Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Well I'm sure they would suggest someone clearly horrible if Obama asked.Gaidin wrote: Except what they're grandstanding about is kinda like this. They're uhhh...not advising.
They're not even letting Obama ask. They're obstructing for the sake of obstruction because the Republicans in office are basically adult toddlers.Ralin wrote:Well I'm sure they would suggest someone clearly horrible if Obama asked.Gaidin wrote: Except what they're grandstanding about is kinda like this. They're uhhh...not advising.
I'm just not clear what the argument is? Yes they're acting horribly irresponsibly and partisanly. Unfortunately that seems to be their legal prerogative unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Well, ok. Probably. My thing on other discussion boards is that the discussion hasn't even started yet mostly because the quote "first nominee", hopefully "only nominee" hasn't even been put up yet. Thus all we see from both sides is grandstanding. So I say let them grandstand. Let them put on their show for their people. When the nominee gets put up and we actually see the qualities whether it's center left or a true "fuck you" LEFT nominee from Obama that's when the maneuvering actually will start. Meh, I'm not even sure we've got a clue what Reid's cards will be, much less what the play will be and he won't reveal it. Everything we've seen is...well...educated guesses from reporters who've covered this wheelhouse for a very long time.Ralin wrote: Well I'm sure they would suggest someone clearly horrible if Obama asked.
I'm just not clear what the argument is? Yes they're acting horribly irresponsibly and partisanly. Unfortunately that seems to be their legal prerogative unless I'm misunderstanding something.
How exactly is Obama "grandstanding" on this?Gaidin wrote:Well, ok. Probably. My thing on other discussion boards is that the discussion hasn't even started yet mostly because the quote "first nominee", hopefully "only nominee" hasn't even been put up yet. Thus all we see from both sides is grandstanding. So I say let them grandstand. Let them put on their show for their people. When the nominee gets put up and we actually see the qualities whether it's center left or a true "fuck you" LEFT nominee from Obama that's when the maneuvering actually will start. Meh, I'm not even sure we've got a clue what Reid's cards will be, much less what the play will be and he won't reveal it. Everything we've seen is...well...educated guesses from reporters who've covered this wheelhouse for a very long time.Ralin wrote: Well I'm sure they would suggest someone clearly horrible if Obama asked.
I'm just not clear what the argument is? Yes they're acting horribly irresponsibly and partisanly. Unfortunately that seems to be their legal prerogative unless I'm misunderstanding something.
I'm talking about the Senate. Why would you think I was talking about Obama projecting PR vomit anywhere? The Senate is the one being so blatant about it I shouldn't have to specify this.General Zod wrote: How exactly is Obama "grandstanding" on this?
So how are the democrats "grandstanding"? Or is this just bullshit rhetoric that libertarian dipshits like to spout so they can pretend they're not really biased?Gaidin wrote:I'm talking about the Senate. Why would you think I was talking about Obama projecting PR vomit anywhere? The Senate is the one being so blatant about it I shouldn't have to specify this.General Zod wrote: How exactly is Obama "grandstanding" on this?
Hey look, Ralin can't read. They aren't even holding hearings, thus they are failing to even pretend to do their jobs. Their jobs being to advise and consent on who Obama nominates, not "We won't even hold hearings on anyone you nominate, in fact don't even nominate anyone, fuck you n***er!", which is what they are doing now. The US Constitution is crystal clear on this point, the POTUS nominates someone, the Senate advises and consents unless there is a problem with the nominee that makes them unsuitable, like rampant sexual harassment including putting pubic hairs on cans of soda. Oh wait, he got in.Ralin wrote:"We think this person is unacceptable because you like him and he's vaguely liberal. We advise that you go with (insert person hostile to Obama)"Flagg wrote: Yeah, they advise and consent. How is "We won't even hold hearings, waaa waaa fart" advising and consenting?
Seems pretty implicit that if their consent is required to chose a justice they have the authority to withhold it at their discretion. It's almost like we shouldn't have elected so many Republicans.
Zod, shut up, you look like an idiot.General Zod wrote:So how are the democrats "grandstanding"? Or is this just bullshit rhetoric that libertarian dipshits like to spout so they can pretend they're not really biased?Gaidin wrote:I'm talking about the Senate. Why would you think I was talking about Obama projecting PR vomit anywhere? The Senate is the one being so blatant about it I shouldn't have to specify this.General Zod wrote: How exactly is Obama "grandstanding" on this?
Yeah, of course they can. Legally. But it makes them the most foul hypocrites since, like I said, the only book they thump more than their KJ Bibles is their little pocket book Constitutions and just like the Bible they want to pick and choose which parts suit them on any particular day. It's not illegal to tell the President not to nominate anyone, it just flies in the face of 215+ years of procedure. And hopefully it will cost them.Knife wrote:Oh, the GOP can more than stonewall them, it's within their powers. It is irresponsible and will be a precedent for holding one this long, a precedent I don't think they would like if flipped and Dems stonewalled a nominee for a year. Yes, they got elected and they can do this, but like the shutting down of the government; this action will not help them with ANYONE except the howling right wing that would vote for them anyway.
Truly it's the greatest conundrum of people who are comedically inclined. Do we wish for the dipshits to remain in office/alive for the sake of humor, or is the betterment of a nation and/or humanity as a whole worth the lack of laughter? A true conundrum that, like why people see Tim Allen and Adam Sandler movies, may never be solved.Darth Lucifer wrote:Without getting into the politically charged portions of this topic, I am saddened by the loss of Justice Scalia. I started listening to random SCOTUS audio and reading opinions/briefs back when Windsor was being argued and after that time I have continued to do so, both old and new cases. One thing's for sure, the court is going to be significantly less entertaining.
From the same guy who said it was Ok for Texas cops to sneak up to bedroom windows and should they see... GASP!... SODOMY!!!... They were able to arrest and charge the occupants, almost exclusively homosexuals. I was hoping he would fully stroke out when SCOTUS said that laws against... SODOMY!!!... Were unconstitutional. No such luck.Darth Lucifer wrote:Strangely enough, I remember him most for Florida v. Jardines which settled the question before the court: "Is a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?" The way he thundered away at the one lawyer dood was awesome and the opinion itself was surprising.
(Case audio and opinion announcement courtesy of Oyez.org)
That's the funny thing about the data, when you look at it. He was only the third most conservative Justice. And was maybe most conservative for like...a year. Since 2000 he was trending liberal, relatively speaking.Darth Lucifer wrote:Yes, Flagg, I read that dissenting opinion...."flagpole sitting" and all. But what was more outstanding to me was Scalia's interpretation of 4th amendment law, like in United States v. Jones where the court held that the installation of a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle without a warrant constituted an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amendment. In this aspect, Justice Scalia seemed to be almost liberal at times.
We've seen this in a couple election cycles now - they Republitards are convinced they're going to win, no matter what, and are shocked when it doesn't happen.General Zod wrote:They're playing Russian roulette by rejecting any nomination since they can't guarantee they're going to retain a majority stranglehold by November.
Not they don't get it, fox news and various internet sites tell them they are the silent majority.Broomstick wrote:We've seen this in a couple election cycles now - they Republitards are convinced they're going to win, no matter what, and are shocked when it doesn't happen.General Zod wrote:They're playing Russian roulette by rejecting any nomination since they can't guarantee they're going to retain a majority stranglehold by November.
Rather like the Bubbas squatting at the Malheur Reserve who were shocked the rest of the white idiots didn't immediately flock to their banner. They don't get that they are NOT representative of what a True AmericanTM is
What a fucking asshole!The facts are pretty simple. In the last 80 years there has only been one instance in which a president was in a position to nominate a justice in an election year and did not have the nominee confirmed. In 1968, LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice to succeed Earl Warren (and of Homer Thornberry to take the seat held by Fortas) was blocked in the Senate, but not because of some alleged “tradition.” Certainly there were Senators who wanted the next president to name a new justice. But the opposition to Fortas had everything to do with the specific nominee and specific objections to him (particularly charges of cronyism and inappropriate financial dealings). To the best of my knowledge, no one cited Cruz’s “tradition” to say it was not appropriate for Johnson to nominate someone, or that it would have been inappropriate to confirm anyone.
A second instance took place 28 years earlier. In 1940, FDR nominated Frank Murphy in January of that election year and he was confirmed that same month. There was no “tradition” blocking that election-year appointment. (This also shows that Cruz got the math wrong—this happened 76 years ago, not 80.)
So, there were two instances similar to the current situation in the last 80 years. In one case the nomination was rejected and in the other it wasn’t. To Ted Cruz, this constitutes “a long tradition that you don’t do this.”
Ted Cruz’s invention of this alleged “tradition” that we don’t nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices in an election year would be laughable if so many supposedly responsible political leaders were not taking it seriously.
It is absurd on the face of it. If the Republicans in the Senate want to block any nominee Barack Obama sends them, they have the votes to do it. But they should stop hiding behind the obvious fiction that doing so is part of some “tradition.” It would be nothing but the raw, cynical use of their political power. This suggestion that Obama should not even nominate someone (both John Kasich and Marco Rubio said so in Saturday’s debate), or if he does, that the nominee should be rejected out of hand simply because of the timing (as the Senate Majority Leader and many Republican Senators are now saying), is simply silly.
True conservatives don’t invent traditions. They work to protect existing ones. Our true tradition is that the president nominates and the Senate votes, regardless of when the vacancy occurs.
The speed with which Cruz jumped to make this claim and with which so many others have fallen in line, speaks to the nihilistic radicalism that has infected today’s Republican Party. Any position can be taken if it produces the correct result. Facts can be denied, “traditions” can be invented. The only value taken seriously is “does it work to our advantage?”
Democrats had the same experience.Broomstick wrote:We've seen this in a couple election cycles now - they Republitards are convinced they're going to win, no matter what, and are shocked when it doesn't happen.General Zod wrote:They're playing Russian roulette by rejecting any nomination since they can't guarantee they're going to retain a majority stranglehold by November.
A nomination of Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski would effectively placate the concerns of the gun rights lobby. The gun rights lobby is the only political lobby that could actually block nominees for the rest of President Obama's term.Darth Lucifer wrote:My first prediction for replacing the vacant associate justice position is D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. He's bipartisan enough for the court, has argued on the conservative side of issues when he was a deputy solicitor general (Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International sticks out the most in my mind) and in the past he's represented guys that Republicans love, such as Jeffrey Skilling of Enron and ExxonMobil Corp. And Mr. Srinivasan was unanimously confirmed by the Senate who voted 97-0.
Wait, wasn't Grassley (Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee) the first to throw that out there?Elfdart wrote:Ted Cruz is a lying douchecock? Who knew?
What a fucking asshole!The facts are pretty simple. In the last 80 years there has only been one instance in which a president was in a position to nominate a justice in an election year and did not have the nominee confirmed. In 1968, LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice to succeed Earl Warren (and of Homer Thornberry to take the seat held by Fortas) was blocked in the Senate, but not because of some alleged “tradition.” Certainly there were Senators who wanted the next president to name a new justice. But the opposition to Fortas had everything to do with the specific nominee and specific objections to him (particularly charges of cronyism and inappropriate financial dealings). To the best of my knowledge, no one cited Cruz’s “tradition” to say it was not appropriate for Johnson to nominate someone, or that it would have been inappropriate to confirm anyone.
A second instance took place 28 years earlier. In 1940, FDR nominated Frank Murphy in January of that election year and he was confirmed that same month. There was no “tradition” blocking that election-year appointment. (This also shows that Cruz got the math wrong—this happened 76 years ago, not 80.)
So, there were two instances similar to the current situation in the last 80 years. In one case the nomination was rejected and in the other it wasn’t. To Ted Cruz, this constitutes “a long tradition that you don’t do this.”
Ted Cruz’s invention of this alleged “tradition” that we don’t nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices in an election year would be laughable if so many supposedly responsible political leaders were not taking it seriously.
It is absurd on the face of it. If the Republicans in the Senate want to block any nominee Barack Obama sends them, they have the votes to do it. But they should stop hiding behind the obvious fiction that doing so is part of some “tradition.” It would be nothing but the raw, cynical use of their political power. This suggestion that Obama should not even nominate someone (both John Kasich and Marco Rubio said so in Saturday’s debate), or if he does, that the nominee should be rejected out of hand simply because of the timing (as the Senate Majority Leader and many Republican Senators are now saying), is simply silly.
True conservatives don’t invent traditions. They work to protect existing ones. Our true tradition is that the president nominates and the Senate votes, regardless of when the vacancy occurs.
The speed with which Cruz jumped to make this claim and with which so many others have fallen in line, speaks to the nihilistic radicalism that has infected today’s Republican Party. Any position can be taken if it produces the correct result. Facts can be denied, “traditions” can be invented. The only value taken seriously is “does it work to our advantage?”
There's no reason that Obama couldn't get put on the Supreme Court (if you can ignore his terrible track record on human rights), but there's nothing that would obligate Clinton or Bernie to put him on there. Plus there's always the outside possibility of a Trump win. The safest bet is to nominate someone as fast as possible.Lord Pounder wrote:Is there a possibility that as a final fuck you to the Republicans Obama can let them hold up the nomination then if Bernie or Clinton gets in as President they nominate Obama?
