SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[glenn1]

Pure bullshit. Roberts was confirmed in the same month he was nominated & Alito was confirmed in 3 months. The latter occurred across the Christmas break.

As were Kagan and Sotomayor, that still doesn't change my factual statement that Dems got to reject the SCOTUS nomination of Bork without retribution to date. Or that Democrats regularly planned and executed filibusters and any other means at their disposal to slow down or block Bush picks. That the GOP adopted those tactics when Obama assumed the Presidency doesn't change that history.

 

[glenn1]

Apparently Reagan overlooked that when he nominated Bork, something you've defended repeatedly. When he nominated Kennedy instead the process proceeded forthwith.

GWB overlooked that when he held out on Miguel Estrada for 28 months as well.

Both were examples of extremist ideology.

I'm sure Obama's pick will meet the same fate if judged to have "extremist ideology." Too bad for you the people deciding that are Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

As were Kagan and Sotomayor, that still doesn't change my factual statement that Dems got to reject the SCOTUS nomination of Bork without retribution to date. Or that Democrats regularly planned and executed filibusters and any other means at their disposal to slow down or block Bush picks. That the GOP adopted those tactics when Obama assumed the Presidency doesn't change that history.

The GOP used those tactics far, far in excess of anything the Democrats did. You seemed VERY concerned about fairness just a few posts back. Presumably since fairness is important you must want the GOP to discontinue their attempts to block nominees immediately as they've already done so to a far greater extent than anyone before. Am I correct in this?

Let me guess, when you said 'fair' you meant 'do what I want'.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm sure Obama's pick will meet the same fate if judged to have "extremist ideology." Too bad for you the people deciding that are Republicans.

That's not what Repubs have offered. They said they'll block any pick, period.

The Bork nomination was 29 years ago. Might want to get over yourself.

 

[PokerGuy]

I've asked you many, many times to clear up my misunderstanding. Instead you've just declared it wrong and refused to say why.

The most obvious reason for that would be that you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.

As I've already told you, you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist. At no point have I made the claim you are suggesting, nor have I held that position. You can certainly go back and read and figure out how you came to the wrong conclusion, but I'm not going to bother repeating the same points again.

People's ideology informs their legal perspective. It is not possible to separate the two.

Yes, ideology plays some role in perspective, no matter what aspect of life you're looking at. However, some are capable of understanding their perspective and compartmentalize it to some extent, while others can't. Take Roberts for example. Based on ideology alone, he could have easily shot down obummercare -- but he didn't. I disagree with the ruling and his conclusion, but he went by his legal reasoning and I can't fault him for that.

All that aside, while I think Thomas's ideology is bad and that he allows it to play too large a part in his decision making I definitely don't think he's an idiot.

Lets keep in mind that we're talking relative here. I can say that some NFL running back is "terrible" . Odds are, that guy is incredibly fast/strong/talented, but compared to his peers and based on his performance he's terrible. Same for these folks. They are all obviously relatively intelligent, and have strong legal skills. Some allow ideology to drive their decision making and they come to the wrong conclusion in each case presented to the court. I consider them idiots, but not in the sense that they are actually dumber than the random dolt on the street.

You said Sotomayor and Kagan are idiots, despite the high likelihood that they are much more intelligent individuals than you are.

You realize those are not mutually exclusive right?

I guess it's hard to be such a genius in this world, you must feel constantly surrounded by your inferiors. lol.

I'm assuming you're providing insight into your state of mind? :thumbsup:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As were Kagan and Sotomayor, that still doesn't change my factual statement that Dems got to reject the SCOTUS nomination of Bork without retribution to date. Or that Democrats regularly planned and executed filibusters and any other means at their disposal to slow down or block Bush picks. That the GOP adopted those tactics when Obama assumed the Presidency doesn't change that history.

And don't forget that Democrats changed Senate rules and resorted to the 'nuclear option' for non-SCOTUS appointees in order to stack the DC Circuit Court. Why stop there?

 

[fskimospy]

As I've already told you, you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist. At no point have I made the claim you are suggesting, nor have I held that position. You can certainly go back and read and figure out how you came to the wrong conclusion, but I'm not going to bother repeating the same points again.

Then by all means explain my misunderstanding! You've declined to do so despite being asked over and over. So please don't repeat the same points, just address a very simple question. How hard can this be?

Feel free to take as much time as you need to explain why you weren't claiming to know more about Catholicism than the pope. If you need me to dig up any quotes from you or other things to that effect just ask. I'm here as your resource so that you can explain yourself as thoroughly as possible.

Yes, ideology plays some role in perspective, no matter what aspect of life you're looking at. However, some are capable of understanding their perspective and compartmentalize it to some extent, while others can't. Take Roberts for example. Based on ideology alone, he could have easily shot down obummercare -- but he didn't. I disagree with the ruling and his conclusion, but he went by his legal reasoning and I can't fault him for that.

Funny, that was very likely a tactical decision on his part, not a product of his legal reasoning.

Lets keep in mind that we're talking relative here. I can say that some NFL running back is "terrible" . Odds are, that guy is incredibly fast/strong/talented, but compared to his peers and based on his performance he's terrible. Same for these folks. They are all obviously relatively intelligent, and have strong legal skills. Some allow ideology to drive their decision making and they come to the wrong conclusion in each case presented to the court. I consider them idiots, but not in the sense that they are actually dumber than the random dolt on the street.

You're the one that said they couldn't run circles around you intellectually so you were clearly comparing their level of intellect to yours, not to other judges. Do you think they are smarter than you are or not?

I'm assuming you're providing insight into your state of mind? :thumbsup:

I think the pope knows a great deal more about catholicism than I do and I'm quite certain that every member of the Supreme Court is smarter than I am. Not all of us are as amazingly well versed in theology and the law as you are.

 

[fskimospy]

And don't forget that Democrats changed Senate rules and resorted to the 'nuclear option' for non-SCOTUS appointees in order to stack the DC Circuit Court. Why stop there?

By 'stack' you mean 'appoint judges to', of course, haha. Was GWB 'stacking' the DC Circuit Court when he appointed judges to it?

I agree though, the filibuster of appointments of all types should be abolished in its entirety regardless of who is president.

 

[glenn1]

The GOP used those tactics far, far in excess of anything the Democrats did. You seemed VERY concerned about fairness just a few posts back. Presumably since fairness is important you must want the GOP to discontinue their attempts to block nominees immediately as they've already done so to a far greater extent than anyone before. Am I correct in this?

Let me guess, when you said 'fair' you meant 'do what I want'.

Fairness would be rejecting his pick(s). What you want is grace; IOW the Republicans to act better than Democrats did when in the same circumstances. Which I would be disinclined for them to provide since I know neither fairness nor grace would be returned in kind once the relative positions of the two parties shifts.

 

[fskimospy]

Fairness would be rejecting his pick(s). What you want is grace; IOW the Republicans to act better than Democrats did when in the same circumstances. Which I would be disinclined for them to provide since I know neither fairness nor grace would be returned in kind once the relative positions of the two parties shifts.

No, fairness would be rejecting the exact same number of picks. Instead they have rejected far more.

So you don't care about fairness at all, you just care about justifying what you already want to do. It's okay to admit it, just stop lying about your actual motivations.

 

[glenn1]

No, fairness would be rejecting the exact same number of picks. Instead they have rejected far more.

So you don't care about fairness at all, you just care about justifying what you already want to do. It's okay to admit it, just stop lying about your actual motivations.

GOP hasn't rejected any SCOTUS picks.

 

[fskimospy]

GOP hasn't rejected any SCOTUS picks.

Ah, so you're embracing a convenient definition of 'fair' by confining it to only a very specific subsection of appointments. That's totally logical, haha.

Again, stop trying to rationalize your position and just admit you support this because it achieves the ends you want. Why is that so hard to do?

 

[Jhhnn]

Fairness would be rejecting his pick(s). What you want is grace; IOW the Republicans to act better than Democrats did when in the same circumstances. Which I would be disinclined for them to provide since I know neither fairness nor grace would be returned in kind once the relative positions of the two parties shifts.

Which conveniently ignores the rapid confirmations of Roberts & Alito entirely.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, it's up to the president to nominate someone HE finds acceptable. Then it's up to the Senate to decide if THEY find the nominee acceptable. The job of the president is definitely not to nominate someone that the Senate would find acceptable as that would be a gross violation of the separation of powers.

Then we agree that both are within their constitutional powers to nominate who they want and to not even confer on the nomination. Thanks.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Based on the behavior pattern of the Republicans in Congress as of late, they'll get into serious fights with themselves after the 2nd or 3rd nominee is obstructed, especially if Obama serves up a moderate and the polls are showing the Republican President nominee looking a lot like a hellbound snowball.

If the republicans thought that Clinton or especially Sanders was going to win the White House they would be better off taking an Obama appointee. If they think they have a chance of losing control of the senate they are really better off taking an Obama pick.

At least with Obama the Senate can demand someone closer to the middle. They will have a harder time making that demand and continuing obstructionism under a new democratic president. And of course all bets are off if they lose the senate (which is a real possibility...not a foregone conclusion but not one they can easily ignore either).

Of course the democrats can do that math too and at some point decide to stop putting forward a nominee.

It is all a gamble really and neither side can know for certain. Still, there are some scenarios where I think republicans would actually rather have an Obama nominee than anyone other than a republican president.

My guess is they will drag their heels till near or after the conventions and then see where things stand. It will be interesting if democrats win the presidency and win the senate in November and the new president nominates Obama to the court. While I actually think he might make a good justice, the spectacle of the wailing and ganshing of teeth it would cause among the GOP would be epic and entertaining.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I've asked you many, many times to clear up my misunderstanding. Instead you've just declared it wrong and refused to say why.

The most obvious reason for that would be that you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.



Now that's a totally different thing, although I still don't agree. People's ideology informs their legal perspective. It is not possible to separate the two. All that aside, while I think Thomas's ideology is bad and that he allows it to play too large a part in his decision making I definitely don't think he's an idiot. Same with Scalia: he was a horrible bigot but he was undeniably brilliant.

You said Sotomayor and Kagan are idiots, despite the high likelihood that they are much more intelligent individuals than you are. It's odd that someone who considers himself to be the intellectual superior of several supreme court justices and the theological superior of the pope doesn't seem to be able to explain why he feels this way.

I guess it's hard to be such a genius in this world, you must feel constantly surrounded by your inferiors. lol.

Oh, I want to nit-pick your remark while I try and keep a straight face after looking at the morning papers. Better yet, a footnote, and that's all it is.

Off the top of my head, an ideology might inform (or delude) a Supreme about what is best for the country. So to quote Scalia, there are decisions that are "good Law," and there are decisions that depart from the country's best interests. In context, it was meant to suggest that there is an intersection of the two in a Venn diagram.

Someone with the achievements of any of them -- Scalia, Kagan, Ginsberg, Roberts, even Thomas -- would at least be aware of any dilemmas. Excess in taking a position would be a matter of choice.

So I'm even more comfortable with the idea of a "moderate" judicial appointment, when it would seem on the surface a logical inconsistency to make one decision according to one principle, and another decision following another one.

As for the papers, maybe I had noted somewhere that I have these narcissist tendencies, but I don't know how they amplify the titillation I feel after eviscerating some long-standing local nemesis with a response to his/her "letter to the editor."

But they did publish me today, word-for-word in total. The Pres missed seeing it by mere hours unless the White House staff continues to gather later editions to evaluate the aftermath of a visit. But it was never my intention to get BO's attention.

Instead, I'm confident my target this time is choking on his eggs and bacon today.

Nothing better than a few words to cause someone to have a heart-attack.

On the down side, I find it puerile in submitting to a compulsion for instructing people with fifth-grade minds as to how "nominate" and "appoint" are two separate acts. In that respect, I lowered myself.

And even the paper got it wrong with their editorial. The headline read: "Next president should fill Scalia's seat: Let people make their preference known before new justice nominated." Only in the text did they inconsistently define their wishes with practical correctness: "we believe the Senate should hold off confirming anyone nominated by President Obama."

Peter O'Toole had a script-line as Pu-Yi's English tutor in the movie "The Last Emperor." "A gentleman says what he means, and means what he says." So anyone can conclude that even a newspaper doesn't quite measure up to the standard.

With that in mind, I'm always looking for victims who write inflammatory letters. I usually escape the razor-edge of someone else's wit. But there's always a first time for anything.

As for Thomas. I met him briefly in the course of business around 1982. There WAS a coke can on his desk, but I didn't see a pubic hair on it.

Based primarily on that one encounter, I think he's a prick. How that makes a Supreme better or worse, I cannot be sure even for myself.

 

[HTFOff]

Republicans wouldn't be in the position they are had the democrats put forth an iota of inclusivity during the passage of the ACA. Democrats were subsequently eviscerated in 2010. Oh my, how the tables have turned. Team blue is pouting and moaning like a child that isn't getting their way, all the while preaching the sanctity of the constitution (LOL). This is pure gold.

Remember kids, elections have consequences.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

By 'stack' you mean 'appoint judges to', of course, haha. Was GWB 'stacking' the DC Circuit Court when he appointed judges to it?

By 'stack" I mean that when the 'nuclear option' was first used, it was done explicitly to appoint liberal judges on a very important court, all three appointments were Obama donors and one (Cornelia Pillard) was so twisted as to actually file a brief before the United States Supreme Court in which she made comparisons between pro-life demonstrators and the KKK. (Edit: Rumor has it that Obama was so butthurt over the DC Circuit Court decision to strike down his highly contentious NLRB recess appointments that he wanted to appoint THREE more sympathetic judges even though it wasn't warranted by the very light workload of the court. BTW, as I'm sure you recall, SCOTUS upheld that ruling against Obama's NLRB recess appointments.)

And it's funny that you bring up GWB's "stacking". Democrats blocked two of Bush's nominees to the DC Circuit Court, Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler. In addition, they kept his other four nominees to the Circuit waiting between one and three years.

The current whining of Democrats is falling on deaf ears.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, so you're embracing a convenient definition of 'fair' by confining it to only a very specific subsection of appointments. That's totally logical, haha.

Again, stop trying to rationalize your position and just admit you support this because it achieves the ends you want. Why is that so hard to do?

Sure, I'll freely admit that I would prefer an outcome that meets my political preference. Why is that relevant? Certainly not because you stand on principle here and supported past Republican Presidents at the time. You have in this thread already celebrated Borking because of ideological reasons, I'm doing the same.

 

[PokerGuy]

Then by all means explain my misunderstanding! You've declined to do so despite being asked over and over. So please don't repeat the same points, just address a very simple question. How hard can this be?

I'll bounce that right back at you -- please, don't repeat the same points. I've already explained it, you're starting with a fallacy and are then asking me to explain how you came to that decision. I'm sure you'll be oh-so-helpful to provide out of context quotes or incorrect interpretation of quotes along the way. No thanks, not going down that rabbit hole. As I said, you think you know my position better than I. Can't fix that for you.

You're the one that said they couldn't run circles around you intellectually so you were clearly comparing their level of intellect to yours, not to other judges. Do you think they are smarter than you are or not?

Not sure how you're having that much difficulty with the idea that there isn't a single objective measure of "smart" or intellect. It's far more nuanced than that. Short answer, in many ways, yes, but in some aspects, no. No matter how brilliant you might be, if you let your emotions or your ideology override your decision making, you're going to end up doing dumb things and coming to the wrong conclusions.

Not all of us are as amazingly well versed in theology and the law as you are.

I'm neither, but then again not all of us can be experts on everything, you'll have to bear with us.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans wouldn't be in the position they are had the democrats put forth an iota of inclusivity during the passage of the ACA. Democrats were subsequently eviscerated in 2010. Oh my, how the tables have turned. Team blue is pouting and moaning like a child that isn't getting their way, all the while preaching the sanctity of the constitution (LOL). This is pure gold.

Remember kids, elections have consequences.

Wait, you think the DEMOCRATS were the people who were acting partisan during the ACA's passage? Holy shit, what kind of revisionist history is this?

Elections do have consequences! Obama won twice and it's his job to appoint new SCOTUS justices. The republicans won the senate and so they can vote his nominees up or down. It's a sad abdication of their constitutional duty to flatly refuse to do so regardless of the nominee though.

When people say elections have consequences they usually mean 'this election result that I prefer should be viewed as the most important.'

 

[Indus]

Whats going to happen. Is that Obama has plenty of time to nominate a very qualified person to the supreme court.

The republicans are not going to be able to block 1-2 picks in the time he has left in office.

Its going to make them look like crap, and obstructionists.

Its what happened in both of Obama's elections. (where he won by 10% over McCain and 5% over Romney.) Remember when republicans caused our credit rating with the world to drop? Just to be dicks?

Well this time its not a black guy with a muslim name running.

This time its an old white man or a old white woman, both of whom are far more qualified to be president than Obama was when he was elected. And whos opponents are far LESS qualified than McCain or Romney.

I really dont understand how any rational thinking human can believe that (Trump, Cruz, Rubio) could beat (Sanders/Clinton) in a general election.

What happens if Hillary makes Bernie the vice pres?
What happens if Bernie makes Hillary or Elizabeth Warren Vice?

There is very little chance of a republican winning a general presidential election for some time. They have only one demographic.

Angry white people. They have half a demographic. lol

The Dems have...everyone else. Including the rational white people.

So let them stall, who cares?

They tried their best to disenfranchise democratic voters with useless voter ID laws and still lost. They will try every trick in the book. But still lose.

All democrats have to do, is come out to vote, and there will NEVER be another republican president that has current republican values. They will have to change their parties entire stance. Because those values are no longer considered acceptable by most of the world.

Then once Bernie or Hillary is prez, Ginsburg will retire. They will nominate another liberal replacement.
and Clarence Thomas is gettin kinda old...

GOP is old news.

This! :thumbsup:

 

[LPCTech]

Republicans wouldn't be in the position they are had the democrats put forth an iota of inclusivity during the passage of the ACA. Democrats were subsequently eviscerated in 2010. Oh my, how the tables have turned. Team blue is pouting and moaning like a child that isn't getting their way, all the while preaching the sanctity of the constitution (LOL). This is pure gold.

Remember kids, elections have consequences.

lol dude "Team Blue" isnt pouting at all. We are about to get another 4-8 years in the white house and 2-3 supreme court pics and there isnt much to be done about it.

and arent you guys the ones usually preaching about the constitution but regularly breaking it?

like now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Elections do have consequences!

Yes they do...most notably 2014!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wait, you think the DEMOCRATS were the people who were acting partisan during the ACA's passage? Holy shit, what kind of revisionist history is this?

Elections do have consequences! Obama won twice and it's his job to appoint new SCOTUS justices. The republicans won the senate and so they can vote his nominees up or down. It's a sad abdication of their constitutional duty to flatly refuse to do so regardless of the nominee though.

When people say elections have consequences they usually mean 'this election result that I prefer should be viewed as the most important.'

Somehow, with one side of their brain, they might come up with an acceptable idea. With the other side, if someone else chooses to adopt it, they reject it.

And I think some basic premises of the ACA did indeed originate with one or more Republican proposals some time prior to Obama's election. Otherwise, we'd have had something closer to "single-payer." And someone can argue the contrary, but that was my take on it.

As to the "sad abdication." I might agree, but the two real issues arise as follows:

-- Whether cases of the greatest significance will lead to a 4-to-4 deadlock requiring the lower court's opinion to prevail
-- Whether a complete refusal to advise and consent any nominations will affect the November outcome, or how it might affect it.

That goes back to Jhhnn's remark that he doesn't think the American people are crazy.

As to that, I DO sometimes wonder . . . .