lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 Well if you want to argue who "started" it you'd have to go all the way back to FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) And who started the real "politicing" of SCOTUS nominees? It took one hour for the Borkinization of SCOTUS nominees to begin by one Ted Kennedy. What is this in reference to? Honest question, I really don't know any history behind SCOTUS nominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) What is this in reference to? Honest question, I really don't know any history behind SCOTUS nominations. The Dems in the 80s stirring up controversy to get Robert Bork's confirmation rejected and forcing Reagan to nominate a more moderate justice (Kennedy). Then there was the Thomas hearings, that's a whole other story, I was only about 9 or 10 at the time but from going back and reading it, I don't see how anyone can honestly argue Thomas was anywhere NEAR as qualified as Bork when he was nominated. Thomas is obviously intelligent, but sometimes when I read his legal logic, it's just absolutely brutal and I'm thinking "how the hell did this guy get a law degree?" I might not agree with Scalia's rulings but I never get that feeling when I read him, other than him being kind of obnoxious. Oh and then there was the Anita Hill stuff... yeah... Edited April 10, 2010 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 The really ugly politics started when Kennedy gave a blistering speech against Bork an hour after his nomination. Before that point in time, yea, the appointees were "political" but not "ugly" like it is now. And that speech was what started the nasty stuff between parties on SCOTUS nominees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) What is this in reference to? Honest question, I really don't know any history behind SCOTUS nominations. Robert Bork, Reagan nominee from the late 1980's, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) The really ugly politics started when Kennedy gave a blistering speech against Bork an hour after his nomination. Before that point in time, yea, the appointees were "political" but not "ugly" like it is now. And that speech was what started the nasty stuff between parties on SCOTUS nominees. The pace didn't really pick up until Bush 43 if you don't count Thomas's hearings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) The pace didn't really pick up until Bush 43 if you don't count Thomas's hearings That's what started it. And now, it's just so far out of control, it's almost pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) That's what started it. And now, it's just so far out of control, it's almost pointless. Thomas, or Bork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Thomas, or Bork? Yes. Bork. Even Thomas wasn't that contensious (sp.) even with the Anita Hill bulls*** compared to Bork, and from there it's been totally obnoxious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 I wasn't old enough to know or care about Clinton's nominations at the time, the first one I really remember is Roberts and that one seemed like a charade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 Thinking outside of the box. That sounds like a politician. Not a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) That sounds like a politician. Not a judge. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 There's nothing wrong with nominating politicians to the Supreme Court. It's been done before. Judges aren't the only ones capable of interpreting the law, in fact they only give you one piece of the entire picture. Something like a state Attorney General, Solicitor General (not coincidence that Kagan is said to be on the short list), a US Attorney, or hell even a high-profile lawyer or law professor with a deep resume are perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 So? Qualifications for interpreting and evaluating laws in regards to precedent and our constitution should not include being a really good mayor. He should run for the Senate, not be on the SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 There's nothing wrong with nominating politicians to the Supreme Court. It's been done before. Judges aren't the only ones capable of interpreting the law, in fact they only give you one piece of the entire picture. Something like a state Attorney General, Solicitor General (not coincidence that Kagan is said to be on the short list), a US Attorney, or hell even a high-profile lawyer or law professor with a deep resume are perfectly fine. Or a hockey mom from a small town in Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Or a hockey mom from a small town in Alaska. lol. You know what, that would almost be worth it, if you actually got to read her writings on majority opinions or dissents (have you ever read anything she's written on her own, without help from advisors? My god). Edited April 10, 2010 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) Or a hockey mom from a small town in Alaska. I don't really know much about Booker, but politicians are not equally qualified to serve on the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) Qualifications for interpreting and evaluating laws in regards to precedent and our constitution should not include being a really good mayor. He should run for the Senate, not be on the SCOTUS. Here's a different way at looking at it. It's the job of legislative branches to write laws, and for executive branches to enforce laws (although executives do a fair amount of writing these days also). If it's the court's job to interpret those laws, can't it at least be occasionally useful to have the opinion and perhaps expertise of a person who's spent his time writing and executing laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 03:21 PM) I don't really know much about Booker, but politicians are not equally qualified to serve on the courts. But...the path to serving on the court shouldn't necessarily be limited to "working your way up as a judge". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 He's right though, being a good mayor doesn't really mean anything, legal qualifications do, but that doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 lol. You know what, that would almost be worth it, if you actually got to read her writings on majority opinions or dissents (have you ever read anything she's written on her own, without help from advisors? My god). No I haven't. I want to now, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) But...the path to serving on the court shouldn't necessarily be limited to "working your way up as a judge". I meant that all politicians are not equally worthy of serving on the court. Meaning Sarah Palin has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton for example. Edited April 10, 2010 by KipWellsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 06:14 PM) I meant that all politicians are not equally worthy of serving on the court. Meaning Sarah Palin has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as Amy Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton for example. So, where does Mayor Booker fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 05:31 PM) So, where does Mayor Booker fit? Booker>Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) Here's a different way at looking at it. It's the job of legislative branches to write laws, and for executive branches to enforce laws (although executives do a fair amount of writing these days also). If it's the court's job to interpret those laws, can't it at least be occasionally useful to have the opinion and perhaps expertise of a person who's spent his time writing and executing laws? Writing and executing laws has nothing do with actually interpreting what laws mean. Anyone can write a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts