SCOTUS Appointment

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2016, 01:10 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It would be nice if they could "shut off" their human side but unfortunately that's not possible. 

I like the 4-4-1 set up. I think it gives you the best chance at reflecting the people. 

4-4-1?  Not a chance.  The liberal side have voted together on every major case I can remember. He will be no different. Have you ever heard a judge nominated by a Democrat referred to as a swing vote?  Have you ever heard of one being like a Sutter?

That being said they should confirm him if he's qualified, and they should have never announced their intentions.  Unless they were playing politics and goading Obama into nominating a person "they can't refuse" to make them look bad, and then they go ahead and confirm him.  I don't recall them ever being all that clever though.

[Belsnickel]

[Belsnickel]

It looks like the Senate is going to remain obstinate in this: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed again to block President Obama's Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, saying the American people should have a "voice" in the process.

"It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," McConnell said on the Senate floor following the president's nomination of Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland.

In his remarks earlier in the day, President Obama had called for the Senate to put politics aside and confirm Garland. Obama praised Garland's collegiality and ability to build consensus, saying "he's shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples."

A Supreme Court nomination, Obama said is "supposed to be above politics, it has to be, and should stay that way."

McConnell's comments came after a pledge he made last month that that the Senate would take no action on the nomination, setting the stage for a political fight. McConnell said Wednesday that the "the decision the Senate made weeks ago remains about a principle, not a person."

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

"I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be," McConnell said.

[BengalHawk62]

From what I know so far, putting up a fight here would be just plain stupid. For one thing, it will obviously continue to make the GOP seem petty and obstructionist which will play right into the hands of HRC in the election. And secondly, the chances of HRC not being the next President are slim-to-none at this point and if the GOP blocks this guy, she will have the ability to say "well, you had your chance" when she nominates Karl Marx next year.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 03:07 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: From what I know so far, putting up a fight here would be just plain stupid. For one thing, it will obviously continue to make the GOP seem petty and obstructionist which will play right into the hands of HRC in the election. And secondly, the chances of HRC not being the next President are slim-to-none at this point and if the GOP blocks this guy, she will have the ability to say "well, you had your chance" when she nominates Karl Marx Barack Obama next year.

Fixed that for you.

In all seriousness, two-thirds of the public want the Senate to vote on a nominee, IIRC. The approval rating for everyone on the Hill is abysmal (collectively, individually they keep getting elected for reasons that escape me) and this will only make it worse. I think they are also going to shoot themselves in the foot for the 33 (or 34, whatever it is) seats that will be open this election in the Senate.

[xxlt]

(02-13-2016, 09:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What they ought to do is convince RBG to retire as part of a deal to appoint both a conservative and a liberal justice. People often but Roberts as a conservative, but he is truly a swing, which is best for the court. 4-4-1.

That is insane. In 1986 and 1988 the senate unanimously confirmed Reagan Supreme Court nominees (nobody voted no on either one).

This isn't supposed to be a political game, and just because McConnell thinks it is, there is no game that says, "As long as we are winning, the other side can't take a turn, the game just has to stop until it is our turn again." If Obama nominates a bigger clown than McConnell (is that even possible?) with a JD behind his or her name, they should get a hearing, and if such a clown by all means they should be rejected. But if he nominates someone  qualified he or she should get approved, case closed.

The assumption Obama will even nominate a liberal is itself absurd. He is more conservative than Reagan was! If Obama were an old white man and nothing else about his presidency changed, this (the stonewalling) would likely not be happening. Although it might, since Mitch McConnell is evil incarnate and has know sense of patriotism or duty.

[xxlt]

A brief description of the nominee, Merrick Garland:

-former federal prosecutor
-volunteered to prosecute Tim McVeigh
-prosecuted and convicted McVeigh, who received the death penalty
-a moderate who is not ideologically driven
-a model of fairness
-a consensus nominee (that comment came from Orrin Hatch, senior member of the Judiciary Committee)

Now how in the hell anyone can object to this nominee on the face of it is beyond me.

So, the "opposition" will say it is not about Garland being qualified, he obviously is. And I say to them, "Well d-bags, just because the conservative court has buttfucked America into submission forever doesn't mean the nominee has to be a flaming asshole since the guy who just vacated a seat by dying was one. For god's sake give the man a hearing, confirm him, and then be happy because you got a good judge who is anything but a flaming liberal. Or continue your course of treason by refusing to perform your duty to country, you wretched losers."

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2016, 03:58 PM)xxlt Wrote: That is insane. In 1986 and 1988 the senate unanimously confirmed Reagan Supreme Court nominees (nobody voted no on either one).

This isn't supposed to be a political game, and just because McConnell thinks it is, there is no game that says, "As long as we are winning, the other side can't take a turn, the game just has to stop until it is our turn again." If Obama nominates a bigger clown than McConnell (is that even possible?) with a JD behind his or her name, they should get a hearing, and if such a clown by all means they should be rejected. But if he nominates someone  qualified he or she should get approved, case closed.

The assumption Obama will even nominate a liberal is itself absurd. He is more conservative than Reagan was! If Obama were an old white man and nothing else about his presidency changed, this (the stonewalling) would likely not be happening. Although it might, since Mitch McConnell is evil incarnate and has know sense of patriotism or duty.

Robert Bork disagrees. Remember. Sites with agendas often leave things out.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 05:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Robert Bork disagrees.  Remember.  Sites with agendas often leave things out.

And some people don't read history.

Bork was rejected because he was not qualified.  It had nothing to do with a congress playing political games and refusing to even consider any nominee.

Once Reagan nominated a qualified candidate (Anthonyy Kennedy) he was approved 97-0.

[Belsnickel]

So I have heard talk of the potential for Garland to be confirmed in the lame duck session in December if things don't go the GOP's way in the general. What kind of bullshit is that? Doesn't that completely negate the whole 'it's about principle' argument being made?

[GMDino]

(03-17-2016, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I have heard talk of the potential for Garland to be confirmed in the lame duck session in December if things don't go the GOP's way in the general. What kind of bullshit is that? Doesn't that completely negate the whole 'it's about principle' argument being made?

The only principle at work is the principle of being children who want their way.

They are well aware that even if that happened none of the people who vote for them will remember come election time, and things are so rigged 90% + will be back anyway.

[Belsnickel]

(03-17-2016, 08:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: The only principle at work is the principle of being children who want their way.

They are well aware that even if that happened none of the people who vote for them will remember come election time, and things are so rigged 90% + will be back anyway.

What I find interesting is that as recently as last week, Senator Hatch was heaping praise on Garland and has referred to him as a consensus nominee. Now, he has said he won't even meet with him. He said that he shouldn't be appointed in such a toxic environment and that Hatch doesn't like the political back and forth.

To me, putting someone like Garland on the bench right now is absolutely perfect for this political environment. It shows that the parties can put aside childishness and actually put someone on the bench who not only deserves to be there but would be of a great benefit to the SCOTUS.

I've been generally frustrated with the state of politics in this country for some time, but this situation has me genuinely pissed off.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2016, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I find interesting is that as recently as last week, Senator Hatch was heaping praise on Garland and has referred to him as a consensus nominee. Now, he has said he won't even meet with him. He said that he shouldn't be appointed in such a toxic environment and that Hatch doesn't like the political back and forth.

To me, putting someone like Garland on the bench right now is absolutely perfect for this political environment. It shows that the parties can put aside childishness and actually put someone on the bench who not only deserves to be there but would be of a great benefit to the SCOTUS.

I've been generally frustrated with the state of politics in this country for some time, but this situation has me genuinely pissed off.

And for those who say "both sides do it" that doesn't make it better even if it were true.

Nonetheless this what we are talking about:

[*michaelsean*]

(03-17-2016, 02:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And some people don't read history.

Bork was rejected because he was not qualified.  It had nothing to do with a congress playing political games and refusing to even consider any nominee.

Once Reagan nominated a qualified candidate (Anthonyy Kennedy) he was approved 97-0.

I'm not sure what your point is.   He claimed Reagan's nominees were voted in unanimously.  They were not.  One was actually voted down.  That's the history lesson.  

[*michaelsean*]

(03-17-2016, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: And for those who say "both sides do it" that doesn't make it better even if it were true.

Nonetheless this what we are talking about:

i would respond to this, but my mom told me I wasn't allowed to interact with bad boys and girls.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2016, 10:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what your point is.   He claimed Reagan's nominees were voted in unanimously.  They were not.  One was actually voted down.  That's the history lesson.  

He got a vote.

They all got votes.

Turtleboy is trying to say all the Senate has to do is "advise" the president that they won't even consider ANYONE until the next President is in office.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-17-2016, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: He got a vote.

They all got votes.

Turtleboy is trying to say all the Senate has to do is "advise" the president that they won't even consider ANYONE until the next President is in office.

Hopefully my mom doesn't see me talking with you.  I'm not arguing that.  I responded to what XXLT said.  That's it.  I think the guy should get a vote, and based on what i can tell he's absolutely qualified and should be confirmed.  For some inexplicable reason McConnell painted himself in a corner.  

[GMDino]

(03-17-2016, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Hopefully my mom doesn't see me talking with you.  I'm not arguing that.  I responded to what XXLT said.  That's it.  I think the guy should get a vote, and based on what i can tell he's absolutely qualified and should be confirmed.  For some inexplicable reason McConnell painted himself in a corner.  

Got it.  I was more talking (and agreeing) with Matt.
















































And you know you want to come to the dark side with me.....    

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 10:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what your point is.  

Of course you don't.  That is because you do not even understand the issue we are discussing.


Here is a little hint that might help you out.............Did the Senate vote on Bork?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-17-2016, 11:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course you don't.  That is because you do not even understand the issue we are discussing.


Here is a little hint that might help you out.............Did the Senate vote on Bork?

Completely irrelevant.  He spoke on how they unanimously confirmed his nominations.  They did not.  Anything else is you guessing that I mean something beyond what I said.

You can read post #137 to see my opinion on this current issue. You don't have to guess.