Skip to comments.Even on the Supreme Court, the new person gets the jobs no one else wants
Posted on 04/09/2017 9:25:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
No one could have known it at the time, but at the end of last summer, Justice Elena Kagan gave Neil Gorsuch a face-to-face tutorial on what it means to be the Supreme Court's newest justice.
It starts in the kitchen.
"I've been on the cafeteria committee for six years. (Justice) Steve Breyer was on the cafeteria committee for 13 years," Kagan said at a Colorado event where she was being interviewed by Gorsuch and Timothy Tymkovich, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Gorsuch and Tymkovich both were on President Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees at the time, and it just so happened that they asked what it was like to be the most junior justice.
Kagan is a storyteller, and knows this is a topic that audiences usually eat up, so she played it for all it was worth.
The junior justice has three unique responsibilities, she said. But in recounting them, she always starts with the fact that the newest justice is assigned to cafeteria duty and keeps it until the next justice is confirmed.
"I think this is a way to kind of humble people," she said during the "fireside chat" at the elegant Broadmoor resort in Colorado Springs, Colorado. "You think you're kind of hot stuff. You're an important person. You've just been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.
"And now you are going to monthly cafeteria committee meetings where literally the agenda is what happened to the good recipe for the chocolate chip cookies."
The justices eat lunch together on the days when they hear oral arguments, Kagan explained....
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
New Justice initiation (Family Guy).
Why not? The court itself is a committee. What other sorts of committees might they have?
With any luck, someone else will soon take over those jobs.
I saw an article that says President Trump expects to make four more appointments to the Supreme Court.
We can hope.
Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are the obvious ones. I might put Clarence Thomas on the list.
I think Cruz will be the one replacing Thomas.
Four would be awesome.
One more will make an origininalist court for the first time in 70 years.
This idea alone should have been enough to motivate every single God fearing USA loving patriot to vote for Trump.
Reprobate Ginsburg can’t go fast enough.
“I think Cruz will be the one replacing Thomas”
Cruz would make an excellent Justice. It would be very hard to confirm him, but worth the fight.
Also, we have to be sure that the Texas Republican who replaces him is a conservative. It seems Democrats are pretty good at pretending to be Republicans around here.
...as long as he doesn't have to make rulings about natural born citizen issues.
Somebody has to be the coffee b#tch!
Like Joe Strauss?
Haven’t really followed Strauss’ career. I just know it was an uphill battle to get a tea party conservative into the Senate, even in a safely Republican state.
I meant as a democrat in a R jersey.
“as long as he doesn’t have to make rulings about natural born citizen issues”
Been debated to death. Guaranteed Cruz is more of a constitutional conservative, and originalist than 99.9% of any potential candidate.
Personally I’m convinced that the vast majority of the founders would have considered Cruz a naturally born citizen of the US if they were alive today.
Their opinions were derived from the Law of Nations, rather than British common law. (We never had “subjects” or “nobles” here, just citizens, immigrants, and slaves.) At the time, the idea of people not having roots, renting and moving around the globe was pretty much unthinkable.
The point of natural born citizenship, which was not defined in the Constitution (but the document does refer to Law of Nations), was that free people have citizenship by default. It would have been simpler to say children born outside the jurisdiction of the US could not be president. And children born to non-citizen parents could not be president. However, they were more precise BECAUSE in some cases children can be born abroad and be natural born citizens. And BECAUSE some children born in US jurisdiction are NOT citizens of the US at birth (i.e. natural born citizens). It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that they used natural citizenship at birth as a criterion for presidential eligibility. It was never some racial purity test as some people on this forum make it out to be.
It is government that does not have power by default. If free people are expected to submit and yield rights to a national government, then their right to the privileges of citizenship is naturally derived through their parent (not place of birth). Place of birth was a secondary consideration since ordinarily children were born where their parents were citizens.
There were only two categories of citizenship contemplated in the Constitution - natural born and conferred through a lawful process of immigration, based on laws and treaties. Speculations about some sort of purity tests by which place of birth, and mother versus father citizenship are foolish. That is not what the founders intended.
Bottom line - a person who is born a citizen of the US today (or in Cruz’s and Obama’s lifetime) are natural born citizens, regardless of whether the place of their birth or the citizenship of their parents makes them also a citizen of another nation. Citizenship and laws of another nation do not dictate our laws. Some other nation can grant citizenship to US citizens based on ethnic factors, just as Israel does today. This does not prevent Jews who are citizens at birth from being natural born citizens.
Cruz was a US citizen at birth because, as required by US law at the time, he had at least one citizen parent. Being born abroad did not change this. He did not need to immigrate here to become a citizen. As a citizen at birth, he is a natural born one. It would not matter if he was a natural born citizen of Cuba AND Canada (based on their laws) as well. Canada and Cuba laws have no bearing on our laws any more than our laws our subject to Sharia law. The only exception would be if a properly ratified treaty said so. But no law or treaty prohibited Cruz from being a citizen at birth. In fact, the laws made him such.
Natural born citizen = citizen at birth.
It’s too bad that some people dissect the Constitution for hermeneutics and throw out the underlying principles of liberty like the natural law that dictate citizenship.
Probably. Unfortunately, most people just vote party brand. Very few take the time to get educated about the background, character, and beliefs of those well-funded politicians who get into the primaries. And we can count on the lying media to never help.
If seniority is so important, why doesn’t the position of Chief Justice go to the one with the most seniority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.