Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

Just now, shadrap said:

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

This is  what we have come to.

Share this post


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

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

We came there a while back...at least there would be a vote...just shows the outright flaws in a system really.

Share this post


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

I have said repeatedly Garland should have gotten a vote.  But in McConnell's defense the Republican senate was saying they weren't going to vote for Garland.  After Harry Reid killed the filibuster for judicial appointees it only took 50 votes to get Garland a hearing.  This means that the republicans had more than 50 to vote against Garland.  The SAME thing was threatened by Biden.  He had enough votes in 1992 to make it stick.  Personally i think any President's nominees should get a vote no matter the situation in the Senate.  They don't have to pass anyone but they should vote.

In the end Harry Reid's decision to kill the filibuster is the problem.    Kavanaugh and whoever is nominated now would be blocked.  He did it because he wasn't able to get his lower court judges through.  The Republicans warned him if he did this it would be used against Democrats  just like he was doing to them at the time.  Do you think Trump would have some many judges cleared through so far  without this?

As for 1869  are you referring to the 15th Amendment?  If so that wasn't bipartisan vote.  The  vote gaurenteeing the right to vote was passed purely  in Congress by Republicans.  Not one Democrat in the House and the Senate voted for it.  Some Abolitionists voted against it because it didn't go far enough.

 

Just about the nuking of the filibuster - also have to remember that McConnell had been blocking nominations just as he would Garland, that's where that started. I think in 2016 Obama may have gotten all of 8 or so judges confirmed for the whole year? Meanwhile McConnell just pushed through 8 or so judges in a week last week.

The point about Biden in `92 - ok so have the vote, that's the point. That's the whole Constitutional point.

About 1869 - that was when the court was expanded to 9 justices from 7. That was the Judiciary Act of 1869.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Comey deserved to be fired for how he handled HRC email investigation.  He should have never commented publicly on the investigation.  If you don't charge someone with something then you don't comment on their conduct.  (That is the pro HRC part)  But he also was supposedly preparing a letter of exonoration before the investigation finished.   ...

Thanks for the overall comment and I'm not ignoring any of it, as it is well thought out - however Barr and others in the DOJ have been regularly discussing the Durham investigation for some time. And Barr coordinates with the President on it. The problem there, as with the Garland nomination, is the fraudulent bases these thing are done on. Trump in fact favors not only interference but political direction and control over the DOJ, and frankly I'm fairly certain he expects the same out of the courts. Seemed preposterous in a pre-2017 world but not anymore as he is quite simply getting away with it. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 5:10 AM, tri-man 47 said:

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

Sorry, just seeing this as I usually stay out of this forum.  Not being a person who ever had the desire to be any kind of judge, let alone a SC Justice, it’s hard to put myself in her shoes.  I think that most people in that position would find a way to justify not removing herself from contention.  Doing so would require an extraordinary act of principle that I believe most of us lack.  Sorry to be so pessimistic.

By the way, I’ve heard from a couple of friends that the Washington post has contacted them to get information on her.  Just awaiting my email now.  :lol: 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 7:10 AM, tri-man 47 said:

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

  • Like 7
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

Its completely irrelevant to the conversation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, krista4 said:

Sorry, just seeing this as I usually stay out of this forum.  Not being a person who ever had the desire to be any kind of judge, let alone a SC Justice, it’s hard to put myself in her shoes.  I think that most people in that position would find a way to justify not removing herself from contention.  Doing so would require an extraordinary act of principle that I believe most of us lack.  Sorry to be so pessimistic.

By the way, I’ve heard from a couple of friends that the Washington post has contacted them to get information on her.  Just awaiting my email now.  :lol: 

When Betsy DeVos was nominated for Secretary of Education, the only call I got was from our old college's student newspaper.  :kicksrock:

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I don't think anybody on either side of aisle sincerely cares about RGB's preferences about what happens to her seat.  I definitely don't, and I didn't with Scalia either.  These seats don't actually "belong" any particular justice.

Except for Kennedy who had a carefully choreographed exit with his hand picked successor. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks for the overall comment and I'm not ignoring any of it, as it is well thought out - however Barr and others in the DOJ have been regularly discussing the Durham investigation for some time. And Barr coordinates with the President on it. The problem there, as with the Garland nomination, is the fraudulent bases these thing are done on. Trump in fact favors not only interference but political direction and control over the DOJ, and frankly I'm fairly certain he expects the same out of the courts. Seemed preposterous in a pre-2017 world but not anymore as he is quite simply getting away with it. 

Barr I am kind of ok with him.  He is consistent on Flynn and McCabe.  Both he saying shouldn't be charged.  Both lied to FBI agents.  The Media doesn't look at McCabe in fact CNN hired him.  Both are guilty of the same thing.  That was why McCabe was fired and if i remember right Barr wasn't AG yet so the FBI itself found that he lied.  The Durham investigation Barr has not said much other than it was ongoing and that there was something there.  On other things i think Barr has been too much on TV.  

Trump is an idiot.  Plainly said

As for Interference Holder came out and plainly said he was Obama's wingman.

Edited by NightStalkers

Share this post


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

Except for Kennedy who had a carefully choreographed exit with his hand picked successor. 

Which could have been done with RBG in the last administration.  Each had a choice and each choose.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

When Betsy DeVos was nominated for Secretary of Education, the only call I got was from our old college's student newspaper.  :kicksrock:

Best Troll job ignored by the media is DeVos.  Princeton said it was racist and she just started an investigation because Princeton said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just about the nuking of the filibuster - also have to remember that McConnell had been blocking nominations just as he would Garland, that's where that started. I think in 2016 Obama may have gotten all of 8 or so judges confirmed for the whole year? Meanwhile McConnell just pushed through 8 or so judges in a week last week.

The point about Biden in `92 - ok so have the vote, that's the point. That's the whole Constitutional point.

About 1869 - that was when the court was expanded to 9 justices from 7. That was the Judiciary Act of 1869.

Thanks for the 1869 part didn't know that.  The filibuster I think is a weapon that both sides had used or could use for Judicial appts.  

One of the things that I don't like though is how both sides shop for judges when a president  uses Executive orders.  A lot of EO's are done because Congress doesn't do it's job or makes a law that is certain enough not to give the Executive branch so much wiggle room.  It has gotten to a point in the last 2 admins that a POTUS declares an emergency and just changes the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 9:07 AM, Zow said:

Whole lotta frizz going on there. :lmao: 

I do find it strange that her classmates don't remember her a whole lot. Law school classes aren't huge (at my graduation there were less than 5 or so classmates of mine where I didn't recognize them and they were likely from the part-time program we had designed for students working full-time). . 

 

On 9/21/2020 at 9:15 AM, dawgtrails said:

Columbia Law has over 1000 graduates a year I think.

Hamline had like what? 17? :)

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

Edited by krista4
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, krista4 said:

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

I'm going to list 5 things and I'd like to see if you can remember them in the next few minutes.

Person.  Woman.  Man.  Camera.  TV.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for McCain over Obama - I despised that Obama voted against the appointment of Roberts. This issue is whether a prospective justice is qualified. Roberts was perhaps the most qualified nominee ever. Obama even acknowledges this in the opening of his written reasoning why he didn't vote to appoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things we haven't talked about - because nobody really gives a #### about it - is what the background should be of the new justice. Obviously this is "should" because its purely hypothetical. 

Anyway, my point is I wish someone with criminal defense experience would be nominated. I read that there are 3 justices with prosecution experiences. And a ton of federal court judges have prosecution experience. But little representation from the other side of the courtroom. 

I think it would be beneficial to have that voice on the S.Ct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm going to list 5 things and I'd like to see if you can remember them in the next few minutes.

Person.  Woman.  Man.  Camera.  TV.

 

10 minutes ago, krista4 said:

 

Think we had around 330 graduates.  And it’s definitely odd not to remember her.  I felt like I knew everyone.  For my BFF not to remember anything specific despite being on Law Review together is especially weird.  But then again, we’re old.  :cry: 

Ok, go.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, whoknew said:

One of the things we haven't talked about - because nobody really gives a #### about it - is what the background should be of the new justice. Obviously this is "should" because its purely hypothetical. 

Anyway, my point is I wish someone with criminal defense experience would be nominated. I read that there are 3 justices with prosecution experiences. And a ton of federal court judges have prosecution experience. But little representation from the other side of the courtroom. 

I think it would be beneficial to have that voice on the S.Ct.

For me - its less about background, and more about legal scholarship, and open mindedness.

 

In my ideal world, I would find candidates from non-Ivies - but still hold them to a rigorous scholarship requirement.  I want jurists who can think, parse language, and can synthesis competing arguments.

Being a Supreme Court Justice is not really like being a lawyer - its like being a law school student for the rest of your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Which could have been done with RBG in the last administration.  Each had a choice and each choose.

I think the thought HRC was going to cruise to the WH and RBG could be replaced then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

For me - its less about background, and more about legal scholarship, and open mindedness.

 

In my ideal world, I would find candidates from non-Ivies - but still hold them to a rigorous scholarship requirement.  I want jurists who can think, parse language, and can synthesis competing arguments.

Being a Supreme Court Justice is not really like being a lawyer - its like being a law school student for the rest of your life.

I get that but we all bring our background everywhere with us. And background and experience contributes to our biases. 

We have lots of people on the federal bench biased towards the prosecution based on their background and experience. It'd be nice to have an offsetting voice. 

Share this post


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

I get that but we all bring our background everywhere with us. And background and experience contributes to our biases. 

We have lots of people on the federal bench biased towards the prosecution based on their background and experience. It'd be nice to have an offsetting voice. 

I agree FWIW.  If I were picking a nominee, having a defense background wouldn't be the #1 thing, but it would be a plus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have said repeatedly Garland should have gotten a vote.  But in McConnell's defense the Republican senate was saying they weren't going to vote for Garland.  After Harry Reid killed the filibuster for judicial appointees it only took 50 votes to get Garland a hearing.  This means that the republicans had more than 50 to vote against Garland.  The SAME thing was threatened by Biden.  He had enough votes in 1992 to make it stick.  Personally i think any President's nominees should get a vote no matter the situation in the Senate.  They don't have to pass anyone but they should vote.

In the end Harry Reid's decision to kill the filibuster is the problem.    Kavanaugh and whoever is nominated now would be blocked.  He did it because he wasn't able to get his lower court judges through.  The Republicans warned him if he did this it would be used against Democrats  just like he was doing to them at the time.  Do you think Trump would have some many judges cleared through so far  without this?

As for 1869  are you referring to the 15th Amendment?  If so that wasn't bipartisan vote.  The  vote gaurenteeing the right to vote was passed purely  in Congress by Republicans.  Not one Democrat in the House and the Senate voted for it.  Some Abolitionists voted against it because it didn't go far enough.

 

The filibuster was still intact for Supreme Court nominees until the Republicans changed it after the 2016 election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 8:58 AM, Henry Ford said:

It seriously doesn’t matter. If there were video they’d just move on to “she doesn’t get to decide that.”  

This is true.  She was an amazing judge and human.  But I don't care about  her wish for the seat. 

I wouldn't have told you Scalia should get a say in his.  I won't tell you any of the current conservative justices should have their wishes honored if they die and say the same.  

For this reason, I don't care if she did or didn't say it.  It's irrelevant to me.  I don't understand why people are questioning the validity of it.  Just accept she said it and realize that it changes nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The filibuster was still intact for Supreme Court nominees until the Republicans changed it after the 2016 election.

i have no idea if this is true or not true.  I have said repeatedly Garland should have had a vote.  However what is stop Republicans from just not voting for him?  Compare that to Kavanaugh circus which was totally orchestrated by the Dems.  Feinstein had the information and didn't tell anyone on the committee.  Ford's witnesses do not back her up and Ford has never filed charges in MD.  Which see could and still can until she or Kavanaugh dies.  The other 2 accusers were the lady who was interviewed on NBC and she admitted herself that she had  never even seen Kavanaugh spike the punch bowl much less sexually asualting someone.( can't remember her name but she is the one who had Avenatti as a lawyer and said she had been to multiple parties where gang rapes were happening.  What woman exposes herself to gang rapes multiple times and doesn't report it?  The third accuser was a woman from Ky and she is now 77 years old and told the FBI that she lied straight out)  

So if you compare the 2 parties behavior  on SC judges neither is outstanding but at least the Republicans didn't accuse Garland of something 

And then you have the last year when Kavanaugh was accused having put a womans hand on his male parts.  Didn't matter that the woman could not remember that happening or the fact the guy who said that was on the Clinton defense team at impeachment.  Why wouldn't he have accused Kavanaugh then?  Would have made lots of easy press positive for clinton if one of the lawyers on the prosecution side of clinton was accused of sexual assault.  That is why Kavanaugh brought up the Clinton's at his hearings.  He felt that the Clinton's were behind a lot of what was going on since he helped with the impeachment of Clinton. (Which in the end one of the charges lying to the court he actually admitted to in the last few days of his administration to a judge and lost his law license for a while as a result)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were playing wiffle ball as a kid, my older brother would arbitrarily change the rules on what was a foul ball.  In other words, he would cheat.  He knew it was a #### move.  Everyone playing knew it was #### move and yet he continued to do so.  I ####ing hated playing wiffle ball with my brother.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the thought HRC was going to cruise to the WH and RBG could be replaced then.  

