Supreme Court Justice Scalia found dead
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35571868
Gives Obama an opportunity to replace him before he ends his term as President. Scalia was appointed by Reagan back in 1986
Gives Obama an opportunity to replace him before he ends his term as President. Scalia was appointed by Reagan back in 1986
This is a potential game changer in many ways. Scalia was the most conservative of the Supremes, and his replacement will secure a liberal majority on the Court. If the Democrats regain the White House (which appears likely), the new President will in due course get to make one or two further appointments to the Court. This could lead in time to abolition of the death penalty and, wait for it, a real possibility of effective gun control.
The death of Justice Scalia brings to an end the longtime 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Watching US news it seems that the Republicans don't think that President Obama ought to be able to appoint a ninth member to the court who would bring about a more liberal majority but I'm not sure why. If there has been a conservative majority for a long time then why should there not be a liberal majority for a while? The balance will presumably swing back again at some time in the future.
Is there a deeper reason than petty partisanship that Obama ought not be allowed to appoint a judge? He is the elected president after all.
Is there a deeper reason than petty partisanship that Obama ought not be allowed to appoint a judge? He is the elected president after all.
It's not, as far as I can see, liberal vs conservative; it's strict-constructionist vs activist.
This may have something to do with the Founders' POV being over 200 years old (I can't think of anyone writing then that would be considered "left-wing" today); so be it, there is a mechanism for changing the US Constitution and it isn't packing the SC with people who think they're there to change the law.
This may have something to do with the Founders' POV being over 200 years old (I can't think of anyone writing then that would be considered "left-wing" today); so be it, there is a mechanism for changing the US Constitution and it isn't packing the SC with people who think they're there to change the law.
My yank mates have been posting on this.
Below is one post.
"Some lefty legal scholar will write an article about this and it'll get posted everywhere, but I'll tell you first: Scalia was not as bad on individual freedoms as you think he was.
He was bad. Make no mistake about that. But he was also (this is off the top of my head, so I think there are more):
-- the fifth vote in the 5-4 flag-burning case to recognize the free-speech rights involved.
-- the absolute leader in the court in pushing for criminal defendants to have more expansive Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation. For the lawyers: Crawford v. Washington never would have happened without him.
-- an occasionally surprising vote for Fourth Amendment search/seizure rights. See, particularly: Arizona v. Hicks (cop could not pick up an item in plain view without probable cause to believe it was contraband, and then get a good/better gander at it once he had already seized it). Consider also his concurrence in Minnesota v. Dickerson which draws a bright line over which the cops cannot cross in conducting a frisk.
And yeah, he was a nightmare in reproductive-freedom cases, anything involving equal rights for gays and a host of other areas. He was a nightmare more often than he was not.
But he was not Robert Bork. Be very glad we never got Robert Bork."
And then there's the Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dea...
Below is one post.
"Some lefty legal scholar will write an article about this and it'll get posted everywhere, but I'll tell you first: Scalia was not as bad on individual freedoms as you think he was.
He was bad. Make no mistake about that. But he was also (this is off the top of my head, so I think there are more):
-- the fifth vote in the 5-4 flag-burning case to recognize the free-speech rights involved.
-- the absolute leader in the court in pushing for criminal defendants to have more expansive Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation. For the lawyers: Crawford v. Washington never would have happened without him.
-- an occasionally surprising vote for Fourth Amendment search/seizure rights. See, particularly: Arizona v. Hicks (cop could not pick up an item in plain view without probable cause to believe it was contraband, and then get a good/better gander at it once he had already seized it). Consider also his concurrence in Minnesota v. Dickerson which draws a bright line over which the cops cannot cross in conducting a frisk.
And yeah, he was a nightmare in reproductive-freedom cases, anything involving equal rights for gays and a host of other areas. He was a nightmare more often than he was not.
But he was not Robert Bork. Be very glad we never got Robert Bork."
And then there's the Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dea...
handpaper said:
It's not, as far as I can see, liberal vs conservative; it's strict-constructionist vs activist.
This may have something to do with the Founders' POV being over 200 years old (I can't think of anyone writing then that would be considered "left-wing" today); so be it, there is a mechanism for changing the US Constitution and it isn't packing the SC with people who think they're there to change the law.
It's really more liberal v conservative, and much so-called originalism or strict constructionism is on one view quite activist. "Activist" tends to be a buzz word flung at a Judge with whom a politician or tabloid disagrees. For example, Theresa May tried to bypass the UK Constitution by arguing that rules made by her trumped Statute. When Judges upheld the traditional view of the Constitution and held that Statute trumps Ministerial rules, May called the Judges "activist". As for changing the law, in a common law system such as the US (and the UK), all Judges of superior courts change the law. It's one of the things that they are there for.This may have something to do with the Founders' POV being over 200 years old (I can't think of anyone writing then that would be considered "left-wing" today); so be it, there is a mechanism for changing the US Constitution and it isn't packing the SC with people who think they're there to change the law.
Breadvan72 said:
It's really more liberal v conservative, and much so-called originalism or strict constructionism is on one view quite activist. "Activist" tends to be a buzz word flung at a Judge with whom a politician or tabloid disagrees. For example, Theresa May tried to bypass the UK Constitution by arguing that rules made by her trumped Statute. When Judges upheld the traditional view of the Constitution and held that Statute trumps Ministerial rules, May called the Judges "activist". As for changing the law, in a common law system such as the US (and the UK), all Judges of superior courts change the law. It's one of the things that they are there for.
One interpretationOthers prefer that laws be made by people we can elect, and kick out if necessary, not an unelected elite.
The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
JagLover said:
Others prefer that laws be made by people we can elect, and kick out if necessary, not an unelected elite.
The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
The classic; legislature-executive-judiciary model, you would wish to alter how this system operates? The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
JagLover said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's really more liberal v conservative, and much so-called originalism or strict constructionism is on one view quite activist. "Activist" tends to be a buzz word flung at a Judge with whom a politician or tabloid disagrees. For example, Theresa May tried to bypass the UK Constitution by arguing that rules made by her trumped Statute. When Judges upheld the traditional view of the Constitution and held that Statute trumps Ministerial rules, May called the Judges "activist". As for changing the law, in a common law system such as the US (and the UK), all Judges of superior courts change the law. It's one of the things that they are there for.
One interpretationOthers prefer that laws be made by people we can elect, and kick out if necessary, not an unelected elite.
The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
TTwiggy said:
It's rather puzzling that this forum generally holds politicians of all hues in almost complete contempt, yet when it comes to the passing of laws some seem keen to hand over even more power to this much-maligned group.
Only the good ones, you know, the ones just a smidgeon to the right of Attila the Hun. Halb said:
TTwiggy said:
It's rather puzzling that this forum generally holds politicians of all hues in almost complete contempt, yet when it comes to the passing of laws some seem keen to hand over even more power to this much-maligned group.
Only the good ones, you know, the ones just a smidgeon to the right of Attila the Hun. Halb said:
JagLover said:
Others prefer that laws be made by people we can elect, and kick out if necessary, not an unelected elite.
The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
The classic; legislature-executive-judiciary model, you would wish to alter how this system operates? The fact that the left seem to view the replacement of a supreme court judge as an opportunity to change laws, which they cannot do via congress, should perhaps make us pause and consider what is the ideal separation of powers in a political system.
The judiciary should interpret laws and a constitution as they were written. If the people wish to alter those laws they can do so either indirectly, by which parties the vote for, or directly when given the opportunity through a referendum.
Judicial "activism" is another word for a Oligarchic form of government.
TTwiggy said:
It's rather puzzling that this forum generally holds politicians of all hues in almost complete contempt, yet when it comes to the passing of laws some seem keen to hand over even more power to this much-maligned group.
The worst politician has one crucial advantage over the best judge, we can kick them out if we don't like the job they are doing.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff