Thanks Tommy. I would love to be wrong about this. But I think there's a multibillion dollar industry, or maybe I should say multiple industries, dedicated to political influence of the judiciary, certainly at the appellate level where real law is made. Good article on it here -- suggesting that the U.S. Senate had generally deferred to …
Thanks Tommy. I would love to be wrong about this. But I think there's a multibillion dollar industry, or maybe I should say multiple industries, dedicated to political influence of the judiciary, certainly at the appellate level where real law is made. Good article on it here -- suggesting that the U.S. Senate had generally deferred to presidential nominations until the 1960s; then some senators started flexing power -- notably starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967.
Thank you, Bill. Interesting read (though I would respectfully disagree on some of the writer's/author's presumptions ($15K in mid-60s was not a "...petty offense). I'd also contend that, while the confirmation process has indeed gotten very political, there "shouldn't" (can't type in italics here) be a reason to justify identifying a jurist by who appointed him. My own wishful thinking here, probably, but there ya go. Always enjoy the daily information you bring. Thank you.
You read an entire article on a subject and the only thread you can disagree with is the value of $15k in the mid-60s? I doubt that was Bill’s point but it did offer you an opportunity to deflect.
The obvious purpose of the article was to show how judicial appointments have become politicized, along with many of their decisions. Trump even made public statements about “his” judicial appointments and how they would help him. And let’s not forget 2000. Since judges are political appointments by the executive branch in power, and given the politics of today, along with the facts of the article, you perhaps are actually engaging in wishful thinking. I, for one, watch how judges rule and have seen a pattern.
Darrell, please note in my comment that I said "....respectfully disagree on some of the ...." You are absolutely correct, as I also noted, that the purpose of the article was that the process has indeed gotten very political. And I can't deny wishful thinking. I find it more comforting than thinking of only how bad it can get.
Thanks Tommy. I would love to be wrong about this. But I think there's a multibillion dollar industry, or maybe I should say multiple industries, dedicated to political influence of the judiciary, certainly at the appellate level where real law is made. Good article on it here -- suggesting that the U.S. Senate had generally deferred to presidential nominations until the 1960s; then some senators started flexing power -- notably starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/30/trump-supreme-court-nominations-history-bork-garland-218942/
It’s really quite simple: if politicians are involved it is political.
Thank you, Bill. Interesting read (though I would respectfully disagree on some of the writer's/author's presumptions ($15K in mid-60s was not a "...petty offense). I'd also contend that, while the confirmation process has indeed gotten very political, there "shouldn't" (can't type in italics here) be a reason to justify identifying a jurist by who appointed him. My own wishful thinking here, probably, but there ya go. Always enjoy the daily information you bring. Thank you.
You read an entire article on a subject and the only thread you can disagree with is the value of $15k in the mid-60s? I doubt that was Bill’s point but it did offer you an opportunity to deflect.
The obvious purpose of the article was to show how judicial appointments have become politicized, along with many of their decisions. Trump even made public statements about “his” judicial appointments and how they would help him. And let’s not forget 2000. Since judges are political appointments by the executive branch in power, and given the politics of today, along with the facts of the article, you perhaps are actually engaging in wishful thinking. I, for one, watch how judges rule and have seen a pattern.
Darrell, please note in my comment that I said "....respectfully disagree on some of the ...." You are absolutely correct, as I also noted, that the purpose of the article was that the process has indeed gotten very political. And I can't deny wishful thinking. I find it more comforting than thinking of only how bad it can get.
Look over your shoulder for the answer.