Sinn Fein

***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Kavanaugh

2,887 posts in this topic

How many Presidents have nominated 3 Justices?

George Washington(10 for obvious reasons), John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson(6), Abe Lincoln(5), Grant (4), Cleveland(4), Harrison(4), Taft(4), Wilson, Harding, Hoover, FDR(8), Truman, Eisenhower(5), Nixon, Reagan

Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr all appointed 2 a piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

These 2 charts which are really just 1 cut off in 2 different parts slightly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

and then

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://s.graphiq.com/sites/default/files/3019/media/images/_795555_i0.png&imgrefurl=http://supreme-court-justices.insidegov.com/&h=820&w=1200&tbnid=D4jS_8qWr0q5qM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=184&docid=BRBsXopeuMBa0M&usg=__tYl-TOYApq1ucfhGbpPfpSGG30E=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAkpjz3ffKAhXDJR4KHeNlC6wQ9QEIIDAA

The 1st one is a little more up to date but the one after looks like a trend towards Conservatism but again it was cut a couple years prior to the latest.

I feel overall that the court itself doesn't lean that heavily either way but if it did or has it seems like it always is a little more conservative.

. Interesting stuff. I recall Rehnquist moving more liberal, but would be interested in seeing the data on Breyer, and Ginsberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to that chart, it looks like starting in about 1960, every single Supreme Court Justice except for Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (edit: and White) have moved to the left as they aged.

You can play games with that chart and have 5 and 10 year runs that go in both directions but I'll agree with your premise. I still think most folks I know in real life get more conservative as they age, maybe I was using that as a barometer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

These 2 charts which are really just 1 cut off in 2 different parts slightly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

and then

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://s.graphiq.com/sites/default/files/3019/media/images/_795555_i0.png&imgrefurl=http://supreme-court-justices.insidegov.com/&h=820&w=1200&tbnid=D4jS_8qWr0q5qM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=184&docid=BRBsXopeuMBa0M&usg=__tYl-TOYApq1ucfhGbpPfpSGG30E=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAkpjz3ffKAhXDJR4KHeNlC6wQ9QEIIDAA

The 1st one is a little more up to date but the one after looks like a trend towards Conservatism but again it was cut a couple years prior to the latest.

I feel overall that the court itself doesn't lean that heavily either way but if it did or has it seems like it always is a little more conservative.

. Interesting stuff. I recall Rehnquist moving more liberal, but would be interested in seeing the data on Breyer, and Ginsberg.

Also, look how folks turned on Roberts even though he does tend to vote GOP in elections and such. My point is it only takes a judge one vote going the way you personally don't like and all the sudden they are labeled as something.

I do respect the Supreme Court, for the most part I feel they are pretty level headed. I think their worst moment IMO was voting on the election results in 2000, that really shook the country up IMHO. 500,000 more votes for Al Gore and they voted Bush into the White House, 8 years of being ruled by a guy the majority of folks did not vote for. We can say that at least 1:2 folks in this country likely would not have voted the way the Supreme Court did.

Great thread idea. I didn't love Scalia but I appreciated him more as I grew older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:lmao:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sri is really young

He's 6 months older than I am. :lmao:

Relatively speaking for a supreme court justice, 48 is young. But the dude was born in India. Obviously a terrorist. :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

This.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Higgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP stonewalls. Dems turn out in droves getting Clinton the whitehouse and more congressional seats. Clinton nominates Obama for SC. People lose their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Calcaterra @craigcalcaterra

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

3:48 PM - 13 Feb 2016

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Calcaterra @craigcalcaterra

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

3:48 PM - 13 Feb 2016

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why would he want to piss off conservatives?

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

I was trying to be amusing.

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

I seriously despise your politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why would he want to piss off conservatives?

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

I was trying to be amusing.

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Maybe on the Democratic side.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm available.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Otis or Eminence is a lawyer, one of those guys would do. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Otis or Eminence is a lawyer, one of those guys would do. :thumbup:

More or less the same guy in your mind are they?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I think Bush is in it for the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Better buy stock in popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.