|
Wonder what his opinion on the death penalty is now.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
peengers posted:Wonder what his opinion on the death penalty is now. In the grimdark future of the 41st millenium, bored 41stmillenials will amuse themselves by briefly resurrecting dead religionists and asking them what they think about there not being an afterlife, then letting them die again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
So reddit (YEAH YEAH) was saying the record amount of days to confirm a justice was 140+ or so? Obama has almost a year, but at the same time there was a point where it took 2 years back in 18 something or other (yeah I dont remember dates and stats well wanna fight about it?) so question is, what is the longest they could conceivably drag this out
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:So reddit (YEAH YEAH) was saying the record amount of days to confirm a justice was 140+ or so? Obama has almost a year, but at the same time there was a point where it took 2 years back in 18 something or other (yeah I dont remember dates and stats well wanna fight about it?) January 20th, 2017
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Washington Journal on CSPAN right now taking viewer calls. Everyone calling in giving opinions on Justice Scalia and should the president make a new appointment. So far no crazy folks screaming about Obama murdering Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Washington Journal on CSPAN right now taking viewer calls. Everyone calling in giving opinions on Justice Scalia and should the president make a new appointment. So far no crazy folks screaming about Obama murdering Scalia. Can't kill what is already dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
oh to live in the Kojimaverse where Obama touched down on Marine One in his nanoarmor and killed him with cybernetically enhanced bare hands
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
And Bob Cusack just finished explaining over the phone how the senate will attempt to technically stay in session for the next 11 months so the president can't make a recess appointment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Is it known what is most likely to happen at this point? Some senate trickery to avoid Obama picking one or like Obama executive actioning it? Or just GOP stonewalling? Or just the eventual acceptance of someone? If they do try to stall it for that long does it damage the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
The GOP has already declared their intention to stall it hardcore, and noone knows if that will work for them or if they will suffer for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
teacup posted:Is it known what is most likely to happen at this point? Some senate trickery to avoid Obama picking one or like Obama executive actioning it? Or just GOP stonewalling? Or just the eventual acceptance of someone? They will stall it because for many republicans their districts are either successfully gerrymandered or so deeply red-entrenched they have no chance of losing to a democrat; only to a Republican challenger who primarys them out. This means that they have to do everything in their power to thwart evil Obama's plan for America, or else risk turning into a RINO. However this will in fact prove unpopular with the rest of America, resulting in even more overall dislike of the GOP. The result is they stall, the house stays republican the presidency stays Democrat and the Senate is maybe up for grabs. Meanwhile the Supreme court is 4-4 deadlocked. So I hope you weren't a fan of poo poo getting done in Washington
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The GOP has already declared their intention to stall it hardcore, and noone knows if that will work for them or if they will suffer for it. They'll suffer for it. The looming SCOTUS is like the only reason a lot of liberals even bother voting. If they want to increase liberal turnout more power to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
two bernie smilies and no scalia emote smh goons
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The GOP has already declared their intention to stall it hardcore, and noone knows if that will work for them or if they will suffer for it. It'll probably go pretty well for them at first but if they honestly want to make this a major campaign platform they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot. Obama is probably gonna throw them a bone and pick a pretty moderate justice. It'll make them look like idiots during election season and give the democrats plenty of ammo. On a personal level I was ambivalent on voting this year but now this has turned into one of the most important votes I'll ever make, if not the most important. If they really want to stretch this 11 months out all the while the supreme court will be making liberal decisions then I support their idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Dude from Alabama just called CSPAN complaining all of the justices currently sitting on the bench are liberal Jews and they need to appoint a white Christian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:They will stall it because for many republicans their districts are either successfully gerrymandered or so deeply red-entrenched they have no chance of losing to a democrat; only to a Republican challenger who primarys them out. This means that they have to do everything in their power to thwart evil Obama's plan for America, or else risk turning into a RINO. However this will in fact prove unpopular with the rest of America, resulting in even more overall dislike of the GOP. The result is they stall, the house stays republican the presidency stays Democrat and the Senate is maybe up for grabs. Meanwhile the Supreme court is 4-4 deadlocked. So I hope you weren't a fan of poo poo getting done in Washington One nitpick: the senate is the only half of congress that gets a vote and it is not gerrymandered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:So reddit (YEAH YEAH) was saying the record amount of days to confirm a justice was 140+ or so? Obama has almost a year, but at the same time there was a point where it took 2 years back in 18 something or other (yeah I dont remember dates and stats well wanna fight about it?) If bernie or hillary wins the general they will almost certainly stop stonewalling obama's pick just out of the specter of fear that a vengeful new dem president with a Senate in their pocket will appoint the Islamic shock himself for sheer spite. That's my considered Internet man opinion anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know this really isn't the thread for it but what's trending with the economy that is any worse than the barely above water bullshit we've been going through since 2008? Really the wrong thread, but to sum up, economies are inherently cyclical. There are a ton of signs right now that we're heading into a down trend (oil demand, China, etc.) and this is making economics especially worried because the normal reaction to an economic downturn by central banks is not avaliable since interest rates are still effectively zero due to the fallout from the financial crisis. The one thing that's changed very recently is that European banks are doing incredibly poorly right now, and there are tons of rumors that Deutsche Bank is on the brink of collapse. As in, at some points last week they were trading below their 2008 levels and they released a press release that's the equivalent of this. While everyone knows that letting a bank as big as Deutsche Bank go bust is 2008-levels-bad, the ECB might be prevented from doing anything drastic because of petty EU politics. Chuu fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Has Obama got any candidates that use a wheelchair? That might do it. Bob Dole asks you to ask Bob Dole about what having a wheelchair does for causes that guys like Bob Dole support
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Obama should resign and Biden should nominate Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
You don't need 60 votes for cloture on judicial appointments any more right ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Obama should resign and Biden should nominate Obama. I wish on his final week he'd resign just so we could have a president Biden 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Dude from Alabama just called CSPAN complaining all of the justices currently sitting on the bench are liberal Jews and they need to appoint a white Christian. Roy Moore watches CSpan?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:One nitpick: the senate is the only half of congress that gets a vote and it is not gerrymandered. I didn't realize this; wonder it that means we'll see some serious Senate vs House conflicts over this
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You don't need 60 votes for cloture on judicial appointments any more right ? Theoretically you do for the Supreme Court but you don't need to filibuster if you control the senate. You just bottle up the nominee in committee and never give them a vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Theoretically you do for the Supreme Court but you don't need to filibuster if you control the senate. You just bottle up the nominee in committee and never give them a vote. It's probably more a question for what happens if the Democrats retain the presidency and regain a Senate majority. They would have to use the nuclear option to abolish the filibuster if the Republicans still refuse to confirm the Clinton or Sanders nominees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
There's no actual reason why Obama shouldn't nominate a new justice, right? It's literally just the Republicans saying "it's not fair!" I mean, it's in the job description and Obama is still President for like another year and the next presidential race hasn't even started
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Levitate posted:There's no actual reason why Obama shouldn't nominate a new justice, right? It's literally just the Republicans saying "it's not fair!" Yes, but we've been dealing with 7 years of Republicans in Washington screaming "it's not fair!" because President Obama is breathing, much less making recess appointments or using executive orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Levitate posted:There's no actual reason why Obama shouldn't nominate a new justice, right? It's literally just the Republicans saying "it's not fair!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Adar posted:January 20th, 2017 There's no obligation to confirm anyone except public pressure so it could be 2019 or 2021. Of course a scenario where a Democrat wins the White House but the Republicans hold the Senate is not very likely, but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Man this could be a legit Constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Antti posted:There's no obligation to confirm anyone except public pressure so it could be 2019 or 2021. Of course a scenario where a Democrat wins the White House but the Republicans hold the Senate is not very likely, but it's possible. The obligation is 220+ years of constitutional government and standard practice. That is a Big Thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
It seems like if the Republicans wanted to reject OBama out of hand without being obstructionist they would allow him to nominate someone, draw out the hearing, and then vote the person down bringing you close to the election. Of course the real problem Republicans have is if the Democrats retake the Senate AND win the Presidency and then someone more liberal can pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The obligation is 220+ years of constitutional government and standard practice. That is a Big Thing. The screeching white-hot ball of rage thinks that preventing Obama from putting a gay-loving corporation-hating justice on the bench is a Big Thing. It's a problem baked into the constitution with its assumption of collegial branches of government and this might be it breaking down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Antti posted:
Yeah that's what I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Levitate posted:There's no actual reason why Obama shouldn't nominate a new justice, right? It's literally just the Republicans saying "it's not fair!" It could help people to vote Democrat in the election. The Republicans are falling over themselves to shout out that they will delay this, Obama could show how hypocritical they are if they voted one in on Reagan's last year, why not this. Hell, they are already lying on Fox News that if Obama did this he would be the only president to do so, implying hes overstepping his bounds therefore STEALING YOUR FREEDOMS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Levitate posted:There's no actual reason why Obama shouldn't nominate a new justice, right? It's literally just the Republicans saying "it's not fair!" Right. Obama will nominate a new justice pretty soon, once he's had time to talk with the potential appointees and likely after Scalia's funeral has occurred. However what will happen is that nomination will get sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the chairman Chuck Grassley will just sit on it. Without the chairman's support it won't get brought up for discussion or vote, and as far as I know there is no way to force a vote in the Senate like in the House with a discharge petition. What is interesting is that, short of another Harriet Myers, if the nomination were allowed to go to a vote it would likely pass easily. There are still enough GOP senators that hold the view that the Senate should maintain decorum in its review of nominations and not reject qualified candidates just because they disagree with their style of jurisprudence. Unfortunately the tea party bozos have more power at the moment and the leadership reflects that. We'll see how far Obama is willing to go to try and get a vote but even if he starter vetoing everything and shut down the government I'm not sure that the GOP would budge. The only way I see his nomination getting a vote is if the person is reasonably center-ish and Hillary or Bernie wins in November. In that case the GOP might try to push through his nominee to prevent the possibility of Hillary or Bernie appointing someone much more liberal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Obama won't go nuclear/do a recess appointment. He'll pick a nominee, they'll languish in committee purgatory, and it'll be brought up by Obama and Clinton/Sanders on the campaign trail during every speech and every interview. Bonus points because all three of them are former or current Senators, so they can talk about how they were more than happy to vote on W. Bush appointees, even if they didn't like who he picked. I just don't see this as being a winning issue for the Republicans. Unless you're a die-hard anti-gay, anti-abortion Republican/Tea Partier, you're going to view this as needless obstructionism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
The die-hard obstructionists though will insist the Senate shut the president down in any way possible, because the fringe started in almost immediately with Obama murdered Scalia and this is the beginning of the end of the Constitution unless Mitch McConnell saves us from the Islamic Shock menace in the White House. I think Obama will pick a nominee, the Senate will stall, and then he might go nuclear and make a recess appointment anyway. No one will like it when the SCOTUS hands down no decisions or one of the less conservative judges moves over to the liberal side of the bench and makes it a 5-3 decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Except that a recess appointment takes away a valuable political weapon during an election year, and only lasts until the end of the next Senate term. Plus it plays into the KING DICTATOR OBAMA narrative that the Republicans keep trying to make stick. I don't think Obama is dumb enough to do that when a tied court is already a net gain for liberals due to the makeup of the lower courts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:32
|
|