cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yup. Have the stones to reject his nominee, but don't just ignore a core responsibility of the Senate.
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 (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Was Justice O'Connor a radical leftist? I think she fails almost all of jon's criteria.
I did not mean a centrist in the entire political spectrum. I meant my views were moderate in terms of within the conservative viewpoint.
whatever. The GOP has no choice. They either fight for keeping the court in a reasonable balance or they lose complete control of the direction of government for decades. Letting Obama put someone on the court is not an option. This is a battle that must be fought or the GOP has no reason to exist. 
njherdfan
Footballguy
I don't think anything you said makes sense.
-No idea what your 1st point about free speech means.
-There was no individual right to bear arms until the Supreme Court created it in 2008.
-Kagan has never even heard an abortion case on the Supreme Court.
cstu
Footballguy
Do you realize that Republicans don't need to be xenophobic #######s to be Republicans? At a time when the Party should be moving left it's trying to move as far to the right as possible. Frankly, it's embarrassing the country.
cstu
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
Lots of noise about Sri out here. He's really cool. Funny, personable. Also, in case it doesn't come out in any of this, y'all should know he's pretty good at basketball so he spends a lot of time over at the "Highest Court in the Land" as is.
He's really freaking smart too. Has come back to campus a couple times - and have gotten to spend some time in a smaller group because the JD/MBAs are a pretty small subset and fairly tight knit.
He's really freaking smart too. Has come back to campus a couple times - and have gotten to spend some time in a smaller group because the JD/MBAs are a pretty small subset and fairly tight knit.
cstu
Footballguy
The context was concerning GOP voters. Even so, not one person has been able to identify any of my extreme positions you left wing nuts accuse me of having. Not even one.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
He's exactly who I had in mind when I mentioned a moderate. Included in the 97 voting to confirm him was McConnell, Rubio and Cruz. Would be kinda hard for them to vote against him or hold up a confirmation hearing.
I know It is crazy the loons on the left can't even come up with oneJon_mx has no extreme positions.
timschochet
Footballguy
Which is why they're saying right now that they will refuse to even consider it. This way they don't have to concern themselves with whoever the candidate is. They'll just say "we want to wait until the new President." No hearing, no debate, no discussion of Sri's merits. Individually you'll even hear them argue "Hey we like Sri. We have no problem with him. But it's unfair to the voters for us to consider him during an election year, blah blah blah." And they'll confuse enough folks so as to get away with it.
joffer
Footballguy
That's a dangerous game in the senate. If Obama nominates a fire-breathing liberal, they can justify it. If they refuse to consider someone like Sri, I'm guessing they lose the senate. There's an outside chance they lose the senate without this. Stonewalling a moderate might seal it
jonessed
Footballguy
The Republican base is pretty fractured. This would certainly motivate people who are not aligned with the winning candidate.
I'm not seeing how it's an advantage for either side nor how it will impact the Senate campaigns much.
dparker713
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
Ginsburg is hardly long for the bench.
It's like reality is completely unimportant.
the moops
Footballguy
I don't think it will affect any Senators who aren't up for reelection for another two or four years.
If stonewalling affects Senators up for reelection this year, it may help them in their primaries. It will probably hurt them in the general, but they can always flip-flop by then to avoid that.
bigbottom
Footballguy
So given what's at stake, does the GOP-controlled Senate refuse to confirm, or even have hearings for, a nominee for another four years if Clinton wins the general?
timschochet
Footballguy
I've heard a few pundits suggest that this is heading that way. Seems unlikely to me- it would end all pretense of bipartisanship. But who knows?
bigbottom
Footballguy
Well, my post was inartfully worded. I was intending to ask Jon whether he would support the Senate taking that action, not asking whether or not they would actually do it.
the moops said:
You realize the polls from this are split evenly and on the GOP side it is over 80 percent support this action. If it were me, I would consider a truly moderate selection. So quoting this thread would not help. This is not the extreme position, it is the position the party has to take and it is why even the vast majority of Senatirs are on board. Let's stop this charade that Demicrats would not pull this same card. They might spin it a bit different, but they would not allow any judge that was even remotely conservative for a vote given the exact same situation where the balance of the court was at stake. Shoot, mainstream Democrats (see Schumer and Biden) have stated this in the passed on just hypothetical statements.
Last edited by a moderator:
Really I have no faith in Trump or Hillary to replace her with a conservative or moderate. So my reality is based on the slim hope that Rubio can somehow win. which is slim. The 'reality' is not good for conservatives at this point. But surrendering the court is not an option, even knowing that Breyer and Ginsburg are aging. Obama did add a lot of youth to the bench on the liberal side.dparker713 said:
What that demonstrates is I need to upgrade to something bigger than an iPhone 5s so I don't have to struggle to read and type. Maybe in August.
Last edited by a moderator:
You all can wax philosophical about what the Republicans should do, but it is already decided. Not the exact path I would have taken or the spin I would have used, but it is done, the Senate Judiciary has spoken:
Dear Majority Leader McConnell,
As we write, we are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.
Over the last few days, much has been written about the constitutional power to fill Supreme Court vacancies, a great deal of it inaccurate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant, or withhold, consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. This is not a difficult or novel constitutional question. As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell,
As we write, we are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.
Over the last few days, much has been written about the constitutional power to fill Supreme Court vacancies, a great deal of it inaccurate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant, or withhold, consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. This is not a difficult or novel constitutional question. As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
bigbottom
Footballguy
So it's been done not once, but twice. How many times has the Senate refused to hold hearings for a nominee to a vacancy arising in an election year?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Lol. Wait now the spin is its the Democrats who won't cross the isle? You people are delusional.
None of this matters to me, and I would not even discuss it. This is a unique situation with the delicate balance that existed on the court and the radical swing which could take place. The Senate has already confirmed two clearly liberal justices to the Supreme Court. The GOP has drawn the line exactly where the Dems would have. Neither side would allow such a radical shift in the court to occur without a colossal fight. I am not sure what further there is to discuss. The fight is on and we will have an election to see who will control what and where we go from here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skoo
Footballguy
You've got to hand it to the GOP. They can get their people to believe anything they want.
They have been proven to be the MOST obstructionist Congress in US History. And they still have all their people parroting their talking points about how Obama has been a "divider". It's unreal.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Reach out to the people who say they won't hold hearings, won't vote, and won't even meet with a nominee?jon_mx said:
Skoo
Footballguy
Translation: I don't care about the Constitution. I don't care if it's never been done in the history of the United States. I don't like it when my team loses and that's that. If we can't win, we take our ball and go home.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
People want anarchy. This is nuts. The patients are running the asylum. The GOP needs to splinter.
bigbottom
Footballguy
1) So you don't know the answer regarding whether there's any precedent for the Senate's stated action?
2) If you don't want to discuss it, and don't care about precedent, why are you posting a quote discussing precedent?
Skoo
Footballguy
I really like the wording here.
When Scalia was alive, we had this beautiful, delicate balance of justices that leaned conservative 5-4.
Now we are in a unique situation where making the court lean 5-4 liberal would be a radical swing.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
A delicate balance that conservatives had no problem swinging more conservative by replacing O'Connor with Alito (to be clear, they shouldn't have had any problems doing so, and I thought those Democrats who voted to filibuster a qualified nominee were wrong).
There is nothing unconstitutional about what they are doing. There technically is not even a deficiency on the court since the number of justices are not specified. There certainly is no time limit expressed.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I am a person who isn't very political. I don't listen to any talk radio nor do I watch CNN or Fox or anything else. I tend to lean left on some matters (I think we should have full on national health care) and right on some issues (anti-gun control, anti-abortion). To me, as a voter I would prefer to see Bernie vs. Trump. Those are my top two candidates right now. All that said, the Republicans truly appear to be Republican first and a American second. I cannot vote for somebody like that. That's fundamentally against what I believe in as a citizen. I hope Trump gets the nom, I really do. I also hope Bernie does because I think he's the only candidate with any integrity on either side of the isle (Trump second). But if the Democrats play their cards right and continually hammer home the obstructionist regime that current heads the GOP, it will be the end of the GOP as we know it. They are literally sitting there with enough rope to hang themselves with. In their hatred of anything that isn't in the talking points, they have totally alienated the middle.
They will get what they've got coming.
They will get what they've got coming.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
What would you say if the GOP wins the White House in November but the Democrats take back the Senate? Every argument you've made in your last two posts in favor of the stonewalling could also be made to support them stonewalling a Republican president for four years and trying again in 2020. Would you be OK with that? What if Justice Breyer passes away in 2017? What if he passes away in 2019?
I quoted the Senate Judiciary position because it is all that is relevant. IMHO, any precedent cited by either side is irrelevant because of the unique circumstances surrounding this. We all know how both sides would act, and there really is not a spit of difference. So Democrats blowing smoke and trying to make a huge issue over how the GOP is handling this are just blowing partisan smoke and are being hypocritical. Does anyone sincerely believe if a GOP president was in position to appoint a judge which would shift the balance of the court to possibly overturning Roe v. Wade that Democrats would not be in absolute hysterics and pulling every possible card to obstruct and prevent such an appointment? You are lying if you do, because no one could possibly believe that.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
You keep saying this, but there is no proof for this. Even minorities in the Senate have the potential to cause a lot of mischief to the President's nominee. When Bush nominated Alito to replace O'Connor (a move we knew would shift the court dramatically to the right) there were certainly Democratic Senators in favor of a filibuster (including Obama and Clinton). But the Democrats in the Senate did not all act as one, and they let Alito have an up or down vote knowing that the Republicans had the votes to confirm.
No problem? A supremely qualified candidate only got out of the Senate Judiciary by a 10-8 party line vote. Then he had to survive a filibuster attempt lead by none other than John F. Kerry. Then he only was confirmed by a 58-42 votes, which is the lowest vote total of any Supreme Court justice except for Thomas's 42 votes. He was only voted on because the Dems were the minority party and had enough defectors so the filibuster was not successful. Is that really your definition of 'no problem'? He survived everything the Dems could muster.
