Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So what is the current make up 4 Liberals, 3 Conservatives, 2 Swing voters? Yep that may very well be the most Conservative court in decades. Are you really arguing that Roberts is a swing vote? Jesus Christ. How many Supreme Court decisions do you read a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Ah, so you know what he means? Can you explain for us then what this meant? That's part of it. It's the rest of it you guys seem to be missing. He's explained it before. If he doesn't want to again that's his call, it is his opinion after all. Plus, I enjoy watching you tell other people what their opinions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's part of it. It's the rest of it you guys seem to be missing. He's explained it before. If he doesn't want to again that's his call, it is his opinion after all. Plus, I enjoy watching you tell other people what their opinions are. Well, even if that isn't all he's saying (and if that's not all he's saying, then I'm missing the rest), it seems that steve is right. (and by extension your 'no he's not' is wrong. If somebody says A and B, and then somebody else says they said A, then anybody claiming the first person didn't say A is wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Are you really arguing that Roberts is a swing vote? Jesus Christ. How many Supreme Court decisions do you read a year? The is ranking system (based on decisions) where swing voters fall in the -1 to plus 1 range Roberts falls in that range (So does Kennedy). I'll try to track it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 ?? You cant believe that. I cant even think of a SINGLE Justice appointed by a Dem President who didn't become a liberal stalwart on the Court. Where is the Democrat Souter? Or Stevens? or Blackmun? That wasn't what I was mocking. Absolutely, some GOP politicians have appointed judges who got on the bench, and once they were free of political pressures, didn't vote as conservative as the politician wanted. That's what judicial independence is all about. Ruling on the law as best you can interpret it, rather than based on the political desires of the politician and party that appointed you. That is how it is supposed to work. What I was laughing at is the idea that "The GOP is late to the game of packing the court with absolute known idealogues." The GOP has been packing the courts ever since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, when they created the Federalist Society and the "Committee For Justice" precisely with the goal of grooming ideological conservative judges and moving them up the ranks to the Supreme Court. It's no secret. It is a deliberate strategy, one that hunts down ideological conservatives, tries them out as lower court judges for a year or two, and then bumps them up to positions where they not only influence the law, but they pad their credentials when a spot might open up on the Supreme Court or the particularly influential DC Circuit. The project is funded by a handful of conservative think tanks and coordinated by former Reagan official Spencer Abraham. Here's a pretty good article about it from 2006 during the Alito confirmation: Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists. The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees — including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and trained more than three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick. "We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast. Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement.... Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement... Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush administration and an adviser to the current White House, sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for the highest court. "It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the Reagan administration. "It is a graduation. These individuals have been in study and preparation for these roles all their professional lives." As each progressed in legal stature, others were laying the infrastructure of the movement. After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him. With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships.... During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees. "There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made," said Mr. Abraham, the Federalist Society founder who was a senator on the Judiciary Committee at the time.... Conservatives had begun planning for a nomination fight as long ago as that February meeting, which was led by Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and informal adviser to the White House, Mr. Meese and Mr. Gray. They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind whomever the president picked, people present said. The plan: first, extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the nominee, steering the debate away from the nominee's possible influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal groups they expected to oppose any Bush nominee. The team worked through a newly formed group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to coordinate grass-roots pressure on Democratic senators from conservative states. And they stayed in constant contact with scores of conservative groups around the country to brief them about potential nominees and to make sure they all stuck to the same message.... EDIT - weird, I lost half my post. Which is fine because it was too damn long anyway. TL/DR version - the GOP deliberately packs the courts with ideological conservatives coordinated by conservative think tanks.and there is no equivalent organization on the Democratic side. It's not secret or hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/iowa-democratic-party-altered-precinct-caucus-results-clinton-sanders Iowa Democratic party altered precinct's caucus results during chaotic night In the Iowa Democratic party’s chaotic attempt to report caucus results on Monday night, the results in at least one precinct were unilaterally changed by the party as it attempted to deal with the culmination of a rushed and imperfect process overseeing the first-in-the-nation nominating contest. In Grinnell Ward 1, the precinct where elite liberal arts college Grinnell College is located, 19 delegates were awarded to Bernie Sanders and seven were awarded to Hillary Clinton on caucus night. However, the Iowa Democratic party decided to shift one delegate from Sanders to Clinton on the night and did not notify precinct chair J Pablo Silva that they had done so. Silva only discovered that this happened the next day, when checking the precinct results in other parts of the county. The shift of one delegate at a county convention level would not have significantly affected the ultimate outcome of the caucus, but rather, it raises questions aboutthe Iowa Democratic party’s management of caucus night. The Iowa Democratic party had long been plagued with organizational issues around the caucus and failed to find hundreds of needed volunteers to oversee individual precinct caucuses just over a week before Monday. The result was a disorganized process that lent itself to chaos and conspiracy theories. Although Andy McGuire, the chair of the Iowa Democratic party, is a longtime Clinton supporter whose license plate once read HRC 2016, no one familiar with the issue has accused the error of being a partisan process. Instead, they have blamed simple mismanagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 How many Supreme Court decisions do you read a year? Do we even have any conservative lawyers on this board? somebody needs to invite Cruz for balance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is it just coincidence that Dem appointments don't have a "freedom of political pressure" moment? I agree that the GOP is doing that now. But what explains the lack of "mistakes" made by Dems? Are they not doing similar things to ensure their picks pan out? Was their ever a chance that Sotomayor or Ginsberg wasn't going to be a staunch liberal Justice? http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/iowa-democratic-party-altered-precinct-caucus-results-clinton-sanders I really wish Bernie had called BS on her claims to victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I want justices who are consistent but not idealogues. The fundamental problem with Scalia is that all his stuff about original intent is bull****. He determines the outcome he wants politically and works backwards from there, using his originalist talking points to cover the obvious political thinking involved.. I think they all operate that way. Well, I do this for a living on a high level court, and I know better. I do legal analysis for liberals and conservative Justices alike, and I see how they reach their decisions. Yes, they are influenced by their inherent beliefs and perspectives, but with extremely rare exceptions, they try to get the answer right by analyzing it, rather than deciding in advance what they want the answer to be and then making up some hokus pokus to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's part of it. It's the rest of it you guys seem to be missing. He's explained it before. If he doesn't want to again that's his call, it is his opinion after all. Plus, I enjoy watching you tell other people what their opinions are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's part of it. It's the rest of it you guys seem to be missing. He's explained it before. If he doesn't want to again that's his call, it is his opinion after all. Plus, I enjoy watching you tell other people what their opinions are. I like Kilmer, but I have no idea what he is talking about with that 2 Americas thing anymore. I thought I understood it to be a simple comment on the every growing ideological divide in out country, but he uses it it a lot of contexts where that doesn't seem to apply. Can you explain it to me, because he doesn't seem to want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/iowa-democratic-party-altered-precinct-caucus-results-clinton-sanders When I brought this kind of thing up, I was shouted down and called a lunatic conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Predicto is much more polite than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 When I brought this kind of thing up, I was shouted down and called a lunatic conspiracy theorist. That's par for the course. Even Bernie and Hillary acknowledged there might have been some issues. Probably a GOP conspiracy led by Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I like Kilmer, but I have no idea what he is talking about with that 2 Americas thing anymore. I thought I understood it to be a simple comment on the every growing ideological divide in out country, but he uses it it a lot of contexts where that doesn't seem to apply. Can you explain it to me, because he doesn't seem to want to. That's really it in a nutshell. Too often our biases cloud our ability to even see that the opposing view can have a foundation. Even if it's wrong. And in our world today, its far easier to find "media" and "research" to back those opinions and worse, prove the others wrong. The best example is still the debate over Obamacare. Where I read facts from both sides all the time telling me why it's a total failure or complete success. Or the job market and economy. There is nobody out there saying "Hey! 4.9 unemployment! That's really good, now let's get wages up and get part timers looking for full time work into better places". Nope. Instead it's SEE 4.9 UNEMPLOYMENT! OBAMA IS GOD!- NO HES NOT, THOSE JOBS ARENT FULL TIME AND PEOPLE ARENT LOOKING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is it just coincidence that Dem appointments don't have a "freedom of political pressure" moment? I agree that the GOP is doing that now. But what explains the lack of "mistakes" made by Dems? Are they not doing similar things to ensure their picks pan out? Was their ever a chance that Sotomayor or Ginsberg wasn't going to be a staunch liberal Justice? No, the Democrats are not doing "equivalent things." The main reason that they Democrats aren't straying right is because the conservatives have seized the whole battlefield and moved it well to the right. Now staunch conservatives like Roberts are called moderates, and former prosecutors like Sotomayor are called liberals. When Sotomayor votes to reinstate death penalty convictions, or votes to preserve corporate speech rights, no one notices and she is still labelled an extreme liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I still think it'd be tons of fun to watch President Trump appoint Cruz to the SCOTUS.Do you think Cruz would try and filibuster a SCOTUS decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No, the Democrats are not doing "equivalent things." The main reason that they Democrats aren't straying right is because the conservatives have seized the whole battlefield and moved it well to the right. Now staunch conservatives like Roberts are called moderates, and former prosecutors like Sotomayor are called liberals. When Sotomayor votes to reinstate death penalty convictions, or votes to preserve corporate speech rights, no one notices and she is still labelled an extreme liberal. Can you point to a case or two where you'd suggest that she didn't act as an "extreme liberal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Do you think Cruz would try and filibuster a SCOTUS decision? Im not sure I understand your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Or the job market and economy. There is nobody out there saying "Hey! 4.9 unemployment! That's really good, now let's get wages up and get part timers looking for full time work into better places". Nope. Instead it's SEE 4.9 UNEMPLOYMENT! OBAMA IS GOD!- NO HES NOT, THOSE JOBS ARENT FULL TIME AND PEOPLE ARENT LOOKING! Bernie claims it is really 9.9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 RE: Debate response. This is kind of interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/bernie-sanders-won-the-debates-google-fight-in-more-ways-than-one/ Bernie Sanders won the debate’s Google fight — in more ways than one . . . What's particularly interesting, though, is what New Hampshirites want to know more about for each of the candidates. Google has a page dedicated to the debate, on which they list the five trending questions for both Sanders and Hillary Clinton in the state. These are the top five questions for each: Clinton 1. How old is Hillary Clinton? 2. Who can beat Hillary? 3. Where is Hillary Clinton today? 4. Will Hillary win? 5. How much is Hillary Clinton worth? Clinton is 68 years old, she's worth a lot of money, and today she was in New Hampshire. The other two questions are about if she can win and, if not, to whom she could lose. Consider those questions in light of the questions people had about Bernie Sanders. Sanders 1. Where will Bernie Sanders be speaking? 2. Why Bernie Sanders? 3. Who would be Bernie Sanders' VP? 4. How to donate to Bernie Sanders 5. Where can I see Bernie Sanders in NH? The first and fifth questions, like the question about where Clinton is, are for people to go hear from the candidate. "Why Bernie Sanders" is a question about why his candidacy should be considered. But none of that matters once you get to No. 4. The fourth-most-Googled question about Bernie Sanders is how can I give him money. Sanders has more than 3 million individual contributions from more than a million donors. He's taken in money at a faster pace than Barack Obama did in 2008 and in January outraised Clinton. Getting a voter to try and figure out how to give is a dream come true for any campaign. Having it trend on Google? Insane. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Im not sure I understand your question.It was meant to be a joke, guess it failed. Cruz has tried to filibuster votes in the Senate and has appeared to act somewhat like a spoiled brat. He looks like the kid who brings a basketball to a pick up game and if not picked, holds the game up by threatening to take his ball home until someone picks him.I can see him trying to filibuster (I do know that is not possible) a decision because HE doesn't like it and it isn't going his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Can you point to a case or two where you'd suggest that she didn't act as an "extreme liberal"? I'll point out that you quoted him saying "reinstate death penalty cases" and "protect corporate speech rights". Granted, those are not specific case references. But I suspect that he had specific cases in mind, when he wrote that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/05/his-most-radical-move/ His most radical move Bernie Sanders had always cast himself as a socialist outsider. Now he would seek the presidency — as a Democrat. there he was, trotting up the stairs of the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office surrounded by cheering supporters. Bernie Sanders, best known as America’s unapologetic socialist, was about to register as a presidential candidate in the nation’s first primary state. Throughout his 35-year political career, everything about Sanders conveyed the persona of rebel with a cause — in his case, a decades-long crusade against income inequality. He was the mayor and congressman who had remained a proud independent, gleefully calling the Democratic and Republican parties “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” for what he considered selling out to “the billionaire class.” He was the cranky outsider who hammered a plaque honoring the socialist icon Eugene V. Debs to the wall of his Senate office. Even his hair was independent — an unruly white mass evoking a man too consumed with political revolution to bother with a comb. . . . But now that the time had come to put his name on the presidential ballot, Sanders had made a decision that reveals a less-celebrated dimension of his political identity: He is also a pragmatist who likes to win. And so the first step in the Sanders revolution was also its most conventional. The cranky outsider became a Democrat. . . . Wish I could quote more, this article provides some good insight into who Bernie is and what makes him tick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-the-realist-we-should-elect/2016/01/26/6af4d268-c392-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html Bernie Sanders is the realist we should elect By Katrina vanden Heuvel January 26 As the Iowa caucuses near, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have released TV ads that together echo a popular theme in the mainstream media. Clinton’s ad depicts the job of the presidency as tough and change as hard. You need someone experienced who can face down foreign adversaries and stand up to reactionary Republicans. Sanders’s ad — with Simon and Garfunkel’s “America” stirring memories — offers the romance of the United States coming together. Many of the pundits agree — this is a choice between head and heart. If Democrats think with their heads, they will go with Hillary; with their hearts, with Bernie. But this conventional wisdom clashes with the reality that this country has suffered serial devastations from choices supported by the establishment’s “responsible” candidates. On fundamental issue after issue, it is the candidate “of the heart” who is in fact grounded in common sense. It wasn’t Sanders’s emotional appeal, but his clearsightedness that led the Nation magazine, which I edit, to make only its third presidential endorsement in a primary in its 150-year history. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.