• 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.

SCOTUS Nomination Thread

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
To find your answer you have to look no further than the idiots that support them. They obstruct and delay because their base demands it. They are required to do what their base wants because they rigged it to ensure only repubs get elected.


We won't have real reform unless we have unbiased and fair districts. Separating the red and the blue only ensures that compromise is a losing platform.

People think it's money in politics that's destroying our government but that's only a small part of it, gerrymandered districts is the biggest issue.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
I was thinking about that earlier today, and your remark seems to clarify.
 
when democrats planned to not confirm bush nominations how many on the left here complained?

hypocrisy is heavy on both sides.
 
michal1980 said:
when democrats planned to not confirm bush nominations how many on the left here complained?

hypocrisy is heavy on both sides.
Click to expand...

This.

The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.

The President doesn't rule by Fiat. If he wants a compromise, then he can compromise.
 
michal1980 said:
when democrats planned to not confirm bush nominations how many on the left here complained?

hypocrisy is heavy on both sides.
Click to expand...
Its not clear what you're specifically talking about here, but as noted the Schumer statement seemed to only specifically apply to a theoretical scenario after the Presidential election. (Rather than something like blocking any possible nomination for virtually a year and probably a year in practice by the time a theoretical Republican nomination could go through.)

The Schumer statement was also a single individual who was not the Senate majority leader, which is a substantially different situation than the considerable Senate Republicans (including the majority leader) currently publicly talking about their blanket blockage strategy. Beyond that, if you're talking about cases where Democrats opposed specific nominees, that's a very different matter than Republicans saying they flat out won't accept any nominee proposed by Obama essentially regardless of the individual's merits.
 
LegendKiller said:
Not in any world. Nowhere does it say "Congress must consider". It says "...and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". The Senate doesn't have to give advice, nor consent, nor consider.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

In other words they can be like striking McDonald's workers who refuse to work because they want higher pay. Just its not about pay....
 
Aegeon said:
Its not clear what you're specifically talking about here, but as noted the Schumer statement seemed to only specifically apply to a theoretical scenario after the Presidential election. (Rather than something like blocking any possible nomination for virtually a year and probably a year in practice by the time a theoretical Republican nomination could go through.)

The Schumer statement was also a single individual who was not the Senate majority leader, which is a substantially different situation than the considerable Senate Republicans (including the majority leader) currently publicly talking about their blanket blockage strategy. Beyond that, if you're talking about cases where Democrats opposed specific nominees, that's a very different matter than Republicans saying they flat out won't accept any nominee proposed by Obama essentially regardless of the individual's merits.
Click to expand...

I was just about post the exact gems. I'd also add that historically the Republican aren't accurate either multiple SCs have been confirmed during election years.

Seriously, it's getting so ridiculous and watching the Republican Party die is just embarrassing.
 
LegendKiller said:
This.

The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.
Click to expand...

True. Some things are left unsaid, like the integrity of the Senate to fulfill the mandate of the People. Looks like repubs may not live up to that assumption. We didn't elect them to not do it, did we?

The President doesn't rule by Fiat. If he wants a compromise, then he can compromise.
Click to expand...

Repubs have already said they won't do it at all. What kind of compromise should Obama offer in the face of that other than a mainstream nominee?
 
Tab said:
I was just about post the exact gems. I'd also add that historically the Republican aren't accurate either multiple SCs have been confirmed during election years.

Seriously, it's getting so ridiculous and watching the Republican Party die is just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Except Schumer gave his little diatribe 543 days before GW's end of term, not under 300 days. It also had nothing to do with the election and everything to do with the mix of the court, which he was concerned about.

Funny how he wraps himself in the Constitution now, but 9 years ago he didn't give a fuck. Funny how he does it now but hates the 2nd Amendment.

Me thinks the Founding Fathers were a bit smarter than Chucky.
 
Jhhnn said:
LegendKiller said:
This.

The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.
True. Some things are left unsaid, like the integrity of the Senate to fulfill the mandate of the People. Looks like repubs may not live up to that assumption. We didn't elect them to not do it, did we?



Repubs have already said they won't do it at all. What kind of compromise should Obama offer in the face of that other than a mainstream nominee?
Click to expand...

And what is the mandate of the people? They have the majority for a reason.

Because they know who he would nominate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LegendKiller said:
This.

The Senate doesn't have the duty to even consider a nomination.

The President doesn't rule by Fiat. If he wants a compromise, then he can compromise.
Click to expand...

Why bother trying to compromise with republicans? They can't do it or the howling ignorant mass will vote them out as soon as possible. They are stupid children trying to act like adults and they needed to be treated as such.
 
LegendKiller said:
No, it does not.
Click to expand...
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.

The key phrasing in question is...
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

First of all its rather clear Obama would be outright failing in his constitutionally required duties if he didn't pick a nominee since the phrasing is "shall nominate" rather than leaving it optional or the like. Especially as the founding father's were clearly thinking of things, the "advice" part requires the Senate to actually consider and debate the specific nominee so the President can at least know the reasonably grounds the Senate happens to object to that specific nominee.

Its also incredibly clear that for instance James Madison was certainly not thinking of a party arbitrarily blocking consideration of any nominee for essentially a year while hoping their candidate wins the Presidency when he was involved with writing the provision that way.

(For a historical early example of a late term Supreme Court appointment, John Marshall was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on January 20th of 1800 and confirmed on January 27th, while John Adam's time as President ended on March 4th of 1800. While Thomas Jefferson came in as the opposing party's candidate for President and was not happy with the nomination, he accepted it and certainly never suggested something like the Constitution didn't envision a President nominating and confirming new court vacancies late in their term.)
 
Last edited:
Aegeon said:
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.

The key phrasing in question is...
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

First of all its rather clear Obama would be outright failing in his constitutionally required duties if he didn't pick a nominee since the phrasing is "shall nominate" rather than leaving it optional or the like. Especially as the founding father's were clearly thinking of things, the "advice" part requires the Senate to actually consider and debate the specific nominee so the President can at least know the reasonably grounds the Senate happens to object to that specific nominee.

Its also incredibly clear that for instance James Madison was certainly not thinking of a party arbitrarily blocking consideration of any nominee for essentially a year while hoping their candidate wins the Presidency when he was involved with writing the provision that way.

(For a historical early example of a late term Supreme Court appointment, John Marshall was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on January 20th of 1800 and confirmed on January 27th, while John Adam's time as President ended on March 4th of 1800. While Thomas Jefferson came in as the opposing party's candidate for President and was not happy with the nomination, he accepted it and certainly never suggested something like the Constitution didn't envision a President nominating and confirming new court vacancies late in their term.)
Click to expand...

Correct.

BHO himself has stated himself quoted verbatim that he believes the Senate must advise and consent when it suited his interest in the Judge Alido appointment. So, if this obviously radical BHO has a problem with it, I guess he's just going to have to go fuck himself, which is what the Senate should tell him to do if he even attempts to appoint someone. If not, we might as well just tear up the Constitution since his crony appointments across the judicial system on every level will just finish up destroying every inalienable right we have.
 
Aegeon said:
A reasonable assessment of the founder's intent says you're simply wrong about the Constitution.

The key phrasing in question is...
"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"

First of all its rather clear Obama would be outright failing in his constitutionally required duties if he didn't pick a nominee since the phrasing is "shall nominate" rather than leaving it optional or the like. Especially as the founding father's were clearly thinking of things, the "advice" part requires the Senate to actually consider and debate the specific nominee so the President can at least know the reasonably grounds the Senate happens to object to that specific nominee.

Its also incredibly clear that for instance James Madison was certainly not thinking of a party arbitrarily blocking consideration of any nominee for essentially a year while hoping their candidate wins the Presidency when he was involved with writing the provision that way.

(For a historical early example of a late term Supreme Court appointment, John Marshall was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on January 20th of 1800 and confirmed on January 27th, while John Adam's time as President ended on March 4th of 1800. While Thomas Jefferson came in as the opposing party's candidate for President and was not happy with the nomination, he accepted it and certainly never suggested something like the Constitution didn't envision a President nominating and confirming new court vacancies late in their term.)
Click to expand...

What about the rejection of Rutledge?

Rejection of USSC nominations based upon political ideology has been going on since the very beginning. They didn't even consider him and they rejected him by using attacks against his sanity, then attacks against his "imprudence".
 
LegendKiller said:
What about the rejection of Rutledge?

Rejection of USSC nominations based upon political ideology has been going on since the very beginning. They didn't even consider him and they rejected him by using attacks against his sanity, then attacks against his "imprudence".
Click to expand...
First of all, it should be noted that if a Senator legitimately believes a judicial candidate is not sane, that would be a completely valid reason to reject him as a candidate. (There was also a slightly less severe position that Rutledge had demonstrated recent behavior which put in question his general judgement which could impact his effectiveness as a judge rather than it simply being a matter of him expressing political opinions.) There also was evidence of Rutledge suffering from issues with alcoholism by the point he was rejected by the Senate, which also would be a completely legitimate reason to block his nomination to such an important post.

Ultimately, even if you argue the Rutledge rejection was purely about politics, and believe its fine for the Senate to consider the politics of a candidate, that's extremely different than the blanket rejection of any nomination from a President of the other party. (It was also understood until at least extremely recently that the political angle if valid only applied to a candidate with extreme positions and not merely views they disagreed with rather than the Senate only accepting candidates they would view as ideal when a President of another party is in office.)

When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a political party blocking a nominee for basically a whole year (probably literally a year until a new nominee is confirmed if the plan works) and a party saying they simply won't confirm an elected President of the other party's nominees to the Supreme Court period.
 
Last edited:
I still believe after reading the posts and watching the news, I still believe a democrat WILL get elected this November. And when democrats come out in force for that, we know the senate will also flip back to democratic control.
Followed by president Hillary or president Sanders selecting a very liberal justice.
And the democrat controlled senate would then succeed putting in place that new liberal supreme court justice.

But it doesn't end there...
President Sanders or Clinton will probably have two other openings to fill on the US supreme court. And replace those two retiring justices with two more highly liberal justices.
And that pretty much is the game changer for generations to come.
After president Bernie or president Hillary stacks the high court with liberal justices, republicans will look back on the Obama years and feel same sex marriage and Obamacare were some of their better days.

I heard today where justice Scalia had once commented that when the time comes, that his seat on the court should be filled by an evangelical christian because evangelical christians were under represented on the high court.
Yeah right... Thats all we need. Some evangelical christian nutcase on the court ruling from the voices in his head.
An nutcase evangelical christian that hears voices, then in his mind translates God's word into his own interpolation, then applying that nonsense into deciding legal issues before the court.
No... I'm sure THAT will not F..K us up even more than we already are from evangelical christians.
Can you imagine an Mike Huckabee as supreme court justice?
Can you imagine an Adolf Hitler sitting on the hight court?
I think I'd rather have Adolf.
 
I too believe a Dem will win in November. Probably not Sanders though. I'll write him in on the ballot, but Hillary seems to have the system rigged in such a way that Sanders doesn't have a chance. As for November, the GoP will likely have a hard time of it. Congress will still get a decent showing as the nutter butters in the base will keep their respective senator or Representative in place. Superior gerrymandering will secure the rest. But sending Cruz or Trump or Rubio to the White House is a much tougher nut to crack on the national level.

Especially when the GoP has basically hammered Hillary as hard as they could and succeeded only in battle hardening her. She'll have a polished answer to every tired old question asked her for the 100th time, has become a master of deflection and is most likely the most polished debater in 2016. If the GoP really wanted to topple her they should have gone easy on her the past couple years and abruptly go guns ablaze in the home stretch. Instead they just made her more resilient.

For my part though I don't think anything will change. It depresses me. The only change in this county extends as far as the social issues. The rest will just continue to be the same old downward spiral of enriching the elite at the expense of all else. Doesn't matter if Hillary or Bush or Cruz or Rubio occupies the White House. Spend more than you take in, grow government, bomb bomb bomb. They're all the same.
 
Last edited:
Sonikku said:
I too believe a Dem will win in November. Probably not Sanders though. I'll write him in on the ballot, but Hillary seems to have the system rigged in such a way that Sanders doesn't have a chance. As for November, the GoP will likely have a hard time of it. Congress will still get a decent showing as the nutter butters in the base will keep their respective senator or Representative in place. Superior gerrymandering will secure the rest. But sending Cruz or Trump or Rubio to the White House is a much tougher nut to crack on the national level.

Especially when the GoP has basically hammered Hillary as hard as they could and succeeded only in battle hardening her. She'll have a polished answer to every tired old question asked her for the 100th time, has become a master of deflection and is most likely the most polished debater in 2016. If the GoP really wanted to topple her they should have gone easy on her the past couple years and abruptly go guns ablaze in the home stretch. Instead they just made her more resilient.

For my part though I don't think anything will change. It depresses me. The only change in this county extends as far as the social issues. The rest will just continue to be the same old downward spiral of enriching the elite at the expense of all else. Doesn't matter if Hillary or Bush or Cruz or Rubio occupies the White House. Spend more than you take in, grow government, bomb bomb bomb. They're all the same.
Click to expand...
To say that Hillary and Republicans are same is frankly stupid.
Start with Obamacare, SCOTUS nominees, marginal tax rates, and go down the list. Not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top