Is Garland's goose cooked?

[Atreus21]

Translation: they are idiots because they don't give the rulings I like.

No different than leftists' opinions of Scalia.

Garland is not going to be nominated. Democrats are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

 

[theeedude]

Congress has the power to, and Democrats should add seats to SCOTUS as necessary to rebalance it when they win. What GOP has done with Garland should not be allowed to stand.

 

[fskimospy]

No different than leftists' opinions of Scalia.

Garland is not going to be nominated. Democrats are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

I don't think Scalia was an idiot, he was a super smart guy. It is difficult to say that he was a principled man later in life though when he said things like this:

Shelby v. Holder (Voting Rights Act) on June 25th 2013:

Scalia votes with the majority to strike down legislation that was passed 98-0 by the Senate.

US v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) on June 26th 2013:

We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

Scalia was a smart man, but he was also a blatant hypocrite.

 

[jackstar7]

No different than leftists' opinions of Scalia.

Garland is not going to be nominated. Democrats are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

You're bad at equivalences.

Look back at Scalia rulings and the counter-arguments made vs the horseshit that PG just laid out.

"SJWs"... I can't even.

 

[hal2kilo]

Isn't Trump's term just a lame-duck term? No way he gets re-elected. No reason to confirm anyone until the voters have spoken in 2020 and we know what the public actually wants.

I think that's a very reasonal argument

You're bad at equivalences.

Look back at Scalia rulings and the counter-arguments made vs the horseshit that PG just laid out.

"SJWs"... I can't even.

He's a hopeless one trick pony. It's kill Roe vs Wade uber alles. It's his sole motivation for being on P&N. So there's no discussion.

 

[Pens1566]

Yep, no chance at all he'll be nominated again, nor should he be.

Remind me again what his confirmation vote to DC court was? Why the aversion now?

 

[kage69]

Of course it is.

The GOP wants an activist judge in the same image as Scalia. Candidates who do not drink the KoolAid, or have any connection to the hated Kenyan muslim socialist, will simply not be considered.

The End.

 

[Sunburn74]

Nope. America wants this. Dems should get the fuck out of the way.

I actually kind of agree. You can't complain about it when you're in power (obama's terms in power with rampant obstruction by the GOP) and then do the very same thing when you're not in power. I realize it'll be a fully horrible round of selections by trump but honestly

1) showing you're the party of high moral ground and the party of reason and good faith discussion. Vote against them but nothing dirty or plainly obstructionist like filibusters
2) allowing trump and the GOP to hang themselves with horrible selections that will be infamous in history (napoleon had a phrase: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake)

are probably overall good for the democratic party. Population dynamics alone suggest they will win the war, though they have lost this particular battle against great odds unexpectedly

 

[kage69]

Remind me again what his confirmation vote to DC court was? Why the aversion now?

Garland had the audacity to be qualified for the job, and even worse, was selected by Obama.

 

[JSt0rm]

Garland has zero chance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/

"In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.

Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms."​

omg!!! the horror!!

 

[chowderhead]

I can't wait for abortion to be outlawed. We will need the canon fodder.

Republicans will control both Houses and the Presidency. They control most state houses. They can end the fillibuster and
pack the courts. I am ready for them to do what they have been saying to their base for years - outlaw abortions, put doctors in jail who perform abortions and punish the women who have abortions.
If they dont do that. Social conservative should know they have been played all these years.

 

[dank69]

Republicans will control both Houses and the Presidency. They control most state houses. They can end the fillibuster and
pack the courts. I am ready for them to do what they have been saying to their base for years - outlaw abortions, put doctors in jail who perform abortions and punish the women who have abortions.
If they dont do that. Social conservative should know they have been played all these years.

Yeah right, social conservatives learn something new? Good one.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, I think for the most part you are mistaking the source of this by-line voting. Presidents select SCOTUS justices specifically because of their views on how the Constitution should be interpreted. This has nothing to do with whether they are impartial or not, they just have different ideas about what the Constitution says. When you only confront very close cases about interpreting very grey areas like SCOTUS usually does it's entirely unsurprising that people selected for interpreting it in different ways almost always come down along the lines of who selected them.

I'm sure this doesn't account for all of it though, for example Scalia in his later years was an unrepentant hack who would contradict himself between opinions in the same term, but I imagine it accounts for most of it.

You're probably right. What I do know is that just a few short weeks ago liberals were salivating over the prospect of forever tipping the court to the left, and now they are facing the nightmare scenario of a generational tip to the right. SCOTUS appointments in my mind need to rise above deliberate partisan alignment. Alito and Sotomeyer I think reflect that partisanship.

 

[compuwiz1]

Trump has his own list of potential justices. One he's considering is Ted Cruz, believe it or not.

 

[Atreus21]

He's a hopeless one trick pony. It's kill Roe vs Wade uber alles. It's his sole motivation for being on P&N. So there's no discussion.

Just as with gay marriage, I believe the states are competent on deciding the issue of abortion. To that extent, yes, Roe should be overturned.

 

[Sunburn74]

With gay marriage you can't have people being married and getting federal benefits but then moving to a new state and arbitrarily losing or gaining federal benefits based mostly on how religious that state is. There is no non-religious argument to be made against gay marriage.

Once you had a few states allow it and offer federal benefits as a consequence, the game was pretty much over.

 

[Paratus]

Just as with gay marriage, I believe the states are competent on deciding the issue of abortion. To that extent, yes, Roe should be overturned.

I'll be very surprised if you get it. Your vote is beholden to whomever promises you they end roe v wade.

If they actually did end abortion then many women would be pissed and not vote for them AND you would no longer have to vote for them. Double whammy.

Why risk that when the important part of being elected is to send govt $$ to donors, not follow through on some stupid quasi religious social issue.

 

[jackstar7]

Just as with gay marriage, I believe the states are competent on deciding the issue of abortion. To that extent, yes, Roe should be overturned.

Your willingness to give up your rights to privacy are noted.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think Scalia was an idiot, he was a super smart guy. It is difficult to say that he was a principled man later in life though when he said things like this:

Shelby v. Holder (Voting Rights Act) on June 25th 2013:

Scalia votes with the majority to strike down legislation that was passed 98-0 by the Senate.

US v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) on June 26th 2013:



Scalia was a smart man, but he was also a blatant hypocrite.

Absolutely nothing hypocritical about it. The court doesn't have the authority to strike down legislation just because, it has to go by the constitution. When legislation is passed in the correct way through the legislature, is has to be allowed to stand unless it goes afoul of the constitution. In his view, in one case the legislation ran afoul of the constitution and in the other case it didn't. Again, has nothing to do with if you agree with his view or not, there's nothing hypocritical about it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Remind me again what his confirmation vote to DC court was? Why the aversion now?

I have no idea what his confirmation vote then was, nor do I care because it is not relevant. I said he should not be nominated again, and he won't be. Whatever the vote was for him on a lower court doesn't matter.

 

[PokerGuy]

omg!!! the horror!!

Any justice that ignores the very plain language of an amendment because they simply don't like it has demonstrated that they are not qualified to be on the SCOTUS. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you like and which ones you want to ignore.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely nothing hypocritical about it. The court doesn't have the authority to strike down legislation just because, it has to go by the constitution. When legislation is passed in the correct way through the legislature, is has to be allowed to stand unless it goes afoul of the constitution. In his view, in one case the legislation ran afoul of the constitution and in the other case it didn't. Again, has nothing to do with if you agree with his view or not, there's nothing hypocritical about it.

Go read his actual opinions on those two cases and come back and say he's not a hypocrite. He fliped his own reasoning on its head when it was convenient.

There are plenty more where that came from too. For example he said that when it came to peyote use that people could not defy generally applicable laws based on their religious beliefs. Then when it came to birth control he said that generally applicable laws (even ones bending over backwards to accommodate religious beliefs) were too restrictive and must be struck down.

Hypocrite, plain as day.

 

[shady28]

You're probably right. What I do know is that just a few short weeks ago liberals were salivating over the prospect of forever tipping the court to the left, and now they are facing the nightmare scenario of a generational tip to the right. SCOTUS appointments in my mind need to rise above deliberate partisan alignment. Alito and Sotomeyer I think reflect that partisanship.

I actually agree with this, but we also know (as you say) that SCOTUS judges for the past 100 years or so have been largely activist.

A strict constructionist (ie, a judge who enforces the Constitution based on the meaning at the time it and its amendments were written) is the only way to "fairly" interpret it. But how many times do we see people talk about "times have changed" etc etc?

2A is one of my favorites on this subject. Originally, states and even cities could do w/e they wanted with gun laws. Only the federal Gov't could do nothing with gun laws. If you've ever seen the western where someone rides into town and had to leave their guns at the sheriffs office, that was real. This is not something that would excite 2A defenders.

Today, we know SCOTUS thinks the federal gov't has the power and the states don't. They conveniently ignore the 10th Amendment. A constructionist will read "to the United States" to mean the federal gov't :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

What this means is that any power not granted to the Fed Gov't by the constitution and not restricted to control by states, is within the power of the States. SCOTUS fucked this up and essentially eviscerated that critical part of the constitution a long long time ago.

 

[bshole]

Just as with gay marriage, I believe the states are competent on deciding the issue of abortion. To that extent, yes, Roe should be overturned.

Well sure, just like states are competent on deciding the issue of gun rights in their state.

I am so looking forward to the death of Christianity.... when it is swept into the dustbin of history with Greek/Roman/Egyptian mythology (on which it is largely based).

Given all that we know and can prove scientifically, there is absolutely no valid excuse for believing in myths. Christian myths are a valid justification for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in a modern political system. Practice your religion in your church and get the fuck out of our political system.

 

[fskimospy]

The idea that the constitution in a modern world can be interpreted and used in modern society based on the views of people dead for multiple centuries is a ridiculous fantasy. It was written with the explicit purpose of being ambiguous and open to interpretation as are all common law systems.

If you disagree by all means explain to me how the drafters of the fourth amendment viewed its applicability to information gained from thermal imaging spy satellites. Clearly we should use their views on these sky demons because we wouldn't want to say that times have changed.

What the 'strict constitutionalist' perspective really does is ask judges to abandon their own reason and replace it with a judicial ouija board where they try and divine the preferences of people who have been dead for two centuries.