Which is the same thing now Trump is basically at the same point as election night in 2016 according to 538.  About a 25% chance of winning.  Could he win again? Yes.  Could Biden blow him out? Yes.  But at the time a bird in the hand was available for RBG.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Over time, I buy this statement.  It's a very "water is wet" statement actually.  In this case I don't.  It doesn't seem to apply at all.  As MT points out, the GOP is not doing what they said just 4 years ago and the Dems are essentially saying "Why aren't you using the precedent you were claiming then, now?"  That's very different.  When your position is essentially "I didn't do my job before, but am deciding to do it now" you have some major mental gymnastics to work through to make it something else.

Well 4 years ago, the reality was the GOP was not going to vote for Garland (because POTUS was from the other party) so there was no reason to bring the vote up. Both the House and Congress decide every week what they want to bring up for a vote, regardless of who thinks it deserves a "up/down vote" As far as the "water is wet" statement, yes, and people get hung up on both sides to say, well last time "x" said just the opposite. Then everyone seems to want to rationalize their statements from "then" and "now".  Eventually the Dems will have the same chance when they control the Senate and POTUS. I don't doubt they will do similar action, on many topics,  and I wouldn't fault them at all.

Share this post


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

One of the things we haven't talked about - because nobody really gives a #### about it - is what the background should be of the new justice. Obviously this is "should" because its purely hypothetical. 

Anyway, my point is I wish someone with criminal defense experience would be nominated. I read that there are 3 justices with prosecution experiences. And a ton of federal court judges have prosecution experience. But little representation from the other side of the courtroom. 

I think it would be beneficial to have that voice on the S.Ct.

One possibility that has been mentioned if the Dems win is putting Obama on the SC.  Which is interesting because how would he deal with rulings of something he had to do with?  Lincoln put Salmon Chase on the Supreme Court and he was in Lincoln's cabinet and had been a senator as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

i have no idea if this is true or not true. 

It is.  Reid got rid of the filibuster for all nominees except SCOTUS, and so of course it was a one-centimeter escalation for McConnell to get rid of it for SCOTUS nominees as well.  (Nobody actually believes that we need a filibuster for SCOTUS nominees but that filibustering circuit court nominees is somehow beyond the pale -- anybody who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves). 

For the record, I agreed with Reid at the time, I agreed with McConnell at the time, and I will agree with Democrats if they move to get rid of the legislative filibuster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Commish said:

Over time, I buy this statement.  It's a very "water is wet" statement actually.  In this case I don't.  It doesn't seem to apply at all.  As MT points out, the GOP is not doing what they said just 4 years ago and the Dems are essentially saying "Why aren't you using the precedent you were claiming then, now?"  That's very different.  When your position is essentially "I didn't do my job before, but am deciding to do it now" you have some major mental gymnastics to work through to make it something else.

I guess I don’t see it that way. 
 

in 2016, Dem leadership felt strongly that in an election year, the Senate should hold a vote.  That position has changed now that that argument isn’t advantageous to them.

It’s a cop out to say they’re asking Republicans to hold the same position as before.

Republicans are asking that the Dems hold the same position they held in 2016.  
 

Dems have criticized Mitch for 4 years for it now, and they want to do the same thing he did.  
 

To criticize means that you’ve evaluated what was done and clearly do not agree with the actions.  And now they’re saying that way is acceptable and how things need to be done from now on.  
 

I see it as hypocrisy.  But to each their own.

Edited by jm192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Which is the same thing now Trump is basically at the same point as election night in 2016 according to 538.  About a 25% chance of winning.  Could he win again? Yes.  Could Biden blow him out? Yes.  But at the time a bird in the hand was available for RBG.

 

Along these lines Breyer is 82 and Thomas is 72 so more retirements could come..

Share this post


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

and I will agree with Democrats if they move to get rid of the legislative filibuster.

Maybe we could just require Senators to actually filibuster rather than allowing expressing an intent being good enough?   And maybe require Senators to actually sit through this floor debate?   I think a desire to go home at some point would be bi-partisan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

i have no idea if this is true or not true.  I have said repeatedly Garland should have had a vote.  However what is stop Republicans from just not voting for him? 

The Republicans jettisoned the Supreme Court filibuster for Gorsuch's nomination.  What would have stopped the Republicans from just not voting for him was that Orrin Hatch is the one who suggested him for the job.  Publicly.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Maybe we could just require Senators to actually filibuster rather than allowing expressing an intent being good enough?   And maybe require Senators to actually sit through this floor debate?   I think a desire to go home at some point would be bi-partisan.

What?  Have politicians do their jobs?  Surely you jest.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Which is the same thing now Trump is basically at the same point as election night in 2016 according to 538.  About a 25% chance of winning.  Could he win again? Yes.  Could Biden blow him out? Yes.  But at the time a bird in the hand was available for RBG.

 

There was already a Supreme Court Justice seat being held without vote by the Republicans in 2016.  Are you under the impression they would have allowed the appointments if there were two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I guess I don’t see it that way. 
 

in 2016, Dem leadership felt strongly that in an election year, the Senate should hold a vote.  That position has changed now that that argument isn’t advantageous to them.

It’s a cop out to say they’re asking Republicans to hold the same position as before.

Republicans are asking that the Dems hold the same position they held in 2016.  
 

Dems have criticized Mitch for 4 years for it now, and they want to do the same thing he did.  
 

To criticize means that you’ve evaluated what was done and clearly do not agree with the actions.  And now they’re saying that way is acceptable and how things need to be done from now on.  
 

I see it as hypocrisy.  But to each their own.

The only problem with this is the GOP is holding all the cards and making all the decisions, in both cases and the Dems are reacting to their actions/decisions.  In my view, this is where leaders lead.  The reality is, Dems can "feel strongly" about whatever they want, but they don't have the control of anything.  The current argument I've heard is essentially "follow the precedent you set just a few years ago".  Personally, my issue isn't with the decision now.  It's with the decision made in 2016 to NOT do their jobs.  I said it here already if you're defense is essentially "We are going to do our job now even though we didn't do it before" there's a significant amount of mental gymnastics one has to go through in order to make it something other than that.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


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

There was already a Supreme Court Justice seat being held without vote by the Republicans in 2016.  Are you under the impression they would have allowed the appointments if there were two?

No what i am saying is she could have retired when Obama had the house and senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Well 4 years ago, the reality was the GOP was not going to vote for Garland (because POTUS was from the other party) so there was no reason to bring the vote up. Both the House and Congress decide every week what they want to bring up for a vote, regardless of who thinks it deserves a "up/down vote" As far as the "water is wet" statement, yes, and people get hung up on both sides to say, well last time "x" said just the opposite. Then everyone seems to want to rationalize their statements from "then" and "now".  Eventually the Dems will have the same chance when they control the Senate and POTUS. I don't doubt they will do similar action, on many topics,  and I wouldn't fault them at all.

Well...other than to maintain a properly functioning court and following the spirit of the Constitution.

Share this post


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

There was already a Supreme Court Justice seat being held without vote by the Republicans in 2016.  Are you under the impression they would have allowed the appointments if there were two?

Your could also argue that now with Thomas.  He could retire now and have a republican senate and POTUS appoint someone but i don't see him doing that and neither did RBG at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jm192 said:


 

in 2016, Dem leadership felt strongly that in an election year, the Senate should hold a vote.  That position has changed now that that argument isn’t advantageous to them.

 

When one party makes the rules which advantages them, then changes the rules to again advantage them, of course the multi disadvantaged party is going to respond with a WTF argument

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe we could just require Senators to actually filibuster rather than allowing expressing an intent being good enough?   And maybe require Senators to actually sit through this floor debate?   I think a desire to go home at some point would be bi-partisan.

That would be a good second-best option, but I've come around to the view that our government already has enough choke points and the filibuster has outlived its usefulness.  I say that as somebody who is actively hostile toward majoritarianism -- I just think the filibuster is pushing things too far in the opposite direction.

Share this post


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

No what i am saying is she could have retired when Obama had the house and senate.

In 2011?  Okay.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

When one party makes the rules which advantages them, then changes the rules to again advantage them, of course the multi disadvantaged party is going to respond with a WTF argument

But it’s not a WTF argument.  It’s “we’ve decided your 2016 position is the way it should be done after 4 years of criticizing it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

One possibility that has been mentioned if the Dems win is putting Obama on the SC.  Which is interesting because how would he deal with rulings of something he had to do with?  Lincoln put Salmon Chase on the Supreme Court and he was in Lincoln's cabinet and had been a senator as well.

It would be odd for either Obama to take a massive pay cut coupled with a huge workload increase.

 

Share this post


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

In 2011?  Okay.

No 2014 when The Dems had the senate.  She would have been 81 then not exactly young  and she had already had cancer twice before that.  And i don't think it is up to anyone to decide when a justices retires..

A lot of his goes down to decisions that were out of the hand of either Scalia or Ginsburg.  They didn't plan on dying and could have retired before the did if it was that important to them.  Or they could have lived longer to retire when the POTUS was more favorable to their judicial leanings.   Meaning that it is up to the judge to make up their own mind and that is right in my eyes.

The hypocrisy is on both sides.  Biden threatened Bush Sr. with doing what McConnell did.  History has shown very few (I think only 1) judges have ever been approved by an opposite party senate in over 100 years in the last year of the term of a president.  There have been like 15 judges approved by senates that have been the same as POTUS.  I think Biden in 1992 would have done exactly as McConnell did had Bush had a retiring judge who wanted to leave under a Rep POTUS.

Previously i have posted FDR appointed 7 judges in 5yrs in office. So he had minimum of a 7 to 2 advantage on the court.  Did the world collapse because of it? No.  So what if the court is 6-3..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

No 2014 when The Dems had the senate.  She would have been 81 then not exactly young  and she had already had cancer twice before that.  And i don't think it is up to anyone to decide when a justices retires..

You just posted that it was when Obama had the House and Senate.  But okay, she could have in 2014.  Six years ago.  When the Dems would have needed 60 votes to clear and get her replacement.  Keeping in mind that only 5 Republicans voted in favor of Kagan in 2010.  And only 9 voted in favor of Sotomayor in 2009.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

The hypocrisy is on both sides.  Biden threatened Bush Sr. with doing what McConnell did.  History has shown very few (I think only 1) judges have ever been approved by an opposite party senate in over 100 years in the last year of the term of a president.  There have been like 15 judges approved by senates that have been the same as POTUS.  I think Biden in 1992 would have done exactly as McConnell did had Bush had a retiring judge who wanted to leave under a Rep POTUS.

Biden wasn't the Senate Majority leader in '92 so I can say without any question he would not have done exactly the same as McConnell. (Because he wasn't in a position to do so.)   And while I know he also made a speech a few days after this quote, I really find it hard to argue with what he actually says here.

Quote

 

If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up," Biden said. "If he [Bush] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.

Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the three or four or five decisions that are about to made by the Supreme Court, into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a presidential year? ...I believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted.

Whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent would become a victim.

 

Most certainly Garland was a victim in 2016.  There weren't any hearings but it seems like there were "no bounds of propriety".   Will Trump's nominee also be a victim.  I think in some ways they most certainly will.  I also think the "environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted."  Now all of this reasoning was of course self serving, but I don't think it was wrong either.  Not that it matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

You just posted that it was when Obama had the House and Senate.  But okay, she could have in 2014.  Six years ago.  When the Dems would have needed 60 votes to clear and get her replacement.  Keeping in mind that only 5 Republicans voted in favor of Kagan in 2010.  And only 9 voted in favor of Sotomayor in 2009.  
 

and how many dems voted for Kavanaugh? 1 so if you go by that the Republicans have been more bipartisn.  But that isn't true either.

There is video supporting both sides in this.  There is video that CNN had in 2013 that showed Obama, Schumer and Reid arguing against removing filibusters and of course McConnell in favor of it in 2005 and then each of them flipping  taking the opposite position in 2013.  This normal political BS that has been happening for years.  Neither party is innocent despite the Dems claiming to be.  

The real problem for a lot of this is the same people making the arguments  flip flopping over and over.  How about term limits and at least change the person flip flopping no matter who the party is??????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

Barr I am kind of ok with him.  He is consistent on Flynn and McCabe.  Both he saying shouldn't be charged.  Both lied to FBI agents.  The Media doesn't look at McCabe in fact CNN hired him.  Both are guilty of the same thing.  That was why McCabe was fired and if i remember right Barr wasn't AG yet so the FBI itself found that he lied.  The Durham investigation Barr has not said much other than it was ongoing and that there was something there.  On other things i think Barr has been too much on TV.  

Trump is an idiot.  Plainly said

As for Interference Holder came out and plainly said he was Obama's wingman.

Eh I think you're quite wrong about Barr not saying about the Durham investigation, he has said quite a lot as has the DOJ spokesperson. In fact most recently Barr went on Hannity, the most watched network cable show on tv, to announce (promote) the forthcoming indictment of Clinesmith. He has had multiple other statements about it as well. Nobody is paying attention but in substance it has blown away what Comey did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.