|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dave W.: Did that article provide any information at all about what the "checks" actually consist of? I can easily understand what's involved in a recount of paper ballots; what exactly are they supposed to be checking in the Brazilian electronic system?
From what I've been able to read, they check whether the system is still sealed, they check whether the software has been tampered with, they check the printed voted record with the one that has been publicised, they check the number of voters with the number that came through the door.
Thanks for looking into this, LeRoc. I'm going to stop pestering you about the details, since I don't want to seem to imply that you should feel at all obligated to research this stuff to make up for my lack of Portuguese. (I suspect I'm far more interested in the details of the system than you are; as you might expect, the advantages and disadvantages of various possible replacement systems were thoroughly reported on here in the US after the 2000 debacle.) quote:
They have a couple of other tests that are secret to the public, secret even to the people who man the polling stations.
I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system. And I think this illustrates one of the important drawbacks of electronic systems; they tend to obscure operations in a way that paper-based ones don't. I think there's a real value in having a process whose operations are readily observable at every stage; once votes are aggregated at any scale in machines like the ones used in Brazil (and about 1/3 of the US, it turns out) there's no recoverable physical trace between voter decisions and the number stored in the machines memory, and you're forced to rely on the assurances of technical experts in a way that you don't with other systems.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL, I wanted to say Public Prosecutions.
Ha! I figured, but it was too good to let pass. After all, no one expects the Brazilian Inquisition.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dave W.: I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system.
But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
quote:
Nick Tamen: After all, no one expects the Brazilian Inquisition.
Aaand you rub it in with a Monty Python quote. I guess I deserved that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
You are describing "security through obscurity" and nobody at all considers that to be actual security. With respect to banknotes, the real "bad people" know all the security features.
The advantage of some level of obscurity is that it eliminates a layer of noise from idiots, rather than acting as a deterrent against competent criminals.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Leorning Cniht: You are describing "security through obscurity"
Exactly. I'm just describing what I read on a website a couple of hours ago.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dave W.: I will say, though, that the purported existence of "secret tests" would do nothing to reassure me about the reliability of the system.
But there should be secret secutiry tests, whether the system is electronic or with a ballot paper. I understand that our banknotes have secret security features. If all security features were made public, the bad people would be better prepared to circumvent them.
I think that's a terrible idea. Imagine the reaction when they announce that the widely publicized election results are going to be invalidated because of [redacted for reasons of state security].
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
You underestimate their PR capacity.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
If Brazil has government officials of such impeccable reputation that they could overturn election results for secret reasons without public opposition ... then it's even more different from America than I thought; and any election system that relies on the existence of such paragons of virtue seems drastically ill-suited for export to the US, whatever other advantages it may have.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
If Brazil has government officials of such impeccable reputation that they could overturn election results for secret reasons without public opposition ... then it's even more different from America than I thought; and any election system that relies on the existence of such paragons of virtue seems drastically ill-suited for export to the US, whatever other advantages it may have.
Unlike the SCOTUS which does it for open but disreputable reasons.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Well, yes. If that can happen out in the open, it hardly seems wise to add layers of obscurity to the process.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To go on a tangent and return to the topic of the thread, there was an article in the New York Times that said that the rules of the state primaries actually benefit Trump. If the current overabundance of candidates continues much past super Tuesday he's likely to have a majority at the convention.
The reason is that while the rules vary by state, there's a cutoff in most where you have to get 15 percent of the vote to get delegates. Those who don't get their delegates given to first place winner. So if there are all the establishment candidates still in the race, they all fail to make the 15% bar.
The rules vary by state, but essentially the plan to force a clear victor is working, but not as intended.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dave W.: If Brazil has [...]
My tongue was in my cheek.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
No problem - it was clear that you weren't making a serious argument in support of the Brazilian elections system.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
This should shake up the race a little.
quote:
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
So the most likely scenario is the campaign plays out against Senate confirmation hearings for Scalia's replacement. If the question of Supreme Court appointments doesn't come up at tonight's Republican debates the moderators should hand in their moderating licenses.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Oh, it's political all right. Ted Cruz didn't make it so -- everyone not related to Scalia immediately leapt to thinking about what happens next.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said that "The American people should have a voice in the selection ... Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Fucker. We had a voice in 2008 and 2012, when we elected Barack Obama.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, it's political all right. Ted Cruz didn't make it so -- everyone not related to Scalia immediately leapt to thinking about what happens next.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said that "The American people should have a voice in the selection ... Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Fucker. We had a voice in 2008 and 2012, when we elected Barack Obama.
Absolutely. However, I would fully expect the confirmation hearings to be delayed/extended past the election, with the hopes that they can throw enough dirt to scare the prospective nominee off. If they're successful, they can put it off until after the inauguration.
Hopefully, the Dems will win in Nov. so it will be moot.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Cruz had to immediately and tactlessly politicize news of Scalia's death.
Forget Cruz, I only got as far as reading this piece of absurd nonsense from the Senate Majority leader:
quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has power to prevent confirmation of any nominee, made clear within hours of the first reports of Scalia's death that Obama should not try to make a nomination before he leaves office next January.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said.
What utter rot. If the intention was for the people have a voice in Supreme Court appointments, they wouldn't be appointed they'd be elected.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Cruz had to immediately and tactlessly politicize news of Scalia's death.
Forget Cruz, I only got as far as reading this piece of absurd nonsense from the Senate Majority leader:
quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has power to prevent confirmation of any nominee, made clear within hours of the first reports of Scalia's death that Obama should not try to make a nomination before he leaves office next January.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," McConnell said.
What utter rot. If the intention was for the people have a voice in Supreme Court appointments, they wouldn't be appointed they'd be elected.
Fortunately, McConnell's position IS elected. I hope the voters in his state remember that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, it's political all right. Ted Cruz didn't make it so -- everyone not related to Scalia immediately leapt to thinking about what happens next.
There is a difference between thinking something and saying something.
Yes, of course everyone is thinking about the next appointment (swapping Scalia for another Elena Kagan would shift the court significantly leftward). It is also notable that of the other elderly members of the supreme court, Justices Ginsberg and Breyer tend to side with the political left, and Justice Kennedy tends to occupy something close to the centre ground. The replacement of any of these three by a nominee of the current Republican party would shift the court significantly rightward.
You can assume that any new appointee will have a 30+ year tenure on the court. So this appointment, and the probable appointment of one or two more justices during the next presidential term, matter. A lot.
But the public politics can wait until Monday. I find Cruz, McConnell, and Trump (unsurprisingly) guilty of bad taste. I'll have a similar opinion of any lefties who are publicly crowing about the change in political balance of the court today.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
The choice of a new Supreme is political. The people have a voice to the extent that they voted for the president who nominates a candidate. I don't know if that president listens to letters, etc. from the public.
Choosing a new Supreme is a chance to influence the way the court goes: conservative, liberal; pro life, pro choice; pro segregation, pro civil rights; pro corporations as "persons", pro real people. "Stacking the court" with people who support the views of the president and/or the president's party is part of the process. Hopefully, they are also evaluated on being good and wise judges.
When the nominee goes before Congress, it's often a hellish experience. People will dig into every aspect of their personal life. And Congress will try to divine the nominee's beliefs and likely votes. There is, however, a legitimate tactic that the nominee can employ: "I regret that I may not comment on specific matters that may come before me". From what I've seen in the more recent SCOTUS nomination hearings, there really isn't anything Congress can do about that.
I don't envy the nominee. Besides the usual hellish confirmation process, they'll be dealing with opponents who will take almost 8 years of fury at the president out on the nominee.
NOTE: Obama just now gave a condolence statement about Scalia. (Pretty well balanced, IMHO.) Towards the end, he did say that he'll be executing his constitutional duty to select a nominee. Then he finished up with more condolences.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said that "The American people should have a voice in the selection ... Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Fucker. We had a voice in 2008 and 2012, when we elected Barack Obama.
Yes indeed. Anthony Kennedy, for example, was confirmed in 1988 (another presidential election year). You can see Mitch McConnell's "Yea" vote right here, between James McClure and John Melcher.
Hypocritical fucker.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
If the Republicans do manage to keep a replacement from being named until after the election, assuming the new president is a Democrat he or she could always nominate Obama.
It's not like there isn't precedent for an ex president becoming a Supreme Court justice... William Taft, the 27th president went on to be the 10th chief justice.
[ 14. February 2016, 03:47: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The politically wise move I should think would be for Obama to nominate someone relatively centrist very quickly and push for their approval hard. Then the Dems can portray the Republicans as the obstructionists they are.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If the Republicans do manage to keep a replacement from being named until after the election, assuming the new president is a Democrat he or she could always nominate Obama.
Right. Because that would have a chance of being accepted.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Fortunately, the GOP candidates had a decent and restrained debate after this news.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
AIUI, Obama has said he doesn't want to be a Supeme. Michelle said once that he'd wanted to be an architect. Would be cool if he went on to a career that had nothing to do with politics!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Anthony Kennedy, for example, was confirmed in 1988 (another presidential election year). You can see Mitch McConnell's "Yea" vote right here, between James McClure and John Melcher.
Hypocritical fucker.
Spot on. Partisanship oozes out of every pore, snuffing out any semblance of fairness and decency.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, Obama has said he doesn't want to be a Supeme. Michelle said once that he'd wanted to be an architect. Would be cool if he went on to a career that had nothing to do with politics!
He could build houses for poor people with Jimmy Carter. That'd be good.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
Sadly, very close to the truth except that its decisions overrule those of the legislative and executive branches. As a complete outsider, can I say that a major problem with decisions of SCOTUS is that so few of the Justices have had a career of the day-to-day grind of preparing cases for hearing, appearing for years as an advocate in a range of courts, developing a great familiarity with the application of the rules of evidence as a part of the fact-finding necessarily lying behind each and every decision. The absence of that background led to the very poor decision on SSM* - a collection of judgments that do not serve the essential purpose of justifying the result.
I have read the NYT obituary of Scalia, and while he had an interesting-sounding career between government service and academic life, it does not seem as if he has ever been an advocate. The same can be said of many others of the Justices, both now and in the past.
* I am referring the quality of legal writing and not to the outcome achieved.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
Well, sure. The law is badly drafted, by construction.
The contentious cases that come to the Supreme Court (which is where a Ginsburg and an Alito will rule differently) are to do with the application of the Constitution to other laws. Generally speaking, the drafting of the other law is clear and specific. The Constitution, by contrast, can't be specific. By its nature, it's a rather general document, but it is nonetheless the supreme law of the land.
Consider the second amendment. Here it is:
quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's the sum total of what the Constitution says about weapons. Does it mean that the right to bear arms applies to a militia, or to anyone? What counts as a "militia", anyway? What counts as "arms", and what counts as "infringed"?
Someone has to determine what, in detail, that single sentence means. Congress's job is to write laws, but to change the text of the constitution (even to "clarify" it) requires a supermajority in both houses and ratification by a supermajority of states. It's hard.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If their political beliefs significantly affect their judgments then, a) the law is badly drafted and b) its not really a judicial role - its more a technical sub-committee of the congress/senate.
Not at all. The U.S. Constitution is written in very general terms so there is always interpretation involved in applying it to specific instances. To take an example involving Antonin Scalia, does the eighth amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibit things like public flogging or hand-branding [Word document], practices that were common in 1791 when the amendment was adopted? It should be noted that he later repudiated that view, indicating that flogging or branding is not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the meaning of the eighth amendment, at least as far as Scalia was concerned.
All of which illustrates that for virtually any case that makes it through the appellate process to the Supreme Court will inevitably involve at least two plausible interpretations of the legal question at hand, that resolving such questions requires judgement, and that such judgements will be, at least in part, political in nature.
That's one of the reasons John Roberts' "balls and strikes" comment irritated me so much. It indicates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court or was incredibly disingenuous.
[ 14. February 2016, 13:47: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If the Republicans do manage to keep a replacement from being named until after the election, assuming the new president is a Democrat he or she could always nominate Obama.
Right. Because that would have a chance of being accepted.
If Obama were interested, this could happen. If a Democrat is elected President, the "coat tails" could return the Senate to Democratic control. Unlike the last midterms, most of the seats in play this year have Republican incumbents.
The next Justice will not be as conservative as Scalia. If nominated by a Democratic president, the next Justice will not be as conservative as Alito or Roberts. If Obama nominates and the current Senate acts, it can be someone along the lines of Justice Kennedy. If a Democrat is elected President and the Senate reverts to Democratic control, expect someone more like RBG.
In the meantime, the removal of Justice Scalia from the equation already means that the rulings from this session of the Court will be more moderate, because ties allow the lower court rulings to stand.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... All of which illustrates that for virtually any case that makes it through the appellate process to the Supreme Court will inevitably involve at least two plausible interpretations of the legal question at hand, that resolving such questions requires judgement, and that such judgements will be, at least in part, political in nature. ...
Forgive my asking, but isn't it obvious that if a case can wind up through all the successive tiers of appeal courts to the final one, it ought to be the case that it could be decided either way? If it's obvious what the law is, if it's not persuasively arguable either way, it shouldn't end up in the Supreme Court.
If it isn't touch and go which way the final decision will go, that ought to mean that one or both of the litigants have very deep pockets and are prepared to waste what's in them.
It doesn't, though, follow that means that all cases that get there should have political repercussions or involve political judgements as well as forensic ones.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't, though, follow that means that all cases that get there should have political repercussions or involve political judgements as well as forensic ones.
No, and most of the non-political ones tend to get decided either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The ones that get all the press, however, are the explicitly political interpretation-of-the-constitution kind, and are the ones that tend to end up in a 5-4 split along philosophical grounds.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
There is a way for Obama to seat someone on the Supreme Court and bypass the Senate altogether.
It is called a recess appointment. It is constitutional.
Here is the way it works. If congress is in recess the President has the power to seat someone and not need Senate Confirmation.
12 justices have been named this way out of the 112 who have served on the Supreme Court
The last time a president did this was in 1956. President Eisenhower named William Brennan as justice just before the 1956 general election.
Guess what? Congress is now in recess.
Which means Obama has nine days to name someone as justice and the senate could do nothing about it.
Well, technically the Senate could vote to disconfirm--but Senate procedures could tie that up for some time.
And I think the new justice would only serve until the new congress is seated in January, which would be okay if the Democrats can retain the presidency and regain majority in the Senate.
In other words--hold unto your hat. Watch for Obama to make his move in the coming few days. If he does, stand back and watch the fire works.
I saw a sign yesterday. Bumpy Road ahead. Tighten your bra straps and take out your dentures.
American politics can be grand.
[ 14. February 2016, 20:30: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Whatever else it may mean, Scalia's sudden demise makes it Christmas Day for every political columnist in the US.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
At least we'll be able to hear something besides Trump, Trump, Trump. Unfortunately it will be Scalia, Scalia, Scalia. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
At least we'll be able to hear something besides Trump, Trump, Trump. Unfortunately it will be Scalia, Scalia, Scalia.
But at least we don't have to start packing for Canada in the fear that Scalia will be the next POTUS.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
What a great discussion of the Supreme Court and the ramifications of Anthony Scalia's death. It has been a pleasure to read.
Where I live, it sometimes happens that a candidate for the High Court is considered to have one set of beliefs because of their career bias, but ends up bringing down judgments of a different slant. Does that happen in the US?
I liked the comment to the effect that Supreme Court Judges often don't have experience as trial lawyers, but are often judicial (I assume) administrators or academics. In an Australian context, I'm not sure that matters, given that an action in our High Court is a different kettle of fish to an action in the lower courts, other than the Supreme Courts of the various states. (Hmmm, doubt is beginning to creep into my mind on that assumption already. I think it's valid, but needs qualification.) Is this the case in the US, where the Supreme Court deals with necessarily difficult or controversial points of law by submission and (I think from movies here ) judicial examination of counsel?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Where I live, it sometimes happens that a candidate for the High Court is considered to have one set of beliefs because of their career bias, but ends up bringing down judgments of a different slant. Does that happen in the US?
