Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on March 16, 2016, 12:05:24 AM
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-likely-to-pick-srinivasan-or-garland-for-supreme-court-2016-3?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=referral&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
Both of them enjoy a solid reputation in legal circles, and Garland has more years of experience on the Federal appellate bench.
-
No.
-
Srinivasan is an Obama donor. (http://freebeacon.com/politics/four-out-of-five-of-obamas-supreme-court-finalists-are-obama-donors/) So *expletive deleted*ck no on him.
I also don't trust Garland. Appointed by Clinton? Probably not a big fan of gun rights. We can't afford Scalia being replaced by an anti-gunner.
-
Nope nope nope nope.
-
HELL NO!
-
Breaking news as reported by USA Today: it is Garland as the nominee.
-
I'll take Garland over the unknown Clinton or Trump will put forward. Also just finished listening to Obama's address, I would rank that as one of his best addresses. I no fan of his, but I think he did an excellent job of explaining why the nomination shouldn't be blocked until the next President.
-
Interestingly, I heard Andrew Napilitano say that this is the most conservative judge that any modern Democrat has ever nominated. Of course Democrat and conservative are relative.
Nevertheless, if true, Obama has put republicans on the spot.
-
Another interesting perspective I heard is that Obama doesn't want Garland, and that he's being used as a political pawn.
-
Garland sought en-banc review of the decision to kill the DC handgun ban, and voted to let the DOJ keep NICS records.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Instant-Check-Permanent-Record.htm
-
I'm guessing no matter what tactics one applies to Obama's choice, that he has ensured a fallback so that even if his scapegoat nominee were to be confirmed, that the nominee would be fairly inline with Obama's most important issues, gun control being near the top of that list.
Given the current makeup of the SC, even a "moderate" on gun control would be severely detrimental to gun rights. Though I'm not sure that even if the nomination was made by a Republican winner in this election, that we would get anyone who is a strong constitutionalist. Take your pick of Trump or Cruz, I don't think either one could get anyone more conservative than a Roberts through the Senate.
-
Take your pick of Trump or Cruz, I don't think either one could get anyone more conservative than a Roberts through the Senate.
And when the Senate rejects Constitutionalist nominees, the president would be blamed for picking such "controversial" and "extreme" candidates.
-
Last time I checked, Ms. Clinton was still leading in the presidential polls. Do people here think that she will produce a more acceptable SCOTUS candidate than President Obama? I am not convinced of this.
-
Last time I checked, Ms. Clinton was still leading in the presidential polls. Do people here think that she will produce a more acceptable SCOTUS candidate than President Obama? I am not convinced of this.
Nope. But in this case, I'm a firm believer in democracy. The people will deserve to get whatever they vote for, good and hard.
-
A justice who idolized author of roe v wade?
No thanks
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Last time I checked, Ms. Clinton was still leading in the presidential polls. Do people here think that she will produce a more acceptable SCOTUS candidate than President Obama? I am not convinced of this.
She could also lose, and we'd be stuck with a justice that doesn't believe in, ya know, justice.
If she does win, I'd like to see the Republicans simply refuse to hold any hearings for anyone she appoints, to any office. As I've said before, I like the Republicans when they're "the Party of No."
-
Last time I checked, Ms. Clinton was still leading in the presidential polls. Do people here think that she will produce a more acceptable SCOTUS candidate than President Obama? I am not convinced of this.
Care to imagine the kind of leftist candidates Sanders or Trump would put in place?
-
She could also lose, and we'd be stuck with a justice that doesn't believe in, ya know, justice.
If she does win, I'd like to see the Republicans simply refuse to hold any hearings for anyone she appoints, to any office. As I've said before, I like the Republicans when they're "the Party of No."
There is a pretty good chance the Senate will go back to the Democrats in November. So much for the party of no that has managed to piss off enough people that they think Trump is the best candidate.
-
There is a pretty good chance the Senate will go back to the Democrats in November. So much for the party of no that has managed to piss off enough people that they think Trump is the best candidate.
A big part of that reason is that instead of saying no they've said far to much yes.
-
A big part of that reason is that instead of saying no they've said far to much yes.
So toss them under the bus and let other party win?
-
So toss them under the bus and let other party win?
It's the predictable end result of being a failure and not delivering on any campaign promises. Hell, often enough accomplishing the exact opposite.
-
So toss them under the bus and let other party win?
That's why Congressional seats are only 2-6 years (and a lot of the Founders wanted the terms to be even shorter). When a representative/senator displeases the base, he may not be re-elected. Civics 101.
-
There is a pretty good chance the Senate will go back to the Democrats in November. So much for the party of no that has managed to piss off enough people that they think Trump is the best candidate.
I've heard a lot of Rs in my part of the world indicating that they are staying home in November, to hell with the consequences, because they are tired of voting for a crappy candidate just because he/she has the support of the party establishment, and an "R" by their name on the ballot. Want candidates with better qualifications than just having the R there...
-
I don't know how many people are ready to let the Republican Party sink or swim. I feel like there are a lot of us, but that's probably just because I hang out here too often. The conservatives hate the leadership of the party that claims to represent them, and vice versa, so perhaps the Grand Old Party has had its day. American politics has room for but two large parties, but we may have to entertain 3 or more until there's a realignment. Let the GOP either reform itself, or be lost to history.
-
Care to imagine the kind of leftist candidates Sanders or Trump would put in place?
On the one hand, I don't think Trump would nominate a leftie, but past appointments by putatively conservative presidents have proven disappointing before......so who can really say?
-
I am not thinking Trump would appoint a leftie either. If he did, he would be effectively telling everyone "Ha Ha, I am really a Democrat."
-
That's why Congressional seats are only 2-6 years (and a lot of the Founders wanted the terms to be even shorter). When a representative/senator displeases the base, he may not be re-elected. Civics 101.
Instead of staying home at the election, get someone to challenge them in the primary. Hell ol' Chuck Grassley might have to win a primary in Iowa, well that is the scuttlebutt anyways. Steve King has a primary challenger.
-
Garland was just nominated.
-
A bit on guns:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/obama-supreme-court-pick-faces-conservative-heat-on-gun-votes.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
I think the R's will keep the Senate. Might be with a smaller majority, but looking at the state by state races there's only a couple that are really vulnerable plus maybe one or two others that are somewhat vulnerable. There's also a D or two that are at least somewhat vulnerable. Probably unrealistic to think the Rs will come out with the same or more Senators, but keeping 51 seats is quite probable.
Garland is probably the best we could hope for from Obama. If the R's retain the Senate I think we'd see a worse nominee by HRC if she won (shudder). But not Sotomayor bad. If Trump gets in Garland is probably still the best we can hope for. Otherwise we'd get a Souter/Roberts turncoat type. Cruz, with even a 50 R Senate (so he veep being a tiebreaker) would get us a much better Scalia replacement. But getting a Thomas/Alito clone through with anything less than a 60 R Senate will be very hard thanks to the filibuster. The media will try to let the D's get away with trying to run the clock for 4 years on Cruz.
-
“There is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right and four justices do not,” Cox also said.
Nuff said! Muck this futhermucker!
-
That's why Congressional seats are only 2-6 years (and a lot of the Founders wanted the terms to be even shorter). When a representative/senator displeases the base, he may not be re-elected. Civics 101.
That sounds great as a theory, but in reality -- why are so many of those losers (especially senators) people who have been in the Congress for most of their adult lives?
-
Instead of staying home at the election, get someone to challenge them in the primary. Hell ol' Chuck Grassley might have to win a primary in Iowa, well that is the scuttlebutt anyways. Steve King has a primary challenger.
Very good, charby. I award you one gold star, and move you to the head of the class. =)
That sounds great as a theory, but in reality -- why are so many of those losers (especially senators) people who have been in the Congress for most of their adult lives?
Again, Civics 101 - the voters. We Them other people that don't vote good are the problem.