Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 23, 2017, 09:33:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101127 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1086 Members
Latest Member: ishankey
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] Print
Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)  (Read 303736 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1350 on: November 15, 2016, 02:34:55 PM »

 "comment on process and participants in the process, Mitch McConnell single-handedly made this Trump pick possible.  He single-handedly kept the balance from shifting from 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal, in the terms that most observers score it.  Trump Supporters should be careful criticizing people who helped set the table for him.  "

Doug,
How did he do this "single handedly?"

He does not strike me as having stood up the LEftist rebel (yes rebels - they are - not us) onslaught.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 722


« Reply #1351 on: November 15, 2016, 02:37:29 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-boxer-files-longshot-bill-to-scrap-the-1479234745-htmlstory.html
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1352 on: November 15, 2016, 04:48:16 PM »


http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-boxer-files-longshot-bill-to-scrap-the-1479234745-htmlstory.html

Just more evidence the LEFT is intent on giving the country away to the world.

Just keep letting people flood over here, especially in states like California, offer them benefits, and ram their vision down the throats of the rest of us who pay the bills and we should just shut up or we are a bunch of "ists" or "phobes".


Boxer must be especially pissed Hillary didn't win.  Her daughter is married to Hillary's brother.
The Clinton Mob.  It is like in breeding.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1353 on: November 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM »

The list:
1. Keith Blackwell

2. Charles Canady

3. Steven Colloton

4. Allison Eid

5. Neil Gorsuch

6. Raymond Gruender

7. Thomas Hardiman

8. Raymond Kethledge

9. Joan Larsen

10. Mike Lee

11. Thomas Lee

12. Edward Mansfield

13. Federico Moreno

14. William Pryor

15. Margaret A. Ryan

16. Amul Thapar

17. Timothy Tymkovich

18. David Stras

19. Diane Sykes

20. Don Willett

21. Robert Young

The Promise:
"This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future justices of the Supreme Court."
Note the plural on justices, applies also to future picks.

Some details:
Keith Blackwell is a justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He was appointed to the position in 2012. He had previously served on the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Before serving on the bench, Justice Blackwell was a Deputy Special Attorney General of the State of Georgia, an Assistant District Attorney in Cobb County, and a commercial litigator in private practice. Justice Blackwell is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law.

Charles Canady is a justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. He has served in that role since 2008, and he served as the court's chief justice from 2010 to 2012. Prior to his appointment, Justice Canady served as a judge of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and as a member of the United States House of Representatives for four terms. Justice Canady is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Neil Gorsuch is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He was appointed to the position in 2006. Judge Gorsuch previously served in the Justice Department as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Judge Gorsuch was a Marshall Scholar and received his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

Mike Lee is the Junior U.S. Senator from Utah and currently serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah and as a Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Alito.

Edward Mansfield is a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2011 and retained by voters in 2012. Justice Mansfield previously served as a judge of the Iowa Court of Appeals. He also teaches law at Drake University as an adjunct professor. Justice Mansfield is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Federico Moreno is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He previously served as a state and county court judge in Florida. Judge Moreno is a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law.

Margaret A. Ryan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces since 2006. Judge Ryan served in the Marine Corps through deployments in the Philippines and the Gulf War. She then attended Notre Dame Law School through a military scholarship and served as a JAG officer for four years. Judge Ryan clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Amul Thapar is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, serving since his appointment in 2007, when he became the first South Asian Article III judge. He has taught law students at the University of Cincinnati and Georgetown. Judge Thapar has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. and the Southern District of Ohio. Immediately prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Thapar was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar received his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Timothy Tymkovich is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Tymkovich was appointed to the bench in 2003. He previously served as Colorado Solicitor General. Judge Tymkovich is a graduate of the University of Colorado College of Law.