I liked the comment to the effect that Supreme Court Judges often don't have experience as trial lawyers, but are often judicial (I assume) administrators or academics. In an Australian context, I'm not sure that matters, given that an action in our High Court is a different kettle of fish to an action in the lower courts, other than the Supreme Courts of the various states. (Hmmm, doubt is beginning to creep into my mind on that assumption already. I think it's valid, but needs qualification.) Is this the case in the US, where the Supreme Court deals with necessarily difficult or controversial points of law by submission and (I think from movies here ) judicial examination of counsel?
As to your first paragraph, that sort of comment usually appears in newspapers, written by someone styled a legal correspondent. By and large, it's both irrelevant and wrong.
As to your second, the High Ct and SCOTUS are both ultimate courts of appeal, and each has the jurisdiction to declare the validity of particular legislation. The recent case concerning the validity of the inhumane processing of refugees is an instance where the High Ct was asked to rule on the validity of the legislative scheme underpinning it. The ultimate decision did not deal with the merits of the scheme, but rather whether the Commonwealth had constitutional power to legislate as it did and whether what was legislated permitted, and the effect of that legislation.
AIUI, SCOTUS proceeds much more on the basis of written submissions than the High Ct, with less reliance upon oral argument. Oral argument has the major role here as can be seen in this transcript of day 1 of the hearing in the migration case. Not rivetting reading but if you can plough through at least some of it you will see just how difficult is the role of an advocate before the Court in dealing with the barrage of questioning at such an intense and high level.
Very few are appointed to the High Ct without prior judicial experience, but all have the very necessary background as an advocate. From time to time, one or other of the newspapers will suggest that an academic be appointed; fortunately none of those suggestions has been taken up. An academic would lack the very necessary breadth of knowledge and experience.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Yes, it happens in the U.S. from time to time. David Souter is a recent example.
Thanks for that, and it bears out what I was saying about the value of experience as an advocate. IIRC, Justice Souter made no headlines as a judge, just went about his work quietly and with great competence.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, SCOTUS proceeds much more on the basis of written submissions than the High Ct, with less reliance upon oral argument. Oral argument has the major role here as can be seen in this transcript of day 1 of the hearing in the migration case. Not rivetting reading but if you can plough through at least some of it you will see just how difficult is the role of an advocate before the Court in dealing with the barrage of questioning at such an intense and high level.
Yes, briefing is definitely more important in all appellate proceedings in the US, not just in the Supreme Court. That's where the argument is (hopefully) laid out in a thorough and analytical manner.
That's not to say that oral argument isn't important, and it certainly isn't a picnic. But it's only 30 minutes per side in a typical SCOTUS case. (In the court of appeal in my circuit, it's 20 minutes per side.) The point of oral argument is not to get all the details of your argument out. The point is for the justices/judges to probe, test and challenge your argument. It is often said that no case is won on the basis of a good oral argument, but many a case is lost on the basis of a poor one.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Those time limits very tight - perhaps they are as tight as that because the Justices are not themselves advocates and are uncomfortable with any longer oral argument and debate? The only time limits in the High Court are on applications for special leave (necessary in all appellate matters) where the limit is 20 minutes a side. Sudden death.
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Supreme Court of Canada sets a limit of 1 hour for submissions from each side.
This is likely due to the volume of cases generated by each countries population. The US has 320 million people; Canada has 35 million, and Australia has 23 million.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those time limits very tight - perhaps they are as tight as that because the Justices are not themselves advocates and are uncomfortable with any longer oral argument and debate?
No, as I say that is the norm for appellate arguments here. So far as I know, 20 or 30 minutes is standard in federal appellate courts, and 30 is what we have in my state's appellate courts. From what I understand, it's similar in other states.
I don't think it's anything to do with them not being "advocates." I think you're overestimating the significance of that. Believe me, these judges and justices aren't the least bit uncomfortable with longer argument or debate. It has much more to do with case load (particularly in the intermediate appellate courts) and ours being a system that relies much more heavily on briefing than on oral argument.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
