Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Supreme Court nomination
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #121
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(04-05-2017 03:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(04-03-2017 01:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(04-03-2017 12:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Since Bork was brought up earlier - I was in high school when he was nominated and at the time Watergate seemed like ancient history. But the Saturday Night Massacre, and Bork's role in it were more recent history at the time than 9/11 is compared to today.

I wonder how much the "Borking" had to do with the Watergate baggage?

Read Ted Kennedy's and Biden's (chariman of of the judiciary committee at the time) comments on him to find out.

Considering the only thing that scuba diver Ted harped on was Bork's positions on originalism and the underpinnings and mechanisms of the Roe decision, and Joe "did I write that paper or someone else" Biden's comments on originalism and the incompatiblility with his own personal view of rights that arent explicitly "enumerated", it seems crystal clear that the main impetus was Bork's originalist and textualist philosophies.

The Saturday Night Massacre might have had a role, but the main water carrier was obviously the evil underpinnings of originalism/textualism.

Ted Kennedy did bookend his (in)famous "Robert Bork's America" speech with Watergate/Saturday Night Massacre references but ipso facto the speech did not become notorious for those:

Quote:Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it.

In the Watergate scandal of 1973, two distinguished Republicans—Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus—put integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They refused to do Richard Nixon's dirty work, and they refused to obey his order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The deed devolved on Solicitor General Robert Bork, who executed the unconscionable assignment that has become one of the darkest chapters for the rule of law in American history.

That act—later ruled illegal by a Federal court—is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Bork from this new position to which he has been nominated. The man who fired Archibald Cox does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.

Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Benjamin L. Hooks and Ralph G. Neas of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights opposing the nomination may be printed in the Record.


There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN L. HOOKS, CHAIRPERSON, AND RALPH G. NEAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

There is no question that a very substantial majority of the civil rights community will strongly oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The confirmation of Robert Bork, an ultra-conservative, would dramatically alter the balance of the Supreme Court, putting in jeopardy the civil rights achievements of the past three decades. Well established law could overnight be substantially eroded or overturned.

This is the most historic moment of the Reagan presidency. Senators will never cast a more important and far-reaching vote. Indeed, this decision will profoundly influence the law of the land well into the 21st century.

I suggest you also look at the video of his questioning during committee, and tell me which weighed heavier on his mind.
04-05-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #122
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(04-04-2017 06:54 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  If the Republicans go nuclear Ginsberg will never step down. She might be on life support and incapacitated but she won't leave the Court. Which brings up some interesting issues itself.

Ginsburg will be like William O. Douglas at the end of this.

My call is that Kennedy steps down soon. He and Gorsuch are extremely close --- going vastly farther than the clerk/Justice relationship from the days of Gorsuch clerking for him. Kennedy took the time to travel to Denver to be the person that swore in Gorsuch to the 10th circuit of appeals.

Gorsuch's nomination will (imo) ease Kennedy's mind of allowing Trump to replace him. This is the true third level of brilliance of the Gorsuch nomination. First it appeases the evil pointy-eared originalist/textualists of the extremist Federalist and Heritagist bent; second it puts someone in play that it makes the progressives look like hell to oppose; third, if opposed, it places a decent onus of that on the aforesaid progressives for instigating the "nuking of the ruins"; and lastly, it may just very well be 'calming' enough to Kennedy for him to step down.

Bluntly, Ginsburg was going to hold on to her seat even if needing a respirator and a Stephen Hawking voice thingy -- given her comments during the election about Trump (enough to actually give support to a call for her to recuse herself over anything related to Trump or Trump's exercise of power). The fact the filibuster rule will be deep-sixed is in her case (and sorry for repeating the descriptor) is just nuking the rubble. She is going to hold that seat in her grasp tighter than Gollum clutching a certain ring.
04-05-2017 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #123
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(04-05-2017 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 06:54 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  If the Republicans go nuclear Ginsberg will never step down. She might be on life support and incapacitated but she won't leave the Court. Which brings up some interesting issues itself.

Ginsburg will be like William O. Douglas at the end of this.

My call is that Kennedy steps down soon. He and Gorsuch are extremely close --- going vastly farther than the clerk/Justice relationship from the days of Gorsuch clerking for him. Kennedy took the time to travel to Denver to be the person that swore in Gorsuch to the 10th circuit of appeals.

Gorsuch's nomination will (imo) ease Kennedy's mind of allowing Trump to replace him. This is the true third level of brilliance of the Gorsuch nomination. First it appeases the evil pointy-eared originalist/textualists of the extremist Federalist and Heritagist bent; second it puts someone in play that it makes the progressives look like hell to oppose; third, if opposed, it places a decent onus of that on the aforesaid progressives for instigating the "nuking of the ruins"; and lastly, it may just very well be 'calming' enough to Kennedy for him to step down.

Bluntly, Ginsburg was going to hold on to her seat even if needing a respirator and a Stephen Hawking voice thingy -- given her comments during the election about Trump (enough to actually give support to a call for her to recuse herself over anything related to Trump or Trump's exercise of power). The fact the filibuster rule will be deep-sixed is in her case (and sorry for repeating the descriptor) is just nuking the rubble. She is going to hold that seat in her grasp tighter than Gollum clutching a certain ring.

Well he's sworn in. After his first day of arguments expect his critics to crucify him on the number and substance of questions he asks the lawyers.
04-10-2017 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #124
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(04-10-2017 01:41 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  
(04-05-2017 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 06:54 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  If the Republicans go nuclear Ginsberg will never step down. She might be on life support and incapacitated but she won't leave the Court. Which brings up some interesting issues itself.

Ginsburg will be like William O. Douglas at the end of this.

My call is that Kennedy steps down soon. He and Gorsuch are extremely close --- going vastly farther than the clerk/Justice relationship from the days of Gorsuch clerking for him. Kennedy took the time to travel to Denver to be the person that swore in Gorsuch to the 10th circuit of appeals.

Gorsuch's nomination will (imo) ease Kennedy's mind of allowing Trump to replace him. This is the true third level of brilliance of the Gorsuch nomination. First it appeases the evil pointy-eared originalist/textualists of the extremist Federalist and Heritagist bent; second it puts someone in play that it makes the progressives look like hell to oppose; third, if opposed, it places a decent onus of that on the aforesaid progressives for instigating the "nuking of the ruins"; and lastly, it may just very well be 'calming' enough to Kennedy for him to step down.

Bluntly, Ginsburg was going to hold on to her seat even if needing a respirator and a Stephen Hawking voice thingy -- given her comments during the election about Trump (enough to actually give support to a call for her to recuse herself over anything related to Trump or Trump's exercise of power). The fact the filibuster rule will be deep-sixed is in her case (and sorry for repeating the descriptor) is just nuking the rubble. She is going to hold that seat in her grasp tighter than Gollum clutching a certain ring.

Well he's sworn in. After his first day of arguments expect his critics to crucify him on the number and substance of questions he asks the lawyers.

Isnt that the age old criticism of Thomas? 'How dare he just sit and not interact....'

The one thing that is not really well known, is that oral arguments almost never carry a case. Some have commented that the entire Justice thingy of questioning falls squarely into two camps --- a) the need to to play 'gotcha' to the opposition view lawyer with a hypothetical that falls into the Justice's preconceived (after extensive briefing of course) view of the case; or b) the need to publically 'buttress' the preconceived view by tossing softballs for the supporting attorney to swat.

The *only* case I have read the transcript on or heard that utterly surprised me was the Obamacare case. But it is fairly common knowledge that Roberts shifted his vote, but not necessarily his sympathies. And his opposition to the mandate was plain in the tape, as were the opposition of Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia. (Thomas never speaks, so I cant say what I judged he would do based on the actual argument.) Same for the other 4 votes for upholding aside from Roberts in the case.

If you look at the dissent carefully, you note that the dissenting opinion is not signed --- only credited with the those who sided with it. The scuttlebutt is that Roberts penned the then opinion, then switched his vote. The minority then reportedly took the now-not opinion, changed a couple a paragraphs and sentences, and submitted it as the dissent. And the dissenters then simply issued Robert's original opinion as the dissent, and pointedly none of the dissenters take authorship as a slap at Roberts.
04-10-2017 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #125
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(04-10-2017 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(04-10-2017 01:41 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  
(04-05-2017 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 06:54 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  If the Republicans go nuclear Ginsberg will never step down. She might be on life support and incapacitated but she won't leave the Court. Which brings up some interesting issues itself.

Ginsburg will be like William O. Douglas at the end of this.

My call is that Kennedy steps down soon. He and Gorsuch are extremely close --- going vastly farther than the clerk/Justice relationship from the days of Gorsuch clerking for him. Kennedy took the time to travel to Denver to be the person that swore in Gorsuch to the 10th circuit of appeals.

Gorsuch's nomination will (imo) ease Kennedy's mind of allowing Trump to replace him. This is the true third level of brilliance of the Gorsuch nomination. First it appeases the evil pointy-eared originalist/textualists of the extremist Federalist and Heritagist bent; second it puts someone in play that it makes the progressives look like hell to oppose; third, if opposed, it places a decent onus of that on the aforesaid progressives for instigating the "nuking of the ruins"; and lastly, it may just very well be 'calming' enough to Kennedy for him to step down.

Bluntly, Ginsburg was going to hold on to her seat even if needing a respirator and a Stephen Hawking voice thingy -- given her comments during the election about Trump (enough to actually give support to a call for her to recuse herself over anything related to Trump or Trump's exercise of power). The fact the filibuster rule will be deep-sixed is in her case (and sorry for repeating the descriptor) is just nuking the rubble. She is going to hold that seat in her grasp tighter than Gollum clutching a certain ring.

Well he's sworn in. After his first day of arguments expect his critics to crucify him on the number and substance of questions he asks the lawyers.

Isnt that the age old criticism of Thomas? 'How dare he just sit and not interact....'

The one thing that is not really well known, is that oral arguments almost never carry a case. Some have commented that the entire Justice thingy of questioning falls squarely into two camps --- a) the need to to play 'gotcha' to the opposition view lawyer with a hypothetical that falls into the Justice's preconceived (after extensive briefing of course) view of the case; or b) the need to publically 'buttress' the preconceived view by tossing softballs for the supporting attorney to swat.

The *only* case I have read the transcript on or heard that utterly surprised me was the Obamacare case. But it is fairly common knowledge that Roberts shifted his vote, but not necessarily his sympathies. And his opposition to the mandate was plain in the tape, as were the opposition of Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia. (Thomas never speaks, so I cant say what I judged he would do based on the actual argument.) Same for the other 4 votes for upholding aside from Roberts in the case.

If you look at the dissent carefully, you note that the dissenting opinion is not signed --- only credited with the those who sided with it. The scuttlebutt is that Roberts penned the then opinion, then switched his vote. The minority then reportedly took the now-not opinion, changed a couple a paragraphs and sentences, and submitted it as the dissent. And the dissenters then simply issued Robert's original opinion as the dissent, and pointedly none of the dissenters take authorship as a slap at Roberts.

You are correct about the illusion of oral arguments. I was present for oral arguments on a case in which I wrote part of the Appellant's Brief. By the questioning and demeanor of the Court I walked out thinking we won 6-3. Turns out we lost 2-7, with only Scalia and Thomas supporting us.
04-14-2017 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.