SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[Fanatical Meat]

The idea that you guys are going to get someone as right as scalia is unrealistic.

This

 

[JSt0rm]

He has the right to nominate, not appoint.


There isn't a single serious constitutional scholar that would agree that he has the right to appoint. Not even the most federalist founder ever alluded to that.

We are talking about up or down votes for the people he nominates. If the gop wants to block voting there will be a problem.


When Sanders wins the presidency will the gop block voting on this for 4 more years?

 

[thraashman]

The constitution is a living document mate.

And if you feel that way then you should be in favor of liberal appointments. Scalia and his ilk are the ones who claim to be Constitutional originalists. The Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in human history, if you want to adhere to it you need to be a liberal.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Because history shows Obama will nominate a moderate? rigghht.

I dunno man, maybe, maybe not. Although Scalia seemed to like Kagen, and wanted to let Obama know it...

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-obama-kagan-axelrod-supreme-court-161701074.html

“Let me put a finer point on it,” the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. “I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.”

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If he did indeed nominate a 'moderate'...I believe Republicans would be hard pressed to reject him/her. Going "all in" on the outcome of the November election only makes sense if a decidedly liberal candidate is nominated imo.

But, thinking about this some more, it makes sense for Obama to go with a 'moderate' as well since Dems have no guarantees in November either. This should be interesting.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What should be done is Obama nominates. The Senate holds hearings and votes.

Any problem with that?

Only mentioned recess appointment if the Senate opts out of taking any action. President has the right to appoint.

So there's really less consequence of damage to the country if they opt for abject refusal.

Dems or fellow liberals (though I don't like labels) will insist that the Senate do its duty. I would equally like to anticipate an impact on the electorate for the Senate stalling as we go into November.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Obviously, the GOP doesn't want Obama to pick another justice, right up until there is still a chance of a GOP president. Once (or if) it becomes clear that such a thing won't happen, they'll pivot to figure out who would pick a more palatable nominee, Obama or President Clinton/Sanders. In the meantime, the only other consideration is how long the GOP can drag this process out to the point where it will start hurting them in the polls. These facts will determine what will happen in the coming fight. The BS about who's a real lame duck or distractions on election year confirmations are all just a smoke screen to cover up the real reason. It doesn't matter. Nobody in Congress takes that argument seriously even when they are using it. Its the same reason why Senator Grassley can remain with his head unexploded while claiming that nobody confirms in an election year while having supported Kennedy's confirmation in the last year of Reagan's presidency.

 

[zinfamous]

But, thinking about this some more, it makes sense for Obama to go with a 'moderate' as well since Dems have no guarantees in November either. This should be interesting.

In a perfect world, all justices should be "moderate," but they really shouldn't be that either, as it suggests they stand close to or on both sides of some ideological scale.

objective decisions really should not be tempered by political ideology, not ever.

 

[Jhhnn]

The left sure likes to point it out by going after McConnel as if he's doing something terribly unique.

He isnt. But then neither is the left for going after him over it. Its all the same. In the end obama will put a sc justice up who will be more conservative then he would otherwise and Mcconnels job will be done.

Throwing it in Obama's face is what's unique, showing a total lack of respect for the principles & traditions of our Govt. It's not a conservative position in the slightest.

I get that slipping another Alito past the Senate is strategically important to Repubs but they won't get the chance, not this time around. The fact that they even entertain the possibility is a sign of desperation. The fact that anybody who actually works for a living thinks that they should is a sign of extreme partisan foolishness.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In a perfect world, all justices should be "moderate," but they really shouldn't be that either, as it suggests they stand close to or on both sides of some ideological scale.

objective decisions really should not be tempered by political ideology, not ever.

In theory, yes...in reality, not a chance.

Historically, many SCOTUS appointments have been highly politicized. I don't see this changing any time soon.

“Now the Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone. As if somehow he’s not the real president,” she said.

“You know, that’s in keeping with what we’ve heard all along, isn’t it? Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”

- Hillary "Race Baiter" Clinton speaking in Harlem yesterday trying to drum up the black vote

 

[michal1980]

mikal1980 is too far gone. He thinks we will see some ground swell of right wing voters and cruz will win and we will see some ultra right wing judge ushering in a new era of corporatism/capitalistic/rightwing/christian/white garden of eden.

please show me where I said this.

 

[michal1980]

Can you point to an instance where a supreme Court nomination was filibustered? Don't bother pointing to Fortas either as he was already on the supreme Court and his nomination to chief justice wouldn't have changed the make up of the court. What's that? You can't find an instance? Well that certainly seems to fit the definition of unique doesn't it!

Fortas counts,

Democrats including Obama tried on Alito.

Now Obama regrets doing it, I wonder why?

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

 

[BonzaiDuck]

In theory, yes...in reality, not a chance.

Historically, many SCOTUS appointments have been highly politicized. I don't see this changing any time soon.

- Hillary "Race Baiter" Clinton speaking in Harlem yesterday trying to drum up the black vote

Well, what is the simplest characterization you can give some "thing?" An ideology informs -- among other things -- a vision of a future or "how things should be."

So -- right -- it's going to affect someone's thinking, in some way. But it's also possible for an actor -- a decision-maker or Supreme -- to objectify that factor, if not entirely, then to some extent.

Then, there's "The Law." Roman Law, British Common Law, the Constitution and other sources. And there's Henry Fonda's script-lines reading a letter about "The Law" from the deceased victim of the lynching in "Oxbow Incident."

