Discussion:
Court Appointment Proposal
Add Reply
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-06 18:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
islander
2020-10-07 00:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting. The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices. Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave? Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party? I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-07 00:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.

The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
El Castor
2020-10-07 05:48:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-07 15:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
El Castor
2020-10-07 19:04:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
Possibly, but it seems that Jack Balkin is a prolific contributor to
SLATE, and I mean Prolific. Would you be as enthusiastic about the man
if he was a Breitbart or Fox News regular?
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-07 19:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
Possibly, but it seems that Jack Balkin is a prolific contributor to
SLATE, and I mean Prolific. Would you be as enthusiastic about the man
if he was a Breitbart or Fox News regular?
Balkin hasn't been a regular on Slate since 2008, but he is a liberal. I
would be equally supportive of the proposal no matter who made it.

Regarding your opinion on the proposal, I'd like to see it debated too.
Perhaps such a debate would change my mind. However, it isn't complex at
all, and you should be able to form an initial opinion without further
debate.
El Castor
2020-10-07 19:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
Possibly, but it seems that Jack Balkin is a prolific contributor to
SLATE, and I mean Prolific. Would you be as enthusiastic about the man
if he was a Breitbart or Fox News regular?
Balkin hasn't been a regular on Slate since 2008, but he is a liberal. I
would be equally supportive of the proposal no matter who made it.
Regarding your opinion on the proposal, I'd like to see it debated too.
Perhaps such a debate would change my mind. However, it isn't complex at
all, and you should be able to form an initial opinion without further
debate.
What he proposes may seem harmless and constructive, but it amounts
to, and is intended to be, a fundamental change in our form of
government. In the absence of an open debate, I am unable to form an
opinion -- "seems harmless and constructive" is as far as I'm willing
to go. I could say the same about socialism, and at one time did, but
I'm now old enough to realize that "seems" and "reality" are not
always the same thing, so bring on the national debate. In the
meantime I'll settle for Amy Barrett. (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-07 20:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
Possibly, but it seems that Jack Balkin is a prolific contributor to
SLATE, and I mean Prolific. Would you be as enthusiastic about the man
if he was a Breitbart or Fox News regular?
Balkin hasn't been a regular on Slate since 2008, but he is a liberal. I
would be equally supportive of the proposal no matter who made it.
Regarding your opinion on the proposal, I'd like to see it debated too.
Perhaps such a debate would change my mind. However, it isn't complex at
all, and you should be able to form an initial opinion without further
debate.
What he proposes may seem harmless and constructive, but it amounts
to, and is intended to be, a fundamental change in our form of
government. In the absence of an open debate, I am unable to form an
opinion -- "seems harmless and constructive" is as far as I'm willing
to go. I could say the same about socialism, and at one time did, but
I'm now old enough to realize that "seems" and "reality" are not
always the same thing, so bring on the national debate. In the
meantime I'll settle for Amy Barrett. (-8
I'll settle for "seems harmless and constructive" subject to further
debate. I also agree it would be a fundamental change, one that is needed.
El Castor
2020-10-07 23:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Sounds interesting.  The article is not clear about the tenure of the
junior justices.  Is there a fixed number of them and do appointments to
this group necessarily mean that that one must leave?  Or, do they all
have tenure, raising the question of what could become a large body.
Since these judges must be approved by the Senate, don't we have the
same problem with the a Senate effectively packing the court with
members sympathetic to their party?  I can see how this might reduce the
workload in the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that it prevents a long
term party bias in what is supposed to be a politically independent body.
There are always nine junior justices. Assuming we immediately adopt
this plan, Clarence Thomas becomes the most senior member of the junior
justices. In 2021, the president will nominate a replacement for Thomas
with Thomas moving to the status of senior justice. In 2023, Stephen
Breyer moves from junior to senior justice, and so forth.
The picks will still be subject to Senate confirmation, but the will
always happen in non-election years (one, every two years), which ought
to short-circuit the Senate refusing to consider anyone.
Do you and Islander share a concern about an equitable composition of
the Court, or are you just aiming at insuring that it leans to the
Left? It does seem to me that the Left's interests are focused on what
might be sold as a 'modernization' of the Court and Constitution, but
in reality are aimed at radically increasing the power of the central
government and your Party.
I think the proposal is aimed at a equitable composition of the Court.
Possibly, but it seems that Jack Balkin is a prolific contributor to
SLATE, and I mean Prolific. Would you be as enthusiastic about the man
if he was a Breitbart or Fox News regular?
Balkin hasn't been a regular on Slate since 2008, but he is a liberal. I
would be equally supportive of the proposal no matter who made it.
Regarding your opinion on the proposal, I'd like to see it debated too.
Perhaps such a debate would change my mind. However, it isn't complex at
all, and you should be able to form an initial opinion without further
debate.
What he proposes may seem harmless and constructive, but it amounts
to, and is intended to be, a fundamental change in our form of
government. In the absence of an open debate, I am unable to form an
opinion -- "seems harmless and constructive" is as far as I'm willing
to go. I could say the same about socialism, and at one time did, but
I'm now old enough to realize that "seems" and "reality" are not
always the same thing, so bring on the national debate. In the
meantime I'll settle for Amy Barrett. (-8
I'll settle for "seems harmless and constructive" subject to further
debate. I also agree it would be a fundamental change, one that is needed.
Simply because a fundamental change "may" be needed does not mean that
Balkin's is necessarily the answer. Let's wait for a national debate,
but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

El Castor
2020-10-07 04:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Interesting idea, but ...

1. Balkin is a partisan.
2. In an age in which the parties can't so much as agree on a bailout
package, his scheme has as much chance as the proverbial fart in a
whirlwind. (-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2020-10-07 15:20:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Interesting idea, but ...
1. Balkin is a partisan.
2. In an age in which the parties can't so much as agree on a bailout
package, his scheme has as much chance as the proverbial fart in a
whirlwind. (-8
Do you agree with the proposal on the merits?
El Castor
2020-10-07 19:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This strikes me as a good idea at first blush.
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
Interesting idea, but ...
1. Balkin is a partisan.
2. In an age in which the parties can't so much as agree on a bailout
package, his scheme has as much chance as the proverbial fart in a
whirlwind. (-8
Do you agree with the proposal on the merits?
Far too complex for me to fully understand or agree. I would like to
see it thoroughly debated by both sides of the aisle -- which I doubt
will ever happen.
Loading...