• 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.

Scalia dead

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DrDoug said:
Lets see what Sen. Mitch McConnell said about blocking USSC nominees for political expediency:

It's a real interesting read because it seems that Mitch was against playing politics with USSC nominees before he was for it.

Now Mitch is embracing what he once sought to stop. Funny that...
Click to expand...

I never claimed that the Republicans didn't serve their own interest.

I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats that have their collective panties in a bunch about it.

They All Do It.

Shocked.
 
The last time Republicans rejected a SCOTUS nominee was in 1894. Democrats have rejected 4 since that time....the most recent being Bork in 1987. Bork was to replace a moderate (swing vote) and liberals had a cow. At the time, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell. After Democrats rejected Bork, Reagan compromised and nominated Kennedy instead...a moderate liberal. I highly doubt Obama will reciprocate with a moderate candidate. This should be interesting.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
The last time Republicans rejected a SCOTUS nominee was in 1894. Democrats have rejected 4 since that time....the most recent being Bork in 1987. Bork was to replace a moderate (swing vote) and liberals had a cow. At the time, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell. After Democrats rejected Bork, Reagan compromised and nominated Kennedy instead...a moderate liberal. I highly doubt Obama will reciprocate with a moderate candidate. This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

ummm Harriet Meyers [sic]? Are you discounting her on some technicality?

Also, Kennedy is a conservative. He was nominated as a conservative because he was a conservative judge. This is the second time you glossed over that fact.

What he has since done, as a SCOTUS justice, is actually rule as a judge should rule--on the merits of the case and not on partisan politics. Maybe this pisses you off? I think this is why you are not a judge.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
I didn't include withdrawals, just rejections by vote.
Click to expand...

She was rejected by republicans and democrats in equal measure. So, how bad of a nomination do you have to be when all of the Senate, in true bipartisan fashion says: No fucking way! before you can even get to the voting process?

Hell, repubs went against their "own team" on that one. 😀

Yes, she was rather recently rejected. Of course it counts (you also left out the 2nd of the 3 total judges that Reagan had to nominate, including Bork. Kennedy was the 3rd--I think the 2nd was ousted in the same fashion as Meyers?)
 
zinfamous said:
She was rejected by republicans and democrats in equal measure. So, how bad of a nomination do you have to be when all of the Senate, in true bipartisan fashion says: No fucking way! before you can even get to the voting process?

Hell, repubs went against their "own team" on that one. 😀

Yes, she was rather recently rejected. Of course it counts (you also left out the 2nd of the 3 total judges that Reagan had to nominate, including Bork. Kennedy was the 3rd--I think the 2nd was ousted in the same fashion as Meyers?)
Click to expand...
Conservatives thought Douglas Ginsburg was too liberal.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Conservatives thought he was too liberal.
Click to expand...

He [Kennedy] was conservative. I think conservatives of that time were unhappy about him being from the Ninth circuit? an instant "librul" label for those that don't pay attention? Hell, he's still conservative. Perhaps you ignore the cases where he rules strongly conservative. It's nearly half the time--perhaps each isntance of "librul" thought is so unbearably painful for you guys that it blinds you to reality?

Of course, today's "conservatives" place Reagan on the "Commie, Commie, Pinko Pants on fire!" side of the scale of economic and social policy. (but at least he really hated gays, so you guys still have that part to worship 😉)


EDIT: Oh, I see you edited the post, but were always referring to that 2nd fellow anyway. I misread. 😛
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
The last time Republicans rejected a SCOTUS nominee was in 1894. Democrats have rejected 4 since that time....the most recent being Bork in 1987. Bork was to replace a moderate (swing vote) and liberals had a cow. At the time, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell.
Click to expand...
As I noted previously in this thread, you also had six Senate Republicans who voted against Bork. In other words at least theoretically if the Republican/ Democrat ratio in the Senate was the same as it is today Bork still would have been voted down.
 
Aegeon said:
As I noted previously in this thread, you also had six Senate Republicans who voted against Bork. In other words at least theoretically if the Republican/ Democrat ratio in the Senate was the same as it is today Bork still would have been voted down.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that is the only variable. Political dynamics of the Republican party has not changed at all since the 80's.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
The last time Republicans rejected a SCOTUS nominee was in 1894. Democrats have rejected 4 since that time....the most recent being Bork in 1987. Bork was to replace a moderate (swing vote) and liberals had a cow. At the time, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell. After Democrats rejected Bork, Reagan compromised and nominated Kennedy instead...a moderate liberal. I highly doubt Obama will reciprocate with a moderate candidate. This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Please. Dems formed a solid phalanx to oppose Bork specifically because he was an extremist. Six Repubs joined them. He was nominated to replace another conservative, Powell. Kennedy never was a liberal, just a less extreme conservative.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
The last time Republicans rejected a SCOTUS nominee was in 1894. Democrats have rejected 4 since that time....the most recent being Bork in 1987. Bork was to replace a moderate (swing vote) and liberals had a cow. At the time, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form a "solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace Powell. After Democrats rejected Bork, Reagan compromised and nominated Kennedy instead...a moderate liberal. I highly doubt Obama will reciprocate with a moderate candidate. This should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's total bullshit. Kennedy was nominated because he was considered to be conservative. He was LESS conservative than Bork, but a moderate liberal? Total lie.
 
CaptainGoodnight said:
Yes, because that is the only variable. Political dynamics of the Republican party has not changed at all since the 80's.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree at all with the last (sarcastically made) point and I certainly believe that you simply don't have as moderate Republican Senators currently elected today as you did in the 1980s with the arguable exception of Susan Collins.

However my point is that if you left the political makeup of the Senate essentially the same as it was in 1987 but shifted the ratio of Senators to what it is today in terms of Republican control of the Senate, Bork still likely gets outright rejected. The point is that Democrats did not block Bork on a purely partisan vote, but got some Republican Senators to basically agree with their objections. (The current situation looks extremely different in that area with Republicans specifically talking about blocking a nominee on grounds entirely different than that individual's specific qualifications.)
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
Yeah that's total bullshit. Kennedy was nominated because he was considered to be conservative. He was LESS conservative than Bork, but a moderate liberal? Total lie.
Click to expand...

You gotta remember, with how insanely far right the GOP has pushed in the last 20 years, they probably think of Joseph McCarthy as a moderate liberal now.
 
How about Sandra day O'Connor? her husband is dead. she could unretire and have a 2nd try as scj.

she was nominated by Reagan, but will she make it past today's crazy Repub controlled senate?
 
Darwin333 said:
Exactly, not to mention that he will likely pick someone even more moderate just to put the Republicans in a political hard spot. As far as a Supreme Court Justice being nominated by a Democrat this is the most moderate person they are going to get a chance at.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be amazing if Obama nominated a reasonable and qualified person just to show up the Republicans and then they confirmed him or her in a reasonable amount of time just to show up Obama? The entire nation would grind to a halt as we all stopped and stared.

Balt said:
Drudge is basically reporting that Scalia was murdered. I'm sure his followers are rational enough to realize that's nonsense, though. 🙄
Click to expand...
Well . . . It WAS a hunting trip. And we don't know Dick Cheney wasn't there . . .

pcgeek11 said:
Read my links above. The Democrats do exactly the same thing.

Hear it for your self:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
Click to expand...
But you're missing the bigger picture. When Democrats do something it's only because they are super ethical super heroes making the hard decisions to save the world, whereas when Republicans do the exact same thing it's because they are evil old white men who want to murder babies and puppies. (Unless they are black Republicans - then they need to get back on the plantation and do as their Democrat Party betters tell them to do. How dare they have their own ideas as though they are real people!)
 
zinfamous said:
He [Kennedy] was conservative. I think conservatives of that time were unhappy about him being from the Ninth circuit? an instant "librul" label for those that don't pay attention? Hell, he's still conservative. Perhaps you ignore the cases where he rules strongly conservative. It's nearly half the time--perhaps each isntance of "librul" thought is so unbearably painful for you guys that it blinds you to reality?

Of course, today's "conservatives" place Reagan on the "Commie, Commie, Pinko Pants on fire!" side of the scale of economic and social policy. (but at least he really hated gays, so you guys still have that part to worship 😉)


EDIT: Oh, I see you edited the post, but were always referring to that 2nd fellow anyway. I misread. 😛
Click to expand...
He's still conservative because he votes conservative "nearly half the time"? M'kay . . .

So I suppose an example of a moderate would be Darth Bader Ginsberg?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top