|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body |
Quote:
Now our misfit POTUS can appoint a radical Muslim cleric to the Supreme Court as his final dagger of his two terms.
Def not. But I do not want him getting the chance to appoint one. It's frightening what qualifications he would look for in one.
Queens guy, went to the elementary school I briefly attended which I thought was neat.
Quote:
In comment 12813777 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Now our misfit POTUS can appoint a radical Muslim cleric to the Supreme Court as his final dagger of his two terms.
Def not. But I do not want him getting the chance to appoint one. It's frightening what qualifications he would look for in one.
He's already appointed two to the Supreme Court.
Ah....as opposed to Ginsburg....gimme a break
SCOTUS is a hugely underrated factor in this year's election. A lot of the justices are really, really old.
SCOTUS is a hugely underrated factor in this year's election. A lot of the justices are really, really old.
I don't think it'll be underrated from here on out. There will be a nomination and it will not be brought to a vote, and that fact will be praised and criticized from now until November.
Just because one is religious doesn't mean they make decisions based on religious beliefs....he is a strict constitutionalist....honestly,.....does the the Daily Kos shape your belief system?
Obama won't get the chance unless it is a consensus or replacement pick, which I doubt could happen. The next President was going to get 3-4, but I didn't think they'd get it on Day One.
Quote:
Never let a crisis go to waste I guess.
although I agree with your disdain, it's somewhat amusing that you're using the presidents policy and (I believe) Emanuel's quote to make your point.
That's why I picked. It's very fitting.
Leave it up, nothing better then when people show their ass on here...
Quote:
In comment 12813777 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Now our misfit POTUS can appoint a radical Muslim cleric to the Supreme Court as his final dagger of his two terms.
Def not. But I do not want him getting the chance to appoint one. It's frightening what qualifications he would look for in one.
He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity.
Quote:
In comment 12813779 Anando said:
Quote:
In comment 12813777 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
Now our misfit POTUS can appoint a radical Muslim cleric to the Supreme Court as his final dagger of his two terms.
Def not. But I do not want him getting the chance to appoint one. It's frightening what qualifications he would look for in one.
Dude, you (and Eric) shouldn't comment on politics. Seriously.
Randy, its funny coming from you, because aside from your occasional soohmoric joke that makes me giggle, you put out some of the most mind numbingly stupid opinions on politics, football and life in general. So please shut the fuck up and refrain from telling me what to do and not to do with my opinions. Of all people...
Quote:
Obama gets another liberal in there. Hopefully we can drag this out to after the election.
We DEFINITELY don't want to help people. Shit. Only Christians--oops, I mean Muslims do that. Wait...
Case in point you judgemental little prick.
You're kidding with this bullspit, right?
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
And anyone who thinks that disagreeing with Scalia's viewpoint is by definition a follower of the daily KOS is a sad individual. Scalia was an extremely conservative jurist whose political views affected his judicial views. There are some on the other side as well. The fact remains that with Kennedy mostly going with the 4 conservative jurists, there were many decisions that were more conservative than a majority of Americans would have liked. There is particularly the case on business decisions. Article on that, and the whole idea of "strict constructionism," linked.
Now, if Obama can get a nominee through, it swings the other way. Yes, he will nominate a relative liberal. He's allowed. One way or the other, there is going to be a political war, and it will be very high profile right up to the election whether a nominee gets in or not.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama nominates someone like Tribe--liberal but incredibly well respected. He had a benign brain tumor a while back. I don't know if that would affect his desire to accept a nomination.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO.
He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity.
I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5.
We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not.
Supreme Court justices, regardless of their perspective, are generally among the best and brightest of their profession. Almost to a person, they serve this country thoughtfully and selflessly.
A brilliant public servant has died and since most of you mutants don't know anything about him other than that some dullard on radio or TV told you to either hate him or love him, maybe keep the douchebaggery to a minimum and show some respect?
Ginsburg is 82, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer 77. There could be a lot of appointments for the next POTUS.
I've said in the past that we should do away with lifetime appointments for the SC. They should have 18 year terms with each presidential term getting two appointments
Doubtful. What Connecticut lacks is a proper 53rd Street and Park Avenue to work this out.
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on
Quote:
In comment 12813818 Deej said:
Quote:
His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO.
He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity.
I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5.
We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not.
I think Rehnquist deserves a lot of credit, no doubt, but Scalia's status as a "celebrity" jurist (ironically one that RBG has cultivated in the last few years too), his bombast, helped cement textualism and originalism as viable alternatives to the reigning interpretations of law and the constitution in legal academia and, by extension, on the bench.
And anyone who thinks that disagreeing with Scalia's viewpoint is by definition a follower of the daily KOS is a sad individual. Scalia was an extremely conservative jurist whose political views affected his judicial views. There are some on the other side as well. The fact remains that with Kennedy mostly going with the 4 conservative jurists, there were many decisions that were more conservative than a majority of Americans would have liked. There is particularly the case on business decisions. Article on that, and the whole idea of "strict constructionism," linked.
Now, if Obama can get a nominee through, it swings the other way. Yes, he will nominate a relative liberal. He's allowed. One way or the other, there is going to be a political war, and it will be very high profile right up to the election whether a nominee gets in or not.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama nominates someone like Tribe--liberal but incredibly well respected. He had a benign brain tumor a while back. I don't know if that would affect his desire to accept a nomination. Link - ( New Window )
I agree with this. If he gets to appoint a radical liberal now where's the dire need next election? It's a net loss because Ruth Bader Ginsburg will just get replaced by a conserative.
He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.
Quote:
In comment 12813824 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12813818 Deej said:
Quote:
His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO.
He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity.
I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5.
We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not.
I think Rehnquist deserves a lot of credit, no doubt, but Scalia's status as a "celebrity" jurist (ironically one that RBG has cultivated in the last few years too), his bombast, helped cement textualism and originalism as viable alternatives to the reigning interpretations of law and the constitution in legal academia and, by extension, on the bench.
Strategic conservatives like Rehnquist and Roberts who operate without a strict jurisdiction philosophy but generally advocate some not strictly defined notion of judicial restraint are much more influential over the long term but again it's debatable.
He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.
Bloviating blowhards usually are.
I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.
And they don't want to go through this again during the nomination process! - ( New Window )
He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.
It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions. What you should have written was that you didn't like him, and you believe your basis for that view to be reasonable, and are extending that to anyone that agrees with you.
I've been meaning to say that it is good to have you back, but the brevity of your retirement left those of us that defended you on that thread in a little bit of an awkward position.
Right. And if the R's drag their feet, then the election has just got the top issue dropped at its feet.
Quote:
As noted above, Scalia tended to be extremely ascerbic, and even sarcastic, in public forums. While usually not talking baout specific cases, he aired his legal philosophy in ways that gave his opponents lots of ammo--with lots of venom, as if opponents were by definition stupid.
He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.
It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions. What you should have written was that you didn't like him, and you believe your basis for that view to be reasonable, and are extending that to anyone that agrees with you.
I've been meaning to say that it is good to have you back, but the brevity of your retirement left those of us that defended you on that thread in a little bit of an awkward position.
That's right but there are perfectly good historical arguments for why Scalia's jurisprudence was hopelessly blinkered despite his immense rhetorical skill and historical nous.
I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.
I guess they might but Id love to see how they pull that off. Its at least 9 months to the election and even if a republican wins it would be until next February where someone can be confirmed. Its also VERY likely that the Dems take back the Senate anyway. So I really don't see the gain in waiting. What if you lose both the White House and the Senate and they can appoint someone REALLy liberal as opposed to someone who is a moderate with liberal leanings like Obama probably will do.
Quote:
Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit.
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on
Chop; we'll never agree on politics (well, maybe never) but I've always respected your viewpoint and your consistency. I see that you intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it turned out to be a clinker in the grate. No harm, no foul.
IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes.
I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level.
As a lifelong advocate of state's rights, he should have thrown gay marriage back on the states. But he wanted the federal government to outlaw it because "people have the right to find things morally repugnant." Pure opportunism.
But the thing about Scalia was he was so mentally quick and rhetorically adept that he could make a plausible case that 2 + 2 wasn't always 4. Definitely a great legal mind even if he did more harm than good. All Americans should mourn his passing, regardless of whether you agreed with him.
Given how the legal profession at its highest ranks is largely dominated by people from the left, that's a good point. Brandeis, for instance, got the last laugh when a generation of justices influenced by his viewpoints dominated the the academy and eventually came to sit on the bench.
Scalia's earlier work was better. Like Burnham. When it was about the music and not the fame. His best later work was probably on statutory construction. That will be part of his legacy.
Scalia's earlier work was better. Like Burnham. When it was about the music and not the fame. His best later work was probably on statutory construction. That will be part of his legacy.
The Notorious RBG memes make me lol.
IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes.
I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level.
I think the celebrity jurist is an outgrowth of the Court being so consequential. And while I certainly have issues with it, I'm not sure whether it's better or worse than the idea of cloistered hermits rendering decisions on the future of the country without significant explanation (outside their published opinions) of what does and doesn't drive them.
Quote:
In comment 12813858 manh george said:
I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.
I guess they might but Id love to see how they pull that off. Its at least 9 months to the election and even if a republican wins it would be until next February where someone can be confirmed. Its also VERY likely that the Dems take back the Senate anyway. So I really don't see the gain in waiting. What if you lose both the White House and the Senate and they can appoint someone REALLy liberal as opposed to someone who is a moderate with liberal leanings like Obama probably will do.
I'm with you (especially on the Senate flipping) but I don't see them being logical here.
Link - ( New Window )
I'm with you (especially on the Senate flipping) but I don't see them being logical here.
Wow that would be a really risky strategy for them the more I think about it. The Dems are a little divided right now with Bernie and Clinton. What a way to unite the party behind whoever the nominee is by demonstrating that the REpublicans will go so far as to hold up a SCOTUS nomination a year for partisan purposes.
Quote:
his jurisprudential philosophy (which a lot of people think was more show than conviction) and the celebrity status may be the legacy. I think that's somewhat of a black mark on his legacy. He was happy writing a dissent rather than trying to win 5 votes, even when he had a conservative court. In particular he alienated the moderately conservative O'Connor just for shits and giggles.
IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes.
I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level.
I think the celebrity jurist is an outgrowth of the Court being so consequential. And while I certainly have issues with it, I'm not sure whether it's better or worse than the idea of cloistered hermits rendering decisions on the future of the country without significant explanation (outside their published opinions) of what does and doesn't drive them.
Except we have 2 celebrity justices, and RBG's celebrity doesnt have that much to do with her decision making.
Quote:
He is going to appoint someone with moderate liberal leanings and enormous legal respect, who will make the Republicans squirm. He would be foolish not to, and he is mopre savvy than you give him credit for being.
I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.
The question I have regarding obstructionism/disagreement is, how will that affect the respective brands?
ERIC HOLDER.
ERIC HOLDER.
There have got to be many better candidates than Eric Holder.
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
It's fucking cumhatch, what else did you expect? He's a fucking moron.
The practical effect of that is no conservative decisions for at least a year. A lot of 4-4 cases getting thrown back(only to return when there are 9 again).
if you are however being serious you've probably never met a muslim or actually listened to anything O said without calling him a rag head. It's probably something you've never even thought of i know.
If he nominates a well respected moderate-enough liberal, the Congress will either have to accept the appointment (Obama wins) or deal with relentless talking point that they are holding the SCOTUS hostage on partisan grounds (Obama/HRC wins)
LOL
If he nominates a well respected moderate-enough liberal, the Congress will either have to accept the appointment (Obama wins) or deal with relentless talking point that they are holding the SCOTUS hostage on partisan grounds (Obama/HRC wins)
Ben, I concur. It'll be fascinating to see how McConnell handles this.
if so, BBI would be the ONLY forum that didn't sink into partisan bullcrap. so, not likely.
I agree with this. What's being overlooked in a lot of the reporting I've seen is his influence on statutory interpretation. Thanks to him, it's now unheard of not to begin analysis of any question of statutory interpretation without a fulsome review of the text of the statute. (And in many cases, to stop right there.) Didn't always used to be like that.
The interesting question for Republicans is: do you take a moderate justice now, or risk losing the election and then having super liberal justices rammed down your throat? The Republicans tend to be confident in their electoral chances, so I'm guessing the latter.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
Except both of you citing the text of the 2A have misspoken. The qualifying clause, which is "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", precedes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." And there was nothing inconsistent about that particular part of Scalia's jurisprudence, as the original intent on the subject is almost universally understood (even by leftish originalists like Akhil Amar) to be more expansive than you're suggesting.
In your opinion...
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
Except both of you citing the text of the 2A have misspoken. The qualifying clause, which is "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", precedes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." And there was nothing inconsistent about that particular part of Scalia's jurisprudence, as the original intent on the subject is almost universally understood (even by leftish originalists like Akhil Amar) to be more expansive than you're suggesting.
Except that Robert Bork, nobody's idea of a judicial leftist, and heralded by conservatives as a great constitutional scholar, thought otherwise:
Link
The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.
-Judge Bork-
Link
Trump gets to pick.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Explain to me what the "factually" right way to approach a legal issue is?
Quote:
In comment 12813947 AcidTest said:
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Explain to me what the "factually" right way to approach a legal issue is?
If you want to know (which Scalia did) what the framers of the Constitution meant with the Second Amendment, look no further than his dissent in US. Heller.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
Quote:
might be ineffectual may mean that the amendment is anachronistic (it may not), it does not mean that the text means something now that it didn't then.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
It wasn't unambiguous, but textualists like Scalia have always sought to understand the text of the Constitution in the language in which it was written (for instance, "regulated" at the time was more properly understood to mean "trained").
If McConnell wants to make some history, here's his shot.
It's too bad that Obama is a classy guy - I'd suggest he recess appoint himself to the SCOTUS and let Uncle Joe finish out his term. As long we're smashing historical precedent.
The Dems definitely got handed an Ace in the hole with this.
Quote:
In comment 12813988 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
might be ineffectual may mean that the amendment is anachronistic (it may not), it does not mean that the text means something now that it didn't then.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
It wasn't unambiguous, but textualists like Scalia have always sought to understand the text of the Constitution in the language in which it was written (for instance, "regulated" at the time was more properly understood to mean "trained").
Scalia was a little like Hugo Black. He enforced the confrontation clause, even when it was politically unpopular to do so. He also correctly concluded that the first amendment protects the right to desecrate the flag.
As far as the text of the second amendment is concerned, we will have to disagree. I think it's completely clear.
My biggest problem with Scalia is the same problem I have with nearly every Supreme Court justice, regardless of their ideology. And that is that they won't leave. Powell and Souter are the only justices I can think of who left after a reasonable tenure. Powell of course never wanted the job, and Souter wanted to go back to New Hampshire.
And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also said Saturday that a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should not be selected until after the 2016 election by asserting that President Obama not no longer represents the American people.
Take a look at Gregg Costa of the Fifth Circuit. Would make it difficult for Republicans especially the two Senators from Texas
Btw, as of the last detailed analysis I saw, the Dems were NOT a favorite to take back the Senate. In a significant number of the seats the Reps have to defend, they have the advantage of either being in a red state, or having a strong candidate--incumbent or otherwise. Of course, this event changes that a bit, as would nominations of Trump or Cruz on one side or Sanders on the other.
This was a January 11 analysis by an analyst who works for Real Clear Politics and is pretty neutral:
In another analysis, Dems were ahead in 44, Reps in 47, with 9 undecided.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
It's those nine that potentially become much more contentious with today's event.
Link - ( New Window )
Wow.
Wow.
*pages
It's truly an interesting subject that crystallizes strategies from all sides. Nop one is crowing now, its just political theory being discussed
Btw, as of the last detailed analysis I saw, the Dems were NOT a favorite to take back the Senate. In a significant number of the seats the Reps have to defend, they have the advantage of either being in a red state, or having a strong candidate--incumbent or otherwise. Of course, this event changes that a bit, as would nominations of Trump or Cruz on one side or Sanders on the other.
This was a January 11 analysis by an analyst who works for Real Clear Politics and is pretty neutral:
In another analysis, Dems were ahead in 44, Reps in 47, with 9 undecided.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
It's those nine that potentially become much more contentious with today's event.
Link - ( New Window )
I think this situation becomes the wildcard that either keeps the status quo, or breaks it open. I agree with the analysis that shows that the senate and Congress were going to stay a Conservative majority, the way this plays out now may be determined by how both sides address the appointment, whoever it may be
Legal scholarship...not so much.
I think Ash's point was that the warning has proven to be quite toothless.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama doesn't want it. Why would he? Yes, SCOTUS is a great gig but Ex-POTUS is the greatest gig on the planet earth.
Obama was careful with his words - said s candidate should have a fair chance at an up or down vote. Reps can give him that without being obstructionist.
I agree. See my post above. If it looks like his nominee will be to the right of Hillary or Sanders potential nomination and Trump is leading they may want to have Obama's nominee
Pretty much.
are you talking about Jon Beason?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
I mentioned Gregg Costa above but Jane Kelly also makes sense
Obama was careful with his words - said s candidate should have a fair chance at an up or down vote. Reps can give him that without being obstructionist.
They absolutely can do it without being obstructionist. But I don't know that they can resist the option.
Quote:
In comment 12813838 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit.
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on
Chop; we'll never agree on politics (well, maybe never) but I've always respected your viewpoint and your consistency. I see that you intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it turned out to be a clinker in the grate. No harm, no foul.
B, its all good. I kinda knew the comment would be incendiary to a certain demographic on the site, but the comment was so insanely ridiculous that I figured people would know my political stance and know I was just being a dick. As you can see, some ran with it and wrung their hands.
I've been staying away from these threads not because I don't think I have a valid opinion that others here would agree with, but because, what's the point? I'm not going to change anyone's mind and will probably be called names like Cumdish29 (my insertion of "cum" into your handle name works better than yours mine Kulish) so conveniently demonstrated.
Have a good night!
Quote:
She is sitting already on the US court of Appeals, went to School with Obama, and has some Republican support in the Midwest
I mentioned Gregg Costa above but Jane Kelly also makes sense
I think the traditional bits about who supports whom are out until after November. You might see some movement should the nominee be the guy wearing the Truffala tree on his head (out of a sense that November will be a disaster) but otherwise it's unlikely.
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
So you agree with appointing incompetents to the Supreme Court? For Life?
Quote:
In comment 12814125 Somnambulist said:
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
So you agree with appointing incompetents to the Supreme Court? For Life?
You'll have to define your terms and provide examples of "incompetents" appointed to the SC. Also, you'd be well served to re-read what I said and do some primary research before making nonsensical statements.
Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Phony, duplicitous, disingenuous cunts.
Your Opportunity to Learn - ( New Window )
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
So I take it your troll head would explode that night.
Quote:
Bold Ruler issued a warning earlier.
I think Ash's point was that the warning has proven to be quite toothless.
I think it's hard when someone as polarizing as Scalia dies. I don't think anyone questions his legal knowledge or acumen; it's just that many, including myself, disagreed with pretty much every word that came out of his mouth. It doesn't mean I don't respect him. He stood by his principles, for better or worse.
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
So I take it your troll head would explode that night.
An ignoramus, for sure:
"Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. The next year, he joined the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin as a summer associate. Obama was elected the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.
After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer with the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004—first as a lecturer and then as a professor."
Blessings to his family for his death but frankly a Supreme Court judge believing this stuff scares the shit out of me.
Wait a minu... Didn't you do the exact same thing in the post he responded to? Or is "speaking authoritatively" to be sarcastically frowned upon, while blanket assertions such as "most of you only know of him through blah blah blah" are cool?
His legacy will get the Bush treatment. Regardless of what he said or stood for, the results of his actions were pretty aweful.
His intelligence was not a virtue.
Claim to shame: Citizens United
Intelligent man but glad he's off the SC.
LOL
Without straying too far off topic or into areas Eric doesn't want to go, an argument can be made that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association of those who formed the Corporation are implicated, especially when it comes to closely held ones. Should they lose their right to contribute to or endorse a candidate because they chose to incorporate? Back to the topic at hand, it will be interesting to see who President Obama nominates.
2) Patricia Ann Millett, age: 52. Also on the DC Circuit Court. Has argued 32 cases before the SCOTUS.
3) Paul Watford, age: 48. He serves on the Ninth Circuit Court. Clerked for both conservative & liberal judges.
4) Merrick Garland, age: 63. He too is on the DC Circuit Court. But his age works against him. I think Obama will nominate someone much younger.
Ton of other names, but I see those 4 being thrown around a lot.
Second, it is the Senate's right to not approve of that nomination if the candidate has flaws. If the judge is deserving, has sufficient judicial background and is a non-activist then the nomination should be approved.
I will be a very interesting situation.
Advertising has it's own rules. Statements by political groups is not part of those rules.
1.) Self
2.) Party
3.) Country/People
Happy Birthday! So you were just born yesterday?
Every day that passes, I'm more convinced it would take nothing short of a miracle.
Even on a thread like this, you see few posts like 'I hope Obama nominates a moderate candidate with a non-partisan history and that the R's uphold the nomination.' Not because people here are extremists or unreasonable, but because such an outcome seemingly has a near-zero percent chance of occurring.
Intolerance abounds - among the candidates, the legislators, the media, the voters, you name it. Discouraging to say the least.
At any rate, RIP Justice Scalia and thanks for playing a role in our nation's judicial system.
Even on a thread like this, you see few posts like 'I hope Obama nominates a moderate candidate with a non-partisan history and that the R's uphold the nomination.' Not because people here are extremists or unreasonable, but because such an outcome seemingly has a near-zero percent chance of occurring.
Bingo.
I suspect an 8-0 decision for the Senate that it presents a non-justiciable controversy. The Supreme Court is not going to force the Senate to "consent" to a Supreme Court nominee.
1.) Self
2.) Party
3.) Country/People
This. We are "ruled" by a for-profit duopoly. The only goal is to retain power, but mostly for personal profit, not power itself.
Quote:
It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions.
Wait a minu... Didn't you do the exact same thing in the post he responded to? Or is "speaking authoritatively" to be sarcastically frowned upon, while blanket assertions such as "most of you only know of him through blah blah blah" are cool?
This from the man you mind reads why people own guns?
I took some liberties in order to keep the thread on track, its called self-control. You should perhaps work to display it either when posting, or making a statement by suggesting you wouldn't post?
That I am sure of.
What is unclear: Did the Court lose a conservative or a radical?
Or, maybe both?
The nominee would need to be vetted and then there is the judiciary committee hearing with recommendations to the entire Senate. McConnell can certainly allow the process to start then delay it for "legitimate" reasons. Harry Reid used to prevent bills from reaching the floor just because he wanted to prevent discussion. He delayed all sorts of hearings and bills. Admitted a new Justice is pretty high on the priority list.
They can drag it out for a long time.
appointment to temporarily replace Scalia until the next Senate is
chosen. The Constitution gives the President the power to temporarily
fill vacancies without Senate approval when the Senate is not in
session. But remember, in the 18th Century, the Senate often wasn't in
session and it took weeks for all the senators to reassemble in
Washington, especially in the winter when their horse-drawn carriages
could get stuck in the mud. In fact, even notifying the senators to
reassemble was a real problem since the Morse telegraph wasn't even
tested until 1837.
The Senate is likely to recess later this year so members can hit the
campaign trail. Suppose Obama seized the opportunity and made a recess
appointment. What would happen next? Short answer: all hell would
break loose. The Supreme Court recently decided a case involving the
power of the President to make recess appointments: National Labor
Relations Board v. Noel Canning. It was a mixed decision, with some
things for the President and some for the Senate (which opposed the
appointment). The Court ruled the recess power applies even for a
break in the middle of a session but it also ruled that the break has
to last more than 3 days.
Of course, wily old fox McConnell could keep the Senate formally in
session until the new Senate is installed next January. To do that, he
would ask Republican senators who live closest to D.C. to show up once
or twice a week to hold a session. The closest states with Republican
senators are Pennyslvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Sen. Pat
Toomey (R-PA) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) are up for reelection, so
they are excused. So Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Thom
Tillis (R-NC) would take turns showing up and gaveling the Senate into
session. Then they would ask the empty room: "Do I hear a motion?"
Failing to hear one, they would announce a lunch break lasting until
the next morning. If Obama claimed the Senate wasn't really in session
and made a recess appointment, the case would end up in the Supreme
Court and it wouldn't be clear if the newly nominated justice could
vote to break the 4-4 tie. Just imagine a justice having to make the
decision on his or her appointment to the Court? It wouldn't be
pretty. There is much more on recess appointments at SCOTUSbog.
Link - ( New Window )
I think a lot of senate republicans who are up for reelection are going to have a very tough decision to make. If they vote for obamas pick their voters will turn on them. If they block his pick it will be used against them in the election.
He would have the final laugh on Congress....
Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.
Kennedy is 80 in July. Notorious RBG is 83 next month. Breyer is 78 in August.
Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.
I also disagree with the lifetime appointment. It really saddles the court. Maybe make it a 15 yr appt.
Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS are ridiculous anyways.
Garland or someone like Sidney Thomas from the 9th Circuit make sense if the Republicans tell Obama they will not confirm a younger nominee no matter how broad of support he/she had when appointed to Court of Appeals
I guess the l 25% of a Presidents term no longer counts.
That said I assume Obama will quickly pick someone who has recently been confirmed by the Senate for Circuit Court .
a candidate like like D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan —confirmed 97 to 0 just 3 years ago.. unless some personal issue arises (which didn't happen in his previous confirmation)
it would be hard for Republicans to make an argument about voting him down for Supreme court
Obama is no idiot. He's not going to nominate some far left judge. He's going to nominate a moderate Democrat-probably someone who got overwhelming previous GOP support-& force the GOP to make the next move.
My guess is that Republicans kill the nomination, with _______________ (fill in the blank) becoming a rallying cry for Democrats in '16.
It's going to be interesting.
There is no constitutional requirement of process. It's even less likely that they USSC would require hearings than it would require a vote. But both seem unlikely. Especially with the Roberts Court. Roberts appears very defensive of the Court as an institution. I dont think he'd the Court encroaching on another co-equal institution (the Senate) and would worry about issuing a ruling that would likely be ignored.
Obama is no idiot. He's not going to nominate some far left judge. He's going to nominate a moderate Democrat-probably someone who got overwhelming previous GOP support-& force the GOP to make the next move.
My guess is that Republicans kill the nomination, with _______________ (fill in the blank) becoming a rallying cry for Democrats in '16.
It's going to be interesting.
SF, it could go either way. I strongly tend to agree that he will choose a moderate, recently appointed with little opposition judge or maybe Loretta Lynch, who is supposed to be a tough, no-nonsense prosecutor.
I also would not discount him going for the jugular with a strong leaning liberal to put the Senate in a bind and help the Dems chances in November. He is a cold calculating, smart man.
Of course he could go the total FU route, in which he appoints someone like Holder, a move that would probably crash the Internet. He'd know he'd never get confirmed, but he'd force Senate GOP to kill the nomination & the optics would look horrible.
He would have the final laugh on Congress....
It would only help with his base. The R base won't care and most in the middle will make decisions based on other things.
There is plenty of time and justification to run out the clock considering how arduous the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice is. Even at a reasonable pace maybe they get to a committee vote before the election, but it will be so close and so heated that it wouldn't be irresponsible to leave it to the next President. Just have to be willing to take it on the chin if Bern or Hillary wins.
Again, GOP is well within their right to block a nominee. And Democrats are well within their right to run with it going forward if they find the reasons absurd.
Again, GOP is well within their right to block a nominee. And Democrats are well within their right to run with it going forward if they find the reasons absurd.
This...
It was 15 months (1996 with Bill C as president), and it was in a similar general election year. heard that this morning on the news....
125 days with 8 justices wouldn't crack or otherwise come close to the list of longest. See the chart in this article. If the vacancy exists when the next president comes in to office, then we'll get close to the longest.
Link - ( New Window )
Well, they don't have to give an explanation, but people are going to ask for one. And you can damn well be sure the Democrats are going to hit them every single day on why __________ was voted down, especially if there's nothing bad there.
Technically, correct. Practically, it's already over. He's basically a lame duck with an opposition Congress in a Presidential election year. This isn't legislation or an executive order. It is a Supreme Court nomination. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. (Unless it's a consensus pick).
He's been losing power and authority by the minute.
What's fairly unprecedented here is McConnell telling Obama that he shouldn't bother nominating anyone - even though nominating SCOTUS judges is one of his explicit Constitutional obligations.
And I think it's mostly because it's Scalia who died. If Ginsberg had died, I don't think they'd be suggesting this. They seem to think that Obama has some sort of obligation to replace one conservative firebrand with another, and if he's not going to do that, he shouldn't nominate anyone.
Under any circumstance, the Republicans would be wise (from their view) to wait until the next President. If they win, they win, if they lose, it'd be a wash.
Well the people elected R Senators, so that has consequences too. Balance of powers and all that.
section125 : 11:56 am : link : reply
change the country, he should nominate someone far left/liberal, but still qualified person. This would help him with his base, force the Senate to reject the nomination, allow him to chastise the senate for failing to approve the nomination and help the democrats in November. He then helps Hillary win, possibly gets 2 or 3 more liberal justices through in her administration and alters the United States forever in the direction he wants it to go.
He would have the final laugh on Congress...[/quote]
No, he shouldn't do that. He should nominate a highly qualified candidate with 60/40 liberal leanings, and watch the Republicans jump all over themselves to come up with excuses as to why he/she isn't good enough. I am confident that such a person would get voted down. THAT would send the right message message to the voters. The last think he wants to do is give the opposition a seemingly valid reason for keeping the candidate bottled up.
One of the first three on San Fran's list, for example.
It will also have to be someone who has never written anything regarding abortion. That third rail would derail any candidate. Many judges have never written on the topic, so that shouldn't be too difficult a hurdle.
I think a lot of senate republicans who are up for reelection are going to have a very tough decision to make. If they vote for obamas pick their voters will turn on them. If they block his pick it will be used against them in the election.
And they can also use to their advantage. No Republican in his/her right mind running for re-election would vote to appoint Obama's selection. It would be political suicide. They will block any nominee and both parties will rally the bases. It's going to be quite an election. The losers from all this is Trump and Sanders. This just got real.
Their demographic is significantly smaller than the dems, and likely will be for a long time under current conditions. To win an uphill election requires a confluence of positive events.
1) Obstruct the SCOTUS appt. Appeals to their base but distances them further from the centrist votes they need to get to the white house
2) Perform their constitutional duty on schedule. Make their positions clear about their vision for the country as an appeal to mobilize their core. At the same time serve the people as a centrist would expect.
Which do you think would win more votes for the GOP nominee?
It is hypothetical only. The next six months is going to be about them shooting themselves in their feet. Will probably their "anti-abortion for incest/rape" moment in 2016
I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc.
I hope this thread gets around to William O. Douglas. Based on the above, I'm eagerly waiting to hear your comments.
Of course he could go the total FU route, in which he appoints someone like Holder, a move that would probably crash the Internet. He'd know he'd never get confirmed, but he'd force Senate GOP to kill the nomination & the optics would look horrible.
Actually nominating Holder would be an incredible mistake. Republicans could vote him down on things like the IRS issue and "Fast & Furious" not look like they were voting down an Obama nominee simply because he was because he was nominated by Obama. A little bit, but not exactly, like Abe Fortas.
Quote:
I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc.
I hope this thread gets around to William O. Douglas. Based on the above, I'm eagerly waiting to hear your comments.
Typical njm move: open a partisan line of questioning through the veneer of a genuinely curious question.
The moves and countermoves here have become staid.
Every institution, from the courts to science to the media is co-opted by the partisan political process and it saddens me greatly about this country.
Quote:
Lame duck President McCain would make an appointment that would be rejected until the new President takes over in 2017. There were two separate occasions where the GOP and citizens of the country could have prevented Obama from making Supreme Court decisions. "Elections have consequences" isn't just a pretty little saying.
Well the people elected R Senators, so that has consequences too. Balance of powers and all that.
But their job is to not find ways to obstruct a full running Supreme Court. The SC is basically sitting at 4-4, if a qualified moderate is put up for nomination, it behooves this country to have a full SC, not political points for a party
When they do it at the cost of what is best for the country, its a fucked up mindset. Thus why you understand their rational so well
I'd strongly prefer a current judge or someone who is doing constitutional law scholarship to be nominated.
Sure but that shouldn't be the relevant comparison.
Again, GOP is well within their right to block a nominee. And Democrats are well within their right to run with it going forward if they find the reasons absurd.
Yes, this.
A a new Dem Prez will likely have a Dem Senate as well so those who are saying wait, be careful what you wish for.
I agree. And he's a total unknown. I could see liberals like myself saying in 20 years, 'No more Srinivasan's', much like conservatives with Souter.
Quote:
It's the end of the world!!!!!
When they do it at the cost of what is best for the country, its a fucked up mindset. Thus why you understand their rational so well
If I had any belief whatsoever that anyone in DC does anything that is the best for the country, then I would agree. But we all know that is bull. It's all political, both sides all the time. And that is exactly why these checks and balances were put in place.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
What a p*tzhead.
- Al
No, he shouldn't do that. He should nominate a highly qualified candidate with 60/40 liberal leanings, and watch the Republicans jump all over themselves to come up with excuses as to why he/she isn't good enough. I am confident that such a person would get voted down. THAT would send the right message message to the voters. The last think he wants to do is give the opposition a seemingly valid reason for keeping the candidate bottled up.
60/40 is pretty liberal george.
You might be the most the reductive thinker on this board. It's astonishing.
Quote:
because he won't sign it, that's OK. When the Senate tells him not to send them a nomination because they won't confirm him/her, that's not OK?
You might be the most the reductive thinker on this board. It's astonishing.
I present it in terms that someone like you can understand. I can dumb it down further if you need.
Quote:
In comment 12814969 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
because he won't sign it, that's OK. When the Senate tells him not to send them a nomination because they won't confirm him/her, that's not OK?
You might be the most the reductive thinker on this board. It's astonishing.
I present it in terms that someone like you can understand. I can dumb it down further if you need.
You've been a truculent simpleton for years, riding on the favor you enjoy with Eric and old timers who likely enjoy your company in real life. If you want to "dumb down" things further for me, feel free. But I've got strong feeling any such move would really be self-serving more than anything else.
Quote:
In comment 12814969 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
because he won't sign it, that's OK. When the Senate tells him not to send them a nomination because they won't confirm him/her, that's not OK?
You might be the most the reductive thinker on this board. It's astonishing.
I present it in terms that someone like you can understand. I can dumb it down further if you need.
Ash goes/went to Harvard. I'm pretty sure he'd be able to understand you even if you spoke in Mandarin.
Quote:
In comment 12814980 Ash_3 said:
Quote:
In comment 12814969 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
because he won't sign it, that's OK. When the Senate tells him not to send them a nomination because they won't confirm him/her, that's not OK?
You might be the most the reductive thinker on this board. It's astonishing.
I present it in terms that someone like you can understand. I can dumb it down further if you need.
Ash goes/went to Harvard. I'm pretty sure he'd be able to understand you even if you spoke in Mandarin.
W went to Yale! He must be smaht...
Quote:
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Stop, your hitting buford with actual facts, she likes to reside in that murky area of halftruths. Its funny how she completely ignores the fact that Kennedy himself was appointed on Feb 1988, which was an election year. Reagan put him up, he got confirmed a few months later even though the Dems had strong control of both the House and the Senate and Kennedy was Conservative
Truculent is a kind way of calling you an asshole.
Again, all of the above stands. You're a microcosm of every damn thing that's led to this board's decline.
Quote:
Are you this pompous in every day conversation or are you just trying too hard?
Truculent is a kind way of calling you an asshole.
Again, all of the above stands. You're a microcosm of every damn thing that's led to this board's decline.
Is that what you think the word means? Do you know what fucktard means? That's you.
Quote:
Are you this pompous in every day conversation or are you just trying too hard?
Truculent is a kind way of calling you an asshole.
Again, all of the above stands. You're a microcosm of every damn thing that's led to this board's decline.
This getting better...the pseudo intellectuals whipping it out to see who is bigger. Keep at it boys.
Quote:
In comment 12814865 buford said:
Quote:
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Stop, your hitting buford with actual facts, she likes to reside in that murky area of halftruths. Its funny how she completely ignores the fact that Kennedy himself was appointed on Feb 1988, which was an election year. Reagan put him up, he got confirmed a few months later even though the Dems had strong control of both the House and the Senate and Kennedy was Conservative
No montana, you are wrong. Kennedy was the third choice filling a seat that was vacated in June of 87. Because the first one was rejected by the Dems. You might remember Robert Bork. Kennedy was a compromise. And he's no conservative.
Schumer called for exactly what the Rs are now. Except no Justices died when Bush was in his last year. Other than that, there is no differnece. And it's pathetic that you think there is.
Quote:
In comment 12815000 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
Are you this pompous in every day conversation or are you just trying too hard?
Truculent is a kind way of calling you an asshole.
Again, all of the above stands. You're a microcosm of every damn thing that's led to this board's decline.
This getting better...the pseudo intellectuals whipping it out to see who is bigger. Keep at it boys.
Don't know you and frankly think most of your posts here have been interesting. Be well.
Quote:
In comment 12815000 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
Are you this pompous in every day conversation or are you just trying too hard?
Truculent is a kind way of calling you an asshole.
Again, all of the above stands. You're a microcosm of every damn thing that's led to this board's decline.
This getting better...the pseudo intellectuals whipping it out to see who is bigger. Keep at it boys.
Well, I'm definitely fatter. Do I win?
Don't have that ability nor will there be a SCOTUS judge with a Muslim name in my lifetime; hell I'd be shocked if there's a Muslim circuit judge any time soon, even on a remote circuit.
William Rehnquist was an impressive jurist and a brilliant tactician. I disagree with the man a lot, but he deserves our respect.
Quote:
In comment 12814874 Davisian said:
Quote:
In comment 12814865 buford said:
Quote:
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Stop, your hitting buford with actual facts, she likes to reside in that murky area of halftruths. Its funny how she completely ignores the fact that Kennedy himself was appointed on Feb 1988, which was an election year. Reagan put him up, he got confirmed a few months later even though the Dems had strong control of both the House and the Senate and Kennedy was Conservative
No montana, you are wrong. Kennedy was the third choice filling a seat that was vacated in June of 87. Because the first one was rejected by the Dems. You might remember Robert Bork. Kennedy was a compromise. And he's no conservative.
Schumer called for exactly what the Rs are now. Except no Justices died when Bush was in his last year. Other than that, there is no differnece. And it's pathetic that you think there is.
LOL...see here we go with the murky shit again. Bork was a hardline Conservative who the Dems told Reagan ahead of time that they would not approve due to his abortion views. It was Reagan thinking he could force the issue of a hardliner anti-abortion Conservative down everyone's throat and he failed. Kennedy is a Moderate Conservative who leans Right when there are tight votes. Before you just pull nonsense out of your ass and make BS claims that Kennedy is not a Conservative you might actually want to take thew time and review his voting history.
I would absolutely expect the Conservatives to hinder a nomination of someone that is considered to being very Liberal, just like the Dems stopped Bork. But as mentioned numerous times a Moderate should not be obstructed based on some made up BS regarding that a nomination never goes through during an election year
Quote:
In comment 12815003 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12814874 Davisian said:
Quote:
In comment 12814865 buford said:
Quote:
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Stop, your hitting buford with actual facts, she likes to reside in that murky area of halftruths. Its funny how she completely ignores the fact that Kennedy himself was appointed on Feb 1988, which was an election year. Reagan put him up, he got confirmed a few months later even though the Dems had strong control of both the House and the Senate and Kennedy was Conservative
No montana, you are wrong. Kennedy was the third choice filling a seat that was vacated in June of 87. Because the first one was rejected by the Dems. You might remember Robert Bork. Kennedy was a compromise. And he's no conservative.
Schumer called for exactly what the Rs are now. Except no Justices died when Bush was in his last year. Other than that, there is no differnece. And it's pathetic that you think there is.
LOL...see here we go with the murky shit again. Bork was a hardline Conservative who the Dems told Reagan ahead of time that they would not approve due to his abortion views. It was Reagan thinking he could force the issue of a hardliner anti-abortion Conservative down everyone's throat and he failed. Kennedy is a Moderate Conservative who leans Right when there are tight votes. Before you just pull nonsense out of your ass and make BS claims that Kennedy is not a Conservative you might actually want to take thew time and review his voting history.
I would absolutely expect the Conservatives to hinder a nomination of someone that is considered to being very Liberal, just like the Dems stopped Bork. But as mentioned numerous times a Moderate should not be obstructed based on some made up BS regarding that a nomination never goes through during an election year
LOL, but that is exactly what Schumer proposed.
If they have a bad election season, they're already staring straight down the barrel of getting completely railroaded in the event that Kennedy and RBG were to pass.
Quote:
In comment 12815003 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12814874 Davisian said:
Quote:
In comment 12814865 buford said:
Quote:
Quote:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Link - ( New Window )
"Called for"
He never got the chance to be that wrong.
Stop, your hitting buford with actual facts, she likes to reside in that murky area of halftruths. Its funny how she completely ignores the fact that Kennedy himself was appointed on Feb 1988, which was an election year. Reagan put him up, he got confirmed a few months later even though the Dems had strong control of both the House and the Senate and Kennedy was Conservative
No montana, you are wrong. Kennedy was the third choice filling a seat that was vacated in June of 87. Because the first one was rejected by the Dems. You might remember Robert Bork. Kennedy was a compromise. And he's no conservative.
Schumer called for exactly what the Rs are now. Except no Justices died when Bush was in his last year. Other than that, there is no differnece. And it's pathetic that you think there is.
LOL...see here we go with the murky shit again. Bork was a hardline Conservative who the Dems told Reagan ahead of time that they would not approve due to his abortion views. It was Reagan thinking he could force the issue of a hardliner anti-abortion Conservative down everyone's throat and he failed. Kennedy is a Moderate Conservative who leans Right when there are tight votes. Before you just pull nonsense out of your ass and make BS claims that Kennedy is not a Conservative you might actually want to take thew time and review his voting history.
I would absolutely expect the Conservatives to hinder a nomination of someone that is considered to being very Liberal, just like the Dems stopped Bork. But as mentioned numerous times a Moderate should not be obstructed based on some made up BS regarding that a nomination never goes through during an election year
It is very rare that a nomination goes through this late in an administration. The Republicans are trying to use that as an excuse to make Obama look like the bad guy--a guy who does what he wants instead of what is the norm. It's still just a game. That's the card they're playing.
I don't agree with announcing the game plan up front. Just interview and reject.
Let's face reality. There is no way in hell that Scalia is going to be replaced by a moderate or left of that while the Republicans hold the Senate.
They're going to use this as an election tool to keep a Senate majority.
Seems to me that it simply makes the election even more important moreso than it helps them win.
Seems to me that it simply makes the election even more important moreso than it helps them win.
It gets the voters out for a Republican POTUS so a conservative justice gets nominated. It plays on the fear that the 2nd Amendment will be weakened and that all abortions will be approved if the Dems win the White House.
Quote:
Isn't it really just further pushing chips to the center of the table on the election?
Seems to me that it simply makes the election even more important moreso than it helps them win.
It gets the voters out for a Republican POTUS so a conservative justice gets nominated. It plays on the fear that the 2nd Amendment will be weakened and that all abortions will be approved if the Dems win the White House.
I think that applies to both Peter. The fact that there may be 4 new justices over the next year is going to generate a get out and vote never seen before. Where it can be used against the Conservatives is if they obstruct someone that makes perfect sense such as Srinivasan. They are boxed into a corner here in a way because they just gave him almost a 100% approval (one vote light) for the court of appeals. If they now hinder that nomination for the SC they look like their playing politics, if they approve it without seizing the claim of putting him forward, they look weak to the base. Its a tough nut for them
Quote:
In comment 12815015 buford said:
LOL, but that is exactly what Schumer proposed.
Holy crap you really can't help yourself from being disingenuous when you get into these discussions can you?
ONE person calling for it in a hypothetical scenario is nowhere close to a whole party calling for it in a real situation. Its such an absurd correlation its ridiculous but to be expected from someone who lives for the daily rightwing meme on Facebook.
Now where you can apply that is to point to Schummer himself and tell him he is being hypocritical for what he said, but attempting to broad brush the whole Dem. party with it is laughable. Its especially silly given the fact that you think its a legit comparison. Let me help you one last time with that:
One Democratic Senator made a statement in reference to a possible hypothetical situation
vs
Virtually the entire leadership and numerous faces of the Republican party making the same statement in reference to an ACTUAL situation
And you think that is one in the same? LMAO
Link - ( New Window )
...and Republican Presidential aspirants, it is a flagrant insult and highly disrespectful to former Supreme Court Justice Scalia and his family to engage in such harsh partisan politics so soon after the Justice's death.
Just contemptible.
Despicable.
Have they no decency?
Mercy... what has this country come to?
Justice Scalia barely received Last Rites before his name and memory were thrown into the nasty scrum of partisan politics.
Is there no consideration for his grieving widow and his grieving children?
Bitch slapped? Hardly. Too bad that other thread got deleted. You know, the one where you started all big and tough and then begged me to leave you alone.
Quote:
In comment 12815087 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
Isn't it really just further pushing chips to the center of the table on the election?
Seems to me that it simply makes the election even more important moreso than it helps them win.
It gets the voters out for a Republican POTUS so a conservative justice gets nominated. It plays on the fear that the 2nd Amendment will be weakened and that all abortions will be approved if the Dems win the White House.
I think that applies to both Peter. The fact that there may be 4 new justices over the next year is going to generate a get out and vote never seen before. Where it can be used against the Conservatives is if they obstruct someone that makes perfect sense such as Srinivasan. They are boxed into a corner here in a way because they just gave him almost a 100% approval (one vote light) for the court of appeals. If they now hinder that nomination for the SC they look like their playing politics, if they approve it without seizing the claim of putting him forward, they look weak to the base. Its a tough nut for them
Applying to both and mobilizing are two different things. Replacing Scalia with another conservative maintains the status quo. The Left voters shouldn't have much to complain about when the Court upheld the ACA twice. R v. W is still the law and gay marriage is nationwide. That was with Scalia.
I think the president will nominate someone qualified but with a very liberal record with the expectation that it won't be approved anyway. One last reminder of how this president has had to deal with an unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress will help voter turnout for the dems this fall.
The calculation would be that the dems pick up a couple of seats and win the white house, and the new president can nominate and get the person that they really want without them having been dragged through the mud for the past 9 months.
Mercy... what has this country come to?
Justice Scalia barely received Last Rites before his name and memory were thrown into the nasty scrum of partisan politics.
Is there no consideration for his grieving widow and his grieving children?
...in this discussion come off equally bad.
Mercy... what has this country come to?
Justice Scalia barely received Last Rites before his name and memory were thrown into the nasty scrum of partisan politics.
Is there no consideration for his grieving widow and his grieving children?
Huh?????? I think you need to review your timeline there
Assuming this qualifies as relatively recent history, I'd point to Byron White. Not as dramatic a shift as Stevens, but he'd probably be classified as center-right when it was hoped he's be part of the liberal wing.
Except for people who went to Wharton, in which case, LOL Harvard.
Quote:
In comment 12815051 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12815015 buford said:
LOL, but that is exactly what Schumer proposed.
Holy crap you really can't help yourself from being disingenuous when you get into these discussions can you?
ONE person calling for it in a hypothetical scenario is nowhere close to a whole party calling for it in a real situation. Its such an absurd correlation its ridiculous but to be expected from someone who lives for the daily rightwing meme on Facebook.
Now where you can apply that is to point to Schummer himself and tell him he is being hypocritical for what he said, but attempting to broad brush the whole Dem. party with it is laughable. Its especially silly given the fact that you think its a legit comparison. Let me help you one last time with that:
One Democratic Senator made a statement in reference to a possible hypothetical situation
vs
Virtually the entire leadership and numerous faces of the Republican party making the same statement in reference to an ACTUAL situation
And you think that is one in the same? LMAO
Yes it's the same because there is no doubt in my mind that if the hypothetical became actual they would do exactly the same thing. And if anyone claims differently, they are being dishonest with themselves.
It's politics. Just step out of the way and watch the show.
This has come to be expected from you
This has come to be expected from you
The only one being absurd here is you.
Link - ( New Window )
Guys like Cruz are going to be verbal about obstructing anybody who does not want to overthrow Roe v Wade. Since thats a minority, he's going to prevent himself from gaining a majority.
You're boring.
Guys like Cruz are going to be verbal about obstructing anybody who does not want to overthrow Roe v Wade. Since thats a minority, he's going to prevent himself from gaining a majority.
So when Senator Obama and others tried to filibuster Bush's appointment of Alito, was that political or fulfilling their constitutional duty?
Quote:
National Review?? When are you going to start busting out the facebook memes??
You're boring.
Quote:
National Review?? When are you going to start busting out the facebook memes??
You're boring.
Keep embarrassing yourself.
lol...those are the very fabric of everyone of her discussions. "Forget the nuances and facts by God, if its in my morning FB feed that's going to be my argument"
The best was when she argued that Voting was not a constitutional right
Disagree. If politics were not a part of what Obama will do he would nominate a strict constructionist Scalia clone if he/she were the most qualified candidate. You know there's not a snowball's chance in hell that will happen. Also, the decision about whether to nominate someone closer to the center vs. a RBG clone will be made on the basis of political considerations.
Quote:
The Senate response - if its other than fulfilling their constitutional responsibility - will be political. Its not set up well for them.
Disagree. If politics were not a part of what Obama will do he would nominate a strict constructionist Scalia clone if he/she were the most qualified candidate. You know there's not a snowball's chance in hell that will happen. Also, the decision about whether to nominate someone closer to the center vs. a RBG clone will be made on the basis of political considerations.
More jiggery-pokery!
Quote:
In comment 12815281 WideRight said:
Quote:
The Senate response - if its other than fulfilling their constitutional responsibility - will be political. Its not set up well for them.
Disagree. If politics were not a part of what Obama will do he would nominate a strict constructionist Scalia clone if he/she were the most qualified candidate. You know there's not a snowball's chance in hell that will happen. Also, the decision about whether to nominate someone closer to the center vs. a RBG clone will be made on the basis of political considerations.
More jiggery-pokery!
Thanks for adding some applesauce
AMDG
Quote:
In comment 12815282 rut17 said:
Quote:
National Review?? When are you going to start busting out the facebook memes??
You're boring.
you should have referenced Mother Jones which would have been acceptable.
You would think quoting Scalia would be pertinent on this thread. But not for some.
I personally don't remember that one too well. Can you ask the Twitter or Facebook person who mentioned it whether "Obama and others" were filibustering one particular appointment by Bush, or were they expressing outrage over -- and preemptively threatening to filibuster -- any upcoming appointment before even knowing names? Because if it's the second I can see the comparison, but if it's the first I'm not sure why you'd bring it up?
Quote:
Hi ya doing you sweetheart?
Bitch slapped? Hardly. Too bad that other thread got deleted. You know, the one where you started all big and tough and then begged me to leave you alone.
You really are a delusional, stupid motherfucker, if that's what you got out of our last exchange. I made a suggestion you not follow me around like a creep. I still stand by my comment that this board would be a better place if your pops' had a better pullout game.
I think the president will nominate someone qualified but with a very liberal record with the expectation that it won't be approved anyway. One last reminder of how this president has had to deal with an unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress will help voter turnout for the dems this fall.
The calculation would be that the dems pick up a couple of seats and win the white house, and the new president can nominate and get the person that they really want without them having been dragged through the mud for the past 9 months.
First SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered. So you will need 60 votes.
Second out of those 24 Republican seats how many are in play? Maybe 7? Remember the Democrats have at least three in play too.
About the "unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress". Please tell me one Obama policy that they were able to stop.
Thanks in advance.
I think the president will nominate someone qualified but with a very liberal record with the expectation that it won't be approved anyway. One last reminder of how this president has had to deal with an unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress will help voter turnout for the dems this fall.
The calculation would be that the dems pick up a couple of seats and win the white house, and the new president can nominate and get the person that they really want without them having been dragged through the mud for the past 9 months.
First SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered. So you will need 60 votes.
Second out of those 24 Republican seats how many are in play? Maybe 7? Remember the Democrats have at least three in play too.
About the "unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress". Please tell me one Obama policy that they were able to stop.
Thanks in advance.
Quote:
In comment 12815171 David in LA said:
Quote:
Hi ya doing you sweetheart?
Bitch slapped? Hardly. Too bad that other thread got deleted. You know, the one where you started all big and tough and then begged me to leave you alone.
You really are a delusional, stupid motherfucker, if that's what you got out of our last exchange. I made a suggestion you not follow me around like a creep. I still stand by my comment that this board would be a better place if your pops' had a better pullout game.
What I got out of our last exchange is that you're an insufferable gash that contributes absolutely nothing to the planet.
Is that going to be your "go to" insult? That's 3 times already. Give it a rest. Just fuck off before you ruin another thread with your nonsense.
Quote:
In comment 12815303 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12815282 rut17 said:
Quote:
National Review?? When are you going to start busting out the facebook memes??
You're boring.
you should have referenced Mother Jones which would have been acceptable.
You would think quoting Scalia would be pertinent on this thread. But not for some.
Quote:
So when Senator Obama and others tried to filibuster Bush's appointment of Alito, was that political or fulfilling their constitutional duty?
I personally don't remember that one too well. Can you ask the Twitter or Facebook person who mentioned it whether "Obama and others" were filibustering one particular appointment by Bush, or were they expressing outrage over -- and preemptively threatening to filibuster -- any upcoming appointment before even knowing names? Because if it's the second I can see the comparison, but if it's the first I'm not sure why you'd bring it up?
It was an attempted filibuster of Alito. I had to look into it myself. See the link.
What' more telling, imho, is that Obama will undoubtedly be saying that even if his nominee has a different judicial philosophy than a Senator voting, the nominee should be confirmed if qualified. In that context, it should be remembered that both Obama and Harry Reid voted against confirmation of John Roberts.
Politifact - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12815306 buford said:
Quote:
So when Senator Obama and others tried to filibuster Bush's appointment of Alito, was that political or fulfilling their constitutional duty?
I personally don't remember that one too well. Can you ask the Twitter or Facebook person who mentioned it whether "Obama and others" were filibustering one particular appointment by Bush, or were they expressing outrage over -- and preemptively threatening to filibuster -- any upcoming appointment before even knowing names? Because if it's the second I can see the comparison, but if it's the first I'm not sure why you'd bring it up?
It was an attempted filibuster of Alito. I had to look into it myself. See the link.
What' more telling, imho, is that Obama will undoubtedly be saying that even if his nominee has a different judicial philosophy than a Senator voting, the nominee should be confirmed if qualified. In that context, it should be remembered that both Obama and Harry Reid voted against confirmation of John Roberts.
Politifact - ( New Window )
The irony about Alito is Obama didn't want him because he didn't think he would limit Executive power.
And before he used applesauce he used gobagool.
Quote:
a simple majority (51 votes in favor) to confirm a nomination for scotus - which is why gop leaders don't even want to "risk" having a nomination go to a vote. Also keep in mind that Democrats have 10 contested seats versus the republicans having 24 coming up this election.
I think the president will nominate someone qualified but with a very liberal record with the expectation that it won't be approved anyway. One last reminder of how this president has had to deal with an unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress will help voter turnout for the dems this fall.
The calculation would be that the dems pick up a couple of seats and win the white house, and the new president can nominate and get the person that they really want without them having been dragged through the mud for the past 9 months.
First SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered. So you will need 60 votes.
Second out of those 24 Republican seats how many are in play? Maybe 7? Remember the Democrats have at least three in play too.
About the "unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress". Please tell me one Obama policy that they were able to stop.
Thanks in advance.
To answer your questions - yes, technically any nomination that may pass through simple majority can be filibustered. But this is not like protesting a piece of legislation that someone may have an ideological difference on - if someone wants to filibuster a presumably qualified appointment then it better be for a good reason otherwise it will look really bad for the individual and the party as a whole.
Second, there's enough seats up for grabs to flip the majority in the Senate, which is the point in regards to the confirmation process.
And third, in terms of policy, the gop have been obstructionists when it came to several items such as voting on the immigration bill, voting on the climate change bill to reduce emissions, and restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba - all of which the president has been forced to address one way or another through executive order.
However, it's not really that concerning for the legislative body to oppose the president on policy issues because that's the tradition of the the checks and balances that have historically existed between the Congress and the White House.
What's concerning is the unprecedented way that this gop has obstructed the president from performing the duties that he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to carry out. The biggest example of that is the record lengths of time that it has taken to confirm Obama's appointments to district and lower court vacancies in comparison to previous presidents- which directly ties in to this current issue regarding a vacancy on the supreme court.
Long story short, any one who has tuned in at any point over the last 7 years are not surprised by the immediate response by republicans indicating that they will not confirm anyone that Obama nominates regardless of their qualifications. It's a politically expedient move in the short term, but if the goal is to restore the faith in the people that the Congress can be a functioning body and for the republicans ultimately to try to win back the white house, this is a losing strategy.
Quote:
...Scalia said "sauce," not gravy."
And before he used applesauce he used gobagool.
I think that was from the Citizens United decision, yes? Something about corporations eating gobagool, too?
What's concerning is the unprecedented way that this gop has obstructed the president from performing the duties that he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to carry out. The biggest example of that is the record lengths of time that it has taken to confirm Obama's appointments to district and lower court vacancies in comparison to previous presidents- which directly ties in to this current issue regarding a vacancy on the supreme court.
Long story short, any one who has tuned in at any point over the last 7 years are not surprised by the immediate response by republicans indicating that they will not confirm anyone that Obama nominates regardless of their qualifications. It's a politically expedient move in the short term, but if the goal is to restore the faith in the people that the Congress can be a functioning body and for the republicans ultimately to try to win back the white house, this is a losing strategy.
The wait times for Obama appointees is about the same as GW Bush's. Each party does this and each party complains about the other party doing it.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12815189 eclipz928 said:
Quote:
a simple majority (51 votes in favor) to confirm a nomination for scotus - which is why gop leaders don't even want to "risk" having a nomination go to a vote. Also keep in mind that Democrats have 10 contested seats versus the republicans having 24 coming up this election.
I think the president will nominate someone qualified but with a very liberal record with the expectation that it won't be approved anyway. One last reminder of how this president has had to deal with an unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress will help voter turnout for the dems this fall.
The calculation would be that the dems pick up a couple of seats and win the white house, and the new president can nominate and get the person that they really want without them having been dragged through the mud for the past 9 months.
First SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered. So you will need 60 votes.
Second out of those 24 Republican seats how many are in play? Maybe 7? Remember the Democrats have at least three in play too.
About the "unprecedented obstructionist republican-controlled Congress". Please tell me one Obama policy that they were able to stop.
Thanks in advance.
To answer your questions - yes, technically any nomination that may pass through simple majority can be filibustered. But this is not like protesting a piece of legislation that someone may have an ideological difference on - if someone wants to filibuster a presumably qualified appointment then it better be for a good reason otherwise it will look really bad for the individual and the party as a whole.
Second, there's enough seats up for grabs to flip the majority in the Senate, which is the point in regards to the confirmation process.
And third, in terms of policy, the gop have been obstructionists when it came to several items such as voting on the immigration bill, voting on the climate change bill to reduce emissions, and restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba - all of which the president has been forced to address one way or another through executive order.
However, it's not really that concerning for the legislative body to oppose the president on policy issues because that's the tradition of the the checks and balances that have historically existed between the Congress and the White House.
What's concerning is the unprecedented way that this gop has obstructed the president from performing the duties that he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to carry out. The biggest example of that is the record lengths of time that it has taken to confirm Obama's appointments to district and lower court vacancies in comparison to previous presidents- which directly ties in to this current issue regarding a vacancy on the supreme court.
Long story short, any one who has tuned in at any point over the last 7 years are not surprised by the immediate response by republicans indicating that they will not confirm anyone that Obama nominates regardless of their qualifications. It's a politically expedient move in the short term, but if the goal is to restore the faith in the people that the Congress can be a functioning body and for the republicans ultimately to try to win back the white house, this is a losing strategy.
Unprecedented? You need only to go back and look at what the Democrats did to GWB nominees. In his first term they completely blocked them from even getting hearings. Then when the R's took the Senate they filibustered them.
Quote:
For an Obama circuit court nominee, the average wait from committee approval to confirmation was 138.5 days -- almost four times the duration under George W. Bush, which was 35.3 days. The median waits were similarly divergent: Obama’s nominees waited 131.5 days, compared to 18 days for nominees of George W. Bush.
But, but...Buford's article from 3 years ago says differently. Better check her facebook sources.
Quote:
Quote:
For an Obama circuit court nominee, the average wait from committee approval to confirmation was 138.5 days -- almost four times the duration under George W. Bush, which was 35.3 days. The median waits were similarly divergent: Obama’s nominees waited 131.5 days, compared to 18 days for nominees of George W. Bush.
But, but...Buford's article from 3 years ago says differently. Better check her facebook sources.
Did you actually read the article? Or did you cherry pick? Or can you read?
Obama did not cherry pick anything, his claim was based on the time his nominees have waited for a vote after first being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Which were more then triple the time.
Because Obama didn’t specify the measurement he was using -- and because an alternative number exists that runs counter to his claim -- Obama has essentially cherry-picked a figure that puts his situation in the most sympathetic light. On balance, we rate his claim Half True.
Quote:
I know that there are several "liberal" justices that were nominated and expected to be conservative by Republican presidents. Souter and Stevens come to mind. In relatively recent history, are there any justices that were expected to be liberal and turned out to be conservative or right leaning?
Assuming this qualifies as relatively recent history, I'd point to Byron White. Not as dramatic a shift as Stevens, but he'd probably be classified as center-right when it was hoped he's be part of the liberal wing.
Thanks, njm.
When we're past the third phase of Polaris, obviously.
I don't know but for the Democrats and Chuck Schumer it's 18 months.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Obama said his judicial nominees "have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor." That’s true if you count from committee approval to confirmation, but not if you count the full period from nomination to confirmation. As it turns out, the average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation.
Because Obama didn’t specify the measurement he was using -- and because an alternative number exists that runs counter to his claim -- Obama has essentially cherry-picked a figure that puts his situation in the most sympathetic light. On balance, we rate his claim Half True.
Your wrong again but that is to be expected. The only thing he did wrong was not exactly specifying what part of the Confirmation stage he meant. But then again that is explained when he used Bush's time of 35 days, which is what his avg from senate approval to confirmation was. When you then compare that to Obama's avg it is more then triple.
Now I understand that would take a simple reading between the lines and actual logic, which of course you will refuse to do because it does not fit into the silly arguments you have already presented repeatedly throughout this thread (IE: Schuemer statement regarding a hypothetical is equivalent to the entire Conservative party's statement regarding a real situation). So I am sure the nuances will be once again lost on the disingenuous rational that you utilize.
I think the GOP has no standing to ever discuss obstructionism since they went to the nuclear option. But both sides are idiots about this. The only time a President is a lame duck is when another President is elected, those last two and a half months.
Otherwise, a President is techincially lame-duck the moment he's elected. A term is only four years.
This.
Is what I hate about political discourse these days. It's not just the us-versus-them mentality. It's this firmly held yet baseless belief that it's just the other side that does shady, hypocritical things.
Newsflash-- politicians are sleezy. On both sides of the aisle. And those that are standing in the aisle, or just seem like they're lost in the aisle. They kiss babies. And probably more than a few of them have herpes.
And herpes is for life.
And the Dems would have no problem if revered.
Agree with Sam and AP.
Yet The sheep refuse to acknowledge it. Its like a bizarro world.
Axelrod said Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday, was seated with him at a dinner following Justice David Souter's retirement and told him he hoped for Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Yet The sheep refuse to acknowledge it. Its like a bizarro world.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa...d example. You don't remember Democrats in Congress opposing W at every turn?
But oK, this is just those big bad Republicans again.
Yarn.
Most are already united by Hillary.....it is why Bernie is doing so well
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
And anyone wonder what is wrong with both sides of the aisle?
Just read thi thread.
Quote:
No they didn't. Not as their main policy. I have compared it to treason. Republicans have a funny way of alway searching for some false equivalence....It was your parties stated plan. Block everything. They had a meeting to tell everyone that is what the plan is. No matter what Obama wants, obstruct it. Its treason in my opinion.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
And anyone wonder what is wrong with both sides of the aisle?
Just read thi thread.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Look, I'm far from a Bush fan, but you are doing exactly what Buford does. You are broad brushing claims without understanding the nuances and mitigating factors involved with it. Many of those factors are things the Dems contributed to what you are laying all the blame on Bush for. Don't be like her, don't be a regurgitating FB meme puppet
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Funny, I'm not a Republican. It's your blind partisanship that has the proverbial wool over your eyes.
I'm going to stop, as this thread has gone a little off the rails.
Signing off,
Sarcastic Sheep
If you think or are claiming that the Dems under Bush were the same as the Republicans under obama, then you are living in a special universe.
Hell how many years did we listen to crap about Obamas birth certificate? Muslim ties..
When did the Democrats organize and say, we will reject everything Bush wants to do no matter what it is? Never happened.
The Republicans were sharp on this, especially Norquist. And the sheep bought it. Most people dont have the time to even investigate it. They take sound bites and believe what they are predisposed to believe. Thats just how it works and how it happened
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Illegal war - approved by congress! Illegal wire taps, approved by congress!
But I agree we should not have been Iraq and had that belief long before the war; plus, the Patriot Act must go.
The most sensible Republicans had no chance. Cruz, Trump and Rubio?
If you think or are claiming that the Dems under Bush were the same as the Republicans under obama, then you are living in a special universe.
Hell how many years did we listen to crap about Obamas birth certificate? Muslim ties..
When did the Democrats organize and say, we will reject everything Bush wants to do no matter what it is? Never happened.
The Republicans were sharp on this, especially Norquist. And the sheep bought it. Most people dont have the time to even investigate it. They take sound bites and believe what they are predisposed to believe. Thats just how it works and how it happened
Doing your best to get the thread deleted? Is there a reason you can't just not post?
The most sensible Republicans had no chance. Cruz, Trump and Rubio?
Just STFU already.
Again. you want it both ways. Bush got what he wanted...How did that work out...
Yet the irony is that now you are claiming the Repubs are doing the same as the Democrats...But Obama got no support from the Republicans and the Republican stated plan was to obstruct EVERYTHING...
Like I said you want it both ways, false equivalency...You just proved it...sheeple and all
There is no obstructionism unless there is process. That process begins with the President - not the Senate. There has been no process at this time. Mitch McConnell can say whatever he wants - the Senate must perform its function, and it will, just as soon as the left and the President decide to stop milking the idea that the Senate will "prevent" Obama from making a nomination. Nobody is saying he won't have that opportunity.
We don't know who the President will nominate. We don't know if that person can clear a USSC level FBI background check - even if you are a sitting appointed judge, you haven't gone through the anal probe that accompanies a lifetime appointment. We don't know if they can get through a committee vote and to the floor. We don't know if the Senate will go into Executive Session, and if they don't will it be motioned for?
NONE OF IT MATTERS. Here comes opinion. Obama will put someone up - if it tilts the court, that person will likely not be confirmed. Period. Full stop. And that's not obstructionism; that's the Senate acting as it is allowed to - it's advise and consent, not advise and rubberstamp. President was elected in 2012 - Senate tilted in 2014 (someone tell Maddow that before she hyperventilates). They can vote no till the cows come home or they're thrown out of office.
And please, enough with this bullshit that a unanimous nominee to a lower circuit means that nominee is pre-qualified for a SC seat. False equivalence. There are very few similarities in function, the job descriptions are vastly different, and the nomination process is on an entirely different level. It's like saying 100 supercar owners all agreed a mechanic is well-qualified on a Honda, but that doesn't mean they necessarily think the same mechanic could handle a Ferrari.
There are ZERO objective qualifiers to be a SC justice. Just remember that. This is one of those few times where each branch is Co-Equal in the truest of senses. For those who prefer Presidential Imperialism, this is a tough pill to swallow.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
What does that have to do with it? The commentary is addressing what has been stated by Cruz, McConnell and Grassley 2 hours after the man died. Are they supposed to pretend they never said those things, but if they do "their milking it"? That is an absurd claim that completely ignores what they were responding to.
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
Yup!
- America
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
How'd they put someone forward on MSNBC?
Quote:
In comment 12816050 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
How'd they put someone forward on MSNBC?
The best part is completely ignoring what all the Conservative heads and leaders have been saying for two day while using that lame example...It is just terrible that political commentators would ever mention something like what the Head of the Senate stated..
It got far too political ther first day it was posted and, morons like chopper were doing what they do. But yeah. Let's cut it off now after 8 pages.
Christ Eric. Either politcal threads are allowed here or not. Make up your mind. This thread was bound to get political. The first sign of bullshit should've shut down this thread, yet, it stayed up. The double standards are tiresome.
Oh, who am I kidding. You practically need the entire forum calling for your head before you get banned on here. Might as well close the topic in that case.
Quote:
confirming a Presidential appointee to the Supreme Court if that President were a Republican. This is totally and completely political. Once again, they are earning the label of the party of obstruction.
This.
Is what I hate about political discourse these days. It's not just the us-versus-them mentality. It's this firmly held yet baseless belief that it's just the other side that does shady, hypocritical things.
Newsflash-- politicians are sleezy. On both sides of the aisle. And those that are standing in the aisle, or just seem like they're lost in the aisle. They kiss babies. And probably more than a few of them have herpes.
And herpes is for life.
"Listen, I'm a politician. which means I'm a cheat and a liar...and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops."
Which leads right back to The Constitution and why to protect it, it keeps the crooks in line.
That said, I was not a fan of Scalia, his view on protecting the Constitution was a bit un-enlightened, primitive.
I mean, if you want to get the government out of peoples business, why take the position of not allowing gay marriage?
None of the governments damn business.
Rather, he should have worked to role back 19th century laws attempting to regulate human behavior if the first place.
4-4 Supreme Court could be good for Unions and Voting Rights Advocates - ( New Window )
Are there not some other, important, issue regarding those?
And, why not let people choose, is 'choice' not a fundamental right and core concept here?