Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

?️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread

Recommended Posts

As most folks age they naturally get a little more conservative and I don't have a huge hatred towards any of those 3 I mentioned.

That doesn't seem true of Supreme Court Justices. A number became more liberal as they aged (Warren, Blackmun, Souter, Kennedy, arguably O'Connor -- we can include Posner, though he didn't make it to the Supreme Court). I can't really think of any that got more conservative. Maybe Scalia, but he was pretty conservative to start with.

This.

I have no doubt that supposedly conservative appointees are more likely to trend liberal over their terms than the other way around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly. They don't have to. They've got the numbers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes to find out if they just rushed or if they honestly think they don't have the votes to defeat Sri (or someone like him). They were always going to try to delay this, but their tactics are mind bogglingly bad.

What they should have done is waited for Obama to nominate whoever he nominates. You reject that nomination. That takes 3-4 months. That takes you into the SCOTUS summer recess. Then you can credibly invoke the "Thurmond rule", which as has been pointed out, isn't a rule. But you say that if Obama would have nominated someone acceptable, you would have confirmed.

The only issue is Sri is pretty non-controversial. But you find some article or opinion he's written or some client he's represented and hold that out as a reason. Every lawyer ever has something that you could pin this on.

The added benefit to all of that is you can release Pat Toomey or whoever looks like they might lose their Senate seat, and you can still defeat the appointment. There are 5-7 Republican Senators who are running for re-election in states that Democrats will be favored to win at the top of the ticket. By playing obstructionist and claiming the won't vote on anyone, it's going to hurt those guys. I guess they think they're saving them from having to vote on this. Those senators are probably screwed either way.

Sri is a moderate and Obama nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. He was confirmed with a vote of 97-0, including votes by Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. If Obama nominates him the Republicans are going to be in a really tough spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly. They don't have to. They've got the numbers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes to find out if they just rushed or if they honestly think they don't have the votes to defeat Sri (or someone like him). They were always going to try to delay this, but their tactics are mind bogglingly bad.

What they should have done is waited for Obama to nominate whoever he nominates. You reject that nomination. That takes 3-4 months. That takes you into the SCOTUS summer recess. Then you can credibly invoke the "Thurmond rule", which as has been pointed out, isn't a rule. But you say that if Obama would have nominated someone acceptable, you would have confirmed.

The only issue is Sri is pretty non-controversial. But you find some article or opinion he's written or some client he's represented and hold that out as a reason. Every lawyer ever has something that you could pin this on.

The added benefit to all of that is you can release Pat Toomey or whoever looks like they might lose their Senate seat, and you can still defeat the appointment. There are 5-7 Republican Senators who are running for re-election in states that Democrats will be favored to win at the top of the ticket. By playing obstructionist and claiming the won't vote on anyone, it's going to hurt those guys. I guess they think they're saving them from having to vote on this. Those senators are probably screwed either way.

Great post. Hopefully Obama nominates Sri and the Republicans can't find any dirt on him. In that case I think the logical thing to do is confirm him rather than risk alienating to voters and, more importantly, risk that someone far more liberal comes in should the Dems win the election. And let's remember - the Dems are still prohibitive favorites right now to win.

My prediction is that Obama ####s this up and nominates someone more liberal, and we end up going 15 months without a 9th Justice on the Court. Keep in mind the last time this somewhat similar type of thing happened, in 1968, LBJ overplayed his hand going with his cronies and the whole thing backfired on him.

Edited by Higgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama knows this will be a chess match. He's going to nominate someone that will pit republicans against each other. I don't know who or how that will happen but he's not just going to nominate someone who has no chance of being confirmed unless that's part of a bigger picture. He needs to put pressure on the senators who are running for president by weakening them if they choose obstruction no matter the nominee. I feel like this turn of events gives Obama much more power in determining the outcome of the election than he had 48 hours ago. Make it politically expedient for a candidate to support his nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GREENVILLE, S.C. Ohio Gov. John Kasich reiterated on Sunday his wish that President Obama does not nominate a replacement for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, saying the 2016 election would allow the public to have a unique role in choosing his successor.

"I just think at a time when the country is so divided, it would just be great if the president didn't send somebody forward and we had an election," Kasich told Chuck Todd on Meet The Press Sunday. "And then everybody would be clear about what they want in the next Supreme Court justice. But I guess it's not going to go that way."

"Then the people actually have had some say," Kasich added. "It's really kind of a unique thing when you think about it, Chuck. It's unique to say that the public itself is going to have sort of an indirect vote on who's going to be a Supreme Court justice."

The people directly voted for Obama - and his ability to nominate justices - in 2012.

Just when Kasich starts to gain some traction as the *sane* Republican...he goes and steps into the INsane again. Disappointed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie - you could also argue that s good chess play would be for Obama to push the envelope here knowing that if he loses, the Republicans come off as looking like obstructionists, helping Hillary who is already a huge favorite, and in the end getting an even more liberal Justice appointed next January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Calcaterra @craigcalcaterra

On what basis apart from base obstructionism would the GOP block Sri Srinivasan? Clerked for O'Connor. Confirmed 97-0 to DC Circuit.

3:48 PM - 13 Feb 2016

He also worked in the office of the Solicitor General during George W. Bush's administration.

I don't believe he will nominate Sri, too many questions about his positions. I still see one of his African-American appointees to the DC circuit as the most likely nominee. Obama is looking at legacy right now, and the best way to insure his legacy with his buddies is to nominate liberal African-American. He is not going to risk a moderate who could end up more on the conservative side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Calcaterra @craigcalcaterra

On what basis apart from base obstructionism would the GOP block Sri Srinivasan? Clerked for O'Connor. Confirmed 97-0 to DC Circuit.

3:48 PM - 13 Feb 2016

He also worked in the office of the Solicitor General during George W. Bush's administration.

I don't believe he will nominate Sri, too many questions about his positions. I still see one of his African-American appointees to the DC circuit as the most likely nominee. Obama is looking at legacy right now, and the best way to insure his legacy with his buddies is to nominate liberal African-American. He is not going to risk a moderate who could end up more on the conservative side.

I don't think the Senate is going to confirm anyone; so, I don't think there is much to risk. It depends which way Obama wants to go. Sri would show the Senate as being unreasonable and rejecting a fairly moderate candidate. SCOTUSblog wrote that Loretta Lynch is the likely candidate because rejecting her would rile the base up the most. I could see the argument for either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly. They don't have to. They've got the numbers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes to find out if they just rushed or if they honestly think they don't have the votes to defeat Sri (or someone like him). They were always going to try to delay this, but their tactics are mind bogglingly bad.

What they should have done is waited for Obama to nominate whoever he nominates. You reject that nomination. That takes 3-4 months. That takes you into the SCOTUS summer recess. Then you can credibly invoke the "Thurmond rule", which as has been pointed out, isn't a rule. But you say that if Obama would have nominated someone acceptable, you would have confirmed.

The only issue is Sri is pretty non-controversial. But you find some article or opinion he's written or some client he's represented and hold that out as a reason. Every lawyer ever has something that you could pin this on.

The added benefit to all of that is you can release Pat Toomey or whoever looks like they might lose their Senate seat, and you can still defeat the appointment. There are 5-7 Republican Senators who are running for re-election in states that Democrats will be favored to win at the top of the ticket. By playing obstructionist and claiming the won't vote on anyone, it's going to hurt those guys. I guess they think they're saving them from having to vote on this. Those senators are probably screwed either way.

Yeah, this is sort of where I'm at. You're going to do what you can to delay/reject, I get it. But what is the upside for announcing you're going to delay/reject before even knowing who the nominee is? You're pretty much admitting that you're an obstructionist attempting to thwart constitutional process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly. They don't have to. They've got the numbers. I'd like to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes to find out if they just rushed or if they honestly think they don't have the votes to defeat Sri (or someone like him). They were always going to try to delay this, but their tactics are mind bogglingly bad.

What they should have done is waited for Obama to nominate whoever he nominates. You reject that nomination. That takes 3-4 months. That takes you into the SCOTUS summer recess. Then you can credibly invoke the "Thurmond rule", which as has been pointed out, isn't a rule. But you say that if Obama would have nominated someone acceptable, you would have confirmed.

The only issue is Sri is pretty non-controversial. But you find some article or opinion he's written or some client he's represented and hold that out as a reason. Every lawyer ever has something that you could pin this on.

The added benefit to all of that is you can release Pat Toomey or whoever looks like they might lose their Senate seat, and you can still defeat the appointment. There are 5-7 Republican Senators who are running for re-election in states that Democrats will be favored to win at the top of the ticket. By playing obstructionist and claiming the won't vote on anyone, it's going to hurt those guys. I guess they think they're saving them from having to vote on this. Those senators are probably screwed either way.

Sri is a moderate and Obama nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. He was confirmed with a vote of 97-0, including votes by Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. If Obama nominates him the Republicans are going to be in a really tough spot.

Not only did Ted vote for him, he apparently was very positive towards Sri's nomination. I think they worked together at some point, on the Fourth Circuit as clerks maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he really wants to piss off conservatives, might as well go all the way. Obama should pardon Mumia Abu Jamal and then nominate him to the Supreme Court.

Why would he want to piss off conservatives?

Why do we want to go nearly 18 months with only 8 Justices?

I was trying to be amusing.

But in truth so many conservatives, like Rubio, have shouted for years that Obama is a radical who is trying to transform the country that sometimes I just want him to actually do something radical just to make their heads explode.

I seriously despise your politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he really wants to piss off conservatives, might as well go all the way. Obama should pardon Mumia Abu Jamal and then nominate him to the Supreme Court.

Why would he want to piss off conservatives?

Why do we want to go nearly 18 months with only 8 Justices?

I was trying to be amusing.

But in truth so many conservatives, like Rubio, have shouted for years that Obama is a radical who is trying to transform the country that sometimes I just want him to actually do something radical just to make their heads explode.

I seriously despise your politics.
Well having read your posts I'm pretty sure the feelings mutual. However for all I know you're a good guy despite that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting notion that I just read - the senate is currently adjourned for 10 days - from Feb 12 to Feb 22. That is technically long enough for Obama to make a recess appointment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to carry this discussion further for a moment. Traditionally when the public votes, it's not about the Supreme Court. Its way down the list on issues: the economy is usually first, then national security, etc.

Now if, as expected, Obama nominates somebody, and if, as expected, the Senate does not confirm, will the public suddenly decide for perhaps the first time ever to vote on this issue? And could it be simplified on either side to having the public vote on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? (I can absolutely see both sides do this: Hillary or Bernie would say, "Vote for me or you're going to lose your right to an abortion or your right to marry who you want, etc." and the Republican saying "Vote for me or you're going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, etc." Will voters actually decide based on these issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to carry this discussion further for a moment. Traditionally when the public votes, it's not about the Supreme Court. Its way down the list on issues: the economy is usually first, then national security, etc.

Now if, as expected, Obama nominates somebody, and if, as expected, the Senate does not confirm, will the public suddenly decide for perhaps the first time ever to vote on this issue? And could it be simplified on either side to having the public vote on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? (I can absolutely see both sides do this: Hillary or Bernie would say, "Vote for me or you're going to lose your right to an abortion or your right to marry who you want, etc." and the Republican saying "Vote for me or you're going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, etc." Will voters actually decide based on these issues?

That's exactly where my head is at. Scalia's death opened up an entire new front in the election battle. Prior to this the key issues were immigration and foreign policy. Now the domestic issues come in big time. Such an amazing 9 months ahead of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who does this benefit? That's the question. My gut tells me it benefits the establishment candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who does this benefit? That's the question. My gut tells me it benefits the establishment candidates.

Maybe on the Democratic side.

But on the Republican side, some of these guys need to drop out or it might not matter. And right now that doesn't seem very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting notion that I just read - the senate is currently adjourned for 10 days - from Feb 12 to Feb 22. That is technically long enough for Obama to make a recess appointment...

