Flem72

Here are some interesting arguments: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/ And more on election year appointments: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Oy. BTW, has anyone else thought that Cruz looks very much like a thinner, narrower-faced Lyndon Johnson?

I'd like that. "Bork" is a verb.

We shall see. I do not think she is not an established, honored journalist; I know nothing concrete about her biases, if any, or her activist tendencies, if any. But that last paragraph, twisty as it is, makes me think she wrote the article right after getting off the phone with Josh Earnest.

See, now you made me gonna hafta read those opinions if only to see whether this author -- apparently a distinguished lawyer -- is delivering the analysis on them. And that will not be fun. But judging from this line- "From abortion rights to marriage equality and desegregation, Justice Scalia opposed much of the social and political progress of the late 20th century and this one." - we are dealing with a Progressive who may or may not be a forthright analyst of appellate opinions, but certainly knows what constitutes progress. She also seems to care little about the heart of conservative originalism: The Constitution was not intended to deal with 99% of social issues, and only those political issues that strike at the fundamental structure of our government. "The question now is whether the Senate will honor Justice Scalia’s originalist view of the Constitution by allowing President Obama to appoint a successor, and providing its advice and consent in good faith. Or will the Republicans be willing to create a constitutional crisis and usurp the authority of the president to ensure that the Supreme Court functions as one branch of this government?" Twisty, twisty. Whether a nominee will be seated has zero to do with constitutional interpretation, and everything to do with political payback; there is no usurpation involved in delivering "advice and consent" in a way that searches for a true consensus nominee. Now I'm betting she has misrepresented the contrast between the two cases at the center of her article. Sigh. Gonna hafta.... EDIT: NOT a lawyer after all, but a lefty journalist with a Yale degree for those "who want to obtain a basic familiarity with legal thought and to explore the relation of law to their disciplines."

ty

I can't figure out whether you think stare decisis -- which, btw, is a fairly complex legal doctrine, SCOTUS discussions of which reach pretty rareified heights-- is a good thing or a bad thing ? or good when it goes your (political) way and bad when it doesn't go your (political) way? I assume you think Brown v. Board properly applied stare decisis in overruling Plessy v Ferguson?

For those who don't follow links, the quotation, attributed to Scalia, is: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Interesting that I cannot find any source for this supposed quotation, let alone a context for it. Some say a speech, but no one knows where or when. Maybe your friend can solve the problem? Also interesting that the statement, whether Scalia's or imaginary, could reasonably turn up in a rarified discussion of the law of criminal appellate procedure and /or SCOTUS' responsibility to promulgate the FRCr.P.

Leahy-Reed-Obama brought this upon themselves when they pursued the so-called Nuclear Option; it was a nakedly political power grab, and as Graham and others have said, and said when it happened, this kind of thing has consequences. So I'd not expect any judges to get confirmed during O's remaining term unless they are solidly consensus nominees. But the next president, whomever, will get nominees confirmed. Cabinet, who cares, they don't serve for life. And IMHO, on the scale of egregiously political exercises of constitutional power, this is nowhere close to the court-packing scheme, which manifested, pure and simple, callous disregard for separation of powers.

Can you please give some supporting argument for this alleged out the window throwing?I imagine you can come up with a url to someone else's assessment?

Yes, interesting. But because of the Leahy-Reed-Obama judical power play, there will be no appointment, unless there is a truly consensus nominee, until the next president is elected. Would you explain your comment re: stare decisis?

It is said that his best friend was Ruth Ginsberg; most ahve said he was a fine person. You are a bucket of spit.

And now for something completely different:

Two things I believe based on recent events: 1) Trump's "Fox News is biased against me" routine, which heretofore I didn't understand, is probably based in fact. Both Murdoch and Ailes are big players in a large, well-funded lobbying entity the sole focus of which is open borders. I don't see O'Reilly carrying that water -- which is probably why Trump talks to him, quite openly-, but other Fox anchors....???? 2) National Review's anti-Trump issue misses a large gorilla: Many of us crave a constitutional conservative, even if we are not socially conservative as that term is usually used, but Trump voters don't care. They want certain issues to be fixed and they don't care whether the fixer of these issues might be liberal on other issues, or as screw-separation-of-powers-I-know-what's-best-for-you as the current guy. And don't forget that a president's personal radicalisms don't often filter themselves into actual political accomplishment. Repeat after me: Separation of powers.

Excellent! Bad speechwriters.... :rolleyes:

OK, you're all bringing out the homer in me. I've only seen Carolina play three times, and it seems to me that they are pretty much a well-oiled machine. But it won't be "that"defense, it'll be one designed for what the Donks see on tape and what they've been told by other NFC coordinators about Carolina's tendencies. And Newton hasn't been tested under full game pressure. As for the "10 points under" theory: First, a factual note: that NE TD was not a product of their offense. Second, this kind of analysis should be based on scoring opportunities: What happens if Carolina has to forego TDs for FG attempts? I don't have any idea how good Carolina's FG guy might be....ours can score consistently from 50+. All that said, I doubt whether any unit can play 60 minutes like that two games in a row; however, if wiliness, emotion and commitment can turn the tide, this defense is the one to do it.That ball bounces funny; that's why they play the games.

but he probably wouldn't split the infinitive....

C'mon youse guys, give it up for one of the best defenses ever to play the game. Have you ever seen so much action at the snap?:

I think the Constitution was written against the social backdrop of the times. Period. It was intended to establish a system of government, not to cure what later times would see as social injustices.

Now let's get into the "only criminals will have guns" part of it. How many US shootings involve unregistered guns bought on the streets? Complicated.

Not exactly: The Constitution is a document of limited grants of power to the G. It didn't grant a right to own slaves, but neither did it prohibit slavery. I think the feature of modern Constitutional litigation that would most amaze the FF is that people nowdays routinely seek to apply it to social issues -- the FF, being very aware of the evolution of social mores over time, thought most of that stuff would work out socially, that is, extra-constitutionally,

Which, while true in its essentials -- individual gun ownership -- is somewhat misleading. Heller was the first test of that particular "understanding," the first SCOTUS case to address a legislative act attempting to restrict individual gun ownership (not including say tommy guns or auto weapons or ownership by felons, the "mentally ill" etc.)

The Donald.

If legislating for gun control worked, France would be one of the safest countries in the world. It clearly is not. What it is, is complicated.

Lawrence's CD (or, ahem, my Lawrence notes) and Robinson's Washington Standard (very complete SNT stuff). Also, if you can find a copy, Aces Scientific by Bobby Goldman, the true single-source precursor to 2/1.