SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[michal1980]

Its not clear what you're specifically talking about here, but as noted the Schumer statement seemed to only specifically apply to a theoretical scenario after the Presidential election. (Rather than something like blocking any possible nomination for virtually a year and probably a year in practice by the time a theoretical Republican nomination could go through.)

The Schumer statement was also a single individual who was not the Senate majority leader, which is a substantially different situation than the considerable Senate Republicans (including the majority leader) currently publicly talking about their blanket blockage strategy. Beyond that, if you're talking about cases where Democrats opposed specific nominees, that's a very different matter than Republicans saying they flat out won't accept any nominee proposed by Obama essentially regardless of the individual's merits.

the democrats from almost Day 1 of the bush presidency planned to block, delay, litmus test every Bush judicial nomination.

Go educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/us/washington-talk-democrats-readying-for-judicial-fight.html

This started liberal & democatric planning against Bush nominations started around april 2001, ~3 months after Bush became president.

Democats acting like pure little angles in this situation can go f themselves. Esspically turds like Schumer who worked to oppose Bush from nearly day 1 on judicial nominations.

 

[PokerGuy]

As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".

 

[nageov3t]

the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates.

minus the inflammatory language, I totally agree.

my position under Clinton, Bush, and Obama alike has always been that all Presidential nominations deserve a quick and fair up-or-down vote unless there's something abhorrently wrong with them.

if the Senate decides to reject every person Obama nominates, make them at least be on the record doing so instead of filibustering any nominee.

 

[fskimospy]

As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".

How do you define reasonable?

For that matter, how do you define idiot? It seems odd for you to call people who could run circles around you intellectually idiots. Do you just mean people you disagree with?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How do you define reasonable?

The same way Obama defined 'reasonable' in 2006 when he attempted to filibuster Alito's confirmation.

 

[fskimospy]

The same way Obama defined 'reasonable' in 2006 when he attempted to filibuster Alito's confirmation.

That being?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As I've said before, I think a blanket "no" to all candidates is a dumb and indefensible position. I don't care if the idiot dems did it in the past as well. The fact of the matter is that the senate can reject any candidate for any reason or no reason at all, the constitution doesn't require a reason. As such, the senate should simply say "we will consider any candidate on their merits", and then reject whatever idiots obummer nominates. If he does pick someone reasonable (lol), then you confirm him or her.

That seems like a much better strategy than "we won't confirm anyone for the next year!".

I agree completely. It was a very stupid thing to say in my opinion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That being?

Ideological court-packing. Please eski...I know that you really aren't that dense and you shouldn't pretend to be.

 

[fskimospy]

Ideological court-packing. Please eski...I know that you really aren't that dense and you shouldn't pretend to be.

Don't worry about how dense or not I am. What do you mean by ideological court packing?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Don't worry about how dense or not I am. What do you mean by ideological court packing?

Ask Kerry...he's the one who led the filibuster attempt.

"The vote today is whether or not we will take a stand against ideological court-packing." - Kerry

 

[PokerGuy]

How do you define reasonable?

For that matter, how do you define idiot? It seems odd for you to call people who could run circles around you intellectually idiots. Do you just mean people you disagree with?

You make (incorrect) assumptions about whether they could run circles around me or not, but that's still completely irrelevant. Nor is the definition of "reasonable", nor "idiot" relevant. The point is that the senate can use whatever reasoning it wants (since there is no requirement for such in the constitution). They can decide if they consider a candidate reasonable or not, that's not up to me (or anyone else) to decide for them.

My point is they should do their job, which is to provide advice and consent (if indeed they consent). Evaluate each candidate and decide what you want to do, don't make a blanket statement about rejecting all candidates etc.

 

[fskimospy]

You make (incorrect) assumptions about whether they could run circles around me or not, but that's still completely irrelevant. Nor is the definition of "reasonable", nor "idiot" relevant. The point is that the senate can use whatever reasoning it wants (since there is no requirement for such in the constitution). They can decide if they consider a candidate reasonable or not, that's not up to me (or anyone else) to decide for them.

My point is they should do their job, which is to provide advice and consent (if indeed they consent). Evaluate each candidate and decide what you want to do, don't make a blanket statement about rejecting all candidates etc.

Lol. Pokerguy not only claims he knows more about Catholicism than the pope, he is also as smart or smarter than several Supreme Court justices.

You are truly an expert on everything.

 

[fskimospy]

Ask Kerry...he's the one who led the filibuster attempt.

"The vote today is whether or not we will take a stand against ideological court-packing." - Kerry

I'm asking you, not Kerry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm asking you, not Kerry.

I'm not going to play stupid games with you. If you can't figure it out, seek help.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You're assuming that the Senate isn't an equal branch in your analogy.

As a group they are equal. As individuals they are not equal. I bet Obama can find some candidate that will have more than a zero votes.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not going to play stupid games with you. If you can't figure it out, seek help.

That's pretty funny considering you're the one playing stupid games. All I've asked you is for you to say what you mean. Why is that so hard?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006

 

[fskimospy]

“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006

I am unaware of anyone saying that Obama should have complete authority to appoint a nominee, so this seems like a very uncontroversial statement. Why did you quote it? How does it relate to your opinion?

 

[LPCTech]

Whats going to happen. Is that Obama has plenty of time to nominate a very qualified person to the supreme court.

The republicans are not going to be able to block 1-2 picks in the time he has left in office.

Its going to make them look like crap, and obstructionists.

Its what happened in both of Obama's elections. (where he won by 10% over McCain and 5% over Romney.) Remember when republicans caused our credit rating with the world to drop? Just to be dicks?

Well this time its not a black guy with a muslim name running.

This time its an old white man or a old white woman, both of whom are far more qualified to be president than Obama was when he was elected. And whos opponents are far LESS qualified than McCain or Romney.

I really dont understand how any rational thinking human can believe that (Trump, Cruz, Rubio) could beat (Sanders/Clinton) in a general election.

What happens if Hillary makes Bernie the vice pres?
What happens if Bernie makes Hillary or Elizabeth Warren Vice?

There is very little chance of a republican winning a general presidential election for some time. They have only one demographic.

Angry white people. They have half a demographic. lol

The Dems have...everyone else. Including the rational white people.

So let them stall, who cares?

They tried their best to disenfranchise democratic voters with useless voter ID laws and still lost. They will try every trick in the book. But still lose.

All democrats have to do, is come out to vote, and there will NEVER be another republican president that has current republican values. They will have to change their parties entire stance. Because those values are no longer considered acceptable by most of the world.

Then once Bernie or Hillary is prez, Ginsburg will retire. They will nominate another liberal replacement.
and Clarence Thomas is gettin kinda old...

GOP is old news.

 

[JD50]

I am unaware of anyone saying that Obama should have complete authority to appoint a nominee, so this seems like a very uncontroversial statement. Why did you quote it? How does it relate to your opinion?

In before his usual "who me?" act.

 

[HomerJS]

“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable … I disagree with this view.” - Obama 2006

Assuming this quote is accurate the former can't be disputed. The latter can. Just because one is smart doesn't mean they would make a good JOTSC

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Assuming this quote is accurate the former can't be disputed. The latter can. Just because one is smart doesn't mean they would make a good JOTSC

And what other attributes are important to consider?

 

[PokerGuy]

Lol. Pokerguy not only claims he knows more about Catholicism than the pope, he is also as smart or smarter than several Supreme Court justices.

You are truly an expert on everything.

lol indeed, coming from our resident expert on everything, who now claims to know my positions on things better than I do. Brilliant!

 

[LegendKiller]

As a group they are equal. As individuals they are not equal. I bet Obama can find some candidate that will have more than a zero votes.

It doesn't matter. The Senate is not beholden to the President. Never wa,s, never will be.

 

[fskimospy]

lol indeed, coming from our resident expert on everything, who now claims to know my positions on things better than I do. Brilliant!

You're the one that claimed the Pope was wrong about what Catholicism meant and you just claimed now that Supreme Court justices couldn't run circles around you intellectually. Hell, you think they are 'idiots'.

Surely you can see the irony in saying that I'm an 'expert on everything' when you display this hilarious level of unfounded arrogance, right? Can you name a public figure that you don't consider yourself superior to?