I agree with everything Paul says, but his post has prompted me to noodle why Democratic presidents always pick Supreme Court Justices who in the eyes of the left are home run hitters, while many, perhaps most, of Republican appointees hit Texas league singles. Statutory and administrative law and Supreme Court decisions for the past 85 years have built a judicial playing field that makes it easy for Democratic justices to hit home runs. The existing law for them is a gopher ball. Existing law for Republican appointees is a wicked curve, and as lawyers, trained to play on the field as they find it,, they're likely to conclude a Texas league single is the best they can or should do. It's true we occasionally get a Scalia, Thomas or Alito, but they're the exception, and, to give a Republican president his due, other exceptions are hard to find. Jim Dueholm
I speculate that Gorsuch struck a deal with the liberals in the case involving the Civil Rights Act, that in return for him extending his reasoning involving sexual orientation to transsexualism, they would avoid writing concurring opinions. Gorsuch's opinion avoided the "dignity" reasoning which seduced Kennedy and corrupted many cases, and getting the liberals on board with his opinion is a step toward cleaning up Kennedy's mess.
Thanks, yes, remains to be seen. J. Gorsuch strikes me (as a Chicagoan) as having the same gene as Richard Posner - super smart guy who enjoys going off in unpredictable and sometimes disappointing directions.
What about Justice Coney Barrett, Paul? And why (given your observations alone - and agreed, Bostock was/is atrocious) would you rate her below Justice Gorsuch?
Barrett hasn't been on the Court as long as the other two and therefore is more difficult to evaluate. For example, I don't believe she participated in the two cases over which I criticized Gorsuch.
But she has joined the libs (rather than the conservatives) in a few cases. For example, the case declining to block Maine's vaccine mandate for health workers with religious objections and the immigration case (Texas v. U.S.).
And Gorsuch has authored some very good opinions, better than any I've seen from Barrett (though I confess to not following the Court as closely as I should). He's a little quirky, but he's not squishy.
I'm not sure he's better than Barrett, which is why I said "probably." It remains to be seen which of the two will be more reliably conservative. I'm pretty sure both will be better than Kavanaugh.
Trump’s mistake was in not nominating Barrett first. Would have started down the right path. Why not? Trump the Ivy Leaguer (Penn) thinks there’s something magic about Harvard and Yale. Took him three tries to figure out Notre Dame works just fine.
Thanks for the comment. I think Trump started with Gorsuch because the people advising him, especially the White House counsel, prioritized taking on the administrative state (Gorsuch's specialty) over advancing social conservatism (thought to be Barrett's).
When it comes to the next pick, Kavanaugh, I think your explanation rings true.
I do remember media hovering over her in South Bend as Kavanaugh got the nod. They caught her hanging up the kids’ beach towels on the porch. She had all the creds then, and no one knew what was ahead for Kavanaugh the teenage partier.
I agree with everything Paul says, but his post has prompted me to noodle why Democratic presidents always pick Supreme Court Justices who in the eyes of the left are home run hitters, while many, perhaps most, of Republican appointees hit Texas league singles. Statutory and administrative law and Supreme Court decisions for the past 85 years have built a judicial playing field that makes it easy for Democratic justices to hit home runs. The existing law for them is a gopher ball. Existing law for Republican appointees is a wicked curve, and as lawyers, trained to play on the field as they find it,, they're likely to conclude a Texas league single is the best they can or should do. It's true we occasionally get a Scalia, Thomas or Alito, but they're the exception, and, to give a Republican president his due, other exceptions are hard to find. Jim Dueholm
I speculate that Gorsuch struck a deal with the liberals in the case involving the Civil Rights Act, that in return for him extending his reasoning involving sexual orientation to transsexualism, they would avoid writing concurring opinions. Gorsuch's opinion avoided the "dignity" reasoning which seduced Kennedy and corrupted many cases, and getting the liberals on board with his opinion is a step toward cleaning up Kennedy's mess.
Thanks, yes, remains to be seen. J. Gorsuch strikes me (as a Chicagoan) as having the same gene as Richard Posner - super smart guy who enjoys going off in unpredictable and sometimes disappointing directions.
What about Justice Coney Barrett, Paul? And why (given your observations alone - and agreed, Bostock was/is atrocious) would you rate her below Justice Gorsuch?
Fair question.
Barrett hasn't been on the Court as long as the other two and therefore is more difficult to evaluate. For example, I don't believe she participated in the two cases over which I criticized Gorsuch.
But she has joined the libs (rather than the conservatives) in a few cases. For example, the case declining to block Maine's vaccine mandate for health workers with religious objections and the immigration case (Texas v. U.S.).
And Gorsuch has authored some very good opinions, better than any I've seen from Barrett (though I confess to not following the Court as closely as I should). He's a little quirky, but he's not squishy.
I'm not sure he's better than Barrett, which is why I said "probably." It remains to be seen which of the two will be more reliably conservative. I'm pretty sure both will be better than Kavanaugh.
Trump’s mistake was in not nominating Barrett first. Would have started down the right path. Why not? Trump the Ivy Leaguer (Penn) thinks there’s something magic about Harvard and Yale. Took him three tries to figure out Notre Dame works just fine.
Thanks for the comment. I think Trump started with Gorsuch because the people advising him, especially the White House counsel, prioritized taking on the administrative state (Gorsuch's specialty) over advancing social conservatism (thought to be Barrett's).
When it comes to the next pick, Kavanaugh, I think your explanation rings true.
Correct on both points.
Barrett only gained a high profile after Feinstein smeared her religion during her confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals.
I do remember media hovering over her in South Bend as Kavanaugh got the nod. They caught her hanging up the kids’ beach towels on the porch. She had all the creds then, and no one knew what was ahead for Kavanaugh the teenage partier.