SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, Obama should nominate. And the Senate should advise and give consent if they think the person is right for the job or reject if not. They should both do their jobs as the constitution demands. They should not, in any circumstance, defer and pray for a different election outcome.

Constitutional lines have been quite fuzzy in recent years. But I'm sure they'll work with the President as he has worked with them.

 

[buckshot24]

Obama is free to nominate whoever he wants, the senate has a job to do afterward.

 

[Jhhnn]

As if liberals don't have there fair share of crazies. You live in quite the bubble it seems...I imagine this must make all the vagaries and complexities of the world so much simpler for you. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that costs well beyond my means.

There is no parallel on the left to the Birther/Benghazi/Jade Helm believers on the Right. They are legion in ways that uber progressive crazies only dream of.

It's not so much that we're left but rather that Repubs have charged to the far right horizon for 40 years.

 

[buckshot24]

There is no parallel on the left to the Birther/Benghazi/Jade Helm believers on the Right. They are legion in ways that uber progressive crazies only dream of.

It's not so much that we're left but rather that Repubs have charged to the far right horizon for 40 years.

You say this as if your subjective opinion is objective fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

You say this as if your subjective opinion is objective fact.

Unlike Righties, my opinion is formed on the basis of observable fact rather than conspiracy theory & raw emotion. Once Righties get something in their heads they're often incapable of letting it go & they get some strange stuff in there. Witness the birther in chief, Donald Trump, leading in the race for the Presidential nomination.

 

[dullard]

You say this as if your subjective opinion is objective fact.

Which statement, he made two?

1) As for craziness, both sides have their fair share of craziness. Although the liberal crazies haven't made it to prime time yet (Vermin Supreme for example). The conservatives crazies seem to make it to prime time quite frequently (Trump for example).

2) As for the GOP moving to the right, there are many ways to measure it. I've yet to see one way that doesn't show the GOP moving to the right over time. For example, look at the average Republican in 1979 vs 2013 in the image here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...tart-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/

 

[ivwshane]

You say this as if your subjective opinion is objective fact.

It's not his opinion it's fact.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/

I'm aware of only one party whose political candidates run on a no compromise campaign.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...rization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

 

[brycejones]

You say this as if your subjective opinion is objective fact.

Oh the irony from buckshat.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

It's not his opinion it's fact.
I'm aware of only one party whose political candidates run on a no compromise campaign.

Bernie Sanders certainly is.

 

[ivwshane]

Bernie Sanders certainly is.

Really? I guess I haven't seen him say it outright, do you have a source?

 

[buckshot24]

Which statement, he made two?

The first one.

1) As for craziness, both sides have their fair share of craziness. Although the liberal crazies haven't made it to prime time yet (Vermin Supreme for example). The conservatives crazies seem to make it to prime time quite frequently (Trump for example).

How do you objectively show that anybody is a "crazy"? You can't.

 

[Bitek]

Assuming that Obama is truly interested in the collective interests and opinions of the American people, one good look at the last midterms would indicate it would perhaps be best to wait to see what happens in November. Only another 8-9 months and we know what the American people want. What harm is there in waiting to assure that the will of the American public is done?

But why is the current president any less a representative of the will of the people as the next president? At what time point exactly does a president lose that quality? Is it the first year? The second year? The 7th year? Remember he won 2 elections here.

Even if the people go a completely different direction in november it doesn't mean that president lost the ability to represent them or was un-representing them or dis-representing (i realize these are not real words) them in anyway. If you have a wife of 10 years who dies and then you re-marry someone who was completely different than her, does it mean your first wife was not your representative in her last few days, months, years? Because you chose someone younger or older or smarter or dumber, does that mean your first wife by default of being different was un-representing you in all her wifely duties? Should you tell her "you're getting up in age. Why don't you leave the naming of our next dog or cat or leave the decision of our next type of car to your potential replacement?"

I think its pretty clear what he means, even if it's completely unconstitutional.

Dsf: Presidents only have a mandate until the midterms, then they become " lame ducks" who lose all nomination ability until the next election. So in GOP world, 75% is an overestimation. Obama gets only 50% of his term. Unless he also lost Senate seats the year of the election, then he gets 0%. Just like the founding fathers intended.

But really these are just rationalizations.

Truth is conservatives have an all consuming sense of entitlement. They can't accept any ideas or direction other than their own, even if they've been rejected by the majority. Marco Robotio's repeat track was how Obama was changing America and they had to stop him. This only makes sense when you refuse to believe the world has changed and left you behind.

 

[werepossum]

If you're going to fabricate strawmen...you've got to disguise them better and make them much more convincing. Otherwise, it backfires and makes you look like the really stupid one.

Yeah . . . Methinks that ship has already sailed. And ran aground, slowly mineralized, and became a fossil ship.

Yes on both counts.

Thomas for example is generally considered to be the most conservative sitting supreme court judge. Yet he is highly authoritarian in some rulings. Take the gay marriage case for example, he dissented which is basically saying that the government had the right to say who you can and can not marry. You can't get much more authoritarian than that.

For libertarian examples of liberals on the court, see the same case.

Unfortunately even self-described small government conservatives embrace authoritarianism as warmly as do progressives.

The US Senate has a long history of considering a candidate's judicial philosophy if they happen to consider it "extreme".

As they should. However . . . Assuming there is enough history to determine judicial bent - and personally I do not believe anyone should be appointed or confirmed without at least a decade of federal appellate experience - a nominee deserves a timely hearing and an up or down vote. It's not kosher when the Democrats refused to hold a vote, and it's not kosher when the Pubbies do the same. No nominee should languish a year. If you cannot make an informed decision within six months, that nominee should be voted down. And if leadership opposes a nominee with enough support to win confirmation - even if the leadership of the moment hates him or her - then that nominee should have his or her vote. It's advice and consent of the Senate, not of the Senate's leadership.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bernie Sanders certainly is.

He obviously learned about constructive compromise long ago-

In 1987, U.S. News & World Report ranked Sanders as one of America's best mayors.[63] Today, Burlington is regarded as one of the most livable cities in the nation.[64][65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Mayor_of_Burlington

 

[buckshot24]

I think its pretty clear what he means, even if it's completely unconstitutional.

Dsf: Presidents only have a mandate until the midterms, then they become " lame ducks" who lose all nomination ability until the next election. So in GOP world, 75% is an overestimation. Obama gets only 50% of his term. Unless he also lost Senate seats the year of the election, then he gets 0%. Just like the founding fathers intended.

But really these are just rationalizations.

Truth is conservatives have an all consuming sense of entitlement. They can't accept any ideas or direction other than their own, even if they've been rejected by the majority. Marco Robotio's repeat track was how Obama was changing America and they had to stop him. This only makes sense when you refuse to believe the world has changed and left you behind.

Do you agree with Schumer here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

If so, why can't senate republicans use this reasoning in not confirming another Obama nominee?

For the record, I don't agree with Doc on this one. We shouldn't wait, the president should nominate his choice and the senate should confirm or not confirm, that is how it works.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no parallel on the left to the Birther/Benghazi/Jade Helm believers on the Right. They are legion in ways that uber progressive crazies only dream of.

It's not so much that we're left but rather that Repubs have charged to the far right horizon for 40 years.

And you have paid dearly for the luxury of simplifying your world view in such a manner....you just haven't figured that out yet...and likely never will unless you're relatively intelligent and young.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah . . . Methinks that ship has already sailed. And ran aground, slowly mineralized, and became a fossil ship.

I like him just the same. He's OK in my book.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think this is something we could call "Public Opinion Chess" or "Checkers."

If the GOP could convince Obama to abjure putting forward a nominee, then they can say "See? He didn't do his job." Or -- it might have some impact on the smorgasbord voters who lean this way or that, depending on the itch in their crotch or the vague memories of the last political advertisement they've seen.

If Obama submits his nominee, then the onus is on the Senate. If they remain in lockstep and refuse to confirm any in a series of Obama nominees, they run the risk that the smorgasborders will recoil at the idea of leaving a Supreme seat vacant for so long, the pettiness of the GOP's failure to do their part, or any number of related perceptions.

So this could have an effect on the outcome in November. Instead, they've banked their chances on whipping up the Benghazi frenzy and e-mail-server outrage.

Maybe there's some sense in this view, some partial sense -- or none. Let's call it a perspective . . .

But nobody figured on Scalia or any other Justice punching out early in the middle of the campaign season. So there may be plenty of rash things already said in the GOP debates that can come home to roost -- so to speak.

It certainly puts some English on the old cue-ball, doesn't it? Round and round and round she goes . . . . where she stops, nobody knows. . . .

 

[buckshot24]

Bonzai just went full hack.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Bonzai just went full hack.

And what does that mean? "Full hack?"

Sooner and later, after the dust has settled, somebody is going to come back and make sense of all this, or historians and pundits will argue back and forth.

But it is what it is. War without guns.

A "smorgasbord" voter doesn't see it that way. But that's what it is.

 

[Bowfinger]

And what does that mean? "Full hack? ...

It means you said something he disagrees with. He projects a lot. Don't worry about it.

 

[umbrella39]

Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the “Thurmond Rule,” “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a presidential election.”

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office.

LMAO @ conservative math, 4 year terms are really only 3 when a SCOTUS dies.

 

[DrDoug]

Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the “Thurmond Rule,” “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a presidential election.”

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office.

LMAO @ conservative math, 4 year terms are really only 3 when a SCOTUS dies.

Years ago the leaders of the Republican party saw a comic strip that gave them an idea on how to build the party.

They adopted the rules from Calvinball and put them on steroids.

 

[buckshot24]

And what does that mean? "Full hack?"

I used to think you were reasonably fair minded but you've proved me wrong with your latest postings.

 

[buckshot24]

Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the “Thurmond Rule,” “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a presidential election.”

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office.

LMAO @ conservative math, 4 year terms are really only 3 when a SCOTUS dies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY