Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her law clerks were doing the work. That's been happening for at least a decade. RBG began falling asleep during oral arguments over 10 years ago. She was no longer competent at that point and should have stepped down.
I am not a lawyer, i do not know any judges whom i can ask how it works. Considering the level they are at, it wouldn't surprise me if their law clerk were there to do research and write the opinion. The reality is, they have law clerk for a reason, so who is to say that justices must be doing any writing themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
How can she render a valid decision (whatever it is) if she sleeps through oral arguments? That's unethical, to say the least.
Hearings are for show, sure they might change the mind of some judges, but in reality all arguments already been doing with briefs that were submitted to them , plus there is court records from appeal court, trial court etc.
I am not a lawyer, i do not know any judges whom i can ask how it works. Considering the level they are at, it wouldn't surprise me if their law clerk were there to do research and write the opinion. The reality is, they have law clerk for a reason, so who is to say that justices must be doing any writing themselves.
Hearings are for show, sure they might change the mind of some judges, but in reality all arguments already been doing with briefs that were submitted to them , plus there is court records from appeal court, trial court etc.
See my post about Knick v. Township of Scott. The questions during oral arguments were vital in proving that the Township had committed an unconstitutional taking.
SCOTUS Toons has a brief animated video showing what happened.
Incorrect. It is the ONLY opportunity the Justices have to ask questions for clarification. In fact, the questions were an important factor in how the Knick case was decided. The attorney for Scott Township couldn't deny that a taking had occurred and couldn't produce any evidence that just compensation was even being considered for the taking.
Thomas has asked questions during oral arguments. He just often doesn't do so.
Incorrect. No, That's not the only chance justices have to ask questions. Justices essentially ask questions in ordering parties to respond to written filings all of the time. And Thomas does ask questions, but he often goes years without doing so, including a full decade without asking questions (2006-2016): https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/polit...ion/index.html
Fundamentally, though, have you listened to Supreme Court oral arguments? The questions they ask are not necessary to deciding cases and the attorneys generally just rehash the points presented in their filings. So, knowing that Thomas goes years without asking questions, why would Ginsburg need to be awake at a hearing to do her job? Especially when every Supreme Court case is audio recorded and can be accessed later? I don't doubt that there have been times where oral argument has uncovered certain things that were not in the briefs, but that is NOT the norm. Keep in mind that justices have completely missed hearings and still participated in a case.
I don't like Ginsburg's jurisprudence, but this is a rather silly argument if you ask me.
Interesting that Barrett opposed Obama nominating a justice when he has almost a year left in office, but now she it ok with Trump doing the same thing.........
Very hypocritical. We need justices with more consistent views, no....SOLID views.
Interesting that Barrett opposed Obama nominating a justice when he has almost a year left in office, but now she it ok with Trump doing the same thing.........
Very hypocritical. We need justices with more consistent views, no....SOLID views.
Everyone with any political bias is a damned hypocrite on federal judge nominations and confirmations. It's the most blatantly obvious thing imaginable. The weird part is seeing the partisan voters getting sucked into their sides stupid propaganda. Obama had every intention of committing exactly the same "unthinkable crime" that the Dems are whining about now: Replacing a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year and replacing them with their polar opposite politically. There is only one reason he failed. His party did not control the Senate. If he'd had control of the Senate, you better believe they'd have slammed through the most Progressive/Liberal justice possible.
There is only one reason why Trump will likely succeed where Obama failed. His party controls the Senate.
There are no higher principals. There are no "must replace within X number of days" rules. Every rule you can dream up for Supreme Court appointments has been broken many times over. There have been vacancies that lasted more than 800 days. There are only two actual rules: The President nominates and the Senate confirms.
Ginsberg's replacement will be the 115th Supreme Court justice. That means this is round 115 of the same childish toddler fight power grab where both parties desperately try to get the Supreme Court to more closely resemble their politics.
Nobody should bother trying to claim the moral high ground. There isn't one.
PS: Ginsberg was on both sides of the issue as well.
Incorrect. No, That's not the only chance justices have to ask questions. Justices essentially ask questions in ordering parties to respond to written filings all of the time. And Thomas does ask questions, but he often goes years without doing so, including a full decade without asking questions (2006-2016): https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/polit...ion/index.html
Fundamentally, though, have you listened to Supreme Court oral arguments? The questions they ask are not necessary to deciding cases and the attorneys generally just rehash the points presented in their filings. So, knowing that Thomas goes years without asking questions, why would Ginsburg need to be awake at a hearing to do her job? Especially when every Supreme Court case is audio recorded and can be accessed later? I don't doubt that there have been times where oral argument has uncovered certain things that were not in the briefs, but that is NOT the norm. Keep in mind that justices have completely missed hearings and still participated in a case.
I don't like Ginsburg's jurisprudence, but this is a rather silly argument if you ask me.
Yes, I have, and I even gave you an example of when the answers to the questions clarified what had happened in the case. Sleeping through that, as RBG was wont to do for more than the past 10 years, is a dereliction of duty. Why not just have Justices not be present for oral arguments at all if you claim their attention to such isn't necessary?
Yes, I have, and I even gave you an example of when the answers to the questions clarified what had happened in the case. Sleeping through that, as RBG was wont to do for more than the past 10 years, is a dereliction of duty. Why not just have Justices not be present for oral arguments at all if you claim their attention to such isn't necessary?
They are appointed for life. They are not required to write opinion, be present at oral argument etc and can still vote. No where does it say they are required to do anything that you say they have to.
Everyone with any political bias is a damned hypocrite on federal judge nominations and confirmations. It's the most blatantly obvious thing imaginable. The weird part is seeing the partisan voters getting sucked into their sides stupid propaganda. Obama had every intention of committing exactly the same "unthinkable crime" that the Dems are whining about now: Replacing a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year and replacing them with their polar opposite politically. There is only one reason he failed. His party did not control the Senate. If he'd had control of the Senate, you better believe they'd have slammed through the most Progressive/Liberal justice possible.
There is only one reason why Trump will likely succeed where Obama failed. His party controls the Senate.
There are no higher principals. There are no "must replace within X number of days" rules. Every rule you can dream up for Supreme Court appointments has been broken many times over. There have been vacancies that lasted more than 800 days. There are only two actual rules: The President nominates and the Senate confirms.
Ginsberg's replacement will be the 115th Supreme Court justice. That means this is round 115 of the same childish toddler fight power grab where both parties desperately try to get the Supreme Court to more closely resemble their politics.
Nobody should bother trying to claim the moral high ground. There isn't one.
PS: Ginsberg was on both sides of the issue as well.
I was not aware of the bolded, was this in "modern" times? I would leave it to constitutional scholars to tell me why the Founding Fathers did not make firmer rules with respect to replacing Justices, but it sure does seem they dropped the ball in not doing so. To give them some slack, they were a little "busy" with everything going on at the time. I'd like to see a debate about tightening up the rules some, it seems the Senate has too much discretion in the confirmation process ("800 days" being my criticism, I'd hate to see that happen today). At the same time, maybe an amendment to avoid packing the court might be in order. Again, a debate is the first step, but after cooler heads start prevailing, this probably isn't the right time.
I was not aware of the bolded, was this in "modern" times? I would leave it to constitutional scholars to tell me why the Founding Fathers did not make firmer rules with respect to replacing Justices, but it sure does seem they dropped the ball in not doing so. To give them some slack, they were a little "busy" with everything going on at the time. I'd like to see a debate about tightening up the rules some, it seems the Senate has too much discretion in the confirmation process ("800 days" being my criticism, I'd hate to see that happen today). At the same time, maybe an amendment to avoid packing the court might be in order. Again, a debate is the first step, but after cooler heads start prevailing, this probably isn't the right time.
The longest vacancy may have been during LBJ and Nixon's terms. But that wasn't for lack of trying. 4 justices got withdrawn or defeated.
They are appointed for life. They are not required to write opinion, be present at oral argument etc and can still vote. No where does it say they are required to do anything that you say they have to.
They don't have to pay attention to oral arguments? Really? What kind of Judge doesn't have to pay attention to oral arguments?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially when every Supreme Court case is audio recorded and can be accessed later? I don't doubt that there have been times where oral argument has uncovered certain things that were not in the briefs, but that is NOT the norm. Keep in mind that justices have completely missed hearings and still participated in a case. 