Author Topic: Potential SC Nominees  (Read 5448 times)

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47,714
  • I'm an Extremist!
Potential SC Nominees
« 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/
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,153
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2016, 12:20:04 PM »

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.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47,714
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2016, 12:22:48 PM »

I'm shocked. So shocked.

I know, right?  :laugh:

"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

brimic

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,270
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2016, 12:52:23 PM »
Of the 300+ million people in this country, why do we end up with a list of degenerates like this? [barf]
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

"AK47's belong in the hands of soldiers mexican drug cartels"-
Barack Obama

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2016, 01:44:19 PM »
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
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,498
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2016, 02:02:48 PM »
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.
"It's good, though..."

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2016, 04:20:47 PM »
Would Obama even think of nominating himself?
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,448
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2016, 04:33:43 PM »
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, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,415
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2016, 04:34:07 PM »
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.
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2016, 04:49:21 PM »
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.
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,415
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2016, 05:16:50 PM »
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.
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2016, 05:33:44 PM »
That is what I thought.  OK, sign me up.

Me too; I'll be the liberal waiting for Ginsberg's spot.

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,448
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2016, 07:31:59 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 10:17:42 PM by Chris »
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2016, 07:48:24 AM »
How about this for a twist, Hillary gets nominated. >:D
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2016, 09:58:50 AM »
How about Trump's sister? 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2016, 10:06:40 AM »
Chris or Ned?
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2016, 10:17:00 AM »
How long before Mcconell and the R's sell us out?

I say the republicans fold before June and agree to hearings.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2016, 10:17:35 AM »
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.  
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47,714
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2016, 10:56:38 AM »
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.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2016, 11:01:37 AM »
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.


"Justice Boomhauer is ready to hear your oral argument."
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

brimic

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,270
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2016, 11:02:02 AM »
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.
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

"AK47's belong in the hands of soldiers mexican drug cartels"-
Barack Obama

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,217
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2016, 11:19:03 AM »
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/
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,274
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2016, 11:30:17 AM »
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.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2016, 11:32:38 AM »
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.
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,883
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Potential SC Nominees
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2016, 12:15:02 PM »
Quote
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.

 

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.