That's private.VonDondu wrote:What did you win?
Not really. You quoted me on SC justices' backgrounds in general, and then proceeded to answer about Warren, in particular. But as I mentioned before and you (I thought) agreed, he was an extremely rare exception. Nothing I wrote contradicts what your professors told you.My college professors have a different view.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I thought I made several valid points based, not on a statement of general principles, which are fairly well understand by most people on this board, but through specific examples that would without question be considered illegal, if the process of law were allowed to take place. (As the Department of Justice has been completely revamped under Bush, though, it's not surprising Gonzalez would say no decisions made by the president or his branch of government can be subject to oversight or changed by Congress.) Perhaps we're just speaking at cross-purposes, here, but the criticisms offered of Scalia that I was referring to were, again, not that he'd seen the Warren court as an aberration in need of a course correction, but that the much older decisions, dating back to the 19th century, needed this. The criticism thus reads that Scalia, for all his brilliance, perceives himself as in many cases the sole justice on the SC to have a true understanding of Constitutional law as it was originally intended or can best be enforced. He's not a conservative, according to this argument. He's a singularity. I'm inclined to think there's something to this view, after my (admittedly limited) reading of his decisions in the minority on several issues where even Roberts didn't go as far as he did.I'm afraid I don't understand what you meant by "Constitutional precedent".
The SC has carved out for itself a tremendously powerful position--so powerful, that it remained unassailable even in the wake of suddenly canceling a presidential recount that it had originally requested in 2000, and selecting the president without that final recount. In effect, the SC chose the next president. But the power, there, lay--as I noted--not in the doing, but in the fact that nobody questioned this, later. John Marshall, architect of the SC's power back in the early 19th century, would be proud.The U.S. Supreme Court plays a vital role in our constitutional democracy. But there are limits to what the Supreme Court can do. For example, the Court can only make decisions in cases that are brought before it, and only if the Court has jurisdiction...
I thought it was pretty clear. To quote: "One of the justices, Scalia, has gone on record as stating that if something is "wrong" in the law, it needs to be changed, and the courts provide an easy way to amend the Constitution without going through the tedious proceedings of a lengthy national and Congressional review. (This is astonishing. Not only the saying of it, but the attitude for a serving justice on the Court.) Second, we have an executive branch that has literally walked all over the Constitution, stealing powers whenever Bush wanted, and getting away with it because the Department of Justice was stocked with raw recruits and old cronies, while the Supreme Court was in his pocket."Anyway, with that background information in mind, I'm not sure how we got into this discussion.
These remarks of mine were meant to show that Obama IMO would probably seek out a Constitutional law scholar for the next vacant SC seat. And everything else sort of rolled on from there.
But that wasn't what I wrote, was it? "Most Supreme Court justices have made their life careers as lawyers, law professors, and serving judges." That's literally the case. In the matter of legal careers, moving from any of these nine to Clinton is like moving from New York City to Disneyland.By the way, I just glanced at your list of the qualifications of each of the current Supreme Court Justices. Lots of law-clerking and attorney-generalizing there, but not as much judging as you might expect, especially when you look at guys like Thomas and Roberts.
Thomas was challenged on his poor background, and his background was stronger than Clinton's. Not a chance Obama would recommend Clinton for the SC, as I see it. Or maybe there is a chance--the same chance you or I would have to serve on the SC. Off the wall, out of the house, and twenty-five miles out of town.By the way, I never said that Bill Clinton is highly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I'm just saying he's not as off the wall as you might think.
Really, I mean no offense. But Clinton brings far less legal background to the job than Thomas did--and he was marginal, at best--plus, Clinton would be a lightning rod for anger from all the Republican party and at least half the Democratic. Even if he had the knowledge, background and skill of Benjamin Cardozo. Which he doesn't.
