dagblog - Comments for "Supreme Court could lose legitimacy if not viewed as impartial, Kagan and Sotomayor say ahead of Kavanaugh vote"

Michael Tomasky, on a

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 18:33:07 +0000

In reply to Supreme Court could lose legitimacy if not viewed as impartial, Kagan and Sotomayor say ahead of Kavanaugh vote

Michael Tomasky, on a different legitimacy threat to the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court...

The way the Electoral College and the 2 senators-per-state rules have functioned of late, ordinary voting for greater numbers of citizens may feel like voting in the Senate does to senators on many votes: it isn't enough to have a majority. You have to have a supermajority to prevail.

I find it an interesting argument in part because to many, the Supreme Court is seen as an important brake and safeguard against abuses of majority rule (difficult to see how voting Kavanaugh down would have been anything of the sort.). Yet the justices themselves are also acutely aware of the danger they can cause to their own legitimacy if they stray too far from public opinion.

I was thinking our political

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 05:27:03 +0000

In reply to I’m with you about just

I was thinking our political intrigues are as tasteful as drinking our own urine. But thanks for the deep dive - think i'm ready for coffee now...

I’m with you about just

CVille Dem — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 02:33:42 +0000

In reply to Somehow I feel this is a

I’m with you about just stopping. Even if I hadn’t changed ammonia-scented diapers for three children, I am well aware that the kidneys filter out stuff that should not go back into the circulatory system. Picture a mesh filter that you might use to catch particles of sand, and smaller nasties that might be in water when you are camping. Then picture throwing it all back into the pot and drinking it just because you thought it was the cool thing to do.

Well, I’m thinking kidney stones either way....PAINFUL!!!

Somehow I feel this is a

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 23:25:36 +0000

In reply to I transcribed the entirety of

Somehow I feel this is a metaphor for our times - why can't we just stop?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/fe46907b-d860-4a72-ae32-809a1da4c1eb

I transcribed the entirety of

artappraiser — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:17:10 +0000

In reply to Supreme Court could lose legitimacy if not viewed as impartial, Kagan and Sotomayor say ahead of Kavanaugh vote

I transcribed the entirety of Justice Elena Kagan's answer about the Supreme Court and institutional legitimacy because I think it's important. pic.twitter.com/BzEbXF5Z9T
— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) October 6, 2018

right that is what I meant.

artappraiser — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:09:05 +0000

In reply to I think you meant to pair

right, Scalia is what I meant. Thanks for the correction and adding the links. And Kagan and Alito is news to me.

The Breakfast Club. I guess

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 11:50:00 +0000

In reply to It's a good piece, thanks for

The Breakfast Club. I guess Brett was auditioning for that tearful confessional, though coukdn't figure out if he was Emilio Estavez or that cool/abused Judd character. But somehow I don't thing the female judges will appreciate him trying to nibble their panties under the table. And something happened to Ally Sheedy, character and non-, and no one seems to know what.

I think you meant to pair

rmrd0000 — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 03:30:26 +0000

In reply to Before Roberts I used to pay

I think you meant to pair Ginsburg with Scalia

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848775/scalia-ginsburg-opera-commemorates-sparring-supreme-court-friendship

Kagan and Alito May be the new frenemies

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/supreme_court_frenemies_elena_kagan_and_samuel_alito_are_the_next_ginsburg.html

P.S. Comes to mind you see

artappraiser — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 02:11:46 +0000

In reply to Before Roberts I used to pay

P.S. Comes to mind you see the same thing in a small city courthouse when supposed opposing lawyers all seem to know each other quite well and get along quite well and you think: OIC now, this is just a game where they play a role but then they are actually all pretty collegial behind the stage. It is when someone does not live up to professional standards, that is when they are spurned by the "club" as persona non grata. This is why I was so fascinated by the reactions I posted on this thread, starting with Benjamin Wittes, who thought he knew Kavanaugh quite well, and respected him, and refused to come out against him until the last minute, finally did so. And then like 2,400 law professors; that was simply such a black mark; those people try their utmost not to be preferential to any one ideological bent. The "no" votes on that thread are all incredibly damning, temperament is the most important quality.

Not sure that how they

barefooted — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 02:08:45 +0000

In reply to Before Roberts I used to pay

Not sure that how they present themselves in public appearances is quite the same as how they really feel about each other - aka vent at home with loved ones. Yet I do agree that (hopefully) they consider their responsibility as, in part, the responsibility to work together for the greater good. Or maybe I don't. Ask me tomorrow.

Yes, you mentioned the possible dislike of Kavanaugh somewhere else, and I think I commented. I really think it's a thing - if members don't like or (especially) trust another member how does it work? Not to mention that we now have on public record Justices having issues ... or at least posing questions?