StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
   
Posts: 6706/7105
EXP: 52036618
For next: 916496
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 640 days
Last activity: 640 days
|  #1 Posted on 13.2.16 1707.01
Reposted on: 13.2.23 1714.13 | Well, this certainly is a game changer as far as the last year of the Obama administration.
Died in his sleep while on a trip to Texas. | Promote this thread! |             | KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 4136/4713
EXP: 28661202
For next: 673879
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 15 days
|  #2 Posted on 13.2.16 1734.37
Reposted on: 13.2.23 1737.49 | | I can think of a more appropriate thread title but it got shamefully wasted on that Olympics guy. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 105
Posts: 2727/2743
EXP: 12173038
For next: 89262
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 2049 days
Last activity: 1951 days
| #3 Posted on 14.2.16 1047.48
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1051.16 | | Hopefully all will respect his commitment and passion for the law and the Constitution. I say this as a liberal, his life and career deserve our respect. Hopefully both sides of the aisle can come together and appoint a worthy successor. | ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 146
Posts: 5446/5747
EXP: 38512750
For next: 636
Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 193 days
Last activity: 179 days
| #4 Posted on 14.2.16 1254.58
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1256.30 | Let's not get our hopes up: There's no way the Republicans will allow any Obama-appointed Supreme Court justice to be approved with so little time left in his second term. They'd be essentially surrendering "control" of the Supreme Court for the next generation.
That's one reason why it's so important that we elect a Democrat in 2016. | drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 126
Posts: 3974/4035
EXP: 22511072
For next: 573095
Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 469 days
Last activity: 53 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #5 Posted on 14.2.16 1508.12
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1509.31 | Originally posted by ekedolphin
Let's not get our hopes up: There's no way the Republicans will allow any Obama-appointed Supreme Court justice to be approved with so little time left in his second term. They'd be essentially surrendering "control" of the Supreme Court for the next generation.
That's one reason why it's so important that we elect a Democrat in 2016.
Ted Cruz, amongst others, has already called on the Republicans in Congress to run out the clock. Fuck anyone who takes that stance forever. Do your jobs and hash out someone who would be generally agreeable at least.
Not that they ever have to worry about being held accountable. Thanks a lot, gerrymandering. | Chumpstain
Bockwurst
Level: 56
Posts: 545/606
EXP: 1317947
For next: 80238
Since: 21.1.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 261 days
Last activity: 261 days
| #6 Posted on 14.2.16 1519.54
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1529.01 | | The longest the Supreme Court has sat with a vacancy in the past is 125 days. To filibuster and delay until a new President is inaugurated would be over 330 days. I would hope that if that happens, those responsible would be held accountable for it. | AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 124
Posts: 3573/3908
EXP: 21573252
For next: 263410
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 11 hours
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #7 Posted on 14.2.16 1800.52
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1806.48 | As a strong conservative I would call on our president to appoint a candidate whose record is even handed and who has made decisions based on the constitution - and I call on the senate to confirm a worthy candidate. Swiftly. This crap of dragging crap out along party lines is getting old.
But if the president nominates a pure activist, someone who has made a career out of interpreting the constitution to further their own political objectives (and I would say this to someone who was doing this as a conservative as well) then the senate should reject that candidate - and both democrats and republicans should reject activism on SCOTUS.
I'd really like to see us get back to approving SCOTUS nominees like we did Breyer - 87-9 or Ginsberg 96-3. Both are fairly liberal but both sides voted for them. Then in the bush years Alito and Roberts took forever (although Roberst passed pretty easily) and the two Obama Nominees went straight party.
I'd like to see qualified justices nominated and more or less voted in by acclamation. That's how it should be if the president is doing his or her job, and really most do. Now that the parties are enemies instead of all working for us, I doubt we will ever fix this in my lifetime again.
(edited by AWArulz on 15.2.16 0624) | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1678/1777
EXP: 6452235
For next: 198455
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 156 days
Last activity: 1 day
|  #8 Posted on 14.2.16 1950.23
Reposted on: 14.2.23 1959.01 | While I doubt AWA and I would agree as to what constitutes "following the Constitution," I think he gets it right here. The Senate has every right to reject a candidate it finds extreme, and ever right to push the President to compromise. It does not have the right to refuse to give Obama's nominations a vote.
| CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 237
Posts: 16773/17650
EXP: 207723013
For next: 256227
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #9 Posted on 14.2.16 2129.20
Reposted on: 14.2.23 2133.42 | Originally posted by drjayphd
Not that they ever have to worry about being held accountable. Thanks a lot, gerrymandering.
Senators represent entire states, so I don't think there's a lot of gerrymandering going on there.
Semi-interestingly, one of the early names being bandied about is my senior Senator Amy Klobuchar. I bet enough GOP Senators would find it a little more palatable to approve one of their respected colleagues. | Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 151
Posts: 6106/6196
EXP: 43205151
For next: 91425
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 5 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #10 Posted on 14.2.16 2152.21
Reposted on: 14.2.23 2159.01 | | Obama appoints himself, giving us President Biden for the best 6 month party the USA has ever seen. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 141
Posts: 5273/5284
EXP: 33974255
For next: 145843
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1378 days
Last activity: 1378 days
| #11 Posted on 14.2.16 2238.00
Reposted on: 14.2.23 2238.16 | Originally posted by Guru Zim
Obama appoints himself, giving us President Biden for the best 6 month party the USA has ever seen.
I would love it if he did that, but that would mean 6 months of VP Paul Ryan as well, or would there be an appointment for VP?
(edited by Zeruel on 14.2.16 2339) | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1679/1777
EXP: 6452235
For next: 198455
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 156 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #12 Posted on 14.2.16 2324.00
Reposted on: 14.2.23 2327.20 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Originally posted by Guru Zim
Obama appoints himself, giving us President Biden for the best 6 month party the USA has ever seen.
I would love it if he did that, but that would mean 6 months of VP Paul Ryan as well, or would there be an appointment for VP?
(edited by Zeruel on 14.2.16 2339)
The Speaker does not become VP...see the appointments of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller in the 70s. But unless and until a successor was confirmed, Ryan would be in a position to take over if something happened to Biden.
Not that I think there's the slightest chance that Obama would appoint himself, or that the Senate would confirm him. | drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 126
Posts: 3975/4035
EXP: 22511072
For next: 573095
Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 469 days
Last activity: 53 days
| | ICQ: | |
| | Y!: | |
|
| #13 Posted on 15.2.16 2308.02
Reposted on: 15.2.23 2310.41 | Originally posted by CRZ
Originally posted by drjayphd
Not that they ever have to worry about being held accountable. Thanks a lot, gerrymandering.
Senators represent entire states, so I don't think there's a lot of gerrymandering going on there.
Derp. Don't know why I thought the House got any say in this process. | SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst
Level: 89
Posts: 1617/1821
EXP: 6839544
For next: 76384
Since: 20.3.02
From: California
Since last post: 1395 days
Last activity: 525 days
| #14 Posted on 16.2.16 1254.21
Reposted on: 16.2.23 1254.23 | Originally posted by AWArulz
As a strong conservative I would call on our president to appoint a candidate whose record is even handed and who has made decisions based on the constitution - and I call on the senate to confirm a worthy candidate. Swiftly. This crap of dragging crap out along party lines is getting old.
This is why it's good to have one party as President and the other party in control of Congress. So our Supreme Court nominees meet somewhere in the middle with a compromise. Right now is actually the ideal scenario where bipartisanism is supposed to be in effect.
It'll be interesting to see who Obama nominates and how hard the other side fights it. Today's political climate seems so heated that it just seems that no matter who gets nominated, the other side will fight hard against it just 'cause.
Either way, the idea that the next President, whoever wins the election, is the one who should nominate the next Justice is pretty absurd. The 1990s seem so civil now. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6708/7105
EXP: 52036618
For next: 916496
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 640 days
Last activity: 640 days
| #15 Posted on 16.2.16 1321.01
Reposted on: 16.2.23 1321.09 | | Well, if Bork was blocked before he had a chance, no reason why the GOP controlled Senate would be obligated to just play along with the POTUS this time around. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1680/1777
EXP: 6452235
For next: 198455
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 156 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #16 Posted on 16.2.16 1944.41
Reposted on: 16.2.23 1944.46 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
Well, if Bork was blocked before he had a chance, no reason why the GOP controlled Senate would be obligated to just play along with the POTUS this time around.
But he wasn't. He got a full vote.
But I love how Republicans say that once Democrats rejected Bork, that means Republicans are justified in forever obstructing everything the Democrats do. But they'd never take notice that the last Democrat nominated for a Supreme Court position prior to Bork was filibustered on rather tenuous ethics charges, never got a vote, and ultimately had the spot filled by Nixon. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6710/7105
EXP: 52036618
For next: 916496
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 640 days
Last activity: 640 days
| #17 Posted on 17.2.16 1525.53
Reposted on: 17.2.23 1525.59 | Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
Originally posted by StaggerLee
Well, if Bork was blocked before he had a chance, no reason why the GOP controlled Senate would be obligated to just play along with the POTUS this time around.
But he wasn't. He got a full vote.
But I love how Republicans say that once Democrats rejected Bork, that means Republicans are justified in forever obstructing everything the Democrats do. But they'd never take notice that the last Democrat nominated for a Supreme Court position prior to Bork was filibustered on rather tenuous ethics charges, never got a vote, and ultimately had the spot filled by Nixon.
Yeah, except that's NOT what I said.
BUt for some context on "make them dead on arrival", lets refer to the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
Especially this passage:
Mr. Byrd would not say if he thought Judge Bork, who sits on the Federal court of appeals here, was ''inflexibly wedded'' to judicial issues that would make him unacceptable to Democrats on ideological grounds. When pressed on the chances for approval of Judge Bork, Mr. Byrd said he could be confirmed. A Call to Block Any Extremist
At the same time the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Alan Cranston of California, the party whip, urged colleagues in a letter to form a ''solid phalanx'' of opposition if the President's nominee was an ideological extremist. Some Democrats in Congress are worried that Mr. Reagan will nominate a conservative who will be committed to overturning Supreme Court decisions on abortion and other issues.
So, historically speaking, it's been done before, and with major issues near and dear to the controlling party (remember Hillary just said "elections have consequences") being seemingly near being brought to the SCOTUS, I couldn't blame the GOP if they blocked any nominee that didn't match their philosophy. | AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 124
Posts: 3575/3908
EXP: 21573252
For next: 263410
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 11 hours
| | | Y!: | |
|
| #18 Posted on 17.2.16 1759.47
Reposted on: 17.2.23 1759.56 | Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
But they'd never take notice that the last Democrat nominated for a Supreme Court position prior to Bork was filibustered on rather tenuous ethics charges, never got a vote, and ultimately had the spot filled by Nixon.
in fact, that Filibuster, such as it was, was not against a court nominee, but against a Chief justice Nominee from associate justice in Abe Fortas, in the election year of 1968. Nominated by LBJ to follow Earl Warren, Fortas was filibustered for only a week by 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture and 12 democrats not voting. 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted FOR cloture. If we could only have this "across the aisle" work today on things deemed important. Fortas did accept a rather large speaking fee from a university that came through a private fund of business owners. The fee was almost half his Salary and some of those companies had pending litigation that might have come to the court.
Later, Warren discovered another issue in Fortas' financial dealings and made him resign. He delayed his resignation until after Nixon was elected and Nixon nominated Warren Burger. Warren, possibly the most liberal Chief Justice of all time, delayed his resignation, and gave the nomination to Nixon because LBJ wouldn't nominate anyone but Fortas (his pal) to be Chief Justice. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1681/1777
EXP: 6452235
For next: 198455
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 156 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #19 Posted on 18.2.16 0643.17
Reposted on: 18.2.23 0643.27 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
Originally posted by StaggerLee
Well, if Bork was blocked before he had a chance, no reason why the GOP controlled Senate would be obligated to just play along with the POTUS this time around.
But he wasn't. He got a full vote.
But I love how Republicans say that once Democrats rejected Bork, that means Republicans are justified in forever obstructing everything the Democrats do. But they'd never take notice that the last Democrat nominated for a Supreme Court position prior to Bork was filibustered on rather tenuous ethics charges, never got a vote, and ultimately had the spot filled by Nixon.
Yeah, except that's NOT what I said.
BUt for some context on "make them dead on arrival", lets refer to the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
Especially this passage:
Mr. Byrd would not say if he thought Judge Bork, who sits on the Federal court of appeals here, was ''inflexibly wedded'' to judicial issues that would make him unacceptable to Democrats on ideological grounds. When pressed on the chances for approval of Judge Bork, Mr. Byrd said he could be confirmed. A Call to Block Any Extremist
At the same time the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Alan Cranston of California, the party whip, urged colleagues in a letter to form a ''solid phalanx'' of opposition if the President's nominee was an ideological extremist. Some Democrats in Congress are worried that Mr. Reagan will nominate a conservative who will be committed to overturning Supreme Court decisions on abortion and other issues.
So, historically speaking, it's been done before, and with major issues near and dear to the controlling party (remember Hillary just said "elections have consequences") being seemingly near being brought to the SCOTUS, I couldn't blame the GOP if they blocked any nominee that didn't match their philosophy.
Again, I wouldn't blame the GOP if they blocked a nominee they thought was extremist. But they came out and said that Obama shouldn't nominate anyone and that they would oppose even having a vote on even a moderate nominee. THAT has never been done before. | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6711/7105
EXP: 52036618
For next: 916496
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 640 days
Last activity: 640 days
| #20 Posted on 18.2.16 2129.05
Reposted on: 18.2.23 2129.29 | | Maybe not to a SCOTUS Nominee, but the Dems can't complain when they've done it to federal court nominees time and time again. They dragged their feet on Judge Priscilla Owen for 4 years. Yes, FOUR YEARS. Guess who joined the filibuster against her when they finally did get around to heaerings? Your POTUS. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pages: 1 2 Next