|
Evil Fluffy posted:Arzying refers to the poster, not a emote. Yeah, I had assumed he had an emote made in his 'honor' like 
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
It seems silly to suggest that Garland is somehow Obama's ideal choice. He's not an idiot, he's aware of the general political situation, and certainly that played a role. The Senate is extraordinarily hostile to him right now, and they came out and said there'd be no new Obama justice before Scalia's corpse even cooled off. He wanted a candidate that would make Republican's look as ridiculous as possible, especially since this is going to be in the news going into the election. Choosing a relatively moderate candidate that republicans are on record as supporting is a good choice. At the same time, Obama wanted a candidate he would be comfortable with in case they call his bluff and appoint him. There's no contradiction in Garland being both a compromise and a candidate that Obama approves of. With regards to the possibility of Republicans trying to nominate Garland in the lame duck session if they lose, my opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. They're already pissing all over the democratic process here and insulting our intelligence with this idea that you can't nominate a new justice in the last year of a presidency. Doing a 180 at the last possible moment to take the compromise they've been offered would be another level beyond even this, essentially admitting out loud that their entire justification was the sham we all know it is but giving everyone the finger anyway. It's not "spite" to think they shouldn't be allowed to get away with that. It's also basic negotiation: Obama's offering them a compromise they can take now, or they can roll the dice on winning the presidency. If they can have their cake and eat it too they have no reason not to gamble on the upcoming election. But if they know that the compromise will be withdrawn should they lose they have much more reason to consider the nominee they've been offered. I don't know if the nominee will be withdrawn should the Democrats win (or sooner) but I certainly think he should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:With regards to the possibility of Republicans trying to nominate Garland in the lame duck session if they lose, my opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. They're already pissing all over the democratic process here and insulting our intelligence with this idea that you can't nominate a new justice in the last year of a presidency. Doing a 180 at the last possible moment to take the compromise they've been offered would be another level beyond even this, essentially admitting out loud that their entire justification was the sham we all know it is but giving everyone the finger anyway. It's not "spite" to think they shouldn't be allowed to get away with that. It's also basic negotiation: Obama's offering them a compromise they can take now, or they can roll the dice on winning the presidency. If they can have their cake and eat it too they have no reason not to gamble on the upcoming election. But if they know that the compromise will be withdrawn should they lose they have much more reason to consider the nominee they've been offered. I don't know if the nominee will be withdrawn should the Democrats win (or sooner) but I certainly think he should be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It seems silly to suggest that Garland is somehow Obama's ideal choice. He's not an idiot, he's aware of the general political situation, and certainly that played a role. The Senate is extraordinarily hostile to him right now, and they came out and said there'd be no new Obama justice before Scalia's corpse even cooled off. He wanted a candidate that would make Republican's look as ridiculous as possible, especially since this is going to be in the news going into the election. Choosing a relatively moderate candidate that republicans are on record as supporting is a good choice. At the same time, Obama wanted a candidate he would be comfortable with in case they call his bluff and appoint him. There's no contradiction in Garland being both a compromise and a candidate that Obama approves of. Pulling the nomination would be completely contrary to Obama's MO in everything he's ever done. It's not going to happen. He does not want to be remembered as the rear end in a top hat who stiffed Merrick Garland. Even if it was a prearranged deal, no one would believe him and he knows it. The possibility Garland being confirmed in the lame duck period was part of Obama's initial calculation in picking him. He's not going to go with anybody else unless Garland is explicitly rejected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:nah see you're just being an ignorant petulant child becau Because every single one of your posts is exactly this. HappyHippo posted:It seems silly to suggest that Garland is somehow Obama's ideal choice. He's not an idiot, he's aware of the general political situation, and certainly that played a role. The Senate is extraordinarily hostile to him right now, and they came out and said there'd be no new Obama justice before Scalia's corpse even cooled off. He wanted a candidate that would make Republican's look as ridiculous as possible, especially since this is going to be in the news going into the election. Choosing a relatively moderate candidate that republicans are on record as supporting is a good choice. At the same time, Obama wanted a candidate he would be comfortable with in case they call his bluff and appoint him. There's no contradiction in Garland being both a compromise and a candidate that Obama approves of. Once again someone comes in and quivicates over the concepts of ideal vs compromise. Here's the problem, you don't know Obama's ideal candidate. You have his stated preferences to work form, of which Garland is the most prominent, versus a vague inclination that the person you'd rather have on the court is the love child of RBG and Thurgood Marshall. But that's not a person. You might as well say Kagan and Sotomayor were compromise candidates because they don't represent some assumed Obama ideal. The idea Obama is bluffing about wanting Garland on the supreme court is a delusion of over caffeinated activists who can't separate their own ideals from reality. I do love the point made most recently by Capt. Sticl, that withdrawing the nominee doesn't show Obama stronk or however people keep wanting to phrase it but it total acquiescence to Republican framing of the debate and agreeing with their "we should wait for the new congress" posturing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Nah, he mostly already poo poo on that "new precedent" nonsense by making a nom in the first place, and anyway it's not like the GOP was ever going to hold to that in a million years as soon as they have the WH and Senate. It was a good point, and it does strengthen the argument for keeping him in the running after the election, but it's not the slam dunk you seem to think is. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
also jfc farraday I don't know what I did to set off this grudge of yours but, I wish I could do it more often 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:also jfc farraday I don't know what I did to set off this grudge of yours but, I wish I could do it more often Keep up your poo poo posting you can do it baby. Also it's is adorable you think Obama simply nominating someone destroys the Republican arguments of precedent when they've always been predicated on the supposed impermeability of holding hearings in an election year. here's a wikipedia article on the Thurmond rule which you may recall was Republicans initial attempts to cite precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule It has always been about confirmation, which is yet another thing you completely misunderstand on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
farraday posted:Here's the problem, you don't know Obama's ideal candidate. You have his stated preferences to work form, of which Garland is the most prominent, versus a vague inclination that the person you'd rather have on the court is the love child of RBG and Thurgood Marshall. But that's not a person. You might as well say Kagan and Sotomayor were compromise candidates because they don't represent some assumed Obama ideal. I think this kind of thinking hurts Democrats to an extent, though it makes them the only reasonable party. Garland could be the ideal version of someone Obama wants to see on the court, but (Senate intractability aside) getting the most liberal judge available on the court is more likely to result in policy he would want. Until the president gets to nominate all 9 judges at the same time because of some terrible accident shifting the balance is more relevant than the individual candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
farraday posted:Also it's is adorable you think Obama simply nominating someone destroys the Republican arguments of precedent when they've always been predicated on the supposed impermeability of holding hearings in an election year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It doesn't need to destroy them, it just needs to make clear the Democrats aren't going along with the precedent, which in case you forgot doesn't actually exist. The GOP in the Senate is not establishing any new precedent, since they're already talking about a lame duck confirmation in the same breath as "let the people decide", and literally no one in the universe, except possibly you, thinks this is a precedent they're going to hold themselves to if they find themselves holding the White House, and the Senate, with one empty SCOTUS seat. So as I said, it is a good point, and it does strengthen somewhat the argument for keeping him in, even to the point that I would accept it as the rationale for doing so. Accept, though not really agree with - it's an argument but not a particularly strong one. The Thurmond rule argument stems from Thurmond refusing to hold hearings on a nominated Supreme Court justice. You'll find this explained in the above link. Pretending as you do, that simply nominating someone "shits on" that precedent argument is idiotic, which is fine I guess because this follow on post you've crated drunkenly meanders from sentence fragment to sentence fragment in search of a coherent thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
farraday posted:The Thurmond rule argument stems from Thurmond refusing to hold hearings on a nominated Supreme Court justice. You'll find this explained in the above link. quote:The practice is not an actual "rule" and has not been followed in the past, with presidents continuing to appoint and the Senate continuing to confirm judicial nominees during election years. Although described by experts as a myth, the "rule" has been inconsistently invoked by senators from both political parties, usually when politically advantageous to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
I really like this drunken construct you've blathered into were you're claiming I believe the Senate shouldn't' confirm or that the precedent argument the're using is in anyways accurate. Chalk up another post of you being petulant and ignorant though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
holy poo poo stop saying petulant every time you post
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Well you could try reporting me again maybe it'll work out better this time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Well usually when people argue in favor of some entity getting everything it wants, it's because they have a lot of common ground with that entity. Like how you argue in favor of Senate Republicans stonewalling Obama's SCOTUS nominee, but also that they should be allowed to get that nominee they just spent eight months screaming they would never confirm, once it becomes obvious that not appointing that nominee will result in a worse outcome for them with 100% certainty. In light of that, it's not a stretch to think you're in favor of the Senate stonewalling Garland, that you believe this "precedent" bullshit will ever be allowed to have any teeth (or at least, you want everyone to think it will, for now, because honestly I can't imagine even a rock could be this dumb). I also hold the assumption, I believe reasonably so, that in the future should the GOP control the Senate and the WH in the final year of a President's term, and should they go ahead with a new appointment anyway, that your incessant cries of "petulant ignorance" for anyone who supports such a move, will be mysteriously absent. And just to be clear, you can claim "I don't think they should stonewall" all you like. If you also argue against anyone actually doing something about it, i.e. forcing their calculated risk to be an actual loving risk instead of a win/win-slightly-less proposition for them, then your words are meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well usually when people argue in favor of some entity getting everything it wants, it's because they have a lot of common ground with that entity. Like how you argue in favor of Senate Republicans stonewalling Obama's SCOTUS nominee, but also that they should be allowed to get that nominee they just spent eight months screaming they would never confirm, once it becomes obvious that not appointing that nominee will result in a worse outcome for them with 100% certainty. In light of that, it's not a stretch to think you're in favor of the Senate stonewalling Garland, that you believe this "precedent" bullshit will ever be allowed to have any teeth (or at least, you want everyone to think it will, for now, because honestly I can't imagine even a rock could be this dumb). I also hold the assumption, I believe reasonably so, that in the future should the GOP control the Senate and the WH in the final year of a President's term, and should they go ahead with a new appointment anyway, that your incessant cries "petulant ignorance" for anyone who supports such a move, will be mysteriously absent. None of this makes any sense as I have never argued Republicans should get everything they want? Or that they should stonewall Obama's nominee? Or that Garland is something the Republicans "get?" I'm just wondering how you've gotten so many people convinced you're arguing in good faith and defending your poo poo posting when you spend all your time shadow boxing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Garland literally wept during his speech accepting the nomination. I don't think Obama is going to pull him, and I don't think it would look good if he did (not that it would matter, given he'd be on his way out of office).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
farraday posted:None of this makes any sense as I have never argued Republicans should get everything they want? Or that they should stonewall Obama's nominee? Or that Garland is something the Republicans "get?"  " if everything else you're arguing would enable them to stonewall with the bare minimum of repercussion i.e. either they get a clone of Scalia on the court next year, or they get Garland in the lame duck. Of course what they really want is that clone of Scalia on the bench with 100% certainty, but considering they don't control the White House right now, the best of all possible worlds they can realistically hope for is some chance x of a Scalia clone and 1 - x chance of a compromise candidate with Obama, which is Garland. Which is exactly what you want them to get.farraday posted:I'm just wondering how you've gotten so many people convinced you're arguing in good faith and defending your poo poo posting when you spend all your time shadow boxing. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
All this aggressive flirtation is sucking the air out of the thread.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
farraday posted:Well you could try reporting me again maybe it'll work out better this time. Is this petulant, y/n
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Garland was undoubtedly high on Obama's list of potential candidates before Scalia died, but it's absolutely risible to think that he was likely number one. "Oh cool the Republicans are pulling one of their most childish moves yet, how fortunate that the guy at the top of my list just so happens to be the perfect candidate for this unforeseen circumstance!!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:All this aggressive flirtation is sucking the air out of the thread. This.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:I'm just wondering how you've gotten so many people convinced you're arguing in good faith and defending your poo poo posting when you spend all your time shadow boxing. When someone says you're being a shithead, they aren't agreeing with the person you're arguing with. They're just saying you're being a shithead about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Is there a chance that Obama is putting Garland out there to specifically shank the GOP ("they asked for him by name and STILL are stonewalling") while also expecting a Hillary victory in November after which he pulls the nomination? I mean loving the cockroaches over and then discarding Garland as soon as is politically expedient is harsh but this is a party that thinks Trump would make a good president, they deserve to spend a generation on the "4" side of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
someone said that pulling Garland after a Hillary win would be an extremely anti-Obama thing to do, and they were right. have you all been asleep the last 7 years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Thank you for suggesting this possibility, we need that to happen every page to make sure the thread doesn't drop below 60 mph and explode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Thank you for suggesting this possibility, we need that to happen every page to make sure the thread doesn't drop below 60 mph and explode. In related news, I'm wondering if the advent of spirit particle manipulation can result in eternal justices on the supreme Court, in which deceased justices vote on the bench if they died without retiring from it. In a 55 to 44 position with Eternal Lord Ginsberg Clone #7 writing for the majority...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
I don't think Obama would pull the nom after the election (or it becomes clear that Hillary will win), but I do think it's possible that Obama and Garland have an understanding that Garland will withdraw his name at some point if he doesn't get a vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
I also don't think Trump would nominate a hyper-conservative judge. By all accounts, he's fairly liberal socially. Cruz, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
It's all speculation because we don't know who would have accepted a nomination. We'll have to wait for a leak or a biography to know for sure. But let's fight about it for pages and pages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:I don't think Obama would pull the nom after the election (or it becomes clear that Hillary will win), but I do think it's possible that Obama and Garland have an understanding that Garland will withdraw his name at some point if he doesn't get a vote. This has also been covered but it seems very unlikely that Garland would agree to give up a lifelong ambition in order to ensure that Hillary can appoint a justice with views to the left of his own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Garland is right in line with President Obama, i can see the confusion with '08 campaign Obama though. This being an election year and all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I also don't think Trump would nominate a hyper-conservative judge. By all accounts, he's fairly liberal socially. Trump would appoint his sister. Cruz would appoint the ghost of Strom Thurmond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Sotomayor is amazing in some ways, but she's not great in others. She's been the sole dissent on some cases where I really agree with the majority. I think I've disagreed with Sotomayor about twice since she's hit the high bench (including the most recent criminal statutory interpretation case, and I know there was at least one other time, but beats me what it was about). She's stellar and this is my internet love letter to her. What have been some of your biggest disagreements with her?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:I don't think Obama would pull the nom after the election (or it becomes clear that Hillary will win), but I do think it's possible that Obama and Garland have an understanding that Garland will withdraw his name at some point if he doesn't get a vote. You realize that would be awful for Obama right? He needs Garland's nomination around to cudgel the GOP to either get the Supreme Court nomination OR to flip the Senate. Or both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
McConnell ruled out any movement on Garland during the Lame Duck session, citing NRA opposition to Garland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:McConnell ruled out any movement on Garland during the Lame Duck session, citing NRA opposition to Garland. We'll see if that holds up in the event that the Democrats retake the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:McConnell ruled out any movement on Garland during the Lame Duck session, citing NRA opposition to Garland. So Merrick Garland is just another ideological extremist like Robert Bork? That's too bad. I guess Obama just doesn't care about compromise. (I refer of course to the fact that Bork is the only nominee in recent history blocked due to his politics, but even he got a hearing.) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I don't know, I've heard a lot of speculation that RBG is pretty much just waiting to make sure someone sane wins the election before retiring. She's actually just been waiting for Obama to come and ask her to retire in exchange for Glenn Close taking her place. Unfortunately due to using go-betweens all her dropped hints about what Jed would do keep confusing Obama who wonders why he should care about what JEB would do. KIM JONG TRILL posted:I don't think Obama would pull the nom after the election (or it becomes clear that Hillary will win), but I do think it's possible that Obama and Garland have an understanding that Garland will withdraw his name at some point if he doesn't get a vote. While possible, it's pretty unlikely. Garland is clearly the choice for holding up Republican intransigence to the light during the election. The only way I see Obama/Garland pulling the nomination is if the plan is for a string of acceptable nominees to be thrown to the wolves for electoral spectacle, which would rely on all those sacrificial nominees to be in on it. Which seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
