• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

If a President were faced with the death/retirement of a number of SCOTUS judges during his terms in office and had Congress behind him, couldn't he load the SCOTUS with like-minded judges and skew it for a generation? Or would that be so naughty it would be beyond the pale?
 
GlennB said:
If a President were faced with the death/retirement of a number of SCOTUS judges during his terms in office and had Congress behind him, couldn't he load the SCOTUS with like-minded judges and skew it for a generation? Or would that be so naughty it would be beyond the pale?
Click to expand...

It would be wrong only if it was a Liberal President. As long as it's a Conservative, it's perfectly okay to stack the courts.
 
GlennB said:
If a President were faced with the death/retirement of a number of SCOTUS judges during his terms in office and had Congress behind him, couldn't he load the SCOTUS with like-minded judges and skew it for a generation? Or would that be so naughty it would be beyond the pale?
Click to expand...
Yes he could, and no it wouldn't.

But I do agree with your implication that it would be bad for the country. Which is one reason why I generally consider it a feature, not a bug, of our system of government, that Congress is so easily able to obstruct the president.
 
theprestige said:
Yes he could, and no it wouldn't.

But I do agree with your implication that it would be bad for the country. Which is one reason why I generally consider it a feature, not a bug, of our system of government, that Congress is so easily able to obstruct the president.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Clarence Thomas, wasn't it his appointment which began all this crqp?
 
quadraginta said:
In fact, even a creationist couldn't honestly make the claim that the purpose of the law was secular, because support for creationism is always ultimately based in religion, and in this case specifically monotheistic Mosaic religion.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside Scalia for a moment, I am not sure that I can agree with your claim. I think it is possible for a creationist to sincerely (but wrongly) believe that the evidence supporting evolution and billions of years of life is thoroughly lacking. Such a person would not be lying when claiming that teaching an alternative in the broadest possible terms serves a secular purpose, specifically to present a different but equally valid, if not more valid, view of the origins of life.

I cannot support creationism is science classes in any way, but I do take issue with the claim that creationists must be lying when they claim a secular purpose - they could just be grossly mistaken.
 
Reading the reaction in the scientific community to Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard, I think the objection was pretty basic. Scalia's argument was basically putting creationism and evolution on the same level. That they were competing scientific theories and a judge could not judge which was more credible.

Scientists found that mind boggling because creationism is not science. In order to be accepted as plausible science creationism has to be able to explain things like the fossil record, show that carbon dating techniques are flawed. It has to be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. Creationism does none of that, evolution theory does all of that, yet Scalia said he was unable to judge which was science and which was not. Yet his colleagues on the bench were able to make the distinction and easily. From Foolmewunz link:
Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan said the state failed to identify a “clear secular purpose” for the Act, as required by the Constitution. Brennan concluded that Louisiana’s stated goal of protecting “academic freedom” was a sham. The real goal, as he saw it, “was to narrow the science curriculum.” A statement by Senator Keith during the legislative hearings revealed the real intentions of legislators: “My preference would be that neither [creationism nor evolution] is taught.”
Click to expand...
 
Loss Leader said:
In the modern age, It was Robert Bork's nomination that started the naked, unabashed politicking
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine how much more interesting politics would be if they conducted their sessions without clothes. 'Course, we'd have to elect candidates based on appearance, but they can't really be much worse than the ones we already have, so we might as well do that...
 
Argumemnon said:
I'm trying to imagine how much more interesting politics would be if they conducted their sessions without clothes. 'Course, we'd have to elect candidates based on appearance, but they can't really be much worse than the ones we already have, so we might as well do that...
Click to expand...
Or if they wore the logos of their sponsors like NASCAR drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom