4 ms·

I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent

I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent supreme court, if politicians can have guarantees as to how specific cases are decided?

standardUser 2y ago
Kavanaugh was not forced to lie under oath, he chose to.
skhunted 2y ago
I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. That’s the sad part? We have different perceptions reality.
torstenvl 2y ago
Appreciate your moral courage in going against the grain on HN. Not as sad, but still deeply sad that a site that prohibits ideological battle in its guidelines has become powerless to stop Twittermobbing on here.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm normally one who will defend HN as being a haven for calm, rational disagreement, but these Supreme Court ruling discussions are really bad. Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads. We can do better. I've seen it.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    But if one really does believe the rulings are that bad and that they portend very bad things to come then a person should say as much. I can calmly and rationally say that these decisions are terrible. It’s not, in my opinion, hyperbole for me to say so. I could be wrong in my assessment but I don’t think I am. For the first time in American history a select group of people are immune from the law as long as the acts occur while carrying out their jobs. That’s a big deal. I can see that soon someone will claim immunity because they carried out an order of the President and their immunity extends to those carrying out “official acts” of the President.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
1668911361 2y ago
I'm genuinely curious--what should the senate be voting for/against when they confirm a supreme court justice, if not how'd they rule on certain topics?
- ajcp 2y ago
  How about their qualifications for the posting? I'm not sure I'd want to appoint anyone to a judgeship who already knows how they'd pass judgement on a case that's not before them. Otherwise what's the point of a hearing or a trial?
  - 1668911361 2y ago
    Nominees for the supreme court usually have already been judges and written legal opinions. A senator could say "I read the facts of [some past ruling], and I disagree with the ruling, and therefore doubt their competency to be on the supreme court." Additionally, supreme court nominees are not selected at random--it's no accident that conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Nominees are selected by the president because the president thinks they'll like the way the nominee would rule in the future. Qualified judges have a broad spectrum of opinions. When faced with the question, "should _this_ person have a lifetime supreme court appointment," I don't see how a senator could avoid considering how a nominee might rule in the future.
Hasu 2y ago
An "independent supreme court" historically means "independent from the executive", as prior to the formation of the United States government under the constitution, judiciaries were part of the executive. It does not mean that Congress can't have political qualifications for justices, and in fact George Washington had a failed nomination because his nominee was politically unpopular.

standardUser 2y ago

Kavanaugh was not forced to lie under oath, he chose to.

skhunted 2y ago

I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. That’s the sad part? We have different perceptions reality.

torstenvl 2y ago

Appreciate your moral courage in going against the grain on HN. Not as sad, but still deeply sad that a site that prohibits ideological battle in its guidelines has become powerless to stop Twittermobbing on here.

lolinder 2y ago
I'm normally one who will defend HN as being a haven for calm, rational disagreement, but these Supreme Court ruling discussions are really bad. Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads. We can do better. I've seen it.
- skhunted 2y ago
  But if one really does believe the rulings are that bad and that they portend very bad things to come then a person should say as much. I can calmly and rationally say that these decisions are terrible. It’s not, in my opinion, hyperbole for me to say so. I could be wrong in my assessment but I don’t think I am. For the first time in American history a select group of people are immune from the law as long as the acts occur while carrying out their jobs. That’s a big deal. I can see that soon someone will claim immunity because they carried out an order of the President and their immunity extends to those carrying out “official acts” of the President.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

1668911361 2y ago

I'm genuinely curious--what should the senate be voting for/against when they confirm a supreme court justice, if not how'd they rule on certain topics?

ajcp 2y ago
How about their qualifications for the posting? I'm not sure I'd want to appoint anyone to a judgeship who already knows how they'd pass judgement on a case that's not before them. Otherwise what's the point of a hearing or a trial?
- 1668911361 2y ago
  Nominees for the supreme court usually have already been judges and written legal opinions. A senator could say "I read the facts of [some past ruling], and I disagree with the ruling, and therefore doubt their competency to be on the supreme court." Additionally, supreme court nominees are not selected at random--it's no accident that conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Nominees are selected by the president because the president thinks they'll like the way the nominee would rule in the future. Qualified judges have a broad spectrum of opinions. When faced with the question, "should _this_ person have a lifetime supreme court appointment," I don't see how a senator could avoid considering how a nominee might rule in the future.

Hasu 2y ago

An "independent supreme court" historically means "independent from the executive", as prior to the formation of the United States government under the constitution, judiciaries were part of the executive. It does not mean that Congress can't have political qualifications for justices, and in fact George Washington had a failed nomination because his nominee was politically unpopular.