SC Justice Scalia Has Died

[maxparrish]

Hmmmm...is there any limit to some folks willing credulity, especially when Obama's busy mouthing more feather-weight talking points? You know, for a fellow who was allowed to teach constitutional law part-time, his constitutional ignorance and/or shameless prevarication is surprisingly as bad as that of Donald Trump.

And Obama is wrong that the President can nominate Supreme Court Justices? He must be so evil that his words you quoted above are actually wrong though they read correct.

Which nobody but you is arguing.

You are pretty butthurt over this small point. Has the Senate ever taken no action on an nominee?

Yes, as shown many nominee's have been withdrawn without a Senate vote.

Finally, Obama's comments are rather brazenly hypocritical. In 2006 he joined a filibuster of 24 to obstruct a Senate vote on Alito's approval or disapproval - to block a vote on consent:

Obama told reporters he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.".

Pot...meet kettle.

Yes, because filibustering is the same thing. IMPEACH!!!!

Well ya, it is. It is preventing a vote on consent by filibustering - which many conservative Senators have promised to do should it be necessary.

 

[Trausti]

So let's see if this sells as Schumer's call for principled ethics:

- In 2007, Schumer says that no Bush nominee should be confirmed (barring "the most extraordinary of circumstances").

- In 2016 Schumer says that a threat to not confirm any Obama nominee is “obstructionism” and an abnegation of duty.

This is comedy gold.

The Democrats are just as bad at obstructionism because of a hypothetical Judicial Nominee block. Please ignore the record number of cloture failures and slip vetoes for Obama and Clinton, and the relatively unhindered approval for W.

Miguel Estrada.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats are just as bad at obstructionism because of a hypothetical Judicial Nominee block. Please ignore the record number of cloture failures and slip vetoes for Obama and Clinton, and the relatively unhindered approval for W.

Miguel Estrada.

Well, that'd be 1 of what, 8 or 12 or so judicial nominees that wouldn't be approved. Verses the 167 nominees (many anonymously rejected) under President Clinton and the several dozen failure for Cloture under President Obama.

We are shifting into Moore-Coulter territory here.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And Obama is wrong that the President can nominate Supreme Court Justices? He must be so evil that his words you quoted above are actually wrong though they read correct.

Which nobody but you is arguing.

You are pretty butthurt over this small point. Has the Senate ever taken no action on an nominee?

Yes, as shown many nominee's have been withdrawn without a Senate vote.

Finally, Obama's comments are rather brazenly hypocritical. In 2006 he joined a filibuster of 24 to obstruct a Senate vote on Alito's approval or disapproval - to block a vote on consent:

Obama told reporters he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.".

Pot...meet kettle.

Yes, because filibustering is the same thing. IMPEACH!!!!

Well ya, it is. It is preventing a vote on consent by filibustering - which many conservative Senators have promised to do should it be necessary.

So Obama filibustering="brazenly hypocritical", but GOP fillibustering "good"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, as shown many nominee's have been withdrawn without a Senate vote.

Finally, Obama's comments are rather brazenly hypocritical. In 2006 he joined a filibuster of 24 to obstruct a Senate vote on Alito's approval or disapproval - to block a vote on consent:

Obama told reporters he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.".

Pot...meet kettle.

Yes, because filibustering is the same thing. IMPEACH!!!!

Well ya, it is. It is preventing a vote on consent by filibustering - which many conservative Senators have promised to do should it be necessary.

So Obama filibustering="brazenly hypocritical", but GOP fillibustering "good"?

Justice Alito... Mr. Unitary Executive. I didn't think he should have been approved. Roberts was qualified, but Alito had some weird ideas about what the Executive branch could do.

Now let's get off of MaxParrish's derail, because the Republicans aren't filibustering a nominee they feel is too liberal. They are actually saying to the President 'Don't even bother nominating anyone.'

 

[maxparrish]

So, Senate practice when it comes to dealing with Supreme Court nominees has been to confirm 77% of them, to reject 7% of them, and to see the other 16% withdraw at some point during the nomination process, and this justifies the Senate refusing to even consider a nomination because....?

The Constitution may not set out a timeframe for the completion of certain tasks, but I doubt even Scalia could find support for the argument that the Constitution allows Senators to refuse to perform their official duties.

And not just refuse a nomination - but to declare their refusal of ANY nomination, before they even know who they are rejecting. That's seriously three-year-old having a tantrum territory. Do they not care that they look like retarded pre-schoolers; or are they genuinely unaware that that's how they come across when they pull this stupid shit?

So I guess Chucky was also a three-year-old having a tantrum? He looked like a retarded pre-schooler? He was pulling "stupid shit"?

Schumer rejected ANY Bush nominee for political reasons, because in his view any Bush nominee is a Trojan horse for the right of center.

And Grassley/McConnell can reject ANY Obama nominee, because in their view any Obama nominee would be a Trojan horse for the left of center.

Whether or not nominees should be blocked for ideological reasons is in dispute; what should not be in dispute is that this is not a dispute over high principle. It's simple: liberals covet a here-to-fore conservative spot on the court. Were this a vacancy held by one of the four liberals, I would feel a bit more sympathetic to there offense.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well ya, it's not like the Dems are somehow less hypocritical and partisan than the Republicans. It's just that they have a far better story to sell during the current election campaign about the partisan obstructionism on the part of the GOP than the GOP has about the partisan lack of a year long delay in doing one's job on the part of the Dems.

Don't know why people think this will matter in the November election. How many people can name the justices on the Supreme Court now? How many people can name even one? Or their representative in the House? Or one of their two federal senators? Or their state governor? The only people who care are already highly partisan, one way or the other. Is anyone suggesting that if the GOP magnanimously accepts and approves Obama's nomination that the vulnerable senate Republicans up for election would fair better? Would you vote for the GOP candidate then? The senate Republicans can pull a Schumer and the general public won't give a fudge.

It matters in the sense of how it plays as a campaign story. People hate the shit out of Congress and the GOP are the ones who are running Congress at the moment. The campaign point of "These guys that you hate are refusing to do their job for blatantly partisan reasons so you should come out to the polls to fire their asses" will play well amongst people who haven't paid much attention to what Congress has been doing since the last Presidential election - which is most people. There are also a lot of people who are really pissed about Citizens United and who are quite worried about how close the decisions on things like gay marriage and voting rights and abortion and all that have been - if pounding this one point of securing the advances which hve been made gets 5% more of a given demographic to show up, that's a huge victory.

It's not going to be a game changer, of course, but it has the potential to be a significant enough factor to swing some close races.

 

[Selsaral]

Don't know why people think this will matter in the November election. How many people can name the justices on the Supreme Court now? How many people can name even one? Or their representative in the House? Or one of their two federal senators? Or their state governor? The only people who care are already highly partisan, one way or the other. Is anyone suggesting that if the GOP magnanimously accepts and approves Obama's nomination that the vulnerable senate Republicans up for election would fair better? Would you vote for the GOP candidate then? The senate Republicans can pull a Schumer and the general public won't give a fudge.

It matters in the sense of how it plays as a campaign story. People hate the shit out of Congress and the GOP are the ones who are running Congress at the moment. The campaign point of "These guys that you hate are refusing to do their job for blatantly partisan reasons so you should come out to the polls to fire their asses" will play well amongst people who haven't paid much attention to what Congress has been doing since the last Presidential election - which is most people. There are also a lot of people who are really pissed about Citizens United and who are quite worried about how close the decisions on things like gay marriage and voting rights and abortion and all that have been - if pounding this one point of securing the advances which hve been made gets 5% more of a given demographic to show up, that's a huge victory.

It's not going to be a game changer, of course, but it has the potential to be a significant enough factor to swing some close races.

Aren't the majority of people who hate congress Conservatives who hate them for compromising with liberals?

 

[maxparrish]

Now let's get off of MaxParrish's derail, because the Republicans aren't filibustering a nominee they feel is too liberal. They are actually saying to the President 'Don't even bother nominating anyone.'

No they are saying he can nominate if he likes, but that they want to hold over appointments for the next President. Presumably, the nomination will be active for the next President who may endorse, or withdraw, it.

