The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: August 15, 1938
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ivy indoctrinated, big government member of the lawyer hierarchy.
If he retires this year: replaced by a 60-year-old moderate who scrapes through with VP Harris casting the deciding vote.
If he retires (or dies) after this year: replaced in a few years (when the next Republican President takes office) by a 45-year-old raised in a far-right test tube.
"45-year-old raised in a far-right test tube."
They are all the same, and will become acculturated to the rent seeking culture of Washington DC. Scalia led the jihad against mandatory sentencing guidelines. They worked, and dropped crime 40% across the board. Problem? Massive lawyer unemployment, and they had to go.
"he retires (or dies) after this year"
Dems still have the VP fueled majority next year.
Kabul Joe has committed to a black woman so your race conscious little heart will be happy.
Dare I ask who would be "moderate" under your definition?
Is there any such thing as an actual or potential justice who is too far "left" to be a moderate?
There was Merrick Garland, a moderate by anyone’s definition, whom Republicans specifically noted as someone they’d confirm . . .
And no one would call Biden a liberal . . .
Would Garland have supported such "moderate" decisions as Roe and Obergefell?
I suspect he would have supported those decisions. Obama's own supporters would have screamed bloody murder if they even *suspected* Garland would have been weak on those key issues.
So we may take it as fairly likely that Garland is *not* a moderate, and even if there was a bipartisan agreement to inflict him on the Court, that still wouldn't make it right.
I sure hate these birthdays posts about forgotten justices.
Wasn't a denial motion for reconsideration of a denial of a stay order not issued? Something important.
If Josh had (finally) gotten a haircut today, that would qualify, I suppose.
forgotten but not gone.