|
It matters more now than it used to. There's a reason that Sri Srinavasan is one of the favorites, and why Harriet Miers' nomination got shuttered quickly. There are so, so many jurists that are well qualified for the post that Sandoval sticks out from them.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
esquilax posted:I strongly disagree. I don't think leading a state or city or country makes a person a better jurist at all - at least not for the type of analysis that SC justices are expected to perform. I wouldn't either, but former governors, especially former republican governors being given a seat on the bench has actually worked out really, really loving well in the past and Sandoval seems like he's at least a centrist that just happens to have an (R) next to his name on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Relevant to this thread I thought, hopefully a sign of what's to come: https://twitter.com/pollreport/status/702598507828346880 https://twitter.com/pollreport/status/702598007867310080
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
I'd be happy to see a justice outside of the Harvard / Yale axis of elitism to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well that all looks about as bland as possible. No wonder this guy is the first balloon, just by floating the idea it's going to make the relevant Senators either take a harder line or capitulate entirely. His record in the legal system was basically spotless, so I was just looking more at his political career. He's viewed as pro-choice, for whatever that's worth. The legality of guns has never been challenged since I've lived here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Agronox posted:I'd be happy to see a justice outside of the Harvard / Yale axis of elitism to be honest. Sotomayor would like a word with you. e: poo poo, Princeton was her undergrad. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
She went to YLS right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:She went to YLS right. yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Sotomayor would like a word with you. This is particularly relevant given what Alito, as an Alumnus, was Concerned about. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Sotomayor would like a word with you. i also support nominating a princeton law grad 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
uh, call me a bit cynical here, but wouldn't it be better for progressive causes to have a 4-4 locked Supreme Court rather than a lovely 'moderate' like Sandoval? like seriously what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
There's no way Sandoval is really being considered. It's just a tactic to make Republicans look even more obstructionist than they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Fox News calling out a Republican senator on this  BlueBlazer posted:Oh yes. It cannot end well for those who continue opposition. The base will eat them alive. I will gladly eat my hat if dems take the Senate back due to this entertaining series of events. Scalia's death leading to a liberal-majority SCOTUS and giving the Senate back to the Dems, plus helping them keep the White House, would be fantastic. If that happened I hope the Dems just say gently caress it, go full nuclear, and spend the first month playing catch-up and filling the vacancies that Obama still isn't allowed to fill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:uh, call me a bit cynical here, but wouldn't it be better for progressive causes to have a 4-4 locked Supreme Court rather than a lovely 'moderate' like Sandoval? well, for starters, you'd need to say why he's "lovely" which nobody has managed to do yet and no, it would not be, a 4-4 court can't overturn past decisions effectively
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:uh, call me a bit cynical here, but wouldn't it be better for progressive causes to have a 4-4 locked Supreme Court rather than a lovely 'moderate' like Sandoval? mostly no a lot of the damage that the Court has done over the past few years has been an expansion of conservative doctrine on a party-line majority: striking down the Medicaid expansion (which was totally without merit), Citizens United... A moderate is an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:well, for starters, you'd need to say why he's "lovely" which nobody has managed to do yet antiabortion pro-balanced budget against gay marriage pro-death penalty pro-privatization of schools anti-environmentalist very pro-gun anti-immigration now, not all of these necessarily translate to a supreme court position, but uh, at best he is another Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:antiabortion LA Times posted:But perhaps the greatest impediment to Sandoval's national advancement is his record since taking office in January 2011, which includes a broken promise to reduce taxes, support for legal abortion, embrace of the federal healthcare law and a decision to drop the state's legal fight against same-sex marriage — all of which are anathema to the Republican base, even if they sit fine with many Nevadans. Also I don't get how being "pro-balanced budget" is bad if it means you're willing to consider tax increases to pay for your things. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
my mistake! Still, floating Sandoval at all just reeks of 'sticking it to the Republicans' more than it does with actually picking a sensible nominee. This is literally an opportunity to completely alter the trajectory of the court, so sticking in another 'moderate' seems completely idiotic. He's also anti-labor, which at this rate would basically guarantee another Friedrichs-esque case edit: quote:Also I don't get how being "pro-balanced budget" is bad if it means you're willing to consider tax increases to pay for your things. Because 'balanced budgets' make 0 sense on a macroeconomic scale. state/federal governments are not household budgets
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Passing laws and policies is very different from interpreting laws and policies. We actually don't know anything about his judicial philosophy. That said, Obama has not nominated anyone. This is just a leak to make the senate republicans look dumb and its working perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Because 'balanced budgets' make 0 sense on a macroeconomic scale. state/federal governments are not household budgets A combination of the country's lowest casino taxes combined with consumption taxes on hotel rooms and entertainment means that people from outside borders coming to spend excess money are paying for the government's services and not the people actually using those services. People on all sides are heavily invested in making sure that the people with out of state plates are ones keeping the lights on, though sometimes if the casinos feel squeezed they'll align with the far-left to say that non-casino businesses should pay taxes too, but ultimately neither is taken seriously. The true test for Sandoval would be PAC money. The state GOP is basically a personal vehicle for Sheldon Adelson, and stuff like supporting abortion and gay marriage is easy for them because Adelson agrees with the left on those matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Because 'balanced budgets' make 0 sense on a macroeconomic scale. state/federal governments are not household budgets Actually balanced budgets are of much greater importance to state governments because they don't have near-unlimited credit. You cannot merge state and federal government for this analysis. It's the federal government that is supposed to run countercyclical deficits. There is also a massive difference between the idea that the budget should be structurally balanced and the idea that the budget should be balanced year to year, which are two very, very different things and the stuff you're thinking of is about the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:uh, call me a bit cynical here, but wouldn't it be better for progressive causes to have a 4-4 locked Supreme Court rather than a lovely 'moderate' like Sandoval? Could be a hedge on the GOP senate blocking successfully plus the GOP winning the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Plus I can absolutely see why at this point Obama wants to highlight GOP obstructionism rather than go for the liberal triple crown. It might turn out bad in the long run but it's hard to say now
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Could be a hedge on the GOP senate blocking successfully plus the GOP winning the presidency. Were I Obama the prospect that my successor would be one of the three chucklefucks would keep me up at night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually balanced budgets are of much greater importance to state governments because they don't have near-unlimited credit. You cannot merge state and federal government for this analysis. It's the federal government that is supposed to run countercyclical deficits. Nevada also has a balanced budget mandated in their state constitution, so it's not much of an issue to hold against him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Zas posted:Plus I can absolutely see why at this point Obama wants to highlight GOP obstructionism rather than go for the liberal triple crown. Floating a Sandoval trial balloon right now is pretty much the savviest thing he could be doing at the moment. It's too soon to actually make a real nomination and too far from the election to float somebody that would motivate or persuade swing state voters, so he's just painting the judiciary committee into a corner and letting them get hoisted by their own petards before the public moves on. It's not even really a negotiating tactic to get the nominee he wants. He's just punishing the hell out of Rs for being intransigent assholes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Why does it matter what a Supreme Court justice thinks about the wisdom of balanced budgets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Why does it matter what a Supreme Court justice thinks about the wisdom of balanced budgets? For the federal government, balanced budgets are insane and exactly opposite of what fiscal policy should be. It exaggerates business cycles, raising the peaks of booms and deepening the troughs of busts. It is damaging to the economy and the citizens of the country. Someone in favor of a balanced federal budget is either poorly informed, rigidly ideological, or both. Not someone I would want on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Also we should not forget that, by all accounts, Obama is a sharp poker player. This is a pre-flop raise when the GOP has about two big blinds left in their chip stack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Also we should not forget that, by all accounts, Obama is a sharp poker player. This is a pre-flop raise when the GOP has about two big blinds left in their chip stack. That analogy is dumb, in such a position (unless we're on the bubble) there's about a 99% chance the bb calls, which in the analogy would be saying "yeah this guy we'd consider" I guess? But they haven't done that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That analogy is dumb, in such a position (unless we're on the bubble) there's about a 99% chance the bb calls, which in the analogy would be saying "yeah this guy we'd consider" I guess? But they haven't done that. Yeah I should've clarified Obama is on the button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Wasn't Sandoval the governor who shredded his own state's solar industry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:For the federal government, balanced budgets are insane and exactly opposite of what fiscal policy should be. It exaggerates business cycles, raising the peaks of booms and deepening the troughs of busts. It is damaging to the economy and the citizens of the country. Yeah this is excellently stated and right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Wasn't Sandoval the governor who shredded his own state's solar industry? It was the Public Utility Commission. I haven't seen any evidence (yet) that Sandoval was directly involved, but that doesn't mean he wasn't.  I'm not sure how Nevada is set up. Some governors have more power and influence over stuff like that than others. He made a public statement opposing the PUC's decision, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Wasn't Sandoval the governor who shredded his own state's solar industry? At the same time, it's pretty easy to argue that what he shredded was the ability of predominantly rich home solar buyers to get big tax breaks effectively at the cost of poorer users stuck on the grid. Heavy artificial incentives for home solar are a lot less cut and dry than those for solar in general, and becoming rapidly less necessary as the equipment costs drop so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
So Obama found a stealth moderate Republican, and not only that, a Hispanic when the Republicans are trying desperately to increase their credibility on being an inclusive party this year. This is shrewd politics, is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
^^^ Sandoval's not just a hispanic Republican, he was considered a rising star and possibly the hispanic Republican to point at to bring in other hispanics. Instead the rightwing of the party sees him as a traitorous RINO because he doesn't walk the line without question.  Deteriorata posted:It was the Public Utility Commission. I haven't seen any evidence (yet) that Sandoval was directly involved, but that doesn't mean he wasn't. If he's actually against it (there's some claims otherwise) then surely he'll call on the legislature to pass&sign a new bill taking that power back from the PUC and undoing it then (unlikely) because everything about the decision sounds like the PUC gave the monopolistic power company in that state a shitload of free solar power courtesy of the residents who spent thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars on solar panels. I mean, if I lived in Arizona or Nevada or other places humans are not meant to live then I'd probably try to get a bunch of roof solar panels too since those places get so much sunlight that the long term savings are going to be massive, but this change is going to bury you if you're middle class and put a bunch of money in to solar panels to play the long game. States like Nevada should be doing everything possible to convince people and businesses to load up on solar panels, even if it'd mean a bunch of subsidies to the power company or whomever is left handling the general infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Here's something a little funny. (Apologies if it was posted already.)evilweasel posted:Chait had a good column where he argued that if the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014 and a Republican justice dies (low chance of this: 16% or so by actuarial tables but you've gotta assume as they're wealthy they live longer than average since they get much better medical care), he expects Republicans will simply refuse to confirm anyone at all. They might even if a liberal justice dies, but that's less likely because there won't be the terror that they'll have lost the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That analogy is dumb, in such a position (unless we're on the bubble) there's about a 99% chance the bb calls, which in the analogy would be saying "yeah this guy we'd consider" I guess? But they haven't done that. The analogy you're looking for: Obama has realized they're conservative rocks and will refuse to play any hand, so he just starts raising and stealing all their blinds a hand at a time. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:The analogy you're looking for: Obama has realized they're conservative rocks and will refuse to play any hand, so he just starts raising and stealing all their blinds a hand at a time. Works for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 02:43
|
|