Sinn Fein

***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Kavanaugh

2,887 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

So you think if we wait four months, Chuck will agree that the Senate should not consider anyone that Obama nominates? If not, I don't see how Schumer isn't being hypocritical.

I have no doubt that he WOULD be hypocritical, just saying he wasn't necessarily in that comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama still has the keys to the car. Get over it.

Follow the constitution. You sure don't waste any time letting everyone know in the debates how important it is to you, GOP. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have no doubt that he WOULD be hypocritical, just saying he wasn't necessarily in that comment. 

He was hypocritical, but only 7/11s  as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the process there is enough time right now to fill the vacancy.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=re-share

To me, the timing is irrelevant. The only argument that I could see would be if the November elections had taken place, then maybe, the President-to-be would get to pick the nomination but even that argument better be strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

So basically, the Democrats did this exact same thing with Bush and the Republicans

They did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of folks in here advocating doing what is right only when it is convenient and asserting that two wrongs do make a right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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

One distinction, if people want to hear it, is that a Supreme Court Justice has not been held up to what has been proposed. The other instances, from what I have heard, have been Federal judge appointments, not Supreme Court justice nominations/confirmations.

A death is kind of an extraordinary circumstance that should not be looked at as some procedural limit. The Thurman Rule, at best, covers a 6-month period before the elections in November and that is not even a written rule but something that might get brought up. A retirement is one thing, possibly due to health reasons as a sudden retirement or something like that, maybe Schumer meant this kind of thing, who knows? However, looking at any kind of procedural way to not allow the nominations and confirmations is just being whiny right now.

Share this post


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

I'm no fan of Chuck, but it wasn't hypocritical. When he made that speech, there were 7 months left in Bush's presidency. There is a big difference between 7 and 11 months. 

Don't get me wrong, I still disagree with Schumer. But as I pointed out on Saturday, there has to be SOME point during the last year of a Presidency when  it's reasonable that the Senate should hold off. If, for example, Scalia had died in September of 2016, I don't think anybody would object to waiting. What the exact period is acceptable, I have no idea. But I do know that, at least IMO, we're not at that point. 

tim, Schumer made those idiotic comments in July of 2007.  There was still 18 months left in GWB's presidency.

Make no mistake, Chuck was being a partisan tool, and he's paying for it now.  As he should.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Schumer said was dumb and hypocritical but it was also irrelevant. No more vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Bush's term after he made those remarks.

Regardless, using the words of one looney democrat to justify the whole Republican Party not even acknowledging an Obama nominee, let alone bringing them to a vote,  is even more preposterous than the whole "let the people decide" argument.

Share this post


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

tim, Schumer made those idiotic comments in July of 2007.  There was still 18 months left in GWB's presidency.

Make no mistake, Chuck was being a partisan tool, and he's paying for it now.  As he should.

Oops, you're right. For some reason I was thinking 2008. My bad. I take it back. Total hypocrite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christo said:

:lmao:

 

The best part is, those remarks by Schumer were actually in July of 2007, 19 months remaining in Bush's term. 

Share this post


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

What Schumer said was dumb and hypocritical but it was also irrelevant. No more vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Bush's term after he made those remarks.

Regardless, using the words of one looney democrat to justify the whole Republican Party not even acknowledging an Obama nominee, let alone bringing them to a vote,  is even more preposterous than the whole "let the people decide" argument.

It was actually kind of a wide spread topic, one that was discussed in many articles making the same point.  Schumer was far from the one who originated that line of reasoning. 

Share this post


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

It was actually kind of a wide spread topic, one that was discussed in many articles making the same point.  Schumer was far from the one who originated that line of reasoning. 

Was not a widespread topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the next justice is passed by a Republican President the court will become illegitimate in the eyes of half the country.

If that is ur goal?  Have at it.  Just have the decency of taking off your American flag pin.

Edited by Daywalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you are for gun rights it gay rights, you should love how Libertarian this court was.  Kennedy was the key figure balancing the 4 staunch conservative and 4 rabbid liberals with a viewpoint which usually favored the individual rights and keeping the government in check. 

