Politics 2016 (election edition)

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Let's let the man speak for himself rather than try to whitewash the past:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

Frankly, he seemed to enjoy being an asshole, and would probably have thanked me for calling him such.

[uncool2pillow]

Frankly, he seemed to enjoy being an asshole, and would probably have thanked me for calling him such.

Fair point there.

[Winston Legthigh]

It's going to be crap show with the Senate. The statement by Senator McConnell makes zero sense.

Fine. We all know McConnell will be happy with Hillary's nomination.

[KevinG]

Fine. We all know McConnell will be happy with Hillary's nomination.

For all of the Right's complaining about how Obama subverts the Constitution, McConnell's comments fly in direct opposition to the Constitution.

 

We could have 3-3 court for a long time. A couple of scenarios could play out. The GOP blocks any Obama nomination, a Republican wins in Nov.,the dems will block any nomination.

 

And of course if Hillary or Sanders win, there is no way McConnell let's that go through.

 

The Senate needs to do the right thing and advise and consent on a nominee. I am saying they need to roll over and accept anyone PBO nominates, but if they are a qualified nominee there should be no question on what they should do.

[calvino]

 

So Sen. McConnell's, logic is this. If the president is part of his party, he should have power to nominate whomever, if they are not, the American people should have a voice. Ugh.

 

 

Not to mention that President Obama was elected BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (twice)  - that' why his statement makes zero sense.

 

Are the American voices who voted for President Obama null and void now? Last time I check each President serves 4 years - I guess the American voices who voted for President Obama only can be heard for about 3 years and about a month or so...

[lost highway]

The idea that someone can't be rightfully called a piece of shit because of the office they've achieved is thoroughly undemocratic.

[KevinG]

Not to mention that President Obama was elected BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (twice) - that' why his statement makes zero sense.

 

Are the American voices who voted for President Obama null and void now? Last time I check each President serves 4 years - I guess the American voices who voted for President Obama only can be heard for about 3 years and about a month or so...

I want someone to explain to me, why should we wait a year to fill the vacancy?

[uncool2pillow]

Not defending the Senate, but they get a say in this. If they want to obstruct, that is their right. Then it becomes the right of the electorate to hold them accountable.

 

I've never not voted for Charles Grassley, but he's losing it recently, sounding a lot more like a FoxNews drone than the independent voice he used to. If he goes along with this obstruction (and I fully expect him to) he will most likely lose my vote.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uncool2pillow]

Bwahahaha!!

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

 

 

 

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN

 

07/27/07 05:33 PM EDT

 

 

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

While no retirements appear imminent, Bush still could have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court. Yet the two oldest members – Justice John Paul Stevens, 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 – are part of the court's liberal bloc and could hold off retirement until Bush leaves office in January, 2009.

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said he was persuaded by a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who spoke with Specter at the Aspen Institute gathering in Colorado this month, to study the decisions of the Roberts Court. The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.

Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”

“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.”

 

 

 

 

[John Smith]

Its extremely sad that they are already saying that they will block any nominee before ever hearing a word about who that nominee might be.  It would be one thing if there was a formal nomination, like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas etc... Pure politics, pure spite.  But it plays well with their base.

[uncool2pillow]

Its extremely sad that they are already saying that they will block any nominee before ever hearing a word about who that nominee might be.  It would be one thing if there was a formal nomination, like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas etc... Pure politics, pure spite.  But it plays well with their base.

And, as my above post confirms, exactly what Chuck Shumer wanted to do in July of 2007, seven months earlier in Bush's term. Not saying either side is right, but Schumer's comments this weekend are absolutely hypocritical. So fucking tired of this two-party system.

[Doctor B]

Its extremely sad that they are already saying that they will block any nominee before ever hearing a word about who that nominee might be.  It would be one thing if there was a formal nomination, like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas etc... Pure politics, pure spite.  But it plays well with their base.

So its ok to block if YOU do not like their politics/legal approach but not ok to block if you like the nominee? 

[lost highway]

No, I think he's saying it's absurd to presuppose blocking a nominee before any specific person is actually mentioned.

[Doctor B]

No, I think he's saying it's absurd to presuppose blocking a nominee before any specific person is actually mentioned.

 

You are correct. My mistake. I apoligize.  The President should be able to nominate who he wants and Congress has a right to block or support that nominee. Unfortunately, this has become so political in the last 30 years that I think the whole process is poisoned- qualifications really do not seem to matter.

[John Smith]

No, I think he's saying it's absurd to presuppose blocking a nominee before any specific person is actually mentioned.

 

Yeppers.  Unfortunately the Republicans have no choice but to say that they oppose anything Obama proposes, even when he has not proposed it yet.  Otherwise the "base" will rise against any of the traitors.  And yes, I have heard people call republicans who have voted for any legislation passed in the past few years traitors.

