SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[Blackjack200]

**interesting tid bit I just learned. While Scalia & Ginsburg had very different views they were close friends and enjoyed debating each other plus they frequently went to the theater/plays together during recesses'. They appeared to respect each other and enjoy speaking together. We should all learn a lesson from this**

I knew about this, and I always held it against RBG. Scalia was a son-of-a-bitch. Nothing more.

Anyway, I'm trying to get a sense for how this all plays out. Assuming Obama nominates a well qualified candidate with support from liberal and conservatives, like Srinivasan, what happens next, does the Senate just refuse to hold hearings? Is there any way for the minority democrats to protest, like filibustering everything until the hearings are scheduled?

 

[senseamp]

This is the delusional view that Republicans are defending:

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"

GOP politicians are scared sh!tless if their legalized corruption of the American political system is curbed.

 

[Jovec]

If Obama is a lame duck president now he was a lame duck president the day he got sworn in for his second term. If this was happening after the presidential election than I would probably agree to wait for the incoming president to make the nomination, otherwise where do you draw the line? 365 days before inauguration? 365 before election? 365+67 (average vacancy length)?

Hypocrisy is in full force. McConnell: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." They have, you moron. They elected Obama and they elected 100 senators. Do your jobs.

Dems need someone with balls to go after McConnell and the republicans. "Actually, Senator McConnell is taking a very noble stand. He knows that the American people have lost all faith in Senate Republicans and thus they should be given a chance to vote out those 24 up for reelection prior to voting on the next Supreme Court Justice."

 

[JSt0rm]

we have no idea what Y'All Qaeda will do in the senate. I think they will not want to take the gamble and pick up the nom if they are at least middle road. Probably a lot of them are establishment and realize how fucked the base is and maybe think this would be a good move to get more moderates in. Maybe if its a Hispanic male who is middle road they can herald him in and use that on the campaign trail. Or they can be stupid and simple like a lot of the posters here.

 

[Subyman]

Obama should get his pick. The US public voted him in, so the line some republicans are saying that the US voters should have a say in this is illogical. They already picked Obama to make these decisions.

 

[JSt0rm]

Obama should get his pick. The US public voted him in, so the line some republicans are saying that the US voters should have a say in this is illogical. They already picked Obama to make these decisions.

What the mean to say is southern whites should be able to pick.

 

[senseamp]

Obama will pick. I am 75% sure it will be an Asian. Asians are a very rapidly growing demographic. While affluent and libertarian, they have been drifting Democrat since the 90s:

It's time to lock them in for the long haul by having the GOP alienate them with their obstruction and disrespect.

 

[Blackjack200]

This is the delusional view that Republicans are defending:

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"

GOP politicians are scared sh!tless if their legalized corruption of the American political system is curbed.

I'm really wondering is something can be done about the Gerrymandering if there's a sane SCOTUS.

 

[Blackjack200]

Dems need someone with balls to go after McConnell and the republicans. "Actually, Senator McConnell is taking a very noble stand. He knows that the American people have lost all faith in Senate Republicans and thus they should be given a chance to vote out those 24 up for reelection prior to voting on the next Supreme Court Justice."

"My fellow Americans, after Senator McConnell's deeply troubling statements, suggesting willful abrogation of his duties to the American people and a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution of these United States, I have ordered the Senator placed under arrest...

...elections will be postponed until such congressional district lines have been satisfactorily redrawn...

...have ordered the National Guard to erect checkpoints along major highways and interstates and seize all firearms...

...will perform abortions on all Evangelical Christians and sell the fetal organs on ebay"

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course someone like you who us driven solely by political concerns and not honesty would say that. Thankfully you won't be the person who makes the call on when Obama's pick is "ideologically extreme" because we already know what your answer would be you political hack. People like you are even more reason to Bork whoever gets sent up.

Lashing out in denial, I see. I don't see Roberts as an extremist, although he's more conservative than I'd like. I don't see Kagan or Sotomayor as extreme, either.

 

[glenn1]

This is the delusional view that Republicans are defending:

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"

GOP politicians are scared sh!tless if their legalized corruption of the American political system is curbed.

Yeah, amazing concept that the First Amendment and all its provisions are universally applicable. Don't worry though, no matter what happens with Citizens United you can rest assured that the politicians will still not, nor ever will give a shit about what you Senseamp and other opponents of CU want. You can either have a Santa Claus government that gives away taxpayer money or have a government that doesn't march to the orders of the rich, but not both. Personally I'm gratified that your side continues to champion the government of, for, and by the wealthy.

 

[Bitek]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 which was an election year so there is precedent of the government working as it's supposed to.

There doesn't even need to be a precedent. It's the president's job to make appointments as per the constitution.

The idea that the court must be understaffed for over a year just because there is an election nearly a year away is absurd.

What other responsibilities does the president not do for 1/4th of his term?

 

[umbrella39]

I suppose one way to define them is anyone who supports a socialist for president.

That describes many righties, too, then considering their support of Trump...

 

[shortylickens]

He's more serious than the other losers.

 

[Balt]

It's a little irritating that people who know better intentionally continue to use the term 'lame duck' incorrectly.

Obama is not a lame duck yet.

 

[waggy]

Apparently Obama's aides have made it abundantly clear that the President will be nominating a justice to fill the vacancy created by Antonin Scalia's passing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...6c0590-d2a4-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html

I can't imagine that the President will wait very long here.

Well duh. It's his job. he should put one forth.

 

[senseamp]

Yeah, amazing concept that the First Amendment and all its provisions are universally applicable. Don't worry though, no matter what happens with Citizens United you can rest assured that the politicians will still not, nor ever will give a shit about what you Senseamp and other opponents of CU want. You can either have a Santa Claus government that gives away taxpayer money or have a government that doesn't march to the orders of the rich, but not both. Personally I'm gratified that your side continues to champion the government of, for, and by the wealthy.

That is a nonsensical argument. Citizens United is all about allowing the rich to buy the US government.
First Amendment is for the people. Corporations are not people, my friend. If they want to be, they will have to start paying taxes on profits anywhere in the world.
Do you believe this crap:
"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"
?

 

[glenn1]

First Amendment is for the people. Corporations are not people, my friend. If they want to be, they will have to start paying taxes on profits anywhere in the world.
Do you believe this crap:
"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption"
?

Yes I believe it, "redress of grievances" applies to all. And so do you, else you would apply this equally to individuals, corporations, non-profits, and anyone else. I'm pretty sure most candidates' election teams are incorporated as well as the parties (both for legal liability reasons) so you are technically arguing for the campaigns not to be allowed to run ads on behalf of their own candidates. Start taking about banning all electronic media advertising if you are serious, otherwise stop simply trying to handicap the speech of others simply because you think it will help your own personal causes.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes I believe it, "redress of grievances" applies to all. And so do you, else you would apply this equally to individuals, corporations, non-profits, and anyone else. I'm pretty sure most candidates' election teams are incorporated as well as the parties (both for legal liability reasons) so you are technically arguing for the campaigns not to be allowed to run ads on behalf of their own candidates. Start taking about banning all electronic media advertising if you are serious, otherwise stop simply trying to handicap the speech of others simply because you think it will help your own personal causes.

So bribery laws should be struck down as unconstitutional, right? I mean, money being speech and all...

 

[glenn1]

So bribery laws should be struck down as unconstitutional, right? I mean, money being speech and all...

Newsflash, the corporations already "won* in your formulation. Billions to food companies via food stamps, billions to defense contractors for weapons, billions to healthcare companies for Medicare and Obamacare, billions to both fossil fuel and alternative energy companies just because..... I guess you get the idea. At this point you are simply complaining because Corporation A is running a TV advert so they can hope to get idiots like you to vote so they get a fractional billion more in subsidies than company B. And of courae the advertising is at fault rather than idiots like you who seem to think that Company A is on your side and clamoring for the company to get those higher subsidies. Unlike you I want to rein in the subsidies,not just force the companies to no longer ask for them out in the open on TV where we can all see them; no let's have them operate in the shadows instead as that is soooooooooo much better.

 

[Blackjack200]

Is that a .txt version of "yes"?

 

[glenn1]

Is that a .txt version of "yes"?

If you are not smart enough to be able to differentiate a TV ad from bribery, you might be a progressive.

 

[senseamp]

Yes I believe it, "redress of grievances" applies to all. And so do you, else you would apply this equally to individuals, corporations, non-profits, and anyone else. I'm pretty sure most candidates' election teams are incorporated as well as the parties (both for legal liability reasons) so you are technically arguing for the campaigns not to be allowed to run ads on behalf of their own candidates. Start taking about banning all electronic media advertising if you are serious, otherwise stop simply trying to handicap the speech of others simply because you think it will help your own personal causes.

So you actually believe that unlimited political spending by corporations doesn't give rise to corruption or appearance thereof? Or you just prefer to call corruption "redress of grievances."
Corporation has some grievances, gives money to a candidate's Super PAC, and those grievances get redressed.

 

[dank69]

If you are not smart enough to be able to differentiate a TV ad from bribery, you might be a progressive.

Let me run all these TV ads to get you elected. No no, I insist and don't expect a thing in return.

 

[dank69]

Not only is there nothing to support it in the Constitution, it isn't really the precedent Republicans now claim. From SCOTUSblog:

I don't actually expect the Republican Senate to follow either the Constitution or precedent. I just hope the media will do its job and call them out on their lies.

I saw some idiot on CNN today say "a few minutes ago we rated Rubio's statement about no lame duck nominations in the last 80 years as 'mostly true.'" I guess that's your answer...