Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
HellToupee
Footballguy
How did you link YouTube
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Politics in this country may be at their alltime worst. Certainly the worst since I've been alive, I can't speak to 19th century as well.
It is absolutely in Obama's power to nominate the next Justice and the Senate needs to work with him to confirm.
I really can't even believe what I am hearing, it's only February, McConnell has no basis to stand upon.
I hope there is a backlash here and it hurts the GOP, they are coming off about as terrible as I have remembered and we aren't even talking about their Presidential candidates. They are at a low point.
It is absolutely in Obama's power to nominate the next Justice and the Senate needs to work with him to confirm.
I really can't even believe what I am hearing, it's only February, McConnell has no basis to stand upon.
I hope there is a backlash here and it hurts the GOP, they are coming off about as terrible as I have remembered and we aren't even talking about their Presidential candidates. They are at a low point.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
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.
HellToupee
Footballguy
I have no doubt the DNC would be pulling the same crap if things were reversed. Career pols suck.
Follow the rules , let Obama nominate and let it go its course.
Follow the rules , let Obama nominate and let it go its course.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why is this funny? You really don't see that 7 months might be a reasonable period to wait (though I would disagree) but that 11 isn't?
timschochet
Footballguy
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?
I think when a President nominates somebody (after due consideration -- not in a one-day rush job), even if it's on his last day of office after his successor was elected several months ago, the Senate should consider the nomination and vote to confirm or reject on the nominee's merits.
I would understand (but disagree) if someone thought a President shouldn't nominate someone after his successor had already been elected. Until then, I don't think there's any good argument for tribalistic obstructionism.
I would understand (but disagree) if someone thought a President shouldn't nominate someone after his successor had already been elected. Until then, I don't think there's any good argument for tribalistic obstructionism.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Was Chuck talking about a Justice who had passed away - or just one that was contemplating retirement?
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. I think that's a little too absolutist for me.
If a Republican President is elected this year, and if in December someone on the SC dies and Obama nominates a liberal, I have no problem whatsoever with the Senate saying no. I do, however, have a big problem with it right now.
Koya
Footballguy
Gotta side with Christo here and it's not close. Even if it's one month there is a duty and responsibility and mandated process... and yes, a few tricks to play as nuke options. But can you argue this with one month? I guess you could.
7 months? Come on. It's MORE than enough time. So much so, an argument that finds the defining line between 7-11 seems a bit ludicrous, sorry.
timschochet
Footballguy
I have no doubt that he WOULD be hypocritical, just saying he wasn't necessarily in that comment.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
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.
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.
Pots
Footballguy
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.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Lots of folks in here advocating doing what is right only when it is convenient and asserting that two wrongs do make a right.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
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.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
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.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Kagan may be the last justice ever confirmed.
timschochet
Footballguy
Oops, you're right. For some reason I was thinking 2008. My bad. I take it back. Total hypocrite.
The best part is, those remarks by Schumer were actually in July of 2007, 19 months remaining in Bush's term.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
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!
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
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.
bigbottom
Footballguy
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.
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.
bigbottom
Footballguy
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.
bigbottom
Footballguy
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
bigbottom
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
The state of our Union is .... broken.
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.
There have been lots of nominations and confirmations during election years.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
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.timschochet said:
There is no waiting. There is the President and the Senate doing their job.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
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).Pots said:
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
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.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
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.
