Tapate50
Well-known member
Last edited:
The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
And when this opinion is the basis of a legal argument defending the use of the K word is reference to Jewish people or the F word in reference to LGBT,. Or the S word used in the work place referring to Latino ... or the B word aimed at a female co worker.
Pretty lazy jurisprudence to my untrained eye that seems to protect --- yeah, you guessed it.
The fact that it eas a unanimous decision is beside the point
Tapate50
Well-known member
Other than the fact all three didn't think it was worth the courts time.
So... its not like it was a radical call apparently. She wasn't on some warpath against the guy\gal, he just didn't satisfy the basis of the law. Case closed, next.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
If you were talking about ACB sure. Both Kagan and ACB are perfectly "qualified." But you were responding to a post about a different person (Mazelle) by bringing up Kagan, so...
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
For all practical purposes, the Republicans changed the size of the Court to 8 during Obama's term, and a number of prominent Reps were talking about making that a permanent change. This is similar to what the Radical Republicans did to prevent Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone. That's not "packing" since the number was going down instead of up, but I'm not sure why that's an important difference. Either way, it is changing the number of justices because of politics.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Except that it is true
In 8 years obama appointed 55 federal circuit judges, in under 4 years Trump has 53.
McConnell has praised his own work in filling the courts.
"As soon as we get back in session, we'll start confirming judges again," McConnell told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last week. "My motto for the year is 'leave no vacancy behind.' That hasn't changed. The pandemic will not prevent us from achieving that goal."
Tapate50
Well-known member
Tapate50
Well-known member
Welcome to page 11. Glad you joined us to move things backwards.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Filling vacancies that he allowed to stay open when Obama was president.
Tapate50
Well-known member
But I wonder why MCconnel could do that?
"Senate Democrats infuriated Republicans in November 2013 by scrapping the 60-vote filibuster rule for judicial nominations — a change Obama and then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used to usher through 96 judicial nominations."
Its politics Zito. Not for the faint of heart apparently. They all do it. We can't sit here and play "well he did it first" or we'd send them all to bed without supper. Its a useless measure for just about everyone in Washington. Thinking your guys only play by the rules, and the other doesn't is well.....dumb as hell.
sturg33
I
They haven't gotten their talking points for this rebuttal yet
striker42
Well-known member
My first year of law school legal writing class project was on the subject of hostile work environment, that decision is correct under current jurisprudence. A single incident is rarely enough to constitute a hostile work environment as one of the requirements for that cause of action is that the conduct be "severe and pervasive". One incident where a racial slur was uttered would be severe conduct, but it can't pass the bar of pervasive.
Also note that it was a unanimous three judge panel so two other federal judges agreed with her.
It's fine to think the law should be changed but she was following precedent in that case.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Ok, but this was in response to McConnell trying to shrink the size of the DC Circuit, aka SCOTUS AAA. This example only goes to undercut the idea that Court sizes are some kind of sacred cow.
So is changing the number of justices. I don't think the Democrats are the ones claiming something is "not politics."
Last edited: