On 18/09/2026 09:13, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:45:11 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 18/09/2026 01:23, Snidely wrote:
Trump is the worst president the Americans have had for a long long
time. Unfortunately they were too dumb to realise it at the time, so
they voted for him again.
I'm thinking that Mitt Romney would have been a better choice than most >>>> of the Republican candidates since his run, but I think his father would >>>> have even better.
What's the obsession with 'Republican'? Why couldn't Obama have been
succeeded by another Democrat? (Hilary was not the only Democratic
choice.)
We've discussed thisn before, so I know Tony Cooper disagrees, but I
believe those who maintain that the DNC thought it better that Hillary
Clinton should lose to Trump than that Bernie Sanders should win.
But would Bernie Sanders gain the support of enough middle-ground,
floating voters to get anywhere near winning?
I doubt it.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Who before 1981 do you think was better than Obama?
Carter? No. OK, a nice man, but ineffectual.
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:44:50 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 17/09/26 12:50, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 20:14:08 -0000 (UTC),
wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
In article <FFBqS.1158$uV4d.77@fx05.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> wrote:
Wouldn't the Supreme Court react differently towards the actions
of a Democrat? That was, after all, the intention behind packing
the court with 'the Right sort of people'.
Court-packing is a game that two can play.
The anti-abortion/Federalist Society people spent 40 years to get the
packed court of today, and that required 'cheating' (by historical
standards) of stealing one nomination from Obama (stalling) and
another from Biden (rushing).
There are various proposals on how to fix the Court. I like all of
them, for promising change. An age limit or 25-year service limit
both seem reasonable, but I wonder if either or both require a
consititutional amendment.
I liked one that recruited Justices from the next level of court
appointments, randomly, for one-year stints. And maybe a greater
number than nine each year.
Some countries tackle the problem by having the concept of "separation
of powers". Here, for example, there is a very strong tradition that
neither the parliament nor the executive should try to influence the
judiciary. Of course, someone could try, but I think that would lead to
a constitutional crisis and probably a change of government. There's
also a requirement that judges must be well-qualified and experienced in
the law; that means that their own professional standards make them
stand aloof from politics.
I have never understood why the American system allows Senators to have
a say in the appointment of judges. That, in my mind, amounts to serious
political interference.
It is naive to believe that removing elected officials from the
process will result in the appointment of unbiased judges.
It doesn't make any difference from which pool you make up the
selection committee. The pool will be made up of individuals who have certain political leanings and a political agenda. That's part of the
human nature.
The role of Senators is only to vote on whether or not to "confirm"
the candidate. By the time they enter the process the candidate has
already been selected. Confirmation by the Senate is a
Constitutional requirement (Article II, Section 2).
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But
I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get
to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
On 17/09/26 12:50, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 20:14:08 -0000 (UTC),
wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
In article <FFBqS.1158$uV4d.77@fx05.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> wrote:
Wouldn't the Supreme Court react differently towards the actions
of a Democrat? That was, after all, the intention behind packing
the court with 'the Right sort of people'.
Court-packing is a game that two can play.
The anti-abortion/Federalist Society people spent 40 years to get the
packed court of today, and that required 'cheating' (by historical
standards) of stealing one nomination from Obama (stalling) and
another from Biden (rushing).
There are various proposals on how to fix the Court. I like all of
them, for promising change. An age limit or 25-year service limit
both seem reasonable, but I wonder if either or both require a
consititutional amendment.
I liked one that recruited Justices from the next level of court
appointments, randomly, for one-year stints. And maybe a greater
number than nine each year.
Some countries tackle the problem by having the concept of "separation
of powers". Here, for example, there is a very strong tradition that
neither the parliament nor the executive should try to influence the judiciary. Of course, someone could try, but I think that would lead to
a constitutional crisis and probably a change of government. There's
also a requirement that judges must be well-qualified and experienced in
the law; that means that their own professional standards make them
stand aloof from politics.
I have never understood why the American system allows Senators to have
a say in the appointment of judges. That, in my mind, amounts to serious political interference.
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:44:50 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
I have never understood why the American system allows Senators
to have a say in the appointment of judges. That, in my mind,
amounts to serious political interference.
The alternatives are also fraught with pitfalls. Who do you leave the appointment decision to? The President? The electorate? God forbid.
God himself?
The pool used by a Republican administration is the Heritage
Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing "think tank". https://www.heritage.org/ They will recommend candidates whose past
rulings adhere to the agenda espoused by conservative right-wingers.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But
I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get
to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature,
some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president,
all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
On 22/09/26 18:09, occam wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:44:50 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
I have never understood why the American system allows Senators
to have a say in the appointment of judges. That, in my mind,
amounts to serious political interference.
The alternatives are also fraught with pitfalls. Who do you leave the
appointment decision to? The President? The electorate? God forbid.
God himself?
The usual solution is to get a group of professionals vet the
applicants. In the case of judges, that has to be a committee of judges
and other legal experts, to look at the qualifications and experience of
the applicant. That's how it works for job applications in other
professions.
The big problem with having Senators doing the confirmation is that they
tend to look at the political leanings of the candidate, to the
exclusion of factors like competence and qualifications. Doing it that
way would tend to attract politically biased candidates.
In the other
systems I've seen, judges take pride in not being a member of a
political party. not engaging in political disputes, and having a record
of political neutrality.
Den 17.09.2026 kl. 15.38 skrev Tony Cooper:
The pool used by a Republican administration is the Heritage
Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing "think tank".
https://www.heritage.org/ They will recommend candidates whose past
rulings adhere to the agenda espoused by conservative right-wingers.
If I understand it correctly, in the hypothetical situation where all
court members die, the result today would be a purely conservative court.
This could not happen in Denmark where there is only one pool from which
a special board selects the candidates which invariably will be formally >appointed.
Our constitution specifies what members there must be of this special board.
1. One High Court judge nominated by the High Court
2. One judge (from second level court) nominated by all second level courts >3. One judge (from third level court) nominated by the Danish Union of >Judges
4. One lawyer nominated by the Board of Lawyers
5. Two people representatiing the public nominated by two different >organisations.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But
I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get
to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature,
some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president,
all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal
qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the
confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
I don't think you understand how our system works. The Senators only
vote to confirm the candidate that the President nominates. It's a
binary choice for them: for or against confirmation.
The competence and qualifications aspect has been established prior to
the nomination having been made. As I said in another post, I don't
think there's ever been a question about the competence or legal >qualifications of any nominee for Supreme Court Justice.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature,
some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >>confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal >>qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the >>confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is >>laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Why?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But
I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get
to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature,
some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president,
all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal
qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the
confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
In article <i255bl5cl2grp8h236sf22kfr5todaskdv@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think you understand how our system works. The Senators only
vote to confirm the candidate that the President nominates. It's a
binary choice for them: for or against confirmation.
That is overstating the case a bit.
The constitution provides for
"advice and consent" of the Senate to all executive appointments, and
in almost all cases, the president doing the appointing will consult
with the senators from a potential appointee's state prior to
announcing a nomination -- the presumption being, I suppose, that if
there are local political issues with a nominee, a home-state Senator
would be more likely to know about them than White House officials
vetting a candidate. This is of course only a convention and not the
law.
The competence and qualifications aspect has been established prior to
the nomination having been made. As I said in another post, I don't
think there's ever been a question about the competence or legal >>qualifications of any nominee for Supreme Court Justice.
Have you forgotten Harriet Miers?
The Senate wouldn't vote to elevate
to the Supreme Court someone who had never been any kind of judge and
who was at the time of nomination working in the White House. After
her nomination was pulled, Bush instead nominated the political hack
Samuel Alito, who was then a sitting judge on the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals and thus more acceptable to the Senate despite being an
extreme ideologue.
In the lower courts, many unqualified, partisan hacks have been
nominated and confirmed. That's one of the mechanisms by which they
become "qualified", by paying their dues serving on a lower court for
a few years before being nominated to a higher court.
Actually, it isn't "political bias" that's the issue here. It's
ideological bias. Conservative or liberal. Constitutional Textualism
vs Original Meaning. Position on "Settled Law'.
The expectation of how a nominee will rule on a case before the
Supreme Court in the above context is the bias.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature,
some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >>confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal >>qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
Garrett named one example.
The ABA used to have just about the final word, but that ended a
while ago. Answer from Google AI,
The Role of the ABA Standing Committee
o Evaluation Only: Through its Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, the ABA evaluates a nominee's integrity, professional
competence, and judicial temperament.
o No Ideology: The committee explicitly avoids taking positions on
a nominee's political philosophy, ideology, or party affiliation.
o Ratings: The ABA assigns one of three official ratings: "Well
Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified."
And, on Historical andn Political context --
Administration Relations: Republican administrations (including
George W. Bush and Donald Trump) have historically pushed back
against or limited the ABA's special pre-nomination access and
vetting role, arguing that the organization's ratings can reflect
political bias
I can't judge the bias of the ABA's panel. But the Federalist
Society and the Heritage Foundation have provided Trump with
(at least) lists of reliably 'conservative' judges. Not all (I think)
have met the ABA's top rating.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the >>confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is >>laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Well. Some Presidential nominations for whatever offices have
historically achieved near-unanimous approval.
The Supreme--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Court has been especially a target for the Right, after they
conceived the notion (and acted on it) that the choice of Justices
can effectively result in 'amendment' to the Constitution, proven
by the overthrow of Roe v. Wade (abortion).
The Right would have crucified Mitch McConnell (Senate) if he had
not stolen (by historical standards) to nominations from Democats.
He rushed through one before Trump was ushered out; he refused
to hold hearings for a year before Obama left office, to prevent
Garland's nomination being considered.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:53:49 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>>I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>>to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people >>>>with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature, >>>>some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>>all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >>>confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal >>>qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>>advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
Garrett named one example.
The ABA used to have just about the final word, but that ended a
while ago. Answer from Google AI,
The Role of the ABA Standing Committee
o Evaluation Only: Through its Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, the ABA evaluates a nominee's integrity, professional
competence, and judicial temperament.
o No Ideology: The committee explicitly avoids taking positions on
a nominee's political philosophy, ideology, or party affiliation.
o Ratings: The ABA assigns one of three official ratings: "Well
Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified."
And, on Historical andn Political context --
Administration Relations: Republican administrations (including
George W. Bush and Donald Trump) have historically pushed back
against or limited the ABA's special pre-nomination access and
vetting role, arguing that the organization's ratings can reflect
political bias
I can't judge the bias of the ABA's panel. But the Federalist
Society and the Heritage Foundation have provided Trump with
(at least) lists of reliably 'conservative' judges. Not all (I think)
have met the ABA's top rating.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the >>>confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>>candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is >>>laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Well. Some Presidential nominations for whatever offices have >>historically achieved near-unanimous approval.
Sure. Supreme Court nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by
96.97% and Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by 100%. There have been
several others in 90% or more group.
But, I contend there is a difference between possible results and
required results. The concern is what could happen.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:30:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
(On Supreme Court justices)
Actually, it isn't "political bias" that's the issue here. It's >>ideological bias. Conservative or liberal. Constitutional Textualism
vs Original Meaning. Position on "Settled Law'.
Conservative or liberal is a contrast.
Position on "Settled Law"? I think Justices on both ends are too
willing to upend settled law.
Constitutional Textualism is a variation of Original Meaning
Google AI -
Constitutional textualism and originalism are closely related legal
philosophies that seek a fixed, objective meaning for the
Constitution, but they differ slightly in their primary focus and
starting point.
- the answer further contrasts the two with 'living
constitutionalism', a presumptious name but descriptive.
The expectation of how a nominee will rule on a case before the
Supreme Court in the above context is the bias.
Well. Trump lately showed that his 'expectation' was personal
loyalty. "These are not the people who I interviewed for the
role of Supreme Court Justice."
Kavanaugh is more ideologue than phiosopher.--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I think that the Federalist Society has done a job of selecting >'conservatives' who reward privilege and ignore equality. I agree
with the critics who say that soe conclusions on BIG cases have
been pretty bad from the perspective of either Textualism or
Orginalism. Re-writing the Second Amendment, to throw away
the phrase about the militia, was the most extreme example.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 15:29:14 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:53:49 -0400, Rich UlrichThe current Justices vote of confirmation:
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote: >>>>>
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>>> I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>>> to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people
with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature, >>>>> some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>>> all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the
confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal
qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not
advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
Garrett named one example.
The ABA used to have just about the final word, but that ended a
while ago. Answer from Google AI,
The Role of the ABA Standing Committee
rCo Evaluation Only: Through its Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, the ABA evaluates a nominee's integrity, professional
competence, and judicial temperament.
rCo No Ideology: The committee explicitly avoids taking positions on
a nominee's political philosophy, ideology, or party affiliation.
rCo Ratings: The ABA assigns one of three official ratings: "Well
Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified."
And, on Historical andn Political context --
Administration Relations: Republican administrations (including
George W. Bush and Donald Trump) have historically pushed back
against or limited the ABA's special pre-nomination access and
vetting role, arguing that the organization's ratings can reflect
political bias
I can't judge the bias of the ABA's panel. But the Federalist
Society and the Heritage Foundation have provided Trump with
(at least) lists of reliably 'conservative' judges. Not all (I think)
have met the ABA's top rating.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the
confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the
candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Well. Some Presidential nominations for whatever offices have
historically achieved near-unanimous approval.
Sure. Supreme Court nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by
96.97% and Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by 100%. There have been
several others in 90% or more group.
But, I contend there is a difference between possible results and
required results. The concern is what could happen.
Thomas 52%
Roberts 78%
Alito 58%
Sotomayor 68%
Kagan 63%
Gorsuch 55%
Kavenaugh 51%
Barrett 52%
Brown Jackson 53%
The 2/3 requirement would have extended, or ended, the proceedings for
7 of 9.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:30:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
(On Supreme Court justices)
Actually, it isn't "political bias" that's the issue here. It's
ideological bias. Conservative or liberal. Constitutional Textualism
vs Original Meaning. Position on "Settled Law'.
Conservative or liberal is a contrast.
Position on "Settled Law"? I think Justices on both ends are too
willing to upend settled law.
Constitutional Textualism is a variation of Original Meaning
Google AI -
Constitutional textualism and originalism are closely related legal philosophies that seek a fixed, objective meaning for the
Constitution, but they differ slightly in their primary focus and
starting point.
- the answer further contrasts the two with 'living
constitutionalism', a presumptious name but descriptive.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being
confirmed for close to eight years in what is essentially a
two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100 Senators. A
2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for confirmation of a Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67 affirmations would
require 14 Senators from the minority party and Independents to vote
to affirm.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:38:47 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 17.09.2026 kl. 15.38 skrev Tony Cooper:
The pool used by a Republican administration is the Heritage
Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing "think
tank". https://www.heritage.org/ They will recommend candidates
whose past rulings adhere to the agenda espoused by conservative
right-wingers.
If I understand it correctly, in the hypothetical situation where
all court members die, the result today would be a purely
conservative court.
This could not happen in Denmark where there is only one pool from
which a special board selects the candidates which invariably will
be formally appointed.
Our constitution specifies what members there must be of this
special board.
1. One High Court judge nominated by the High Court 2. One judge
(from second level court) nominated by all second level courts 3.
One judge (from third level court) nominated by the Danish Union
of Judges 4. One lawyer nominated by the Board of Lawyers 5. Two
people representatiing the public nominated by two different
organisations.
The assumption there is that it would be impossible for four of the
six to share the same ideological viewpoints of the law.
Is that really an impossibility?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>>I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>>to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people >>>>with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with
some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature, >>>>some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>>all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >>>confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal >>>qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>>advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the >>>confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>>candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is >>>laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed
for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100 Senators. A
2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for confirmation of a >Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67 affirmations would
require 14 Senators from the minority party and Independents to vote
to affirm.
On 22/09/2026 20:19, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:30:05 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
(On Supreme Court justices)
Actually, it isn't "political bias" that's the issue here. It's
ideological bias. Conservative or liberal. Constitutional Textualism
vs Original Meaning. Position on "Settled Law'.
Conservative or liberal is a contrast.
Position on "Settled Law"? I think Justices on both ends are too
willing to upend settled law.
Constitutional Textualism is a variation of Original Meaning
Google AI -
Constitutional textualism and originalism are closely related legal
philosophies that seek a fixed, objective meaning for the
Constitution, but they differ slightly in their primary focus and
starting point.
- the answer further contrasts the two with 'living
constitutionalism', a presumptious name but descriptive.
Some of them may reject the theory of evolution - except where they can >apply it to the constitution.
On 23/09/26 02:36, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being
confirmed for close to eight years in what is essentially a
two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100 Senators. A
2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for confirmation of a
Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67 affirmations would
require 14 Senators from the minority party and Independents to vote
to affirm.
That assumes that the Senators are voting along party lines. If that is >happening, your system is broken already.
One way to reduce political interference would be to block any candidate >proposed by the President, since we know that the President is
politically biased.
Another way would be to allow Senators to vote, but have a rule that
nobody from the majority party is allowed to vote.
Reform, yes, but the solutions have to be practical and enableable.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:36:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>>>I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>>>to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels.
Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people >>>>>with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with >>>>>some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature, >>>>>some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>>>all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the >>>>confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal >>>>qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>>>advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the >>>>confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>>>candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is >>>>laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed >>>>for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100 Senators. A
2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for confirmation of a >>Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67 affirmations would
require 14 Senators from the minority party and Independents to vote
to affirm.
My proposal was not that senators should vote on the appointment of
Supreme Court judges, but that each party represented in the
legislature should appoint someone to the committee that made such >appointments.
Den 23.09.2026 kl. 07.14 skrev Tony Cooper:
Reform, yes, but the solutions have to be practical and enableable.
Nice word.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 09:48:04 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 23/09/26 02:36, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for
confirmation is laughable, though. That could result in no
candidate being confirmed for close to eight years in what is
essentially a two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100
Senators. A 2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for
confirmation of a Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67
affirmations would require 14 Senators from the minority party
and Independents to vote to affirm.
That assumes that the Senators are voting along party lines. If
that is happening, your system is broken already.
Most Senators do vote the party line the majority of the time. It's
not an "if". However, the above would be an instance of 14 Senators
not following the party line.
In all political systems the members of the parties generally vote
the party line. Are they all broken? Or, am I to think the members
of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party cast their votes completely without regard to the position of their party?
That assumes that the Senators are voting along party lines. If that is happening, your system is broken already.
Reform, yes, but the solutions have to be practical and enableable.
Nice word.
'Enableable'?
Den 23.09.2026 kl. 09.11 skrev Hibou:
[...]
Reform, yes, but the solutions have to be practical and enableable.
Nice word.
'Enableable'?
Yes, and I'm not ironic.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 03:09:17 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I think you are referring to a committee that would "vet" the pool to >determine who the committee proposes the President nominates. That
would mean that your suggestion would have a Republican- and a >Democrat-appointed member of a committee.
Currently, "the committee" consists of whichever group the current
incumbent feels would find a person that fits with the agenda of his
party. With Trump, it's the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist
Society.
Your suggestion seems to be the appointment of a committee with at
least one member of each party on the commitee. Presumably, there
will be more than two members of the committee.
My question, as always in this type of thing, is "Who decides which
people will comprise the rest of the committee?" Will bias enter
that decision? With a biased decider, the best you have is a
committee with one dissenter.
Senators don't vote on who will be proposed for nomination. Senators
vote to approve or not approve the person who has been nominated. To
remove the Senators from the process would require a constitutional >amendment. The amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority
vote in both the House and the Senate, and then be ratified by
three-fourths of the states.
The last constitutional amendment that passed was proposed in 1789
(that is not a typo) and finally ratified in 1992. The 27th Amendment >established that Congresspeople's salaries cannot be changed until a
new term has started.
The 26th Amendment - which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 - went
though much faster. 202 years and three months faster.
The 25th Amendment went through in less than two years, and may be
subject to geat interest in the near future. It set the rules of >presidential succession and the handling of presidential disability.
Disablility includes mental instability. There's a mounting cry of
"Invoke the 25th!".
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 03:09:17 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:36:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:50:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:42:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:20:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:09:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote: >>>>>>
On 17/09/2026 15:38, Tony Cooper wrote:Perhaps would be best to have a kind of vetting committee of people >>>>>> with some legal qualifications, perhaps a hybrid (oops!) one, with >>>>>> some members appointed by each party represented in the legislature, >>>>>> some appointed by the judiciary and a smaller number by the president, >>>>>> all decisiones requiring a minimum 2/3 majority.
That decision (confirm or not) is clearly political, as Peter says. But >>>>>>> I cannot see a better alternative. At least it is transparent. You get >>>>>>> to know who confirmed who, thus identifying potential scoundrels. >>>>>>
I don't think that any potential justice has been advanced to the
confirmation process who did not meet any standard for legal
qualifications. The "vetting process" has never been faulted for not >>>>> advancing qualified candidates based on their legal qualifications.
The confirmation process serves as the "hybrid" aspect. In the
confirmation process Senators of both parties individually "vet" the >>>>> candidates.
The idea of approval requiring a 2/3 majority for confirmation is
laughable, though. That could result in no candidate being confirmed >>>>> for close to eight years in what is essentially a two-party system.
Why?
The question should be "How?", not "Why?". There are 100 Senators. A
2/3 majority means that 67 of the 100 must vote for confirmation of a
Justice. The balance is now 53/47. To get 67 affirmations would
require 14 Senators from the minority party and Independents to vote
to affirm.
My proposal was not that senators should vote on the appointment of
Supreme Court judges, but that each party represented in the
legislature should appoint someone to the committee that made such
appointments.
I think you are referring to a committee that would "vet" the pool to determine who the committee proposes the President nominates. That
would mean that your suggestion would have a Republican- and a Democrat-appointed member of a committee.
Currently, "the committee" consists of whichever group the current
incumbent feels would find a person that fits with the agenda of his
party. With Trump, it's the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist
Society.
Your suggestion seems to be the appointment of a committee with at
least one member of each party on the commitee. Presumably, there
will be more than two members of the committee.
My question, as always in this type of thing, is "Who decides which
people will comprise the rest of the committee?" Will bias enter
that decision? With a biased decider, the best you have is a
committee with one dissenter.
Senators don't vote on who will be proposed for nomination. Senators
vote to approve or not approve the person who has been nominated. To
remove the Senators from the process would require a constitutional amendment. The amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority
vote in both the House and the Senate, and then be ratified by
three-fourths of the states.
The last constitutional amendment that passed was proposed in 1789
(that is not a typo) and finally ratified in 1992. The 27th Amendment established that Congresspeople's salaries cannot be changed until a
new term has started.
The 26th Amendment - which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 - went
though much faster. 202 years and three months faster.
The 25th Amendment went through in less than two years, and may be
subject to geat interest in the near future. It set the rules of presidential succession and the handling of presidential disability.
Disablility includes mental instability. There's a mounting cry of
"Invoke the 25th!".
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:04:29 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,507 |