OT: A Michigan Man on the SCOTUS?

Submitted by Craptain Crunch on
The next SCOTUS could possibly be a Michigan Man. Sixth Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kethledge graduated from both Michigan undergrad and Law School. He also clerked for Anthony Kennedy. It would be great to see a Michigan Man on the SCOTUS instead of a damn Yalie or Harvard Homer.

MaizeMN

July 2nd, 2018 at 11:30 PM ^

Ford was an "obscure" 50's lineman?

He was an All-Star and MVP on a dominant Michigan team (2 undefeated teams/2 national championships 1932, 1933). Just because it was in the 1930s (not the 50s as your clueless ass stated) doesn't devalue his accomplishment, or make it obscure.

I bet you think everything relevant began in the year you were born.

blue in dc

July 2nd, 2018 at 3:09 PM ^

I understand that there are people who would celebrate a Supreme Court Judge from U of M. I also understand that there are other people (like me, who would only find it worthy of celebration if I thought that judge would generally be good - which not surprisingly is likely to be correlated with whether I thought his/her decisions would be good.   I also understand that other people might not care at all.

You appeear to be in the first camp and I don’t begrudge you that opinion at all.   I disagree with it, but I don’t begrudge it.   As you say, there is nothing wrong with being excited one of our own for making it to the pinnacle of his profession.

Similarly there is nothing wrong with falling in camps 2 or 3.  The answer of whether you should think that having a Supreme Court Judge is good or bad is not a fact.

blue in dc

July 2nd, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

For me, it absolutely tarnishes it and I make no apologies for that fact.   I certainly however understand how there are some (and quite possibly many) who think its great to have another Supreme Court justice from U of M regardless of the ideology.

i also think its great that we live in a country that allows for us to have such differences in opinion.

L'Carpetron Do…

July 2nd, 2018 at 10:34 AM ^

Except that this is the most controversial Supreme Court pick in our lifetime. 

Trump already got to pick Gorsuch because McConnell bent the rules and broke the norms of the Senate in a nakedly partisan power grab.

Now, he can appoint another justice for a lifetime? Hell no.  If we were to apply McConnell's same logic and precedent to this situation then there's NO WAY any nominee deserves any vote, hearing, or ANYTHING from the Democrats. 

Scalia died in February in the last year of a democratically elected (won popular vote twice) president in his second term while Kennedy announced his retirement in June with critical midterms just months away. Trump (who lost the popular vote by 3m+ votes) is currently under federal criminal investigation by the special counsel. The special counsel's report could come out in a matter of days and be full of indictments.  Not to mention, the Republicans could get stomped in the midterm elections in November and lose their majority and the president could be impeached in January. It's insane to think that he should get to appoint another justice to the Court for a lifetime.  But of course McConnell and Trump would move now to steal yet another Supreme Court pick.

I don't care if this guy went to Michigan. He doesn't belong on the court. Sorry I had to get that in before this gets shut down. 

1VaBlue1

July 2nd, 2018 at 10:56 AM ^

No, actually, he's not - very salient points.  This appointment is crucial, and we all wish it could be made in a politically neutral environment.  Unfortunately, there is nothing neutral about today's political environment.  Personally, I don't want Trump getting another vote on SCOTUS - and I say that as a person that voted for neither Trump nor Hillary (they both suck ass as a choice).

I don't want the environmental and ecological destruction that a far right court will bring.  It's bad enough that the administration doesn't believe in science, we don't need it to get worse...  I mean, Scott Pruitt.  Really??

L'Carpetron Do…

July 2nd, 2018 at 4:51 PM ^

But he did lose the popular vote. And he could be indicted/impeached. Those statements are true. That doesn't make me delusional. I like to think I crafted a coherent argument supported by facts, using McConnell's logic of course. It should still apply now that the tables are turned, right?

I'm advocating for the Dems to play some hardball here and there's nothing wrong with that. McConnell played that card in 2016. Fine, Dems can play it now, too.

Even if they wanted to appoint John freaking Beilein to the Supreme Court I would say 'Hell no' (although I love Beilein so I might have to think about that one for a second).  

jakerblue

July 2nd, 2018 at 2:45 PM ^

100%

it was absolute bullshit what they did with Garland.

i wish the dems actually had balls to fight back.

if they pull off the senate and then he pres in 2020, I hope they learn to play dirty back and stack the court. So many political norms have been broken, why the hell not. 

It just sucks that the Supreme Court has gotten so political. The whole damn point of it is to rise above this mess.

Wolverine91

July 2nd, 2018 at 8:59 PM ^

Lol ill spare you the wait! Nothing will come about of this nonsense special counsel investigation. Get over it. Like it or not, Trump will get another SCOTUS nominee in, and he will not be impeached or indicted. I've never seen a group of "Americans" hate their own president so much that they're willing to see the country fail so hard. It's ridiculous. 

L'Carpetron Do…

July 3rd, 2018 at 9:33 AM ^

https://thinkprogress.org/pence-you-bet-we-want-obama-s-policies-to-fail-852cb91c96df/

I guess you did sleep through 8 years of the Obama presidency. That's now-Vice President Mike Pence wishing for Obama's policies to fail in a crucial time in recent American history.

Might want to check this one out, too. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/strict-obstructionist/308344/  

Still don't understand what Obama did to deserve this type of treatment.

And guess what? I'm one of those "Americans" who is critical of this president, not because he's a Republican, but because he's a liar who can't take responsibility for his own actions. His behavior is vile and disgusting and he is irredeemably corrupt. And it's likely he conspired with a foreign power for help during the election and it's also likely he obstructed justice to cover up that fact.

Don't call me a fake American when I have my reasons- extremely good ones - for being critical of the president. Maybe you should be more critical as well. I, and there are millions like me, who look at the facts and make our judgments/decisions based on what we see in front of us. Please don't dismiss us as being less American than anyone else. We love this country just as much as you do.

mooseman

July 3rd, 2018 at 12:37 AM ^

The investigation is not "nonsense". Neither you or I know what the outcome will be. I love that you suggest with your "Americans" quote that only fake Americans would disagree with the policies of this vulgar, racist excuse for an executive that occupies the White House. The process was hijacked with Garland and that's as much on the Democrats as the Republicans. 

No one is wanting to see the country fail. Many would just like to see it live up to its ideals.

I'm sorry. No politics doesn't translate to no humanity for me.

CR

July 3rd, 2018 at 12:26 AM ^

Glad you got it in.

My favorite UM judge is Frank Murphy, who wrote the (brilliant and prescient) opinion in Korematsu. I would hope a reading of that dissent (IIRC Douglass and Black were in the majority; Rutledge, as usual, concurred with Murphy) would make UM grads proud.

If, say, Scalia were a UM grad, I would find it humiliating. Others, I understand, would feel differently. It makes me feel good (perhaps not rationally) that Clarence Darrow attended UM Law. Not so great that Ann Coulter (who despised UM) did, though her hatred of UM mitigates my own feelings to some degree.

michgoblue

July 2nd, 2018 at 2:10 PM ^

I don't agree that his post is political.  He wasn't commenting on the guy's views, leanings, past rulings, etc.  Just his law school.  As a Michigan alum, I concur that having Michigan Law grads on the Supreme Court (or congress, or the presidency, or any high profile position at the pinnacle of their chosen field) makes me happy.  

Now, that doesn't mean that the OP (or I) like this pick, if it happens.  But, if Trump is making the pick, it is likely going to be someone who fits his ideology (good or bad, no comments).  Trump is not going to pick someone who is pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-illegal immigration, anti-guns.  Just like Obama wasn't ever going to pick a religious right judge who was anti-gay, pro-guns, pro-life.  That's just reality.  So if Trump is picking, most conservatives will like the pick and most liberals won't.  Taking that out of the equation, if the pick is going to be someone who Trump makes, all else being equal, I like it being a M Law alum.  

blue in dc

July 2nd, 2018 at 2:50 PM ^

Facts should not be political.   Discussion of whether that fact is good or bad can certainly be political.   Donald Trump is President, Barack Obama was president.   Both factts.   Isn’t Donald Trump a good President or wasn’t obama a good president much more political.    

It is hard to see how one cannot understand that posting a fact on a message board which is by its very nature supposed to invite comment on a post might generate value judgements about that fact.    But I’m sire you are well aware of that.

xcrunner1617

July 2nd, 2018 at 10:22 AM ^

The 'great to see' part of your post is the only thing controversial. I think people on both sides of the political landscape care much more about how a judge will uphold the Constitution as opposed to the school they attended.

Craptain Crunch

July 2nd, 2018 at 11:39 AM ^

It is controversial to want to see someone from Michigan who went to Michigan be on the SCOTUS? I would have said it regardless of the political affiliation. The only ones making this political are the ones reflexively against him due to his political affiliation. Not exactly being inclusive, diverse or open minded.

Chiwolve

July 2nd, 2018 at 12:44 PM ^

Yes it is, especially with so much at stake. Most people are of the belief that the next supreme court justice will be somebody who works against the following causes / interests: women's rights, women's reproductive rights, rights of minorities, rights of immigrants, collective bargaining rights, reform of political gerrymandering, and many other topics. Whether they have an impact on all of these items remains to be seen, but that is a widely help perception.

But I'm supposed to be happy because they're from Michigan and went to the same university as I did. Give me a fucking break

xcrunner1617

July 2nd, 2018 at 1:04 PM ^

On the contrary, I don't think it is very open-minded to support someone just because they went to UM. I have met enough students, faculty, and employees at the University to know that going to UM doesn't preclude someone from being an asshole or terrible human being. So I'm not in the business of blindly supporting other alums, particularly when they embody values that I find morally repugnant.