Now on this other issue. I've been around, . . . you know . . . perceptions and inclinations about race are subtle, and I know (above all) myself. KKK wears sheets; others either don't admit it in conversation, or don't admit it themselves.

The election of the President would present the opposition with a dilemma. They might have the perception that any disagreement with the Prez could be construed a certain way. They could react against any possibility of such a construal by being even more animated in their opposition. If any of their animus derives from those "subtleties" I mentioned, you could only measure it with some sort of statistical survey that doesn't betray the thing it tries to measure.

It's a pretty thorny thicket to unravel. The thicket is there. One just can't untangle it, and one can only speculate. But you can look at the sieve of possibilities, and conclude that this thing or that thing holds true for some unspecified part -- even a smaller one -- of a statistical population.

 

[fskimospy]

In theory, yes...in reality, not a chance.

Historically, many SCOTUS appointments have been highly politicized. I don't see this changing any time soon.

- Hillary "Race Baiter" Clinton speaking in Harlem yesterday trying to drum up the black vote

What in her quote do you think is incorrect?

 

[Atreus21]

What in her quote do you think is incorrect?

Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe.

That part. Paranoid indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

That part. Paranoid indeed.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that Republicans don't use racial dog whistles?

Remember this famous quote?

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "[N Word],[N Word], [N Word]." By 1968, you can't say "[N Word]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[N Word], [N Word]."

 

[JSt0rm]

please show me where I said this.

You dont need to say it We know what you feel deep down in that pit inside you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fortas counts,

Democrats including Obama tried on Alito.

Now Obama regrets doing it, I wonder why?

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

Damn right he regrets it...a significant part of his legacy now hangs in the balance due in large part to his past filibuster shenanigans in 2006 and then again when he had Reid invoke the 'nuclear option' in order to stack the DC Circuit court in 2013.

What goes around, comes around....Mr. Peabody is now setting the Wayback Machine to November 21, 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

 

[fskimospy]

Damn right he regrets it...a significant part of his legacy now hangs in the balance due in a large part to his past filibuster shenanigans in 2006 and then again when he had Reid invoke the 'nuclear option' in order to stack the DC Circuit court.

What part of his legacy hangs in the balance and how is it affected in any way by his 'filibuster shenanigans'? Do you think the Republicans wouldn't be doing this regardless? I mean how naive are you?

Also, I don't believe you answered my earlier question. What do you mean by 'stack' the DC Circuit Court? You mean appoint judges to fill the vacancies?

What goes around, comes around....now setting the Wayback Machine to November 21, 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

I think most objective people can agree that eliminating the filibuster for appointments is a really good thing. The only bad part was that they didn't go far enough and eliminate them entirely. The Republicans have no one to blame for this but themselves as they breached the previous agreement on use of the filibuster on judicial nominees.

 

[Atreus21]

Wait, are you seriously arguing that Republicans don't use racial dog whistles?

Remember this famous quote?

I'm arguing that Hillary is an idiot if she truly thinks Republicans routinely do this, wholly arranged in favor of keeping black people down. It's complete nonsense.

There are democrats who call for the imprisonment of those who disagree with democrats on climate change. Is this true of democrats in general? Are all democrats so stupid and power-mad? Of course not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fortas counts,

Democrats including Obama tried on Alito.

Now Obama regrets doing it, I wonder why?

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

Yeh, well, whatever spin you want to put on it, I suppose. Alito was confirmed in 3 months time being right out at the edge of what Dems could reasonably be expected to accept. Roberts was confirmed in less than a month.

When you invoke history be sure you're talking about History rather than the might have beens.

 

[thraashman]

In theory, yes...in reality, not a chance.

Historically, many SCOTUS appointments have been highly politicized. I don't see this changing any time soon.

- Hillary "Race Baiter" Clinton speaking in Harlem yesterday trying to drum up the black vote

There's no race baiting when the GOP has spent the last 7 years treating Obama as if he's 3/5 of a President.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm arguing that Hillary is an idiot if she truly thinks Republicans routinely do this, wholly arranged in favor of keeping black people down. It's complete nonsense.

She didn't say that Republicans did it to keep black people down, she said that 'many' speak in coded racist terms, which seems to be entirely accurate. Hell, I provided you with a quote that admitted it was a deliberate strategy on their part. What more do you want?

There are democrats who call for the imprisonment of those who disagree with democrats on climate change. Is this true of democrats in general? Are all democrats so stupid and power-mad? Of course not.

Huh? Almost no Democrats say that, and certainly none in power. This is not true for Republicans at all.

So again, seems like Hillary was pretty much right.

 

[CountZero]

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.

Which is more important fairness or functioning government?

To me fairness is a measure that has no meaning in politics. So much tit-for-tat, back and forth does nothing for actual functioning government.

If the dems did something bad they would just claim it was response to something the reps did which was just response to something the dems did forever and ever more. I don't see how fairness is a measure that should apply.

So, fairness or functioning?

 

[Aegeon]

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.

Other than the potential argument Schumer personally is acting like a bit of a hypocrite, and he is crucially just one single Senator who is not the Senate majority leader either, the rest of the argument is rather plainly absurd.

The fact of the matter is Democrats did not actually block Roberts or Alito nominations. As noted the amount of delay for the nominations not even especially extensive. (With part of the Alito nomination process also occurring over the holiday season and recess when things typically move slowly period.)

The issue here is really nothing to do with elements of the Republican Party planning to oppose Obama's nominations. Its about Republican Senators saying they will flat out block anyone rather than say a position that a candidate who has overtly extreme liberal views will be outright voted down and rejected with a regular vote, which is a more defensible position.