Pure bullshit. Roberts was confirmed in the same month he was nominated & Alito was confirmed in 3 months. The latter occurred across the Christmas break.
Apparently Reagan overlooked that when he nominated Bork, something you've defended repeatedly. When he nominated Kennedy instead the process proceeded forthwith.
GWB overlooked that when he held out on Miguel Estrada for 28 months as well.
Both were examples of extremist ideology.
As were Kagan and Sotomayor, that still doesn't change my factual statement that Dems got to reject the SCOTUS nomination of Bork without retribution to date. Or that Democrats regularly planned and executed filibusters and any other means at their disposal to slow down or block Bush picks. That the GOP adopted those tactics when Obama assumed the Presidency doesn't change that history.
I'm sure Obama's pick will meet the same fate if judged to have "extremist ideology." Too bad for you the people deciding that are Republicans.
I've asked you many, many times to clear up my misunderstanding. Instead you've just declared it wrong and refused to say why.
The most obvious reason for that would be that you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.
People's ideology informs their legal perspective. It is not possible to separate the two.
All that aside, while I think Thomas's ideology is bad and that he allows it to play too large a part in his decision making I definitely don't think he's an idiot.
You said Sotomayor and Kagan are idiots, despite the high likelihood that they are much more intelligent individuals than you are.
I guess it's hard to be such a genius in this world, you must feel constantly surrounded by your inferiors. lol.
And don't forget that Democrats changed Senate rules and resorted to the 'nuclear option' for non-SCOTUS appointees in order to stack the DC Circuit Court. Why stop there?As were Kagan and Sotomayor, that still doesn't change my factual statement that Dems got to reject the SCOTUS nomination of Bork without retribution to date. Or that Democrats regularly planned and executed filibusters and any other means at their disposal to slow down or block Bush picks. That the GOP adopted those tactics when Obama assumed the Presidency doesn't change that history.
As I've already told you, you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist. At no point have I made the claim you are suggesting, nor have I held that position. You can certainly go back and read and figure out how you came to the wrong conclusion, but I'm not going to bother repeating the same points again.
Yes, ideology plays some role in perspective, no matter what aspect of life you're looking at. However, some are capable of understanding their perspective and compartmentalize it to some extent, while others can't. Take Roberts for example. Based on ideology alone, he could have easily shot down obummercare -- but he didn't. I disagree with the ruling and his conclusion, but he went by his legal reasoning and I can't fault him for that.
Lets keep in mind that we're talking relative here. I can say that some NFL running back is "terrible" . Odds are, that guy is incredibly fast/strong/talented, but compared to his peers and based on his performance he's terrible. Same for these folks. They are all obviously relatively intelligent, and have strong legal skills. Some allow ideology to drive their decision making and they come to the wrong conclusion in each case presented to the court. I consider them idiots, but not in the sense that they are actually dumber than the random dolt on the street.
I'm assuming you're providing insight into your state of mind? :thumbsup:
And don't forget that Democrats changed Senate rules and resorted to the 'nuclear option' for non-SCOTUS appointees in order to stack the DC Circuit Court. Why stop there?
The GOP used those tactics far, far in excess of anything the Democrats did. You seemed VERY concerned about fairness just a few posts back. Presumably since fairness is important you must want the GOP to discontinue their attempts to block nominees immediately as they've already done so to a far greater extent than anyone before. Am I correct in this?
Let me guess, when you said 'fair' you meant 'do what I want'.
Fairness would be rejecting his pick(s). What you want is grace; IOW the Republicans to act better than Democrats did when in the same circumstances. Which I would be disinclined for them to provide since I know neither fairness nor grace would be returned in kind once the relative positions of the two parties shifts.
No, fairness would be rejecting the exact same number of picks. Instead they have rejected far more.
So you don't care about fairness at all, you just care about justifying what you already want to do. It's okay to admit it, just stop lying about your actual motivations.
GOP hasn't rejected any SCOTUS picks.
