|
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. So a single senator said he might consider another GOP Senator--possibly--as an acceptable nominee. Meanwhile you have 2 Senators running for the presidency who will go balls-out to stop any action, and McConnell who's declared this another point of obstruction. Plus probably over a score of others whom have tweeted their commitment to that play. DnD is hilariously easy to troll, I get it, but at least stick with a set of points. Right now I think you're trying to go full anarchocapitalism/athenian democracy, but I'm not sure if that's your main "goal" and you're poorly masquerading as a republican, or if you're a republican poorly flying the  flag.
OAquinas fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Feb 15, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
cheese posted:Have you been living inside of a cave for the last 10 years? Any nominee who is not an extreme reactionary conservative with 'Jesus Saves' tattooed across his chest is going to be painted a communist liberal who eats freedom babies. A republican proposing "moderation" in the Obama era will face a summary primary-from-the-right execution as soon as legally allowed. This is not 2006 - ask Eric Cantor and John Boehner. There is no possible "acceptable to both sides" because nothing that Obama (or Hillary) could offer up would be acceptable by the increasingly out of control far right, and anyone they would accept would never be nominated by a Democrat. I don't really feel confident condemning the Republicans for rejecting consensus candidates that haven't even been nominated yet. But if you're right, then if Obama wants to score points he should nominate a moderate, maybe even slightly right-leaning jurist and force the Republicans to reject him/keep it from ever reaching the floor and thereby embarrass themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
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. The Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, had the opportunity to set that precedent in 1988, but they chose to confirm Kennedy instead of rejecting all nominations to let the people decide. Making up a new precedent right now when it's potentially politically advantageous to do so seems a bit self-serving don't you think? Why is this only coming up now, we could have hashed this out anytime in the past umpteen years. If it's so important, start the constitutional amendment process to bar appointments in a president's fourth year. Or offer Obama a deal: we'll approve your nominee if both parties publicly agree that starting with the next president we'll respect a new precedent that fourth-year nominations will be rejected until the next president is inaugurated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, had the opportunity to set that precedent in 1988, but they chose to confirm Kennedy instead of rejecting all nominations to let the people decide. It's obviously and clearly self-serving, but the effects would be a net positive by bringing the Supreme Court under some level of democratic control, at least for one election and potentially beyond. I've already said this. If I wanted to start a constitutional amendment campaign I'd start it for something I think is ideal rather than this, which I like because I think it's achievable and superior to the current system. That said, I get the impression that you oppose delaying the confirmation. Why? If Scalia had died in 2008, are you sure you'd feel the same way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's obviously and clearly self-serving, but the effects would be a net positive by bringing the Supreme Court under some level of democratic control, at least for one election and potentially beyond. I've already said this. If I wanted to start a constitutional amendment campaign I'd start it for something I think is ideal rather than this, which I like because I think it's achievable and superior to the current system. Presidents pick SC appointments. Full stop. It's kind of a perk of the job (written in the constitution). The Senate's job is to provide "advice and consent"--aka, "vet the appointee to make sure they're not a drooling idiot." So yeah, if W got another pick, then I'd expect the Senate to look closely at the nominee and approve/reject it accordingly. Roberts-caliber? Sure. Harriet "loving" Miers? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:So a single senator said he might consider another GOP Senator--possibly--as an acceptable nominee. Meanwhile you have 2 Senators running for the presidency who will go balls-out to stop any action, and McConnell who's declared this another point of obstruction. Plus probably over a score of others whom have tweeted their commitment to that play. Yes, I think you're right, I was overstating Republican support for a consensus candidate. To be honest I based that off an NPR report I heard last night and forgot the details. Anyway I'm not trolling except in the sense that I don't mind going against the prevailing opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Presidents pick SC appointments. Full stop. It's kind of a perk of the job (written in the constitution). The Senate's job is to provide "advice and consent"--aka, "vet the appointee to make sure they're not a drooling idiot." That's at least a consistent view so props for that. However I would prefer a democratic system to the one in the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's obviously and clearly self-serving, but the effects would be a net positive by bringing the Supreme Court under some level of democratic control, at least for one election and potentially beyond. No it wouldn't because it's not likely the republicans will honor it when the shoe is on the other foot, they had no interest in delaying all appointments in the 80's. If you're sincere then agreeing to confirm Obama's choice in exchange for a gentleman's agreement to create a new precedent would establish good faith, and since the republicans aren't favored to win it would still likely benefit them in the next term. Otherwise it just looks like self-serving maneuver that the republicans have no reason not to abandon when it serves them. quote:That said, I get the impression that you oppose delaying the confirmation. Why? If Scalia had died in 2008, are you sure you'd feel the same way? I'm not the one conveniently making up new precedent when it suits me, and "in my imagination Democrats totally would have done this in 2008 I bet" isn't very convincing. Bush got all his nominees through except obviously the joke nomination of Harriet Miers which even republicans refused to support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it wouldn't because it's not likely the republicans will honor it when the shoe is on the other foot, they had no interest in delaying all appointments in the 80's. If you're sincere then agreeing to confirm Obama's choice in exchange for a gentleman's agreement to create a new precedent would establish good faith, and since the republicans aren't favored to win it would still likely benefit them in the next term. I don't mean it'll establish a precedent that parties will impose on themselves, but that if we have a situation where the Senate is controlled by one party and the White House by another we'll see repeats of this. And at the worst the Supreme Court gets to be an election issue for the first time I've ever heard of, maybe even the first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't mean it'll establish a precedent that parties will impose on themselves, but that if we have a situation where the Senate is controlled by one party and the White House by another we'll see repeats of this. And at the worst the Supreme Court gets to be an election issue for the first time I've ever heard of, maybe even the first time ever. No it's bad to gently caress with functional government this way. I would prefer if Bush had gotten another Roberts on the court to the prospect of a deadlocked government routinely holding up nominations on some vague arbitrary schedule if one party thinks its political fortunes might change. If you want democratic control of supreme court appointments for some godawful reason then amend the constitution, staggered 18-year terms with each justice stepping down on a set schedule every two years right after the new congress is seated, guaranteeing every President will get to cycle 2 or 4 justices through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's obviously and clearly self-serving, but the effects would be a net positive by bringing the Supreme Court under some level of democratic control, at least for one election and potentially beyond. I've already said this. If I wanted to start a constitutional amendment campaign I'd start it for something I think is ideal rather than this, which I like because I think it's achievable and superior to the current system. Look, a great example of why we need an independent judiciary in order to provide a counter force to the will of the idiot mob.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I bet you something like 80% of the public doesn't know this. When I read Scalia died I announced it to an American history teacher who happened to be sitting in my kitchen at the time and she said "who?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
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? What? The Supreme Court is fine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:What? The Supreme Court is fine? Well obviously there's the issue of the lack of term limits resulting in relics sitting on the bench long past their time, but changing rules regarding who's allowed to nominate judges and when isn't going to fix that. e: For a start on that issue though, I like the idea mentioned by VitalSigns of having 18 year term limits with outgoing justices stepping down every other year. bango skank fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
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. What is the precedent. Democrats don't get to appoint Supreme Court justices ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't mean it'll establish a precedent that parties will impose on themselves, but that if we have a situation where the Senate is controlled by one party and the White House by another we'll see repeats of this. And at the worst the Supreme Court gets to be an election issue for the first time I've ever heard of, maybe even the first time ever. The Supreme Court is an election issue every year. What the gently caress are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
The Supreme Court is always an issue because there's always at least one judge on the bench so old that you're expecting them to drop dead any day. Maybe none of us expected it to be Scalia before RBG (though everyone here certainly hoped, I'm sure) but everybody in America knew that either Obama or the next president was going to be picking at least one new SC member. Obama won in 2012, Scalia died before the next president got the job or indeed even won the drat primaries, ergo it's Obama's pick. Suck it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Fix posted:When I read Scalia died I announced it to an American history teacher who happened to be sitting in my kitchen at the time and she said "who?" Well I bet she knows Scalia now that he's history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Well obviously there's the issue of the lack of term limits resulting in relics sitting on the bench long past their time, but changing rules regarding who's allowed to nominate judges and when isn't going to fix that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's at least a consistent view so props for that. However I would prefer a democratic system to the one in the Constitution. Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
cheese posted: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! It goes from a dumb whinefest to hilarity when you find out that the plaintiffs in the case pretty much intentionally took a loss at the circuit court level to get the case to the Supreme Court to get the law struck down nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Hopping on to the thread train kind of late (though I loved watching the news unfurl in real time), but I'm definitely in the "don't want to celebrate death but I'm totally glad he's gone from the SCOTUS" camp. If nothing else, Scalia was an absolutely terrible judge - his jurisprudence was a joke, and he said and did things from the relatively protected position of a SCOTUS seat that would get justices in lesser courts run out of town on rails. If any city-level justice made that argument about where people of color should go to school or about how one's innocence doesn't save them from a death sentence, the protests would make Ferguson look like a community bake sale. America is stronger for his not being on the Supreme Court any longer. And I look forward to the Republicans dying in droves on this obstruction hill. I'm confident that Bernie's, and even Hillary's, campaign machines will be able to produce bales of hay with it. I mean, the Republican congress doesn't have a very high approval rating already, if people haven't noticed, and only Republican die-hards will approve of more government obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted: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.   People barely even know the Supreme Court exists, and you want them to be responsible for electing Supreme Court judges? It's already bad enough electing judges on the local level, and you think it'll be better by having general elections for the Supreme Court? That that will de-politicize the Court somehow? There isn't a  large enough for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
I like that judge he has a nice smile
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:What happens when one dies in office? Does the sitting president just get an extra nomination? Sure why not, nominate someone to finish out the term if a justice retires or dies. The slight advantage of an extra pick is mostly nulled because the term isn't that long, deaths will cluster near the end anyway. It also takes the gaming out of retiring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:However I would prefer a democratic system to the one in the Constitution. And so it boils down to the old man yells at cloud argument. No rational basis, no valid reason to call the constitution wrong, just "my opinion, maaan."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:And I look forward to the Republicans dying in droves on this obstruction hill. I'm confident that Bernie's, and even Hillary's, campaign machines will be able to produce bales of hay with it. I mean, the Republican congress doesn't have a very high approval rating already, if people haven't noticed, and only Republican die-hards will approve of more government obstruction. Yes, the football is right there ready to be punted, but Lucy is going to yank it away yet again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Elected judges is quite possibly the worst feature of American democracy
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Why don't we do direct elections of the Surgeon General too? Who needs all this high level vetting of extremely skilled professionals in fields that few laypeople understand? Sounds like partisan backdoor dealing to me. Direct democracy always = better than. I'm not really in favor direct election of commissioned officers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's at least a consistent view so props for that. However I would prefer a democratic system to the one in the Constitution. Well, there's a democratic process for changing the constitution, so maybe that's where you should start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Why don't we do direct elections of the Surgeon General too? Who needs all this high level vetting of extremely skilled professionals in fields that few laypeople understand? Sounds like partisan backdoor dealing to me. Direct democracy always = better than. Why draw the line at the Supreme Court? Hold direct elections for every position that's currently appointed by the president with confirmation. Elect an entire new cabinet every four years with The People voting for every single member individually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted: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. There are a number of problems with your idea. One is that some states do elect their supreme court justices, and it's a poo poo show. Kentucky, for instance, just kept putting in pro-coal "jurists" which lead to the broad form land deed issues. It took a constitutional amendment to stop that chicanery. It's a bad idea, because money is too important in elections. Two, you're illusion that having a justice on the line should mean that no nomination until election is, frankly, stupid. The logic would dictate that if, on the day of inauguration, a justice died in a car wreck, that the court remain undermanned for four years. Your pivot to "well, let's elect them" or "have the non-partisan judiciary" elect them is incredibly naive. The judiciary is no more above that sort of partisanship than the congress or the president. In fact, lawyers are the worst at cronyism, especially at favoring their own law schools and discriminating against rival schools. We'd have nothing but Harvard lawyers on the bench, which is already a problem, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I'm not really in favor direct election of commissioned officers.  torgeaux posted:In fact, lawyers are the worst at cronyism, especially at favoring their own law schools and discriminating against rival schools. We'd have nothing but Harvard lawyers on the bench, which is already a problem, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Didn't see this mentioned: Scotusblog has posted the statements from the other justices. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/statements-from-supreme-court-justices/ RBG posted:Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
I can't fully trust someone that considers Scalia a friend
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:it was a disability lawsuit. under the ADA it's ok to restrict access or remove people if their disability or whatever literally prevents them from doing the job, and the guy in question had trouble walking but could still stand up and swing the club, so he argued that he could play golf at the same level as everyone else. the pga at the time required that you had to walk between shots and so he sued them to make them let him ride a golf cart instead. so SCOTUS basically had to rule on whether or not walking your shots is fundamentally part of golf. Why the hell, as someone who never plays golf, did they care about this so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Radish posted:I can't fully trust someone that considers Scalia a friend Have you ever hung out with someone really cool for awhile that have the same niche hobbies as you, and think "hey this person could be my best friend" and then they give their political views and you find out that they're a far-right shithead? That's pretty much what Scalia was to RBG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
I think that sort of person would be more suffer-able if he wasn't personally able to make his lovely repressive views the law of the country and went out of his way to do it. Like if my friend was doing his best to keep gay people marginalized, restrict voting rights for minorities, hamper attempts to keep the world habitable for our children, make sure money in politics is equivalent to free speech, confuse religious freedom with women getting birth control from the insurance they receive as payment for their labor, etc at work I don't think I would be able to think what an awesome guy he was off the clock because we are both into opera. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:02
|
|