Kennedy was an opponent of expansion of executive powers to include legislating laws.  You may agree with Obama on some of his changes in immigration and Climate change, but to allow the President to simply write laws and enforce them is a dangerous precedent.  

i really see an ugly shift to the court occuring where the collective good will trump the individual rights.  A shift where the second amendment is no longer an individual right. A shift were free speech is subject to complicated campaign rules where even a blogger coukd run afoul of the law.  A shift where property rights are no longer respected.  A shift that is anti-business.  

I really liked the Libertarian balance of this court and am not looking forward to a court which favors a progressive/liberal philosophy where equal outcomes trump equal treatment.  The government really sucks at that. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Whether you are for gun rights it gay rights, you should love how Libertarian this court was.  Kennedy was the key figure balancing the 4 staunch conservative and 4 rabbid liberals with a viewpoint which usually favored the individual rights and keeping the government in check. 

Kennedy was an opponent of expansion of executive powers to include legislating laws.  You may agree with Obama on some of his changes in immigration and Climate change, but to allow the President to simply write laws and enforce them is a dangerous precedent.  

i really see an ugly shift to the court occuring where the collective good will trump the individual rights.  A shift where the second amendment is no longer an individual right. A shift were free speech is subject to complicated campaign rules where even a blogger coukd run afoul of the law.  A shift where property rights are no longer respected.  A shift that is anti-business.  

I really liked the Libertarian balance of this court and am not looking forward to a court which favors a progressive/liberal philosophy where equal outcomes trump equal treatment.  The government really sucks at that. 

With all due respect, you are looking at it from your conservative side of things, so of course you don't like the potential shift left. A hypothetical comparison would have been Scalia still being on the Court and Ginsburg leaving for any reason. The Court would shift in a similar manner to what you said above, only it would shift in the opposite direction. I'm sure some people on the left would react like you and you would not react like you did if a potential shift was to the right. 

You call the potential shift "ugly". Someone on the left may call it beautiful. The opposite would probably occur in the above Ginsburg hypothetical. Neither is right or wrong.

Share this post


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

With all due respect, you are looking at it from your conservative side of things, so of course you don't like the potential shift left. A hypothetical comparison would have been Scalia still being on the Court and Ginsburg leaving for any reason. The Court would shift in a similar manner to what you said above, only it would shift in the opposite direction. I'm sure some people on the left would react like you and you would not react like you did if a potential shift was to the right. 

You call the potential shift "ugly". Someone on the left may call it beautiful. The opposite would probably occur in the above Ginsburg hypothetical. Neither is right or wrong.

 

I think a shift either way would be ugly.  We had the ideal balance and a shift either way is a bad deal for those who love individual freedoms.  Big government is going to get bigger and more centralized and more concentrated in the executive branch.  Yeah! 

Share this post


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

 

I think a shift either way would be ugly.  We had the ideal balance and a shift either way is a bad deal for those who love individual freedoms.  Big government is going to get bigger and more centralized and more concentrated in the executive branch.  Yeah! 

What if Obama nominated a moderate?

Share this post


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

Whether you are for gun rights it gay rights, you should love how Libertarian this court was.  Kennedy was the key figure balancing the 4 staunch conservative and 4 rabbid liberals with a viewpoint which usually favored the individual rights and keeping the government in check. 

Kennedy was an opponent of expansion of executive powers to include legislating laws.  You may agree with Obama on some of his changes in immigration and Climate change, but to allow the President to simply write laws and enforce them is a dangerous precedent.  

i really see an ugly shift to the court occuring where the collective good will trump the individual rights.  A shift where the second amendment is no longer an individual right. A shift were free speech is subject to complicated campaign rules where even a blogger coukd run afoul of the law.  A shift where property rights are no longer respected.  A shift that is anti-business.  

I really liked the Libertarian balance of this court and am not looking forward to a court which favors a progressive/liberal philosophy where equal outcomes trump equal treatment.  The government really sucks at that. 