Robert Young is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan. He was appointed to the court in 1999, and became part of a majority of justices who embraced originalism and led what one scholar described as a "textualism revolution." Justice Young previously served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Young is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

Favorites?
William Pryor, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Atlanta, "titanium spine"
Joan Larsen, Michigan Supreme Court, former Scalia clerk

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-justices.html?_r=0
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1354 on: November 15, 2016, 05:31:35 PM »

"Doug,
How did he do this "single handedly?"

He does not strike me as having stood up the LEftist rebel (yes rebels - they are - not us) onslaught."


Of course every Senate republican who stood with him also had a hand in it and the public who never screamed in outrage that the vacancy wasn't being filled promptly.  This one-year delay was led by Mitch McConnell, not Trump, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else.  He spoke up early, was decisive, took an enormous risk and never wavered.

Same Senate Republicans who never defunded Obamacare did something heroic here, placed a bet that jeopardized their own power and required exactly this outcome, and they won.  Now Trump, all conservatives and presumably the American people are the beneficiaries.

To have done otherwise was to take an even bigger risk, what some of us thought was the irreversible end of the country as we knew it. 

Sean Hannity was ripping Mitch McConnell today in advance of the Trump inauguration for things he hasn't done wrong yet.  Mark Levin too, I imagine.  Maybe they should check their facts and give credit where credit is due.  This was a BIG deal.  MHO.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/mcconnell-plays-his-best-card/470817/
http://www.nytimes.com/live/obama-supreme-court-nomination/mcconnell-tells-garland/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1355 on: November 15, 2016, 06:03:22 PM »

I support  Madison's original article 16 but I don't support the convention of the states. Open to further persuasion.

I would like to revise and extend my remarks...

The typical way of passing a new amendment, if I understand this correctly, is for 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to pass a proposed amendment to send to the states where it must be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

In this second way, the convention of the states can be called by 2/3rds of the states.  Then what comes out of that convention still needs to be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

The fear is that some great sounding liberal thing will come out of this and all but the strongest of conservatives will be guilted into supporting it.  A right to (free) healthcare would be an example.

What has changed is that Republicans control more state legislatures than ever before.  If there was something urgent and ready to go that would really fix things, now might be the time.  Term limits for House and Senate would be potential examples.

I am still undecided on the term limits amendment and skeptical about starting about this process.  I still worry it will later be used against us.  The Founders were smarter than us and not that much has changed that hasn't already been amended, slavery ended and women voting for examples.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1356 on: November 15, 2016, 06:15:54 PM »

Another good explanation for civilians like me on the Court situation.  While preserving Scalia's spot will certainly prevent a disaster we still need Kennedy and Ginsberg to retire and be replaced by the Right to really gain any traction:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/battle-for-the-courts-part-1

Doug writes [of McConell] "Maybe they (Levin Hannity and me ) should check their facts and give credit where credit is due.  This was a BIG deal.  MHO.

Agreed, but it is about time.   smiley
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 722


« Reply #1357 on: November 15, 2016, 07:34:12 PM »

CCP....couldn't agree more with your response.

Doug.... thanks for the list. I want to pick it apart and look for prior connections to Trump or sitting politicians.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1358 on: November 16, 2016, 04:00:05 PM »

Who just happens to be a woman.  That might help shut the LEFT up:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442220/trump-supreme-court-picks-should-start-woman
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1359 on: November 16, 2016, 11:31:33 PM »

Two Questions for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees
Will they reconsider bad precedent? Or put the court’s ‘legitimacy’ first?
By Randy E. Barnett
Nov. 16, 2016 7:27 p.m. ET
22 COMMENTS

When the Federalist Society opens its three-day National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, the official topic of conversation will be “the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Scalia.”

Even before his arrival at the Supreme Court in 1986, Antonin Scalia was known for his commitment to “originalism.” As a federal circuit court judge, he rejected the approach of divining the “Framers’ intention,” as Raoul Berger and Robert Bork had advocated. Instead, Scalia insisted that judges seek the public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted.

I’m pleased to see that President-elect Trump is echoing Scalia. Last week Mr. Trump’s transition team affirmed that he will nominate judges “who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.” During the campaign Mr. Trump released a list of 21 potential candidates for Scalia’s seat. Those on the list with whom I am familiar would be sympathetic to originalism.

The bigger unknown is where they stand on stare decisis—Latin for “let it stand.” This is the idea that precedents of previous Supreme Courts should be followed, even when they conflict with the original text of the Constitution. Here is where Scalia’s friend and colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, comes to the fore.

Justice Thomas has been more willing to reject stare decisis and reverse precedents. Consider the New Deal-era case Wickard v. Filburn. In 1942 the Supreme Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. Sixty-three years later, that expansive reading of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause continues to hold.

Take the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, in which I represented Angel Raich. A 6-3 majority of the court relied on Wickard to rule that Congress could stop Ms. Raich from possessing homegrown marijuana for medical use, as authorized by the law of her state. Justice Thomas dissented and would have reconsidered Wickard.

Stare decisis has the unfortunate effect of grandfathering in hundreds of judicial decisions, like Wickard, that have interpreted federal powers well beyond what can be supported by the Constitution’s original meaning.

With Washington’s power now extended over Americans’ everyday lives—rather than allowing for 50 state solutions to economic and social problems—every divisive issue is elevated to the national government. This has resulted in a Hobbesian political war to control the levers of federal power, with each side trying to avoid living under policies with which it fundamentally disagrees. As a result, every presidential campaign is now “the most important election of our lives.”

Moreover, post-New Deal courts authorized Congress to delegate its lawmaking powers to the administrative state. Today, most federal “law” is made, interpreted and enforced by faceless, unaccountable executive-branch bureaucrats. This is what has allowed Washington to regulate nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives. The 535 members of Congress simply wouldn’t have the time to do it on their own.

Rejecting dubious precedents does not necessarily require overturning specific government programs that were previously upheld or entitlements on which citizens have come to rely. But it does mean declining to use these past decisions to justify new unconstitutional exercises of power. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, upheld in Wickard, might continue to operate. But future congressional schemes to regulate wholly intrastate activity could be struck down. Such an approach would gradually return the U.S. to a federal government of limited, enumerated and separated powers.

Which leads to the two questions that the Trump administration should be asking of potential judicial nominees. First: Will they elevate precedent over the original meaning of the Constitution, thereby locking in a highly distorted reading of federal power? Or will they insist on interpreting America’s founding document and its amendments as they were written?

Second: Do they, like Justice Scalia, have the courage of their convictions—the intestinal fortitude to stand against the public’s demand for this or that outcome, and to do what they believe to be right? Or will they bend with the political wind to protect the “legitimacy” of the court?

This isn’t a matter of seeking judges who will reach conservative results versus liberal ones. It’s about adhering to the text of the Constitution, while letting the political chips fall where they may. (Justice Thomas would have reached a “liberal” result in Raich.)

Thanks to the results of last week’s election—including Republicans’ retaining control of the Senate—there has never been a better opportunity in my lifetime to restore what Donald Trump, in the final presidential debate, quite eloquently referred to as “the Constitution as it was meant to be.”

Mr. Barnett, a professor of law and the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, is the author of “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People” (HarperCollins, 2016).
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1360 on: November 19, 2016, 11:43:06 AM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/19/cast-of-broadways-hamilton-makes-pence-early-frontrunner-for-2024/

Good point here. The irony that Hamilton in # 68 of the Federalist papers listed advantages of the electoral college.

Also ionic is the spokesperson for the cast is Brandon Victor Dixon who plays Aaron Burr.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1361 on: November 25, 2016, 09:09:16 PM »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/04/20/nebraska-just-abolished-civil-forfeiture-now-requires-a-criminal-conviction-to-take-property/#52d8d6b2159e
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1362 on: December 06, 2016, 12:53:16 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/conservative-supreme-court-possible-filibuster-killed-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1363 on: December 19, 2016, 05:25:10 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/19/now-playing-at-the-supreme-court-the-deplorables/?utm_term=.7e445ace703b
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1364 on: December 20, 2016, 04:49:29 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/five-ways-to-restore-the-separation-of-powers-1482192048


By David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
Updated Dec. 19, 2016 7:09 p.m. ET
279 COMMENTS

The worst legacy of the Obama administration may be disdain for the Constitution’s separation of powers. President Obama’s actions have created dangerous stress fractures in our constitutional architecture, making it imperative that the Trump administration and Republican Congress commence immediate repairs.

The Constitution separates power in two ways: among the three branches of the federal government and between the federal government and states. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, separation creates “a double security” for liberty because “different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

The Obama administration has spurned this core constitutional principle, aggrandizing executive power at the expense of Congress and states. It has rewritten laws, disregarding its constitutional duty to faithfully execute them.

ObamaCare’s implementation provides multiple examples: delaying statutory deadlines, extending tax credits to groups Congress never included, exempting unions from fees, expanding hardship waivers beyond recognition and granting “transition relief” for preferred employers.

Mr. Obama even usurped Congress’s power of the purse, spending billions for “cost-sharing subsidies” that pay ObamaCare insurers for subsidizing deductibles and copays. Congress never appropriated money for these subsidies, so the administration shifted money appropriated for other purposes. The House sued to defend its constitutional prerogative, and in May a federal court ruled against the administration, which has appealed.

Mr. Obama also exempted five million illegal immigrants from deportation, though Congress had unambiguously declared them deportable. He waived the mandatory work requirement of the 1996 welfare reform. He redefined sexual discrimination under Title IX, forcing schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms of their non-biological gender, and threatening to withdraw funds if colleges refuse to reduce due process protections for individuals accused of sexual assault.

The president has exhibited particular antipathy toward the Senate’s advice-and-consent duty. In Noel Canning v. NLRB (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the administration violated separation of powers by making unilateral appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in session. And the president unilaterally committed the nation to an unpopular nuclear deal with Iran, bypassing the Senate’s treaty ratification power.

Mr. Obama’s actions have also shattered federalism. The administration rewrote the 1970 Clean Air Act, commanding states to revamp their electricity generation and distribution infrastructure. It rewrote the 1972 Clean Water Act, claiming vast new power to regulate ditches and streams under the risible notion that they are “navigable waters.” It has refused to enforce existing federal drug laws, emboldening states to legalize marijuana.

The media and academy enabled the administration’s unconstitutional behavior because they support its policy agenda. But the Framers expected members of Congress to jealously defend congressional power against executive encroachment—even from a president of the same political party. As Madison observed, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

This principle disappeared during the past eight years. In his 2014 State of the Union address, the president vowed to implement his agenda “wherever and whenever I can” without congressional involvement—to thunderous applause by Democrats. In November 2014, Democratic Senators urged the president to vastly expand his unilateral amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The Trump administration and GOP Congress should resist the temptation to follow this Constitution-be-damned playbook. The greatest gift Republicans could give Americans is a restored separation of powers. But this cannot be accomplished by merely rescinding the Obama administration’s unconstitutional executive orders. While this is a necessary step, Congress should enact additional reforms.

First, Congress can amend the 1996 Congressional Review Act to require affirmative approval of major executive-branch regulations. The law now allows regulations to go into effect automatically if Congress does not disapprove them. The act has been used only once to overturn a regulation because it requires passage of a joint resolution of disapproval—which must be signed by the president. This requirement should be inverted: If Congress does not affirmatively approve a regulation, it never goes into effect.

Second, Congress could prohibit “ Chevron deference,” in which federal courts defer to executive branch interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Chevron deference is a judge-made doctrine that has aggrandized executive power, ostensibly to implement Congress’s intent. If Congress denounces such deference, it can simultaneously reduce executive power and encourage itself to legislate with greater specificity.

Third, Congress can augment its institutional authority by expanding its contempt power. The criminal contempt statute should require the U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury upon referral by the House or Senate without exercising prosecutorial discretion. Congress should also extend the civil contempt statute to the House, not merely the Senate, and enact a new law specifying a process for using Congress’s longstanding (but rarely invoked) inherent contempt authority.

Fourth, Congress can require that all major international commitments be ratified by treaty. A statute defining the proper dividing line between treaties and executive agreements would reassert the Senate’s constitutional role, provide clarification to the judiciary, and encourage communication and negotiation between Congress and the president.

Fifth, Congress can enact a law further restricting its ability to coerce states into adopting federal policies or commanding state officials to carry them out. While the courts have ultimate say on the contours of these federalism doctrines, a law could force greater consensus and debate, provide guidelines on Congress’s use of its powers, and signal to the judiciary a reinvigorated commitment to federalism.

Restoring separation of powers is necessary and possible. It should be the highest priority of the Trump administration and Congress.

Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington, D.C. Ms. Foley is also a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1365 on: January 16, 2017, 01:35:31 PM »

http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/13/heres-a-look-at-the-potential-short-list-for-trumps-supreme-court-nominees/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpJNVpqVmpaVGhsTVdWbSIsInQiOiJNNjFWaERMODU4YlFhblVjMUlKUytSaDFjZFF1VUFuU1wvWFlFMFwvUWw2UlBKOFpZbzVVUFdMYkVJWE5CRUdqMFJ1RXg2ZjdlaXJqaHVZZGpsYnhGTEg5QVZQNStFemhDVkM0VFwvXC9cL291bFNnSWZsNUJQNUdxd1dXN084dHh5Zlk0In0%3D
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1366 on: January 17, 2017, 02:49:23 PM »

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4209&context=nclr
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1367 on: January 17, 2017, 06:18:23 PM »

A very good article for reference -- thank you BD.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1368 on: January 23, 2017, 12:13:44 PM »

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1369 on: January 24, 2017, 10:07:05 AM »

Buy on rumor sell on the news  grin

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-neil-gorsuch-emerges-leading-contender-supreme-court-131110200--abc-news-topstories.html

Does one have to be a Harvard grad to be on SC?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1370 on: January 30, 2017, 02:15:52 PM »


Clearly not. There is a great deal of diversity on the SCOTUS. Harvard AND Yale... and Columbia, who started at Harvard.

GWB nominated Miers, and SMU grad, but the GOP didn't want any of that.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1371 on: January 30, 2017, 02:16:17 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-d-gerber/clarence-thomas-should-be_1_b_14445166.html
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 11:31:33 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1372 on: January 30, 2017, 03:33:23 PM »


I agree with this Huffington Post piece.     - I'm not sure which emoticon to put with that.  )
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1373 on: January 30, 2017, 03:50:07 PM »

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/29/a-conservative-jurist-for-the-supreme-court/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1374 on: January 31, 2017, 11:29:57 PM »

Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch

By NEAL K. KATYALJAN. 31, 2017

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.

There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.

I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.

Considerable doubts about the direction of the Supreme Court have emerged among Democrats in recent weeks, particularly given some of the names that have been floated by the administration for possible nomination. With environmental protection, reproductive rights, privacy, executive power and the rights of criminal defendants (including the death penalty) on the court’s docket, the stakes are tremendous. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice. But since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws?

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.

In a pair of immigration cases, De Niz Robles v. Lynch and Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch ruled against attempts by the government to retroactively interpret the law to disfavor immigrants. In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers. When judges defer to the executive about the law’s meaning, he wrote, they “are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.” In strong terms, Judge Gorsuch called that a “problem for the judiciary” and “a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired” by “an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.” That reflects a deep conviction about the role of the judiciary in preserving the rule of law.

That conviction will serve the court and the country well. Last week, The Denver Post encouraged the president to nominate Judge Gorsuch in part because “a justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.”

I couldn’t agree more. Right about now, the public could use some reassurance that no matter how chaotic our politics become, the members of the Supreme Court will uphold the oath they must take: to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise.

Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1375 on: February 01, 2017, 09:12:07 AM »

The Gorsuch pick (and confirmation) will free Kennedy to retire.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-gorsuch-234474

Ginsburg and Breyer, too!   wink
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1376 on: February 01, 2017, 09:51:27 AM »

Jonathan Turley

President Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch as the next Supreme Court justice Tuesday, and Senate Democrats are already lined up to oppose the nomination. Despite the super-heated political rhetoric, the nomination of another conservative jurist to replace Justice Antonin Scalia won’t move the court’s center of gravity. If Trump wants to have a lasting effect on the law, he should be working with the Republican Congress to make changes in — not on — the Supreme Court.

As an institution, the nation’s highest court is anachronistic, dysfunctional and long-overdue for an overhaul. Real change could be accomplished with just three basic reforms.

First, the court is too small. When the first Supreme Court convened in 1790, at the Royal Exchange Building in New York City, only two of the then six-member court showed up. For many years, the size of the court was set by the number of “circuits” — the regional appellate courts in the country. In 1869, that number was nine. While we currently have 13 such circuits, the court remained frozen at nine justices.
We never have had a national debate on the ideal size of this key institution, but we can be certain nine isn’t it.

We never have had a national debate on the ideal size of this key institution, but we can be certain nine isn’t it. That configuration concentrates authority in too small a group. Indeed, it is often in the hands of only one person — the perennial problem of the “swing justice” on a divided court. For years, the court was effectively just Sandra Day O’Connor. Now, Anthony M. Kennedy plays the swing role.
Paid Post
What's This?
Discover Time in a Bottle

A Message from Philosophy

A perfect fit for your daily anti-aging skin care regimen. Overtime, 88% of women showed visible improvement in lines, wrinkles, and tone and 100% of women showed a dramatic improvement in firmness.
See More

A better size is 19. The increase could occur slowly with no president filling more than two new positions per term. That would bring the U.S. high court in line with those of other countries, which have purposefully avoided our court’s concentration of power (and swing justice) problems. Germany’s high court has 16 members; Japan’s, 15; the United Kingdom’s, 12; India’s, 31; and Israel’s, 15.

On a 19-member Supreme Court, two justices (rotated by order of seniority) would sit each year on lower courts — a tradition from the early days of the Republic that should be resumed. When “riding circuit” was abandoned, it produced a Supreme Court too easily seen as arrogant and out of touch with real-world issues.

A larger court would also give more presidents more nominees and give the court a greater diversity of views. A larger court might even reduce our continual confirmation spasms whenever one of the few positions becomes vacant. And with more seats to fill, the quality of the jurists might rise.

Although it seems counterintuitive, seats on the court come up so rarely now, and are so contentious, that presidents often pick nominees who are not particularly outstanding or distinctive in their field in order to make confirmation easier. A larger court would decrease each justice’s power, but it would probably increase the high court’s overall expertise.

Next, cameras should be allowed into the Supreme Court. The framers were such great believers in the need for justice to be done in public that they put it into the Constitution. The 6th Amendment guarantees public trials, and yet the justices currently make people wait in line (the wealthy hire line “sitters”) for days to get one of the relatively small number of seats in the courtroom. In an effort to fend off cameras, the court agreed in 1999 to release audio, in addition to transcripts, in some cases. That has simply made the situation more bizarre — it’s as if the court’s communication technology stopped with the advent of radio.

The objection some justices have made to video isn’t that the lawyers will grandstand, but that their fellow justices will. In 2007, Justice Kennedy suggested that if the proceedings were televised it would be “human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite.”

Protecting justices from temptation is hardly a compelling argument for denying the public access to their highest court. Congress should order the cameras to start rolling, and any judges who feel they must retire should be thanked for their service.

Finally, the Supreme Court is not just an island protected from modern technology but also judicial ethics. With self-serving logic, the justices insist that they alone can judge their conduct. They have voluntarily agreed to “refer” to the Code of Judicial Conduct for guidance. Often it appears to be honored primarily in the breach. Justices have given public speeches in which they have discussed pending issues and cases, attended political fundraisers, and ruled in cases where they or their spouses have financial interests.

Congress should require the Supreme Court to adopt a formal code of ethics, including a process by which citizens can file complaints against justices. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison observed that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.” However, the nine justices on the Supreme Court demand precisely that unilateral power when it comes to their behavior.

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1377 on: February 02, 2017, 12:30:10 PM »

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/gorsuch.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1378 on: February 08, 2017, 05:28:25 PM »


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban.html?emc=edit_na_20170208&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1379 on: February 09, 2017, 01:59:28 PM »

‘I Worked for the Obama Administration. I Have to Say, I’m 100 Percent Comfortable with Judge Gorsuch.’

This morning, the Judicial Crisis Network launched a national $2 million advertising campaign in support of confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The commercial features Jane Nitze, a former Obama-administration attorney, who clerked for Judge Gorsuch in 2008 and 2009.

“I don’t think folks on the left should be concerned about Judge Gorsuch becoming a Supreme Court Justice,” Nitze says in the ad. “He is extraordinarily fair-minded. He will approach each case the same, regardless of the issue or the parties before him, and he will have a great deal of respect for folks on all sides of the ideological spectrum. I worked for the Obama administration. I have to say, I’m 100 percent comfortable with Judge Gorsuch becoming the next Supreme Court justice.”
 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1380 on: February 10, 2017, 05:52:30 AM »

"I Worked for the Obama Administration. I Have to Say, I’m 100 Percent Comfortable with Judge Gorsuch.’

I am now against him if this is a true statement.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2239


« Reply #1381 on: February 15, 2017, 04:25:44 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/neil-gorsuch-could-be-the-most-conservative-justice-on-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.a10c1b61711a
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1382 on: February 15, 2017, 09:18:23 PM »

 cool cool cool
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1383 on: February 20, 2017, 05:13:25 PM »

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/02/09/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-favors-decriminalizing-pedophilia-and-child-sex-trafficking/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39466


« Reply #1384 on: March 04, 2017, 10:24:31 AM »

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/three-branches-government-separation-powers-executive-legislative-judicial-214812?ref=yfp
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1385 on: March 10, 2017, 10:20:37 AM »

Perception political?  Why and how would anyone get that idea? 

What are we stupid?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Justice-Sotomayor-Perception-Judges-Political/2017/03/10/id/777979/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8594


« Reply #1386 on: March 21, 2017, 09:56:54 AM »


Speaking of prescient, on the forum we had the pleasure of reading this excellent article a day before the  Neil Gorsuch appointment was known.

Today Judge Gorsuch is giving a constitutional law clinic on NPR, CSPAN? or wherever you can get coverage.

Opponents have accused Gorsuch of being an originalist.  If you are a leftist, isn't a disciplined "originalist" better than having Trump appoint like the liberals do, someone who agrees with Trump on policy and would read the constitution as a living and breathing document that can be twisted and contorted to support those policies.  Glenn Reynolds posed this question a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/02/constitution-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-originalism-glenn-reynolds-column/98537030/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6813


« Reply #1387 on: March 22, 2017, 10:19:10 AM »

The rogue is not the President who was duly elected but this judge:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/21/impartiality-of-federal-judge-who-blocked-trump-eo-may-be-in-question/

Yet he will get away with it.    Put a PI on his tail.  Find something.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!