Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:47 am

lennygoran wrote:Chalkie I disagree with rwet on most issues but doesn`t trolling apply to insulting people personally-where does expressing your opinion on subjects fit in? Len
It doesn't. Chalkie just doesn't want my opinion or viewpoint to be expressed here, plain and simple. If there is anyone who is trolling it's him -- not me.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:30 am

rwetmore wrote:
lennygoran wrote:Chalkie I disagree with rwet on most issues but doesn`t trolling apply to insulting people personally-where does expressing your opinion on subjects fit in? Len
It doesn't. Chalkie just doesn't want my opinion or viewpoint to be expressed here, plain and simple. If there is anyone who is trolling it's him -- not me.
Continually expressing the same opinion without expressing anything new. Posting in Threads simply to get them back to the top of the pile, that's Trolling too.

Randall doesn't insult, his opinions may offend and that's a different matter.

If he expressed his viewpoint a little less, and not so repetitive, that might help change my opinion of the CMG Troll.

Sadly he doesn't.

Of course my opinion that he's a Troll is repetitive, but I do it each time he Trolls.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

lennygoran
Posts: 15883
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by lennygoran » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:06 am

Chalkie thanks for that explanation-it would imo be tough to say how much he adds that`s new and how much is just the same old stuff--it seems to me he does keep repeating himself on the climate change issue but on the election there`s always something new bering added as the dynamics of the race change? Len [just my thoughts but not really an expert on trolling or being a sysop of a forum]

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:34 pm

Chalkperson wrote:Randall doesn't insult, his opinions may offend and that's a different matter.

If he expressed his viewpoint a little less, and not so repetitive, that might help change my opinion of the CMG Troll.

Sadly he doesn't.
Any repetition of mine is due to a particular issue still being in political 'play' to speak, so far as active or potential policy implementation for or against. Regarding so-called 'climate change' (or whatever it actually is), I happen to believe that the issue is the smoking gun for the whole kit and caboodle. With the exception of the cloud feedback thread from a few years back, I'm not operating outside the rules of use when discussing it.

Moreover, I post new stuff and address new issues on a regular basis. I contribute a lot of substance. Maybe you don't like the substance, but it is substance.
Chalkperson wrote:Of course my opinion that he's a Troll is repetitive, but I do it each time he Trolls.
And you continue to make a fool out of yourself doing so, IMO. But there is no one here to stop you and I don't really care.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:42 pm

Besides, this place would be pretty dull without me. Virtually all of the other conservatives left. Someone has to spice things up and make the liberals think outside their worldview.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:20 pm

rwetmore wrote:Besides, this place would be pretty dull without me. Virtually all of the other conservatives left. Someone has to spice things up and make the liberals think outside their worldview.
Randall,

My concern has always been the negative effect that you have on the site, that we look obsessed with Trump and Climaye Change for example.

Plus the fact you post so often gives a wrong impression as your Threads keep going back to the top.

You often post 15 minutes apart, instead of collecting your thoughts into one post, as the person monitoring this site it makes it very tedious on me, each time you post I have to check the Thread in case there was dialog, but it's usually just you adding another post.

I doubt you ever even consider this aspect, you could edit your previous post to add your second or third comment, that would help me a great deal, I would not have to respond to the alert, and if you Thread has slipped in the ratings it won't bounce back up to the top.

The site should reflect a balance of views, but you manipulate this in your favor, that's why I label you a Troll.

If it make me look foolish them so be it, but at least the lurkers, and there are a great many, see that I object.

No, I don't agree with most of your views, but it's the way you play the game that makes me label you, if you posted occasionally or at least less, I'd stop, but you seem to relish your position.

For that last reason I say again, you are CMG's resident Troll.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Chalkperson » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:26 pm

Last point to Randall.

Did it ever occur to you that you are causing the lack of Threads here, that you are driving the other members away. We are down to a handful of regulars, none of whom agree with anything you post.

I believe that's why no new blood surfaces, who would want to join a site where the Troll makes the site look obsessed with causes only he is really interested in.

You consider your Threads substance, I see more of the same, and I see that as a means to Troll.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:43 am

Chalkperson wrote:Last point to Randall.

Did it ever occur to you that you are causing the lack of Threads here, that you are driving the other members away.
No. I've seen roughly just as many conservative leaning members leave and/or no longer post than liberal members who have. Besides, I've received quite a few private messages from members who support my efforts (and commend my ability to remain civil when being regularly insulted by other members).

I highly doubt that if I left you would see any increase in participation at all.
Chalkperson wrote:I believe that's why no new blood surfaces, who would want to join a site where the Troll makes the site look obsessed with causes only he is really interested in.

You consider your Threads substance, I see more of the same, and I see that as a means to Troll.
The bottom line is this is purely a desire for overt censorship on your part. If my point of view wasn't so opposed to yours, you wouldn't be doing any of this towards me. Any everyone with a brain knows it. But I can't stop you -- nor do I really care, so carry on with it if you wish.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:50 am

BTW, if Trump loses, which he certainly still may, I'll likely post quite a bit less than I am now. If he wins, then of course there will naturally be a lot of posting on him, by myself and others.

Also, if you've been paying attention, I'm not really even a true or pure Trump supporter. I'm supporting him largely by default up until this point. I have a lot of reservations actually. He's not my ideal candidate. In terms of actual positions, I probably side or agree the most with Cruz.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Ricordanza
Posts: 1942
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:58 am
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by Ricordanza » Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:33 am

rwetmore wrote:In terms of actual positions, I probably side or agree the most with Cruz.
Ah yes, the candidate who calls for abolishing the IRS. What a brilliant idea! Now why didn't I think of that? Clearly, after the abolishment of the IRS, Americans will pay their taxes voluntarily, and the tax collection system will administer itself, without all those evil bureaucrats on the federal payroll. :roll:

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by rwetmore » Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:22 pm

Ricordanza wrote:
rwetmore wrote:In terms of actual positions, I probably side or agree the most with Cruz.
Ah yes, the candidate who calls for abolishing the IRS. What a brilliant idea! Now why didn't I think of that? Clearly, after the abolishment of the IRS, Americans will pay their taxes voluntarily, and the tax collection system will administer itself, without all those evil bureaucrats on the federal payroll. :roll:
I'm not particularly for against that, but it's obvious that there would still have to be some gov't entity that enforces people pay their taxes, even if the filing and calculating is super quick and easy. Abolishing the IRS as Cruz wants is not moving the paying of taxes to the honor system as you seem to imply.

But Cruz is not going to make it. I saw him on Fox news with Chris Wallace yesterday and he just didn't look good at all.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:04 am

Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate:

The Senate’s Duty on a Supreme Court Nominee
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN Jr.
MARCH 3, 2016

In my 36-year tenure in the United States Senate — nearly half of it as chairman or ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee — I presided or helped preside over nine nominees to the Supreme Court, from both Republican and Democratic presidents. That’s more than anyone else alive today. In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend.

That’s why I was so surprised and saddened to see Republican leaders tell President Obama and me that they would not even consider a Supreme Court nominee this year. No meetings. No hearings. No votes. Nothing. It is an unprecedented act of obstruction. And it risks a stain on the legacy of all those complicit in carrying out this plan. I would ask my friends and colleagues — and all those who love the Senate — to think long and hard before going down this road.

Some have taken comments I made in 1992 to mean that I supported the same kind of obstructionist position as a senator. But that reading distorts the broader meaning of the speech I gave from the Senate floor that year. It was late June, and at the time there was much speculation that a sitting justice would retire, leaving President George H.W. Bush to appoint a successor in the final months of his first term. We had been through several highly contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings during my tenure, and I feared that a nomination at that late date, just a few weeks before the presidential conventions, would create immense political acrimony. So I called on the president to wait until after the election to submit a nomination if a sitting justice were to create a vacancy by retiring before November. And if the president declined to do that, I recommended that the Judiciary Committee not hold hearings “until after the political campaign season is over.”

Those brief statements were part of a much more extensive speech that reviewed the history of Supreme Court nomination fights during election years. My purpose was not to obstruct, but to call for two important goals: restoring a more consultative process between the White House and the Senate in filling Supreme Court vacancies, and encouraging the nomination of a consensus candidate who could lower the partisan temperature in the country.

It is the same view I hold today.

Throughout that speech, and throughout my career, I’ve argued that the Senate has an important role to play. This involves the president’s seeking advice from its leaders before making a nomination — as President Obama has done and will continue to do — and the Senate’s examining candidates before deciding whether to consent to their appointments. Under my chairmanship, every Supreme Court nominee was given a hearing and a vote in the Judiciary Committee. And I made sure every nominee was given a full vote on the floor of the Senate, even those whose initial vote in the Judiciary Committee had failed, and even those whom I opposed. Only those who withdrew did not get floor votes. This position earned me the anger of my own party. But I believed strongly that the Constitution, clearly and plainly, calls for all 100 senators to advise and consent on nominees — not just the handful on the Judiciary Committee.

As a senator, I zealously guarded the rights of the Senate. As vice president, I hold the same view. But the framers also intended for the president to fulfill a clear constitutional responsibility. President Obama will do that by putting forth a nominee who will be eminently qualified, who recognizes the limits of the judiciary, who is fair-minded and who has an unimpeachable record. The Senate will need to fulfill its constitutional responsibility by considering, debating and voting on that nominee.

I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of Ronald Reagan’s second term. I know. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. And we promptly gave him a hearing, a vote in committee and a full vote on the floor.

As I write this, nearly all Republican senators have said that they will refuse to consider any nominee — sight unseen. At a time when we need to reduce the gridlock in our politics, this would extend Congress’s dysfunction to the Supreme Court — preventing it from functioning as our founders intended for a year and possibly longer.

In my 1992 speech, I noted that in the five cases in which justices were confirmed in the summer of an election year, all five were filling vacancies that had arisen before the summer began. That is the case now. We still have time to proceed with hearings and a vote before we reach the summer conventions and fall campaign.

I hope that Republican leaders will take a step back and think about what they are doing. I hope they will think about the oaths they have taken. I hope they will think about their responsibility to the voters of this nation. And I hope they will think about their role in upholding the integrity of the United States Senate. If they love the Senate as much as I do, they need to act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opini ... nsent.html
John Francis

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died at Age 79

Post by John F » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:04 am

And, descending from Constitutional principle to practical politics, with a startling possibility in the next-to-last paragraph:

Republicans Have a Stake in Making a Deal on a Supreme Court Justice
By JAMES B. STEWART
MARCH 3, 2016

Senate Republican leaders have insisted they won’t consider an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, leaving that choice to the next president. But they may want to reconsider after this week — especially if they care about protecting the pro-business rulings that are among the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s most important legacies.

The Republicans’ strategy appears to be premised on the voters’ election of a Republican president who will nominate an archconservative in the Scalia mold. And even if a Democrat wins the White House, it assumes Republicans will retain control of the Senate, giving them considerable leverage to insist on a justice they can at least tolerate, and in any event leaving them no worse off than they are now. With the emergence of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as front-runners, both premises look increasingly dubious.

Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump in national polls by a three-percentage-point margin, 45.4 percent to 42 percent, according to the average of recent polls compiled by Real Clear Politics. The Iowa Electronic Markets, where traders invest in the outcome, show the Democratic nominee — presumptively, Mrs. Clinton — even more likely to win the popular vote than the Republican nominee — presumptively, Mr. Trump. Ominously for the Republican strategy, the odds in favor of Democrats’ regaining control of the Senate have shot up this week on the Iowa exchange, overtaking the likelihood of Republican control.

So the question for the Republican Senate leadership now and over the next few months, as the likely outcome becomes even clearer, is stark: Would they prefer an Obama nominee who is expected to be moderate and will be likely to deliver at least some of their agenda, or one chosen by Mrs. Clinton who, with a Democratic Senate, would have virtually unfettered discretion to pick anyone she wants?

“If Hillary is elected, and certainly if there’s a Democratic Senate, the Republicans would be much better off with a moderate nominee now,” said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. “That’s a rational way of looking at it. I’d hope they’d see reason but I wouldn’t bet the family farm on it.”

And when it comes to business and economic issues, what’s at stake is nearly every pro-business Supreme Court ruling since the Reagan era and the emergence of a reliable 5-to-4 pro-business majority on the court. “To see the number of cases that could change with this appointee is stunning,” since so many of the most important cases were decided by 5-to-4 votes, said Lee Epstein, who teaches constitutional law and legal institutions at Washington University in St. Louis.

Justice Scalia’s death and the loss of a reliably pro-business vote have already caused Dow Chemical to pay $835 million to settle an antitrust price-fixing case that it had lost in lower courts and that was on the Supreme Court’s docket. (A 4-to-4 tie at the Supreme Court would have left the lower court’s adverse decision in place.) Among Supreme Court precedents at risk, according to Ms. Epstein, are 16 involving business activity, unions or tax policy, including Walmart Stores v. Dukes, which denied class-action status to female employees of the discount retailer. Additional rulings in jeopardy that are of keen interest to business include Citizens United, which struck down limits on political contributions by businesses and labor, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which made it easier for courts to dismiss cases alleging discrimination.

Ms. Epstein, along with Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and William M. Landes, a law professor at the University of Chicago, wrote an in-depth assessment of business cases before the Supreme Court. In it, they conclude that four of the 10 justices since 1946 friendliest to business are now on the court (Samuel A. Alito Jr., John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy) — and a fifth was Justice Scalia. The sitting justice who is least friendly to business is Sonia Sotomayor, exactly the kind of liberal jurist many Republicans fear Mrs. Clinton would choose.

As Akhil Amar, professor of constitutional law at Yale and author of “America’s Unwritten Constitution,” put it, “Senate Republicans should remember that a compromise candidate today may be far better for them than the justice they may get stuck with if the November election does not break their way.” And if Mr. Trump is the nominee and wins the election, there is no guarantee he would name a conservative in the Scalia mold. “Who would Trump appoint to anything? He’s a wild card,” Ms. Epstein said.

Mr. Amar said that if viewed through the lens of negotiating strategy, some kind of grand bargain might be possible: “In business, the question always is, is there an overlap between the bid and ask price? In other words, can Obama offer the Republicans something they want, and at what price? If so, it might be in both parties’ interest to reach a deal.”

The three constitutional scholars — Mr. Tribe, Ms. Epstein and Mr. Amar — agreed there are qualified candidates who could thread the needle between Democratic and Republican priorities, especially since pro-business candidates do not necessarily fall into strictly liberal or conservative camps. Three names prominently mentioned as potential nominees are Jane Kelly, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and two judges on the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick B. Garland. All were confirmed with Republican support. None has a reputation for being either pro- or anti-business, but Judge Garland is an expert on antitrust law and has lectured on the topic at Harvard Law School.

President Obama has sought Republican suggestions, an offer the leadership rebuffed at a White House meeting this week. “There’s no question Obama could name someone exceptionally well qualified and ideologically acceptable to Republican senators,” Ms. Epstein said. “The question is how far he’s willing to go to cater to their interests.”

Depending on Mrs. Clinton’s strength in the polls, he might not have to go all that far, especially if he is willing to offer Republicans someone likely to advance at least some of their business and economic agenda. Business issues generally do not excite such intense political passions, which may make it easier for Mr. Obama to compromise on at least some of them. Some major business priorities now at risk are Supreme Court precedents restricting class actions, limiting punitive damages and requiring parties to go to arbitration rather than court. While many trial lawyers, including big contributors to Democratic candidates, fiercely opposed those decisions, the Democratic base has shown little interest.

Even union rights, which the current court has been chipping away at, have faded in political significance outside the public sector. “You could find someone reliably willing to perpetuate those pro-business trends and yet unlikely to alienate major liberal constituencies,” Mr. Tribe said.

Given that he is in the waning months of his second term, Mr. Obama may be more interested in his legacy than in whipping up the Democratic base. If so, he would want someone committed to his views and likely to preserve his legacy on health care, immigration, climate change and civil rights. On those issues, Republicans would have to compromise. But that still leaves room for other Republican priorities.

Ms. Epstein noted that nominating a Supreme Court justice is an important element of any president’s legacy, since it extends a president’s influence far beyond his or her term, often for decades. Naming a third justice would be a signature achievement for Obama, another incentive to reach some kind of compromise with the Republicans.

Should they continue to rebuff any nominee, there is also the possibility that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, might nominate Mr. Obama himself, a prospect sure to horrify many Republicans. “Wow, what a great idea,” she said in Iowa earlier this year in response to a voter’s question. (Mr. Obama hasn’t indicated any interest in joining the court, but if he did, he would be following in the footsteps of William Howard Taft, who served as chief justice for nearly nine years after leaving the White House.)

Still, none of the constitutional scholars I interviewed this week thought compromise was likely, given the bitterly polarized political climate and the Republican leadership’s repeated refusal to take up any Obama nominee. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. “Obama doesn’t have to pick someone who will be perceived as a liberal firebrand,” Mr. Tribe said. “In his second book, he made clear he believes the court works best when it’s not at the forefront of major cultural and social movements. He wouldn’t have to compromise what he wants to achieve to nominate someone measured and moderate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/busin ... ation.html
John Francis

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests