Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

?️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

With all due respect, that is just ridiculous. By that logic, the party controlling the Senate could just refuse to ever bring an opposition President's Supreme Court nominee up for consideration. Ever. For the entirety of the President's term.  And into perpetuity so long as the Senate and Executive branch are controlled by different parties. That you think that approach is consistent with the Senate's constitutional advice and consent obligation is frankly confounding. 

Similarly, the Senate taking the position in advance that they will reject whatever nominee the President puts forward, without even knowing the identity of that nominee, is also inconsistent with their constitutional duties. 

Finally, taking the position that the President should defer making a nomination for two years (under my hypothetical) on the grounds that the next election should determine who makes the nomination is an absurd denial of the fact that it is the outcome of the prior election that has determined who should make the nomination.

It may be ridiculous, but that is reality.  If there is going to be a shift in the court which will alter the direction of the court, you better have control of both the Senate and the White House.  Otherwise it is not happening in today's environment.  It really does not matter where they are at in their term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, timschochet said:

Fair enough. Do you agree that at SOME point it becomes reasonable to wait? For example I offered September. If Scalia died in September, is it reasonable to wait? 

No.  The President needs to nominate someone and the Senate needs to do their job.  Unless there is a clause in the Constitution that says parts of Article II are only in effect in non election years, and when the moon is in a certain stage, or when there is a certain party in one branch of government that isn't allied with a certain party in another branch of government of if the Justice that is being replaced was of one pursuasion, or a myriad of other qualifiers.  

 

There is no waiting.  There is the President and the Senate doing their job.

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

So basically, the Democrats did this exact same thing with Bush and the Republicans are doing turn about as 'fair play' in response this time. It's a joke to think the difference of 7 months vs 11 months is a factor. Both sides are being hypocritical, and with this appointment being more important than who gets elected President this coming term there is little-to-no hope in the GOP backing down with so much at stake. 

No the Democrats didn't do this.  Schumer argued to ACS that the Democrats should do this.  The Democrats may or may not have done it had another vacancy opened up (I doubt it, but it's possible).  It didn't.  What we do know is that Roberts and Alito were confirmed.  Not without a confirmation fight, but they were confirmed (and the Democrats didn't torpedo Miers, Republicans did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this "shift in the court" argument.  How the hell do you think the Court became a conservative majority in the first place?  Clarence Thomas, even with the Anita Hill stuff, replaced Thrugood Marshall for God's sake.  We'd have to replace Scalia with the reincarnated spirit of Eugene V. Debs to get close to the same ideological shift.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PlasmaDogPlasma said:

I've kind of been assuming that Obama is going to nominate a moderate. The reason would be to make it as politically difficult as possible for the GOP to obstruct.

Yeah this is my thought as well. I don't understand Jon Mx's argument/prediction that Obama has to appoint a liberal. 

Share this post


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

I've kind of been assuming that Obama is going to nominate a moderate. The reason would be to make it as politically difficult as possible for the GOP to obstruct.

Either that or target a politically advantageous demographic.  A Hispanic justice perhaps.  Or someone popular with Ohioans would be a brilliant move if there were such a person- could help both with the Senate majority and the presidential election in 2016.  Does LeBron have an interest in jurisprudence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole business about having to replace a conservative with a conservative is ideological BS.  Thurgood Marshall, one of the more liberal judges, was replaced by Clarence Thomas, very conservative in his votes, if not in words.  He has yet to utter a word from the bench! 

 

OOPS!  Didn't see your post Ramsay!  Thanks!

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxnews.com and Drudge still not really covering this.

Isn't that a bit worrisome to those of you who get a lot of your info from there?  They basically think you are a rube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of ways Obama could go here.  Depends what his goals are, I guess, and just how obstructionist he expects the GOP to be.  In some ways, it's kind of a non-story until he actually nominates someone.

Obviously, I'd prefer someone more libertarian leaning.  Specifically, someone who holds personal liberties in very high regard, especially as opposed to government interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Daywalker said:

Foxnews.com and Drudge still not really covering this.

Isn't that a bit worrisome to those of you who get a lot of your info from there?  They basically think you are a rube.

I don't know about Fox, but Drudge appears to be all over the "Scalia was assassinated" story.  So who's the rube now?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't know about Fox, but Drudge appears to be all over the "Scalia was assassinated" story.  So who's the rube now?

Michael Savage and Alex Jones are both on the story. So there must be something to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Yeah this is my thought as well. I don't understand Jon Mx's argument/prediction that Obama has to appoint a liberal. 

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't know about Fox, but Drudge appears to be all over the "Scalia was assassinated" story.  So who's the rube now?

 

Listen, I understand that this sort of speculation can be dangerous, but sometimes it's important.  79 year old fat men with stressful jobs who seem angry a lot don't just drop dead.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

Listen, I understand that this sort of speculation can be dangerous, but sometimes it's important.  79 year old fat men with stressful jobs who seem angry a lot don't just drop dead.

Assassinated by cannoli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

We considered assassinating Thomas but figured "how would anyone know?"

The chances republicans would undertake a prolonged Weekend at Bernie's strategy was too great a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

We considered assassinating Thomas but figured "how would anyone know?"

All it would take is for Bader Ginsburg to say "Hey Clarence, mind running down the street and grabbing me some skittles?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pantagrapher said:

The chances republicans would undertake a prolonged Weekend at Bernie's strategy was too great a risk.

Come to think of it, are we really sure Thomas wasn't assassinated 25 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

Yeah this is my thought as well. I don't understand Jon Mx's argument/prediction that Obama has to appoint a liberal. 

Because Obama is a liberal and if successful would be the most important thing in his legacy.   The long term impact would be way bigger than even Obamacare.  There is very little chance Obama will cave to moderate Republicans.  He hasn't done it yet and he is not about to start now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Because Obama is a liberal and if successful would be the most important thing in his legacy.   The long term impact would be way bigger than even Obamacare.  There is very little chance Obama will cave to moderate Republicans.  He hasn't done it yet and he is not about to start now.  

Obama doesn't cave. You heard it here first, folks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama campaigned as, was elected as and has governed as a moderate and will nominate a moderate liberal.

That he is portrayed as some fringe left-wing idealogue is just an indictment on how loony the right has become.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Obama campaigned as, was elected as and has governed as a moderate and will nominate a moderate liberal.

That he is portrayed as some fringe left-wing idealogue is just an indictment on how loony the right has become.

Not to mention all the times they've blamed Obama for trouncing on the Constitution, and now what they're proposing is basically not only trouncing the Constitution but also wiping their ### with it beforehand and making sure the poo stains are specifically smudging out Article 3.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Because Obama is a liberal and if successful would be the most important thing in his legacy.   The long term impact would be way bigger than even Obamacare.  There is very little chance Obama will cave to moderate Republicans.  He hasn't done it yet and he is not about to start now.  

But this still makes no sense. If Obama nominates a liberal there is no chance it gets approved; therefore it would not be the "biggest thing he's ever done"; it would be a historical footnote like Fortas, Bork or Miers. Obama's only chance of getting a pick approved would be a centrist; otherwise he loses the chance altogether and his only effect is energizing Dems for the election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will probably nominate one of the Federal judges that was unanimously approved just to highlight how much these "strict interpreters of the Constitution" are willing to bend it to fit their political agenda.

Edited by bananafish
to add quotation marks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Republicans rather lose the upcoming Presidential election, plus the house and senate (which could happen if they act like a bunch of babies) than allow a liberal judge to take the seat?  Weird question because if that all happens they'd never get a conservative in there anyhow.  Sounds like they're ####ed either way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scoresman said:

Would Republicans rather lose the upcoming Presidential election, plus the house and senate (which could happen if they act like a bunch of babies) than allow a liberal judge to take the seat?  Weird question because if that all happens they'd never get a conservative in there anyhow.  Sounds like they're ####ed either way.  

Obviously this is why Obama had Scalia assassinated. Are you only discovering this now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

But this still makes no sense. If Obama nominates a liberal there is no chance it gets approved; therefore it would not be the "biggest thing he's ever done"; it would be a historical footnote like Fortas, Bork or Miers. Obama's only chance of getting a pick approved would be a centrist; otherwise he loses the chance altogether and his only effect is energizing Dems for the election. 

Obama is in better shape with a 4-4 tie than a centrist.  The key circircuit court which will decide the most of the important cases is strongly liberal.  Taking a chance a centrist may side with Kenedy on important issues like the use of executive orders would put in jeapordy obama's rules on things like immigration and climate change.  A 4-4 tie is as good as a win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msommer said:

Obviously this is why Obama had Scalia assassinated. Are you only discovering this now?

I'm a little slow on the uptake when it comes to politics.  I'm still waiting for proof of his birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PlasmaDogPlasma said:

Michael Savage and Alex Jones are both on the story. So there must be something to it.

Savage is an ###.  I have no idea why anyone listens to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scoresman said:

Would Republicans rather lose the upcoming Presidential election, plus the house and senate (which could happen if they act like a bunch of babies) than allow a liberal judge to take the seat?  Weird question because if that all happens they'd never get a conservative in there anyhow.  Sounds like they're ####ed either way.  

Allowing a liberal judge in would be fatal to conservative causes for decades to come.  So hell yes they should risk it, but they don't have to act like babies in doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Allowing a liberal judge in would be fatal to conservative causes for decades to come.  So hell yes they should risk it, but they don't have to act like babies in doing so. 

GB her, but Ginsburg is probably the next to go.  If Republicans are so confident that they will win the next election (as they seem to be), it's clearly not fatal for decades if they get to replace Ginsburg.  It cancels out in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a guess on my part, but I think the Republicans are just posturing here.  Obama will nominate someone, and the Republicans will either vote to approve (if a Moderate) or vote to reject if a Liberal.  I don't think they will filibuster, no matter what they are threatening now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

GB her, but Ginsburg is probably the next to go.  If Republicans are so confident that they will win the next election (as they seem to be), it's clearly not fatal for decades if they get to replace Ginsburg.  It cancels out in that case.

Assuming a Republican wins.  Ruth did liberals no favor by not retiring. But it will still be a bigger fight than even the Thonas hearings to replace her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Higgs said:

Just a guess on my part, but I think the Republicans are just posturing here.  Obama will nominate someone, and the Republicans will either vote to approve (if a Moderate) or vote to reject if a Liberal.  I don't think they will filibuster, no matter what they are threatening now.

Agreed.

They're making a show of it for now, but the GOP leaders know that trying to block for no particular reason will backfire on them in a huge way.

Obama should nominate a liberal. The court desperately needs it. Not like the GOP would shy away from nominating an extreme conservative like, say, Scalia.

Hopefully, thankfully, we will no longer have a court that finds a way to declare that corporations are people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Agreed.

They're making a show of it for now, but the GOP leaders know that trying to block for no particular reason will backfire on them in a huge way.

Obama should nominate a liberal. The court desperately needs it. Not like the GOP would shy away from nominating an extreme conservative like, say, Scalia.

Hopefully, thankfully, we will no longer have a court that finds a way to declare that corporations are people.

I don't have any problem with Liberals from a political standpoint.  I lean to the Conservative side but I have several liberal beliefs on issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage etc.  This is why I have voted for Liberals in the past, both in federal and local elections.

But when it comes to Liberals as judges, I have no use or tolerance for them.  A Liberal judge is usually someone who tries to legislate from the bench, and I want no part of that.  If you want to institute social justice on a particular issue do it the right way and pass a Law in the Congress.  

There doesn't need to be a Liberal or Conservative test when it comes to the Judicial. The test should be on how diligently they have adhered to their prescribed role in the process, which is merely to interpret the Laws that are passed elsewhere.  End of rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I don't have any problem with Liberals from a political standpoint.  I lean to the Conservative side but I have several liberal beliefs on issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage etc.  This is why I have voted for Liberals in the past, both in federal and local elections.

But when it comes to Liberals as judges, I have no use or tolerance for them.  A Liberal judge is usually someone who tries to legislate from the bench, and I want no part of that.  If you want to institute social justice on a particular issue do it the right way and pass a Law in the Congress.  

There doesn't need to be a Liberal or Conservative test when it comes to the Judicial. The test should be on how diligently they have adhered to their prescribed role in the process, which is merely to interpret the Laws that are passed elsewhere.  End of rant.

Yeah, that Scalia never tried to legislate from the bench. Only a liberal would ever do that :yes:

That guy was basically a Republican politician who was also a Supreme Court Justice.

Ideally, it wouldn't matter if a Supreme Court Justice was Liberal or Conservative, because they would look at every case objectively. But as we all know, this is impossible.

The court has been conservative for quite a while now, and have handed down some big decisions. Time to bring the SCOTUS into the 21st century IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I don't have any problem with Liberals from a political standpoint.  I lean to the Conservative side but I have several liberal beliefs on issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage etc.  This is why I have voted for Liberals in the past, both in federal and local elections.

But when it comes to Liberals as judges, I have no use or tolerance for them.  A Liberal judge is usually someone who tries to legislate from the bench, and I want no part of that.  If you want to institute social justice on a particular issue do it the right way and pass a Law in the Congress.  

There doesn't need to be a Liberal or Conservative test when it comes to the Judicial. The test should be on how diligently they have adhered to their prescribed role in the process, which is merely to interpret the Laws that are passed elsewhere.  End of rant.

The bolded is a common partisan fallacy. Liberal judges are no more or less "activist" than conservative judges - Scalia's huge body of jurisprudence being one of the best examples of this. Whether or not a judge is "legislating from the bench" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, subject to his own preconceived notions as to what is and is not "judicial activism" in a given case. Generally speaking, an "activist judge" is one who has ruled unfavorably to those who have deemed him an "activist" and nothing more.

 

Edited by CletiusMaximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Don Quixote said:

GB her, but Ginsburg is probably the next to go.  If Republicans are so confident that they will win the next election (as they seem to be), it's clearly not fatal for decades if they get to replace Ginsburg.  It cancels out in that case.

Ginsburg will outlast us all. 

 

Edited by CletiusMaximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The bolded is a common partisan fallacy. Liberal judges are no more or less "activist" than conservative judges - Scalia's huge body of jurisprudence being one of the best examples of this. Whether or not a judge is "legislating from the bench" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, subject to his own preconceived notions as to what is and is not "judicial activism" in a given case. Generally speaking, an "activist judge" is one who has ruled unfavorably to those who have deemed him an "activist" and nothing more.

 

We've had debates on judicial activism before and it's a waste of time because everyone who is debating is working off of a different definition of activism. 

In any event, I'm not sure Scalia is the battleground judicial conservatives want to pick in the "legislating from the bench" debate. I think Scalia was generally supported the rule of law and limited judicial "activism" (a good thing as far as I'm concerned), but as DW eloquently posted in one of these threads, he often strayed from his stated principles as well. For example, his opinion in Boyle where he created the government contractor defense out of whole cloth was the very type of thing he claimed to hate when liberals do it. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2016 at 8:00 PM, huthut said:

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.

In their defense, this has previously only applied to white presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Don Quixote said:

GB her, but Ginsburg is probably the next to go.  If Republicans are so confident that they will win the next election (as they seem to be), it's clearly not fatal for decades if they get to replace Ginsburg.  It cancels out in that case.

I'm very disappointed in Ginsburg for not retiring last year. She'll have done the country a great disservice if a Republican wins.

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.