This is exactly why I have a gigantic man-crush on Scalia. I rarely agree with the man’s conclusions, but his dissents do a fantastic job of pointing out legitimate weaknesses in the Court’s logic - a valuable function.
I find I agree with Scalia’s conclusions a lot (though not necessarily the way he reaches them). Even if we discount the majority of “non-controversial” cases, he tends to be on the right side on a lot of criminal matters and he has made good free speech decisions. I particularly think he came down on the right side on damage caps. He proves it is possible to come to the constitutionally right decision through an often flawed methodology.
The GOP seems to be able to hold a lot of Obama nominees for longer then a couple months. Granted the optics of holding up the Assistant Deputy to the Secretary of the Whatever is probably a lot different then holding up a SCOTUS nominee. But it seems like an obvious tactic for an opposition party to consider if they think they’ll increase their share of seats in the Senate at the next election.
Can you make a recess appointment to the SCOTUS? Or is that only for executive posts? Also, FWIW, I don’t think any SCOTUS nominee has ever been successfully filibustered.
True.
I don’t see why not, but it wouldn’t help much because his or her term would end at the conclusion of the current session of Congress, and if that nomination didn’t come to a vote he’d have to make the recess appointment again in 2013…
This just depresses me:
“An awareness of the global implications of American policy?” Who cares?!? It’s not the job of a judge to determine what effects, global or otherwise, American policy have. That’s the job of the President, and of Congress. It’s the job of a judge to determine what words of the law mean, and how a particular law applies to a particular set of facts. He’s a referee, an umpire, neutrally applying the rules to a given situation. When the judge starts to care about what the global implications of American policy are, that’s the referee caring about which team wins the game. That’s not his role.
Or it shouldn’t be.
It’s kind of a gray area, but there was technically a filibuster against the appointment of Abe Fortas to Chief Justice, and his nomination was eventually withdrawn.
The only two people on the Nation’s list who I think have the possibility to be on the short list are Kagan and Wood.
I don’t think Koh’s as bad at the Nation describes him. David Bernstein doesn’t like him, and if you don’t think we should take international law and norms into account when making judicial decisions, you probably wouldn’t like him, but he’s a smart guy with a long career, and if you look at what he’s actually said and written, there’s nothing really outrageous there.
He cares about the global implications of American policy because that’s his job and has been his job. He was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor under Clinton and legal advisor to the State Department under Obama. So for that reason alone, he’s had to worry about that sort of stuff.
That’s fine.
But if an article said, “And he makes a mean chile con carne,” I might similarly object to the relevance, even if you were to point out that he moonlights as a chef at a local Tex Mex place.
Can you give us a list of five people you think would be acceptable by both sides?
Fortas apparently had a job on the side making as much as the court paid. It was not allowed, but he claimed he needed the money. The Court was paying about 30 k in those days. The Repubs said they would release the info ,if he was pushed for Chief.
Sure.
And let me be clear: I don’t say Koh is a bad choice; I inveigh against The Nation for believing he is a good choice because, inter alia, he has an awareness of the global implications of American policy.
Here are five people that are either Democratic politicians, or were appointed to the federal bench originally by Democrats (which recognizes that Obama is not likely to pick a Republican) but whose ability and stances should be clear to any observer. Opposition to any would be (in my view) purely political.
Fortunato Benavides
Merrick Garland
Jose Cabranes
Deval Patrick
Jennifer Granholm
Hmmm…very interesting list. Not bad at all, but interesting.
Thank you.
The big problem I have with Patrick and Granholm is that neither of them have any judicial experience. They’re both smart people who were good Attorneys General, and I know you don’t need judicial experience to be a member of the Supreme Court, and that we’ve had some really good justices who haven’t, but (in honor of baseball season), it’s sort of like grabbing somebody who played high school or college ball and putting him straight in the majors. I like my justices to come from the appellate benches.
Why the fuck do we care who the Republicans like? Did Bush give us any relief? Hell no! We need revenge for Scalia and Alito. Pick somebody whose presence on the bench will be like a fork in the nose of conservatives everywhere!
Like Cass Sunstein!
BTW, I know I’m being hypocritical here because Sunstein never sat on the appellate bench, but hey, it’s Sunstein! It’s not like we don’t know his judicial philosophy.
With that Schiavo thread in mind again, how 'bout George Greer? Bet he’d come out of retirement for this one.
Is there any particular reason Obama couldn’t nominate himself? He’s never been a member of the judiciary, but it’s not actually a requirement as far as I can tell.
Almost certainly not. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. One cannot be appointed to a term that expires on a set date.
- He’s a Republican
- There’s no way, after the Schiavo thing that he’d get confirmed.