23
   

Justice Anton Scalia Reportedly Found Dead At Texas Resort

 
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:08 am
Oralloy is a one trick pony. When he says "liberty" he means unrestricted access to firearms of any description. When he talks about "freedom haters," he means people who favor gun control. Politically, he appears not have another thought in his head.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:51 am
@Setanta,
I also consider the 9/11 hijackers to be Freedom Haters.

Unrestricted access to firearms of any description is wording it a bit strong. I'll accept any gun regulation that can legitimately pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:59 am
@joefromchicago,
Oh my goodness, joe. That's really good.

On the downside, you tempt me to conclude that I'm the patron saint of mediocrities.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 07:09 am
Just a week or so ago, Roberts was saying how the commonplace modern regard of his court as a political entity was mistaken and that this attitude or perception was itself doing damage to the institution.

But what is happening right now following Scalia's passing is absolute and transparent evidence that the SC has become very much a political entity.

Which leads me to conclude that it is Roberts' denial of this which is actually doing the damage he says concerns him.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:43 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Robert Reich wrote:


My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously.
...
My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee with get a majority of Senate votes. What do you think?

I think it would be a poor choice. A safe choice, but a poor one. The supreme court has, in the past several decades, become less diverse. Not in terms of sex or race, but in terms of judicial backgrounds. All of the current members of the SC went to either Harvard or Yale law school, all but one served on either the DC circuit or 2d Circuit, and five of the eight served, at some point, in the executive branch of government.

That last fact should be of some concern to the senators whose job it is to "advise" the president on judicial nominations. The erosion of legislative power is a real threat, and having a bunch of former executive-branch apparatchiks on the supreme court bench probably isn't the best way to curtail that threat.

Srinivasan is, in the above respects, a conventional choice for the SC. Served on the DC circuit? Check. Served in the executive branch? Check. Went to Harvard? No, amazingly, he went to Stanford! I guess that would make him the diversity hire.

Srinivasan certainly doesn't look like the current SC membership, but that kind of diversity is only skin deep. In terms of his judicial bona fides, he's just like the rest of them. That would make him a safe, boring, and, ultimately, poor choice for the court, which is why I fully expect that Obama will select him.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:53 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Thanks to the damage that the 2013 gun control debacle did to Mr. Obama's second term...

You say that like it's supposed to mean something. I follow politics fairly closely, and I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention this "2013 gun control debate." What "debate?" Who was debating?

Whatever it was, it may have been consequential for you and your limited circle of friends, but remember, just because everyone you know agrees with you doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:03 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The "others have done it too" defense doesn't hold much water for me.

No, you much prefer the "it doesn't matter if others have done it so long as Obama did it too" defense.


I might if I understood what the hell that means.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:11 am
Not that this has bearing on the right or wrong of what McConnell does, but it should be prominently displayed whenever a Democrat delivers a rant about how denying Obama this opportunity to appoint a third justice is crass partisan politics

We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .
This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the court.


Chucky Schumer - June 2007
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:22 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Do you have a link to that other than Geraghty?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:23 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40FazJpyg
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:25 am
Quote:
But let’s further imagine that though Clinton is the president, Republicans have held on to a majority in the Senate, which they well might. Will there be more than one or two who would vote for Clinton’s nominee and swing the Court to the left?

The question is particularly volatile because this is the first time since
Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991 that the ideological balance on the Court will actually change. In the six prior cases, from Ginsberg through Kagan, either a Republican president filled the seat of a conservative justice or a Democratic president filled the seat of a liberal justice. Now the stakes are even higher, both substantively and politically. Every Republican senator trying to decide what to do will know that if they vote to confirm any Democratic nominee for this seat, a primary challenge from the right will probably be in the offing the next time they run for re-election.
http://wapo.st/214Eskm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:27 am
@blatham,
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

News story from 2007 on it. Schumer said more than just that statement taken out of context. He was referring to how to vet candidates not how to block all of them.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:43 am
@parados,
Thankyou. That was my suspicion. Here's a quote from Dana Perino
Quote:
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.



0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:47 am
From Josh Marshall at TPM
Quote:
In a typically insightful Twitter spree last night, David Frum noted that "McConnell’s precipitate statement [that he would refuse to hold a vote on any Obama appointee] is wrong not only on grounds of appropriateness & timing, but even politics ..." As Frum notes, it is entirely unnecessary for McConnell to make this stark pronouncement. He and his Senate caucus could simply decide in advance to judge any nominee beyond the pale, reject them on a party line vote and run out the clock.

Part of me thinks this too. And I agree with David that it is simply wrong. But I think I know why McConnell is right out of the gate with a principle he seemingly has no need to explicitly invoke: to normalize the behavior, to stake out the maximalist position early in order to allow it time to become accepted as a given. And more than this, it makes sense for him to do so while the White House is bound by normative rules of propriety and decency to focus on statements and gestures of mourning rather than political brinksmanship.

As I said, there's no debate here. It's just a power-play, a refusal to fulfill a straightforward constitutional duty, which no one, not the President or anyone else, has the power to prevent. Let's not pretend otherwise.
http://bit.ly/214GDo3
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 10:42 am
@blatham,
Nope - that's my source. Although it's been all over the morning news. Some researchers obviously just found it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 11:07 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
You say that like it's supposed to mean something. I follow politics fairly closely, and I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention this "2013 gun control debate." What "debate?" Who was debating?

Whatever it was, it may have been consequential for you and your limited circle of friends, but remember, just because everyone you know agrees with you doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

I think the confusion is because you misread what I said. Either that or I had a Freudian slip of some sort and put in the wrong word when I was typing.

My intended term is: 2013 gun control DEBACLE.

I am referring to Mr. Obama wasting every last bit of his second term's political capital in a fruitless assault against the indomitable might of the NRA. It was like a political version of Pickett's Charge.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 11:45 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

As it happened, Schumer’s suggested obstruction never came to pass, as no more vacancies opened during Bush’s presidency.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40FazJpyg



Thanks for that historical tidbit, but are you suggesting Schumer wasn't sincere or that because he didn't have a chance to make good on his threat it is irrelevant to this discussion?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 12:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Schumer's suggested obstruction was that nominated persons needed to be vetted better and their word alone shouldn't be taken when it came to the Senate considering whether they were ideologues. He never once suggested that the President couldn't nominate people or that the Senate would simply deny any candidate until the next president was elected.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 12:35 pm
@parados,
Leave it to you to come up with a tortured explanation.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 02:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The argument that Roberts and Alito (particularly) refused to be truthful (undoubtedly because they were coached to be untruthful or deceptive) regarding stare decisis in their confirmation hearings is clearly valid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 01:16:56