Like him or not, a brilliant legal scholar.

https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nomination ... earing.pdf

In 1986 someone called him a "brilliant legal scholar," and here we are 30 years later and you use the EXACT same words to describe him and you expect me to believe that's your own opinion on him and not just something you read? You owe CH an apology.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I only have one.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Not sure he even has a law license anymore.

And there is no way he is going to give up the speaking engagements for cash and work that hard.

No need for a license. There are no qualifications for Supreme Court Justice. Only that you can be confirmed by the Senate.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Stood around with him while he chatted for about 20 minutes. A nice guy in that brief interaction, but a hypocrite for all time. If he were as overtly political as Bork, he'd never have made the Supremes.

For all you Chicago connections types, when I was a kid he lived across the street (in Hyde Park) from another heavyweight conservative jurist, Richard Posner.

And Seacrest, he stomped his feet like a baby in the marriage equality case & at least one other time recently. Once breaking established decorum in reading his dissent.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

"Breaking News" at the top of CNN right now says Senate leaders are clashing over who should get to nominate his replacement.



No, really...

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 97–0 on May 23, 2013. Wikipedia
Born: February 23, 1967 (age 48), Chandigarh, India
Spouse: Carla Garrett
Succeeded by: Ian Heath Gershengorn
Education: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford Law School, Stanford University

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

I join the opinion of The Chief Justice. As he demonstrates, the University of Michigan Law School’s mystical “critical mass” justification for its discrimination by race challenges even the most gullible mind. The admissions statistics show it to be a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate admissions.

I also join Parts I through VII of Justice Thomas’s opinion. I find particularly unanswerable his central point: that the allegedly “compelling state interest” at issue here is not the incremental “educational benefit” that emanates from the fabled “critical mass” of minority students, but rather Michigan’s interest in maintaining a “prestige” law school whose normal admissions standards disproportionately exclude blacks and other minorities. If that is a compelling state interest, everything is.

...

If properly considered an “educational benefit” at all, it is surely not one that is either uniquely relevant to law school or uniquely “teachable” in a formal educational setting. And therefore: If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a “critical mass” that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate–indeed, particularly appropriate–for the civil service system of the State of Michigan to do so. There, also, those exposed to “critical masses” of certain races will presumably become better Americans, better Michiganders, better civil servants. And surely private employers cannot be criticized–indeed, should be praised–if they also “teach” good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand.

Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anticonstitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, today’s Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely designed to prolong the controversy and the litigation.

So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Stood around with him while he chatted for about 20 minutes. A nice guy in that brief interaction, but a hypocrite for all time. If he were as overtly political as Bork, he'd never have made the Supremes.

For all you Chicago connections types, when I was a kid he lived across the street (in Hyde Park) from another heavyweight conservative jurist, Richard Posner.

And Seacrest, he stomped his feet like a baby in the marriage equality case & at least one other time recently. Once breaking established decorum in reading his dissent.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

You don't like him. I get it. But he was approved at a time that was far less partisan. And one of his strengths was that he wasn't political. because it isn't a political job.

He could be very demanding to deal with from what a couple of former clerks I know have said. One of his biggest defects was being unable to dissent without being a smart ass about it. Or by intentionally being sarcastic to others.

Not sure he even has a law license anymore.

And there is no way he is going to give up the speaking engagements for cash and work that hard.

He was largely political! He is (along with Posner & Easterbrook) a big reason that Bork was Borked. He (& they) played coy in front of the Senate & generally lied about the extent to which politics influenced his decisions (just like Alito). Once he was elevated he didn't give a damn about the law, except in the perverse methods with which he would justify his ardently conservative opinions.

And his decisions were about as emotional/political (non legal) as they came, perhaps best evidenced by his reaction to his vote in Bush v. Gore...snarkily telling people to "get over it"

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Being a Supreme Court Justice hard work?

Your welcome to your opinion. Like I said earlier, you don't like him, and I get it. And Scalia, was confirmed 98-0.

After Scalia, the appointment of Bork started an era where politics became the motivating factor in deciding justices.

Your recollection of Bush v Gore is incorrect. As is your summation of his statement "get over it", which came seven years later. They are both addressed below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaB3cxH-XE

Last first. I understood that his honest remarks were well after the fact, but it doesn't matter, it was his high handed, obnoxious truth. Nothing more, nothing less, and that was what I was referencing.

Next, yes, he was unilaterally confirmed, but he & Reagan's other early appointments (like that clown James Watt) laid the foundation for disturbing what was largely settled precedent. With relatively limited exception, prior to Reagan most POTUS' had their nominees given fast track approval...his were just so egregiously political (& banal) that few could suffer them after Scalia piled on & showed his colors.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I find it pretty funny how a lot of conservatives keep saying the next President needs to appoint the next justice. Just great comedy seeing so many people deluding themselves into thinking a Republican is going to be the next President.

I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.

It was his opinion that people should get over a court case from six years before. He isn't entitled to that thought? And his explanation puts the political charge to bed.

While I agree with your sentiment there, I don't want a Supreme so blithely dismissing a questioner about the most political decision in United States history. Especially considering his status as a "for life" appointee.

But I find it comfortingly hilarious that we're having this discussion @7pm on a Saturday, when most of the electorate doesn't care.

You are my guy!

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

DAN: Talking to my SCOTUS guy, (sigh)...I...I have to be careful how I word this. (sigh) It's not that John Roberts is happy that Scalia died, but...there's a sense of...I want to say, almost a sense of relief that the Court can move on from one of its...its trappings, that there was this man walking around the Chambers with "Mr. God Hates Fags" on his hat, and it's just that...all these things add up to this atavistic mentality that you can't change The Court because it's timeless. Well, people aren't timeless, as we're finding out, and so now with the new appointee it'll be easier to...to make that break, I guess is how you could say it. I know they felt the same way when Thurgood Marshall died, and of course, the Court is going to be publicly maudlin about what a great Justice he was -- and he was, his longevity bears that out if nothing else, I guess -- but...(sigh) in a lot of ways it's one fewer... "thing" to have to explain away all the time as they're trying to put a happier face on their damn disdain for the weak and helpless members of our society.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.