|
Radish posted:Yeah and if it's a 4-4 ruling it goes back to in favor of the unions. That's fantastic. The best thing Scalia ever did in his public life.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. Except he's not consistent with that Theory and embraces judicial activism when it suits his political goals.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I read the pga case long ago but I think the pgas argument was that riding a cart would be an unfair advantage as walking for 4 hours is part of the competition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
25% of years are election years I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Cu helps unions and the Democratic Party a lot so probably not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Congress hasn't repealed the VRA, so in principle president Clinton could try to enforce the pre-clearance section again, the lower courts would all hold it unconstitutional per Supreme Court opinion, and then the SC could reverse itself in a 5-4 decision, right? That's inelegant but would probably work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Stare decisis is still a thing, I don't think a new Supreme Court would just outright reverse a bunch of recent decisions. No not really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
You know what's going to happen right. The senate relents and confirms a 60 year old moderate. Cruz wins and two left justices leave the court. the end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I agree with the poster saying lame duck is being misused on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Macaroni Surprise posted:So what does lame duck mean in politics? I thought it was just general slang. Historically the inauguration was March 4 which lead to very long lame duck period and that was subsequently changed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I mean I'm not as smart as the Senate democrats but I would be pointing out loudly how the GOPs stance is radically anti democratic by attempting to nullify the results of the 2012 election. Elections have consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
I've just been reading the nyt and haven't seen that quote. But that's probably on me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:The 2014 midterms brought us a GOP majority in the senate. Will of the people!! (Not a conservative, you just have a bad argument). That's fine if they don't confirm someone. They're not even going to have hearings at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Balanced budget We would all die.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it's a blatantly political dick move that breaks with tradition, but I'm not seeing a) a specific, enforceable Constitutional imperative for the Senate to do anything or b) a real electoral downside to them blocking a nominee from even getting a vote. The nuances of SCOTUS appointment procedures, like the difference between blocking or allowing a nomination on the committee level vs. proceeding to a full Senate vote, are probably lost on most voters. 200 plus years of tradition is a constitutional imperative.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Also the separation or power or balance is that the president has to pick someone the Senate will consent to. Not that the senate can veto the entire operation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Right, I get that in theory, but in practice, what will happen? This is a major crisis and something dramatic would happen at 2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
I think something like the senate democrats stopping the senate would be a justifiable retaliation and would cause a crisis. The republicans are idiotic tho. They should just agree to confirm a moderate older nominee and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I wonder about a hypothetical where the left wing with or without Kenedy, perhaps even Roberts writes a letter to Senate Republicans essentially saying that this is bullshit, that the president has a duty and a responsibility to appoint a successor during his time in office and the Senate has a duty and responsibility to hold a hearing, then you end up with a situation where two branches and a fair chunk of the third is telling Senate Republicans to knock this obstructionist bullshit off and Republicans have to decide if they want to look like obstructionist bullies going into the election or just try and quickly confirm and try and sweep this under the rug. Justices would never formally do that as they are barred from advisory opinions but maybe informally.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:We're at step two right now. Obama hasn't nominated anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Duh. Right so we are at step one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. They can't actually see this through.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
This is the worst constitutional crisis in a long long time. It's a new era now really and probably the beginning of the end of this form of government. Well it's over. We won't have a stable government until the Republican Party is ruined.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:This isn't a Constitutional crisis because the Republicans (nor Obama) have actually done anything yet. Thus far it's just a lot of talk. Yesterday the GOP talked themselves into a box I don't see them walking out of absent McConnell losing his leadership post which I don't even think can happen until the next Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In all serious, what happens if Obama "nominates" someone, waits a month, then takes the Senate's refusal to have a hearing as "default consent", and on the following Monday the nominee just shows up to work? That would be less radical than what the GOP is doing
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Oh the 1840s what great precedent. Surely that was a stable government which lead to peace and prosperity for all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
The majority leader and judiciary committee said yesterday - the judiciary committee in writing - that there would be no hearings no interviews no nothing That is the unprecedented and unconstitutional act to which we are reacting . I should also say it's anti democratic as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:It's all stagecraft right now. You people screaming about this need to get some of Carson's benzos and chill the gently caress out, you crybabies. How does McConnell walk this back.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Obama can't sue the senate. The sc wouldn't hear the case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I have no issue with Sandoval. "Centrist" is ok since he will be on the left for abortion and other civil rights. Though anti labor is really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
You just worry about a reverse Warren or reverse Souter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
It's not appeasing the senate. The GOP has a majority. They would never confirm a liberal for Scalias seat. Which is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
I guess technically a reverse warren/Souter would be nominating a Democrat who trends conservative on the bench which I don't think has happened in modern times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Republican presidents do kind of have the problem that once they appoint someone to a life time post they are apt to lose the crazy ideas only political pressure demands they hold.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Being governor is a tremendous real world qualification and experience.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
She went to YLS right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Nice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." Are you kidding that's unbelievable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 06:28
|
|