Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 11204 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #540 on: July 10, 2018, 05:05:33 PM »
He and his staff compiled lists.  That hardly counts as "handpicking" them.  At the end of the day, he actually had to convince presidents to nominate them and the Senate to support them.  And no, that isn't just a matter of writing campaign contributions, or the Chamber of Commerce and other business entities would have been doing the picking for Republican presidents and unions would be doing the picking for Democratic ones.  The Federalist Society has credibility that it has spent years building.  Leo has been a part of that but hardly the only part.

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #541 on: July 10, 2018, 05:54:46 PM »
I guess no one here has anything to lose, or they donít think they do.

I get that you are not happy, and you given your political leanings, you shouldn't be but there is a difference between being unhappy about it and not respecting the process. I was unhappy about Ginsburg and Sotomayor for example but I understood the process and was nto going to undermine it by claiming it was illegitimate or in anyway stolen, etc. it is the process and we should respect it. We may not like the outcome all the time but we at least need to respect the process.

Where have I criticized the process? 

And I don't think that's a fair comparison.  Liberals and conservatives don't treat liberties the same way at all, and I would argue that you had far less to worry about in that regard, even if you would've preferred a more conservative judge.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #542 on: July 10, 2018, 10:42:53 PM »
I guess no one here has anything to lose, or they don’t think they do.

I get that you are not happy, and you given your political leanings, you shouldn't be but there is a difference between being unhappy about it and not respecting the process. I was unhappy about Ginsburg and Sotomayor for example but I understood the process and was nto going to undermine it by claiming it was illegitimate or in anyway stolen, etc. it is the process and we should respect it. We may not like the outcome all the time but we at least need to respect the process.

The problem is the Republicans decided to say f*** the process when Scalia died and they refused to have the nomination hearings. If both sides played by the same rules and actually respected agreed upon practices, I don't think there would be so much hostility about this pick. Mitch McConnell illegitimized this process in 2015. Add in the fact that this President is facing a very serious investigation that has already yielded guilty pleas from several cronies and landed his former campaign manager in prison, AND the fact that there are midterm elections coming up in just 4 months, and there is just no way this seat should be filled at this time.

First, lets set the hyperbole straight regarding McConnell's edict. His words were, in a presidential election year you should wait until after the election. It would be impractical if you did this every even year, and really where would the madness end. Then you expand the argument to "there is an election coming in 2 years so lets wait" it just gets more ridiculous.

Now as far as the rules go, while I disagree with how the Garland situation was handled, at the end of the day, part of the rules allows the party in power to play these games. In 2014 if the Dems showed up at the polls, they would still have the Senate and Garland gets through easily. It is part of the process. All of your arguments are completely meritless here and just petty excuses. end of the day, business of the country needs to go on despite what is happening around the executive branch and to cast an appointment into doubt because of an investigation really just looks like sour grapes and serves the ultimate goal of trying to delegitimize the court.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #543 on: July 10, 2018, 10:54:23 PM »
I guess no one here has anything to lose, or they don’t think they do.

I get that you are not happy, and you given your political leanings, you shouldn't be but there is a difference between being unhappy about it and not respecting the process. I was unhappy about Ginsburg and Sotomayor for example but I understood the process and was nto going to undermine it by claiming it was illegitimate or in anyway stolen, etc. it is the process and we should respect it. We may not like the outcome all the time but we at least need to respect the process.

Where have I criticized the process? 

And I don't think that's a fair comparison.  Liberals and conservatives don't treat liberties the same way at all, and I would argue that you had far less to worry about in that regard, even if you would've preferred a more conservative judge.

Was not implying you directly.

However, to your point, liberals and conservatives do not treat liberties the same, that is a fact. That is why there are 9 Justices on the Sup Court to be able to hopefully find a group to agree on the issues at hand. There were many times where Scalia and Ginsburg were the key members of the majority in certain cases, often dealing with criminal rights where Thomas, Alito and Kagan were the lead dissenters. There were times where the conservatives held rank to uphold liberty in a 5-4 decision with the liberals in dissent. Point being, it is not as clear as you would like to make it seem.

As far as worrying about an activist court, there is much more to worry about than you have with a conservative court. Cases like Wickard v Filburn and the Chevron cases come from a highly activist court that allow the curtailing of individual liberties across the board. The activist justices are more keen to try and right a wrong even if it creates a travesty of justice as opposed to seeking justice under the law.

I don't see how you can argue that the conservative court does more harm when all they really are deciding is that if the issue needs to be clarified by the legislature or if the intent was clear. If they get rid of Roe v Wade, it just leaves it up to Congress or the states to re-institute through statutory law. If they block EPA regs, again, it throws the power back to Congress to fix it. This is not creating more harm, it is giving the proper branch of government the time and responsibility to fix things. It is not the Court's duty nor should it be to take a poorly crafted law and try and apply it in a manner where it was not intended. That is how you get arbitrary decisions that cause more harm than good.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3685
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #544 on: July 11, 2018, 08:57:47 AM »
I'd love to see a Constitutional amendment requiring a vote on a President's nominee within 180 days of nomination.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #545 on: July 11, 2018, 09:33:17 AM »
That would be an interesting proposition.  But for now, the point to the people still insisting that McConnell "stole" a seat from Obama and Garland is that there is no such requirement.

Offline DEPACincy

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #546 on: July 11, 2018, 09:40:38 AM »
First, lets set the hyperbole straight regarding McConnell's edict. His words were, in a presidential election year you should wait until after the election. It would be impractical if you did this every even year, and really where would the madness end. Then you expand the argument to "there is an election coming in 2 years so lets wait" it just gets more ridiculous.

Now as far as the rules go, while I disagree with how the Garland situation was handled, at the end of the day, part of the rules allows the party in power to play these games. In 2014 if the Dems showed up at the polls, they would still have the Senate and Garland gets through easily. It is part of the process. All of your arguments are completely meritless here and just petty excuses. end of the day, business of the country needs to go on despite what is happening around the executive branch and to cast an appointment into doubt because of an investigation really just looks like sour grapes and serves the ultimate goal of trying to delegitimize the court.

If you really believe that McConnell would've acted any differently if it was a midterm election instead of a presidential election then I have a bridge to sell you. Republicans repeatedly break our norms and go against American values while Democrats are held to a much higher standard.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #547 on: July 11, 2018, 09:56:26 AM »
That would be an interesting proposition.  But for now, the point to the people still insisting that McConnell "stole" a seat from Obama and Garland is that there is no such requirement.

I think the amendment would just clarify that the requirement already exists in the language of the constitution.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #548 on: July 11, 2018, 10:48:33 AM »
Where?

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #549 on: July 11, 2018, 10:51:38 AM »
Good luck getting an amendment done

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #550 on: July 11, 2018, 10:59:15 AM »
The constitution splits the power of placing judges to vacancies between the Senate and President equally.  If the Senate does not provide any advice, then the Senate is effectively taking all of the power for appointment. Effectively making the President powerless.  This was obviously not the intent of the framers.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #551 on: July 11, 2018, 11:15:03 AM »
^ But the Senate does not have the power to nominate, only to confirm. So we get a stalemate. Either the president nominates someone acceptable to the Senate or the Senate capitulates and gives into the president.  I think that was the intent of the framers albeit, they probably did not intend to have the current animosity that exists now between the parties.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #552 on: July 11, 2018, 11:23:58 AM »
^ But the Senate does not have the power to nominate, only to confirm. So we get a stalemate. Either the president nominates someone acceptable to the Senate or the Senate capitulates and gives into the president.  I think that was the intent of the framers albeit, they probably did not intend to have the current animosity that exists now between the parties.

If the nominee is not acceptable to the Senate, then they should advise as stated in the Constitution.  Advisement is done by holding a vote and rejecting the nominee.

Otherwise we have created a situation where a President will only get votes on nominees when his own party controls the Senate. 

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2803
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #553 on: July 11, 2018, 11:31:14 AM »
Agreed - But there was no real timetable for it. Also, it in regards to the Garland matter, it would have been extremely difficult to litigate the matter before the Supreme Court because to do so would have occurred once Obama was out of office and the issue would have been moot at the time. If you look at the time table and say 180 days is a reasonable time frame, that takes you to the end of August. Congress recesses for elections at that time and does not reconvene until the lame duck session. To practically litigate it means the lower courts would have to hear the matter at that time. and it could take a number of months to a year to work it through the system to the Supreme Court. By that time, you have a new president who nominates his person and the Garland issue becomes moot, and courts will not rule on a moot issue.

It would work better if Obama was running for reelection because he could have kept the matter active at that point. Even then, there could be a mootness argument once the new Congress was sworn in.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15012
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #554 on: July 11, 2018, 11:51:44 PM »
This guy is a clown with money:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5944545/Brett-Kavanaugh-fell-tens-thousands-dollars-worth-debt-buying-baseball-tickets.html

He currently makes $211,000.  If he upgrades to the Supreme Court, he will earn $244,000.  So he'll still be house poor, in credit card debt, and have a loan against his retirement account. 

Again, what a clown. 

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #555 on: July 12, 2018, 09:52:30 AM »
The scariest thing about that and the articles they link to (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/the-elite-world-of-brett-kavanaugh/2018/07/11/504d945e-8492-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?utm_term=.e05fb30ba2a0) is that they have a picture of the Kavanaughs' $1.2 million residence in Chevy Chase, and I think it might go for about $150k-$200k in a good neighborhood in Akron:



If that's what $1.2 million buys you in Chevy Chase, I dread to think what you'd need to buy something the size of the more opulent properties of Fairlawn Heights or Merriman Hills (there are several for sale right now along Portage Path that back up onto Portage Country Club and are well over 5000sf each that are still going for way, way less than the Kavanaughs' place).  Chevy Chase apparently charges for the ZIP code first and the actual house second.

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #556 on: July 12, 2018, 10:10:44 AM »
Nice looking home though.   Something you might find in Shaker in the mid 200k range.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15012
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #557 on: July 12, 2018, 10:20:17 AM »
Well he didn't get into money trouble buying baseball season tickets.  That's a flimsy excuse.  There is more to this story. 

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #558 on: July 12, 2018, 10:22:54 AM »
If you're making $211k, buying a $1.2 million house absolutely can get you into money trouble.  And his wife is not a doctor or lawyer or anything like that; she was GWB's secretary and is now apparently a village manager (a low-level municipal appointed position).

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15012
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #559 on: July 12, 2018, 10:25:18 AM »
The house is costing him $5,000~/mo but he's bringing home at least $12,000/mo after taxes.  So let's throw $2,000 at food and misc, and the guy has a solid $5,000/mo to play with.  That's an awful lot of baseball tickets.  If he's blowing most of it on private schools that's his own fault; I'm sure suburban Maryland has good public schools. 

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #560 on: July 12, 2018, 11:02:13 AM »
Interesting bit of trivia considering the earlier conversation here.  In October 2013, a visiting speaker at Case Western Reserve University Law School argued that the judicial confirmation process was unfair to nominees and that the Senate should amend its rules to require a vote on a judicial nominee within six months of the nomination.  At the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate but Obama was president, so the speaker was essentially arguing that Republicans were doing too much to delay votes on Obama's nominees.

The visiting speaker in 2013 was Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/11/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-confirmation-proc

Online freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #561 on: July 12, 2018, 11:30:27 AM »
If you're making $211k, buying a $1.2 million house absolutely can get you into money trouble.  And his wife is not a doctor or lawyer or anything like that; she was GWB's secretary and is now apparently a village manager (a low-level municipal appointed position).

They should have a household income of 400k for that house to be on the high end of affordable.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15012
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #562 on: July 12, 2018, 11:57:57 AM »
They should have a household income of 400k for that house to be on the high end of affordable.

The unimpressiveness of the house doesn't make paying way too much for it okay.  I'd bet that the property taxes are horrendous, likely at least $1,000/mo.  I get that the DC area is expensive, but you can get a good-enough house to raise a family in for half that price. 


Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #563 on: July 12, 2018, 12:00:31 PM »
So are you guys saying he doesn't exercise sound financial....judgment?

Sorry, had to do it.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7470
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #564 on: July 12, 2018, 12:04:55 PM »
They should have a household income of 400k for that house to be on the high end of affordable.

The unimpressiveness of the house doesn't make paying way too much for it okay.  I'd bet that the property taxes are horrendous, likely at least $1,000/mo.  I get that the DC area is expensive, but you can get a good-enough house to raise a family in for half that price. 

Jake I'm afraid you would be really disappointed in San Diego.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15012
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #565 on: July 12, 2018, 12:21:15 PM »
Jake I'm afraid you would be really disappointed in San Diego.

I assume that the federal judges are paid the same nationwide -- so go live somewhere cheap. 
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/court-website-links

Offline DEPACincy

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #566 on: July 12, 2018, 01:06:05 PM »
If you're making $211k, buying a $1.2 million house absolutely can get you into money trouble.  And his wife is not a doctor or lawyer or anything like that; she was GWB's secretary and is now apparently a village manager (a low-level municipal appointed position).

Village managers in Montgomery County, MD make six figure salaries.

Offline DEPACincy

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #567 on: July 12, 2018, 01:07:39 PM »
The house is costing him $5,000~/mo but he's bringing home at least $12,000/mo after taxes.  So let's throw $2,000 at food and misc, and the guy has a solid $5,000/mo to play with.  That's an awful lot of baseball tickets.  If he's blowing most of it on private schools that's his own fault; I'm sure suburban Maryland has good public schools.

Montgomery County, Maryland has some of the best public schools in the entire country.

Offline DEPACincy

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #568 on: July 12, 2018, 01:11:14 PM »
They should have a household income of 400k for that house to be on the high end of affordable.

The unimpressiveness of the house doesn't make paying way too much for it okay.  I'd bet that the property taxes are horrendous, likely at least $1,000/mo.  I get that the DC area is expensive, but you can get a good-enough house to raise a family in for half that price.

Correct. Plenty of towns nearby have cheaper housing and are also very nice. Chevy Chase is one of the most exclusive places in the country. Go live in Rockville or Bethesda.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #569 on: July 12, 2018, 01:14:11 PM »
Jake I'm afraid you would be really disappointed in San Diego.

I assume that the federal judges are paid the same nationwide -- so go live somewhere cheap. 
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/court-website-links


Actually, I could be wrong on this, but I think they're locality-adjusted like basically all other federal employees.  Though of course there is only one "locality" for the Supreme Court.  And for the rest of the country, the locality adjustments don't come close to compensating for real cost of living (in other words, you'll make more in NYC than in Cleveland, but comparatively speaking, it's still way better to be a federal employee in Cleveland than NYC).