• 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 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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...

the democrats from almost Day 1 of the bush presidency planned to block, delay, litmus test every Bush judicial nomination.

Go educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/us/washington-talk-democrats-readying-for-judicial-fight.html

This started liberal & democatric planning against Bush nominations started around april 2001, ~3 months after Bush became president.

Democats acting like pure little angles in this situation can go f themselves. Esspically turds like Schumer who worked to oppose Bush from nearly day 1 on judicial nominations.
 
Last edited:
As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".
 
the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates.
Click to expand...

minus the inflammatory language, I totally agree.

my position under Clinton, Bush, and Obama alike has always been that all Presidential nominations deserve a quick and fair up-or-down vote unless there's something abhorrently wrong with them.

if the Senate decides to reject every person Obama nominates, make them at least be on the record doing so instead of filibustering any nominee.
 
PokerGuy said:
As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".
Click to expand...

How do you define reasonable?

For that matter, how do you define idiot? It seems odd for you to call people who could run circles around you intellectually idiots. Do you just mean people you disagree with?
 
PokerGuy said:
As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".
Click to expand...
I agree completely. It was a very stupid thing to say in my opinion.
 
eskimospy said:
How do you define reasonable?

For that matter, how do you define idiot? It seems odd for you to call people who could run circles around you intellectually idiots. Do you just mean people you disagree with?
Click to expand...

You make (incorrect) assumptions about whether they could run circles around me or not, but that's still completely irrelevant. Nor is the definition of "reasonable", nor "idiot" relevant. The point is that the senate can use whatever reasoning it wants (since there is no requirement for such in the constitution). They can decide if they consider a candidate reasonable or not, that's not up to me (or anyone else) to decide for them.

My point is they should do their job, which is to provide advice and consent (if indeed they consent). Evaluate each candidate and decide what you want to do, don't make a blanket statement about rejecting all candidates etc.
 
PokerGuy said:
You make (incorrect) assumptions about whether they could run circles around me or not, but that's still completely irrelevant. Nor is the definition of "reasonable", nor "idiot" relevant. The point is that the senate can use whatever reasoning it wants (since there is no requirement for such in the constitution). They can decide if they consider a candidate reasonable or not, that's not up to me (or anyone else) to decide for them.

My point is they should do their job, which is to provide advice and consent (if indeed they consent). Evaluate each candidate and decide what you want to do, don't make a blanket statement about rejecting all candidates etc.
Click to expand...

Lol. Pokerguy not only claims he knows more about Catholicism than the pope, he is also as smart or smarter than several Supreme Court justices.

You are truly an expert on everything.
 
“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006
Click to expand...

I am unaware of anyone saying that Obama should have complete authority to appoint a nominee, so this seems like a very uncontroversial statement. Why did you quote it? How does it relate to your opinion?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
I am unaware of anyone saying that Obama should have complete authority to appoint a nominee, so this seems like a very uncontroversial statement. Why did you quote it? How does it relate to your opinion?
Click to expand...

In before his usual "who me?" act.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006
Click to expand...

Assuming this quote is accurate the former can't be disputed. The latter can. Just because one is smart doesn't mean they would make a good JOTSC
 
eskimospy said:
Lol. Pokerguy not only claims he knows more about Catholicism than the pope, he is also as smart or smarter than several Supreme Court justices.

You are truly an expert on everything.
Click to expand...

lol indeed, coming from our resident expert on everything, who now claims to know my positions on things better than I do. Brilliant!
 
PokerGuy said:
lol indeed, coming from our resident expert on everything, who now claims to know my positions on things better than I do. Brilliant!
Click to expand...

You're the one that claimed the Pope was wrong about what Catholicism meant and you just claimed now that Supreme Court justices couldn't run circles around you intellectually. Hell, you think they are 'idiots'.

Surely you can see the irony in saying that I'm an 'expert on everything' when you display this hilarious level of unfounded arrogance, right? Can you name a public figure that you don't consider yourself superior to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top