Thought I had about Supreme Court. (1 Viewer)

[BobE]

I guess to kick off the new site I would see what others thought of an idea I had after seeing RBG was out again due to illness. What would the boards thought be on a term limit for USSC judges. Under the thought I had a 10 year limit would be good. Also who ever is POTUS makes the nomination regardless of time left in office. So under this scenario RBG, Roberts and Thomas (feel like I'm forgetting one) would no longer be on the bench and Garland would.

Thought? Opinions? DIAF?

 

[Beach Friends]

What do you mean by "get their act together"? Are you implying that their ratings are not based on verifiable information?

I am saying that the ABA has an ideological slant and that shows up in its evaluations.

I don't mind the ABA submitting information, like anyone else should be able to, but the idea that its opinions are beyond reproach as some may believe is not deserved, IMO.

 

[Nebaghead]

I am saying that the ABA has an ideological slant and that shows up in its evaluations.

I don't mind the ABA submitting information, like anyone else should be able to, but the idea that its opinions are beyond reproach as some may believe is not deserved, IMO.

Do you have an example of an ideological slant?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I am saying that the ABA has an ideological slant and that shows up in its evaluations.

I don't mind the ABA submitting information, like anyone else should be able to, but the idea that its opinions are beyond reproach as some may believe is not deserved, IMO.

You are basing that off of what? Feelings?

From what I have read on their site, their ratings have been without prejudice and spot on, meaning that the individuals that they have rated as "NQ" had substantiated evidence backing up their rating.

 

[Farb]

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/

A google search brought this up. Yes, it is from National Review.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115387355913717235

Yes, this is from the Wall Street journal.

 

[Beach Friends]

You are basing that off of what? Feelings?

A little snarky there. It's pretty common knowledge that the ABA has been struggling for many years and is a shell of its former self. Membership is down, they have financial issues and the ABA simply does not have the prestige or influence it once did.

I gave you my opinion. If you want further information you can research this and make your own determination.

 

[coldseat]

A little snarky there. It's pretty common knowledge that the ABA has been struggling for many years and is a shell of its former self. Membership is down, they have financial issues and the ABA simply does not have the prestige or influence it once did.

I gave you my opinion. If you want further information you can research this and make your own determination.

You make them sound like the NRA, lol. I doubt it's gotten that bad.

I don't know anything about these judges, but I'll take the ABA's word about their qualifications over that of random internet blog person.

 

[Beach Friends]

You make them sound like the NRA, lol. I doubt it's gotten that bad.

I don't know anything about these judges, but I'll take the ABA's word about their qualifications over that of random internet blog person.

That's fine.

At least we agree on the NRA. They have big issues too.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/

A google search brought this up. Yes, it is from National Review.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115387355913717235

Yes, this is from the Wall Street journal.

The WSJ is behind a pay wall so I can't read that article, as for the NR, they list nothing but conservative judges that were rated 'NQ", giving the implication that liberal judges are wave through, which is not the case. The article also implies the ABA has an affinity towards judicial candidates that are pro-life, when in fact, it shows that they are wary of those judicial candidates that have exhibited prejudicial biases in the matter of abortion rights.

I gave you my opinion. If you want further information you can research this and make your own determination.

I already researched the ABA rating system years ago as I was curious to know why so many Trump appointees were rated as "NQ", and the results of that was vast majority of them were, in fact, "NQ". Hell, even there those in his Senate who have made it clear that they were not qualified. The same Senate that just confirmed a guy who crafted a policy that got trump's SecEd in trouble with the courts.

 

[JimEverett]

That guy seems very well qualified (the ABA agrees as well).

As far as the charges leveled against him in the article:

compared race data collection in college admissions to Germany under Adolf Hitler: I am not sure that is a totally fair characterization. He appeared to me to be criticizing the cataloging of race on college applications and on official documents:



That is not a criticism of mere data collection, and it is a criticism that is far from radical.


denounced women’s marches against sexual assault: Again - this criticism seems very sensationalized. He did criticize "Take back the night marches" as charging the majority of male students with complicity in rape. It appears to be something partly specific to Dartmouth at the time. It also seems unfair to claim he is criticizing marches against sexual assault given that he states what he is denouncing - the idea that most men are complicit in rape

opposed the “radical abortion rights codified in Roe v. Wade”: This is more valid, but still seems to turn on how you interpret his point. The article itself was about how academia is in its political bubble as well as a criticism of live birth abortions given the recent passage of the Congressional legislation outlawing or limiting the practice. I think a fair reading would say the "radical abortions rights" was exactly THAT - live birth abortions. But I admit is not 100% clear.

I couldn't find the article about Matthew Shepard - all I got was a HuffPost article and a quick reading of that did not turn up Menashi's writings.


I dont have time to look at last one or two. But i think that its interesting how the huffpo writer characterized the others and Menashi's overall qualifications.

 

[Archies Ghost]

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/

A google search brought this up. Yes, it is from National Review.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115387355913717235

Yes, this is from the Wall Street journal.

To add a bit more

Another Self-Inflicted Wound for the ABA | National Review

No one really cares about the group or their ratings.

www.nationalreview.com

Examining the American Bar Association's Ratings of Nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for Political Bias, 1989-2000

In this study, Professor Lindgren examined data on the 108 confirmed nominees to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal from the administrations of George H.W. Bush

papers.ssrn.com

The American Bar Association, Judicial Ratings, and Political Bias 17 Journal of Law & Politics 2001

The American Bar Association, Judicial Ratings,and Political BiasJohn R. Lott, Jr.*I. INTRODUCTIONThe American Bar Association (ABA) has had a central role forfifty years in determining who gets appointed to the federal courts.During the last year the debate over what role the ABA should playhas...

heinonline.org

What Does the American Bar Association Judicial Rating Really Measure?

This study reveals the ABA as systematically giving lower ratings to Republican circuit court nominees, although no similar bias appears to exist for district c

papers.ssrn.com

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

 

[superchuck500]

At least we can all take solace that the federal bench will never be like what we get in state courts

 

[Ayo]

ahhhh.... White Castle. Popeye's of the North. Can't get enough.

 

[BobE]

At least we can all take solace that the federal bench will never be like what we get in state courts

Let me be clear. I in no way condone what they did. But I understand.

 

[superchuck500]

ahhhh.... White Castle. Popeye's of the North. Can't get enough.

Waffle House is all ‘don’t forget about me!’

 

[V Chip]

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/

A google search brought this up. Yes, it is from National Review.

“Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.”

“The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) (founded in 2005 as the Judicial Confirmation Network) is an American conservative activist political campaign organization based in the United States. As of 2014it has been run by Carrie Severino, a former law clerkfor supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.[1] The organization describes itself as "dedicated to strengthening liberty and justice in America"[2] and supports conservative appointments to American judicial posts.”

Their website refers to Democratic Presidential candidates as “radicals” who want “political domination and control” and want to pack the court with a “secret list of judges they won’t show anyone.”

Yeah, they sound apolitical.

 

[Ayo]

Waffle House is all ‘don’t forget about me!’

no, no... Waffle House is sophisticated as heck under that 'aw shucks' exterior. That place is run lean and mean.

There's a reason there's such a thing as the "Waffle House Index"

They are able to stay open longer, and open earlier after natural disasters. They have an incredible supply line system. They also give federal agencies some idea of when the entire community might rebound.

As Craig [Fugate] often says, the Waffle House test doesn’t just tell us how quickly a business might rebound – it also tells us how the larger community is faring. The sooner restaurants, grocery and corner stores, or banks can re-open, the sooner local economies will start generating revenue again – signaling a stronger recovery for that community. The success of the private sector in preparing for and weathering disasters is essential to a community’s ability to recover in the long run.

Waffle House looks like a ramshackle organization, but underneath the hood - you're going to find some super impressive engineering.

Waffle House brushes off Hurricane Katrina, while Popeye's can't handle... a sandwich.

What would a "Popeye's Index" tell us?

I love love love Popeye's. The more dysfunctional, the better. But even *I* would not want to know what a Popeye's Index would measure.

 

[Lazybones]

I guess to kick off the new site I would see what others thought of an idea I had after seeing RBG was out again due to illness. What would the boards thought be on a term limit for USSC judges. Under the thought I had a 10 year limit would be good. Also who ever is POTUS makes the nomination regardless of time left in office. So under this scenario RBG, Roberts and Thomas (feel like I'm forgetting one) would no longer be on the bench and Garland would.

Thought? Opinions? DIAF?

I would 100% support term limits in Congress but not scotus. Despite the political bias that will always be there, our SCOTUS have made pretty good decisions over all. (Despite Roberts punting on Obama care)

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It's an interesting thought, but not one that I think I'd be in favor of, but I'm not in favor of term limits in general. (My opinion is that if someone is doing a bad job, vote them out; if they're doing a good job, why should they be forced out?)

That said, there are mechanisms in place on lower courts for removing judges who shouldn't be on the bench, and when it was determined that Supreme Court seats were lifetime appointments the average lifespan was only 38. So maybe they could be subject to some kind of review for periodic reconfirmation? It might be worth a discussion.

At this "highest level," though, I do think the idea of a lifetime term does help free the justices from shifting political winds or making decisions for reasons of self-preservation as opposed to doing what is right. I guess the important thing is to make sure that no one gets on the Supreme Court in the first place without a heavy and thorough review.

Right, but there is little evidence that lifetime appointments actually do neutralize political calculus. You can pretty much pencil in the position most justices will take on a given case and have 95% confidence. Political betting sites won’t even offer pools on certain justices because their opinions are so telegraphed. And there is a reason billionaires poured untold amounts of money trying to shape the court in the image they wanted.

But ultimately I think this thread needs some first principles discussion, because as is the system we have is one where essentielly(and most recently, functionally), a minority elected president, confirmed through a minority elected Senate, can appoint lifetime judgeships that can effectively and indefinitely overrule majority opinion. And this is at its core one of the underlying reasons why certain powerful interest groups focus the majority of their money and effort on the courts, because ideologically conflicting president’s and congress’s can come and go, but if you have aligned ideological allies in the courts, your agenda overrules.

If there was truly evidence that the courts were not overwhelmingly just another political mechanism, I might be more inclined to favor this system, but evidence time and again shows they are not, so I would like to hear those in favor make the argument for why such an arrangement is acceptable in a democratic-republic?