Quote (Goomshill @ 27 Jun 2018 18:17)

I wonder how much Trump's pick for SCOTUS will be factoring in midterm politicking. He might get a bump in a state if he picks their homeboy.
It will be a conservative not a moderate, again, no matter what I imagine Trump's personal philosophy to be he's still constrained by appeasing the conservative bloc prior to the midterms. He needs that 'but gorsuch' crowd. If he picked a moderate, he'd risk a midterm blowout.
So it might be interesting in which conservative he picks

Quote

Education and career

In 1994, Barrett graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa member. In 1997, she graduated from the Notre Dame Law School with a Juris Doctor, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.[2]

After graduation, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1998–99. From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.[3][4]

In 2002, she began teaching at the Notre Dame Law School, where she was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and, from 2014–17, held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law. Barrett continues to teach as a sitting judge.[5] She is admitted to the bar in Washington, D.C., but not in Indiana.[6][7]

Quote (IceMage @ Jun 27 2018 04:27pm)

Well, you basically said you're on the far-left politically, so I'm wondering if there's some sort of deep rationale that explains your support of Donald Trump. Like maybe supporting conservative judges.

Quote

An ordinary person of common sense would react to the
Court’s decision the way Mr. Bumble famously responded
when told about a legal rule that did not comport with the
reality of everyday life. If that is the law, he exclaimed,
“the law is a ass—a idiot.” C. Dickens, Oliver Twist 277
(1867).

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2018 05:43pm)

I don't like it when Scalia invents judicial constructs to serve a political end or when Kagan would happily plunge us into the chaos of incoherent jurisprudence just to be as liberal as possible.
I've got a lot of respect for well constructed doctrines even if they wouldn't always lead to the results I wanted or even be my own interpretation, as long as they're consistent.
And I've also got respect for the justices who just acknowledge the shortcomings of the court and take a pragmatic rationalist approach. Alito laid that out in his dissent from Collins v Virginia, quoting Dickens saying;


I'm skeptical of both the textualists who pretend they can find a coherent logic in narrow interpretation and even more skeptical of incoherent activism that isn't necessarily grounded in an overriding philosophy but is only consistent at serving an agenda.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 27 2018 06:49pm)

In before Ginsberg croaks and Drumpf nominates another justice.

Would be the beginning of Pax Americana 2.0

Quote (ofthevoid @ 27 Jun 2018 18:49)

In before Ginsberg croaks and Drumpf nominates another justice.

Would be the beginning of Pax Americana 2.0

Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 27 2018 12:44pm)

Scalia didn't realize that originalism and textualism were mutually exclusive, but he was still one of the brightest SCOTUS Justices we had in recent memory. He had some good moments.

Gorsuch seems like more of hack based on his opinions, even if they likely would have voted almost the exact same. Admittedly, Gorsuch has been a Justice for only a short while now, and Justices do change over time.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 27 2018 05:43pm)

I don't like it when Scalia invents judicial constructs to serve a political end or when Kagan would happily plunge us into the chaos of incoherent jurisprudence just to be as liberal as possible.
I've got a lot of respect for well constructed doctrines even if they wouldn't always lead to the results I wanted or even be my own interpretation, as long as they're consistent.
And I've also got respect for the justices who just acknowledge the shortcomings of the court and take a pragmatic rationalist approach. Alito laid that out in his dissent from Collins v Virginia, quoting Dickens saying;


I'm skeptical of both the textualists who pretend they can find a coherent logic in narrow interpretation and even more skeptical of incoherent activism that isn't necessarily grounded in an overriding philosophy but is only consistent at serving an agenda.