How the hell can someone who has never even seen a case on the court become CJ?
This is complete crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Off the top of my head, I know that the previous two, Burger and Warren, had not served on the court prior to their nomination as chief.
According to this wiki article, the Chief Justice has been elevated from within SCOTUS only three times.
Please, a little perspective before calling something that is very common "complete crap."
On another note, the only two justices with a hope of being nominated were Scalia and Thomas, and neither has the temperment appropriate to the job.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thomas is quiet, reserved, and uncomfortable directing his colleagues.
Scalia is acerbic and more inclined to attempt to persuade via intellectual argument.
Rehnquist was known for his ability to ensure the Court operated smoothly, guiding it with a light touch. As much as I like Scalia, "light touch" doesn't seem to describe him very well.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I know that, but still, there were enough questions about his qualification for SCOTUS, let alone the CJ job.
He has little experience as a judge at all, which is one of the only things I don't like about him to be honest.
I still think this whole things reeks. The CJ position should NOT go to someone of his limited judicial experience.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Earl Warren hadn't been a judge at all.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote: As much as I like Scalia
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would have had a problem with that as well, to be sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But Warren was very successful as a Chief Justice. It's a counter-example to your thinking prior SCOTUS experience or extensive judicial experience is needed to serve well in the position.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Warren also supported the Japanese internment - something that made Marshall very skeptical when Warren came on the Court in the middle of Brown v. Board. You never can tell.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I know that, it just makes me VERY incomfortable to have a young, inexperienced man nominated as CJ. He has been evasive about his personal beliefs, and while I think I like him for a justice, I don't as CJ for the reasons mentioned.
There is a reason why there is only one counter-example. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tante, that's a great example of how widely misunderstood Scalia's judicial philosophy is.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
I like John Roberts, and I want to see him voted in, but he will need some time on the bench before he is Chief. Not that I oppose the precedent that other judges have done that, but I think that there are a few other judges to look at on the bench.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Rehnquist was known for his ability to ensure the Court operated smoothly
He was one smooth operator. Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I know that, it just makes me VERY incomfortable to have a young, inexperienced man nominated as CJ. He has been evasive about his personal beliefs, and while I think I like him for a justice, I don't as CJ for the reasons mentioned.
There is a reason why there is only one counter-example.
John Roberts is older by three years (he's 50) than Rehnquist was when he was appointed to SCOTUS (at 47). All the same, I'd prefer to have someone with a little more experience as chief justice, even if there is a counter-example to that being necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is a reason why there is only one counter-example.
There are others.
Regardless, you asked, "How the hell can someone who has never even seen a case on the court become CJ?"
Now you know how - the same way Warren and Burger did.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Saw a commercial about how Democratic senators advised Ruth Bader-Ginbsburg to remain quiet during her confirmation hearings and now the same senators are demanding Roberts to answer questions they told her she didn't have to.
I haven't followed this closely enough to be sure if it's just spin or has truth to it, but if it is true, I'd like to see a little consistency in the process. Let's not hold Roberts to a different standard than we do liberal nominees.
oh, wait, my bad - I realize I just asked that congress be consistent. How silly of me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At least both parties are inconsistent in the same ways.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Isn't their inconsistency a sort of consistency? Or did I just blow your mind!
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Mind: blown.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
By "We" there Belle, do you mean only the Democratic Senators or are you saying that the Republican Senators' behavior should be the same in both cases too? I think they are likely to hold Roberts to a different standard than they did liberal nominees. It'd be gratifying to know that you'd disapprove if they did.
I support rigorous questioning across political lines for Supreme Court nominees. But then again, I think the standrad used should be what's the right thing to do, rather than consistency with past behavior or what will benefit one party or the other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd suggest going back and taking a hard look at Ginsburg's confirmation hearings, Squick.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What makes you think I haven't?
If you want to make an argument, make an argument. I find the pussy-footing, argument by implication style tedious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you have taken a hard look, then I'd be interested in hearing why you said, "I think they are likely to hold Roberts to a different standard than they did liberal nominees."
I find this kind of pussy-footing, argument by implication style tedious.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In other words, it might be nice if you would deign to offer a modicum of support for your accusation "I think they are likely to hold Roberts to a different standard than they did liberal nominees."
Certainly the Ginsburg confirmation hearings don't provide that support, unless you think that the Republicans won't be deferent to the limits Roberts sets on what types of questions regarding potential upcoming cases he will answer. I'm pretty sure, though, that you are saying that they will be deferent.
Your thinking this is a different standard than they held the last liberal SCOTUS nominee to is a factual error. This is what makes me think you haven't looked at those hearings in any great depth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ginsberg nomination is a small subset of "liberal nominess" and even within that subset, I think it's likely that there will be differences in the standards she was held to versus what Roberts is going to be held to. If you have arguments that deal with the larger set out "liberal nominations" or the likihood of consistent behavior in the smaller case, surely you can present them, as opposed to implying that they exist.
I find the whole "The other party is being inconsistent on this issue." argument to be a poor one, because both sides play politics much more than they try to do the right thing. Generally the "inconsistency" from one side is matched by the inconsistent behavoir of the other side (cf. "judicial nominees deserve and up or down vote"). There are no "good" or "consistent" sides and you lose through the partisanship and relative judgements the idea that they shold be judged on a higher standard than "are somewhat better than the other guys".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, As far as I can tell, neither Belle nor I were limiting our comments to the Ginsberg confirmation hearings nor just what questions would be asked. If that's the narrow focus you want to adopt, I think you may be missing the much wider point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
SCOTUS nominees are absolutely unique. No other type of nomination comes close.
Second, unless you can present any evidence that they didn't grant such deference to other court nominees, you're just making stuff up. The whole issue of deference about upcoming cases is unique to judicial nominees. Executive branch nominees have nothing similar.
quote:If you have arguments that deal with the larger set out "liberal nominations" or the likelihood of consistent behavior in the smaller case, surely you can present them, as opposed to implying that they exist.
I haven't implied anything. I've said, "The last case, in which the roles were reversed between Republicans and Democrats, shows the Republicans giving enormous deference to Bader's decisions about what could be discussed."
You make a bald-faced accusation. You provided zero backup. I've pointed you to the last similar situation, an examination of which will show how deference was given by the people currently asking for it.
quote:Generally the "inconsistency" from one side is matched by the inconsistent behavior of the other side
And yet, here's an example where the inconsistency is not being matched.
So what if inconsistency doesn't mean anything? If inconsistency doesn't matter, why assert (again without providing evidence) that the Republicans are being inconsistent? Why spend energy to refute a fact that doesn't, according to you, add anything to the issue under discussion?
You're the one who made the statement that Republicans would be inconsistent. I provided a counterexample to that. I drew no conclusions about what this means regarding the best way to confirm judicial nominees.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as I can tell, neither Belle nor I were limiting our comments to the Ginsberg confirmation hearings nor just what questions would be asked. If that's the narrow focus you want to adopt, I think you may be missing the much wider point.
WHAT?
Belle said:
quote:Saw a commercial about how Democratic senators advised Ruth Bader-Ginbsburg to remain quiet during her confirmation hearings and now the same senators are demanding Roberts to answer questions they told her she didn't have to.
I haven't followed this closely enough to be sure if it's just spin or has truth to it, but if it is true, I'd like to see a little consistency in the process. Let's not hold Roberts to a different standard than we do liberal nominees.
What do you take that to be about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You haven't presented evidence. You've made a assertion by implication. And I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but it's not like you actually backed it up.
However, here's where I think you're not getting it. I took Belle's comments to be about
quote:hold[ing] Roberts to a different standard than we do liberal nominees
not about one standard from one nominee, as you seem to have taken it.
The Republicans are neither the "good" nor the "consistent" guys here. Perhaps you believe that they will treat Roberts with the same standards as they do liberal nominees. I don't believe that this is true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You haven't presented evidence. You've made a assertion by implication. And I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but it's not like you actually backed it up.
I've pointed you to a counterexample. I'm not going to go over hundreds of pages of testimony. Suffice it to say, she refuses to answer at least dozens of questions. She was confirmed 93-3 or something.
quote:Perhaps you believe that they will treat Roberts with the same standards as they do liberal nominees. I don't believe that this is true.
They will treat Roberts with the same standard as they treated the last liberal SCOTUS nomineee.
You hate implication? Why not say what it is they will do differently.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, to me it was less of a procedural "How the hell" than a "What were they thinking" one.
I still disagree with it, strongly, and I would have disagreed with the precedents that were set before this happened had I been around (or aware) at that time.
