This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not all the Republican candidates. Trump said that he'd nominate someone if he were in Obama's position, and it's up to the Senate to delay confirmation. Bush said that Obama should nominate someone that the Senate would approve.
Trump- moderator said to Trump, "You said Obama should not nominate.." Trump looked smug and did not deny making that statement
Sorry--missed this earlier.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.Fortas for Chief Justice.-QG
There was no nomination to fill a vacancy. There was a nomination for a promotion, for a Justice (Fortas) who was already on the court. If and when that promotion was approved, Johnson would have then nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. Fortas failed, and Johnson never nominated anyone to replace Warren. Why? Because it was so close to the election.Sorry--missed this earlier. You are incorrect. Go check out this book. Earl Warren announced his plans to retire on June 26th, 1968 (it wasn't like he was only stepping down from the Chief Justice position, but wanted to remain on the Court). That announcement, by definition, created the nomination process. Warren stayed on during the confirmation process, but the process occurred during a presidential election year. And Fortas was denied confirmation by a Democratically-controlled Senate.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.
Good god, you make distinctions that have absolutely no bearing on the larger point. Please go back and carefully read your initial contention. I will quote it for you below:There was no nomination to fill a vacancy. There was a nomination for a promotion. If and when that promotion was approved, Johnson would have then nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. Fortas failed, and Johndon never nominated anyone to replace Warren. Why? Because it was so close to the election, further proving my point.Sorry--missed this earlier. You are incorrect. Go check out this book. Earl Warren announced his plans to retire on June 26th, 1968 (it wasn't like he was only stepping down from the Chief Justice position, but wanted to remain on the Court). That announcement, by definition, created the nomination process. Warren stayed on during the confirmation process, but the process occurred during a presidential election year. And Fortas was denied confirmation by a Democratically-controlled Senate.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.
how is my fact wrong again? Was Fortas rejected?Good god, you make distinctions that have absolutely no bearing on the larger point. Please go back and carefully read your initial contention. I will quote it for you below:"Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority."There was no nomination to fill a vacancy. There was a nomination for a promotion. If and when that promotion was approved, Johnson would have then nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. Fortas failed, and Johndon never nominated anyone to replace Warren. Why? Because it was so close to the election, further proving my point.Sorry--missed this earlier. You are incorrect. Go check out this book. Earl Warren announced his plans to retire on June 26th, 1968 (it wasn't like he was only stepping down from the Chief Justice position, but wanted to remain on the Court). That announcement, by definition, created the nomination process. Warren stayed on during the confirmation process, but the process occurred during a presidential election year. And Fortas was denied confirmation by a Democratically-controlled Senate.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.
Abe Fortas was a nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was nominated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat. His nomination was withdrawn after a failed cloture vote on October 4th, 1968.
Your point--that the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents--is refuted in fact. You seem to think that Warren would have stayed on the Court if Fortas's nomination were successful. That is incorrect. It's not like you are a nominee ONLY if there is a vacancy on the Court.
You are correct that Johnson did not nominate anyone else because of the proximity to the election. That fact does absolutely nothing to prove your point (I'm not terribly sure what your point is?) given that Johnson's decision came in October of a presidential election year. It is currently February of a presidential election year. That is an 8-month difference.
how is my fact wrong again? Was Fortas rejected?Good god, you make distinctions that have absolutely no bearing on the larger point. Please go back and carefully read your initial contention. I will quote it for you below:"Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority."There was no nomination to fill a vacancy. There was a nomination for a promotion. If and when that promotion was approved, Johnson would have then nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. Fortas failed, and Johndon never nominated anyone to replace Warren. Why? Because it was so close to the election, further proving my point.Sorry--missed this earlier. You are incorrect. Go check out this book. Earl Warren announced his plans to retire on June 26th, 1968 (it wasn't like he was only stepping down from the Chief Justice position, but wanted to remain on the Court). That announcement, by definition, created the nomination process. Warren stayed on during the confirmation process, but the process occurred during a presidential election year. And Fortas was denied confirmation by a Democratically-controlled Senate.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.
Abe Fortas was a nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was nominated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat. His nomination was withdrawn after a failed cloture vote on October 4th, 1968.
Your point--that the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents--is refuted in fact. You seem to think that Warren would have stayed on the Court if Fortas's nomination were successful. That is incorrect. It's not like you are a nominee ONLY if there is a vacancy on the Court.
You are correct that Johnson did not nominate anyone else because of the proximity to the election. That fact does absolutely nothing to prove your point (I'm not terribly sure what your point is?) given that Johnson's decision came in October of a presidential election year. It is currently February of a presidential election year. That is an 8-month difference.
Take this a step further...if, for example, Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed to the Court of Appeals with a 97-0 vote...wouldn't that put enormous pressure on the Republicans? What would they do?
So there is a precedence of them rejecting. I think if you parse down the situation where a conservative/liberal justice is being replaced by the opposite, they get rejected.
It depends if the Republicans can successfully paint him as a liberal Justice. The arguement will be that Obama is trying to radically alter the balance of the court and important rights such as gun rights will be in jeopardy. Of course the more moderate the Justice the better arguement and chance for that matter will there be for confirmation.
Fortas was already on the court so I am not sure how that situation is anything like this. Besides Fortas eventually resigned over controversial ethics violations.how is my fact wrong again? Was Fortas rejected?Good god, you make distinctions that have absolutely no bearing on the larger point. Please go back and carefully read your initial contention. I will quote it for you below:"Over the last 120 years the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Senate composition in each case had a Democratic majority."There was no nomination to fill a vacancy. There was a nomination for a promotion. If and when that promotion was approved, Johnson would have then nominated an Associate Justice to fill the vacancy. Fortas failed, and Johndon never nominated anyone to replace Warren. Why? Because it was so close to the election, further proving my point.Sorry--missed this earlier. You are incorrect. Go check out this book. Earl Warren announced his plans to retire on June 26th, 1968 (it wasn't like he was only stepping down from the Chief Justice position, but wanted to remain on the Court). That announcement, by definition, created the nomination process. Warren stayed on during the confirmation process, but the process occurred during a presidential election year. And Fortas was denied confirmation by a Democratically-controlled Senate.It wasn't a nomination to fill a vacancy. It was a nomination for a promotion. It's my understanding the nomination for the filling of the new Associate Justice position wasn't made during that election year.??? You can't get nominated if there isn't a(n announced) vacancy. Earl Warren (Chief Justice) announced his retirement. Fortas was an Associate Justice, now nominated for the Chief Justice position by LBJ. Fortas was rejected by a Democratic Senate.I'm not positive but I don't think there was a vacancy on the court. I think in that case it was a current SC Justice being nominated for the Chief Justice position for a guy who was retiring at a later date. Not certain about this though.
Abe Fortas was a nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was nominated by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat. His nomination was withdrawn after a failed cloture vote on October 4th, 1968.
Your point--that the only Supreme Court nominees to have been rejected came from Republican Presidents--is refuted in fact. You seem to think that Warren would have stayed on the Court if Fortas's nomination were successful. That is incorrect. It's not like you are a nominee ONLY if there is a vacancy on the Court.
You are correct that Johnson did not nominate anyone else because of the proximity to the election. That fact does absolutely nothing to prove your point (I'm not terribly sure what your point is?) given that Johnson's decision came in October of a presidential election year. It is currently February of a presidential election year. That is an 8-month difference.
From what I have read, many consider him to be a moderate (I assume he leans left given Obama nominated him). I read that some Democrats were opposed because they wanted someone more liberal but in the end they voted to confirm. He was confirmed 97-0 and McConnell, Rubio, and Cruz all voted to confirm. This seems like a no win situation for the Republicans.Edit to add: Any Obama nominee, even a moderate, will drastically alter the balance of the Court given how conservative Scalia was.
And all that plays against Obama and getting his nominee confirmed. Vote No Like Obama Did, could become the slogan.
It will be interesting if Obama goes for a more moderate like Sri or swings for the fenses with a liberal. It could be interesting for me as one of the candidates on the short list, and IMO probably the leading candidate, was a fraternity buddy of mine. In a way I would hate to see it because it will be a nasty fight for confirmation. But he is more than capable of handling the idiots.
i think they will. But considering Obama also supported the filibuster tactic, every tool is on the table. It was smart for Obama to win the Democratic nomination, but his tactics could end up biting him in the butt.
Depends if they know they have the votes to reject. In the Senate, they may be a tall order as the margin is small.
Yeah, if Obama swings for the fences, his nominee could end up getting voted down. But if he goes with a more mainstream, moderate candidate, I think delay is the preferable option for the GOP. But that's a long time to delay.
Obama would be foolish to nominate someone who is too liberal. That gives the Republicans a more legitimate reason to deny it. I honestly can't see any nominee that is too liberal being confirmed.
I think the opposite. I think he'd be smart to nominate someone who is very liberal. The American public, right or wrong, already sees the Republicans as obstructionist.
Gold would instantly go to $5000 per ounce and the economy would collapse if Obama did what you describe.
Golds price action this coming week will confirm my logic as constitutional and valid.
Why don't you live blog it Em style? Including the bits about when you would have sold had you actrually bought any.
I do not believe so. Historical coincidence during a cherry-picked time frame, based solely on opportunity variance is not a principled argument, it is conflating coincidence to established precedent for partisan political purpose.
Pretty sure that is how every stat is used when it comes to politics. The arguement will simply be Obama did it, which is about as principled as any political arguement.
Nah, they must have misread the memo. Obama will nominate someone60% of the country thinks is acceptable. Republicans will block it and then President Clinton will nominate Obama next year.
He was an originalist, perhaps one of the progenitors of thinkers like Scalia and Rehnquist, but an extremist? Certainly he was portrayed that way by the left who were going to portray any nomination by Reagan for Powell's seat that way as that appointment had great potential to shape the Court, Powell being a moderate swing vote on a balanced Court. I know that there was extrapolation of Bork's doubts about a penumbra of privacy which lead to supposition about any potential rulings on abortion and civil rights. I know that some of Bork's writings indicated he might be willing to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade (a poorly reasoned decision if a popular one), but I am not sure a man that agreed with Richard Possner on some matters was as partisan or extreme as he was made out to be. In many matters he was reachable, considered, and reasonable. (I note that Posner was considered hard line conservative, right up until his principles lead to some landmark liberal approved decisions. I am not saying Bork would have done the same, only that they were of like mind at one time.))
Heads would explode.
Then Republicans risk said Democrat just nominating a more liberal justice. Sounds like Sri would be a relatively modest choice compared to what Hilary might try. But Republicans never seem to be pragmatic or worry about poll numbers.
We have to first see if Obama does try to go the moderate route. It seems like the most logical tactic, but Obama may not want to risk being responsible for a SC more conservative than expected. It would hurt his legacy with liberals. I am still surprise Obama has not nominated an African-American to the Court yet. This is his last chance.
their job?
They go ahead with 8 justices. If there is a tie, it is a no ruling and the lower court ruling stands. There are a few cases which this will happen to which just flipped the expected outcome like the limits on mandatory union contributions.