|
Obama has already picked Sri Srinivasan, and is just waiting for Tuesday's primaries to be over to announce. -really smart guy Green Crayons
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Oh my God! We've found attack ads that are misleading! What is this world coming to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
NYT is reporting that Obama's pick will come "shortly" probably by the end of the week. Likely to be Sri.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NYT is reporting that Obama's pick will come "shortly" probably by the end of the week. Likely to be Sri. That's really too bad. I definitely like Paul Watford better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's really too bad. I definitely like Paul Watford better. Yeah, but he has no realistic path to the bench with less than 50 Democrats in the Senate. I wouldn't want to go through the nation's worst nomination fight knowing the whole while that I didn't have the voters either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:Oh my God! We've found attack ads that are misleading! What is this world coming to? We should definitely just let them all go by unremarked on because that solves the problem
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but he has no realistic path to the bench with less than 50 Democrats in the Senate. I wouldn't want to go through the nation's worst nomination fight knowing the whole while that I didn't have the voters either. Save him for Hillary and the Dem Senate...hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Srinivasan would be the first  not Christian (edit: uhh, not Judeo-Christian) Justice, that would be cool enough in itself.Also the first Justice who is an immigrant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Antti posted:Srinivasan would be the first What do we know of his jurisprudence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
gohmak posted:What do we know of his jurisprudence? He has an MBA so I'm suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
gohmak posted:What do we know of his jurisprudence? http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/an-assessment-of-judge-sri-srinivasans-rulings-or-i-read-all-these-ferc-cases-so-you-dont-have-to/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
gohmak posted:What do we know of his jurisprudence? Very little. He's a "no record to attack" candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
More importantly, how is his name pronounced?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:More importantly, how is his name pronounced? Looking forward to congresspeople embarrassing themselves mispronouncing his name
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Very little. He's a "no record to attack" candidate. I don't care about his acceptability with Republicans, I want to know if he is the right choice to start unfucking what the conservative Justices have hosed. If not then let Hillary (hopefully Sanders) Give us another Sotomayor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
It's taken almost a decade, but we finally get a sequel to my favorite weeks-long comedy event, BBC World Service Reporters Try to Pronounce "Barack Obama".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I don't care about his acceptability with Republicans, I want to know if he is the right choice to start unfucking what the conservative Justices have hosed. If not then let Hillary (hopefully Sanders) Give us another Sotomayor. Agreed. The last thing we need is another Kennedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:More importantly, how is his name pronounced? I think it's Shree Shren-ee-vah-sahn?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I'm seriously lolling at the idea that when Hillary wins, she'll somehow be able to get another Brennan through the Republican Senate rather than needing to nominate someone like Sri, who has a low key record. Sri checks every box but woman, and it will raise a huge shitstorm when he's not even given a hearing. If nominated, I really wonder if he'll get a hearing. I hope Obama et al spoke to the nominees about being potential sacrificial lambs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I think it's Shree Shren-ee-vah-sahn? http://youtu.be/XWjiAuHpjWA
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I don't care about his acceptability with Republicans, I want to know if he is the right choice to start unfucking what the conservative Justices have hosed. If not then let Hillary (hopefully Sanders) Give us another Sotomayor. The current Supreme Court is so far right that a moderate candidate will make it move so far and fast leftward that it will make your head spin. He won't be another RBG or Sotomayer but he will be part of a solid majority of Sane People and there won't be a meaningful difference between putting him or RBG's much younger sister on the court for a decade or so because the main task will be unfucking the law that the conservative majority has made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm seriously lolling at the idea that when Hillary wins, she'll somehow be able to get another Brennan through the Republican Senate rather than needing to nominate someone like Sri, who has a low key record. Sri checks every box but woman, and it will raise a huge shitstorm when he's not even given a hearing. If nominated, I really wonder if he'll get a hearing. I hope Obama et al spoke to the nominees about being potential sacrificial lambs. Given that Trump is going to be the nominee (or he'll be robbed at the convention) it is highly likely that a President Hillary gets a Democratic senate (for two years, then loses it in 2018 because the map is brutal then).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm seriously lolling at the idea that when Hillary wins, she'll somehow be able to get another Brennan through the Republican Senate rather than needing to nominate someone like Sri, who has a low key record. If Hillary wins it's possible the Dems win the Senate, too. But yes, it's possible only she wins the Presidency. Hell, it's possible Republicans win the White House and keep the Presidency. I think if you're Obama and the Dems, you take Sri right now if you can. The Republicans might go for him, too, for fear of the opposite doomsday scenario happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Hillary wont win (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Hillary wont win Thanks for this helpful information forums poster corn in the bible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Hillary wont win The absolute hottest of takes. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:If Hillary wins it's possible the Dems win the Senate, too. But yes, it's possible only she wins the Presidency. Hell, it's possible Republicans win the White House and keep the Presidency. Well as Obama & The Dems you also nominate someone because you refuse to accept the Republican's definition of unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
duz posted:Well as Obama & The Dems you also nominate someone because you refuse to accept the Republican's definition of unprecedented. Well clearly he nominates someone. He has already said he's gonna do that. The question is how "big" does he go with his pick. Sri may not have been his ideal pick, but given the circumstances I think he would be a good one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Hillary wont win Would you like to Toxx that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
There's some debate over whether the President even has the option of not nominating someone. The Constitution says the President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate etc. Not may.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
And it makes sense, the authors might have actually conceived of a scenario where an imperial executive tries to cripple the Supreme Court by refusing to fill it. A senate gone full hog obstructionist, probably not as much, since it's a body of multiple people elected by the States. They might have made it even more glaringly obvious.
Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Very little. He's a "no record to attack" candidate. Yeah, if anything I'm expecting them to dredge up school papers and peripheral poo poo if anything. Though some of his first amendment-related decisions suggest he might favor overturning Citizens United and side with consumers over lovely advertising practices. It's a really bland record overall, which is why I'm expecting the usual garbage to try digging up decades-old poo poo like volunteering affiliations or any work prior to the bench.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
God help him if he ever played softball. e: wait he's a man, so uh, god help him if he ever didn't play softball??
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
"Mr. Srinivasan [pronounced poorly], we have here a photograph of you serving on the bench, and not playing softball. We also dug up this baby photo of you and i see neither glove nor bat in your hands. Why, Mr. Srinivasan, do hate America?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:There's some debate over whether the President even has the option of not nominating someone. The Constitution says the President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate etc. Not may. I kind of want the President to surf the edge of a constitutional crisis by citing the "shall" thing, and saying that the Senate will be assumed to consent in this case unless they vote specifically to say that they do not consent. Really ride the wave of this "lol nothing matters" year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:I kind of want the President to surf the edge of a constitutional crisis by citing the "shall" thing, and saying that the Senate will be assumed to consent in this case unless they vote specifically to say that they do not consent. And then the case gets to the Supreme Court and Thomas has an aneurysm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:I kind of want the President to surf the edge of a constitutional crisis by citing the "shall" thing, and saying that the Senate will be assumed to consent in this case unless they vote specifically to say that they do not consent. As the man himself said at the last Correspondents Dinner, Bucket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And then the case gets to the Supreme Court and Thomas has an aneurysm. Would a lower court have any possible jurisdiction over the case, or would the SCOTUS have original jurisdiction? Because the possibility of a 4-4 or a 5-4 with the contested Justice in the majority would probably drive Roberts, not Thomas, to the edge. Dude would be chain-smoking during oral arguments with white-knuckled, shaking hands, and using the handle of a loaded revolver as a gavel. Good opportunity to take bets on whether "[INAUDIBLE MUTTERING]" or "motherfucker" appears more in the transcripts, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Would a lower court have any possible jurisdiction over the case, or would the SCOTUS have original jurisdiction? Because the possibility of a 4-4 or a 5-4 with the contested Justice in the majority would probably drive Roberts, not Thomas, to the edge. I think they will probably have original jurisdiction, but there is no way in hell that a brand new justice would hear a case about their own appointment. I honestly don't know if the court has ever spoke to silence on confirmation to be acquiescing, but I do know of plenty of other situations where silence is a presumptive approval.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think they will probably have original jurisdiction, but there is no way in hell that a brand new justice would hear a case about their own appointment. Any chance Obama goes for this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:53
|
|