|
|
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 |
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.