Here's Joan Biskupic at CNN, noting the return of the Court, but forefronting the unfilled seat: "An empty space and an idle microphone: The Supreme Court returns."
The associate justices repositioned their tall black chairs on the two sides of Roberts, in their new order of alternating seniority without Kennedy... At the end of the bench, where the new justice would sit, was an empty space and idle microphone.
In their first case, testing the reach of federal environmental law, the eight appeared to be dividing along familiar ideological and political lines, conservatives versus liberals.... [T]he high court [might fail] to set a national standard on some bubbling controversies, whether regarding the Endangered Species Act, in dispute Monday, or related to a Tuesday case brought by a Death Row inmate with dementia, when elderly convicts may be exempt from capital punishment....
In a practical vein, 4-4 splits may not be the only consequence for a shorthanded court. Without a full slate of justices, they may also avoid taking up substantial new questions, as happened when the Senate had stalled on Obama nominee Judge Merrick Garland. Among the contentious issues currently pending for possible review is whether federal law prohibiting sex discrimination covers bias based on sexual orientation and gender identity....
Posts
26 comments:
Court packing will change the lonely microphone meme.
Maybe Kennedy should have stayed until his replacement was confirmed. Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor originally. Then Rehnquist kicked the bucket. So Roberts was nominated for Chief and O'Connor stayed until Alito was confirmed.
It will be interesting to see (if we could) how Kavanaugh is greeted by the other justices when he is eventually sworn in.
Everybody on the Right knew it started today.
We knew people on the Left knew too.
I try to be cynical, but I just can't keep up. - Lily Tomlin
The empty seat is so interesting that maybe you, like me, forgot to hail the return of the actual Supreme Court today.
No. I did not forget that the Supreme Court convenes today. This is the whole point of the disgusting show we have been forced to witness for the last few weeks. Keep the Supreme Court neutered and cripple Trump's ability to do anything for the people.
Unlike 'others', I have not been fixated on the unbelievable and unsavory feminists' obsession with we must "believe the woman" meme and we must forget the due process of the law. Forget the rule of innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not mesmerized about the juvenile, junior high, unverifiable, antics of unverifiable children. I am not believing of rumors from 35 years ago. Nor have I had the ability to watch any of this travesty without wanting to scream loudly at the immoral, evil actions of the Democrats.
I am not interested in watching a good man and his family be destroyed by a bunch of screaming feminist harpies, nor by a group of power mad, bitter Democrats. I am appalled at the destruction of the orderly functioning of Government and the jettisoning of moral civility by insane Democrats and the willing abetting of this evil by Feminazis.
So. No. I didn't forget what the actual end game is, nor have I become distracted by the disgusting dog and pony show that we call government.
However, if this travesty continues, I AM interested in retribution.
Justice Kennedy should just walk back into the Court and take his old seat. Like George Costanza.
Didn't you quit?
Serious question: In our country's history, have any active, sitting Supreme Court justices ever expressed an opinion on whether a nominee should be confirmed?
I think it would be a wonderful thing if the current justices were to release a statement expressing support for Kavanaugh. My assumption is that it would be unprecedented. Under the present circumstances, it would seem appropriate. Maybe they could write a description of due process and the presumption of innocence. (But would the three lady justices sign onto it?)
I just read a quote on the preface page of a book, that I beginning to read. The quote somehow seemed to be apt and relevant to this blog and to the current Kavenaugh/Supreme Court situation.
the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis Dante Alighieri Born: 1265 Died: 1321
Since we are told that gender is something different and separate from sex, how could "gender discrimination" be covered under "sex discrimination"? To argue that it would be covered is itself anti-trans prejudice.
the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis
Nice quote DBQ.
Maybe I should send it to my Senator, Mr. Flake.
Cruel neutrality, DBQ.
Pretty soon it will be seven justices and the votes will be 4 to 3.
I wonder how the left will like that ?
Blogger Francisco D said...
It will be interesting to see (if we could) how Kavanaugh is greeted by the other justices when he is eventually sworn in.
Kavanaugh's 1st day at USSC:
Walks into Clarence Thomas' chambers.
Thomas shakes his hand and nods. Hands Kav a glass.
Kav takes a sip of his rye
Kav: "Let's burn this motherfucker to the ground."
Thomas grins.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed this week, can they rehear arguments on any case that's likely to go 4-4?
Eh, Kavanaugh gets confirmed Friday and votes on the cases argued today, no big deal.
Matt Drudge did. It was a feed in the upper left.
But then, who reads the Drudge Report.
What do we have here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1046803379396141056/photo/1
Unlike the Brewers, they had to play a man short.
Great catch, narciso.
REPEAT:
https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1046803379396141056/photo/1
What if there wasn't any cases to oversee - that no-one brought a case to the supreme court? Or maybe a parking ticket? How would a 4-4 split decide a parking ticket?
"However, if this travesty continues, I AM interested in retribution. "
Maybe this is retribution for that empty seat from the Merrick Garland era.
Partisan a-holes trying to screw the other side always is no way to run a society.
Maybe this is retribution for that empty seat from the Merrick Garland era.
Partisan a-holes trying to screw the other side always is no way to run a society.
The difference, and it is huge, is that the Republicans didn't go to any lengths necessary to try to totally destroy Garland the man. The didn't create false accusations, dig up high school acts, slander, libel, ruining Garland's career, his personal life, destroying his family and dragging his family through the slime at the same time.
The seat was left open precisely for the reasons that Biden stated in 1992.
In a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
From the NYT. History, bitches. Learn it.
Among the contentious issues currently pending for possible review is whether federal law prohibiting sex discrimination covers bias based on sexual orientation and gender identity....
Maybe the Court should say, "The statutes are unclear on this and we cannot in good conscience say they mean one thing or another. We eagerly await Congress giving us guidance."
But that would assume Congress wants to actually legislate hard questions. They seem to be fine with handing them off to the Supreme Court. Which seems wholly against the intent of the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution. Perhaps SCOTUS could hold Congrefs in contempt :)
The empty seat is so interesting that maybe you, like me, forgot to hail the return of the actual Supreme Court today.
I mentioned several times that the point of getting Kavanaugh confirmed NLT last Saturday was because yesterday was the first Monday in October. History 101 was a long time ago for me (1965!) but I would have expected a Con Law professor to remember the significance of “the First Monday in October.”
Big Mike said...
The empty seat is so interesting that maybe you, like me, forgot to hail the return of the actual Supreme Court today.
I mentioned several times that the point of getting Kavanaugh confirmed NLT last Saturday was because yesterday was the first Monday in October. History 101 was a long time ago for me (1965!) but I would have expected a Con Law professor to remember the significance of “the First Monday in October.”
Incidental.
They are trying to keep Heidtkamp and Manchin and their other doomed red state dems from having to vote.
Democrats wont even be able to filibuster if kavanaugh is voted down.
Oct 1 is also the start of Inktober...how about it Althouse? A drawing a day.
Post a Comment