Everything about this post is wrong.  From your depiction of the roles of the Justices to your characterization of the rulings and leanings of the Roberts Court.  It would take 5000 words to correct all the wrong in this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

Everything about this post is wrong.  From your depiction of the roles of the Justices to your characterization of the rulings and leanings of the Roberts Court.  It would take 5000 words to correct all the wrong in this post.

I think many if not most people would agree with my characterization.  This court would have almost certainly would have gone against Obama's immigration and climate change policy, now they will likely go along with these laws which originated entirely in the executive branch either based on a 4-4 tie for a liberal-leaning circuit court to decide or a 5-4 ruling if an appointment is made and the case is re-heard.  The campaign finance laws which were struck down by a 5-4 majority were much more far-reaching than just limiting Corporation speech, and those would likely to be upheld if the court shifts to one more liberal/progressive Justice.  Some articles do not agree that Kennedy is a Libertarian, but many if not most seem to agree, such as publications by CATO, Georgetown, Reason Mag, and National Review to name a few.  Many of the 5-4 rulings would be in jeopardy of being reversed assuming a case is brought to and accepted by the court.  Some of those cases would involve property rights, gun rights, campaign finance/political speech, and executive orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bigbottom said:

I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?

Bump for jon

Share this post


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

What if Obama nominated a moderate?

 

Go for it.  That would be an interesting turn of events.  But I don't think Obama wants to risk his legacy by nominating a moderate.  We shall see.  I am guessing a fairly solid African-American liberal being his choice.  It will be a shame for that person, because he will be caught in a lose-lose situation. 

Share this post


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

Bump for jon

I am 100% certain that the Dems would not allow Ginsburg to be replaced by a Conservative.  The only way that would possibly happen if the GOP had a solid majority in the Senate and used the Reid's nuclear option to by-pass the filibuster. 

Share this post


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

I am 100% certain that the Dems would not allow Ginsburg to be replaced by a Conservative.  The only way that would possibly happen if the GOP had a solid majority in the Senate and used the Reid's nuclear option to by-pass the filibuster. 

Okay, but your response doesn't  answer my question. I'll repost it.

I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?

Share this post


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

Okay, but your response doesn't  answer my question. I'll repost it.

I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?

Actually, I would characterize their option as 3) we advise the President that is not a suitable nomination and we will filibuster if required.  I would not 'support' the option, but I would understand their position and it would be up to the GOP to get the Senate to a point where they could overcome the Democrats.   That is the reality and the GOP would have to live with it. 

Share this post


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

Actually, I would characterize their option as 3) we advise the President that is not a suitable nomination and we will filibuster if required.  I would not 'support' the option, but I would understand their position and it would be up to the GOP to get the Senate to a point where they could overcome the Democrats.   That is the reality and the GOP would have to live with it. 

Once again, that doesn't answer my question. I asked you about three specific positions and whether you would support any of those positions (each of which have been taken by GOP senators or presidential candidates in the current situation).  I'm not asking you to prescribe the preferred approach. I'm asking whether you would support the three specific positions I outlined. Am I correct that your answer is "no"?  Assuming your answer is no, would you see those positions as improper?

Edited by bigbottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Once again, that doesn't answer my question. I asked you about three specific positions and whether you would support any of those positions (each of which have been taken by GOP senators or presidential candidates in the current situation).  I'm not asking you to prescribe the preferred approach. I'm asking whether you would support the three specific positions I outlined. Am I correct that your answer is "no"?  Assuming your answer is no, would you see those positions as improper?

My answer was I would accept that that is their position.  I am not sure why my 'support' is an issue of a party I generally do not agree with.  I am not going to support them, but I acknowledge those are positions they can take within the framework of the Constitution.

Share this post


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

My answer was I would accept that that is their position.  I am not sure why my 'support' is an issue of a party I generally do not agree with.  I am not going to support them, but I acknowledge those are positions they can take within the framework of the Constitution.

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

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

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

Edited by bigbottom
6 people like this

Share this post


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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

 

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

8 people like this

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.