Thought recess appointments had to be confirmed after Congress is back in session or else they're removed from office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich and Carson are out soon. And then I think Bush blows himself up in the hopes that Trump catches some of the shrapnel. And then it gets real interesting. Who drops out first - Rubio or Cruz? I think it's Cruz, because I believe a lot of Jeb's support goes to Rubio and the establishment rallies around him. After that it's a dog fight that goes right down to the wire between Trump and Rubio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm available.

We do technically share an alma mater with former chief justices Berger now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to be the guy Obama nominates. The lengths the right is going to go to in trying to assassinate the nominee's character will be mind-boggling.

Just about every Supreme Court nominee in the last 30 years has been put through the wringer, even when the stakes are lower. I don't think this will be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich and Carson are out soon. And then I think Bush blows himself up in the hopes that Trump catches some of the shrapnel. And then it gets real interesting. Who drops out first - Rubio or Cruz? I think it's Cruz, because I believe a lot of Jeb's support goes to Rubio and the establishment rallies around him. After that it's a dog fight that goes right down to the wire between Trump and Rubio.

I think Bush is in it for the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.
That's certainly the rhetoric being thrown around. Can they keep it up for nine months? I guess crazier things have happened but I can't think of any.

Republicans are shaping up to lose the Senate and Supreme Court and fail to re-take the Presidency. All three branches at once. I don't want to be hyperbolic but have the stakes ever been higher?

Better buy stock in popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.

Meh, let's see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

I didn't think "sore loser" could be a legitimate job title in perpetuity, but you seem confident and are most likely smarter than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Think you're getting your hopes up a little too high my man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats need 30 seats to re-take the House. Difficult, but not impossible with an energized base and Bernie at the top of the ticket.

Think you're getting your hopes up a little too high my man.
Yeah, looks like 4-5 Senate seats and maybe 15 House might be the best case scenario, but still, one can dream.

I have my Republican boss leaning Bernie if Trump is the nominee. Can't be the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to carry this discussion further for a moment. Traditionally when the public votes, it's not about the Supreme Court. Its way down the list on issues: the economy is usually first, then national security, etc.

Now if, as expected, Obama nominates somebody, and if, as expected, the Senate does not confirm, will the public suddenly decide for perhaps the first time ever to vote on this issue? And could it be simplified on either side to having the public vote on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? (I can absolutely see both sides do this: Hillary or Bernie would say, "Vote for me or you're going to lose your right to an abortion or your right to marry who you want, etc." and the Republican saying "Vote for me or you're going to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, etc." Will voters actually decide based on these issues?

It is a stronger argument for the GOP - because the Dems won't actually lose something here, the court won't get more conservative even if the GOP win, but it will get more liberal if the Dems win.

But, this will be the second most important issue, because both parties will make it a key issue. It's rather straightforward so voters will understand the differences quite easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read on CNN that since 1975, no nominee has waited for a confirmation more than 108 days from the time he or she was selected.

Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.

This would be an abdication of their constitutional duty. They apparently have no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.

Your turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean Republican, but im sorry, I find it hilarious that some of the Republicans are talking nonsense about the nomination.

"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate,"

"I believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the American people have spoken by electing a new president."

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," McConnell said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

My message to them? GTFO. You cant be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.
You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.

Your turn.

When one side gets on their high horse and acts shocked at the way the other side is acting, it is beyond silly especially when we know it is exactly what they would have done. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics. The media is about 90% liberals, so we already know who will win the spin war and there will be huge pressure to cave. The only real ace in the hole that will be tough to overcome is Obama's support of the filibuster and Obama's vote against two superbly qualified justices as a Senator. Obama made his partisan bed when he was Senator running for President, and it will come back to bite him, assuming the GOP can properly package the message. Right now they are failing miserably.

If I was the Senate, I would not announce my intentions. I would sit back and wait and see how Obama acts and who he nominates and then take action to try to defeat the nomination. The GOP needed to dial back their rhetoric, come up with a well-reasoned unified message, and then act on it.

This battle is the most important battle in politics since Reagan vs. Carter in terms of the impact it will have on the next several decades of how our government will either be restrained or allowed to grow endlessly. It is not a battle that will be won or lost on some highly hypocritical arguement trying to shame the other side into backing down. It is a battle which must be fought. Unfortunately for the side who supposedly are for limited government, the politicians on their side are clueless at how to act.

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because both sides do it - is not an excuse to keep doing it.

 

 

In my view, it is not acceptable when the Dems do it, and its not acceptable when the GOP does it.

 

Its time for everyone to grow up, and act responsibly, and do the job they were elected to do - or get out of the way and let someone else do it.  Both sides are guilty - so there should be no reason for finger pointing.

 

Federal Judges should be vetted for competence and extremism.  Other than that, Supreme Court Justices should be vetted for any preconceived notions.  (This is one area where I disagree with Sanders - I don't believe there should be a "litmus" test on any issue.  I want judges who will look at the facts of a given case, and interpret the constitution in light of those facts.  If ti was up to me, I would have 9 moderates, who might lean in any direction given the case, and issues involved.  Leave politics for the executive and legislative branches.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Republicans (politicians and pundits) that I've seen on FOX and at the Debates are idiots. Why bother trying to show the world how butthurt you still are about Obama winning by trying to deny or diminish his right as POTUS to nominate Judges?  Don't they realize how lame the whole "well...let's let the American people decide" rhetoric is? If you're telling me that Chuckie Shumer is a #### head and then you're using Shumer's rhetoric to validate your position....doesn't that make you a #### head as well?

Let the world know that he has every right to nominate someone, that you'll get right on it....and THEN FREEZE HIM OUT.  Play prevent.  Sorry POTUS, we've got a couple of recesses here....and then keep a few Senators in D.C. to readjourn if he wants to lay a recess appointment. The system gives you a perfectly valid and (persumably) legal way to skirt this issue.....why delegitimize the position that you are so desperately trying to win by saying he should wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jon_mx said:

 

 

I have always thought that when the first of the five Rs on the court stepped down, Repubs in the Senate would filibuster any Democratic-nominated candidate forever, leaving the court at eight justices. It's what I fully expect here unless and until the media calls them on their obstruction. These are the same maniacs willing to shut down the entire federal government. One seat on SCOTUS is chump change to them by comparison.

The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.

You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.



Your turn.

When one side gets on their high horse and acts shocked at the way the other side is acting, it is beyond silly especially when we know it is exactly what they would have done. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics. The media is about 90% liberals, so we already know who will win the spin war and there will be huge pressure to cave. The only real ace in the hole that will be tough to overcome is Obama's support of the filibuster and Obama's vote against two superbly qualified justices as a Senator. Obama made his partisan bed when he was Senator running for President, and it will come back to bite him, assuming the GOP can properly package the message. Right now they are failing miserably.

If I was the Senate, I would not announce my intentions. I would sit back and wait and see how Obama acts and who he nominates and then take action to try to defeat the nomination. The GOP needed to dial back their rhetoric, come up with a well-reasoned unified message, and then act on it.

This battle is the most important battle in politics since Reagan vs. Carter in terms of the impact it will have on the next several decades of how our government will either be restrained or allowed to grow endlessly. It is not a battle that will be won or lost on some highly hypocritical arguement trying to shame the other side into backing down. It is a battle which must be fought. Unfortunately for the side who supposedly are for limited government, the politicians on their side are clueless at how to act.

I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2016 at 11:44 AM, Rirruto said:

I'm kind of surprised the Republicans are handling this so poorly.

Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the argument "the American people should have a say in this, so lets wait until after the election". The American people did have a say, they re-elected Obama in 2012. That is literally the American peoples' will for 2012-2016. Where is the threshold where you need to wait until the next election? If he died 6 months ago, would the senate approve someone? A year ago? I am pretty sure presidents are elected to serve 4 year terms, not 3 years and whatever the opposition deems fair.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Nomination for Kanye West here, guy is a genius and belongs in this conversation.

I second. Maybe it means he'll stop making #### music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.