Fairness would be rejecting his pick(s). What you want is grace; IOW the Republicans to act better than Democrats did when in the same circumstances. Which I would be disinclined for them to provide since I know neither fairness nor grace would be returned in kind once the relative positions of the two parties shifts.
Then we agree that both are within their constitutional powers to nominate who they want and to not even confer on the nomination. Thanks.No, it's up to the president to nominate someone HE finds acceptable. Then it's up to the Senate to decide if THEY find the nominee acceptable. The job of the president is definitely not to nominate someone that the Senate would find acceptable as that would be a gross violation of the separation of powers.
I've asked you many, many times to clear up my misunderstanding. Instead you've just declared it wrong and refused to say why.
The most obvious reason for that would be that you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Now that's a totally different thing, although I still don't agree. People's ideology informs their legal perspective. It is not possible to separate the two. All that aside, while I think Thomas's ideology is bad and that he allows it to play too large a part in his decision making I definitely don't think he's an idiot. Same with Scalia: he was a horrible bigot but he was undeniably brilliant.
You said Sotomayor and Kagan are idiots, despite the high likelihood that they are much more intelligent individuals than you are. It's odd that someone who considers himself to be the intellectual superior of several supreme court justices and the theological superior of the pope doesn't seem to be able to explain why he feels this way.
I guess it's hard to be such a genius in this world, you must feel constantly surrounded by your inferiors. lol.
By 'stack" I mean that when the 'nuclear option' was first used, it was done explicitly to appoint liberal judges on a very important court, all three appointments were Obama donors and one (Cornelia Pillard) was so twisted as to actually file a brief before the United States Supreme Court in which she made comparisons between pro-life demonstrators and the KKK. (Edit: Rumor has it that Obama was so butthurt over the DC Circuit Court decision to strike down his highly contentious NLRB recess appointments that he wanted to appoint THREE more sympathetic judges even though it wasn't warranted by the very light workload of the court. BTW, as I'm sure you recall, SCOTUS upheld that ruling against Obama's NLRB recess appointments.)By 'stack' you mean 'appoint judges to', of course, haha. Was GWB 'stacking' the DC Circuit Court when he appointed judges to it?
Ah, so you're embracing a convenient definition of 'fair' by confining it to only a very specific subsection of appointments. That's totally logical, haha.
Again, stop trying to rationalize your position and just admit you support this because it achieves the ends you want. Why is that so hard to do?
Then by all means explain my misunderstanding! You've declined to do so despite being asked over and over. So please don't repeat the same points, just address a very simple question. How hard can this be?
You're the one that said they couldn't run circles around you intellectually so you were clearly comparing their level of intellect to yours, not to other judges. Do you think they are smarter than you are or not?
Not all of us are as amazingly well versed in theology and the law as you are.
Republicans wouldn't be in the position they are had the democrats put forth an iota of inclusivity during the passage of the ACA. Democrats were subsequently eviscerated in 2010. Oh my, how the tables have turned. Team blue is pouting and moaning like a child that isn't getting their way, all the while preaching the sanctity of the constitution (LOL). This is pure gold.
Remember kids, elections have consequences.
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.
Republicans wouldn't be in the position they are had the democrats put forth an iota of inclusivity during the passage of the ACA. Democrats were subsequently eviscerated in 2010. Oh my, how the tables have turned. Team blue is pouting and moaning like a child that isn't getting their way, all the while preaching the sanctity of the constitution (LOL). This is pure gold.
Remember kids, elections have consequences.
Yes they do...most notably 2014!Elections do have consequences!
Wait, you think the DEMOCRATS were the people who were acting partisan during the ACA's passage? Holy shit, what kind of revisionist history is this?
Elections do have consequences! Obama won twice and it's his job to appoint new SCOTUS justices. The republicans won the senate and so they can vote his nominees up or down. It's a sad abdication of their constitutional duty to flatly refuse to do so regardless of the nominee though.
When people say elections have consequences they usually mean 'this election result that I prefer should be viewed as the most important.'