The Supreme Court

[Docthehun]

DGUtley, here's a good read on one of our favorite topics.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4b8672be-6e5f-33e2-a3e8-7237caf0a634/ss_we-may-be-living-in-the-final.html

[DGUtley]

Very good article but I disagree with some of the criticisms leveled at R's w/o examples. I continue to think that they should bring the nominees up for a vote; but I also think that the Prez should moderate the pick based on the tone of the senate.

[exploited]

Very good article but I disagree with some of the criticisms leveled at R's w/o examples. I continue to think that they should bring the nominees up for a vote; but I also think that the Prez should moderate the pick based on the tone of the senate.

The current nominee is a centrist, extremely qualified, and to be frank, a pretty brilliant guy. I have no idea why the R's didn't immediately accept him - it was a very generous pick, much better than you are going to get from Hillary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland


Notable cases

Garland is considered a judicial moderate and a centrist.[39] Garland has been described by Nina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson of NPR as "a moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases".[4] Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog, wrote in 2010 that "Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements."[22] Garland has a reputation for collegiality, and his opinions rarely draw a dissent.[40] Likewise, Garland has only written fifteen dissents in his two decades on the court.[40] For comparison, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has written seventeen dissents in the past decade.[40]

Administrative and environmental law[edit]

Garland has tended to favor deference to regulatory agencies.[41] For example, in In re Aiken County (2013), Garland dissented when the court issued mandamus ordering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to process the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository license.[42] In Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2013), Garland joined a divided court upholding the DEA's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.[11] However, according to Goldstein, in a number of split decisions on environmental law Garland "favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups."[22] In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton (2003), Garland found the arroyo toad was protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.[43] Then-Circuit Judge John Roberts dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, writing that Congress's interstate commerce power cannot reach "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California."[44]

Criminal law and whistleblower protection

While on the bench, Garland has proven to be deferential to the government in criminal cases, siding with prosecutors in ten of the fourteen criminal cases in which he disagreed with a colleague.[45] For example, in United States v. Watson (1999), Garland dissented when the court concluded a prosecutor's closing argument was unduly prejudicial, objecting that a conviction should only be reversed for "the most egregious of these kind of errors."[45] In 2007, Garland dissented when the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed the conviction of a Washington, D.C. police officer who had accepted bribes in an FBI sting operation.[46]

...


[Edited for copyright compliance.]

[DGUtley]

The current nominee is a centrist, extremely qualified, and to be frank, a pretty brilliant guy. I have no idea why the R's didn't immediately accept him - it was a very generous pick, much better than you are going to get from Hillary.

Because he's ardent anti 2nd Amendment?

[Bethere]

..but I also think that the Prez should moderate the pick based on the tone of the senate.

Which is exactly what Obama did.

[DGUtley]

Which is exactly what Obama did.

I don't necessarily disagree. The 2nd Amendment position I think is what cost him the slot -- although you're right it could've been the no way / no how.

It's really disenchanting what we've become. I blame the D's and go back to the 2000 election and I'm sure you blame the R's beginning in 08 for the hostility. How do we get over this? How can we get better? I had hoped that Obama would've had the leadership to the WH regularly for drinks / coffee (notwithstanding what they'd said about him -- b/c he's the Leader and he could've risen above their comments), like Tip and Ronnie would do. I'm 54. It's sad to think that we're going to see 4-8 more years of this.

[Chris]

The article seems to say the problem is the widening gap between Dems and Reps. Politics is broken.

A smaller court might be in order. Get Ginsburg to retire. Then there'd be an odd number again.

[Newpublius]

Very good article but I disagree with some of the criticisms leveled at R's w/o examples. I continue to think that they should bring the nominees up for a vote; but I also think that the Prez should moderate the pick based on the tone of the senate.

The hearing and vote harkens to a procedure very useful for the 19th century. Today though its pure political theater. In the information age Garland's judicial record is instantly available, so to a certain extent I understand why people would say, 'let's at least have a vote'

But also let's not be wasting time for what we already know are foregone conclusions.

[Docthehun]

The hearing and vote harkens to a procedure very useful for the 19th century. Today though its pure political theater. In the information age Garland's judicial record is instantly available, so to a certain extent I understand why people would say, 'let's at least have a vote'

But also let's not be wasting time for what we already know are foregone conclusions.

That too could be construed as abusing a power bestowed by the Constitution.

[exploited]

Because he's ardent anti 2nd Amendment?

What exactly makes you say that? Because he ruled in a way that you didn't like?

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dey shouldn't get bond - dey oughta be deported... :angry: Supreme Court weighs bond hearings for detained immigrants November 30, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) — A seemingly divided Supreme Court tried to figure out Wednesday whether the government can detain immigrants indefinitely without providing hearings.
The justices heard argument in a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants who've spent long periods in custody, including many who are legal residents of the United States or are seeking asylum. The issue for the court is whether people the government has detained while it is considering deporting them can make their case to a judge that they should be released. The case pits the Obama administration against immigration advocates, and the court hearing comes as President-elect Donald Trump has said he will step up deportations. Even as the current administration has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform and tried to help longtime U.S. residents who are in the country illegally, it has moved aggressively to deport more recent immigrants and those who have been convicted of crimes. The number of people in detention awaiting deportation has ballooned to more than 40,000, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the immigrants in the Supreme Court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the immigrants, including Mexican immigrant Alejandro Rodriguez, who was detained for more than three years without a bond hearing. Rodriguez is a legal U.S. resident who was brought to the country as an infant. The Homeland Security Department detained him when it began deportation proceedings because Rodriguez had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance and driving a stolen vehicle, according to the appeals court. He spent no time in jail for those criminal convictions. In another case, an Ethiopian asylum-seeker was kept in detention partly because a DHS officer wrongly labeled him a Somali, the ACLU said. The 9th Circuit ruled that immigrants generally should get bond hearings after six months in detention, and then every six months if they continue to be held. The government must show why they should remain locked up, the court said. Justice Stephen Breyer, voicing a sentiment that appeared to be shared by other liberal justices, said it seemed unfair that the law would, for example, allow an immigrant released after a four-year prison term to be held the same amount of time by U.S. immigration authorities. "How can they be punished for four more years?" he asked. Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn defended the law, saying Congress clearly gave the Homeland Security Department considerable power to hold people in custody while determining whether to deport them. People who are held for unusually long periods can file individual lawsuits, Gershengorn said. Justice Elena Kagan said that approach would result in haphazard rulings. "Well, wouldn't it be better to set some guideposts that everybody in the country would know to follow, rather than having one suit pop up here and one suit pop up here ... That does not seem like a good immigration system," Kagan said. MORE (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-weighs-bond-hearings-detained-immigrants-163749152--politics.html?ref=gs)

[Don]

Maybe we could move some federal judges into this area and let them start hearing the cases and deporting them instead of having them sit in detention or get bond. Set up a kind of triage to cull the more obvious offenders and then get to the others. Maybe when we get the word out and many start leaving on their own we can clear out the case loads. With better border security and a wall and better oversight of visas they can get it to a more manageable state and move the judges elsewhere. Once that happens the only ones who are detained will probably be the ones who overstay their visa's.