 

If they had been even the least bit smart about it they would have publicly talked about the legacy of Scalia while also talking about their responsibilities under the constitution while welcoming the opportunity to have hearings on the presidents nominee.  The block any and all nominee talks should have been behind closed doors, but the base would rebel. In contrast Obama could put forth a moderate or someone so unpalletable that upon rejection the next nominee would look like a perfect choice and would have to be nominated.  

 

BTW in the past 17 times justices have been confirmed during the last year of a presidents term. 

[John Smith]

So its ok to block if YOU do not like their politics/legal approach but not ok to block if you like the nominee? 

 

I was no fan of Scaia, ROberts, Alito, but feel that they were qualified candidates deserving of congressional deference, and they all got it.  Of the three my reservations were strongest with ALito because of an answer he gave where he seemed to dismiss the notion of Stare Decisis (sp?), which I view as the foundation of common law (not the bible)

[KevinG]

You are correct. My mistake. I apoligize.  The President should be able to nominate who he wants and Congress has a right to block or support that nominee. Unfortunately, this has become so political in the last 30 years that I think the whole process is poisoned- qualifications really do not seem to matter.

 

The thing that is exacerbating the whole thing is who Scalia was.  He was the most conservative member of the court and with his death Obama will nominate a liberal justice, thus shifting the balance of the court for decades.  If say the Notorious R.B.G had died the nomination / confirmation process would be going a lot easier.  

 

And with the next president will probably nominate another 2 or 3 more in the next 8 years.

 

But there is no constitutional test or requirement that conservative justices have to be replaced with conservatives.  It is just the breaks.

[Hixter]

BTW in the past 17 times justices have been confirmed during the last year of a presidents term. 

It's actually very rare. I read that the only time a justice was confirmed by a senate with an opposing party majority in an election year was the Democratic-majority senate which confirmed Reagan's choice of Anthony Kennedy.

 

Partisan politics are alive and well.

[John Smith]

17 times a Supreme Court justice was confirmed during a presidents final year. You have chosen to qualify this by putting in the condition of opposite party blah Blau blah. The current r leadership is saying no way no how no matter who. They are not saying anything about them having a majority and that being the condition, they are saying no no matter who it is. Quantifying this in terms of presidents and opposing parties to illustrate rarity is partisan politics.

[KevinG]

Just took a couple of minutes to write to my Senator, Ron Johnson.  He like the others on the Right have said we should wait until the next president, blah, blah.  

 

Be interested to see if he writes back and what he will stay.  

 

I still can't find anyone who can give me a reason for delaying action on a nominee until the next president.  All I hear is the Americans should decide, which makes no sense, since they already decided, when they elected Obama by 5 million votes and clear electoral college victory.  

[Doug C]

Barack Obama is the duly elected president of the United States of America. Therefore, it is his Constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill a open Supreme Court vacancy, should one occur during his term in office. It is the Senate's Constitutional duty to provide proper advice and consent of said nominee. (Should Constitutional be capitalized in this context?)

 

The people have spoken, twice, and said that any vacancy that arises during the President's term should be filled by him. That's one of the reasons the people elected him.

 

The Republican Party, what a bunch of petty bullshit artists. I hope this knee jerk nonsense blows up in their faces with 4-4 decisions letting stand the lower court decisions, most of which are dominated by liberal jurists, and loosing control of the Senate because 5 incumbents up for reelection are in states Obama won in 2012 and/or 2008. If they were prudent, they would have waited to see wait the President did and went from there, not go all petulant child before Justice Scalia's body was cold.

 

Idiots. I laughed at a comment I read today. It said that the Republicans think a black president should have only 3/5th's of a term.

[uncool2pillow]

Quick question: Was Schumer a petty bullshit artist in 2007? If so, would you be as angry about it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doug C]

Quick answer: Yes and yes.

[uncool2pillow]

I will take you at your word. I tend to view myself as a political moderate. If I were very liberal or conservative I could see myself being very worried about an opposition president making a lifetime appointment so late in their term. I can understand, but not justify Schumer in 2007 or the Republicans today. Especially considering how big of a swing this makes in the court's alignment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Smith]

and...did Schumers words actually lad to action? Or were they words dealing with a hypothetical situation that never arose?  By the same token McConnell in the past has frequently spoken about nominees getting an up and down vote.  So is McConnell going to be a man who honors his own convictions and allow at least that to happen? or will they stall and kill any and all nominees in committee? Judging by how they have steadfastly refused to fill vacancies in the judicial up to this point in time, I would guess that the answer is no nominee will get out of committee.

 

See you can play this he said/she said game all day long.  The right thing to do is to review the candidate in committee and pass along candidates to the full senate for a vote.  Like I said I am not fan of Scalia/Roberts or  Alito, but the president nominated them and they were qualified so they should receive the vote and be put on the court.  Heck I even felt that way about Bork and he might be the one I would disagree with the most.