The Terms Are Important
There are significant disagreements and fighting and partisan wrangling ahead of us. There has become a partisan knife fight ritual about Supreme Court Justices. Not that it is any worse than the past, but with the advent of social media, unfortunately these things bring out the obvious failings of the education system.
According to the Constitution, the President picks a nominee. That nominee is then vetted by the Senate, and interviewed. The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent to the President’s nominee.
There is very little required for a person to be qualified to be a Justice. The person must be a citizen. The person must receive approval from the Senate, and that is about it. There have been Justices that were not lawyers. There have been Justices that were Klan members. There have been Justices that had never voted in their lives. There have been Justices that were nothing but political hack appointments (and many nominated that did not meet the vetting). There is nothing other than that.
It is a lifetime appointment, so as to unburdened with political fortunes of Congress or the President. They are to accept the cases that determine and define the law as legislated, and deliver rulings that are final and irreversible, unless Congress passes a law that specifically changes the thing that is ruled on, and the President signs it.
There is no requirement for the Justices to consider any particular aspect of anything, other than the Constitution and current Federal code. You will hear about traditionalists, constructionists, liberals, conservatives. Knowing the meaning of these terms in important.
Traditionalists look at Constitutional law as a continuum of traditions and precedents. Most Justices fall in this category, regardless of ideology. They generally decide based on what the prevailing law is, what the precedent for that law is, and how the courts have traditionally decided. These Justices believe that continuum of the law is important, and that huge swings of approach and disregarding the weight of previous decisions are marks of a weakness in the Court system.
Constructionalists are Justices that take a narrow and limited view of the Constitution, as written specifically in the document and the amendments. Actually, more than a conservative, I think that Scalia was the definition of strict constructionalist. Of course there was bombast, and no doubt he was “conservative”, but he considered it prohibited for the Court to redefine what the Founders wrote, and within that framework. These Justices are much more concerned and focused on narrowing scope and content to protect the “sanctity” of the original document.
Conservative justices used to be Justices that did not believe it was appropriate to change process or directions, unless warranted by some legal connection to a conflict that clearly violates the letter of the law. In today’s world, it is much more wrapped up in labeling a Justice according to likelihood to overturn Roe V. Wade, or gay marriage, or disability rights, or election gerrymandering. None of that is actually conservative because these would be massive and significant sea changes to existing conditions and precedents. That is just completely opposite of the concept of conservatism.
Liberal justices used to be Justices that did not believe it was inappropriate for the Court to act in the public sphere. These rulings were informed by precedent and content, but also in terms of deciding what role exactly government could or could not take in state and personal rights, often with consequential changes to social constructs backed by the permanent finding of the court. In today’s world, it is much more wrapped up in labeling a Justice according to their support and protection of gay marriage, Roe V Wade, civil rights. None of that is actually liberal, because all of those positions are precedent and settled case law. It is actually conservative to uphold Roe and gay marriage, and liberal to strike them down after decades of being upheld.
We have a great big clump of partisan crap, people at each other’s throat. The Supreme Court is actually the last great check on the broken and crumbling government we have. There is one other responsibility that the Court holds that we have not discussed. In the event of actual impeachment, the Senate tries the President, and the Chief Justice presides. The person being appointed in this open position will not be involved in an actual impeachment trial.
What is driving everyone crazy now is the fact that this appointment would potentially be the deciding partisan vote to rule on cases brought forward in terms of impeaching Trump. Evidence, testimony, statements, records, all those things will be fought over in court and it is unlikely if/when this is real that the Supreme Court would let the lower courts decide those cases due to the high stakes. Even if they do allow that, the rulings will be appealed and appear before the Supreme Court anyway.
This circumstance does not have a parallel I am aware of in American history. There is a legitimate concern here that it is a conflict of interest or perversion of justice to allow someone to pick their judge. I guess any pick would technically be that situation, but the difference is that this President is under on going criminal investigation, that has resulted in multiple convictions, nearly 100 indictments. This is not a witch hunt, and there is a high likelihood that this President will face criminal charges.
I am much more interested in that being explored and understood, than Roe V Wade. We will never and ever have banned abortions, overturning it, if it happens, will only ban safe, sanitary abortions. Not going to argue it with anyone, because it will never be a decision I will make. Striking down gay marriage, if it ever happened, is not something I find I will ever do. I have opinions and I have convictions, and they are mine, and I don’t want to know yours.
But, allowing a man under corruption, collusion and obstruction investigation pick someone likely to hear cases resulting from those investigations is a dictator move. That is nothing against Trump, I think he is guilty. But my thinking is not the same as a panel of judges ruling. None of us should be okay with that, because it is just not right.
It would be like letting 3M appoint one of the judges that would hear cases resulting from their potential pollution or health impact. We would not allow that, any of us, because it is wrong. I would love to hear someone make a credible argument that it is okay for Trump to do this. What am I missing?
According to the Constitution, the President picks a nominee. That nominee is then vetted by the Senate, and interviewed. The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent to the President’s nominee.
There is very little required for a person to be qualified to be a Justice. The person must be a citizen. The person must receive approval from the Senate, and that is about it. There have been Justices that were not lawyers. There have been Justices that were Klan members. There have been Justices that had never voted in their lives. There have been Justices that were nothing but political hack appointments (and many nominated that did not meet the vetting). There is nothing other than that.
It is a lifetime appointment, so as to unburdened with political fortunes of Congress or the President. They are to accept the cases that determine and define the law as legislated, and deliver rulings that are final and irreversible, unless Congress passes a law that specifically changes the thing that is ruled on, and the President signs it.
There is no requirement for the Justices to consider any particular aspect of anything, other than the Constitution and current Federal code. You will hear about traditionalists, constructionists, liberals, conservatives. Knowing the meaning of these terms in important.
Traditionalists look at Constitutional law as a continuum of traditions and precedents. Most Justices fall in this category, regardless of ideology. They generally decide based on what the prevailing law is, what the precedent for that law is, and how the courts have traditionally decided. These Justices believe that continuum of the law is important, and that huge swings of approach and disregarding the weight of previous decisions are marks of a weakness in the Court system.
Constructionalists are Justices that take a narrow and limited view of the Constitution, as written specifically in the document and the amendments. Actually, more than a conservative, I think that Scalia was the definition of strict constructionalist. Of course there was bombast, and no doubt he was “conservative”, but he considered it prohibited for the Court to redefine what the Founders wrote, and within that framework. These Justices are much more concerned and focused on narrowing scope and content to protect the “sanctity” of the original document.
Conservative justices used to be Justices that did not believe it was appropriate to change process or directions, unless warranted by some legal connection to a conflict that clearly violates the letter of the law. In today’s world, it is much more wrapped up in labeling a Justice according to likelihood to overturn Roe V. Wade, or gay marriage, or disability rights, or election gerrymandering. None of that is actually conservative because these would be massive and significant sea changes to existing conditions and precedents. That is just completely opposite of the concept of conservatism.
Liberal justices used to be Justices that did not believe it was inappropriate for the Court to act in the public sphere. These rulings were informed by precedent and content, but also in terms of deciding what role exactly government could or could not take in state and personal rights, often with consequential changes to social constructs backed by the permanent finding of the court. In today’s world, it is much more wrapped up in labeling a Justice according to their support and protection of gay marriage, Roe V Wade, civil rights. None of that is actually liberal, because all of those positions are precedent and settled case law. It is actually conservative to uphold Roe and gay marriage, and liberal to strike them down after decades of being upheld.
We have a great big clump of partisan crap, people at each other’s throat. The Supreme Court is actually the last great check on the broken and crumbling government we have. There is one other responsibility that the Court holds that we have not discussed. In the event of actual impeachment, the Senate tries the President, and the Chief Justice presides. The person being appointed in this open position will not be involved in an actual impeachment trial.
What is driving everyone crazy now is the fact that this appointment would potentially be the deciding partisan vote to rule on cases brought forward in terms of impeaching Trump. Evidence, testimony, statements, records, all those things will be fought over in court and it is unlikely if/when this is real that the Supreme Court would let the lower courts decide those cases due to the high stakes. Even if they do allow that, the rulings will be appealed and appear before the Supreme Court anyway.
This circumstance does not have a parallel I am aware of in American history. There is a legitimate concern here that it is a conflict of interest or perversion of justice to allow someone to pick their judge. I guess any pick would technically be that situation, but the difference is that this President is under on going criminal investigation, that has resulted in multiple convictions, nearly 100 indictments. This is not a witch hunt, and there is a high likelihood that this President will face criminal charges.
I am much more interested in that being explored and understood, than Roe V Wade. We will never and ever have banned abortions, overturning it, if it happens, will only ban safe, sanitary abortions. Not going to argue it with anyone, because it will never be a decision I will make. Striking down gay marriage, if it ever happened, is not something I find I will ever do. I have opinions and I have convictions, and they are mine, and I don’t want to know yours.
But, allowing a man under corruption, collusion and obstruction investigation pick someone likely to hear cases resulting from those investigations is a dictator move. That is nothing against Trump, I think he is guilty. But my thinking is not the same as a panel of judges ruling. None of us should be okay with that, because it is just not right.
It would be like letting 3M appoint one of the judges that would hear cases resulting from their potential pollution or health impact. We would not allow that, any of us, because it is wrong. I would love to hear someone make a credible argument that it is okay for Trump to do this. What am I missing?
Comments
Post a Comment