Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2019, 07:01:01 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
  How Trump's Judges (and the Federalist Society) are Changing the Law
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How Trump's Judges (and the Federalist Society) are Changing the Law  (Read 731 times)
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,598
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 12, 2019, 01:19:47 pm »

From last month, but worth a read:

Bold New Bench: How Trump's Judges are Changing the Law
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2019, 03:08:03 pm »

Trump's lasting legacy is gonna be all of these Federalist Society judges that he put on the bench. Brace yourselves for decades of outrage from what will end up being 200+ Federalist Society-screened judges.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,890
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2019, 02:29:30 pm »

Hence the case for reigning in the courts.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,747
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2019, 08:32:23 am »

Every dark cloud has a silver lining.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2019, 03:43:04 pm »

I'm not a "textualist" per se; I'm more concerned with what laws were intended to mean instead of what they literally say. For example, I agree with the Court's conclusion in King v. Burwell (and I don't care one whit about Obamacare, I just care whether or not the Court interpreted that law the way Congress intended). My approach to interpreting laws has been influenced by Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is A Judge Free In Rendering A Decision?" Hand said a judge should strive to understand what the legislature intended, and assuming that legislatures always mean exactly what they say is quite foolish (those weren't Hand's exact words; I'm paraphrasing him).

So this is a major reason why I won't support Trump's re-election. I voted for Evan McMullin last time, and I'll be searching for someone similar to that next year.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,747
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2019, 11:13:21 pm »

I'm not a "textualist" per se; I'm more concerned with what laws were intended to mean instead of what they literally say. For example, I agree with the Court's conclusion in King v. Burwell (and I don't care one whit about Obamacare, I just care whether or not the Court interpreted that law the way Congress intended). My approach to interpreting laws has been influenced by Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is A Judge Free In Rendering A Decision?" Hand said a judge should strive to understand what the legislature intended, and assuming that legislatures always mean exactly what they say is quite foolish (those weren't Hand's exact words; I'm paraphrasing him).

So this is a major reason why I won't support Trump's re-election. I voted for Evan McMullin last time, and I'll be searching for someone similar to that next year.

Interesting. What's your take on the recent employment discrimination cases based off lgbt status? I hated the obergfell decision despite agreeing with the outcome,  but as a textualist I totally think the antidiscrimination argument is sound in those cases based purely on the law, as written, notwithstanding the obvious truth that congress in 1965 didn't intend it to cover such persons.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2019, 04:48:18 pm »

I'm not a "textualist" per se; I'm more concerned with what laws were intended to mean instead of what they literally say. For example, I agree with the Court's conclusion in King v. Burwell (and I don't care one whit about Obamacare, I just care whether or not the Court interpreted that law the way Congress intended). My approach to interpreting laws has been influenced by Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is A Judge Free In Rendering A Decision?" Hand said a judge should strive to understand what the legislature intended, and assuming that legislatures always mean exactly what they say is quite foolish (those weren't Hand's exact words; I'm paraphrasing him).

So this is a major reason why I won't support Trump's re-election. I voted for Evan McMullin last time, and I'll be searching for someone similar to that next year.

Interesting. What's your take on the recent employment discrimination cases based off lgbt status? I hated the obergfell decision despite agreeing with the outcome,  but as a textualist I totally think the antidiscrimination argument is sound in those cases based purely on the law, as written, notwithstanding the obvious truth that congress in 1965 didn't intend it to cover such persons.

My first instinct is to draw a straight line back to 1964 and ask myself whether Congress intended for "sex" to mean "sexual preference" as well (the terminology used back then), and the answer is pretty "obvious," as you say. But I would have to be fair to the other side and give them a chance to argue that the precedents handed down in the years since 1964 have effectively developed a broader meaning to "sex discrimination." Of course I need to hear both sides before making up my mind and making a final decision. Fifty-five years worth of developing precedents could tilt me away from my first instinct.
Logged
McNukes™
Nuke
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 759
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.23, S: 8.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2019, 05:48:18 pm »

I'm not a "textualist" per se; I'm more concerned with what laws were intended to mean instead of what they literally say. For example, I agree with the Court's conclusion in King v. Burwell (and I don't care one whit about Obamacare, I just care whether or not the Court interpreted that law the way Congress intended). My approach to interpreting laws has been influenced by Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is A Judge Free In Rendering A Decision?" Hand said a judge should strive to understand what the legislature intended, and assuming that legislatures always mean exactly what they say is quite foolish (those weren't Hand's exact words; I'm paraphrasing him).

So this is a major reason why I won't support Trump's re-election. I voted for Evan McMullin last time, and I'll be searching for someone similar to that next year.
Interesting. What's your take on the recent employment discrimination cases based off lgbt status? I hated the obergfell decision despite agreeing with the outcome,  but as a textualist I totally think the antidiscrimination argument is sound in those cases based purely on the law, as written, notwithstanding the obvious truth that congress in 1965 didn't intend it to cover such persons.
My first instinct is to draw a straight line back to 1964 and ask myself whether Congress intended for "sex" to mean "sexual preference" as well (the terminology used back then), and the answer is pretty "obvious," as you say. But I would have to be fair to the other side and give them a chance to argue that the precedents handed down in the years since 1964 have effectively developed a broader meaning to "sex discrimination." Of course I need to hear both sides before making up my mind and making a final decision. Fifty-five years worth of developing precedents could tilt me away from my first instinct.
I believe that first and foremost, reading the law as originally intended is even more important when it comes to statutory interpretation as a decision affirming that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation discrimination on the basis of its inclusion of protections from discrimination on the basis of sex would also, by nature, strip from Congress the constitutional prerogative to repeal such a provision without repealing discrimination on the basis of sex as well, at least unless every sex discrimination law is built to include non-inclusiveness towards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,747
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2019, 02:58:46 pm »

I'm not a "textualist" per se; I'm more concerned with what laws were intended to mean instead of what they literally say. For example, I agree with the Court's conclusion in King v. Burwell (and I don't care one whit about Obamacare, I just care whether or not the Court interpreted that law the way Congress intended). My approach to interpreting laws has been influenced by Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is A Judge Free In Rendering A Decision?" Hand said a judge should strive to understand what the legislature intended, and assuming that legislatures always mean exactly what they say is quite foolish (those weren't Hand's exact words; I'm paraphrasing him).

So this is a major reason why I won't support Trump's re-election. I voted for Evan McMullin last time, and I'll be searching for someone similar to that next year.
Interesting. What's your take on the recent employment discrimination cases based off lgbt status? I hated the obergfell decision despite agreeing with the outcome,  but as a textualist I totally think the antidiscrimination argument is sound in those cases based purely on the law, as written, notwithstanding the obvious truth that congress in 1965 didn't intend it to cover such persons.
My first instinct is to draw a straight line back to 1964 and ask myself whether Congress intended for "sex" to mean "sexual preference" as well (the terminology used back then), and the answer is pretty "obvious," as you say. But I would have to be fair to the other side and give them a chance to argue that the precedents handed down in the years since 1964 have effectively developed a broader meaning to "sex discrimination." Of course I need to hear both sides before making up my mind and making a final decision. Fifty-five years worth of developing precedents could tilt me away from my first instinct.
I believe that first and foremost, reading the law as originally intended is even more important when it comes to statutory interpretation as a decision affirming that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation discrimination on the basis of its inclusion of protections from discrimination on the basis of sex would also, by nature, strip from Congress the constitutional prerogative to repeal such a provision without repealing discrimination on the basis of sex as well, at least unless every sex discrimination law is built to include non-inclusiveness towards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

Just remember,  as "originally intended" the ban on sex discrimination was added as a poison pill by Southern Democrats to try and KILL the bill, not to legitimately eliminate sex discrimination. Although that was the subjective intent of only some legislators, and as we can only rarely isolate a pure answer that accurately reflects the subjective intent of 100% of legislators, who can really say what was meant? That's why I tend to lean textualist of statutes as that is the best way for the people at large to know with any certainty what the law truly says so as to conform their behavior with the law. Otherwise wed have to read committee reports for every line of the US Code.
Logged
politicallefty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -9.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2019, 09:30:48 pm »

Wasn't Justice Scalia the main proponent of not using legislative intent as justification for a particular ruling (and one that's since been adopted by the Court as a whole, both left and right)?

I think what's particular nasty about Trump's judicial nominations is that they're clearly ideologues and yet the Senate continues to confirm unqualified judges. Of course I expect a Republican President and Republican Senate to nominate and confirm conservative judges, but the individuals getting confirmed seem only to be nominated to legislate from the bench. I was mostly in opposition to someone like Justice Scalia, but I did respect him as a justice and a brilliant conservative legal mind. A lot of these new judges are nothing of the sort and not remotely brilliant in any sense of the word.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2019, 02:18:28 am »

Wasn't Justice Scalia the main proponent of not using legislative intent as justification for a particular ruling (and one that's since been adopted by the Court as a whole, both left and right)?

snip

Justice Scalia was indeed a major proponent of not using the legislature's intended meaning when interpreting statutes, and he has often been called a "Textualist," as are many of Trump's nominees to the federal courts. But he has not been successful in persuading all of the members of the Court to adopt the same philosophy of legal interpretation, not even with the conservative wing of the Court. Otherwise, King v. Burwell would not have been decided the way it was, by a margin of 6 to 3 (Scalia was one of the three who dissented). I've never seen any indication that Scalia and his approach to legal interpretation has been influential with the liberal Justices.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC