in terms of writing opinions, but I haven't heard of any chief justices influencing substantive legal decisions. But, if you've read or heard anything different, feel free to comment. You are correct, this point can be overstated. Still, the decision who to assign the matter to initially has a bearing on the final result, in that it tends to set the parameters for the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Predicto I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Ginsburg is liberal in the same way that Kennedy and O'Connor are conservative - within the general mainstream. Scalia and Thomas are well to the right of that. Earlier you said he's outside the mainstream legal thought. Is this the same mainstream that has given us the only "collective right" in the Bill of Rights(other than that of the States) for something that every contemporary of the 2nd said was meant for individuals? The same mainstream that has approved of growing police powers, including no-knock raids based merely on the possibility they may own a gun(uh, it's America...that means they could conceivably no-knock anyone?) Striking down votes on referenda by inventing new Constitutional 'rights' that obligate the state and the people into the service of another? Searches of students without probable cause at public schools? Guns pointed at kids? Dogs coming through elementary classes? Now, that's not to say Scalia is OPPOSED to all of those things. Just saying, F mainstream legal thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsarethebest Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Far left like Ruth Bader Ginsberg? She makes Dershowitz look like a Scalia clone. But if he was accepted 98-0 before, how can they spin it to Filibuster him now? Is that one of those "voted for him before I voted against him" kind of things? i have to respectfully disagree -- ginsberg is probably best categorized as a moderate liberal -- by no means at the far end of the left spectrum on the other hand, even from an objective or neutral standpoint, justices such as scalia and thomas occupy a position that is much more fervently right wing than the so-called liberal justices are towards the left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I've seen occasional glimmers of true strict construtionism from Thomas, but not nearly enough. I wonder, wouldn't most of the Founders(the ones who actually designed the Constitution) be considered right-wing today? And no cheap shots about slavery or discrimination, I'm talking about the substance of the Bill of Rights and powers of federal government vis a vis States. And no, I'm not saying they all believed EXACTLY the same things. NOt at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Predicto I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Ginsburg is liberal in the same way that Kennedy and O'Connor are conservative - within the general mainstream. Scalia and Thomas are well to the right of that. Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. I see Kennedy and Oconnor as mainstream LIBERALs. Ginsberg is a Socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yeah, we'll just have to disagree. I see Kennedy and Oconnor as mainstream LIBERALs. Ginsberg is a Socialist. Why do you draw a distinction between Liberal and Socialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I think it's funny that only the conservatives are 'far out of the mainstream' while the liberals are 'moderate'. But then I remember a LEXIS-NEXIS research paper that showed that moderate was only attached to conservatives(as Democrats were just Democrats, not moderate) and that the term far-left wing was almost never used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.