• 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 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
umbrella39 said:
One thing we all must remember about the GOP and Obama nominations, in the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have been blocked prior to Obama taking office.

Since 2009, at total of 79 individual nominees for the courts (this may be more than 79 as I could only find figures dating back to October) have been blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

So can we cut the shit about this being an election year issue?
Click to expand...

I think John Oliver sums up the GOP's bullshit as bullshit quite nicely
 
JEDI said:
latest news: White House vetting Nevada Republican governor.

this is freaking stupid of Obama.
he's giving in to the Repubards holding the country hostage! 😡

he should do the opposite and nominate Bill Clinton!
the country was greatness during his time at the helm
Click to expand...

There's some speculation this vetting is to add a taint to Sandoval and keep him out of Rep VP consideration. 😉
 
JEDI said:
latest news: White House vetting Nevada Republican governor.

this is freaking stupid of Obama.
he's giving in to the Repubards holding the country hostage! 😡

he should do the opposite and nominate Bill Clinton!
the country was greatness during his time at the helm
Click to expand...
Nominate as SCOTUS justice a man who was forced to give up his law license to avoid prosecution for perjury and suborning perjury? Yeah, I'm sure Obama will jump right on that stupid train with you.

You don't understand power politics. There is little chance of Obama nominating Sandoval. However, by leaking that he is vetting him as a potential nominee, Obama both makes himself look moderate and bipartisan and makes the Republicans look stupid when they categorically refuse to hold hearings on the nominee. He's not "giving in to the Repubards holding the country hostage", he's playing politics, and he's just smarter than you. It also gives him something in his pocket if it seems likely that the Republicans are going to win the White House; by appointing a moderate Republican, he'd either damage the Pubbies politically (thereby lessening the chance that they win the White House) as they refuse to approve even one of their own or at the very least, gets a moderate Republican to avoid a much more conservative Republican. But again, that's very worst case, and highly unlikely because it requires believing that this is the best justice (from the progressive viewpoint) that he can get, and that evidence is highly unlikely to come early enough to have time for hearings and confirmation.

From Obama's standpoint, leaking this is win-win-win, not capitulation. Sheesh, think!
 
werepossum said:
Nominate as SCOTUS justice a man who was forced to give up his law license to avoid prosecution for perjury and suborning perjury? Yeah, I'm sure Obama will jump right on that stupid train with you.
Click to expand...

A quick search reveals nothing about that. Please elaborate.
 
Is Sandoval going to be acceptable to liberals? It sounds like he is a Democratic version of Sandra Day O'connor.
 
glenn1 said:
Here you go. Although technically the reason was that he lied under oath, not perjury. It's a semantic difference but important since they're of whether what was lied about was material to the case at hand. His "relationship" with Monica Lewinski wasn't really material to a case ostensibly about Whitewater.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/text-bill-clintons-statement-suspension-law-license
Click to expand...

Thank you. I somehow thought you were referring to Sandoval. My mistake.
 
I thought that at first too.

lopri said:
Is Sandoval going to be acceptable to liberals? It sounds like he is a Democratic version of Sandra Day O'connor.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for "the liberals" but of what I've seen so far I'd find him acceptable. Reps control the senate, Obama would never get another RBG confirmed through that. Anyone he picks is going to be a compromise. Despite all the noise to the contrary that really has been how he typically operates.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
I thought that at first too.



I can't speak for "the liberals" but of what I've seen so far I'd find him acceptable. Reps control the senate, Obama would never get another RBG confirmed through that. Anyone he picks is going to be a compromise. Despite all the noise to the contrary that really has been how he typically operates.
Click to expand...

but...but...but... Obama never works with Republicans
 
umbrella39 said:
One thing we all must remember about the GOP and Obama nominations, in the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have been blocked prior to Obama taking office.

Since 2009, at total of 79 individual nominees for the courts (this may be more than 79 as I could only find figures dating back to October) have been blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.
Click to expand...

All that stat tells us is that the quality of candidates nominated for the court positions has dropped dramatically over the last 7 years. ()🙂 Thank goodness we have congress there to help protect us 😀
 
PokerGuy said:
All that stat tells us is that the quality of candidates nominated for the court positions has dropped dramatically over the last 7 years. ()🙂 Thank goodness we have congress there to help protect us 😀
Click to expand...
That stat says nothing about the quality of the nominees.
 
Say what you want about Biden's comment back in the 90s about SC nominees he continued to allow lower court noms to get their hearings unlike the GOP today.
 
PokerGuy said:
All that stat tells us is that the quality of candidates nominated for the court positions has dropped dramatically over the last 7 years. ()🙂 Thank goodness we have congress there to help protect us 😀
Click to expand...

"Things a partisan hack says for 200, Alex!"

😉
 
Brainonska511 said:
That stat says nothing about the quality of the nominees.
Click to expand...

zinfamous said:
"Things a partisan hack says for 200, Alex!"

😉
Click to expand...

I was being somewhat facetious with my comment, but it is true that you can't view that stat in a vacuum. Hypothetically, if an administration decides to nominate nothing but completely unqualified partisan hacks and cronies for court positions, then you'd *want* the congress to reject all those nominations. Not that I believe that to have been the case here, not to that extent anyway.

You have to view the whole picture.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
I thought that at first too.

I can't speak for "the liberals" but of what I've seen so far I'd find him acceptable. Reps control the senate, Obama would never get another RBG confirmed through that. Anyone he picks is going to be a compromise. Despite all the noise to the contrary that really has been how he typically operates.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Personally I think it's more likely that Obama nominates some minority selected to make Republicans alienate a particular state or constituency if they oppose her, but it's certainly possible that he'll nominate a moderate. Especially if it looks more likely that the Pubbies pick up the White House and hold the Senate; he REALLY doesn't want the ACA overturned and a conservative ideologue justice is about the only way that happens. But no matter whom he nominates, he'll be sure to leak that he's vetting lots of moderate candidates acceptable to everyone, just to make the GOP look bad. It's a win-win for him and the Democrats politically, whereas actually nominating a Republican moderate would have some political downside.
 
werepossum said:
Maybe. Personally I think it's more likely that Obama nominates some minority selected to make Republicans alienate a particular state or constituency if they oppose her, but it's certainly possible that he'll nominate a moderate. Especially if it looks more likely that the Pubbies pick up the White House and hold the Senate; he REALLY doesn't want the ACA overturned and a conservative ideologue justice is about the only way that happens. But no matter whom he nominates, he'll be sure to leak that he's vetting lots of moderate candidates acceptable to everyone, just to make the GOP look bad. It's a win-win for him and the Democrats politically, whereas actually nominating a Republican moderate would have some political downside.
Click to expand...

Actually I half expect him to nominate an older white man because that's the only constituency the GOP isn't fully alienating on their own already.
 
JEDI said:
so Gov. Sandoval turns it down.
wonder if it's more pressure from his repub overlords than personal preference?
Click to expand...

It was probably a realization that he didn't want to be anyone's pawn. He had nothing to gain by accepting the nomination except for a headache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top