Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over President Trump’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Skeletor, continued today as the Eternian faced a marathon q&a session with the assembled Senators of both parties.
Supreme Court nominee Skeletor refused Tuesday to address tough questions from Democrats on abortion, guns, campaign spending and a host of other issues that he said could come before the court in the future.
President Trump’s nominee to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia 13 months ago said his caution wasn’t related to his personal views, which he steadfastly kept to himself.
Raising his voice at times, Skeletor said he rules fairly on facts and the law in each case that comes before him. Beyond that, he would not give hints about his ideological leanings, his opinions of past Supreme Court precedents or his likely votes in future cases.
“I have offered no promises on how I’d rule in any case to anyone, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to do so,” he said, pledging to keep “an open mind.”
Well sadly no, the late Justice Scalia was not a member of the fictional working class lodge the International Order of Friendly Sons of the Raccoons*.
Scalia was a member in good standing in the very real International Order of St. Hubertus, a kind of a Raccoon Lodge for the 1%’ers — perhaps just as silly.
The US chapter of the Order of Hubertus was established in 1966 at the infamous Bohemian Grove in California. Originally the order was founded in Eastern Europe by Habsburg Count Franz Anton von Sporck in 1695. Now members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large Iron Cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures.” Members hold titles, such as Grand Master, Prior, and Knight Grand Officer. And the Order of Hubertus is an IRS non-profit, too — tax free for the Prior and Knights.
That’s as brief a history as possible for fear of falling into a tangled web of well known conspiracy involving Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, flaming owls, and perhaps even lizard people.
Before his death Scalia flew on a private plane for his free stay at the exclusive remote Texas hunting “camp” with fellow Hubertians[?]. Scalia was a frequent flyer: between 2004 and 2014 he traveled 258 times on privately subsidized trips.
His companion on the Texas jaunt, C.Allen Foster, is a prominent Washington lawyer. Foster may be just a Hubertus Knight, but he threw himself a 65th birthday bash fit for Count Von Sporck.
In 2006, Foster was featured in The Post when he celebrated his 65th birthday with a six-day celebration in the Czech Republic. He flew his family and 40 Washington friends there to stay in Moravia’s Zidlochovice, a baroque castle and hunting park. The birthday bash included “tours of the Czech countryside, wine tasting, wild boar and mouflon (wild sheep) hunts, classic dance instruction and a masked costume ball.”
A strange semi-secret society with roots in Eastern Europe and the surprise death of a Supreme Court Justice at a remote Texas hunting camp is the stuff of more than a few conspiracy theories.
But plots and murder are less likely than the simple explanation about the Order of Hubertus. The truth is often odd and pedestrian:
And of course there’s prestige and privilege. Among the privileges the Honored Raccoon Brothers enjoy are opening the first clam at the annual clambake and free burial with spouse at Raccoon National Cemetery in Bismark, North Dakota.
The equivalent in the International Order of St. Hubertus might be opening the first oil drilling rig in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. But I am sure the Knights and Grand Masters would stress the camaraderie at the exclusive society is simply a venue for hunters who have been successful in their lives to gather enjoy each other’s company outside of their normal business.”
Well sure there’s all that. However, should the need ever arise; a good quiet way to subtly nudge a court case this way or that is just a quail hunt away.
But who believes all this conspiracy stuff anyway?
Second, he’s going to have a fight to do it. Already we’re seeing Republicans saying that he should hold off until the next president takes office. You can understand why they would say that, but bullshit. It’s almost a year until a new president takes office, and many cases to be decided. It would be irresponsible to leave the Court with a 4-4 split for the rest of the current term and the first half or more of the next term, especially when the sole reason would be to give a Republican the chance to do it.
I’m hearing people say that there is a tradition not to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a president’s term, but that’s also nonsense. The occasion hasn’t come up that often, since there have been only 112 justices, but a quick look tells me that both Anthony Kennedy and Benjamin Cardozo were appointed in the last year of their appointing president’s terms.
Speaking of Kennedy, this is a huge demotion for him. If Obama does get a nomination confirmed this moves Kennedy from being the most powerful member of the Court, the perennial swing vote, to the guy who gets to decide whether there are three or four votes in dissent.
The way the Supreme Court works is that it takes a majority vote to reverse a lower court decision that comes to the Court. Thus, if the votes are split, 4-4, which is the way things stand now, the lower court’s decision is upheld. If you look at the list of the cases already argued and awaiting decision, or even the cases yet to be argued this term, you will see that in some of the cases it is a conservative challenging a liberal decision, in some it is a liberal challenging a conservative decision. As long as there is a 4-4 split on the court we can predict that there will be some lower court decisions that would certainly have been reversed with Scalia voting but that will likely be upheld without him as the fifth vote to reverse.
Finally, a few last points about a replacement. I don’t doubt that the Republicans will do what they can to block any nominee, and if they vote as a unit they have the votes. There is one absolutely clear point you can make about the Republican caucus in the Senate:
Looking at the list of Republican senators I have a hard time seeing how he gets 14 votes (counting Sanders and King as Democrats).
Nevertheless, let’s say he goes forward with an appointment. I don’t have any inside information on who might get the nod, but I think we’re looking at a youngish–fifty or younger–person who has already been through the judicial or Cabinet-level confirmation process. Wikipedia has a list of people who have been “mentioned” for Obama before that I’ll link to here, along with a list of his judicial appointments. Look to judges who were appointed unanimously or nearly so: there may be some Republicans who would be hard put to justify rejecting someone they’ve already voted to confirm once or twice. Finally, as a long shot, there’s always the possibility of nominating a senator. I’ve heard it said that almost any senator would be confirmed, but that was in earlier, less bitterly partisan times.
And, to imagine one particularly unlikely scenario that might have a certain Machiavelian appeal to it, how about Hillary Clinton? She’s a smart lawyer, but she has two things that might make her appeal to the Republicans: she’s old, so she won’t be in office as long as a different appointee, and she gives the Republicans what they want, the chance to run against Bernie in November. Ya think?
Of course, anyone’s guess is as good as mine. I wouldn’t be much on his chances of getting someone through, but someone who has a less dark view of the Republicans in the Senate might be more optimistic.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over President Trump’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Skeletor, continued today as the Eternian faced a marathon q&a session with the assembled Senators of both parties.Raising his voice at times, Skeletor said he rules fairly on facts and the law in each case that comes before him. Beyond that, he would not give hints about his ideological leanings, his opinions of past Supreme Court precedents or his likely votes in future cases.
