|
History is littered with personable monsters.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Why the hell, as someone who never plays golf, did they care about this so much. The guy who sued the PGA probably cared so much because it's a pretty big deal for professional golfers to be unable to compete in the PGA tour. The court cared because it's their job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:I can't fully trust someone that considers Scalia a friend There are a multitude of dimensions to a person beyond their politics. Much like how Justice Thomas is apparently an incredibly gregarious individual off the bench, despite being a silent bizzaro alien from the 1770's with terrible opinions on it. Also I have to imagine that after decades of working with the man you would have to stop seeing it as personal hatred and instead spin it as professional rivalry, if only to keep one's sanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Bryter posted:The guy who sued the PGA probably cared so much because it's a pretty big deal for professional golfers to be unable to compete in the PGA tour. The court cared because it's their job. And the PGA probably cared because golf is a rich white man's sport and you know how much they hate being asked to help someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:If Pres. Obama wants to fully cause a Republican meltdown: "I am proud to nominate the first black, female, lesbian, atheist to the Supreme Court." Kyrsten Sinema hits 3 out of 4 on that list. And she's super into fitness so she's not dying anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
seiferguy posted: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. I know a lot of far right shitheads who have been great to me personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
I'm loving the conspiracy theorists that are piping up and saying Obama offed Scalia based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever and despite knowing he was old, out of shape and a smoker. I guess it makes sense to kill him at almost the end of his term, leaving him with only a few months to try and push his agenda onto the court and despite knowing the drawn out shitfest that comes along every time Democrats try and get a judge vetted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
evilmiera posted:I'm loving the conspiracy theorists that are piping up and saying Obama offed Scalia based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever and despite knowing he was old, out of shape and a smoker. He could have taken his life live on national television after delivering a monologue about how this was his decision and his alone, and they would have still blamed it on Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I know a lot of far right shitheads who have been great to me personally. I just wish they'd stop complaining about nwords when we're having a smoke break.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Al! posted:He could have taken his life live on national television after delivering a monologue about how this was his decision and his alone, and they would have still blamed it on Obama. Obama pushing through all of these horrible awful sinful disgusting changes to the country was a systematic attack on Scalia's mind, meant to push him to the brink and then dickslap him over the edge. Obama knew exactly what he was doing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272/
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Were I Mitch, my response would be "yeah, I've changed my opinions in the last 25 years; so has America at large, on many topics".
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Were I Mitch, my response would be "yeah, I've changed my opinions in the last 25 years; so has America at large, on many topics". That's okay there are quotes from McConnel in 2005 during the Democratic filibuster about how nominations are the president's prerogative alone and the Senate's role of advise and consent exists to ensure the nominee is qualified and not obstruct for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's okay there are quotes from McConnel in 2005 during the Democratic filibuster about how nominations are the president's prerogative alone and the Senate's role of advise and consent exists to ensure the nominee is qualified and not obstruct for political reasons. Still easy to spin, just have to say that unlike W, Obummer is exerting executive tyranny with the overreach of his power and it's the Senate's prerogative to be the bulwark against it in all things, even SCOTUS noms. The right will eat that poo poo up like candy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's okay there are quotes from McConnel in 2005 during the Democratic filibuster about how nominations are the president's prerogative alone and the Senate's role of advise and consent exists to ensure the nominee is qualified and not obstruct for political reasons. "I was for SCOTUS before I was against it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I'm the spelling error immediately following the first highlighted section.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Were I Mitch, my response would be "yeah, I've changed my opinions in the last 25 years; so has America at large, on many topics". The only opinion he needs to have changed is the one immediately following the first highlight: "In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right [or] the left to be disturbing to the senate." Since our society is, in fact, measurably dramatically more polarized than it was 45 years ago. Funny quote, but not a real gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Still easy to spin, just have to say that unlike W, Obummer is exerting executive tyranny with the overreach of his power and it's the Senate's prerogative to be the bulwark against it in all things, even SCOTUS noms. The right will eat that poo poo up like candy. Basically this scene: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The only opinion he needs to have changed is the one immediately following the first highlight: "In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right [or] the left to be disturbing to the senate." Since our society is, in fact, measurably dramatically more polarized than it was 45 years ago. Everybody is aware that the Republicans are just making excuses so that Obama doesn't get a new justice on the Supreme Court, in the hope that they can steal it in 2017. If Obama and Biden were to drop dead today, they would be talking up who President Ryan should nominate by lunchtime, and all of this bullshit about wanting the people to have a voice in the process would be instantly forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Elected judges are an abomination to the rule of law and the foundation of an independent judiciary. Scalia accomplished more than I ever will, even if I think he was wrong most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Elected judges are an abomination to the rule of law and the foundation of an independent judiciary. I feel like it's better to have accomplished nothing than to have actively done harm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
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. If Scalia died 8 years earlier it'd still be Bush's right and duty to nominate a replacement. Obama fans would be pissed but it wouldn't change the fact that Bush's duties as president would not magically have ceased due to the next election being underway. The GOP was fine with Reagan picking Kennedy as his administration was coming to an end but they aren't ok with Obama doing it. It's hypocritical as gently caress and blatantly obvious that they are hoping that the Dems can blow the election and hand the GOP the White House as well as the ability to refresh the conservative majority's control over the SCOTUS. The sole reason the Republicans want to block an appointment is because if Obama appoints a replacement it's either going to be him caving completely to the GOP and picking some neo-confederate rear end in a top hat (nope) or someone left of center which means they no longer have a majority for things like restricting healthcare for Electing judges is the dumbest thing possible. It fucks up courts all over the country because you have judges who have to rule politically or they lose their seat. We need an amendment that prohibits the election of judges in its entirety. All state level judges should be confirmed by their state assembly and all federal judges by the US Senate and both should be required to have legal experts involved in the process if by some chance there manages to be zero legal professionals in the respective body. It also doesn't change this very real thing: Inferior Third Season posted:Everybody is aware that the Republicans are just making excuses so that Obama doesn't get a new justice on the Supreme Court, in the hope that they can steal it in 2017. If Obama and Biden were to drop dead today, they would be talking up who President Ryan should nominate by lunchtime, and all of this bullshit about wanting the people to have a voice in the process would be instantly forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
You know, I'd be receptive to the idea if we were between November 8 and Jan 20, but we've got a whole loving year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
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. You do/it is? You get one "vote" through the President and another through your senators. Did you take civics at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:due to the next election being underway. The next election isn't even underway! They haven't even chosen the candidates!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:You do/it is? You get one "vote" through the President and another through your senators. Did you take civics at all? American Civics class gives you the government's perspective on how great it and its Constitution are. It's basically propaganda. Anyway I don't see any good reason to think that one President a hundred Senators all brought to you by Goldman Sachs are actually the best authority to decide who deserves a seat on the Supreme Court, it's just how our system happens to be set up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
It's also not to "preserve an independent judiciary" or any nonsense like that. If you wanted a judiciary insulted from politics you wouldn't have politicians appoint them! It's entirely to protect the Supreme Court from popular control, the same way you used to not be able to elect your Senator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:American Civics class gives you the government's perspective on how great it and its Constitution are. It's basically propaganda. Anyway I don't see any good reason to think that one President a hundred Senators all brought to you by Goldman Sachs are actually the best authority to decide who deserves a seat on the Supreme Court, it's just how our system happens to be set up. Except that we can look at the effects of judicial elections in states, and discover the effects are terrible compared to states that appoint their justices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Except that we can look at the effects of judicial elections in states, and discover the effects are terrible compared to states that appoint their justices. I don't think these are entirely comparable because the Supreme Court's most prominent role is to decide what are essentially issues of policy and legislation, so they can't just run on law and order, lock 'em up messages like trial judges. Anyway what I'd prefer would be to have an independent judicial commission appoint justices like they do in the UK, (where it hasn't produced an Orwellian nightmare like people seem to assume it would), but in the specific case of the Supreme Court I'd say that democratic input would be superior to the current system where the Court's composition is determined by partisan politics and happenstance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's also not to "preserve an independent judiciary" or any nonsense like that. If you wanted a judiciary insulted from politics you wouldn't have politicians appoint them! It's entirely to protect the Supreme Court from popular control, the same way you used to not be able to elect your Senator. Preserving an independent judiciary and protecting them from popular control are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think these are entirely comparable because the Supreme Court's most prominent role is to decide what are essentially issues of policy and legislation, so they can't just run on law and order, lock 'em up messages like trial judges. They absolutely can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Preserving an independent judiciary and protecting them from popular control are the same thing. That's a really narrow and frankly incorrect view of it. It's not just popular control that they're supposed to be insulated from, but from all outside interference from partisan politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:They absolutely can. That's supposition but were it the case I'd chalk it up to the American public's love affair with nightmare retributive justice rather than something inherent to judicial elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:You know, I'd be receptive to the idea if we were between November 8 and Jan 20, but we've got a whole loving year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
CuwiKhons posted:And the PGA probably cared because golf is a rich white man's sport and you know how much they hate being asked to help someone. This was the answer I was looking, ala why the gently caress did the PGA care, and the answer is predictable "they're shitheads", go figre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
someone did not get the memo:quote:Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), speaking on a radio show Tuesday morning, cautioned against objecting to a Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama "sight unseen," ThinkProgress reported. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tillis-scotus-nom of course, he then goes onto say: quote:"If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mold of President Obama’s vision for America, then we’ll use every device available to block that nomination,” Tillis continued. so he's not exactly being mr. reasonable here
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Chuck Grassley may hold hearings as well now:quote:WASHINGTON — Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he had not ruled out holding hearings on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Chuck Grassley may hold hearings as well now: There is still no way someone gets confirmed...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is still no way someone gets confirmed... Or at least, I can dream...
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think these are entirely comparable because the Supreme Court's most prominent role is to decide what are essentially issues of policy and legislation, so they can't just run on law and order, lock 'em up messages like trial judges. Anyway what I'd prefer would be to have an independent judicial commission appoint justices like they do in the UK, (where it hasn't produced an Orwellian nightmare like people seem to assume it would), but in the specific case of the Supreme Court I'd say that democratic input would be superior to the current system where the Court's composition is determined by partisan politics and happenstance. What part of being elected directly wouldn't involve partisan politics? Potential justices would have to give their opinions on poo poo in order to get elected and then bam, people vote on party lines. And guess what? Campaigning costs money and justices would have to campaign in order to get their name out there. Where does that money come from? Hint, it's donated by people who want that justice to vote favorably on their poo poo. Which is exactly what happens right now with elected judges at the state level. Elected judges are the loving worst.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:25
|
|