If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Richard Posner is one of the most well-respected, rational, and pragmatic judges of the last half-century. And he's about to be replaced by a Trump appointee   ( chicagotribune.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Supreme Court of the United States, Posner, Richard A. Posner, Posner Thoughts, Posner dozens, Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge  
•       •       •

1866 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2017 at 7:51 AM (45 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-02 03:57:42 AM  
And, to think, it was him or Scalia. Talk about a wrong choice of epic proportions.
 
2017-09-02 07:36:45 AM  
Well, we're boned.
 
2017-09-02 07:53:02 AM  
Okay.. why is he retiring?  Who got to him?
 
2017-09-02 08:00:46 AM  

Alphax: Okay.. why is he retiring?  Who got to him?


Time?

He is 78.
 
2017-09-02 08:02:45 AM  
Posner is largely responsible for the ascendancy of the "law and economics" gang, so I'm not a fan of his jurisprudence. He's certainly had an enormously influential career, though, and generally avoided the open sophistry we've seen from some of his proteges. On balance, he will be missed.
 
2017-09-02 08:10:38 AM  
Is this the father or the son?  Because son is a barking moonbat.
 
2017-09-02 08:18:21 AM  
And he hates the bluebook as much as me
 
2017-09-02 08:18:26 AM  

BMulligan: Posner is largely responsible for the ascendancy of the "law and economics" gang, so I'm not a fan of his jurisprudence. He's certainly had an enormously influential career, though, and generally avoided the open sophistry we've seen from some of his proteges. On balance, he will be missed.


It doesn't matter what he did, really, since whoever the Trump administration replaces him with is going to be about a thousand times worse, and probably both incompetent and insane to boot.
 
2017-09-02 08:20:32 AM  
TFA makes him sound, on the whole, like a decent judge.  We really can't afford to lose very many of them.
 
2017-09-02 08:35:03 AM  
That's assuming that Trump will actually take his thumb out of his ass and select someone to appoint.  How many court positions around the country are STILL empty, let alone all the other positions that still need to be filled?

Now, if Pence gets the top slot, then I'll be a bit more scared.
 
2017-09-02 08:35:18 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: BMulligan: Posner is largely responsible for the ascendancy of the "law and economics" gang, so I'm not a fan of his jurisprudence. He's certainly had an enormously influential career, though, and generally avoided the open sophistry we've seen from some of his proteges. On balance, he will be missed.

It doesn't matter what he did, really, since whoever the Trump administration replaces him with is going to be about a thousand times worse, and probably both incompetent and insane to boot.


The way things are going, I wouldn't be shocked if the reason Sheriff Joe "Yes, Black People Can Be Insane Racists Too" Clarke resigned was because he's about to be appointed to be a federal judge.
 
2017-09-02 08:37:03 AM  
I've never seen a philosophy as effective as Law and Economics when it comes to reducing otherwise intelligent and articulate people into to rambling, pseudoscientific dogmatists.

Yes, I'm looking at you, ASSoL and U of C.

/ Posner and Easterbrook are exceptions
// Whomever Trump picks will be worse
/// Slashies in triplicate
 
2017-09-02 08:37:48 AM  
Looking forward to the Honorable Judge Michele Bachmann, with her trusty sidekick/bailiff/husband Marcus. You can't get ratings any better than that. #MAGA
 
2017-09-02 08:39:50 AM  
He also took a pill in Ibiza to show Avicii he was cool.
 
2017-09-02 08:40:52 AM  

rockspin: I've never seen a philosophy as effective as Law and Economics when it comes to reducing otherwise intelligent and articulate people into to rambling, pseudoscientific dogmatists.

Yes, I'm looking at you, ASSoL and U of C.

/ Posner and Easterbrook are exceptions
// Whomever Trump picks will be worse
/// Slashies in triplicate


I got in and out of GMUSoL before it became ASSLAW and before Koch brothers turned it into a right-wing nutjob factory. But even in the early 2000s they were pimping law & economics like it was a f*cking religion.
 
2017-09-02 08:44:20 AM  

GoldSpider: Is this the father or the son?  Because son is a barking moonbat.


Looks like Dad is retiring.

And for context, sonny-boy thinks we should restrict free speech because terrorism.
 
2017-09-02 08:55:36 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: It doesn't matter what he did, really, since whoever the Trump administration replaces him with is going to be about a thousand times worse, and probably both incompetent and insane to boot.


Would you stop being such a worrywart? Our president already has a lineup of outstanding jurists, each more than qualified to take his place:

img.fark.netView Full Size

img.fark.netView Full Size

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 08:55:40 AM  
I'm beginning to think electing Trump was a mistake that will have long lasting repercussions.
 
2017-09-02 09:04:13 AM  

LarryDan43: I'm beginning to think electing Trump was a mistake that will have long lasting repercussions.


Still too early to be sure. I'm going to wait till the country is smoking rubble to make a judgement.
 
2017-09-02 09:08:17 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: the country is smoking rubble


I'd rather have a nice, sativa-forward hybrid.
 
2017-09-02 09:26:33 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: LarryDan43: I'm beginning to think electing Trump was a mistake that will have long lasting repercussions.

Still too early to be sure. I'm going to wait till the country is smoking rubble to make a judgement.


Give Him A Chance
 
2017-09-02 09:30:07 AM  
Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.
 
2017-09-02 09:32:11 AM  

jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.


I certainly hope you don't think that elected judges are in any way preferable.
 
2017-09-02 09:32:54 AM  

BMulligan: jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.

I certainly hope you don't think that elected judges are in any way preferable.


I guess I should have read the second half of your post before responding...
 
2017-09-02 09:34:51 AM  

BMulligan: BMulligan: jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.

I certainly hope you don't think that elected judges are in any way preferable.

I guess I should have read the second half of your post before responding...


Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.
 
2017-09-02 09:35:24 AM  

LarryDan43: I'm beginning to think electing Trump was a mistake that will have long lasting repercussions.


I dunno. It's probably the influence of other Farkers, but I'm kinda on the fence.
 
2017-09-02 09:36:39 AM  

holdmybones: And, to think, it was him or Scalia. Talk about a wrong choice of epic proportions.


Do you complain and hate on Scalia because a lot of people do so?  Have you honestly bothered to read his rulings, or do/did you just listen to sound bites from the news?  The one thing Scalia did, as a Supreme Court Justice, was put the kibosh on police shatting all over the Fourth Amendment.  Not every Justice will produce favorable rulings all the time, but is it so unreasonable to ask that his entire body of work be examined?

Oh, wait.  This is Fark......
 
2017-09-02 09:41:35 AM  

LarryDan43: I'm beginning to think electing Trump was a mistake that will have long lasting repercussions.


Remember when purists say the won't vote for unclean Democrats because "we can undo anything he does later anyway?"

Good times.
 
2017-09-02 09:43:20 AM  

jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.


As with everything else, the ultimate problem is the voters. shiat people get shiat government.
 
2017-09-02 09:43:40 AM  

USCLaw2010: And he hates the bluebook as much as me


[N]eedless to say, I have not read the nineteenth edition. I have dipped into it, much as one might dip one's toes in a pail of freezing water. I am put in mind of Mr. Kurtz's dying words in Heart of Darkness - 'The horror! The horror!' - and am tempted to end there.
 
2017-09-02 09:46:43 AM  

jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.


Now just imagine a Term where you become an extremely powerful judge but a temp.

And you get the job, figure it out in about 5 years and have 5 years left.

And you know at the end of it, you are 50 and have 20-30 years of professional life to go.

And you are now looking at the oeopke arguing cases in front of you as possible employers.

I'm a solo practice lawyer representing consumers arguing against large gilded law firms in federal courts every week.

Did my odds just get a lot better?

Go home and think on it some more.
 
2017-09-02 09:49:03 AM  
Sup Jill Stien? Sup berniebros and alt-left?
 
2017-09-02 09:54:53 AM  
He is one of the country's truly great legal minds, even if I personally don't always agree with him. A shame to see him go and be replaced by...that.
 
2017-09-02 10:02:56 AM  
I believe the overwhelming view of the people is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president. The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate should appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.
 
2017-09-02 10:09:09 AM  

dababler: Sup Jill Stien? Sup berniebros and alt-left?


Lol, alt left. Just as fake as Bernie Bros and stein voters as the cause for 2016.
 
2017-09-02 10:12:40 AM  
This is if Trump ever gets around to appointing someone.
 
2017-09-02 10:28:56 AM  

jake_lex: BMulligan: BMulligan: jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.

I certainly hope you don't think that elected judges are in any way preferable.

I guess I should have read the second half of your post before responding...

Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.


Got it. I disagree, but not on a particularly principled basis. I understand why a limited term makes sense. But in my (admittedly limited) experience in federal courts, it often seemed like not having any farks left to give for the rest of one's career so often seemed to bring out the best in a lot of judges. That's all purely anecdotal and subjective, though, so I won't try to argue the point on the merits.
 
2017-09-02 10:32:50 AM  

Gary-L: holdmybones: And, to think, it was him or Scalia. Talk about a wrong choice of epic proportions.

Do you complain and hate on Scalia because a lot of people do so?  Have you honestly bothered to read his rulings, or do/did you just listen to sound bites from the news?  The one thing Scalia did, as a Supreme Court Justice, was put the kibosh on police shatting all over the Fourth Amendment.  Not every Justice will produce favorable rulings all the time, but is it so unreasonable to ask that his entire body of work be examined?

Oh, wait.  This is Fark......


It takes a lot of arrogance to project entire straw men arguments to a simple statement of opinion. Yet here you are.

Scalia, despite being an undeniably strong judicial academic, too often let his personal opinions and beliefs cloud his opinions and public statements. The NRA and his refusal to respect Obama as two broad examples (I'm not digging into farking case law for someone like you).

My opinion was also only that Posner would have been a better SC Justice. Posner has proven to be consistent and conservative values without being an ass.

But, I get all my opinions from Fark and only conservatives like you really know facts.
 
2017-09-02 10:33:53 AM  
I don't love all of Posner's decisions, but he's not dumb. We need more not-dumb people in positions of power. I don't trust Trump to appoint them.
 
2017-09-02 10:34:15 AM  

dababler: Sup Jill Stien? Sup berniebros and alt-left?


When you huff paint, do you put oil on your face so you can easily wipe away the evidence or do you proudly wear that badge?
 
2017-09-02 10:37:49 AM  

Gary-L: Jerking off to Scalia's amazing human rights record


Sounds about right.
 
2017-09-02 10:37:57 AM  

Gary-L: holdmybones: And, to think, it was him or Scalia. Talk about a wrong choice of epic proportions.

Do you complain and hate on Scalia because a lot of people do so?  Have you honestly bothered to read his rulings, or do/did you just listen to sound bites from the news?  The one thing Scalia did, as a Supreme Court Justice, was put the kibosh on police shatting all over the Fourth Amendment.  Not every Justice will produce favorable rulings all the time, but is it so unreasonable to ask that his entire body of work be examined?

Oh, wait.  This is Fark......


I am reasonably familiar with Justice Scalia's written opinions, having read quite a few of them, and he could be an effective advocate for the Fourth and Sixth Amendments sometimes, provided that the posture of the case required that he address the merits and not just use it as an opportunity to fiddle with standing doctrine or similar jurisdictional issues. Most of the time, he treated criminal cases as a means to limit access to review. He was a straight-up cartoon villain with a mean streak a mile wide. I don't celebrate his death, but I'm pretty happy to have heard of his retirement.
 
2017-09-02 10:43:13 AM  

jake_lex: Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.


The only way I'd be ok with prosecutors being elected would be if we put a system in place where every criminal case is assigned a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney from the same pool. No more professional prosecutors.

The defendant would be free to retain their own counsel, but enough of expending the resources of the state only on the side of prosecution. The state's interest lies in justice, not conviction.
 
2017-09-02 10:52:59 AM  
I am nowhere close to being in any "legal circles" and know very little about any judges who aren't on the Supreme Court, and even I've heard of Posner.  I couldn't say how much I agree with his decisions or not, but I like his general philosophy and he seems to be thoughtful and incisive.

Not at all looking forward to his replacement.
 
2017-09-02 11:31:07 AM  
jake_lex:

I guess I should have read the second half of your post before responding...

Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.



I'm at a compromise when it comes to judges.  Local level I think not only is fine to at least be "at retention" but a necessity.  The reason is Ben Franklin's reasoning when it came to why presidents shouldn't be lifetime appointments, because the alternative to dealing with a bad president (or judge) at the local level would be viewed as a shooting.  In other words, it's a safety valve.  Appeals level I think it should be lifetime or at least a 20 year fixed term barring resignation or impeachment.
 
2017-09-02 11:32:57 AM  

Donald Trump's Latest Tweet: I believe the overwhelming view of the people is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president. The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate should appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.


That works so much better with mad libbing lame dick president. Particularly when you read it in Obama's voice after he's railed Michelle in the Lincoln bedroom.
 
2017-09-02 11:33:21 AM  

Gary-L: The one thing Scalia did, as a Supreme Court Justice, was put the kibosh on police shatting all over the Fourth Amendment.


Unless gay people were touching their weiners together in the privacy of their home
 
2017-09-02 12:01:37 PM  

jake_lex: BMulligan: BMulligan: jake_lex: Honestly, I've come to the point where I think lifetime appointments to federal judgeships is a terrible idea.  I know the reasoning, it's to shield judges from having to worry about the political implications of their rulings, but you end up with a seat being filled by someone absolutely not deserving of it, like Clarence Thomas clogging up the Supreme Court.  I think a single, non-renewable term of 10, maybe 20, years does that just as well, and allows us to get rid of the shiat an awful President jams into the courts sooner.

I certainly hope you don't think that elected judges are in any way preferable.

I guess I should have read the second half of your post before responding...

Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.


Maybe judges should be chosen by the active litigation bar. Whenever there's an open slot, all the litigators come together and vote for the new person. Because they would likely collectively choose their most loathed foe, i.e., the best litigator amongst them, to get that shark out of the waters.
 
2017-09-02 12:05:31 PM  
Although on many issues I disagree with his opinions, one line from his dissent in the rehearing request for the  Wisconsin VoterID case made me become a bit of a fan:

"Some of the 'evidence' of voter-impersonation fraud is downright goofy, if not paranoid."- US Appellate Judge Richard A. Posner, assailing Wisconsin's voter ID law
cite
 
2017-09-02 12:22:52 PM  

Zagloba: jake_lex: Oh, god no, judges should not be elected on any level.  I really don't think prosecutors should be either, or, for that matter, any law enforcement official like sheriffs.  I just think lifetime appointments go too far in the other direction.

The only way I'd be ok with prosecutors being elected would be if we put a system in place where every criminal case is assigned a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney from the same pool. No more professional prosecutors.

The defendant would be free to retain their own counsel, but enough of expending the resources of the state only on the side of prosecution. The state's interest lies in justice, not conviction.


So...English practice.

I do look good in robes and a wig.

/don't look at me like that
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report