Senate Approves Court Justices

If it is the job of the Senate to approve the appointments that the President puts up, then why didn't Bork get approved?

If Bork was too much of an extremist, then why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

Originally posted by Eladar
If it is the job of the Senate to approve the appointments that the President puts up, then why didn't Bork get approved?

If Bork was too much of an extremist, then why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

If it is the job of the Senate to [automatically] approve the appointments that the President puts up [...]?

It's not.

[...] why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

They don't.

Any more stupid questions?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]If it is the job of the Senate to [automatically] approve the appointments that the President puts up [...]?

It's not.

[...] why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

They don't.

Any more stupid questions?[/b]

It sometimes seems contrary to your assertion. Just a few decades ago, the Senate basically rubber stamped nominees. All that has changed, and now the process is quite partisan. In my memory, what changed it was the opposition to the appointment of Clarence Thomas. Since then, the party holding the Senate, if opposite of the President, has always opposed the President's first choice and bargained for a more centrist choice.

All of that hasn't seemed to make the court less partisan, as most decisions end up 5 to 4 along party lines. A change I would like to see, would be a super majority in order to overturn legislation. Why should the opinion of one man or woman overturn laws passed by Congress, or duly elected State legislatures? If such a decision happens, it ought to be by at least a 6-3 majority, if not unanimous.

If that were the case, the delicate 5-4 majority wouldn't be so important.

Originally posted by normbenign
It sometimes seems contrary to your assertion. Just a few decades ago, the Senate basically rubber stamped nominees. All that has changed, and now the process is quite partisan. In my memory, what changed it was the opposition to the appointment of Clarence Thomas. Since then, the party holding the Senate, if opposite of the President, has always oppo ...[text shortened]... if not unanimous.

If that were the case, the delicate 5-4 majority wouldn't be so important.

This fellow claims to be conservative and has his doubts.

https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/should-the-supreme-court-need-a-supermajority-to-strike-down-a-law/

He thinks a needing a supermajority to overturn a law would result on more laws on the books.

Originally posted by normbenign
A change I would like to see, would be a super majority in order to overturn legislation. Why should the opinion of one man or woman overturn laws passed by Congress, or duly elected State legislatures? If such a decision happens, it ought to be by at least a 6-3 majority, if not unanimous.

If that were the case, the delicate 5-4 majority wouldn't be so important.

You are not really making any sense. If I understand you correctly, you want the court to have a different balance of members from each party so that the votes no longer look nearly balanced. This won't of course change which party wants what or whether or not the party with the majority of sitting judges wins, it will only change how big a majority of sitting judges they have. So in reality it won't actually change the number of decisions or anything. The only difference is people like you are happier to see 7-2 than 5-4. One trick you can use is to multiply all votes by 10, then you will see 50-40 and fell much happier with a margin of 10.

Originally posted by Eladar
If it is the job of the Senate to approve the appointments that the President puts up, then why didn't Bork get approved?

If Bork was too much of an extremist, then why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

Cuz he is an evil conservative.

Duh!

Granted, he could just be stupid or crazy but the guy was too bright to label him that, so he must be evil.

Not everyone suckles at the tit of all truthiness and righteousness known as Progressivism.

Originally posted by Eladar
If it is the job of the Senate to approve the appointments that the President puts up, then why didn't Bork get approved?

If Bork was too much of an extremist, then why do the libtards get an automatic pass?

To be sure, there is little harder to pin down than acceptable bases for exercise of the "advice and consent" power, but there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with rejecting a nominee based on ideology. The Dems were within their power to shoot down Robert Bork, as are Republicans within their power to prevent President Obama from nominating a liberal. Of course, they filibuster at their own political hazard, as always.

Originally posted by sh76
[bthere doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with rejecting a nominee based on ideology. [/b]

Translated:

So there is nothing inherently wrong with stacking SCOTUS with stooge judges that will vote the way you want them to vote before even hearing a particular case

Originally posted by sh76
To be sure, there is little harder to pin down than acceptable bases for exercise of the "advice and consent" power, but there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with rejecting a nominee based on ideology. The Dems were within their power to shoot down Robert Bork, as are Republicans within their power to prevent President Obama from nominating a liberal. Of course, they filibuster at their own political hazard, as always.

In fact, very few nominees get rejected by the Senate. Bork is the only one rejected on a vote in the last 45 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Bork's views were really extreme; he referred to the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot" and opposed even Griswold v. Connecticut, a ruling which struck down a State law barring the sale of contraceptives. In addition, there was his role in the "Saturday Night Massacre" where after President Nixon ordered his Attorney General to fire the Watergate Special prosecutor for subpoenaing both the AG and his top assistant refused to do so and were fired, but Bork was promoted to the position and did so (an action later held to be illegal).

Bork's rejection was was one year after Scalia was confirmed unanimously (Kennedy, his replacement as a nominee, was also confirmed without any opposition) so the idea that conservative judges were unfairly targeted at the time is absurd.

I thought views on abortion were always the litmus test.

Originally posted by JS357
This fellow claims to be conservative and has his doubts.

https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/should-the-supreme-court-need-a-supermajority-to-strike-down-a-law/

He thinks a needing a supermajority to overturn a law would result on more laws on the books.

He makes some decent arguments. I don't mind there being many laws on the books, especially if they are mostly State laws. The founders didn't look at the Federal government as replacing all lesser governments. It was given limited jurisdiction and authority.

That isn't the case anymore. That's why I favor less power for SCOTUS to overturn laws, particularly State laws. Today, federal laws duplicate many State and local laws, and give prosecutors two bites of the apple, in effect double jeopardy.

If a particular law is that offensive to the Constitution, then getting 6 or 7 Justices to agree ought not be that difficult. When decisions come down to 5 to 4, it is usually over some partisan issue which maybe shouldn't even be decided by a court, but by the people.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In fact, very few nominees get rejected by the Senate. Bork is the only one rejected on a vote in the last 45 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Bork's views were really extreme; he referred to the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot" and opposed even Griswold v. Connecticut ...[text shortened]... y opposition) so the idea that conservative judges were unfairly targeted at the time is absurd.

Griswold, only 20 odd years old at the time, was hardly a non-controversial case. Even under a natural rights theory, it's not completely clear that there's a natural right to privacy (though I'd tend to agree that there is). If Bork believed that the Constitution did not guarantee the right to privacy, his opinion was hardly unique and was probably mainstream opinion before the 1960's.

It should be noted that even Justice Douglas' opinion in Griswold didn't really rely on a natural rights theory but on "penumbras" and "emanations" of the enumerated rights. It was really only Goldberg's concurrence (which Douglas did not join) that argued Griswold on a natural rights theory. Douglas' opinion was, in fact, a bit contrived.

The point is that opposing Griswold in those days was not such an extreme position.

Originally posted by sh76
Griswold, only 20 odd years old at the time, was hardly a non-controversial case. Even under a natural rights theory, it's not completely clear that there's a natural right to privacy (though I'd tend to agree that there is). If Bork believed that the Constitution did not guarantee the right to privacy, his opinion was hardly unique and was probably mainstream ...[text shortened]... ontrived.

The point is that opposing Griswold in those days was not such an extreme position.

I disagree; by 1987 Griswold had been established law for decades. Opposition to the principles in Griswold was as extreme as criticism of Brown v. Board of Ed; both certainly existed, but they were far out of the mainstream.

That applies whether one accepts the result in Griswold under 9th Amendment, "penumbras" or Due Process Clause analysis.

As John Harlan said earlier:

"(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."


In practice, Scalia varied little from Bork, but he had the good sense not to have an extensive written body of work expounding extremist views.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are not really making any sense. If I understand you correctly, you want the court to have a different balance of members from each party so that the votes no longer look nearly balanced. This won't of course change which party wants what or whether or not the party with the majority of sitting judges wins, it will only change how big a majority of si ...[text shortened]... to multiply all votes by 10, then you will see 50-40 and fell much happier with a margin of 10.

You've misunderstood what he's saying. He is arguing that the Supreme Court should be required to have a supermajority of 6-3 to overturn a law as unconstitutional whatever its composition, currently they only need a simple majority of 5-4. He is not arguing that one or other party should dominate it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In fact, very few nominees get rejected by the Senate. Bork is the only one rejected on a vote in the last 45 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Bork's views were really extreme; he referred to the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot" and opposed even Griswold v. Connecticut ...[text shortened]... y opposition) so the idea that conservative judges were unfairly targeted at the time is absurd.

Being British I had to look up the 9th amendment. Just to help the rest of the world follow this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment to the US constitution.