|
Everyone is actually pretty happy with the method of filling the SCOTUS bench because it provides a fair balance of public determination and electoral insulation.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/KimberlyRobinsn/status/699764089115906048 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/699774220100902912
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yes, or not even really have candidates at all and have the board appoint judges directly. If it's not working out, the public can exercise control by passing a law that changes the appointment system. Such a system would only really work in an environment where people had confidence in jurists to make the right decision and believed in judicial independence. This statement puts you in a bit of a catch 22 because it's not like you are the first person to imagine the concept of the elected judge. There's a reason they didn't go that way for the supreme court and we, The People, have chosen to keep it that way. You aren't being persuasive, you're just whinging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Yes, please stop posting. GreenNight posted:Thanks, please don't type anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
But guys the Supreme Court justices in Alabama are elected. Alabama! That state that other states look to as a beacon of hope and progress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't know what you think "last time" was so it's hard to know which of the many reasons you might be wrong it is. Remember that time Obama took office and the Republicans began their stonewalling? Every time since then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Remember that time Obama took office and the Republicans began their stonewalling? Every time since then. Didn't they hold their "gently caress doing anything" meeting literally the day of the inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Keep the lifetime appointments but put their life up to a public vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:And it's a Goddamn lie because he's deliberately ignoring Kennedy. The Democrats could easily counter this stupid claim by saying that because Justice Kennedy was appointed on November 11, 1987, and the election was on November 8, 1988, that he was both nominated and confirmed within a year of the election. Though, of course, the Republicans are purposefully being misleading, so that people think what they're doing is the normal way of things, when it is actually a radical departure from tradition and the plain intent and direct wording of the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Once again you are making a moralist argument which doesn't mean anything to these blatant hypocrites. If Obama doesn't have a legal authority to force the senates hand it will not happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:But guys the Supreme Court justices in Alabama are elected. Alabama! That state that other states look to as a beacon of hope and progress! 47 of 50 states elect some or all of their judges. You can blame people in the 1800s for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Remember that time Obama took office and the Republicans began their stonewalling? Every time since then. Do you remember that time they shut the government down, then got their demands met before they reopened it? No? Stonewalling a Supreme Court nominee is the sort of crisis that stays in the news and that average people won't support. The really effective Republican stonewalling has been stuff that people can't be bothered to care about (sub-SCOTUS nominees). Even their blockade of Lynch broke down, though that might have been more their loathing of Holder and the realization they were only going to get rid of him if they confirmed Lynch. What republicans have done successfully is avoid paying a price for their stonewalling in elections, but a big key to that has been not loving around too close to an election. Which is, incidentally, why Republicans are trying so hard to tamp down demands from the Freedom Cacucus that they have another knock-down budget fight this year. edit: This is also made clear by the GOP senators who are going "sure, let's block any Obama nominee, but for god's sake pretend we have a justification" and getting annoyed at McConnell's "no votes, period" plan. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Yeah they are already backtracking a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah they are already backtracking a bit. Can you elaborate on this? I'm not doubting you, just curious about where you read/saw this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Can you elaborate on this? I'm not doubting you, just curious about where you read/saw this. Thom Tillis (Senator from North Carolina) publicly said that they should consider any nominee and do their job properly. He then went on to say "but of course, if Obama appoints someone who shares his radical political views then it'll be our job to block that person since that's out of step with the American people" so he's trying to create a justification where they block any nominee but still look like they're doing their job responsibly. Of course, some might argue that since Obama was elected twice then The American People might actually share some of his "radical" political views and also that appointing people who think about the law and constitution the same way they do is one of the duties of a president, but hey, semantics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
When was the last time a supreme court justice died within a year of an election and was not replaced before the next president had settled in? The last time a justice died more than ten months before an election and had their seat respectfully left warm for that period? McConnell et al seem to be leaving out the actual precedent in their argument about precedent, even if you ignore Kennedy being nominated within a year of the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:When was the last time a supreme court justice died within a year of an election and was not replaced before the next president had settled in? The last time a justice died more than ten months before an election and had their seat respectfully left warm for that period? McConnell et al seem to be leaving out the actual precedent in their argument about precedent, even if you ignore Kennedy being nominated within a year of the election. Despite all their bluster, establishment Republicans know they aren't winning the presidency this year, so can you imagine how hard they're going to backpedal if Bernie wins the nomination? They won't be able to get Obama to propose nominees fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah they are already backtracking a bit. It's all optics. Zero chance someone gets confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Al! posted:Despite all their bluster, establishment Republicans know they aren't winning the presidency this year, so can you imagine how hard they're going to backpedal if Bernie wins the nomination? They won't be able to get Obama to propose nominees fast enough. Yes because if there's one things Dems don't do, it's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Al! posted:Despite all their bluster, establishment Republicans know they aren't winning the presidency this year
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The Democrats certainly have an advantage, but it's not at all a slam dunk. Many things could happen that give the Republicans the presidency this year. Not with those candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Not with those candidates. Nah it's easy; one major terror attack or the economy collapses again and it's hello Donald.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Nah it's easy; one major terror attack or the economy collapses again and it's hello Donald. No amount of terrorism or bad economic conditions could get Trump elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No amount of terrorism or bad economic conditions could get Trump elected. I disagree but at the same time, I sincerely hope we never find out who's right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:I disagree but at the same time, I sincerely hope we never find out who's right. I don't think you understand how much Latinos despise him let alone most other people who aren't GOP primary voters...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No amount of terrorism or bad economic conditions could get Trump elected. "Oh," God says, "A challenge!" Alternatively: Never underestimate the capacity of the American collective population to be a complete reactionary dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
If Full House can make a return, so can a Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's all optics. Zero chance someone gets confirmed. Predictit is still giving odds of about 35%-40% Obama gets someone confirmed, which I don't quite get. I keep wondering what I'm missing, or if I should just start collecting the free money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Predictit is still giving odds of about 35%-40% Obama gets someone confirmed, which I don't quite get. I keep wondering what I'm missing, or if I should just start collecting the free money. I suppose it's theoretically possible that as they go longer and longer without confirming anyone, if polls show the electorate getting increasingly fed up with them and predict a big victory for the Democrats in November, and since this is an issue that by definition could not go away before election day unless they cave, they could eventually react to growing discontent by confirming someone. This relies on a few big assumptions like the electorate caring, that care manifesting in anger at Republican obstructionism, that anger being reflected in election polling, and Republicans caring at all about election polling rather than trying to unskew the polls, but I can see a theoretical path to someone being confirmed, I just don't think it's more likely than the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here for Thug Lessons. http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...in-text-message
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Predictit is still giving odds of about 35%-40% Obama gets someone confirmed, which I don't quite get. I keep wondering what I'm missing, or if I should just start collecting the free money. People are political idiots. Collect free money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Dahlia Lithwick posted:Here is one of the hardest things about losing Antonin Scalia: His views were often ugly and wrong, but the ways he expressed them were thought-provoking and stirring. He was the most three-dimensional justice with an often two-dimensional worldview. History will likely remember him as someone who was gloriously, powerfully on the wrong side of so many important questions. But history will surely remember him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Scalia was incredibly smart and powerfully competent and turned all of that ability to the task of being as evil as it is was physically possible for him to be
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I never wanted to be on his team, I wanted to ideologically destroy him. What the gently caress is wrong with lawyers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, John Boehner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Honestly, it does seem that relying on random deaths during the presidency of someone from the right team is a pretty crappy system. Most people here'd be pretty cheesed off if a liberal justice died during President Trump's eight year reich, is it impossible that there could be a better way of going about things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
tekz posted:Honestly, it does seem that relying on random deaths during the presidency of someone from the right team is a pretty crappy system. Most people here'd be pretty cheesed off if a liberal justice died during President Trump's eight year reich, is it impossible that there could be a better way of going about things? Your options are: - Introduce a recall measure for Justices you don't like (this already exists and has been a political shitfest since it was introduced) - Allow a significant but finite term for Justices (this preserves the idea of Justices being disconnected with the political climate of the time, but still can result in "random chance" loving up the system). - Allow the public to directly elect Justices, for whatever term you want (this is not popular, for reasons you might guess)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
tekz posted:is it impossible that there could be a better way of going about things? Better by what measures?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Law school does terrible things to people. Scalia's only good thing was that he didn't couch his bigotry in legal jargon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I never wanted to be on his team, I wanted to ideologically destroy him. What the gently caress is wrong with lawyers? They want to win, doesn't matter how or why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:41
|
|