Edit Clarification: they want to "hold over hearings and appointments" for the next President. As far as I know, a nomination would not expire, unless withdrawn.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Now let's get off of MaxParrish's derail, because the Republicans aren't filibustering a nominee they feel is too liberal. They are actually saying to the President 'Don't even bother nominating anyone.'

No they are saying he can nominate if he likes, but that they want to hold over appointments for the next President. Presumably, the nomination will be active for the next President who may endorse, or withdraw, it.

No, that is not what they are saying. That's what you want to believe they are saying.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Aren't the majority of people who hate congress Conservatives who hate them for compromising with liberals?

Last I checked, their approval rating was about 15%, so I'd say that most people hate them for a whole lot of reasons. Also, about a third of the country are liberals, so that's not part of the rationale for a large portion of those who hate them.

One of the main roots of the hatred is the notion that they care far more about their stupid and useless partisan games than actually doing the jobs that they've been elected to do. The Dems' storyline on this issue plays into that far better than the GOP's.

 

[Selsaral]

Aren't the majority of people who hate congress Conservatives who hate them for compromising with liberals?

Last I checked, their approval rating was about 15%, so I'd say that most people hate them for a whole lot of reasons. Also, about a third of the country are liberals, so that's not part of the rationale for a large portion of those who hate them.

One of the main roots of the hatred is the notion that they care far more about their stupid and useless partisan games than actually doing the jobs that they've been elected to do. The Dems' storyline on this issue plays into that far better than the GOP's.

I see what you're saying, but from what I've read there's a bit more to it. For example according to articles like this one at Gallup, republicans are quite a bit more negative, especially since the party who controls congress typically have much higher ratings. Also, from everything I read, republicans don't hate congress for lack of cooperation. They got rid of Boehner for compromising too much.

Frustration with the party leadership may explain why Republicans (8%) are slightly less likely to approve of the job Congress is doing than either independents (13%) or Democrats (11%), even though Republicans have majority control of both houses. Usually, Congress' approval ratings are significantly higher among supporters of the majority party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Last I checked, their approval rating was about 15%, so I'd say that most people hate them for a whole lot of reasons. Also, about a third of the country are liberals, so that's not part of the rationale for a large portion of those who hate them.

One of the main roots of the hatred is the notion that they care far more about their stupid and useless partisan games than actually doing the jobs that they've been elected to do. The Dems' storyline on this issue plays into that far better than the GOP's.

I see what you're saying, but from what I've read there's a bit more to it. For example according to articles like this one at Gallup, republicans are quite a bit more negative, especially since the party who controls congress typically have much higher ratings. Also, from everything I read, republicans don't hate congress for lack of cooperation. They got rid of Boehner for compromising too much.

Frustration with the party leadership may explain why Republicans (8%) are slightly less likely to approve of the job Congress is doing than either independents (13%) or Democrats (11%), even though Republicans have majority control of both houses. Usually, Congress' approval ratings are significantly higher among supporters of the majority party.

Yeah, they are still angry for Bush signing TARP and not letting the world burn.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

So if Obama nominates someone who's considered a moderate, and the Senate delays a vote on the nomination until after the election, if Clinton or Sanders wins, is there a race between the Senate taking a vote to approve the nomination and Obama withdrawing it?

 

[maxparrish]

So if Obama nominates someone who's considered a moderate, and the Senate delays a vote on the nomination until after the election, if Clinton or Sanders wins, is there a race between the Senate taking a vote to approve the nomination and Obama withdrawing it?

Since when has a Democrat found a moderate (a true centrist) since (at least) Kennedy? Do they even know what one looks like? Of course, it might be an excellent strategy to nominate someone that RINO and quasi-conservative's might support. The publican wormbacks might go for it, rather than risk losing in the election. It would also make it difficult for the Republican leadership to reject. And it is still a democratic win, in that the seat is now another swing vote.

BUT I doubt Obama cares if the seat is filled. More likely he will nominate a black or Mexican-American radic-lib jurist, and scream bloody murder when that person is rejected - firing up all the racialist hooters among race-ethic tribes.

Alternatively, the GOP can give Obama a list of who they will accept...as the Democrats did to Reagan in 1987-88. Hopefully Miguel Estrada and Janice Rodgers Brown is on it.

 

[blastula]

Repub obstructionism should help Dems in next election.

it should, but it won't.

I think it very well could, especially depending on the nominee and their demographic makeup. It could help whether the Republicans obstruct or not, though it would help more if they did. But I don't even think they will block any and all nominees. I think there will be a confirmation. The Repubs screwed themselves by within minutes of the death announcement vowing to block any nominee sight unseen. It now makes any rejection of a nominee less credible as being because of a stated good faith problem with qualifications or ideology.

There is another bright side to obstructionism, is that the federal courts today have more Democratic appointees than Republican which makes any 4-4 result more likely to end up in a liberal outcome.

 

[blastula]

Don't know why people think this will matter in the November election. How many people can name the justices on the Supreme Court now? How many people can name even one? Or their representative in the House? Or one of their two federal senators? Or their state governor? The only people who care are already highly partisan, one way or the other. Is anyone suggesting that if the GOP magnanimously accepts and approves Obama's nomination that the vulnerable senate Republicans up for election would fair better? Would you vote for the GOP candidate then? The senate Republicans can pull a Schumer and the general public won't give a fudge.

They will know about this nominee, there will be wall to wall coverage.

 

[prideandfall]

The Repubs screwed themselves by within minutes of the death announcement vowing to block any nominee sight unseen. It now makes any rejection of a nominee less credible as being because of a stated good faith problem with qualifications or ideology.

less credible to whom?
the idiots who vote for republicans in the first place won't give a shit - they'll see it as a sign of strength that the GOP is cock-blocking the nigger.
the people who vote for democrats won't... what, MOAR vote democrat? so there's no difference there either.

you're operating under the misguided presumption that a lot of people seem to have, which is to think that the problem in this country is just that the people who vote R are unaware of what shit-heels the GOP is, and if something big enough and prominent enough were to happen then by golly it will shake these yokels out of their stupor and the GOP will just be a distant memory.
but you're wrong, and this sort of idiocy is exactly what the inbred sister-fuckers who vote republican in the first place want to see from their elected officials.*

*not all people who vote republican are necessarily sister-fucking hillbillies, i was only referring to the sister-fucking hillbillies who vote republican in this particular instance

 

[blastula]

The Repubs screwed themselves by within minutes of the death announcement vowing to block any nominee sight unseen. It now makes any rejection of a nominee less credible as being because of a stated good faith problem with qualifications or ideology.

less credible to whom?
the idiots who vote for republicans in the first place won't give a shit - they'll see it as a sign of strength that the GOP is cock-blocking the nigger.
the people who vote for democrats won't... what, MOAR vote democrat? so there's no difference there either.

you're operating under the misguided presumption that a lot of people seem to have, which is to think that the problem in this country is just that the people who vote R are unaware of what shit-heels the GOP is, and if something big enough and prominent enough were to happen then by golly it will shake these yokels out of their stupor and the GOP will just be a distant memory.
but you're wrong, and this sort of idiocy is exactly what the inbred sister-fuckers who vote republican in the first place want to see from their elected officials.

It doesn't apply to the people who will vote R or D no matter what, but that's not everybody. I'm not talking about them. You're wrong that everyone has made up their mind or that voter turnout is immovable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So if Obama nominates someone who's considered a moderate, and the Senate delays a vote on the nomination until after the election, if Clinton or Sanders wins, is there a race between the Senate taking a vote to approve the nomination and Obama withdrawing it?

Since when has a Democrat found a moderate (a true centrist) since (at least) Kennedy? Do they even know what one looks like?

Yes, they are to the left of Obama and Hillary.

Of course, it might be an excellent strategy to nominate someone that RINO and quasi-conservative's might support. The publican wormbacks might go for it, rather than risk losing in the election. It would also make it difficult for the Republican leadership to reject. And it is still a democratic win, in that the seat is now another swing vote.

BUT I doubt Obama cares if the seat is filled. More likely he will nominate a black or Mexican-American radic-lib jurist, and scream bloody murder when that person is rejected - firing up all the racialist hooters among race-ethic tribes.

Let's visualize that Max: