|
Delaying the nomination until after the election makes the most sense from a functional perspective to be honest. It brings at least some level of democratic control over the least democratic branch of government.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Delaying the nomination until after the election makes the most sense from a functional perspective to be honest. It brings at least some level of democratic control over the least democratic branch of government. That democratic control was exercised in 2008 and again in 2012 and it's loving shameful that there are people in this country that believe the voting populace can't look at a loving calendar and count to 4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That democratic control was exercised in 2008 and again in 2012 and it's loving shameful that there are people in this country that believe the voting populace can't look at a loving calendar and count to 4. It was also exercised in 2014, giving Republicans control of the Senate. But more to the point it would be the first time in my lifetime where the Supreme Court was an actual election issue that people could base their vote on, rather than having the court's composition decided by strategic retirement or happenstance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It was also exercised in 2014, giving Republicans control of the Senate. But more to the point it would be the first time in my lifetime where the Supreme Court was an actual election issue that people could base their vote on, rather than having the court's composition decided by strategic retirement or happenstance. So you think the American people aren't aware that the SCOTUS is appointed by the executive with the advice and consent of the Senate? I don't know where you're going with this - first you tried to insinuate the voting public doesn't know when January 20th is, now you're trying to paint us as so drat stupid that we can't tell the difference between the executive and the legislature. Going to try talking poo poo about the parties being no different next?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
It really doesn't because voters still get no direct control over who the president nominates, under the current arrangement the voters already had their say when they reelected Obama in 2012. The only reason to hold off on filling the vacancy is to give republicans a chance to keep some amount of control in the court, and you can sure as hell bet they wouldn't be so generous if the shoe were on the other foot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So you think the American people aren't aware that the SCOTUS is appointed by the executive with the advice and consent of the Senate? I don't know where you're going with this - first you tried to insinuate the voting public doesn't know when January 20th is, now you're trying to paint us as so drat stupid that we can't tell the difference between the executive and the legislature. Going to try talking poo poo about the parties being no different next? You need to calm down and stop thinking so emotionally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
There is such a joy in me that I can not say. Never in my life did I imagine that Antonin Scalia would do something I'd agree with but this weekend he proved me wrong. What a time to be alive!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
bango skank posted:It really doesn't because voters still get no direct control over who the president nominates, under the current arrangement the voters already had their say when they reelected Obama in 2012. The only reason to hold off on filling the vacancy is to give republicans a chance to keep some amount of control in the court, and you can sure as hell bet they wouldn't be so generous if the shoe were on the other foot. It would constitute significantly more political control than the 0% they currently have. Short of national referenda on justices I think delaying appointments until after the next election (including by-elections) would probably be the best way to give the public some sway over the Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You need to calm down and stop thinking so emotionally. Says the guy so butthurt about the constitutional separation of powers that he's demanding they be curtailed until he gives the all clear. Thug Lessons posted:It would constitute significantly more political control than the 0% they currently have. Short of national referenda on justices I think delaying appointments until after the next election (including by-elections) would probably be the best way to give the public some sway over the Court. They're lifetime appointments specifically so they aren't governed by "popular control."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It would constitute significantly more political control than the 0% they currently have. Short of national referenda on justices I think delaying appointments until after the next election (including by-elections) would probably be the best way to give popular control over the Court. There is structurally no popular control over the Supreme Court. It is as the Founders intended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Says the guy so butthurt about the constitutional separation of powers that he's demanding they be curtailed until he gives the all clear. No idea what this is even supposed to refer to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There is structurally no popular control over the Supreme Court. It is as the Founders intended. I know, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No idea what this is even supposed to refer to. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It was also exercised in 2014, giving Republicans control of the Senate. But more to the point it would be the first time in my lifetime where the Supreme Court was an actual election issue that people could base their vote on, rather than having the court's composition decided by strategic retirement or happenstance. Kinda disingenuous, since the SC has several septuagenarians and sexagenarians, and them kicking/retiring has been in the forebrain of many voters for the better part of a half-decade. That there's an actual opening now adds a bit of spice, but "president may need to fill 1-4 seats at any time" is a baseline expectation. The GOP has done more damage to the political process with their wanton and excessive blocking of appointments for literally no reason outside of "yeah, they're qualified, but nominated by D so *FART*"--I know they'll only be rewarded for this behavior, but it makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It would constitute significantly more political control than the 0% they currently have. Short of national referenda on justices I think delaying appointments until after the next election (including by-elections) would probably be the best way to give the public some sway over the Court. I think the current rules have been working fine up until now, there's no reason to change things now just because republicans suddenly think it isn't fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Alright, so where's the cuttoff when a president isn't able to nominate judges anymore? There's a year to go until we've got a new suit in the office, so at least 12 months, how about 18? Is that too much? What if a president is only serving in their first term and it isn't clear they're going to get a second term, should they just be unable to nominate replacement justices in case someone else takes over after the election? The window coincides with the window of when it's appropriate to talk about gun control after a mass shooting. It's always too soon, man. Quit politicizing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I know, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be. You're correct. There are many terrible ideas that hold sway over us due to their origins with the framers. Having a Supreme Court that isn't required to homage to the voting public isn't one of them. The coming delays to fill the Lich's seat are purely political bullshit and anyone saying otherwise is being willfully ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Kinda disingenuous, since the SC has several septuagenarians and sexagenarians, and them kicking/retiring has been in the forebrain of many voters for the better part of a half-decade. That there's an actual opening now adds a bit of spice, but "president may need to fill 1-4 seats at any time" is a baseline expectation. Do you have any evidence of that? I've looked at exit polls and the like and never seen Supreme Court nominations as a major issue, whereas if (when) the Senate fails to confirm it's likely to be front and center in the debates and voter's minds. It's kind of an unprecedented opportunity to give the public a real say. Also, both sides are guilty of the kind of politicized blocking of nominees that you're talking about. There's a very famous case from the Reagan era when the Democratic Senate refused to confirm the President's nominee Robert Bork, which is how we ended up with centrist Anthony Kennedy instead. Let's not even mention FDR and the court-packing scheme. I haven't been keeping up with the more minor nominations so for all I know you're right that the Republicans have amped it up, but when it comes to the Supreme Court at least it's been a political shitshow for a long time, probably nearly forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:You're correct. There are many terrible ideas that hold sway over us due to their origins with the framers. Having a Supreme Court that isn't required to homage to the voting public isn't one of them. The coming delays to fill the Lich's seat are purely political bullshit and anyone saying otherwise is being willfully ignorant. It may be purely political bullshit, but it will be purely political bullshit that works, so say hello to the new precedent
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:You're correct. There are many terrible ideas that hold sway over us due to their origins with the framers. Having a Supreme Court that isn't required to homage to the voting public isn't one of them. The coming delays to fill the Lich's seat are purely political bullshit and anyone saying otherwise is being willfully ignorant. That's absolutely true, but it's a case where Republican opportunism and the interests of democracy happen to align.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
It's like they aren't even aware that there are lower-level judicial positions subject to public elections, let alone that those positions have all devolved into contests of how "tough on
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Judges are not elected officials for good reason. They are supposed to be politically impartial. Leaving the nomination til the next election completely drops that fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Alright, so where's the cuttoff when a president isn't able to nominate judges anymore? There's a year to go until we've got a new suit in the office, so at least 12 months, how about 18? Is that too much? What if a president is only serving in their first term and it isn't clear they're going to get a second term, should they just be unable to nominate replacement justices in case someone else takes over after the election? If I was designing a system from the ground up, I would use one of two systems: either have judicial appointments come from the judiciary itself which is likely to promote the best jurists rather than politicizing the Court, or have the Court elected directly by the American people to make it a democratic rather than a partisan institution. Barring that, I would say that any given system of electoral control over the nomination of justices would be a step up from the system we have now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:Judges are not elected officials for good reason. They are supposed to be politically impartial. Leaving the nomination til the next election completely drops that fig leaf. Except they aren't remotely politically impartial and are nominated and confirmed on the basis of their politics and the political balance in the Court. If you want a politically impartial system (as far as that's possible) have the judiciary appoint, or at least nominate, their own candidates, but of course that's never going to happen in the US, so I'll settle for the next best thing which is democratic control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It may be purely political bullshit, but it will be purely political bullshit that works, so say hello to the new precedent God willing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Say hello to Chief Justice Hector Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Do you have any evidence of that? I've looked at exit polls and the like and never seen Supreme Court nominations as a major issue, whereas if (when) the Senate fails to confirm it's likely to be front and center in the debates and voter's minds. It's kind of an unprecedented opportunity to give the public a real say. It's not a primary driver, but it comes up plenty when discussing candidates with people and there are a ton of position papers on it. Hell, half the Democratic primary crowd's position is "I don't like Bernie/Clinton, but I'll still vote for them if nominated because of the Supreme Court picks they'll likely have to make" To your second point,  (See: hundreds of federal court vacancies under obama; also Bork was a tire fire and objecting to a candidate based on competency is completely different than admitting they'd be fine in the job and denying them anyway) FAUXTON posted:Say hello to Chief Justice Hector Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:It's not a primary driver, but it comes up plenty when discussing candidates with people and there are a ton of position papers on it. Hell, half the Democratic primary crowd's position is "I don't like Bernie/Clinton, but I'll still vote for them if nominated because of the Supreme Court picks they'll likely have to make" Stuff like "well half the Democrats say" is meaningless faff unless you have evidence to back it up. quote:To your second point, I did say "for all I know you're right that the Republicans have amped it up". Did you read that part?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Say hello to Chief Justice Hector Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho You were flipping out ten minutes ago about how I was supposedly "painting the American public as stupid" and now you are, quite literally, doing that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:He more or less opined in a dissent against a stay of execution that the SCOTUS has never ruled that Constitution forbids or condones the execution of the innocence, and that it's something they've purposefully never ruled on. He also states that by prior jurisprudence, they don't generally consider actual innocence to be in their Constitutional jurisdiction for rulings. That's interesting. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You were flipping out ten minutes ago about how I was supposedly "painting the American public as stupid" and now you are, quite literally, doing that. Nah, I'm still giving people credit for knowing who they're voting for and how long they're granting them power, but you're still over there assuming nobody knows what the president does or how long he's in office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Also, both sides are guilty of the kind of politicized blocking of nominees that you're talking about. There's a very famous case from the Reagan era when the Democratic Senate refused to confirm the President's nominee Robert Bork, which is how we ended up with centrist Anthony Kennedy instead. Let's not even mention FDR and the court-packing scheme. I haven't been keeping up with the more minor nominations so for all I know you're right that the Republicans have amped it up, but when it comes to the Supreme Court at least it's been a political shitshow for a long time, probably nearly forever. Okay do you understand the difference between refusing to confirm a specific (terrible) nominee yet still considering (and approving) another qualified nominee, versus refusing to allow a president to appoint anyone at all, no matter who, because *mumble*mumble* he's vaguely too close to the end of his term according to this end-of-term standard I just made up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay do you understand the difference between refusing to confirm a specific (terrible) nominee yet still considering (and approving) another qualified nominee, versus refusing to allow a president to appoint anyone at all, no matter who, because *mumble*mumble* he's vaguely too close to the end of his term according to this end-of-term standard I just made up? The Republicans have said they'd accept the nomination of a "consensus candidate" which is exactly what Anthony Kennedy was. Of course, we'll never know if they're telling the truth because Obama almost certainly isn't going to nominate a consensus candidate because he's banking on a November win to push through a partisan candidate just like the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The Republicans have said they'd accept the nomination of a "consensus candidate" which is exactly what Anthony Kennedy was. Of course, we'll never know if they're telling the truth because Obama almost certainly isn't going to nominate a consensus candidate because he's banking on a November win to push through a partisan candidate just like the GOP. Who are these mythical Republicans that are willing to accept any candidate? Gonna need to slap a massive "NEEDS CITATION" on this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:have judicial appointments come from the judiciary itself which is likely to promote the best jurists rather than politicizing the Court quote:have the Court elected directly by the American people to make it a democratic rather than a partisan institution and the hilarity just keeps on coming ahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:His death is probably gonna save public unions, too. Oh no, I benefit from collective bargaining but don't want to pay a few dollars to support it! Tyranny, tyranny, the blood of the Patriots is being spilled! Scalia is still dead and this is still the best news all month. Racist shitbag who spent his whole life trying to gently caress over anyone not like himself. The only tragedy is that he may have passed peacefully in his sleep. Hopefully he had a few moments of consciousness where he realized that 1) he was dying and 2) a Democrat was probably going to be nominate a liberal judge to replace him and undue all of his poo poo work from the last quarter of a century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Who are these mythical Republicans that are willing to accept any candidate? Gonna need to slap a massive "NEEDS CITATION" on this one. I didn't say "any candidate", I said "a 'consensus candidate'", meaning one that was viewed as a moderate acceptable to both sides. So far from what I can find, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Lindsey Graham have , though I'll admit saying "the Republicans" instead of "some Republicans" is a bit deceptive because it's not coming from Mitch McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The Republicans have said they'd accept the nomination of a "consensus candidate" which is exactly what Anthony Kennedy was. Of course, we'll never know if they're telling the truth because Obama almost certainly isn't going to nominate a consensus candidate because he's banking on a November win to push through a partisan candidate just like the GOP. A minute ago you were saying a president shouldn't nominate a SCOTUS Justice in the last year of his term because you want democratic control over the nomination, now you're saying it's fine not to have that democratic control after all if Obama picks someone you like? Could you like, I don't know, be consistent from post to post? What exactly do you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A minute ago you were saying a president shouldn't nominate a SCOTUS Justice in the last year of his term because you want democratic control over the nomination, now you're saying it's fine not to have that democratic control after all if Obama picks someone you like? You'll notice I never actually stated the latter or said anything that logically implied I believe it. The best outcome would be for the Republicans to refuse to confirm any Obama nominee and set a precedent. The only reason I said anything at all there was to respond to your comments on Bork and Kennedy. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I didn't say "any candidate", I said "a 'consensus candidate'", meaning one that was viewed as a moderate acceptable to both sides. So far from what I can find, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Lindsey Graham have , though I'll admit saying "the Republicans" instead of "some Republicans" is a bit deceptive because it's not coming from Mitch McConnell. Thug Lessons posted:You'll notice I never actually stated the latter or said anything that logically implied I believe it. The best outcome would be for the Republicans to refuse to confirm any Obama nominee and set a precedent. The only reason I said anything at all there was to respond to your comments on Bork and Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:31
|
|