• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama will announce Supreme Court pick @ 11am

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Agree...the "moderate" label looks like complete bullshit. 😎
Click to expand...

He isn't left on everything, but he is left on a lot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801212.html


There was at one point an outright ban on guns in DC. Anyone with any sense of objectivity can look at the constitution and see that is clearly an abridgment of the "right to own and bear arms". This was quickly struck down as unconstitutional.

In 2007 this particular justice was part of a minority opinion to re-consider DC's law on appeal, after it had been struck down. The majority opinion was that it wasn't worth re-considering. It eventually went to the SCOTUS where it was struck down.

So this guy apparently believes that banning guns is compatible in some way with "shall not be abridged".

While there might be some in-between positions there, anyone who can justify that stance is not someone I would want to see as on SCOTUS. Even if you think guns should be banned, that someone can ignore the clear verbiage on something like that implies they may do the same thing in "interpreting" any constitutional right or law.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
All I see is a ton of hypocrisy over the years from both sides of the aisle depending on which shoe is on which foot. Constitutionally, the Senate is not required to give any matter an 'up or down' vote.
Click to expand...

Careful. The other side of the argument of the senate not constitutionally having to give an up or down vote to approve an appointment is having to give an up or down vote to prevent one.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, I forgot the option to Miguel Estrada him and prevent a vote until he withdraws with such lofty justifications as "he's a Latino". Democrats pioneered that one also and it would likewise be completely justified for the GOP to do although they probably won't for the reasons I already mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada#D.C._Circuit_Court_nomination
Click to expand...

The Democrats did not pioneer the filibuster of judicial nominees, at least not in that case. (I have no idea when the first one was).

There is really no 'justified' or 'not justified', it just comes down to good governance and bad governance. This is why I think judicial filibusters (and all other filibusters) should be eliminated.
 
shady28 said:
He isn't left on everything, but he is left on a lot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801212.html


There was at one point an outright ban on guns in DC. Anyone with any sense of objectivity can look at the constitution and see that is clearly an abridgment of the "right to own and bear arms". This was quickly struck down as unconstitutional.

In 2007 this particular justice was part of a minority opinion to re-consider DC's law on appeal, after it had been struck down. The majority opinion was that it wasn't worth re-considering. It eventually went to the SCOTUS where it was struck down.

So this guy apparently believes that banning guns is compatible in some way with "shall not be abridged".

While there might be some in-between positions there, anyone who can justify that stance is not someone I would want to see as on SCOTUS. Even if you think guns should be banned, that someone can ignore the clear verbiage on something like that implies they may do the same thing in "interpreting" any constitutional right or law.
Click to expand...

God forbid a justice would actually want to hear a case before deciding.
 
800px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
 
This is merely our government operating the way it was designed to do. Somebody let me know when the Senate steps outside of their sphere of authority.

TIA
 
Really, refusing to have votes on judges and other appointments to run the government is how our government was designed to operate?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
All I see is a ton of hypocrisy over the years from both sides of the aisle depending on which shoe is on which foot. Constitutionally, the Senate is not required to give any matter an 'up or down' vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, there has been hypocrisy from both sides, but that's no excuse to continue prior bad practices. The Senate Repubs should give the nominee a hearing and an up/down vote.

As for your second sentence, I disagree. Inherent in the right of the Senate to "advice and consent" on the President's appointments is the obligation to actually do so within a reasonable time period. I did not agree with Kim Davis's refusal to do her job as a public official, and I do not agree with senators doing the same.
 
senseamp said:
Really, refusing to have votes on judges and other appointments to run the government is how our government was designed to operate?
Click to expand...

Whether it's "designed to operate" that way is moot, there were no prohibitions put in place to prevent it from working that way. Bork not lest ye be Borked.
 
glenn1 said:
Whether it's "designed to operate" that way is moot, there were no prohibitions put in place to prevent it from working that way. Bork not lest ye be Borked.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing a few key differences between now and Robert Bork: Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. He was simply voted down.
 
Brainonska511 said:
I think you're missing a few key differences between now and Robert Bork: Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. He was simply voted down.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jesus Christ, I don't know why people think this is comparable to Bork.

At this point I almost think we're just being trolled. No one can be so obtuse.
 
shady28 said:
While there might be some in-between positions there, anyone who can justify that stance is not someone I would want to see as on SCOTUS. Even if you think guns should be banned, that someone can ignore the clear verbiage on something like that implies they may do the same thing in "interpreting" any constitutional right or law.
Click to expand...

Yeah... crazy what people choose to ignore:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
 
JSt0rm said:
its gonna be funny when Clinton gets elected and puts up a liberal judge who is 45 years old.
Click to expand...

They are so stupid don't realize its best strategic choice to confirm him. Their automatic Tourette's when Scalia dies boxed themselves into a corner
 
senseamp said:
Really, refusing to have votes on judges and other appointments to run the government is how our government was designed to operate?
Click to expand...
You were A-OK with the shenanigans Harry Reid pulled when he ran the Senate. You're reaping what you've sown. Quit whining.
 
Pens1566 said:
Or Obama.
Click to expand...

That alone should be reason to give this guy a hearing. I mean, if your nominee was Jon Huntsman or something, maybe not. But it's TRUMP. Do they really think their prospects are going to improve? If anything a Trump run could cost the Repubs Congress and no amount of gerrymandering will save them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top