|
|
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 |
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.