What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

jon_mx said:
I was not freaking out or even saying it was a nefarious act.  I was pointing out Democrats did not respect agreements which have been in place for many decades so they could load the courts up.  Republicans passed that opportunity many many times and respected the long-standing traditions of the Senate.  There is zero reason for the GOP to keep getting rolled by Democrats.  All tools are on the table in this fight and Dems are complete hypocrites if they try to claim so high road.  
Click to expand...
The level of obstruction has been unprecedented. It started literally before he took office. He has over 100 administration officials waiting for confirmation. There were 68 judicial nominees blocked in the history of the country prior to Obama. He has had 79 blocked. Now who is respecting precedent? You're argument amounts to "no fair, he punched me back!"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

 
Jackstraw said:
The level of obstruction has been unprecedented. It started literally before he took office. He has over 100 administration officials waiting for confirmation. There were 68 judicial nominees blocked in the history of the country prior to Obama. He has had 79 blocked. Now who is respecting precedent? You're argument amounts to "no fair, he punched me back!"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
Click to expand...
My arguement is that the GOP would be really stupid to fight this fight with their hands tied behind their backs.  You keep hoping that the GOP will rollover for yet another one.  It ain't happening.  The stakes are way too high on this one.  The Dems have zero credibility of playing by the rules when it comes to the courts and are not going to sway anyone on some kind of principled argument.  It really ain't happening no matter how much spinning is involved. 

 
jon_mx said:
My arguement is that the GOP would be really stupid to fight this fight with their hands tied behind their backs.  You keep hoping that the GOP will rollover for yet another one.  It ain't happening.  The stakes are way too high on this one.  The Dems have zero credibility of playing by the rules when it comes to the courts and are not going to sway anyone on some kind of principled argument.  It really ain't happening no matter how much spinning is involved. 
Click to expand...
Roll over?  How did compromise because such a forbidden act?

 
jon_mx said:
My arguement is that the GOP would be really stupid to fight this fight with their hands tied behind their backs.  You keep hoping that the GOP will rollover for yet another one.  It ain't happening.  The stakes are way too high on this one.  The Dems have zero credibility of playing by the rules when it comes to the courts and are not going to sway anyone on some kind of principled argument.  It really ain't happening no matter how much spinning is involved. 
Click to expand...
It's like you didn't even read the post that you quoted.

 
dparker713 said:
Roll over?  How did compromise because such a forbidden act?
Click to expand...


If Obama puts up a nominee as conservative as Souter is liberal, then I agree, the GOP should confirm.  Other than that, they should stick to the direction which Biden articulated. 

 
the moops said:
It's like you didn't even read the post that you quoted.
Click to expand...


What is there to read?  We could go back and forth all day about who was worse and just keep spinning.  It is stupid to even argue, since we all know what games have been played over the last decades especially when it comes to the really big ticket items like the Borkings or Thomas Hearings or the nuclear option (all done by Democrats).  There is nothing to respond to or discuss.  It is pointless if we are all being honest about the situation. 

 
Seems weird to me that someone would complain about Borkings and the nuclear option.  The nuclear option limits Borkings.  If you ever expect Republicans to have a narrow majority in the Senate, you should like the nuclear option. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The whole "compromise choice" idea is just not the world we're living in.  The differences between the parties are too vast right now.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what a "compromise choice" is.  Seems to me that Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan all represent well-qualified jurists who were pretty much aligned with the mainstream of their respective party's judicial philosophy. 

Roberts got fairly significant bi-partisan report (the Democrat vote was 20 for 22 against).  The rest almost all went pretty strictly by party lines, but I imagine a lot of that was because Senators felt empowered to vote Nay while knowing the nominee would be confirmed anyway. 

 
Mr. President, an examination of the Senate's historic role in this confirmation process should begin with the political writings contemporaneous with the drafting and approval of the Constitution. In the Federalist, No. 76, in discussing the nomination process, Alexander Hamilton clearly defines the limits of the Senate's `advice and consent' power:

To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would . . . be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and . . . prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, personal attachment, or a view to popularity.

Clearly, a test of ideology and politics was not contemplated. Also, the very structure of the proposed government, and the relationship of each branch to the other, supports this view. The framers intended for three separate and independent branches of government. The judiciary was to be free from political influences, insulated from the whims of a changing majority and answerable only to the law and a public that expected the judicial branch to despense justice free from the taint of popular politics. Any attempt to deny confirmation on the basis of a philosophy, that is within the mainstream of American political and judicial thought, is an assault on this tripartite structure of government. It is clear under our form of government that the advice and consent role of the Senate in judicial nominations should not be politicized.

Mitch McConnell - 1990

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r101:1:./temp/~r101RJPOX1:e81742:

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I don't even know what a "compromise choice" is.  Seems to me that Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan all represent well-qualified jurists who were pretty much aligned with the mainstream of their respective party's judicial philosophy. 

Roberts got fairly significant bi-partisan report (the Democrat vote was 20 for 22 against).  The rest almost all went pretty strictly by party lines, but I imagine a lot of that was because Senators felt empowered to vote Nay while knowing the nominee would be confirmed anyway. 
Click to expand...


Well, we've since learned that Roberts is a socialist (as one of my co-workers announced last year after the healthcare decision), so its not surprising they like him on the left.

 
jon_mx said:
If Obama puts up a nominee as conservative as Souter is liberal, then I agree, the GOP should confirm.  Other than that, they should stick to the direction which Biden articulated. 
Click to expand...
No one thought Souter was liberal while he was being confirmed, hth,

 
dparker713 said:
No one thought Souter was liberal while he was being confirmed, hth,
Click to expand...
Not true at all   Rudman knew exactly what he was and he privately assured Democrats that he was their man particularly on the abortion issue  in fact, Joe Biden excitedly proclaimed to Rudman that he was right about Souter after his first pro-abortion ruling   Of course Rudman lied to his boss, the President about him   

 
McConnell just doubled down on their promise to (continue to) do nothing.

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

Washington (CNN)In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks.

The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House.

"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my Congress agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think it helps the Dems more than the GOP - if Clinton is running.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, GOP have outdrawn the Dems. If you leave an open spot on the SC, you have given the Dems more reason to turn out in November. The GOP are already motivated to replace a dem White House. So, can't see this as more motivating.
Click to expand...


This is correct. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I think the GOP just committed political suicide.
Click to expand...
How so?   If the GOP confirmed a liberal Justice to the bench, THAT would be political suicide.  They would have stabbed their entire base in the back.  I would never ever ever vote for a Reoublican again.  

 
jon_mx said:
How so?   If the GOP confirmed a liberal Justice to the bench, THAT would be political suicide.  They would have stabbed their entire base in the back.  I would never ever ever vote for a Reoublican again.  
Click to expand...
So a moderate is out of the question too?  Face it, they're just blocking anything Obama brings to them - in their own words.  Pathetic.

 
Don Quixote said:
That leaves out where Biden said he'd be open to hearings (and candidate would "enjoy his support") if the Senate were consulted, or Bush were to pick someone more moderate:
Click to expand...
No worries. There is no way Obama is going to consult with the Senate. Obama's idea of consulting is having a presser and stating his version of the constitution and demanding they support him. Then he will do an executive action indicating, "Hey I tried consulting with the Senate".

 
Amused to Death said:
So a moderate is out of the question too?  Face it, they're just blocking anything Obama brings to them - in their own words.  Pathetic.
Click to expand...
It is politics.  They are being honest instead of holding phonetic votes.  This is the most critical appointment in over 50 years.  The court already had 4 very radical leftists in the court.   The court could easily flip from a mostly libertarian/mildly conservative court to a radical leftist court.  It would be radically progressive with no chance to balance it.  The Democrats if in the same corner would behave the same.  As they should.  

 
jon_mx said:
It is politics.  They are being honest instead of holding phonetic votes.  This is the most critical appointment in over 50 years.  The court already had 4 very radical leftists in the court.   The court could easily flip from a mostly libertarian/mildly conservative court to a radical leftist court.  It would be radically progressive with no chance to balance it.  The Democrats if in the same corner would behave the same.  As they should.  
Click to expand...
So....a moderate's out of the question?

 
CBusAlex said:
Sure, but if the GOP ever wants to win elections again, at some point they're going to have to cast off the jon_mxes of the world and get back to serious governance.
Click to expand...
:lol:  . I am about as centrist as they come.  On immigration.  On guns. On trade.  On the budget. On regulations.  On foreign aid. On gay rights. I am not on the extreme side of any of those.  If so, list what you think my positions are.  If they lose me, they don't have a party.  

 
Amused to Death said:
So....a moderate's out of the question?
Click to expand...
If you could firmly establish he was truly a moderate, but it is difficult to know that prior to confirming.  If he would respect business/property rights, free speech, gun rights, reigning in the Executive branch, he/she could be somewhat liberal on social issues.  I just don't believe Obama would even consider one though.  He is looking for a stealth liberal. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott said:
No worries. There is no way Obama is going to consult with the Senate. Obama's idea of consulting is having a presser and stating his version of the constitution and demanding they support him. Then he will do an executive action indicating, "Hey I tried consulting with the Senate".
Click to expand...
He consulted with the Senate before picking Sotomayor and Kagan.

 
cobalt_27 said:
I think the GOP just committed political suicide.
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes any difference in terms of the Presidential race. At first I thought it would. It may still make a difference down ticket on Senate races. 

But in terms of the Presidency, it seems very likely that Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee. That changes everything. It overwhelms every issue from the Supreme Court to economics to foreign policy. Pretty much the only question going into November will be "Do you want Donald Trump to be the President of the United States?" All other issues are by the wayside. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't think it makes any difference in terms of the Presidential race. At first I thought it would. It may still make a difference down ticket on Senate races. 

But in terms of the Presidency, it seems very likely that Donald Trump is going to be the GOP nominee. That changes everything. It overwhelms every issue from the Supreme Court to economics to foreign policy. Pretty much the only question going into November will be "Do you want Donald Trump to be the President of the United States?" All other issues are by the wayside. 
Click to expand...


I think it makes Trump less likely to win the GOP nomination.  I know I do not trust Trump to nominate a good conservative judge.  Trump is clueless on the court.  I really have no idea what kind of crazy he would pick. 

 
jon_mx said:
When Democrats controlled it.  Obama has not reached out to Republicans yet.  Telling them they can ride in the back seat is not reaching out. 
Click to expand...


The officials portrayed Mr. Obama's outreach as unprecedented, saying he consulted with each and every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the selection process.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/from-40-to-9-to-1-the-selection-of-sonia-sotomayor/

Sounds like he reached out to Republicans. :shrug:  

 
jon_mx said:
I think it makes Trump less likely to win the GOP nomination.  I know I do not trust Trump to nominate a good conservative judge.  Trump is clueless on the court.  I really have no idea what kind of crazy he would pick. 
Click to expand...
Based on everything I'm reading, he is almost unstoppable at this point. 

 
jon_mx said:
How so?   If the GOP confirmed a liberal Justice to the bench, THAT would be political suicide.  They would have stabbed their entire base in the back.  I would never ever ever vote for a Reoublican again.  
Click to expand...
Run the clock out on Obama....but don't gleefully and openly do it.  It's an idiot move to show bravado over this. 

 
timschochet said:
Before I do, please explain why you believe Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan are extreme leftists. 
Click to expand...
Anyone who twist individual limits on free speech as essential to upholding the first amendment has logic which is way too twisted (progressive) for me and in my view is radical.  They both also fail to see an individual right to bear arms, which I think is radical.  They see abortion not only as a fundamental right, but a right which is above any restrictions including late term/partial birth abortion where the fetus is clearly viable.  To name a few.  I also see them as pretty radical against business/property rights. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Based on everything I'm reading, he is almost unstoppable at this point. 
Click to expand...


When you say 'everything' it is usually limited to a fairly narrow spectrum of political thinking.  You somehow only hear only one narrowly viewed opinion on every issue.   i really think you do hear a lot of differing opinions, you just have very strong filters. 

 
jon_mx said:
Anyone who twist individual limits on free speech as essential to upholding the first amendment has logic which is way too twisted (progressive) for me and in my view is radical.  They both also fail to see an individual right to bear arms, which I think is radical.  They see abortion not only as a fundamental right, but a right which is above any restrictions including late term/partial birth abortion where the fetus is clearly viable.  To name a few.  I also see them as pretty radical against business/property rights. 
Click to expand...
Didn't even have to wait an hour for you to prove you were a centrist.  Well done 

 
jon_mx said:
It is politics.  They are being honest instead of holding phonetic votes.  This is the most critical appointment in over 50 years.  The court already had 4 very radical leftists in the court.   The court could easily flip from a mostly libertarian/mildly conservative court to a radical leftist court.  It would be radically progressive with no chance to balance it.  The Democrats if in the same corner would behave the same.  As they should.  
Click to expand...
It is malpractice of the highest degree for senate republicans to publicly declare they are not going to carry out one of their most important duties to this country.  They can go on record and refuse to confirm, but they can't just refuse to do their job.  This will make their base happy, but don't think for a second that independents aren't going to see this as a shameful abdication of their responsibility.  This won't end well for them.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top