Jump to content
southsider2k5

Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 02:38 PM)
In case you were worried that the Republicans were obstructing this because they were honestly concerned about voters, they've come out and basically said their strategy would be to not hold a hearing, and if hillary is elected, approve the nomination so that she can't make an alternative pick.

 

Democracy.

Can't Obama tell them to S his C on election night if the Dems are winning and nominate someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 08:39 PM)
President can withdraw the nomination, right? I have to figure he does that right before the election.

 

I don't think he'd do that. He can't hype up Garland as being this excellent candidate he wants on the bench and then dump him. Obviously, he doesn't have an election to lose, but that would be really s***ty to Garland.

 

I also don't think he's as partisan as some other people in politics where he'd try to maximize the liberal-ness of the court. Even a moderate liberal like Garland is still a big swing from Scalia.

Edited by CrimsonWeltall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 02:44 PM)
I don't think he'd do that. He can't hype up Garland as being this excellent candidate he wants on the bench and then dump him. Obviously, he doesn't have an election to lose, but that would be really s***ty to Garland.

 

I also don't think he's as partisan as some other people in politics where he'd try to maximize the liberal-ness of the court. Even a moderate liberal like Garland is still a big swing from Scalia.

 

Right, I think Obama would be more than happy to have Garland confirmed even if in an ideal world he could appoint someone more liberal. He's set this up as a win-win for him. Either he gets someone he wants confirmed to the SC, or Republicans obstruct any and all nominees and it helps Democrats in the fall, making it more likely that the replacement will be chosen by someone ideologically similar to him.

 

The next President will probably have at least one more spot to fill, and it's almost guaranteed if they are a two-termer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it would basically be up to Garland to say "I'm going to withdraw consideration to allow next pres to choose their pick." But why would you do that? Being Supreme Court Justice is probably awesome as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 02:55 PM)
Right, I think Obama would be more than happy to have Garland confirmed even if in an ideal world he could appoint someone more liberal. He's set this up as a win-win for him. Either he gets someone he wants confirmed to the SC, or Republicans obstruct any and all nominees and it helps Democrats in the fall, making it more likely that the replacement will be chosen by someone ideologically similar to him.

 

The next President will probably have at least one more spot to fill, and it's almost guaranteed if they are a two-termer.

 

The last President to not appoint anyone was Jimmy Carter. Before that it was God knows who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Repubs need to 'advise' Obama with a list of people they WOULD approve of, and make sure there are plenty of women and minorities on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:26 PM)
The Repubs need to 'advise' Obama with a list of people they WOULD approve of, and make sure there are plenty of women and minorities on it.

 

And just last week, [Hatch] praised Garland and indicated he was a qualified candidate, saying, “The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

 

Besides it's not their prerogative to tell the President who he can choose from. That would be the Senate trying to usurp executive power.

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:33 PM)
Besides it's not their prerogative to tell the President who he can choose from. That would be the Senate trying to usurp executive power.

That would be the Senate ADVISING the President of people they would approve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that semantics argument about why the Constitutional norm of the last 230 years is actually wrong would carry much weight with anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 12:56 PM)
That would be the Senate ADVISING the President of people they would approve.

No. From the appointments clause (article II, section 2, clause 2):

 

"He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

 

The "by and with the consent of the Senate" modifies the "shall appoint" portion of the clause. In other words, it goes:

 

1. President nominates a person to a position

2. With the advice and consent of the Senate, that person is appointed to the position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 01:26 PM)
The Repubs need to 'advise' Obama with a list of people they WOULD approve of, and make sure there are plenty of women and minorities on it.

"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.

 

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.

Latest News Update

 

But, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.

That was a week and a half ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think the nominee should be put on the court, for whatever reason, just do the hearings and vote no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 19, 2016 -> 07:53 PM)
If you don't think the nominee should be put on the court, for whatever reason, just do the hearings and vote no.

 

I have a feeling they're afraid some Republican senators would vote yes and their plan would be foiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama should just find the right wingiest nominee and possible and see what the Republicans do then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 20, 2016 -> 08:41 AM)
Obama should just find the right wingiest nominee and possible and see what the Republicans do then.

I think they'd be happy to confirm Scalia 2.0, so there'd be no reason for Obama to do that. Republicans would get a SC nominee they'd love, and Democrats would lose the political advantage of Republicans opposing even moderate nominees from Obama.

 

On that note:

 

McConnell: No Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Even if Democrat Wins Presidency

 

What if a Democrat wins the presidency and decides to appoint someone more liberal than Garland? "It'd be hard to be more liberal than Merrick Garland," McConnell told NBC News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, even if Obama did that, they would have to say "no" or risk looking foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 21, 2016 -> 06:33 PM)
In theory, even if Obama did that, they would have to say "no" or risk looking foolish.

They already look foolish. Let's go through the excuses they've used so far...

 

--It's too late, he's a lame duck - nevermind that they have 10 months which is far more time than it usually takes. And it's been done - under Reagan.

 

--The people should decide - they did. Twice. Once when they elected a President, and in every poll a majority of Americans and even a majority of Republicans feel the nominee should get a hearing.

 

--Dems have done the same - no, they haven't. Both parties have made blustery statements, but the Senate has not - in either party's case - ever just say they wouldn't even review the nominee flatly.

 

--Dems started this by threatening filibuster on Alito - threatening a filibuster, which they did not do, and gave a full hearing and eventual nomination. So yeah, not nearly the same thing.

 

I mean, they can't look much more obstructionist and dishonest. Most of them aren't willing to be honest and just say what literally everyone knows - that this is purely because they don't want to do it, for partisan reasons. Which has been pretty much the entire story of what they've done in Congress generally for years, and contributes to their stellar 8% approval rating.

 

They already look like bratty children.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They already look foolish. Let's go through the excuses they've used so far...

 

--It's too late, he's a lame duck - nevermind that they have 10 months which is far more time than it usually takes. And it's been done - under Reagan.

 

--The people should decide - they did. Twice. Once when they elected a President, and in every poll a majority of Americans and even a majority of Republicans feel the nominee should get a hearing.

 

--Dems have done the same - no, they haven't. Both parties have made blustery statements, but the Senate has not - in either party's case - ever just say they wouldn't even review the nominee flatly.

 

--Dems started this by threatening filibuster on Alito - threatening a filibuster, which they did not do, and gave a full hearing and eventual nomination. So yeah, not nearly the same thing.

 

I mean, they can't look much more obstructionist and dishonest. Most of them aren't willing to be honest and just say what literally everyone knows - that this is purely because they don't want to do it, for partisan reasons. Which has been pretty much the entire story of what they've done in Congress generally for years, and contributes to their stellar 8% approval rating.

 

They already look like bratty children.

 

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Harry Reid were four of the 25 Senators who voted against the cloture motion that allowed the nomination to come to a vote. So not nearly the same thing only because of other people, not because of those four.

 

So, those four have made the bed that they now have to lie in. Karma is a b****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posturing cloture votes against a specific nominee (who, shockingly, has turned out to be the biggest hack on the court) are not the same thing as flatly refusing to even hold hearings on any nominee whatsoever. They didn't make this bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posturing cloture votes against a specific nominee (who, shockingly, has turned out to be the biggest hack on the court) are not the same thing as flatly refusing to even hold hearings on any nominee whatsoever. They didn't make this bed.

 

Sure, posturing. If they had anywhere close to the 40 votes to prevent cloture, I'm sure those four would all have come to their senses and allowed a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 09:32 AM)
Sure, posturing. If they had anywhere close to the 40 votes to prevent cloture, I'm sure those four would all have come to their senses and allowed a vote.

The Democrats had 40 votes to prevent cloture if they wanted to, but they didn't. The nominee received an up-or-down vote and was confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 09:03 AM)
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Harry Reid were four of the 25 Senators who voted against the cloture motion that allowed the nomination to come to a vote. So not nearly the same thing only because of other people, not because of those four.

 

So, those four have made the bed that they now have to lie in. Karma is a b****.

Hahahaha, seriously? You think a handful of Senators making a stand they knew wouldn't work, to an entire party in the Senate simply saying we won't even review a nominee? These things are not in the same ballpark. This Senate is saying they won't even review, let alone go to committee, let alone go to a cloture vote. Not to mention that nominee not only got a hearing, but was confirmed.

 

The fact that about half the Dem Senators voted for cloture, and no one was saying they wouldn't even review, should tell you how historically obstructionist the current Senate is. Regardless of your affiliation, the facts on the ground are clear here. It's a new level of idiocy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats had 40 votes to prevent cloture if they wanted to, but they didn't. The nominee received an up-or-down vote and was confirmed.

 

I'm not talking about the Democrats. I'm talking about Biden, Clinton, Obama and Reid. Those four voted to block the nomination process from going forward. Those four have no standing to complain about anybody else blocking a nomination process from going forward. Doesn't really matter if the process gets blocked in committee hearings or in a cloture vote.

 

This is why you shouldn't make "show" votes. You're on the record with your vote. Don't come out now and say you only voted for it because you knew it would fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 22, 2016 -> 10:37 AM)
I'm not talking about the Democrats. I'm talking about Biden, Clinton, Obama and Reid. Those four voted to block the nomination process from going forward. Those four have no standing to complain about anybody else blocking a nomination process from going forward. Doesn't really matter if the process gets blocked in committee hearings or in a cloture vote.

 

This is why you shouldn't make "show" votes. You're on the record with your vote. Don't come out now and say you only voted for it because you knew it would fail.

 

But they did know it would fail, and this isn't comparable at all. I don't think anyone who isn't dead set on making excuses for the GOP buys this argument (see also: the non-existent "Biden Rule")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they did know it would fail, and this isn't comparable at all. I don't think anyone who isn't dead set on making excuses for the GOP buys this argument (see also: the non-existent "Biden Rule")

 

I'm not dead set on making excuses for the GOP. I'm dead set against both parties changing their tune when the other party is in charge. The Republicans are hypocrites just as much as the Democrats, but you reap what you sow.

 

Obama in 2006: "I am concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party."

 

Obama in 2016: Nominates somebody much farther left than O'Connor. [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html?_r=0]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×