General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the extreme vitriol over a completely thankless job that 99% of us would avoid like the plague?
Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
These folks are asked to interpret the original intent of a 230-year old document...would you want that job?
There's no doubt that some of Scalia's votes tilted Supreme Court decisions in directions we didn't want it to go, but are you surprised? The whole point of having an odd # of Supreme Court Justices is that we know trying to find unanimity on the interpretation of a 230-year old document, whose authors have been dead nearly 200 years in some cases, is nearly impossible. So we force a decision one way or another by (for the most part) not allowing ties.
Some of the responses on DU and elsewhere seem to assume that:
1) we should all 100% agree on the interpretation of this document, and
2) we should be shocked that some justices would come to different conclusions than us personally, and
3) those justices must be idiots, or more likely "evil" for doing so.
None of us would want this job; IMHO both liberals and conservatives ought to have a little more tact when a SC justice dies, regardless of where they tended to ideologically land on their decisions.
On edit, I clearly underestimated how many people would want this job. Personally, I value my personal life, the safety of my family, and my privacy way too much to take a job like this.
And that's not even taking into consideration what we learn each time a SC justice dies: that there are literally millions of people hoping that person is burning in hell. I'm not willing to live a life like that regardless of salary, but clearly not an issue for many DUers?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Constitution does not require any particular number of Supreme Court justices.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)And admittedly, I don't know that the reason we have 9 is to avoid tie votes, but isn't that a fair assumption?
Is there some other reason that you're aware of?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's been 6, 7, 9, 10, and then back to 9 again.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)I would think that more minds would be better though.
former9thward
(31,972 posts)For most of its history the SC has had an odd number of Justices. It is obvious Congress has wanted to avoid ties in order to set precedent. What would be the point in a tie vote? In the three year period it was at 10 all 10 only met for one week in those 3 years.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
Skittles
(153,142 posts)we'll be feeling his legacy for a long, long time
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)Scalia often went in directions where he deserves the vitriol he is receiving.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Are you saying that what's "decent and moral" ought to replace constitutionality as the new criteria for Supreme Court decisions?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're proposing a radical change from what the Supreme Court Justices are told is there job. I HATED some of Scalia's decisions but I wouldn't hold him (or any other Justice) accountable to a standard that only exists in my mind.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)sorrow over Scalia's abrupt departure from the court. For all the eulogizing about what a fine intellect he was, he was not.
He completely lacked the necessary judicial temperament and was seriously lacking in probity. His decisions were whatever he wanted them to be, and he then applied his mind to wrapping those around in whatever, often ridiculously flimsy arguments he could muster. In a better world, a position on the Supreme Court of the United States would forever be out of reach for those like him who are unable and/or unwilling to do the job as we need it to be done.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I know you have a picture in your mind of a job you would hate to have, but one of the problems with Scalia and some of the other conservatives is that they were/are thanked way too often and way too expensively. That's, of course, for those few justices on top of the constant lionizing that comes to all of them for being among the dozen most honored people in the nation -- for life.
As for me, I'd take the job. It'd almost kill me before I got used to it, maybe even worse than having a new baby at this age would, perhaps, but IMO it is really a job worth giving your life to.
As for Scalia, he betrayed his position and his country. He was working hand in glove, clandestinely, with wealthy ultraconservatives like Richard Mellon Scaife and Charles Koch, hiding what they were doing from the people, which is to completely reinterpret the constitution in ways its writers never, ever intended.
Scalia was only a key part of a huge operation that is ongoing on thousands of fronts across the nation. In 1970 the ideas of unlimited personal donations to politicians or of corporations having religious rights would have brought a proper response and been impossible to put over. In 2014 half the nation actively supported them as victories for "their side" and the other half accepted them quietly.
I danced when I learned he died, and good, good riddance to very bad rubbish. His early departure gives us a break we really need.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)and Scaife/Koch? I'm not familiar. And who discovered this?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)coming out. Start reading: Kenneth Vogel, "Big Money: 2.5 Billion Dollars, One Suspicious Vehicle..."; Paul Krugman, Lee Fang on Mother Jones, Think Progress, books and articles by Jane Mayer, and on and on and on for books, articles on line, etc. Each will lead you to others.
I have read nothing explicitly exposing Scalia illegally planning case decisions with any of these people (scandal to top all scandals), but he was placed on the court during the Reagan administration, his philosophy dovetails very nicely with Richard Mellon Scaif's and Charles Koch's, and he socialized often with, accepting invitations and gifts from, many people in their conspiracy, including Koch himself and others closely involved with previous arch-conspirator Richard Mellon Scaif.
Scalia was famous for his contempt for maintaining an appearance of propriety and had many ethical violations and questionable conflicts of interest. The Koch-funded Federalist Society has been flying him around the country to speak to conservative groups. The fact that he would and they could do this just shows how powerful they have become. The presence of a Supreme Court justice at the ranch where he died among the wealthy people also gathered there is just the last of his activities in this life to narrow speculative eyes and raise eyebrows.
For a few decades most of what is going on was kept secret, including the transformation of the traditional tax-exempt charitable foundation model into fronts for clandestine political maneuvering; they proliferated like rabbits after this, weaseling their influence into all aspects of American life.
However, Obama's election and those of other Democrats in 2008 caused grave setbacks that angered and seriously alarmed many more who had done so well with the gutting of taxes and destruction of government regulation began with Reagan's election. Most had already turned anti-government opportunism into an ideology. At that point, many more joined what had been a very well established covert movement to subvert our representative republic, and the Obama administration's plans in immediate particular. With that, more and more information started leaking and more people finally started digging for more. For instance we know that 18 billionaires attended the first big meeting Charles Koch held after Obama's election to plan how to stop Obama from accomplishing anything.
(We also know that the GOP leadership and high-level operatives met secretly the night of Obama's inauguration to plot the same thing. Could the two groups possibly not known about each other?)
BTW, Ronald Reagan managed to adopt 61% of the 1270 policy proposals in the Heritage Foundation's (Scaif's and Joseph Coor's creation, plus support from the Kochs) ultraconservative, anti-government "Mandate for Leadership" during his 8 years.
At that point in history, income distribution in our nation was the most equal it had ever been. Kids graduating high school with a job-skills course or two could go get a job and rent a very modest but decent apartment.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Being a Supreme Court Justice is extremely prestigious, and pays pretty well, and that's if you're not unethically playing patty-cake with special interests like Scalia did with the Koch Brothers.
Scalia was corrupt to the core.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)unpleasant information will come out over the years. This whole era of anti-government deregulation will be famous for the simultaneous corruption of government by the wealthy that reached every level.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:34 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why the extreme vitriol over a completely thankless job that 99% of us would avoid like the plague?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027614416
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Wow - this poster forgives Scalia for some of his awful stands - what is this one doing on DU!
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 15, 2016, 02:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagreed with nearly everything Scalia ever said, but I disagree FAR more with whoever alerted on the post.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter seems to think we should all agree and all be hateful and unforgiving. We should welcome people who don't agree with us on everything, it makes our coalition larger - and thus stronger.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous. Post does not violate DU terms in any way. BTW, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not thing Scalia was evil. Neither did Sanders or (either) Clinton.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Refute an argument with facts and proof, censorship is totally uncalled for.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTH? An alert on this? Shame for wasting our time. LEAVE.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)To assume that these folks "owe" us something and if I don't get it, they need my forgiveness, is ridiculous, IMHO.
They are given a job, a job which I have stated I would never want the responsibility for. I hate some of their decisions (and often feel I would have come to a different conclusion than them), but unless/until I am willing to do the job myself I do not hate THEM as people.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"a completely thankless job that 99% of us would avoid like the plague?"
What specifically compels you to allege that?
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)2) I suspect (maybe incorrectly) that most of us want to live our lives without the public scrutiny that would come with such a position.
And by "thankless" I'm not talking about salary; I'm talking about the adjectives that are routinely used to describe these people each time one of them (from either political leaning) retires or dies.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Most of us never attend oral argument at the Supreme Court. No recordings was the general rule until as late as 2010. Before then only in rare cases did the Justices allow portion of oral argument to be recorded and retransmitted to the public. I think it's a fair assumption that even today most members of the public have not availed themselves of the opportunity to listen to the actual Justices' comments. Instead the public's 'scrutiny' is limited to saying that they agree or disagree with how a given Justice voted on a particular case and even that is usually colored by the slant put on it by the person reporting it. It's a job with about as little genuine public srutiny as one with the CIA.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"No recordings are the general rule - only in rare cases have the Justices allowed portion of oral argument to be recorded and retransmitted to the public."
Not since 2010.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx
The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)follow things as closely as you once did. I've corrected the error in the post.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As a fresh associate, I was frequently astounded when I ran into rule changes of which the older partners weren't aware.
I totally get it now.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)has 'always known'. Probably a good thing to be reminded to keep up on homework.
Iggo
(47,547 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Iggo
(47,547 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Iggo
(47,547 posts)To be clear: I hope it was painful and drawn out and I hope he was afraid the whole time.
Fuckin' sue me.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Iggo
(47,547 posts)yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)
kas125
(2,472 posts)shown him. Someone who thinks that innocence isn't a reason to keep someone from being put to death deserves no respect. I won't ever fault anyone for not "showing a little more tact" at the news that he died, he was a horrible person who didn't care who he hurt while he was alive. I'm glad he's gone.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Not a problem. Do you know what 'thankless' means? It does not mean highly compensated, powerful, fully tenured and well recorded in the histories of your times.
ProfessorGAC
(64,990 posts)We'll split the work and money 50:50. What a comfy retirement gig. Be in session 20 something weeks a year, get to work with many of the best and brightest up and coming young lawyers.
You're spot on and the OP's whole premise is was off base.
SDJay
(1,089 posts)and it's your job for life? And unlike others in DC, you can be as insulated as you want?
If 99.99 percent of people don't want that job, I guess I'm one of the last people they're going to call to offer it, because I'd take that in a heartbeat.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's the originalist's line, and I think it's hokum. Like trying to base your idea of how to run a modern country entirely off the Bible.
What I ask them to do is to try and figure out how to best keep to the spirit of the document, while at the same time realizing that laws passed 230 years later reflect the reality of life now, and affect the lives of 320 million Americans or so now. I don't want them trying to say 'we can't have X' because a bunch of old rich dead patriarchical slave-owners didn't want us to.
Originalism is simply the 'sanitized' way to support the inherent racism, sexism, and classicism of the Constitution in play hundreds of years after such things no longer are relevant.
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)What are you talking about?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You can show up (or not), do nothing, and sign onto someone else's opinions, like Thomas does.
former9thward
(31,972 posts)Well on the internet anyone can say anything. Any actual lawyer who follows the court would know Thomas writes more individual dissents and concurrences than anybody.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)None of them "have to" do much of jack shit.
It may surprise you to know that collecting stats on Thomas is not an everyday thing a lawyer does.
On edit: Was there some particular occasion for you to make a snide personal comment?
former9thward
(31,972 posts)They would not be tolerated with any other minority Justice. I am not accusing you of racism. Criticize Thomas for his opinions. Some people can't get past his race however as if every black person has a pre-determined script to go on and those who stray must have some white person manipulating them.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The man asked one question in something like five years of hearings.
None of the justices write their opinions. They might do an outline draft, or mark up a draft from the clerks, but I'm not sure you understand how the court works.
That a written opinion appears above a justice's name is no indication of how much work they actually did.
The questions during the hearings indicate the extent to which the justices have personally considered the briefs in the case. He does approximately nothing during them.
I am interested in your statement about "more individual dissents and concurrences than anybody". Can you point me to those numbers?
former9thward
(31,972 posts)says no one's opinion is ever changed in oral arguments. I have never seen a shred of evidence that anyone changes their mind because of oral argument. Scalia asked no end of questions just to bedevil the presenting attorneys. That was the law processor in him coming out. Absolute no evidence that "questions during the hearings indicate the extent to which the justices have personally considered the briefs in the case".
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Whose mind would one be seeking to change? The lawyers arguing the cases?
In general, cases don't come to the court because they are easy disputes, and most of them don't attract much attention outside of a very few that generate any interest at all.
One doesn't ask questions to change anyone's mind. One asks questions to test the limits of the arguments, and to clear up issues in the parties' briefs as well as the various amicus briefs in the case.
If you can read even a simple set of briefs in a case and not have questions, then more power to you. But typically, the judges have in front of them two people who have spent a lot more time thinking about the case than they have.
But, okay, Thomas has it right and every other justice for decades has had it wrong. Well there's a future CJ candidate right there.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)Or, if your wife was causing a serious conflict of interest for your position as a jurist?
Thomas sort of reminds me of the "Mr. Gibbons" character from the old TAXI TV show. Did you ever see that episode? Where the cabbies go on strike, and Elaine gets a temporary job as secretary to a business executive named Mr. Gibbons? He says to her "I've been with this company longer than any other executive. And do you know why? It's because nobody knows exactly what I do! I try to be as inconspicuous as possible. I never say anything at meetings. Whenever somebody tells a joke, I make sure I'm never the first or the last to laugh..."
Definitely Thomas!
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)Actually, most people would LOVE a JOB FOR LIFE (regardless of how senile you may get), that pays $250,000,000 per year, and technically only requires that you show up, and give your opinions. Writing lengthy majority or minority opinions is voluntary.
So, that part of your argument might have been hyperbole. But I agree, both liberals and conservatives should have a little more tact when anybody that held one of the highest offices of State dies. When anybody dies, period. It's not really a laughing matter.
former9thward
(31,972 posts)Lawyers with their background make far more than $250,000 a year.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)And unlimited expense accounts. None of that is declared as salary, of course.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)I knew they earned a lot, but that amount sounds unlikely.
TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)they might have to raise that salary a little.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)so I imagine quite a lot of people would want it.
If no one wanted it, why would the Republicans be going into conniptions to try to prevent Obama from nominating someone (who after all could always say no!)
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)So would most lawyers. I purposely stayed off DU on Saturday night for what I can only assume was a lot of grave dancing.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)people avoid like the plague?
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)If they're uncomfortable knowing that millions are wishing them ill-well at all times (as is clear from Twitter and DU these days), yes.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)lame54
(35,282 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They have power, lots of money and they can't be fired if they do a shitty job.
I would happily trade that life for my life.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)This has been held up as a reason why Notorious R.B.G. (and, we now know, Kagan) was able to maintain a close friendship with the deceased Injustice Scalia.
libodem
(19,288 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)system is. There is no longer any checks and balances. The SC shouldn't be conservative or liberal. It should be unbiased. A long, long time ago judges actually did put their own personal feelings aside in order to do their job. So did journalists.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)the sense that over 99% of the people could not do a good job at it, nor even a decent job at it.
And if one believes Ginsburg, Scalia did do a good job at it, and this is coming from one who disagrees with so many of his opinions.
But I do believe Ginsburg also believes in the strength of diverse opinion ( I know she does from reading her text regarding Scalia, and how his arguments could actually make her arguments stronger).
I want a diverse Country.
I want people who disagree with me and have different opinions.
anamnua
(1,108 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)my father thinks he's really smart = he insists they should have to be unanimous - like juries do! No matter how many times I explain the difference between deciding the facts and the law. But hey he is sure he knows better than I do.
Also people are unwilling to consider some justices might interpret the document in a way they think necessary even if they don't like the outcome. May not have been so of Scalia but a lot of them would do the right thing.
