Supreme Court Appointment

Page 8 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15 Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Feb 2016, 8:12 pm

And Bush2 issued lots of signing statements. A memo has to do with internal administrative policy, something completely within the purview of executive powers.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 8:40 pm

Jacoby wrote:

LKL wrote:

Quote:

so how is obama going to appoint a judge without them being confirmed? you guys really are struggling with this checks and balances thing.

oh, no: I'm fine with the senate voting nominees down. That's their right. What is asinine is the R's demand that the president not even nominate someone, and their refusal to even allow actual votes on administrative and judicial nominees throughout this administration-even of people to whom they have no actual objection.

They can't stop Obama from "nominating" someone, it's a free country. They(the senate) just don't have to act on it. There is no set number Supreme Court justices, there isn't anything saying they have to fill this seat now or else. Waiting 9 months or allowing Obama to name another ideologue to a lifetime appointment, seems like an easy call to me. The Democrats wouldn't act any different if the shoe was on the other foot, they haven't and they were the ones that started all the funny business with politicizing these confirmation hearings.

They could have hearings I suppose, it would make for some nice political theater but what is the point if the GOP will vote down anyone nominated? Just leaving to the voters to decide in November seems like the winner to me, you're not going to lose the people with that stance.

so basically you're in favor of leaving the supreme court in a useless state for ~11 months. How does this help in any fashion, except as a forum for selfish politicians to score brownie points?

you say that if the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats would do the same. however until the 1980s, the average length of time taken to confirm such an appointment was around 80 days(roughly 73 days if you include later elections) so your claim is really flimsy in view of this.

source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.pdf

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 8:53 pm

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

LKL wrote:

Quote:

so how is obama going to appoint a judge without them being confirmed? you guys really are struggling with this checks and balances thing.

so basically you're in favor of leaving the supreme court in a useless state for ~11 months. How does this help in any fashion, except as a forum for selfish politicians to score brownie points?

It's worth it because it is a lifetime appointment, I'm pretty sure the country can survive. If this is so hard to understand then just imagine Ted Cruz was president right now with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Ginsburg just died and Roe v Wade would likely be overturned, I do not care about any of the browbeating or hand-wringing when the stakes are this high. Not only should the GOP oppose any nominee, any Senator that entertains it and is up for reelection should be primaried out of office.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 9:00 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I asked how this helped, you respond by meandering into an allegory about what might happen if ginsburg died. Do I need to reask the question?

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Feb 2016, 9:05 pm

Jacoby wrote:

...

They can't stop Obama from "nominating" someone, it's a free country. They(the senate) just don't have to act on it. There is no set number Supreme Court justices, there isn't anything saying they have to fill this seat now or else. Waiting 9 months or allowing Obama to name another ideologue to a lifetime appointment, seems like an easy call to me. The Democrats wouldn't act any different if the shoe was on the other foot, they haven't and they were the ones that started all the funny business with politicizing these confirmation hearings.

They could have hearings I suppose, it would make for some nice political theater but what is the point if the GOP will vote down anyone nominated? Just leaving to the voters to decide in November seems like the winner to me, you're not going to lose the people with that stance.

Obama didn't appoint even one ideologue. And hey, maybe the Republicans will realize that if they don't consent to anyone, their own pet decisions will be left to a lower court. Are you sure Obama can't find someone who everyone recognizes is fully qualified and impartial?

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Feb 2016, 9:07 pm

Jacoby wrote:

also fwiw Obama filibustered Samuel Alito's nomination to court in 2006, what goes around comes around

A purely symbolic gesture he knew wouldn't prevent Alito's confirmation. And besides, it's one thing to have reasons to object to a specific nominee, quite another to object to the idea of nomination before they even know who is getting nominated. That's some BS there.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 9:08 pm

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

It's worth it because it is a lifetime appointment, I'm pretty sure the country can survive. If this is so hard to understand then just imagine Ted Cruz was president right now with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Ginsburg just died and Roe v Wade would likely be overturned, I do not care about any of the browbeating or hand-wringing when the stakes are this high. Not only should the GOP oppose any nominee, any Senator that entertains it and is up for reelection should be primaried out of office.

I asked how this helped, you respond by meandering into an allegory about what might happen if ginsburg died. Do I need to reask the question?

What is so hard to understand?

How about this, if the the 2nd Amendment gets overturned or altered then there will be a civil war in this country so I am trying to keep the peace.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 9:11 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

It's worth it because it is a lifetime appointment, I'm pretty sure the country can survive. If this is so hard to understand then just imagine Ted Cruz was president right now with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Ginsburg just died and Roe v Wade would likely be overturned, I do not care about any of the browbeating or hand-wringing when the stakes are this high. Not only should the GOP oppose any nominee, any Senator that entertains it and is up for reelection should be primaried out of office.

I asked how this helped, you respond by meandering into an allegory about what might happen if ginsburg died. Do I need to reask the question?

What is so hard to understand?

that's a good question. what is so hard for you to understand about the meaning of 'help'?

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Feb 2016, 9:12 pm

Jacoby wrote:

they stalled Reagan for sure, they politicized these SCOTUS confirmations with what they did to Bork, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Thomas were the most contentious SCOTUS hearings in history. The Clarence Thomas one is one that truly is disgraceful considering not long after these same people that tried to smear and destroy him would back a serial rapist for president not much later.

what goes around comes around, Republicans have a strong majority and will get to decide who the next SCOTUS justice will be ultimately.

They could just bork whoever Obama nominates and vote them down, it's doubtful they'd get out of the judicial committee. That's just political theater tho and not something these guys on either side want to be doing in an election year.

9 months then we'll see if there is any room to negotiate

Clarence Thomas is a sexual harassing piece of s**t. Clinton's sexual liaison was consensual.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 9:23 pm

AspE wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

There is no such thing as an impartial judge, the whole process is inherently political so being "qualified" honestly doesn't mean that much. Leaving the decisions to a lower court for the time being is fine given that this is lifetime appointment.

Also the name I heard floated out there is Loretta Lynch so Obama can get bent, we've all seen the corrupt morally bankrupt way the DOJ and FBI has been run for years now and these are the people closest to Obama. It's just like 1968 with LBJ, huge huge conflicts of interest here.

Obama should have some guts and nominate himself, he can do that.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 9:25 pm

AspE wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Clarence Thomas is a sexual harassing piece of s**t. Clinton's sexual liaison was consensual.

lol now you know your full of **** trying to exonerate Bill of his many many misdeeds into one 'consensual sexual liason', that's great. You should work for the Clinton's, you've mastered their language. The Clinton's are the most notorious slutshamers of all time, their defense against any and all accusers was that it was a vast conspiracy and that these women were money grubbing whores and trailer trash. Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, same difference to me.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Feb 2016, 9:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:

...

lol now you know your full of **** trying to exonerate Bill of his many many misdeeds into one 'consensual sexual liason', that's great. You should work for the Clinton's, you've mastered their language. The Clinton's are the most notorious slutshamers of all time, their defense against any and all accusers was that it was a vast conspiracy and that these women were money grubbing whores and trailer trash. Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, same difference to me.

What Clinton did in his private life is not my concern. Sexual harassment of a co-worker, however, is serious.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 9:38 pm

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

It's worth it because it is a lifetime appointment, I'm pretty sure the country can survive. If this is so hard to understand then just imagine Ted Cruz was president right now with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Ginsburg just died and Roe v Wade would likely be overturned, I do not care about any of the browbeating or hand-wringing when the stakes are this high. Not only should the GOP oppose any nominee, any Senator that entertains it and is up for reelection should be primaried out of office.

I asked how this helped, you respond by meandering into an allegory about what might happen if ginsburg died. Do I need to reask the question?

What is so hard to understand?

that's a good question. what is so hard for you to understand about the meaning of 'help'?

You are no longer seriously engaging in this discussion, if your reading comprehension is so bad that you can't find the answers to the questions in my posts then I can't help you but that's not whats happening here so I'm no longer going to respond to you unless there is some substance behind it. Just so you know I do find it very amusing; the powerlessness and impotent rage of the minority party who is now reaping what they sowed. Elections matter, I've said that a number of times but do you know where that comes from? That is the rationalization that was given when they rammed thru Obamacare even against overwhelming opposition. They used their majority, the GOP will now use theirs.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

16 Feb 2016, 9:44 pm

AspE wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

What Clinton did in his private life is not my concern. Sexual harassment of a co-worker, however, is serious.

Perhaps you think I am too young to remember the Clinton scandals but you don't know the household I grew up in but you know that Bill was accused sexual harassment and even rape on multiple occasions so to act like the attempted character assassination of Clarence Thomas is anything close to the same is totally absurd.

Paula Jones ring any bells?

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

16 Feb 2016, 9:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:

AspE wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

What Clinton did in his private life is not my concern. Sexual harassment of a co-worker, however, is serious.

Perhaps you think I am too young to remember the Clinton scandals but you don't the household I grew up in but you know that Bill was accused sexual harassment and even rape on multiple occasions so to act like the attempted character assassination of Clarence Thomas is anything close to the same is totally absurd.

I believe Anita Hill. However, I wouldn't approve of Bill on the Supreme Court either.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 10:14 pm

Jacoby wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

It's worth it because it is a lifetime appointment, I'm pretty sure the country can survive. If this is so hard to understand then just imagine Ted Cruz was president right now with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Ginsburg just died and Roe v Wade would likely be overturned, I do not care about any of the browbeating or hand-wringing when the stakes are this high. Not only should the GOP oppose any nominee, any Senator that entertains it and is up for reelection should be primaried out of office.

I asked how this helped, you respond by meandering into an allegory about what might happen if ginsburg died. Do I need to reask the question?

What is so hard to understand?

that's a good question. what is so hard for you to understand about the meaning of 'help'?

you've still not said word one about how this will help America. you claim i've not been seriously engaging yet you STILL have not answered my questions above. the irony is staggering in scope.

e: "That is the rationalization that was given when they rammed thru Obamacare even against overwhelming opposition. " it passed the senate with 60-39 and the house with 219-212 pro-against. where is this 'overwhelming opposition'?

Last edited by Fugu on 16 Feb 2016, 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Page 8 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15 Next

Jump to:

Supreme Court Appointment Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court Appointment