Supreme Court Appointment

Page 5 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 1:30 pm

AspE wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

...

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter knew how to horse trade with the Republicans. Clinton signed a lot of Republican bills in exchange of some of his pet projects. Then he blew it, figuratively and literally. This guy that is currently in office has no clue how to compromise. Politics is the art of compromise and Obama has not learned this. If Obama wants to be an ideologue the Republicans can return it back in spades.

That's the most ignorant thing I've read in a long time. The Republicants have been nothing but obstructionist to Obama, he's the one promoting bi-partisanship. In fact they have refused to confirm many lower court appointments, just because he's Obama. I want to see how they react with a Republican president and a Democratically controlled House when they refuse to confirm anything. I bet they are going to be all indignant. Don't they know this s**t goes both ways?

So were the Democrats when they were in control of the Congress did all sorts of things when Republicans were in the White House. Tit for tat. If you do not like the present Congress and the rules that has been laid down for decades, vote in a new one and change the rules or re-write the Constitution.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 16 Feb 2016, 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 1:36 pm

Jacoby wrote:

. It doesn't matter, there is nothing Obama and Democrats can do to force Republicans to accept their nominee.

You are correct

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 1:40 pm

Jacoby wrote:

AspE wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

The president isn't owed that his nominees get approved to the court, the GOP has the majority in both houses and has a very good chance of taking back the White House so it is totally with in their right to oppose any and all Obama appointments. Checks and balances, our president is not a dictator and there simply is nothing Obama or Democrats can do to convince the GOP the approve his nominees if they oppose them. There are dozens of lower court vacancies right now and other appointments, Obama is a lame duck at this point and there is no long any reason to cooperate with him especially in light of his use of executive orders. The election is in November, the people will vote for how they want the make up of the court and it is as simple as that. If Hillary or Bernie were to win in November then they could start negotiating then during the lame duck session, otherwise the nominee to the court will be a lot different and more in mold of another Alito. Lame ducks don't get to make lifetime appointments right before an election, sorry nothing you can do but cry.

Obama is never going to get 60 votes in the senate in an election year, sorry it's not Christmas for all the gun grabbers and abortion enthusiasts. The only reason Obama didn't get more opposition on his SCOTUS appointments is because he was replacing liberal justices with a Democratic majority in the Senate. I saw the Sotomayor vote in person, Obama had a supermajority in both Houses at the time.

It's a desperation move from an increasingly irrelevant party. The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, EVEN IF HE'S BLACK.

This happened plenty of times before, the Democrats in the 80s would of delayed Reagan's SCOTUS appointments until the next president if he didn't play ball with them. They spent months and months on hearings and that's where the term "Borking" came from. Like I said, the Democrats reap what they sow so they can't cry now that the shoe is on the other foot. What is desperate is to try to bring race into it.

Its Politics

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

16 Feb 2016, 1:43 pm

ASS-P wrote:

...So you would be 100% behind a Dem Senate head doing this to a Rep Prez ? Right. :twisted:

. And BTW , I have never heard of a Dem Senate saying " We won't even consider anything you suggest ! " to a Rep , before said Rep has even hinted whom his choice may be .
.

]...The Constitution does not steay " The last year of a POTUS's term Does Not Count " . Period . Re the ACA and Iraq , it does not say " a fully legal victory doesn't count unless at least a couple other-party votes join in " either . Period .
McConnell is announcing , piggy thumb in his mouth , that he will let cases go undecided for a year's time :roll:

, just to score political points .

He is in control and he sets the rules. The Constitution and Senate Rules gives him that power. If you do not like it, change the Constitution. You can do it under Article 5 of the Constitution. Amend the Constitution or call for a Constitutional Convention to re-write the Constitution. People did not complain when the Democrats were beating the same rules over the heads of Republican Presidents. They were able to work with the other side of the aisle. Obama is the one acting like a monarch.[/quote]
¿ :twisted:

[/quote]

If they were in control of the agenda yes because they have a Constitutional standing. But they are not in control of the agenda.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 2:53 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Thus, shalt thou count to four. No more. No less. Four shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be Four. Five shalt thou not count, nor either count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out.

I literally lol'd at this. Co-workers were like, 'what's so funny?' You managed to get a Python reference into a discussion about the SCOTUS: well done, sir.

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 4:00 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:

So were the Democrats when they were in control of the Congress did all sorts of things when Republicans were in the White House. Tit for tat.

Even though Bork didn't make it, they confirmed Clarence Thomas right after that, he's not someone Democrats would've personally wanted either. They didn't stall Reagan either. You're being dishonest every time you say this, it can be objectively shown that Mitch isn't proposing anywhere close to what has historically happened. You just repeating a lie loudly enough, and boldly enough until others believe it.

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Feb 2016, 4:19 pm

MDD123 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

MDD123 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.

What's reasonable to you, another Scalia? Someone who unapologetically favors right-wing causes?

What did he do that favors right wing causes, and in which way did he depart from the constitution in doing so.

Quote:

What makes Obama so much worse than other presidents? Is there anything specific?

In this case it's his inability to work with congress.

Take a good look at his track-record and ask what he didn't do. I'm not an originalist, and honestly one could interpret anything they wanted if they were clever enough. Scalia has voted against civil rights cases and for corporate personhood. That last one is going to harm us for years to come.

Specifics please. You're idea of civil rights may vary from mine. I, for one, have no expectation of putting anyone in the SCUS that I agree with on every ruling. You'd need to tell me exactly what Scalia did that out a bee in your bonnet before I can even start.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 4:31 pm

Raptor wrote:

MDD123 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

MDD123 wrote:

Raptor wrote:

What's reasonable to you, another Scalia? Someone who unapologetically favors right-wing causes?

What did he do that favors right wing causes, and in which way did he depart from the constitution in doing so.

Quote:

What makes Obama so much worse than other presidents? Is there anything specific?

In this case it's his inability to work with congress.

After not giving any specifics on Obama being bad to congress, you're asking for specifics on Scalia.
Citizens United
Voting Rights Act
Don't complain I never gave you anything.

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 5:24 pm

MDD123 wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

So were the Democrats when they were in control of the Congress did all sorts of things when Republicans were in the White House. Tit for tat.

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

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 5:28 pm

The reason that we don't want to leave the court at 4/4 is in case we get a replay of Bush 2's first 'election.' The electoral college is fairly evenly split outside of the swing states, and if the swing states split evenly, we could end up with another recount/don't recount to be settled by the court.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 5:31 pm

LKL wrote:

I'll take my chances

way more worried about a lifetime appointee to the SCOTUS than I am some repeat of the 2000 election, I think they took care of the whole 'hanging chads' and butterfly ballot problem.

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 5:39 pm

Jacoby wrote:

MDD123 wrote:

frenchmanflats wrote:

So were the Democrats when they were in control of the Congress did all sorts of things when Republicans were in the White House. Tit for tat.

Once again, this is not at all similar to the Bork case, democrats did not vow to block all nominees. You're believing what you want to justify what you want.

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 5:44 pm

If the Rs insist on picking Trump, then we're almost certain to have a Hillary or a Bernie picking the next Justice. What will be your excuse then?

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 5:58 pm

LKL wrote:

If the Rs insist on picking Trump, then we're almost certain to have a Hillary or a Bernie picking the next Justice. What will be your excuse then?

If you believe that then sure but I'm pretty confident neither Hillary or Bernie will be president. Maybe Bloomberg or Joe Biden at the last minute but Hill/Bern are not scary general election opponents. Bernie will be denied the Democratic nomination anyways as the DNC controls the party machinery pissing off many of his supporters who will then not vote or go somewhere else, it's going to be a huge mess. All the wind is at the GOP's back, they don't have to compromise on anything right now if they don't want to.

Would Obama name a conservative judge in order to just get his name on another SCOTUS appointment? Of course not, he will want radical who would alter the balance of the court.

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

16 Feb 2016, 6:07 pm

This Bernie supporter is willing to vote Hillary over this. I was adamant about writing in for Bernie until this came up.

Why are Conservatives and Radicals the only options Jacoby? Are there no Moderate options, or do you lump anything that isn't conservative into a Radical mold?

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 6:15 pm

MDD123 wrote:

it's about our rights

activist judges overturning law and precedent, our 2nd amendment rights are at stake and if they want to take them "legally" then they have become the tyrannical government that we are obligated to stand up against. There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. There were a lot of other important decisions coming up this term too.

Why don't you want this to be something the people vote on? It is possible it could work out better for the D's in the end, I think everybody knows any candidate Obama nominates will be a Trojan horse radical bent on destroying on destroying the constitution. He isn't going to name someone whose vote he can't count on. It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.

Page 5 of 15 [ 239 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15 Next

Jump to:

Supreme Court Appointment Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court Appointment