Holy moly... Scalia dead.

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by RunningMn9 »

AjD wrote:Why? If I was a GOP strategist, I'd recommend confirming Srinivasan quickly (who is, by most accounts, not very liberal).
The issue isn't how liberal an Obama nominee is. The issue is how conservative an Obama nominee is NOT. Moderate appointees aren't conservative. That makes them as bad as liberal nominees.

Delay, and then victory in November gets you a conservative nominee.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by El Guapo »

AjD wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I gotta say reading that Sri Srinivasan was confirmed unanimously a few years ago (on top of his other qualifications) makes him a borderline slam dunk pick for Obama. Given that there's at most a 5% chance of the Senate confirming any Obama nominee, most of the value of the pick is as an election talking point. The GOP has helped Obama out immensely by not pretending to consider any nominee. Adding "he was confirmed unanimously a few years ago" as a super concise and clear talking point would be very valuable, and fits in super well with the broader democratic talking point that the Republicans are only there to obstruct and delay, not to govern.
If I was a Democrat strategist, I'd be wary of Obama nominating Srinivasan -- for all the reasons you state.

Why? If I was a GOP strategist, I'd recommend confirming Srinivasan quickly (who is, by most accounts, not very liberal). Doing so will make the GOP look reasonable, organized and smart; while softening the Democract talking point about "do nothing" Republicans as the election looms. That could give the GOP a stronger chance in November. Plus, even if the GOP loses the presidency, it might help them hold the Senate. Either way, they will stave off dealing with the court nomination issue in 2017 (and the possibility of a true liberal justice getting through).
Democrats would take that deal 11 times out of 10. A majority-liberal SCOTUS would pay off for years to come, well beyond the next four years. That's easily worth more than losing one talking point.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16433
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Zarathud »

With locks, preferably. ;)
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

El Guapo wrote:
AjD wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I gotta say reading that Sri Srinivasan was confirmed unanimously a few years ago (on top of his other qualifications) makes him a borderline slam dunk pick for Obama. Given that there's at most a 5% chance of the Senate confirming any Obama nominee, most of the value of the pick is as an election talking point. The GOP has helped Obama out immensely by not pretending to consider any nominee. Adding "he was confirmed unanimously a few years ago" as a super concise and clear talking point would be very valuable, and fits in super well with the broader democratic talking point that the Republicans are only there to obstruct and delay, not to govern.
If I was a Democrat strategist, I'd be wary of Obama nominating Srinivasan -- for all the reasons you state.

Why? If I was a GOP strategist, I'd recommend confirming Srinivasan quickly (who is, by most accounts, not very liberal). Doing so will make the GOP look reasonable, organized and smart; while softening the Democract talking point about "do nothing" Republicans as the election looms. That could give the GOP a stronger chance in November. Plus, even if the GOP loses the presidency, it might help them hold the Senate. Either way, they will stave off dealing with the court nomination issue in 2017 (and the possibility of a true liberal justice getting through).
Democrats would take that deal 11 times out of 10. A majority-liberal SCOTUS would pay off for years to come, well beyond the next four years. That's easily worth more than losing one talking point.
Unless of course they lost the election and more seats came open. The liberal majority could last more than 4 years but it could be gone in just a few months. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy are unlikely to last much longer.
User avatar
AjD
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Beautiful Midwest

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by AjD »

RunningMn9 wrote:
AjD wrote:Why? If I was a GOP strategist, I'd recommend confirming Srinivasan quickly (who is, by most accounts, not very liberal).
The issue isn't how liberal an Obama nominee is. The issue is how conservative an Obama nominee is NOT. Moderate appointees aren't conservative. That makes them as bad as liberal nominees.

Delay, and then victory in November gets you a conservative nominee.
Again, this seems like a game of Poker to me. With gigantic stakes, obviously.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mitch McConnell's big announcement -- that the GOP will delay the Supreme Court issue until the next president is elected!! -- is itself a shrewd strategic move.

With McConnell's announcement as pre-text, perhaps the GOP are intentionally drawing Obama into nominating a moderate. Based on these "delay, delay" Republican talking points, Democrats have every reason to think the GOP will stonewall even a one-time GOP-palatable figure like Srinivasan. Dems will assume a GOP delay on such a "reasonable" nominee would only help their chances with independents and on-the-fence voters in November.

But if the Dems took that bait, a shrewd GOP could then quickly approve Obama's moderate nominee -- and take the "do nothing Republicans" talking point off the table in November (helping them keep the Senate, and increasing their chances in the presidential election).

I may be giving today's GOP too much credit here. Maybe the Tea Party really is in complete control, and maybe the GOP doesn't do "three-steps ahead" strategy like this these days. But I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least a faction of the GOP who are considering this strategy. Anyway, it seems like an obvious move (to me).
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

On the other hand he could nominate Lynch who they would never confirm.

I don't think that would work out well for the Democrats but I could easily believe they expect it would.
User avatar
AjD
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Beautiful Midwest

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by AjD »

Rip wrote:On the other hand he could nominate Lynch who they would never confirm.
Good call... that could be very shrewd for the Dems. Recently vetted by Repubs, yet anathema to the GOP base (pro-abortion; African-American; closely tied to Obama). What to do, McConnell?

I still think a quick approval is in the GOP's best interest. The GOP Presidential bench is too weird and weak this year. The Republicans should cut their losses and aim their chief strategy towards keeping the Senate.

Plus, as Rip mentioned, there will likely be even more Supreme Court changes in the next four years (Ginsberg at least?), and the GOP will totally regret going all-in on a long-shot strategy if they lose the Senate too.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by El Guapo »

AjD wrote:
Rip wrote:On the other hand he could nominate Lynch who they would never confirm.
Good call... that could be very shrewd for the Dems. Recently vetted by Repubs, yet anathema to the GOP base (pro-abortion; African-American; closely tied to Obama). What to do, McConnell?

I still think a quick approval is in the GOP's best interest. The GOP Presidential bench is too weird and weak this year. The Republicans should cut their losses and aim their chief strategy towards keeping the Senate.

Plus, as Rip mentioned, there will likely be even more Supreme Court changes in the next four years (Ginsberg at least?), and the GOP will totally regret going all-in on a long-shot strategy if they lose the Senate too.
If a democrat wins the presidency Ginsburg is very likely to retire within 2 - 3 years. She really should have retired 1 - 2 years ago rather than risk getting replaced by a Republican, so who knows - maybe she'll try to gut it out past 2020, though I doubt it. After Ginsburg (who is soon to turn 83), the next oldest is Breyer at 77. He might be tempted by similar logic to follow Ginsburg out the door.

If President Hillary / Sanders gets to replace Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer (which is reasonably likely, especially if the democrats take the Senate, the next oldest liberal justice is Sotomayor at 61 - so it'll probably be another 10 - 20 years before there *might* be a chance to switch the majority.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by El Guapo »

In other news, at the SEC we're down to 3 commissioners from the usual 5. I wonder if we'll have 5 again before 2017.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
AjD
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Beautiful Midwest

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by AjD »

El Guapo wrote:If President Hillary / Sanders gets to replace Scalia, Ginsburg, and Breyer (which is reasonably likely, especially if the democrats take the Senate, the next oldest liberal justice is Sotomayor at 61 - so it'll probably be another 10 - 20 years before there *might* be a chance to switch the majority.
Yep, stakes are huge. Maybe the biggest I can remember as a voter.

If I was a Republican strategist -- or Mitch McConnell, or the Koch Brothers, etc. -- I'd be more focused on keeping the Senate than the Presidency this year (weird as this year's turning out to be). Too much to lose on the flip side.
User avatar
Dogstar
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:20 pm

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Dogstar »

I'm with AjD in that the Democrats have reasons to be wary of Srinivasan. While he was confirmed by a 97-0 vote which would place pressure on Republicans to confirm, there isn't a wealth of material to confirm that he'd be as left-leaning as everyone hopes. RM9 mentioned that doesn't matter so much as how conservative Srinivasan is as to appeal to Republican Senators. With full acknowledgement that I haven't read his opinions to the extent to establish his positions, the fear would be that Obama could propose him, get him confirmed, and then Srinivasan turns into a reverse-Souter on the Supreme Court.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by LordMortis »

Dogstar wrote:I'm with AjD in that the Democrats have reasons to be wary of Srinivasan. While he was confirmed by a 97-0 vote which would place pressure on Republicans to confirm, there isn't a wealth of material to confirm that he'd be as left-leaning as everyone hopes. RM9 mentioned that doesn't matter so much as how conservative Srinivasan is as to appeal to Republican Senators. With full acknowledgement that I haven't read his opinions to the extent to establish his positions, the fear would be that Obama could propose him, get him confirmed, and then Srinivasan turns into a reverse-Souter on the Supreme Court.
I don't necessarily want a left leaning justice. I just really don't want a Christian Right, Corporate Sponsored, or Tea Party justice.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by RunningMn9 »

This isn't rocket science. All Srinivasan needs to be for a Dem win is he needs to be !Scalia.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Fretmute »

RunningMn9 wrote:This isn't rocket science. All Srinivasan needs to be for a Dem win is he needs to be !Scalia.
Better if he can be ~Scalia.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by El Guapo »

Fretmute wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:This isn't rocket science. All Srinivasan needs to be for a Dem win is he needs to be !Scalia.
Better if he can be ~Scalia.
What if he's #Scalia?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Defiant »

Key Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee emerged from a closed door meeting in Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office Tuesday united in their determination not to consider any nominee to replace Antonin Scalia until the next president takes office.
When asked if they would start the process after the new president took office or if they would consider doing it in the lame duck session, Cornyn replied "No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process."

The Republican members of the Judiciary Commitee were unanimous in agreeing not to move forward with any Obama nominee for the Supreme Court, said Cornyn, who was in the meeting. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who was not in the meeting, later said that GOP senators were told at their weekly lunch that the Judiciary Committee Republicans were in unanimous agreement on the strategy.
link
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by hepcat »

Defiant wrote:That way the American people have a voice in the process."
I love it when they try to frame their partisan obstructionism as altruism.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Defiant »

hepcat wrote:
Defiant quoted an article that had someone else say wrote:That way the American people have a voice in the process."
I love it when they try to frame their partisan obstructionism as altruism.
Damn it, it wasn't me who said that :P :wink:
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by hepcat »

Whoops, I apologize. That was not my intent at all!
Covfefe!
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Alefroth »

hepcat wrote:
Defiant wrote:That way the American people have a voice in the process."
I love it when they try to frame their partisan obstructionism as altruism.
I don't think he's going to like what they have to say.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Holman »

I haven't seen the phrase "unilateral impeachment" used in the media, but it seems like the best term for what Republicans are trying to do.

It's been their dream from the beginning, and now they're making one last unconstitutional run at it.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by LordMortis »

Alefroth wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Defiant wrote:That way the American people have a voice in the process."
I love it when they try to frame their partisan obstructionism as altruism.
I don't think he's going to like what they have to say.
I can't speak 200,000,000 other American People but I'd rather put Hillary Clinton in the White House than let Congress control the Supreme Court and that really hurts to say.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by GreenGoo »

So who does Trump name if he gets the chance?
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Isgrimnur »

Dr. Oz
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:So who does Trump name if he gets the chance?
Maryanne Trump Barry?

:twisted:
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Blackhawk »

Defiant wrote:
Cornyn replied "No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process."
This is a justified backlash against us only having elected the current President to a three-year term.

Oh, wait.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Kraken »

GreenGoo wrote:So who does Trump name if he gets the chance?
I read that one in 10 millennial college grads think Judge Judy is on the SCOTUS, so why not run with that? Reality TV, baby. It's real.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Defiant »

Yeah, someone famous. Judge Judy or Roy Moore seem likely candidates for the short list. And himself. He could totally do both at the same time, right?
Last edited by Defiant on Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

User avatar
Canuck
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:09 am

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Canuck »

hepcat wrote:
Defiant wrote:That way the American people have a voice in the process."
I love it when they try to frame their partisan obstructionism as altruism.
Mr. Obama “has every right to nominate someone,” Mr. McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”


I love it even more when they portray their partisanship as something that Obama is forcing on them. "Oh, no! Obama is making us hold this gun to the Constitution! And now he's trying to make us pull the trigger! Does his evil know no bounds?"
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by RunningMn9 »

Jiminy Cricket wrote:"Mr. Obama has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
First of all, it's Mr. President. Second, it's not his right. It's his Constitutional responsibility.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

RunningMn9 wrote:
Jiminy Cricket wrote:"Mr. Obama has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
First of all, it's Mr. President. Second, it's not his right. It's his Constitutional responsibility.
It is his responsibility to wield an electoral cudgel?


:hawk:
User avatar
Canuck
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:09 am

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Canuck »

RunningMn9 wrote:
Jiminy Cricket wrote:"Mr. Obama has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
First of all, it's Mr. President. Second, it's not his right. It's his Constitutional responsibility.
Ooh, I didn't even catch that. Was that a purposeful slight? Is there much precedent for politicians referring to the president as Mr. "Name" rather than President "Name"?
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by GreenGoo »

Canuck wrote: Is there much precedent for politicians referring to the president as Mr. "Name" rather than President "Name"?
Yes, but the precedent is clearly to slight. It seems to be a Rep thing but I admit I don't remember if Dems did it during Bush's terms.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
Jiminy Cricket wrote:"Mr. Obama has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
First of all, it's Mr. President. Second, it's not his right. It's his Constitutional responsibility.
It is his responsibility to wield an electoral cudgel?


:hawk:
First, what does a hawk with a fish in its talons mean in this context.

Second, in what way is this a cudgel?

Third, I fully expect a Dem to be the next president so the Reps are just going to embarrass themselves stalling this nomination and have it end up back in the Dem hands anyway. But if a Rep is actually elected President, it looks like that Rep is going to be Mr. Trump. Do the Reps who stall really think having Trump name the next Justice is going to be a better deal for them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump has no previous ties and/or is not beholden to the Rep establishment in any way, shape or form. Would he name a far left Judge? Probably not. But neither would Hillary. Would Trump name a far right judge? Probably not. But neither would Hillary.

I don't see the next judge being anything but middle of the road unless someone like Cruz gets elected but so far, that looks like a long shot.

So why spend the political capital and risk pissing off some constituents delaying the inevitable, when the end result won't be *particularly* painful for them anyway.
User avatar
tjg_marantz
Posts: 14688
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Queen City, SK

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by tjg_marantz »

Again. Stop feeding the troll. It's a idiotic as he is being.
Home of the Akimbo AWPs
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by GreenGoo »

tjg_marantz wrote:Again. Stop feeding the troll. It's a idiotic as he is being.
No thanks.

In any case, my 3rd point was directed at the forum as a whole but since we don't have many (any, at this point?) conservatives on the board it's somewhat rhetorical. That said, there seem to be quite a few people who support this sort of obstructionism so I do hope someone, somewhere answers my question.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by El Guapo »

GreenGoo wrote:
tjg_marantz wrote:Again. Stop feeding the troll. It's a idiotic as he is being.
No thanks.

In any case, my 3rd point was directed at the forum as a whole but since we don't have many (any, at this point?) conservatives on the board it's somewhat rhetorical. That said, there seem to be quite a few people who support this sort of obstructionism so I do hope someone, somewhere answers my question.
Trump would nominate the classiest, high quality, most luxurious justice you have ever seen.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:
Jiminy Cricket wrote:"Mr. Obama has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
First of all, it's Mr. President. Second, it's not his right. It's his Constitutional responsibility.
It is his responsibility to wield an electoral cudgel?


:hawk:
First, what does a hawk with a fish in its talons mean in this context.

Second, in what way is this a cudgel?

Third, I fully expect a Dem to be the next president so the Reps are just going to embarrass themselves stalling this nomination and have it end up back in the Dem hands anyway. But if a Rep is actually elected President, it looks like that Rep is going to be Mr. Trump. Do the Reps who stall really think having Trump name the next Justice is going to be a better deal for them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump has no previous ties and/or is not beholden to the Rep establishment in any way, shape or form. Would he name a far left Judge? Probably not. But neither would Hillary. Would Trump name a far right judge? Probably not. But neither would Hillary.

I don't see the next judge being anything but middle of the road unless someone like Cruz gets elected but so far, that looks like a long shot.

So why spend the political capital and risk pissing off some constituents delaying the inevitable, when the end result won't be *particularly* painful for them anyway.
It's a hawk, no its an angry face, no its a hawk, no its an angry face.

No idea. About any of it.

I just can't pass the opportunity to use someone's words against them when they say something that can easily be misconstrued.

I think the entire thing is stupid. I would just let him send who he wants and if they didn't like them just Bork them.
User avatar
tgb
Posts: 30690
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Holy moly... Scalia dead.

Post by tgb »

The American public has already had a say. Twice. This is the worst unconstitutional Republican obstructionism ever. Is there a time limit? If When Hillary is elected will they be able to say "No hearings until after the next election 4 years from now"?

Although Judge Judy as a member of SCOTUS would be awesome
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
Post Reply