Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Justice Scalia deadFollow

#102 Feb 23 2016 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
... newly appointed Senate Majority Leader Schumer will change the rules to a straight majority...

There's no putting toothpaste back in the tube. Either party would be foolish to do this.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#103 Feb 23 2016 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
... newly appointed Senate Majority Leader Schumer will change the rules to a straight majority...

There's no putting toothpaste back in the tube. Either party would be foolish to do this.
Given the number of Justices the next president will likely appoint, it'd be more foolish to let the other party endlessly obstruct.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Feb 23 2016 at 10:22 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Given that State legislatures are gerrymandered to essentially give the GOP a bulletproof majority in the House for the foreseeable future, I fail to see how this will benefit Democrats for longer than the 2 years before the mid-terms where, given they win both the White House and the Senate, they'll likely have a down cycle (max 4 years when President O'Malley will lose re-election after granting clemency to Hillary for her espionage conviction).

Plus, the Senate does a lot more than just approve judicial nominees. Sucker that I am, I'm still holding out hope for bipartisan laws on mandatory minimum sentence reform, an immigration overhaul, and maybe modest even tax reform.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#105 Feb 23 2016 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Plus, the Senate does a lot more than just approve judicial nominees.

Well, in theory, anyway.
Quote:
Sucker that I am, I'm still holding out hope for bipartisan laws on mandatory minimum sentence reform, an immigration overhaul, and maybe modest even tax reform.

What does that have to do with approving nominees? There's already separate filibuster rules used on nominations vs legislation.

But, yeah, you're a sucker if you're waiting on bipartisan effort on any of those topics. The money's all in obstruction these days; bipartisanship is great until you lose the primary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Feb 23 2016 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I don't know, I think the system you have now where the president rules by decree is much better.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#107 Feb 23 2016 at 11:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Imperial Presidency!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Feb 24 2016 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
You talk to your senator a lot?
I've met a few. They like their photo-ops with deploying soldiers. But no, no real talk.
gbaji wrote:
That's so unheard of!
Oh, you're doing your "caught saying something racist cover up" dance now. Go ahead.
Demea wrote:
Plus, the Senate does a lot more than just approve judicial nominees.
Keep old people out of parks?

Edited, Feb 24th 2016 10:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Feb 24 2016 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
New polling in Wisconsin and New Hampshire finds the same as Ohio and Pennsylvania -- 60/40 splits or better that people want their GOP senator voting on a replacement this fall with independent/moderates close to 70% wanting a fall replacement. In each contest, over 50% say that failure to see a vote will impact their decision to retain their senator. In each state, McConnell's approval is 13-14%.

Fox News poll finds a 65/32 split saying that a new Justice should be confirmed this year.

This is the break the Democratic senate races are looking for!

Edited, Feb 24th 2016 9:53am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Mar 16 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama nominates moderate Merrick Garland who, last week, Orrin Hatch said:
Newsmax wrote:
""[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.

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."


Prediction: Republicans obstruct until November when Clinton and Democratic senate candidates win and then scramble to confirm before they lose the senate and Clinton nominates Karl Marx.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Mar 16 2016 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
He isn't a Scalia clone, which is going to be a problem for the current "It's only compromise if you do what we say 110%" people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#112 Mar 16 2016 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
McConnell says that the senate absolutely will not consider Garland's nomination.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Mar 16 2016 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
McConnell wrote:
The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this — give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.
Sounds like a guaranteed losing strategy when the people's voice was what made gay marriage a thing, and them angry with the justices in the first place. And, you know, Trump turning that into another season of The Apprentice doesn't sound all that great either. Getting screwed from both ends.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 1:00pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Mar 16 2016 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That and we sorta had a voice. In 2012. You know, "Who do you want to take on the mantle of the presidency with its associated responsibilities for the next four years?" Majority of voters picked that one Obama guy?

McConnell also said that Obama picked Garland to "politicize" the decision. So Hatch says that Obama won't pick Garland because of politics, but McConnell says that Obama only picked Garland for politics. Smiley: oyvey

Also, it's funny that Hatch essentially did what Gbaji was recommending ("here's a good candidate") and the GOP still manages to fuck it up Smiley: laugh

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 12:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Mar 16 2016 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That and we sorta had a voice.
We also have to somehow believe that McConnell and crew wouldn't kvetch over a Clinton nominee.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Mar 16 2016 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That and we sorta had a voice. In 2012. You know, "Who do you want to take on the mantle of the presidency with its associated responsibilities for the next four years?" Majority of voters picked that one Obama guy?
The people also picked the senate, which is choosing to withhold consent on a nomination as is their constitutional right. It's a stupid choice, considering they enacted the "advice" part and Obama took it, but it's their stupid choice to make.


Edited, Mar 16th 2016 12:58pm by Poldaran
#117 Mar 16 2016 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Which has nothing at all do with with McConnell's assertion that we have to wait for the next president because the people need a voice.

Had McConnell said that we need to wait for the next Senate because this Senate is too far into its term to be allowed to confirm nominees, that would be relevant. Stupid, but relevant.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 2:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Mar 16 2016 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which has nothing at all do with with McConnell's assertion that we have to wait for the next president because the people need a voice.

Had McConnell said that we need to wait for the next Senate because this Senate is too far into its term to be allowed to confirm nominees, that would be relevant. Stupid, but relevant.
Oh, his reasoning is idiotic. I'm just saying they have every right not to vote. Which will just increase annoyance at the establishment further and hand Trump more votes in the primaries. Which they're welcome to do if that's what they want. But they're really not thinking this through.

They have their victory. Be gracious, take a knee, run out the clock and brag about it in the papers like crazy. Trying for the two point conversion will just end up with a fumble and a touchdown for the other team.
#119 Mar 16 2016 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I'm just saying they have every right not to vote.

They have the ability not to vote, in that they can't be compelled to. This will just help Democrats win in the blue/purple states with vulnerable GOP senators though and McConnell will spend his time as leader of the minority party wishing he had confirmed Garland rather than the Senate confirming Clinton's (younger, more liberal) pick.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#120 Mar 16 2016 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
It's almost amusing, watching the GOP torch itself, if not for the likelihood that the phoenix rising from the ashes will be sporting a silly hairpiece.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#121 Mar 16 2016 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Don't nominate anyone and let the next president, who hopefully will be more reasonable, do it instead.
And when a president is elected who is even further to the left than Obama? Then what?


That president has the same choice Obama has. You get that I didn't say this is what he should do, but that this is his alternative choice to nominating someone that the Senate will confirm. If the next president also insists on putting up only names that he or she knows the Senate will not confirm, the those nominees will also not get confirmed.

What about this is confusing to people?

Quote:
Put it off for 4 years and pray a Republican gets elected?


No. Go and talk to the majority in the Senate and come to a consensus on a nomination. You know, like how the system is supposed to work. I even quoted the freaking constitutional language on this:

US Constitution wrote:
He shall have 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 consuls, 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


He's supposed to do this with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. You all are conveniently ignoring the "advice" portion of that. He's supposed to go to the Senate and actually ask them which potential nominations they're likely to confirm, and then make his choice out of that list. I get that this has been turned into yet another partisan fight, but it's not supposed to be "President nominates someone he likes and tells the Senate to STFU". And it's certainly not supposed to be "Blame the Senate if they can't agree". If the president nominates someone the Senate does not like, it's his fault, not the Senates. He's supposed to seek their advice on his selection, not the other way around.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 3:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Mar 16 2016 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that McConnell has said that no nominee will be acceptable, it's cute to try and blame the president for not getting "advice" (while pretending that it's not partisan) but... yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Mar 16 2016 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What does that have to do with approving nominees? There's already separate filibuster rules used on nominations vs legislation.


And who do we have to thank for that little slippery slope?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Mar 16 2016 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Given that McConnell has said that no nominee will be acceptable, it's cute to try and blame the president for not getting "advice" (while pretending that it's not partisan) but... yeah.


And given that I already said that McConnell was an idiot for saying that, I'm not sure what your point is here. What he should have said is that "Scalia brought an important outlook to the court which must be maintained, and the Senate majority will actively work with the President to ensure that a replacement for Scalia will be nominated who will fill that same role and have that same judicial approach as Scalia did. We hope that the President will agree to come together with us to accomplish this in a timely fashion".

I've said all along that McConnell was being tone deaf with his statement. He gets that Obama will never appoint anyone who isn't a far left partisan hack to the bench, but despite that being true, most of the public aren't as aware of this fact. So by saying what he did, which might maybe create some support from those on the right who also know this to be true, he makes himself and the GOP look like the partisan obstructionists that the Left constantly paints us as and loses the high ground on the issue.

I'm painfully aware how out of touch McConnell is with the people outside his own echo chamber. Very painfully.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Mar 16 2016 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
it's not supposed to be "President nominates someone he likes and tells the Senate to STFU". And it's certainly not supposed to be "Blame the Senate if they can't agree".
It's also not supposed to be "I'm going to pee on the Monopoly board because I'm angry that you want to buy Reading Railroad".


Edited, Mar 16th 2016 4:38pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#126 Mar 16 2016 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
US Constitution wrote:
he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court,


He's supposed to do this with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. You all are conveniently ignoring the "advice" portion of that. He's supposed to go to the Senate and actually ask them which potential nominations they're likely to confirm, and then make his choice out of that list. I get that this has been turned into yet another partisan fight, but it's not supposed to be "President nominates someone he likes and tells the Senate to STFU". And it's certainly not supposed to be "Blame the Senate if they can't agree". If the president nominates someone the Senate does not like, it's his fault, not the Senates. He's supposed to seek their advice on his selection, not the other way around.


Doesn't the way it's worded actually say he'll nominate, and the advice and consent part comes with the appointment? Seems like he doesn't have to seek advice on the nomination, only on the approval.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 305 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (305)