41–48 of 48 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All charges should have an age limit, like 70 for Supreme Court, and 65 for president/legislative. Stop making the government a geriatric
This is fair if there are minimum age requirements like for the presidency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate Souter was nominated in 1990. The President's party held the Senate in 2005 when Harriet Miers nomination didn't even make it out of committee. If you're talking about an actual vote for a nominee, looks like there were only four rejected candidates in the entire 1900's and 2000's so far ( https://en.wik…
I wasn't referring exclusively to SCOTUS nominees. You think RFK could have been confirmed 10 years ago even if the President's party held the Senate?
If you look at nominations that were withdrawn rather than going to a vote and being rejected, President Trump has had 5 withdrawn so far which is the most of any President in US history.
I see no evidence that the process is becoming more of a rubber-stamp than it was previously. If you've got some, I'd like to see it.
Radiolab made a podcast on him, detailing about how he rose above partisanship. We need more people like him in the courts. Episode link: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...
The Gingrich Revolution happened shortly after Souter arrived. Republicans corrected all the previous mistakes and succeeded in stacking the court after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a terrible decision. Not that those are rare. [EDIT] To make this a little more substantive, on an issue where they extremely plausibly could have decided otherwise, they elected to go for the option that is plainly, guaranteed to be less-just. There is no universe in which anyone with a brain could believe the overwhelming result of this decision wouldn't be to benefit people with power and money at the expen…
> the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use" Subjective decisions are bad, like we're seeing in other areas. "General benefits" can mean anything if you've got cooperative judges you crammed the courts with. > Not that those are rare. Heller comes to mind, even as a 2a supporter.
Banning law-abiding individuals from possessing firearms may or may not be good policy, but it's hard to see how it's constitutional. If people want to change that policy, they'll need to amend the constitution.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531191739/http://www.suprem...
Supreme Court justices are famous but not well known. Their names are familiar but not their faces. For this reason, David Souter and Stephen Breyer were frequently mistaken for each other. Once during his tenure on the court, Souter was driving from Washington to his home in New Hampshire, and he stopped in a little restaurant to get something to eat. A couple came up to him, and the man asked him a question. "You'r…
At a science fiction convention, a woman said to me, "Dr. Asimov, I have just finished your book Childhood's End. I liked it, but I didn't think it was as good as your other books."
Maintaining a straight and solemn face (with an enormous effort), I said, "Yes, ma'am. I was frightfully disappointed in that book, which I thought was quite inferior. I therefore insisted it appear under the pseudonym of Arthur C. Clarke, Jr."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
I met him at the Court once during law school. He came across as the most even-keeled person in the world. I asked him how he thought he had changed, if at all, throughout his years on the Court. He said, "We never see ourselves as others see us." I'll never forget it. He'll be missed; sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years.
> sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years. Are they subject to Freedom of Information requests?
Edit: I was not aware of this, somehow, lo these many years. Per Google, emphasis mine:
$FOIA grants the public the right to request records from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, it specifically excludes the Legislative and Judicial branches, including the Supreme Court.$
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use" Subjective decisions are bad, like we're seeing in other areas. "General benefits" can mean anything if you've got cooperative judges you crammed the courts with. > Not that those are rare. Heller comes to mind, even as a 2a supporter.
What did Heller get wrong? In the majority opinion[1] they do a pretty good job of explaining why they think the right to bear arms applies to the people, not just the militia, and how the amendment enshrines an individual right, not a collective one. In contrast, the dissenting justices can't seem to agree on why the second amendment doesn't apply. Stevens argues that the right to bear arms and other rights (the rig…
Herein lies the problem: it's just too hard to amend the constitution. Here in Ireland it's just a referendum. Some pass, some don't. It's a living document that changes (slowly) over time.
Heller was a 5/4 decision and a number of lower courts ruled different from the Supreme Court. It's not as clear-cut as you're making it out. The US constitution is vague enough that in many cases you can give several different reasonable interpretations. Endless discussion over what a comma written 250 years ago may or may not mean is quite frankly deeply and profoundly idiotic way of governing a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fair if there are minimum age requirements like for the presidency.
Not that I necessarily agree with the OP’s opinion, but who cares about fair when it comes to running the government? It should be about being effective.