Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-16-2016, 03:18 PM   #101
larrymcg421
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
Quote:
Originally Posted by claphamsa View Post
If Hillary wins, shell be picking her own person. Srinivasan is 20ish years younger... that has big impact.

14 years younger, but that is a good consideration. The reason I think Hillary and Obama could confer on a post-election pick is because they wouldn't want to wait even longer to have a replacement on the court.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added)

Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner
Fictional Character Draft Winner
Television Family Draft Winner
Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 03:21 PM   #102
claphamsa
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: non white trash MD
im sure she would get info from him...like negatives, but shell still pick her person.
__________________
Dominating Warewolf for 0 games!

GIT R DUN!!!
claphamsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 05:54 PM   #103
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
I would imagine Clinton would inherit the Obama Administration's entire pile of vetting files, for starters. While I don't think they'd work out having him nominate someone for her before late January (mainly because there's so much else that has to be done during that time period, and Congress is basically in recess anyway), I could see the two sections of staff who are/would be working on the nominations getting together so that she's able to nominate someone right away in February.
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 07:19 PM   #104
Young Drachma
Dark Cloud
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
What a gutsy pick. Not.
Young Drachma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 08:12 PM   #105
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
It's one thing I think Scalia was very right about. There should be a lot more diversity on the SCOTUS - as the court consists of an overabundance of Harvard & Yale law school graduates, people from the coasts, and non-Protestants.
Is there actually anything to this, or is it just a weird quirk? I get why Jewish people would be over-represented in law schools, and why Hindu/Muslim/atheist candidates would face an extremely high bar to be nominated let alone confirmed, (and why Harvard/Yale grads have a leg up) but is there any reason why Protestants would be underrepresented at any step on the path?

(Obviously it's already exceedingly dumb to try to and make a 9 person group accurately reflect the demographics of a nation - as has been pointed out repeatedly, implying that Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall are similar in any way beyond skin color is pretty insulting - but it'd be interesting if being a white, male, Protestant was actually hurting an individual's chances. Although I'd have to convinced pretty hard it's something other than weird dice rolls.)

Last edited by BishopMVP : 03-16-2016 at 08:12 PM.
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 11:32 PM   #106
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
I'm sure it's really just some random dumb luck (or bad luck, if you will), but the last Protestant to be raised to the Supreme Court was Justice David Souter in 1990. Though Harriet Miers, who Bush initially nominated for the seat that Justice Alito received, was Protestant as well. Part of it may have been an attempt to move away from the past - where almost everyone on the court was a Protestant (there were a smattering of Jews in the court's history before the 1990s - 5 - and Catholics before the 1980s - 6).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams

Last edited by ISiddiqui : 03-16-2016 at 11:33 PM.
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 12:02 AM   #107
RainMaker
General Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
It's one thing I think Scalia was very right about. There should be a lot more diversity on the SCOTUS - as the court consists of an overabundance of Harvard & Yale law school graduates, people from the coasts, and non-Protestants.

The Harvard/Yale thing is a difficult nut to crack in this era of very difficult confirmations. Say what you will, but having a law degree from Harvard or Yale just seems more impressive and therefore makes the pick safer.

I sort of agree with it but at the same time your best young legal minds are going to end up at those schools.
RainMaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 09:46 AM   #108
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Not necessarily. There are quite a bit of very good law schools across the country - I mean Stanford has been "tied" with Harvard for years in the US News rankings.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 09:50 AM   #109
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Well, of course, but these nominees and justices went to school in a time when Harvard and Yale dominated. Chicago rose up a bit, but with a focus on law and economics.

I think it is a fair prediction that the next generation of justices will be more academically diverse. Srinivasan is a Stanford alum. Paul Watford went to UCLA, etc. The problem is there are only 9 jobs and they don't have openings. The key for now is appointing diversified candidates at the appellate level so there is a more diverse set of potential SCOTUS nominees.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 09:53 AM   #110
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma View Post
Well, of course, but these nominees and justices went to school in a time when Harvard and Yale dominated. Chicago rose up a bit, but with a focus on law and economics.

I would argue that it is self perpetuating cycle. Harvard and Yale are considered "dominate" because the Supreme Court is filled with those Justices. It doesn't actually match reality.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:11 AM   #111
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Just like with minority football head coaches, it starts much earlier in the process and it takes a while to "catch up", as long as the custom is to appoint federal judges who had supreme court and federal court of appeals clerkships.

Sotomayor's and Alito's clerks have come from a wide variety of law schools, though Kagan still goes almost exclusively with Harvard/Yale/Stanford - (23 out of 24). I don't have a strong feeling whether "diversity" is good there or not, especially since the makeup of those schools is getting more diverse. It's not like you get some richer life experience in three years at Michigan or Northwestern that's going to make you a better appellate judge. If you're elite and want to be in the federal judiciary or academia, those are the schools to go to, and everybody knows it. If you're not qualified to get in, you can "overcome" that, but it's an uphill battle.

Last edited by molson : 03-17-2016 at 10:19 AM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:30 AM   #112
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Yes, that's the point Molson. We're in a different time than we were when the current justices were in school. It takes a while for the new batch of clerks to work their way into judgeships and/or academia.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:30 AM   #113
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
As someone who attended an 'elite' (top 25) law school myself, I can tell you that the accepted idea of the 'top' is virtually meaningless. I agree that it takes a while to 'catch up', but I am glad that we are finally breaking free of the notion Harvard and Yale are where its at. For example, Robert Bork, who was incredibly brilliant, went to University of Chicago Law School, and no one thought he was less of an elite mind than anyone on the court in the 1980s or 90s (his legal views were unacceptable to the Democrats in Congress at the time).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:31 AM   #114
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
No one is really arguing that point with you.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:40 AM   #115
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Harvard and Yale are considered "dominate"

__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:44 AM   #116
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
The point being is that people seem to believe that Harvard and Yale law schools were the barometers for clerks, Appellate Court Justices, Supreme Court Justices for time immemorial and now we're breaking out of it. It's actually quite a recent thing. Not that long ago (2005 to be specific), we had a court with two Justices from Stanford Law School and one from Northwestern Law School.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:47 AM   #117
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
SCOTUS is really too small a sample size to conclude much. What's the distribution of alma maters across the federal judiciary?
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2016, 10:53 AM   #118
ISiddiqui
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho View Post
SCOTUS is really too small a sample size to conclude much. What's the distribution of alma maters across the federal judiciary?

This is from 2004... unfortunately I couldn't find anything more current. Harvard is by far #1 and Yale is #2, but you have more than a few with a substantial number on the federal bench (including University of Texas, Virginia, Michigan, Georgetown - all with at least 30). This is from district and appellate courts though.

Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Where Federal Judges Went to Law School
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages"
-Tennessee Williams
ISiddiqui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 02:41 PM   #119
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Identity politics aside, if Garland were nominated during Obama's first term, Republicans should have (that doesn't mean would have) viewed it as an attempt to find someone who is more accomplished than political. He's 100 times better than Kagan or Sotomayor. I'm a cynic, though. Even though the intellectual analysis of Obama's action here - essentially a compromise between the idea that a final-year president shouldn't make important appointments and that an appointment should be blindly partisan - seems positive, nothing these days is ever positive. Not even a small gesture is rewarded.

But if we want to analyze why so many judges are Jewish in that age group and older, remember that civil rights wasn't just for people of color. In most business and academic worlds prior to about 1975-80 if you were Jewish, you could only get so far. Jewish families often steered their children toward medical professions and the law, where those barriers didn't exist.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 03:56 PM   #120
SackAttack
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
Even though the intellectual analysis of Obama's action here - essentially a compromise between the idea that a final-year president shouldn't make important appointments

Without intending any personal attacks or implications as to what you think on the matter, that idea is horseshit. The Constitution does not have carve-outs based on term timing, and there have been multiple "final year" SCOTUS nominations in the past - including President Reagan's final year. The idea that somehow NOW it's a bridge too far, promulgated by Republicans invested in the de-legitimizing of America's first black president...well there is no intellectual honesty there. It is pure, naked politics.

I guarantee if Clinton wins and brings the Senate with her, the GOP will trip over themselves to confirm a moderate in the lame duck session rather than risk a liberal - and that will fly directly in the face of their "the people should get a say" screeching rhetoric.

Last edited by SackAttack : 03-19-2016 at 03:58 PM.
SackAttack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 04:23 PM   #121
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic View Post
Identity politics aside, if Garland were nominated during Obama's first term, Republicans should have (that doesn't mean would have) viewed it as an attempt to find someone who is more accomplished than political. He's 100 times better than Kagan or Sotomayor. I'm a cynic, though. Even though the intellectual analysis of Obama's action here - essentially a compromise between the idea that a final-year president shouldn't make important appointments and that an appointment should be blindly partisan - seems positive, nothing these days is ever positive. Not even a small gesture is rewarded.

Paragraph becomes a lot more true if you add "by the GOP Majority Congress." to the end.
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2016, 04:09 PM   #122
Thomkal
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surfside Beach,SC USA
funny ad about trying to get the Republican senators to meet with Garland:




edit: sorry took out link until I can find one that doesn't show my facebook page. But it shows every day people like a cook, cop, and surgeons who side with the Republican Senators who are not doing they job by meeting the nominee. shows what would happen if they did not do their jobs.

try this: https://vid.me/t/doyourjob

Last edited by Thomkal : 04-15-2016 at 04:20 PM.
Thomkal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2021, 09:33 AM   #123
albionmoonlight
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
This didn't seem like quite worthy of its own thread, but I know that there are some folks on this board who enjoy a good discussion about textualism and plain meaning and strict construction and the like.

This morning, the Court issued an opinion that brings that down to its most distilled essence: a textualist argument over the meaning of a single letter:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-863_6jgm.pdf
albionmoonlight is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2021, 09:39 AM   #124
larrymcg421
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
Interesting alignment. Gorsuch, Barrett, and Thomas joined the three liberals.

When this was bumped I assumed Breyer retired, so a little disappointed.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added)

Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner
Fictional Character Draft Winner
Television Family Draft Winner
Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

Last edited by larrymcg421 : 04-29-2021 at 09:47 AM.
larrymcg421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2021, 10:20 AM   #125
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
it is kind of a big letter, tho
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2021, 12:46 AM   #126
Brian Swartz
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2006
Thanks for the link, albion. I always find it interesting when a case produces these kinds of alignments among the justices.
Brian Swartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2021, 01:59 PM   #127
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
I agree. Really interesting look at how law is parsed.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.