• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

SC Justice Scalia Has Died

Yes, the republicans have no reason for delaying other than the hope that they get to pick the next judge. Rest assured, if this were the second term of a republican president, they would say they had a duty to fill the vacancy before the election.

In any case, once Donald J. Trump gets in office, prepare yourselves for his nominee, Meatloaf.
 
The Republicans aren't winning in '16 and will likely lose the Senate, though not nearly to filibuster proof majority. Wouldn't the Republicans be better off negotiating at this point?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The Republicans aren't winning in '16 and will likely lose the Senate, though not nearly to filibuster proof majority. Wouldn't the Republicans be better off negotiating at this point?
Click to expand...

They are not smart enough as a group to realize this is a fight they cannot win. The Senate is not gerrymandered, they need to moderate their positions in many states despite the partisan base.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The Republicans aren't winning in '16 and will likely lose the Senate, though not nearly to filibuster proof majority. Wouldn't the Republicans be better off negotiating at this point?
Click to expand...

I'd be careful about making such predictions. No matter what, though, Obama should put up a candidate in a month or two.
 
Achwienichtig said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
The Republicans aren't winning in '16 and will likely lose the Senate, though not nearly to filibuster proof majority. Wouldn't the Republicans be better off negotiating at this point?
Click to expand...

I'd be careful about making such predictions.
Click to expand...
The Dems taking the Senate back is likely because the tsunami of the '10 election has subsided and typically safer Democratic seats will return. That really isn't sticking my head out. Saying a Democrat will win the White House is a little bit sticking my head out, but in general, a Republican is having a harder and harder time winning the Electoral College.
No matter what, though, Obama should put up a candidate in a month or two.
Click to expand...
Definitely a month, I'd say. He doesn't have a large amount of time.
 
So Scalia asked for Kagan to be on the court. Interesting.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnUpBNKGHk[/YOUTUBE]
 
Achwienichtig said:
Yes, the republicans have no reason for delaying other than the hope that they get to pick the next judge. Rest assured, if this were the second term of a republican president, they would say they had a duty to fill the vacancy before the election.

In any case, once Donald J. Trump gets in office, prepare yourselves for his nominee, Meatloaf.
Click to expand...

Maybe they learned the concept from the Democrats back when they were talking about what they would do if Bush got another chance to nominate a Justice as a lame duck president. Of course Schumer was only talking about the last 18 months of the Bush presidency not the last 10 months. Obama will have to pick carefully if he wants a nominee to have a shot at a hearing and even more carefully to keep them from getting Borked.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY[/youtube]
 
ImGod said:
Achwienichtig said:
Yes, the republicans have no reason for delaying other than the hope that they get to pick the next judge. Rest assured, if this were the second term of a republican president, they would say they had a duty to fill the vacancy before the election.

In any case, once Donald J. Trump gets in office, prepare yourselves for his nominee, Meatloaf.
Click to expand...

Maybe they learned the concept from the Democrats back when they were talking about what they would do if Bush got another chance to nominate a Justice as a lame duck president. Of course Schumer was only talking about the last 18 months of the Bush presidency not the last 10 months. Obama will have to pick carefully if he wants a nominee to have a shot at a hearing and even more carefully to keep them from getting Borked.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY[/youtube]
Click to expand...
Yeah, that certainly looks bad. White House Response to his comments.
article said:
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."
Click to expand...

2007 Article
 
Scalia: Not the most conservative and often sided with the majority.

Argle bargle jiggary pokery

With the death of Antonin Scalia on Saturday, the Supreme Court lost not only its longest-serving justice but also the most outspoken member of its conservative wing. A careful analysis of his tenure, however, shows that Scalia was almost never the most conservative justice on the court, and in fact moved leftward during the second half of his 30 years on the bench. With the exception of the 2014 term, he was usually in the majority in the court’s rulings, and the future direction of the court pivots on his replacement.
Click to expand...
 

SENATE SET ON OBSTRUCTION
Roadblock Ahead: GOP Vows No Vote On Scalia Replacement Under Obama... Even Vulnerable Republicans Vow To Block... OBAMA GEARS UP: Nominee Coming... Battle Lines Drawn... On The Verge Of 'Constitutional Crisis'... Could Be Biggest Court Shakeup In 25 Years...

:boom: hair-fire.gifhair-fire.gifhair-fire.gif :boom:



Media please, it's not that dire.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins said:
The Republicans aren't winning in '16 and will likely lose the Senate, though not nearly to filibuster proof majority. Wouldn't the Republicans be better off negotiating at this point?
Click to expand...
That is my thought. They'd have a much better chance of getting a true moderate on the bench than if, for instance, Bernie Sanders wins :D

So far, the excuses I've heard for why the Senate will refuse to consider any nomination by President Obama have included:

Tradition - which is simply a false claim

The people should have a voice - and obviously we spoke when we re-elected President Obama in 2012

Need a balanced court - why is it that 5 conservatives and 4 liberals is "balanced" but 5 liberals and 4 conservatives is not? Sounds like typical Republican math to me.

“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called Thurmond Rule, under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year,” said McConnell. “This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn’t exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly-needed vacancies.”

Oops. Sen. McConnell also stated in 2005 that he supported a sitting president’s absolute right to nominate judges, although that—again—was when a Republican sat in the White House.
Click to expand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...king-antonin-scalia-s-scotus-replacement.html
 
ImGod said:
Achwienichtig said:
Yes, the republicans have no reason for delaying other than the hope that they get to pick the next judge. Rest assured, if this were the second term of a republican president, they would say they had a duty to fill the vacancy before the election.

In any case, once Donald J. Trump gets in office, prepare yourselves for his nominee, Meatloaf.
Click to expand...

Maybe they learned the concept from the Democrats back when they were talking about what they would do if Bush got another chance to nominate a Justice as a lame duck president. Of course Schumer was only talking about the last 18 months of the Bush presidency not the last 10 months. Obama will have to pick carefully if he wants a nominee to have a shot at a hearing and even more carefully to keep them from getting Borked.
Click to expand...

It's important to note, I think, the difference between, "I will urge my fellow senators to not confirm ideologues" and "not confirm except in extraordinary circumstances"

and

"We will not allow a vote on anyone"

These are not the same thing.

Schumer's comments are a Senator urging his fellows to vote no on ideologues. McConnell's comments are a Senator vowing to prevent votes.

If anyone thinks these are the same thing and represent a "they did it, too!" then they need to read again, while thinking this time.
Moreover, even if Schumer HAD said something as shameful as "we won't let anyone vote," recall that the Republicans and the White House both condemned it. To turn around and embrace the crimes of your enemy and repeat them make you either a petulant toddler or a sociopath. Neither reflects well on you.

But of course, Schumer didn't say that. McConnell dialed that right up higher.
 
It is wrong to refuse to allow a vote on a confirmation, especially a judicial appointment since our courts are supposed to non-partisan. It is wrong when the Democrats do it. It is wrong when Republicans do it. I am not surprised at the hypocrisy on either side over this issue. But that does not obscure the reality that it is wrong to allow a confirmation vote on an appointee.
 
laughing dog said:
It is wrong to refuse to allow a vote on a confirmation, especially a judicial appointment since our courts are supposed to non-partisan. It is wrong when the Democrats do it. It is wrong when Republicans do it. I am not surprised at the hypocrisy on either side over this issue. But that does not obscure the reality that it is wrong to allow a confirmation vote on an appointee.
Click to expand...

In the past, Democrats have opposed SC nominees for good reasons. Hruska and Bork were opposed because Hruska was a non-entity without good experience and Bork had some less than acceptable specific legal stances.

Opposing anybody simply because they are nominated by Obama is a whole other kettle of fish.

Many of those on Obama's short list are moderates, not radicals, and were often confirmed in their present position on various court with GOP support. What the GOP wants is not a good candidate that is a moderate or center left, they want somebody who is hard right.
 
Rhea said:
ImGod said:
Maybe they learned the concept from the Democrats back when they were talking about what they would do if Bush got another chance to nominate a Justice as a lame duck president. Of course Schumer was only talking about the last 18 months of the Bush presidency not the last 10 months. Obama will have to pick carefully if he wants a nominee to have a shot at a hearing and even more carefully to keep them from getting Borked.
Click to expand...

It's important to note, I think, the difference between, "I will urge my fellow senators to not confirm ideologues" and "not confirm except in extraordinary circumstances"

and

"We will not allow a vote on anyone"

These are not the same thing.

Schumer's comments are a Senator urging his fellows to vote no on ideologues. McConnell's comments are a Senator vowing to prevent votes.

If anyone thinks these are the same thing and represent a "they did it, too!" then they need to read again, while thinking this time.
Moreover, even if Schumer HAD said something as shameful as "we won't let anyone vote," recall that the Republicans and the White House both condemned it. To turn around and embrace the crimes of your enemy and repeat them make you either a petulant toddler or a sociopath. Neither reflects well on you.

But of course, Schumer didn't say that. McConnell dialed that right up higher.
Click to expand...

Well there was no death or retirement of a justice in those last 18 months, so it couldn't be tested. There hasn't even been an Obama nomination, so it hasn't been tested either.

In both cases so far it's rhetoric aimed at cautioning the opposing party from nominating anyone who's too far from the middle or holds one specific value that would cause a no vote.
 
maxparrish said:
untermensche said:
Wow, he mistakenly said Nixon instead of Reagan.

And that is just one of the scummy things he was being rewarded for.

He was an unprincipled tool.
Click to expand...

No, he mistakenly thought Nixon nominated Bork as a reward for firing Cox at Nixon's behest. Clearly he has little knowledge of what he speaks.
Click to expand...

No. untermenche got it right. Essential point is Bork performed an illegal state act which was called out by the Judge. That is a disqualifying act by one who is supposed to represent the people for the state. Whatever other qualifications one might bring forward this act trumps it.
 
I'd say a Justice suddenly dropping dead is extraordinary circumstances.

When has it happened before?

Everybody knew Rehnquist was unwell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom