chipwhich Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 For the record, I'm a RINO independent. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I did like how Obama said he would nominate a replacement in good time and expected a vote. Very well done. He could have easily called for confirmation instead of a vote. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I am not a Republican. I did not agree with Scalia. But I will say what I said earlier today. He is a man. The mere notion that people online are praising his death and celebrating in the streets is what is wrong with this country. The mere notion of people popping champagne and rejoicing and taking pleasure in the untimely passing of a conservative legend, political affiliation be damned, is extremely troubling, and exposes the issue with politics in this country: the growing division between once-amicable poles of the political spectrum.. He spent his entire career being an asshole. I don't mean that disrespectfully, I think he truly relished being precieved as an asshole. He loved the reputation - you can see it in his quotes and writing. He was the heel of SCOTUS. He clearly had controversial views on many hot topics and didn't mince words. He said what he thought and didn't give a **** about feelings. If you live your life like that - don't be surprised if when you die folks don't respond with tears and flowers. You don't get to be an asshole for 3 decades and die with praise. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Curmudgeon. Obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Yep, he reveled in the conflict. He gave the impression of a guy who'd be disappointed if his adversaries didn't curse him - it'd mean that he wasn't doing his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Doesnt an empty seat hurt the GOP -- there will be a bunch of 4-4 non overturns... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Doesnt an empty seat hurt the GOP -- there will be a bunch of 4-4 non overturns... kind of a wash, just depends on the lower court ruling.....there are several they don't want overturned depends on who ya put in that seat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Again, what specifically did he do that harmed this country. I am all ears. What decision did he make that has a lasting impression on America? That the Constitution gives corporations the right to give unlimited money to politicians? That corporations have religions, and that said religions overrule laws? (But, only if it's a religion that he approves of?) Those are just the ones I can think of, right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 So the longest it's ever taken to confirm a Supreme Court justice is 126 days (the average is 25 days), and Obama has 342 days. Delaying an appointment for the rest of Obama's term would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. The idea of the Senate refusing to confirm any appointment is an overreach. Although the President is to make the appointment "by advice and consent of the Senate," it is still his appointment to make. The GOP refusing up front to approve anybody Obama appoints is not what is meant by "advising and consenting," it is denying him a power given to him by the Constitution. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. I'm not Obama's biggest fan, but I think he'll appoint somebody reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 This article explains my above point: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-ted-cruzs-preemptive-rejection-of-a-scotus-nominee-is-illegitimate/462741/ Why Ted Cruz's Preemptive Rejection of a Supreme Court Nominee Is Illegitimate The GOP presidential candidate—and at least two of his rivals—are acting as if the meaning of the Constitution changes depending on the timing of the next election. . . . If the Senate finds Obama’s nominee substantively unfit for the Supreme Court, it should decline to consent to the nomination, per its constitutional role. Ted Cruz crosses a line into illegitimate. [His] isn’t a call to fulfill the “advice and consent” function and to reject a bad nominee. It is a naked call for a strategic delay. . . But the Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its “advice and consent” obligation. Says the Constitution, the president “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...” A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Here's the SCOTUS blog reminding the GOP how our government works: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm by Amy Howe In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending nomination. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years. . . . Hopefully they play by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/obama_s_supreme_court_shortlist_is_full_of_great_candidates.html Supreme Court Shortlist It would be ridiculous for Republicans to oppose these perfectly qualified candidates. . . . Seems like there are some pretty good candidates on that list. Now the Senate should take this list of well qualified candidates, advise the President, and consent to one of them, as the Constitution requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 So the longest it's ever taken to confirm a Supreme Court justice is 126 days that does not include rejections,withdrawals,the time needed to choose ect, it has been a great deal longer to fill a empty SCOTUS seat. The ball is in O's court and we will see if he puts up one not worth the fate Bork,Estrada and Ginsburgh got from the Dems now can we allow them to bury the last guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 now can we allow them to bury the last guy? You'll notice I've refrained from saying anything about him at all, that is out of a sense of decency and respect for the dead. But I think it's perfectly fair to discuss his replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 You'll notice I've refrained from saying anything about him at all, and that is only out of a sense of decency and respect for the dead. note the addition to my signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 that does not include rejections,withdrawals,the time needed to choose ect, it has been a great deal longer to fill a empty SCOTUS seat. Get real. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html How Long Does It Take to Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee? The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. note the addition to my signature Sorry I cannot read signatures on my mobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Not really. Look: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html I think TWA is correct on this one. A seat sat empty for 7 months during the Reagan administration and for almost a year once in the 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Sorry I cannot read signatures on my mobile.From twa's signature: "I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas." Scalia RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Not really. Look: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html Sorry I cannot read signatures on my mobile. So you can't see either point a nomination is not a appointment in less than 125 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I think TWA is correct on this one. A seat sat empty for 7 months during the Reagan administration and for almost a year once in the 60s. It would help if you'd be more specific. The Reagan thing was due to nominating a nut like Robert Bork who didn't believe in civil rights. If Reagan wanted to fill the seat faster he could have withdrawn Bork's nomination. And that seat was still filled well within the timeframe Obama has. Can you be more specific about the year long vacancy in the 1960s? I'm not finding anything about it. Anyway, this isn't a case of Obama trying to push a single controversial nomination through, he has a list of several qualified candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Bork isn't the best example of an unfair political blockade, his firing of Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre was a legitimately major issue. A fight over that nomination should have happened. His civil rights stances were problematic too. I think a fair amount of superfluous stuff came up while he was nominated, but there were serious and major sticking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 There were clear politicized histrionics involved in the Bork confirmation process. But he was definitely a controversial nomination. What I'm wondering is if the Reagan administration realized how controversial Bork was going to be when they decided to appoint him? I get the sense it took them by surprise. Also worth pointing out that after Bork was rejected, Kennedy was confirmed in a unanimous vote. If Obama nominates a reasonable candidate, the Senate should confirm it. I agree with socrates, to not do so would be an unprecedented overreach by the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I'll be shocked if a Supreme Court nominee is confirmed this year. The Repubs have no interest in doing so. If Hillary someone gets elected; they will be planning impeachment hearings the next day. Obama should first try a candidate that could possibly get confirmed. Then let the Repubs rejected it. Then nominate an extreme lefty and let the Repubs reject it. I figure they have 2 nomination battles before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Sri presents a major impediment for Cruz and Rubio, if he's the nominee. They both voted yes on him to the DC Circuit CoA. If they suddenly come out against him, they need a better reason than "we have to stop Obama." Moderates will see through that act; they'd have to find actual substantive problems with him, which is somewhat doubtful seeing as there were seemingly no substantive issues 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 His opinions are entertaining; I give you that. But once you get into the guts of them, you realize that his prized legal reasoning is actually little more than an ability to obfuscate legal doctrine. Predicto is not here yet, and he's polite so he'll actually say something nice about the man. But he has to read Scalia's nonsense for a living and try to figure out what the old **** is actually saying. I'm sure he's not going to back the "Oh...what a marvelous legal writer" argument. Scalia is the single most vile American political figure since George Wallace. There is no arguing that. That is just the sort of jiggery-pokery I'd expect from you. Admit it, the nihilist in you was slightly in awe of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.