Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 15, 2016, 11:57:13 AM
-
Separating this out from the Scalia topic.
I'm seeing some pretty scary names as "likely" nominees. For those familiar with CA, it includes our AG, Kamala Harris, who would eliminate the 2nd Amendment if she could wave her wand. I heard an interview this morning that spells out why she might actually be Obama's first or second choice, because of all his support for her in the past. She's apparently known as "the female Obama".
Also interesting, the synopses from the left-leaning URL below all revolve around the race, orientation and general "diversity" of the nominee vs their actual skills and ability.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/14/us/politics/potential-supreme-court-nominees.html
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/23/2044771/ten-potential-democratic-supreme-court-nominees-who-arent-named-sri-srinivasan/
-
Also interesting, the synopses from the left-leaning URL below all revolve around the race, orientation and general "diversity" of the nominee vs their actual skills and ability.
I'm shocked. So shocked.
Someone may have to mansplain to them that the law is not supposed to be tribal.
-
I'm shocked. So shocked.
I know, right? :laugh:
-
Of the 300+ million people in this country, why do we end up with a list of degenerates like this? [barf]
-
Of the 300+ million people in this country, why do we end up with a list of degenerates like this? [barf]
No offense to our resident lawyers but when your pool of prospects is limited to lawyers the potential for choosing a degenerate is much higher
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I heard Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) mentioned as a possibility this morning. [barf] She's a nanny-statist if there ever was one. Since she's a former prosecutor, that's supposed to make it okay for Republicans.
-
Would Obama even think of nominating himself?
-
Would Obama even think of nominating himself?
Read somewhere that the plan if the Rs shut down the nomination process through the election, Hillary wins and nominates Obama. Wouldn't get confirmed, but it would be entertaining.
-
No offense to our resident lawyers but when your pool of prospects is limited to lawyers the potential for choosing a degenerate is much higher
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is being a lawyer a requirement? Seriously, is there a legal requirement for a SC judge to have a law degree? Just curious.
-
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
There are no qualifications or restrictions spelled out in the Constitution as to who can or cannot be a Supreme Court Justice.
-
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
There are no qualifications or restrictions spelled out in the Constitution as to who can or cannot be a Supreme Court Justice.
That is what I thought. OK, sign me up.
-
That is what I thought. OK, sign me up.
Me too; I'll be the liberal waiting for Ginsberg's spot.
-
No offense to our resident lawyers but when your pool of prospects is limited to lawyers the potential for choosing a degenerate is much higher
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
None taken. The majority of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name. :lol:
The real problem in the court system, much like in the military officer corps, the best rarely get promoted to the top. The political savvy do. The best do their job well, and don't worry about making decisions based on how it will impact their future job opportunities.
-
How about this for a twist, Hillary gets nominated. >:D
-
How about Trump's sister?
-
Chris or Ned?
-
How long before Mcconell and the R's sell us out?
I say the republicans fold before June and agree to hearings.
-
It was supposedly something Trump said in the past. There is apparently a large volume of Trump sound bytes out there as the man has been in the news in one way or the other since the 80's. I am not sure how much that will affect the current primary race, but the Democrats could probably make a few commercials with only Trump as the actor.
-
How long before Mcconell and the R's sell us out?
I say the republicans fold before June and agree to hearings.
At the risk of being piled on, and maybe I'm making an error in my strategic analysis, but I think that it's a mistake for R's to immediately come out with a blanket statement that they will not even consider an SC nomination this year.
That's not to say I would want them to do so to capitulate and get us a liberal, but by saying they won't consider anyone, from an optics point of view, they are painting themselves into a corner. I think they are making an error with their blanket statement. It makes them again look obstructionist. They can consider a nomination without approving it. Then if Obama nominates a Kamala Harris or similar, while they will still take heat for saying "no", I think it would a lesser hit than not considering anyone at all.
Also, when the R's want to get someone nominated in the last year of an R administration, they'll have the "you didn't want that when the shoe was on the other foot" thing hanging over their head. I can certainly see the argument for still saying "no nominations", especially given my Bork example above (so just doing what the dems have set precedent for in the past), but I still think considering a nominee(s), from the optics POV, would make them look a little less partisan, and Obama more partisan when he nominates flaming libs. Certainly this could backfire if he nominates a left-leaning moderate.
-
Chris or Ned?
Boohauer. Because nothing says "Judicial Temperament" like riding to work on a D8 Cat with the COTUS and BoR laser-etched on to the dozer blade.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redpowermagazine.com%2Fforums%2Fuploads%2Fmonthly_05_2011%2Fpost-42959-0-33344800-1306224607.jpg&hash=2e83f20c502460c24f0431b4fb08b8d48e09c9ce)
"Justice Boomhauer is ready to hear your oral argument."
-
At the risk of being piled on, and maybe I'm making an error in my strategic analysis, but I think that it's a mistake for R's to immediately come out with a blanket statement that they will not even consider an SC nomination this year.
Agreed. To me it sounded like McConnell telegraphed that he would push to confirm whatever turd obama nominates.
-
Ben, recall also that President Reagan as a lame duck nominated Justice Kennedy, who was subsequently approved by a Democratic Congress. I agree that blanket statements, while no doubt appealing to the conservative base, does not advance long-term goals.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
-
Ben, recall also that President Reagan as a lame duck nominated Justice Kennedy, who was subsequently approved by a Democratic Congress. I agree that blanket statements, while no doubt appealing to the conservative base, does not advance long-term goals.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Kennedy wasn't the product, he was the result of Reagan putting forth an acceptable candidate to the Ds to salvage the Bork mess which was not an election year pick in the least.
-
Ben, recall also that President Reagan as a lame duck nominated Justice Kennedy, who was subsequently approved by a Democratic Congress. I agree that blanket statements, while no doubt appealing to the conservative base, does not advance long-term goals.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
But the Kennedy appointment came after the other two candidates were not confirmed. That process started in July of 87 and completed in November of 87, therefore not an election year nomination.
-
At the risk of being piled on, and maybe I'm making an error in my strategic analysis, but I think that it's a mistake for R's to immediately come out with a blanket statement that they will not even consider an SC nomination this year.
I disagree.
That's giving ground and compromising before the battle has even begun.
No hearings, no vote is the staring point.
The Democrats should have to put up an acceptable candidates name before the R's even flirt with the possibility of an Obama nomination.
Roll over for Obama on this one and the base will sit at home.
-
I disagree.
That's giving ground and compromising before the battle has even begun.
No hearings, no vote is the staring point.
The Democrats should have to put up an acceptable candidates name before the R's even flirt with the possibility of an Obama nomination.
Roll over for Obama on this one and the base will sit at home.
As I said, I can certainly see the argument for this tactic, but then R's can't complain if the Dems do it under a Republican president.
-
As I said, I can certainly see the argument for this tactic, but then R's can't complain if the Dems do it under a Republican president.
They already did. This is turn-about.
-
They already did. This is turn-about.
I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record. Can you offer a link?
Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.
-
Is one actually required to be alive to be a SC Justice? I mean, can't we just prop him up in the chair and assume he abstains in everything?
-
I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record. Can you offer a link?
Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.
Even if they did, and as pointed out Bork doesn't really count since another person was nominated after, I guess part of my argument is that it's not in the spirit of the constitution for either side to say, "no nominations".
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the language is actually pretty simple: The President has the right to nominate. Congress has a right to deny. That's pretty much it. So as per the constitution, let the President nominate, and then either accept or deny. If it's at the end of a President's term, then denying, by default, moves it over to the next President.
Also, just to be clear on where I stand, I wish there were nine Scalias on the SC.
-
In 1960 Senate Resolution 334 passed a Dem controlled Senate.
Here is the jest of the deal.
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
-
The other thing that is interesting is if Congressional Republicans think they will get a better nominee from either President Clinton or Sanders, if the nomination is pushed off for the incoming President.
-
In 1960 Senate Resolution 334 passed a Dem controlled Senate.
Here is the jest of the deal.
That one might be a separate argument, since in some ways recess appointments circumvent power granted to Congress via the Constitution. Just guessing, I don't know for sure.
It would certainly be interesting to see what happens if Obama tries that now. I think he has, what - two weeks if he wants to get someone in right now?
-
That one might be a separate argument, since in some ways recess appointments circumvent power granted to Congress via the Constitution. Just guessing, I don't know for sure.
It would certainly be interesting to see what happens if Obama tries that now. I think he has, what - two weeks if he wants to get someone in right now?
Less than 3 days right now.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/2016_schedule.htm
-
Is one actually required to be alive to be a SC Justice? I mean, can't we just prop him up in the chair and assume he abstains in everything?
They pretty much did that for Byrd in the Senate- they carried him in and propped him up in his seat and helped him vote. I imagine he was a senator up until the point where he started to smell really bad.
-
I have heard that, and would love to find it in any credible record. Can you offer a link?
Kinda like having Obama in the well of the Senate, bitching about the debt limit increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14
Senate Democrats used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by Republican President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees were filibustered by the minority Democrats: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, and Janice Rogers Brown.
-
The D's have been playing hardball and kicking us in the jimmies every chance they get and you guys want to play nice.
We start at "no more SC nominations for Obama" and he can woo the R's into changing their minds by nominating someone reasonable.
This is war by other means. Start acting like it.
-
Joe Biden on how an election year SC vacancy should be handled:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/835bf3fd-874d-4ed2-9a03-1e7f79839384
-
I heard Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) mentioned as a possibility this morning. [barf] She's a nanny-statist if there ever was one. Since she's a former prosecutor, that's supposed to make it okay for Republicans.
Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor, too. [barf]
-
The D's have been playing hardball and kicking us in the jimmies every chance they get and you guys want to play nice.
We start at "no more SC nominations for Obama" and he can woo the R's into changing their minds by nominating someone reasonable.
This is war by other means. Start acting like it.
If you're going to reach across the aisle you better be wearing brass knuckles.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/biden-argued-against-weighing-supreme-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Biden in 1992 on the subject. Of course now he is backtracking and trying to say that isn't what he meant. :facepalm:
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/biden-argued-against-weighing-supreme-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Biden in 1992 on the subject. Of course now he is backtracking and trying to say that isn't what he meant. :facepalm:
Of course that isn't what he meant. What he meant was the Democrats ought to use any excuse to block a Republican nomineee, but Democrat nominees ought to be approved quickly.
I completely understand what he meant. He was, of course, lying when he laid out a principle for denying any nominations. It was just partisan politics and now he's angry the other side is finally playing by the same rules.