Obama will announce Supreme Court pick @ 11am

[Doc Savage Fan]

do you support activist justices?

An activist judge to me is one who subscribes to the notion of "evolving standards of decency" (see Trop v. Dulles 1958). What's an activist judge to you?

 

[abj13]

In his case, it was a test he failed. When his nomination reached the Senate floor, 58 senators, including 6 Republicans, voted to reject him.

After the vote, Strom Thurmond, of all people, urged the Reagan White House to nominate someone less “controversial.” Anthony Kennedy was then nominated and was confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate, 97 to 0.

Sadly, not a single person, who tried to validate the current Senate's actions with what happened to Bork, responded to this. Not only did Bork get a hearing, but in his vote, he was rejected by Republican Senators. Trying to use Bork as a partisan precedent simply reconstructs history that ignores the facts of that nomination.

 

[yllus]

Or Elizabeth Warren

That would make me very happy.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Lol how the fuck is it possible to be too moderate? Thats hilarious.

I want Hillary to nominate Obama. So the GOP has to deal with him...

FoReVeR!!!!

F O R E V E R




f o r e v e r

My hopes as well
And it would be

 

[sportage]

In a way, Obama brought this brick wall onto himself.
Obama needs to get tough, really tough. And there are ways he could do that.
But he never does other than make some lawyer-ist speech.
Mr president, haven't you learned you can't reason with these guys?
You need to go by that old LBJ handbook of getting what you want.
Republicans will never just "hand" it over to you.
You have one year left out of 8, and you still haven't learned how to play the game?

 

[dainthomas]

An activist judge to me is one who subscribes to the notion of "evolving standards of decency" (see Trop v. Dulles 1958). What's an activist judge to you?

What's wrong with evolving standards of decency? Should we go back to 100 years ago when women could be arrested for wearing a swimsuit?

 

[JSt0rm]

What's wrong with evolving standards of decency? Should we go back to 100 years ago when women could be arrested for wearing a swimsuit?

I guarantee they wish they could.

 

[Indus]

So the GOP is saying that President Obama, who was elected to serve 4 years, has no power to nominate Supreme Court Justices in his third year until after an election, which he is not on the ballot, takes place; and if the GOP candidate looses, then suddenly President Obama will regain that power for the couple of months between the election and the swearing in of the new president? Huh? I mean that makes my head hurt. Good luck, GOP explaining that Gordian Knot in a soundbite.

Guess what GOP, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You fail and you lose!

 

[fskimospy]

An activist judge to me is one who subscribes to the notion of "evolving standards of decency" (see Trop v. Dulles 1958). What's an activist judge to you?

Really? So when should standards of decency be fixed at?

 

[werepossum]

Orin Hatch is stumbling over himself right now on the CBS stream trying to justify it. Especially after this:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/

Well, obviously he meant to say “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man who we must keep away from the Supreme Court at all costs." 😀

One concern I have though is that I look kind of like this in a black dress:

Yes, but think of all the interesting lingerie you could wear underneath!

Agree that Obama and Democrats deserve to have this nomination filibustered if not outright Borked and it would be completely justified. However as a tactical decision it would be terrible since there's not really any better alternative outcome that would be immediately realizable should their efforts succeed. Why block one nomination when there's no realistic possibility the next will be an improvement? Pocket the concession that Obama didn't nominate a liberal firebrand and move on.

I tend to agree, although given that he's from Chicago and cries in public when there's nary a dead dog to be seen, maybe not. That's two strikes and nomination by Obama is surely the third.

More seriously, I'd be interested in seeing how many times he's been overruled and to what extent he's been legislating from the bench. I really dislike the Heller and the de facto gun registry (hey, it was only a little illegal!) decisions but I'm pretty much resigned to loss of our Second Amendment rights within the next twenty years anyway. But hey, at least he's not like the Kagan or Sotomayor (the court of appeals is where policy is made) nominations.

President Obama has done his job, now it's time for the Senate Pubbies to do theirs. Man has already been vetted for a lower office, now he deserves a timely vetting for SCOTUS, a fair and reasonable hearing, and an up or down vote. Plenty of time for that now that every Senator except Cruz and Sanders has dropped out of the POTUS race.

 

[Brainonska511]

More seriously, I'd be interested in seeing how many times he's been overruled and to what extent he's been legislating from the bench. I really dislike the Keller and the de facto gun registry (hey, it was only a little illegal!) decisions but I'm pretty much resigned to loss of our Second Amendment rights within the next twenty years anyway. But hey, at least he's not like the Kagan or Sotomayor (the court of appeals is where policy is made) nominations.

For all the crying about guns, there seems to be barely a peep about more important issues, like how our rights to seek recompense against corporations have been largely stripped away by right-wing rulings favoring ridiculous arbitration clauses.

It's great: with right-wing justices, you can keep your unregistered gun. But if a company screws you, have fun with your arbitration.

 

[fskimospy]

For all the crying about guns, there seems to be barely a peep about more important issues, like how our rights to seek recompense against corporations have been largely stripped away by right-wing rulings favoring ridiculous arbitration clauses.

It's great: with right-wing justices, you can keep your unregistered gun. But if a company screws you, have fun with your arbitration.

This is a very good point. Overruling previous cases that upheld mandatory arbitration should be at the top of almost everyone's list. It is basically a license to get screwed.

 

[uclaLabrat]

In a way, Obama brought this brick wall onto himself.
Obama needs to get tough, really tough. And there are ways he could do that.
But he never does other than make some lawyer-ist speech.
Mr president, haven't you learned you can't reason with these guys?
You need to go by that old LBJ handbook of getting what you want.
Republicans will never just "hand" it over to you.
You have one year left out of 8, and you still haven't learned how to play the game?

He's playing the game better than anyone I've ever seen. He's given the GOP one hell of a poison pill: deny voting on a SCOTUS pick that even the right wing has gone on record as being perfectly acceptable and risk alienating independents in an election year that can hurt both their presidential nominee and down-ballot tickets and yield many future years of pain, OR do their constitutional duty, hold a vote where he probably passes, and alienate their base, ensuring a loss in nov. In not just the presidential race but also the down-ballot races, lose control of the Senate and have to deal with a much more liberal SCOTUS nominee next year.

They basically get to pick the dido they're going to get fucked with, but make no mistake, they're still getting fucked.

 

[JSt0rm]

For all the crying about guns, there seems to be barely a peep about more important issues, like how our rights to seek recompense against corporations have been largely stripped away by right-wing rulings favoring ridiculous arbitration clauses.

It's great: with right-wing justices, you can keep your unregistered gun. But if a company screws you, have fun with your arbitration.

If people dont like the arbitration they are free to use their unregistered guns.

 

[ivwshane]

For all the crying about guns, there seems to be barely a peep about more important issues, like how our rights to seek recompense against corporations have been largely stripped away by right-wing rulings favoring ridiculous arbitration clauses.

It's great: with right-wing justices, you can keep your unregistered gun. But if a company screws you, have fun with your arbitration.

The 2nd amendment is simply the distraction the Republican elites use to keep their useful idiots complaisant.

 

[werepossum]

Whether we admit it or not, we all have a team we're rooting for. Even some of our declared independents, if you read enough of their posts have a team although they are loathe to admit it. It's part of the human psyche to identify with a certain tribe.

But some of us realize that their tribe is shit and the other tribe is shit too and that both tribes are taking us deeper and deeper into the shit.

Right now, we've got a woman running on the same principles and ideas as the person in charge for the last seven plus years. So what, this time it's going to be different? It's ridiculous to even think so.

The other tribe has a likely nominee who proclaims he's going to upset the apple cart. Whether he does or not would of course remain to be seen.

Whether maintaining the status quo or upsetting the apple cart is the right course of action doesn't much matter because we have three branches of government and they're all pretty much rotten to the core. Whether the executive branch under one party pushes the cart around or if under the other party the apple cart is upset the apples are still going to stink.

I'm a fiscal conservative. Those principles have done very well by me as I've gone through life. I can't be a Democrat because for all of those same years I haven't seen anything that remotely resembles fiscal conservatism out of them. So, I'm stuck with the other team and as such I have no choice but to root for them although I know in my heart that the results will be no better. I only see the left wanting to cut defense while increasing spending to further dependency in the quest to garner votes. The right wants to cut much, much more. The choice for me is clear. The path to growth and prosperity is through watching your pennies and wise investment. Ain't none of that going on in DC.

But I'm not fooling myself, we're not going to come out of this intact. Common sense tells us that.

Well said. I'd only add that for an increasing number of us, it isn't so much a party we're rooting for as one we dislike a bit less than the other. Your other post was spot-on too, but the Pubbies are only fiscally responsible when compared to the Democrats, and even then only when it's politically advantageous. When they held the Senate, House and White House, they spent every bit as irresponsibly as do Democrats. Maybe not quite as much, but coupled with the tax cuts, every bit as irresponsibly.

 

[werepossum]

For all the crying about guns, there seems to be barely a peep about more important issues, like how our rights to seek recompense against corporations have been largely stripped away by right-wing rulings favoring ridiculous arbitration clauses.

It's great: with right-wing justices, you can keep your unregistered gun. But if a company screws you, have fun with your arbitration.

Hey, as long as I have my guns, I have every faith that arbitration will go my way. 😉

I take your point, I just disagree with the relative weighting. Free citizens have the right to bear arms at their own discretion, for their own purposes. Subjects on the other hand have the right to bear arms at government's order, for government's purposes. Virtually all freedom flows from that distinction and the entirety of Western liberalism has been in winning that distinction. Personally, I prefer being a free citizen in arbitration over being a subject with government protecting it's property from big business. Your mileage, obviously, may vary.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Damn!!! Put him up for a vote and be over it. It appears that he's an excellent choice

 

[Fern]

He's playing the game better than anyone I've ever seen. He's given the GOP one hell of a poison pill: deny voting on a SCOTUS pick that even the right wing has gone on record as being perfectly acceptable and risk alienating independents in an election year that can hurt both their presidential nominee and down-ballot tickets and yield many future years of pain, OR do their constitutional duty, hold a vote where he probably passes, and alienate their base, ensuring a loss in nov. In not just the presidential race but also the down-ballot races, lose control of the Senate and have to deal with a much more liberal SCOTUS nominee next year.

They basically get to pick the dido they're going to get fucked with, but make no mistake, they're still getting fucked.

Not sure I agree.

It's the GOP establishment that's threatening to block any nominee.

That's the same GOP establishment that hates Trump, the likely candidate.

So, people who want to give the finger to the establishment are voting for Trump, but when the establishment pisses them off by rejecting a SCOTUS nominee they now won't vote for Trump? Huh?

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Who cares when the net effect is the same. You really think holding a predetermined vote because of the Senate balance is going to make a bit of difference? Like someone said earlier in the Alito case the only thing that matters is the end result, not the political posturing. Calling for a doomed political vote is simply posturing.

Please. The Senate has the obligation to evaluate Garland on his merits, not on the basis of who nominated him when. Anything else shows a lack of common decency & a lack of respect for human dignity.

He's a shrewd choice on Obama's part because he'd easily pass an honest vote & is not a partisan pick at all.

I don't really know much at all about Garland but I figure Obama knows what he's doing & I'm good with that. The business of the people must be tended to & the SCOTUS must be fully staffed to do their part well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not sure I agree.

It's the GOP establishment that's threatening to block any nominee.

That's the same GOP establishment that hates Trump, the likely candidate.

So, people who want to give the finger to the establishment are voting for Trump, but when the establishment pisses them off by rejecting a SCOTUS nominee they now won't vote for Trump? Huh?

Fern

"Down ballot". POTUS isn't the only race on the ballot.

 

[werepossum]

He's playing the game better than anyone I've ever seen. He's given the GOP one hell of a poison pill: deny voting on a SCOTUS pick that even the right wing has gone on record as being perfectly acceptable and risk alienating independents in an election year that can hurt both their presidential nominee and down-ballot tickets and yield many future years of pain, OR do their constitutional duty, hold a vote where he probably passes, and alienate their base, ensuring a loss in nov. In not just the presidential race but also the down-ballot races, lose control of the Senate and have to deal with a much more liberal SCOTUS nominee next year.

They basically get to pick the dido they're going to get fucked with, but make no mistake, they're still getting fucked.

Agreed, Obama has played this beautifully. Also, Trump is socially liberal, so even if he wins and he gets to replace Scalia, they aren't getting another Scalia, who in his later years was a social warrior for the conservatives.

 

[Balt]

really? So when should standards of decency be fixed at?

1963. 😛

 

[JSt0rm]

Agreed, Obama has played this beautifully. Also, Trump is socially liberal, so even if he wins and he gets to replace Scalia, they aren't getting another Scalia, who in his later years was a social warrior for the conservatives.

Trump doesnt give a shit. He will put up a super conservative dude because 4 more years.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I imagine it will be someone Republicans are on the record as having loved in the past. If they are going to refuse to confirm someone for nothing other than partisan reasons I'm sure he's going to make it hurt.

Not that I think that will change their minds, haha. What it might do is help a little to knock off some additional vulnerable Republican senators.

Are you completely brain dead? He is going to screw everyone over by picking a conservative, and you think it will hurt the gop!