|
DOOP posted:What was with the Harriet Myers nomination? Was she legit unqualified or just not conservative enough? she was astoundingly unqualified. she wasn't even rejected for political reasons, it was because the people who interviewed her were dumbstruck by how little she knew about constitutional law probably one of the most embarrassing/bizarre nominations in the history of the country
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:You're right about the law being overbroad, but is this summary of the court's holding inaccurate? Yes, and that's as it should be. Don't want to throw out the Skinny Puppy vids along with the twisted stuff you're actually trying to block production of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Since the regulations don't even start to go into effect until 2018 it probably doesn't matter, but could the Administration meander an appeal of the injunction on the EPA back up the Court now that it'll be 4-4 and the lower court's ruling would hold? Though now that I think about it, chances are the lower court would uphold the injunction on the grounds of the Supreme Court having already ok'd it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Yes, and that's as it should be. Don't want to throw out the Skinny Puppy vids along with the twisted stuff you're actually trying to block production of. Not to mention there's a huge difference between videos depicting an activity and videos depicting you engaging in an activity. Most folks would agree that murdering IRL people is worse than killing squirrels, yet there's a thread on this very board where people post links to INSIL videos in the context of discussing world events. Filming crush videos was already illegal under animal cruelty laws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Not to mention there's a huge difference between videos depicting an activity and videos depicting you engaging in an activity. Most folks would agree that murdering IRL people is worse than killing squirrels, yet there's a thread on this very board where people post links to INSIL videos in the context of discussing world events. See also those laws to prevent filming animal cruelty sponsored by big agrofarms that got caught on hidden cameras abusing animals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
DOOP posted:What was with the Harriet Myers nomination? Was she legit unqualified or just not conservative enough? Her entire qualification was being Bush's personal lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The new lie I'm hearing is "A supreme court justice hasn't been appointed in an election year since Rutherford Hayes," which is astonishingly bullshit, but it's what you'll be hearing everywhere because they're harping on it big time on the right wing radio shows. At a glance from Wikipedia, 23 of the 112 SCOTUS judges were appointed during an election year - 20.5%, so only slightly lower than you'd expect from random chance. Any claim that they're not appointed in election years is utter hogwash that's easily disprovable. vv Yes, and 20.5% is slightly lower than 25%, particularly if you account for basic statistical deviation. Tempest_56 fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
25% of years are election years I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
DOOP posted:What was with the Harriet Myers nomination? Was she legit unqualified or just not conservative enough? She was absurdly unqualified, but what killed her is that she had no history that made Republicans confident she'd be a scalia-type conservative on the court and Republicans don't trust any nominee without that long history after getting so badly burned with Souter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Whenever you're talking about the Supreme Court or the Presidency, the reality is that the sample size is way too small to make any sort of claim of precedent or "this is how we've always done it!" I brought up the "haven't done this in 80 years" argument to a friend who doesn't follow politics closely, and her immediate response was a puzzled look and "this has happened 80 times?" The argument isn't a strong one, and the Republicans know they're reaching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
It had to be pretty traumatic for conservatives to see Warren, Stevens and Souter all end up reliably liberal Justices. The poor dears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It had to be pretty traumatic for conservatives to see Warren, Stevens and Souter all end up reliably liberal Justices. They didn't take it well. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:They didn't take it well. The unstated "surprise" in the picture: the mailing address is in Belmont, MA, literally bordering Cambridge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The unstated "surprise" in the picture: the mailing address is in Belmont, MA, literally bordering Cambridge. The John Birch Society used to be headquartered there
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
decarboxylated posted:The John Birch Society used to be headquartered there I was more meaning to highlight it as a "surprise" to those posters who didn't know that anti-liberal sentiment was quite widespread, even in areas we now consider to be deep blue, thanks in part to how busing impacting Northern cities as well as Southern ones. Indeed, one of the well-known anti-busing/anti-desegregation activists singled out in Perlstein's books, Louise Day Hicks, was primarily active in Boston. The fact that the Birchers were based there, too, only proves my point. EDIT: And yes it absolutely was a racial thing that isn't exactly gone today. Just shifted because of white flight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination? I wouldn't, because the VP is elected specifically to carry out the duties of the President if needed. He/she is the backup President, and everyone understands this when they cast their vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination? No, because the possibility of the VP becoming president in full is something that voters can, should, and do consider during the election. Blocking the VP-come-president's nomination is no different than blocking their anything else and essentially not allowing the government to do anything at all out of spite that it's not the president we elected. If course, I basically just described the entire Obama presidency even though he was elected full-blown president, twice, and from what I understand it's also what happened during the entire Tyler VP-come-presidency... but if we are talking hypothetically about what should be, no, I don't think that would give nomination-blocking any firmer ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:They didn't take it well. Vintage Conservative Tears
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A hypothetical question for the thread: would you give more thought to the Republican's argument about waiting out the term if the previously elected president had died, and it was up to the former VP to make the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
While not in an election year, Gerald Ford --- who became President and wasn't even elected a VP --- did appoint one John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
If the Dems can make hay out of this and win votes, more power to them, but I'm not really outraged at waiting until after the election to fill the vacancy. There is really no doubt in my mind that if their roles were exactly reversed (5-4 liberal majority, liberal dies, Republican president in an election year, Dem Senate), the Dems would probably not let the hypothetical Republican president flip the court in his last year. If Ginsburg would have died or if the right had a 6-3 majority, then it would be more likely that the GOP would let Obama have his pick. I think most people would agree that if Scalia died 2 months before the election, it would be reasonable to wait until 2017, so the question is where to draw that arbitrary line. I pretty much think drawing it in the beginning of the president's last year is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If the Dems can make hay out of this and win votes, more power to them, but I'm not really outraged at waiting until after the election to fill the vacancy. There is really no doubt in my mind that if their roles were exactly reversed (5-4 liberal majority, liberal dies, Republican president in an election year, Dem Senate), the Dems would probably not let the hypothetical Republican president flip the court in his last year. If Ginsburg would have died or if the right had a 6-3 majority, then it would be more likely that the GOP would let Obama have his pick. The people elected the President to a four-year term, not a sort-of-four-year term with a bunch of exceptions in the last year. If a President can't appoint SCOTUS justices in their last year, what else should we block them from doing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I pretty much think drawing it in the beginning of the president's last year is reasonable. It's really not, though. People joke about how nothing gets done in an election year, but it's a lamentation, not the way things are supposed to be. Obama was given a four-year mandate to do this, not three years and a one-year election break.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:If a President can't appoint SCOTUS justices in their last year, what else should we block them from doing? As far as Republicans are concerned it depends, is the President black?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:The people elected the President to a four-year term, not a sort-of-four-year term with a bunch of exceptions in the last year. If a President can't appoint SCOTUS justices in their last year, what else should we block them from doing? Obama won two landslide elections Having him choose justices is antidemocratic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I think most people would agree that if Scalia died 2 months before the election, it would be reasonable to wait until 2017, so the question is where to draw that arbitrary line. I pretty much think drawing it in the beginning of the president's last year is reasonable. If you average the confirmation times for SCJ's since 1900, it's roughly 1/8 of a year. If you take the average confirmation time since Washington, it's about 1/16 of a year. The maximum time is 125 days; a year is 3 times that. So based on any objective measure waiting a year is unreasonable. Waiting to confirm is politically expedient, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If the Dems can make hay out of this and win votes, more power to them, but I'm not really outraged at waiting until after the election to fill the vacancy. There is really no doubt in my mind that if their roles were exactly reversed (5-4 liberal majority, liberal dies, Republican president in an election year, Dem Senate), the Dems would probably not let the hypothetical Republican president flip the court in his last year. They definitely would have at least through 2004. By 2008 it wasn't happening but that was more of a Bush being historically terrible at governing thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If the Dems can make hay out of this and win votes, more power to them, but I'm not really outraged at waiting until after the election to fill the vacancy. There is really no doubt in my mind that if their roles were exactly reversed (5-4 liberal majority, liberal dies, Republican president in an election year, Dem Senate), the Dems would probably not let the hypothetical Republican president flip the court in his last year. If Ginsburg would have died or if the right had a 6-3 majority, then it would be more likely that the GOP would let Obama have his pick. Lol if you think republicans wouldn't be screeching if it was Ginsburg. Everything he has done as president has been declared totally illegitimate, since day one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Of course a VP who succeeded to the office would have the right (and constitutional duty) to nominate someone. Even in the hypothetical doomsday scenario where the entire cabinet was all in one place and a natural/manmade disaster kills everyone except the Secretary of Education, or whomever, that person would still be the President with all the powers and duties included in the office. And yes, even if it was just Obama and Biden out cruising in the Joe-mobile and Biden plowed off a bridge, leading to President Paul D. Ryan. It would be pretty terrible, and I personally would hate it, but that still wouldn't take away from the fact that Ryan now needed to nominate a new justice. I'm kind of amazed with this idea that the 'lame duck' portion of the Obama presidency started with the first day of this year. They seem to keep trying to push it back further and further. Some Republicans no doubt want us to think that it started some time in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Yeah the issue here is that their entire strategy now is to act like the President, if Obama (and probably, if Democrat, given the two leading candidates) is an evil illegitimate usurper who must be opposed at all costs and is the most divisive person imaginable, up to and including Satan Himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
I think Lynch would look political. Nominating sri or kelly would have be a lot more apolitical. Plus Lynch's confirmation had 43 no votes. I don't like lynch as the nominee from a political perspective- would be a lot harder to hammer the GOP on it in the fall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I was more meaning to highlight it as a "surprise" to those posters who didn't know that anti-liberal sentiment was quite widespread, even in areas we now consider to be deep blue, thanks in part to how busing impacting Northern cities as well as Southern ones. Indeed, one of the well-known anti-busing/anti-desegregation activists singled out in Perlstein's books, Louise Day Hicks, was primarily active in Boston. The fact that the Birchers were based there, too, only proves my point.  Boston values
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I think Lynch would look political. Nominating sri or kelly would have be a lot more apolitical. Plus Lynch's confirmation had 43 no votes. Also if she gets in, it means there's no AG until someone is nominated for the next president, and now is a pretty good time to have an AG. Also, you know, conflicts forcing her to recuse herself on a variety of cases would be extremely frustrating (see Kagan, J.).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
To be fair this photo is really misleading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:To be fair this photo is really misleading. Yeah, it looks like the angry man is going to spear him with the flagpole. He's actually only intending to beat him with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:As far as Republicans are concerned it depends, is the President black? This is important from an originalist perspective: if the founders never imagined a black president, then Obama nominating justices, or exercising any other presidential prerogatives is unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
How come the Chief Justice doesn't come from the existing panel of Supreme Court Justices?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:14
|
|