Who you got for SCOUTUS

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2018, 11:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: With the possible exception of SSF walking up and shooting me (I can't remember who he used to say that to when they would bring up anarchy), anarchy has an appealing nature.  It can't work, but it's fun to think about sometimes.

I jokingly say anarchy, because pretty much everyone I know has found a number of freedoms that they label as "bad' or "dangerous" or "wrong" so they can still say they love freedom...but you know...not the bad types of it.  Can't be a hypocrite if you can convince yourself freedom can be super bad, you guys.

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I feel forced to say this, did anyone expect him to pick a liberal candidate?  I certainly agree that the way Garland was handled was underhanded.  If you look at it from an ideological perspective replacing Scalia with Gorsuch merely kept the current balance in the SCOTUS.  Now replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh will certainly move the court to the right, but was anyone expecting Trump to nominate a liberal justice? 


Let's, for arguments sake, say Garland was confirmed and Hillary won the presidency.  She'd be nominating a left leaning justice and shifting the court to the left.  In that scenario everyone kvetching right now would be ecstatic and vice versa.  The court was bound to shift in an ideological direction at some point.  What concerns me is all this talk now of packing the court FDR style.  Dangerous ground if you ask me.

Honestly, I don't think it will shift much. Kavanaugh is slightly further right than Kennedy, but I think it will be semantics. Reportedly, Kennedy lobbied fairly hard for Kavanaugh, which — if true — would lead one to think they have pretty similar ideologies. 

Of course, it could all be misdirection. Kavanaugh is likely to have one of the hardest times getting confirmed. There's plenty of ammo to tie things up. Which could work well heading into the elections. "Vote for the establishment otherwise we'll never get this corporate shill on the court."

[Belsnickel]

I think what bothers me in all of this is that this whole partisan fight over justices is a relatively new thing. It used to be "is the person qualified? Ok then." Advice and consent to me means that much. Kavanaugh is obviously qualified. I don't like him, but whatever.

I am of the opinion that judicial appointments, all judicial appointments, ought to be at a 60 vote threshold. I feel like nominations to the third branch should have a higher level of scrutiny than executive branch appointments in general, but we won't see that again for some time.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what bothers me in all of this is that this whole partisan fight over justices is a relatively new thing. It used to be "is the person qualified? Ok then." Advice and consent to me means that much. Kavanaugh is obviously qualified. I don't like him, but whatever.

I am of the opinion that judicial appointments, all judicial appointments, ought to be at a 60 vote threshold. I feel like nominations to the third branch should have a higher level of scrutiny than executive branch appointments in general, but we won't see that again for some time.

Blame the democrats for the lower courts and cabinet positions and the GOP for the SCOTUS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

Quote:ELIMINATING THE FILIBUSTER FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES


In 2013, Senate Democrats — then in the majority — triggered the nuclear option for the first time.

Frustrated with what they considered the relentless Republican obstruction of Obama's appointments, Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.


McConnell railed against the change at the time, though the 60-vote threshold still applied to high court nominees.


However, when it came time to confirm Gorsuch in 2017, near-unified Democratic opposition and the GOP's own slim majority of 51 Republican senators made getting to a 60-vote supermajority impossible.



Last April, McConnell triggered a rules change, clearing the way for Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. The use of the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees was dramatic for a body like the Senate, which operates on tradition and precedent.

But just so I don't lose my partisan cred...Turtlehead is the biggest PITA with HIS interpretation of "Advice and consent":

Quote:REMEMBER MERRICK GARLAND?


In February 2016, days after the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, Republicans made an unprecedented declaration: The Senate would not hear or confirm any nominee to fill the unexpected vacancy until the country had elected a new president in November.

Don't even try nominating anyone, McConnell told Obama, the Constitution requires "the advice and consent of the Senate."

"We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time," Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter, claiming the move was "born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people."

Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland anyway. His nomination lingered for eight months — Garland passed the time with puzzles and volunteering, it was later reported — before Republican Donald Trump won the presidency and dashed any leftover hopes that Garland might one day take a seat on the nation's highest court.

Supreme Court nominations have long been contentious — past rulings were poured over, qualifications dissected, witnesses interviewed — but Garland was the first nominee in decades to be denied any kind of consideration by the Senate.

I wish nothing good for that "man" ever.

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what bothers me in all of this is that this whole partisan fight over justices is a relatively new thing. It used to be "is the person qualified? Ok then." Advice and consent to me means that much. Kavanaugh is obviously qualified. I don't like him, but whatever.

I am of the opinion that judicial appointments, all judicial appointments, ought to be at a 60 vote threshold. I feel like nominations to the third branch should have a higher level of scrutiny than executive branch appointments in general, but we won't see that again for some time.

Maybe it's just my age, but I don't think partisanship was as big of an issue until the late 70s, maybe late 80s with the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Parties were always an issue, but they were loose and it wasn't uncommon for the party to change ideology. You didn't have the "us vs them" mentality you do now. 

And I don't see that changing. There was a poll a while back about reviving some kind of Fairness Doctrine. Media were against it, and the general public was against it. The only ones seemingly in favor are a bunch of Democrat lawmakers, so if it ever gets brought up again, you can bet it'll be labeled as 'fascist big government takeover of fair and balanced news sources.' Hell, I'd like to see Dems introduce it just to watch Trump have to call for the defense of journalism... for about 5 minutes.

[GMDino]

Someone on NPR this morning said there is no way Trump asked his nominee about Trump's current/potential legal problems going forward.  He called such a thing "stupid" with such a slam dunk confirmation coming.

Yes, a commentator said Trump, the man who said he fired Comey over the "Russian thing" then said he didn't...the man who said he had no idea about Jr meeting with Russians and then said he dictated the letter about the meeting, wouldn't do something "stupid" like talk about his legal problems with a nominee for the supreme court.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2018, 01:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what bothers me in all of this is that this whole partisan fight over justices is a relatively new thing. It used to be "is the person qualified? Ok then." Advice and consent to me means that much. Kavanaugh is obviously qualified. I don't like him, but whatever.

I am of the opinion that judicial appointments, all judicial appointments, ought to be at a 60 vote threshold. I feel like nominations to the third branch should have a higher level of scrutiny than executive branch appointments in general, but we won't see that again for some time.

This. Seems we've switch from focusing on qualifications to focusing on opinions. Folks may not like it but to the victor goes the spoils. Obama got to replace 2 conservatives with liberals and so far Trump has gotten to replace 2 conservatives with conservatives. Best the liberal can hope for is that the Dems take over the senate at the midterms, and that RBG hangs in there until 2020. 

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This. Seems we've switch from focusing on qualifications to focusing on opinions. Folks may not like it but to the victor goes the spoils. Obama got to replace 2 conservatives with liberals and so far Trump has gotten to replace 2 conservatives with conservatives. Best the liberal can hope for is that the Dems take over the senate at the midterms, and that RBG hangs in there until 2020. 

Since Kennedy stepping down I've wondered if there hasn't been an opinion between the justices for the last several years to keep the court relatively balanced. Nixon/Reagen put on a slew of justices, but since then (I think) each president has replaced two, which has kept it fairly stable. And consistent. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2018, 03:53 PM)Benton Wrote: Since Kennedy stepping down I've wondered if there hasn't been an opinion between the justices for the last several years to keep the court relatively balanced. Nixon/Reagen put on a slew of justices, but since then (I think) each president has replaced two, which has kept it fairly stable. And consistent. 

I think the worst news for the Libs is that 2 of the 4 left-leaners on the court are the 2 oldest Justices left (RBG, Breyer). Both are older than Souter who stepped down 9 years ago. When Trump is reelected in 2020 (barring the recession Mahier is hoping for) We could easily see a 7-2 split by the end of his Presidency.  

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 03:53 PM)Benton Wrote: Since Kennedy stepping down I've wondered if there hasn't been an opinion between the justices for the last several years to keep the court relatively balanced. Nixon/Reagen put on a slew of justices, but since then (I think) each president has replaced two, which has kept it fairly stable. And consistent. 

That would be tough to do with the possibility of a sudden death, for example.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the worst news for the Libs is that 2 of the 4 left-leaners on the court are the 2 oldest Justices left (RBG, Breyer). Both are older than Souter who stepped down 9 years ago. When Trump is reelected in 2020 (barring the recession Mahier is hoping for) We could easily see a 7-2 split by the end of his Presidency.  

That worse news for people who believe in equal rights...not just "libs".

And even worse for people who INSIST (now) that the justices personal politics do not affect their decisions.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2018, 04:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: That worse news for people who believe in equal rights...not just "libs".

And even worse for people who INSIST (now) that the justices personal politics do not affect their decisions.  

Oh I thought it went without saying the Lib is just another word for people who believe in equal rights. At least that's what many have been brain-washed to believe. Crazy how these folks can rise to the highest court in the land without the understanding of equal rights.

Personal politics shouldn't affect their decisions; the way the interpret the Constitution should. 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 04:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I thought it went without saying the Lib is just another word for people who believe in equal rights. At least that's what many have been brain-washed to believe. Crazy how these folks can rise to the highest court in the land without the understanding of equal rights.

Snark noted.

I said everyone who wants equal rights...not just "libs". Defensive much?

As we have seen over the years those at the highest court have favored equal rights...for the most part. That should continue and everyone should be behind that.

(07-10-2018, 04:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Personal politics shouldn't affect their decisions; the way the interpret the Constitution should. 

Yes. Trump and the people he outsourced the decision too thought nothing of his personal politics through his decisions.

Here's an oldie but a goodie: You're funny.

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the worst news for the Libs is that 2 of the 4 left-leaners on the court are the 2 oldest Justices left (RBG, Breyer). Both are older than Souter who stepped down 9 years ago. When Trump is reelected in 2020 (barring the recession Mahier is hoping for) We could easily see a 7-2 split by the end of his Presidency.  

I think they're waiting for a truly left leaning president. I know conservatives circled the wagons around Obama being the great socialist threat, but... really, he was as close to the right as W. 

To the bold, it's probably coming sooner rather than later. The push for tax cuts on an upswing was a red flag there. Companies didn't, by and large, raise incomes or give bonuses like Congress said they would, they've been buying up their own stocks. Which should help them be in a better financial position on the other side of the next recession. And with another recession, businesses can keep pay rates low and competition for open positions high. 

In his defense, Trump doesn't have much to do with the recession coming. his tariffs might have hastened it (although I'm in favor of them)  by a year or two, and his tax cuts will extend it, but we were headed for a downturn regardless. You can't have 7 straight years of growth under the last guy and expect it not to hit a downturn.

(07-10-2018, 04:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: That would be tough to do with the possibility of a sudden death, for example.

Oh, I don't think there's an agreement, just a likemindedness. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-10-2018, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Blame the democrats for the lower courts and cabinet positions and the GOP for the SCOTUS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271

But just so I don't lose my partisan cred...Turtlehead is the biggest PITA with HIS interpretation of "Advice and consent":

I wish nothing good for that "man" ever.

Oh, I am aware. The blame game doesn't work, though, because we could go back and forth on whether it was the group that went nuclear or the group that went obstructionist and caused it that is to blame. Both violated norms at the time, so I hold all parties responsible.

(07-10-2018, 02:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Maybe it's just my age, but I don't think partisanship was as big of an issue until the late 70s, maybe late 80s with the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Parties were always an issue, but they were loose and it wasn't uncommon for the party to change ideology. You didn't have the "us vs them" mentality you do now. 

And I don't see that changing. There was a poll a while back about reviving some kind of Fairness Doctrine. Media were against it, and the general public was against it. The only ones seemingly in favor are a bunch of Democrat lawmakers, so if it ever gets brought up again, you can bet it'll be labeled as 'fascist big government takeover of fair and balanced news sources.' Hell, I'd like to see Dems introduce it just to watch Trump have to call for the defense of journalism... for about 5 minutes.

I've talked a little about this here and there, but yeah, the '70s is when we started to see it go. McCarthy tried to get the ball rolling, but he was put i n his place and things went on as usual. However, Nixon was a bit of a follower of McCarthyism. McCarthy, Nixon, and then Gingrich, all treated their political opponents as enemies. Even after Nixon, things were still a bit more stable for a while, until Gingrich's efforts through GOPAC. And while it looks like I am blaming Republicans, I want to be clear that I am blaming the individuals for starting this.

After they got the ball rolling, both parties took a hold of this hostility and ran with it as the division between the parties widened. The widening of the parties, however, was also due to the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy. Both parties prior to the CRA/VRA were big umbrellas. They both contained liberals, moderates, and conservatives. In the aftermath, with the events that took place, there was a shift where we see what we have now, which is Democrats being liberal and Republicans being conservative. Had that shift not occurred, I don't think that the efforts of Nixon and Gingrich would have been as successful. The shift created bubbles that made it much easier to otherize your political opponents, making them enemies rather than colleagues you disagree with. No longer are they having lunch with members of the opposite party. They keep to their corners and don't really communicate with each other, perpetuating the problem.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 02:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Maybe it's just my age, but I don't think partisanship was as big of an issue until the late 70s, maybe late 80s with the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Parties were always an issue, but they were loose and it wasn't uncommon for the party to change ideology. You didn't have the "us vs them" mentality you do now. 

And I don't see that changing. There was a poll a while back about reviving some kind of Fairness Doctrine. Media were against it, and the general public was against it. The only ones seemingly in favor are a bunch of Democrat lawmakers, so if it ever gets brought up again, you can bet it'll be labeled as 'fascist big government takeover of fair and balanced news sources.' Hell, I'd like to see Dems introduce it just to watch Trump have to call for the defense of journalism... for about 5 minutes.

Your fairness doctrine wouldn't touch the cable networks.  They'd be able to get Rush which is what they really want anyway.  I'm sure he'd just head over to XM. But you don't hear much from the left about rush anymore. I think the Fox hysteria has taken over.

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 05:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Your fairness doctrine wouldn't touch the cable networks.  They'd be able to get Rush which is what they really want anyway.  I'm sure he'd just head over to XM.  But you don't hear much from the left about rush anymore.  I think the  Fox hysteria has taken over.

I don't know what the idea of a new version would look like. I've heard it floated that there should be one in regard to internet media, since it's a fairly easy to manipulate platform that changes quicker than legislation. But, yeah, I don't think Rush is so much of an issue to most folks. Used to he was part of a small minority that intentionally misreported or misrepresented facts; now he's got no shortage of ethically flexible people on both sides.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 05:45 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't know what the idea of a new version would look like. I've heard it floated that there should be one in regard to internet media, since it's a fairly easy to manipulate platform that changes quicker than legislation. But, yeah, I don't think Rush is so much of an issue to most folks. Used to he was part of a small minority that intentionally misreported or misrepresented facts; now he's got no shortage of ethically flexible people on both sides.

I don’t think they can do any sort of fairness doctrine on the net. It works on the airwaves because those were deemed to belong to the people. But who knows?

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 04:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I am aware. The blame game doesn't work, though, because we could go back and forth on whether it was the group that went nuclear or the group that went obstructionist and caused it that is to blame. Both violated norms at the time, so I hold all parties responsible.

Aye. Just responding to your wanting the 60 vote for the judicial appointments.

I get that both sides have some play in this. The question is will either of them try and fix it or will they be afraid of looking "weak".

The current POTUS accuses the other side of being "weak" on things even if he has to make stuff up...imagine the outrage from the left if the democrats say "we're going to go back to the normal way of doing things" and then nothing gets done due to obstruction. Or vice versa and the GOP did it.

If Turtlehead stepped up and said we will only approve the new SCJ with 60 votes...and he can't get through? Can you imagine the hate they would suffer from their OWN side?

The kind of bravery it will take is not in congress nor are they running for office.