At least I'M consistent, I guess. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, to me it was less of a procedural "How the hell" than a "What were they thinking" one.
The same thing they were thinking when they nominated Warren. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: I support rigorous questioning across political lines for Supreme Court nominees. But then again, I think the standrad used should be what's the right thing to do, rather than consistency with past behavior or what will benefit one party or the other.
Too bad both parties have conflicting ideas of what the "right thing to do" is.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
As someone who is a radical, I must say that I like John Roberts.
Even if he over turns Roe Vs. Wade, it's what America voted for, so hey....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, And, as I said, there are plenty of other examples of liberal nominees and standards. I don't think that using one part of one confirmation process as you total determiner makes sense.
There are an unpredictible multitude of different standards they could use. For example, I'm reasonably sure that were Clarence Thomas a "liberal" judge, Senate Republican's handling of Anita Hill would have been much more soliticous than hostile.
And even though they don't belong to the vanishingly small instances of Supreme Court nomination hearings, there are plenty of instances where the Republicans took "principled" stands on liberal nominees that they haven't applied to conservative nominees and that they aren't going to apply to Roberts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but you see, Belle was talking about one specific issue - demanding answers for questions about issues that might come before the court - and so was I. This is probably the most important issue with respect to the hearings.have used to great political effect with Estrada.
She was talking about Roberts being held to a standard different than the one Ginsburg was held to. For your convenience, she even identified the standard she thought was going to be different: "how Democratic senators advised Ruth Bader-Ginbsburg to remain quiet during her confirmation hearings and now the same senators are demanding Roberts to answer questions they told her she didn't have to"
It's not my "total determiner" for anything. It's just the standard we happened to be talking about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, "You hate implication? Why not say what it is they will do differently."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But that's not just what she was talking about. Her statement was
quote:I'd like to see a little consistency in the process. Let's not hold Roberts to a different standard than we do liberal nominees.
She gave an example, but then went on to make a general statement about consistency in the process and keeping the same standards.
The idea that "they should keep the same standard from this one specific case on this one specific issue" but not being concerned about any other inconsistency is, dare I say it, extremely inconsistent. Being for consistency when it makes you side look good and indifferent otherwise is pretty much in the same stripe as the behavior that Belle seemed to be disapproving of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A.) What inconsistencies do you predict?
B.) Which of those inconsistencies are about the standard Roberts is being held to?
C.) Which of them are as important as not requiring a nominee to prejudge a case in the abstract?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Squicky, they were talking about how one would be handled differently than the other, and why. At least that is who I read it...Dag has a lot of experience in the legal field, and while I wouldn't take everything he says on the topic as gospel, I find it interesting to hear what he has to say about it, usually.
For much the same reasons I liked hearing you talk about your field, to be honest. I have some experience/knowledge in both areas, and I can make up my own mind about topics from either, but part of the way I form my opinions is by listening to other, possibly more knowlageble people talk about it. I haven't ever been able to accuse him of argumentation by implication, or pussyfooting around a topic...he pretty much says what he thinks, IMO.
I don't always agree with his reasoning, or his conclusions, but one thing he is NOT afraid to do is state an opinion.
Seems to me like you are both splitting hairs at this point, when the real issue being discussed was the difference in treatment between judicial candidates....perhaps you should both stop trying to say what the other meant.
I think that there are a lot of reasons why some are handled differently than others, and not all of those reasons are based in partisan politic...but I would be an idiot if I thought that politics didn't play at least a part in it...for both sides.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"You hate implication? Why not say what it is they will do differently."
How the heck should I know? There are an uncountable number of ways they could treat Roberts differently from liberal nominees. What possible use would it be for me to say "Well, they could do this or they could do that or they could do this."?
Judging by their past behavior on applying very different standards based on political considerations, I think that it's likely that they will do the same here. I don't know enough about either the history or the procedure of the confirmations to pick specific things they might do. Plus, I think it would be a total waste of time.
Do you deny that the the Republicans have acted very inconsistently in the past in regards to things like judicial nominations or that there is good reason to believe that they will use different standards for Roberts than they would have (edit: and have used in the past) for a liberal judge? Because that's near the entirety of my point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The entirety of my point is that Republicans have a very good record with regard to not requiring a nominee to prejudge a case in the abstract during confirmation hearings.
[ September 06, 2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you mean a nominee or a Supreme Court nominee?
And how does that show consistency? I'm sure we could find an aspect of the confirmation process that the democrats have been consistent about while the republicans haven't. Who the heck cares except people dreaming the impossible dream of showing how their side are the "good guys"?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
well, I asked for more specific examples....
That would qualify, to be sure. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I mean any judicial nominee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sure we could find an aspect of the confirmation process that the democrats have been consistent about while the republicans haven't. Who the heck cares except people dreaming the impossible dream of showing how their side are the "good guys"?
Who the heck cares? Why the heck did you bring it up if you don't care. Your initial post on this little side-thread made implied that the Republicans would treat Roberts different with resepect to the issue Belle discussed. I have merely attempted to correct that implication.
If you're not saying that, then there's really no need to be responding. Especially since you don't care.
You're stupid motive-guessing aside, I care because it's one of the most important aspects of the confirmation process. Only actually bringing nominees to a vote is more important, something that won't be an issue with Roberts.
quote:And how does that show consistency?
Once again: The entirety of my point is that Republicans have a very good record with regard to not requiring a nominee to prejudge a case in the abstract during confirmation hearings.
I really don't see where I said it shows consistency for anything except what I said they were being consistent about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If that's your point, you haven't established it. Of course, I honestly don't care much if it's true or not. Fiding one solid point in a sea of political hypocrasy isn't something I'm goingt o cheer about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If that's your point, you haven't established it.
I have made it possible for anyone who cares to determine if it's true. I've certainly established it more than you established that the Republicans are "likely to hold Roberts to a different standard than they did liberal nominees."
quote:Of course, I honestly don't care much if it's true or not. Fiding one solid point in a sea of political hypocrasy isn't something I'm goingt o cheer about.
For someone who doesn't care you sure did bitch about it a lot. Of course, my point wasn't about political hypocrisy. It was about your implication that Republicans wouldn't treat Roberts the same way they treated Ginsburg.
An implication you've still not made specific at all. Not only have you not provided evidence, you haven't even bothered to say what it is they will do differently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Do you believe that the Republicans are going to act inconsistently on other aspects of the Roberts' confirmation hearings and, if so, do you think that these aspects are non-trivial? Because that's been my statement from the beginning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What do you think they will do differently?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How the heck should I know? There are an uncountable number of ways they could treat Roberts differently from liberal nominees. What possible use would it be for me to say "Well, they could do this or they could do that or they could do this."?
Judging by their past behavior on applying very different standards based on political considerations, I think that it's likely that they will do the same here. I don't know enough about either the history or the procedure of the confirmations to pick specific things they might do. Plus, I think it would be a total waste of time.
Come on, you knew from the first time I said "I'm talking about wider issues." that I was talking about wider issues. But you kept hammering away at the questioning issue. I'd like to see what you think on what I was actually saying, on the wider issue of whether or not it's likely that the republicans will use different standards from liberal nominees in non-trivial aspects of the Roberts' confirmation hearings. Because if they do, and Belle doesn't find that objectionable, what was the point of her condemation of the democrats?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How on earth do you expect me to answer "do you think that these aspects are non-trivial" if you (the one who thinks they will act differently) can't tell how they will act differently?
It's ridiculous.
You think they'll act differently. Propose a way in which they will, and I'll tell you if I think it's trivial and if I think it's likely.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You're the one with the apparently extensive knowledge here. Surely in your study of judicial confirmations, you've come across many, many instances of inconsistently applied standards. I think you hardly need me to tell you what they could be.
I don't know so much, nor am I all that concerned with the particulars. I'm making a judgement based on past history and what I know of their character. You've got that and more to work with. You can't offer up even an unqualified opinion?
I mean, if you, from your knowledgible standpoint, think that there are issues where they are likely to act inconsistently on, that's a yes, isn't it? And if you don't think these issues exist, why ask me what they are? You can just say that you don't think that this is likely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, this is the particular area I've researched, because it's the only one that actually deals with my subject of interest: legal reasoning and judicial independence.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know so much, nor am I all that concerned with the particulars. I'm making a judgement based on past history and what I know of their character.
First off, that looks like an excellent description of "prejudice" to me.
quote: You can't offer up even an unqualified opinion?
A Lawyer??? offering up an opinion without qualifying statements?? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wouldn't call that prejudice, prejudice would be holding that opinion without regard to their past actions.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)