|
Thug Lessons posted:You'll notice I never actually stated the latter or said anything that logically implied I believe it. The best outcome would be for the Republicans to refuse to confirm any Obama nominee and set a precedent. The only reason I said anything at all there was to respond to your comments on Bork and Kennedy. What is the precedent. Democrats don't get to appoint Supreme Court justices ?
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't mean it'll establish a precedent that parties will impose on themselves, but that if we have a situation where the Senate is controlled by one party and the White House by another we'll see repeats of this. And at the worst the Supreme Court gets to be an election issue for the first time I've ever heard of, maybe even the first time ever. The Supreme Court is an election issue every year. What the gently caress are you talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
The bar association is garbage and judicial independence is a fiction. They would probably be less political if you elected them but I don't know why you would want "non political" judges. They don't exist. Politics infuses us all and the law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Yeah they are already backtracking a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Usually when people die you say nice things about them idk.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So what was his Autobahn? Hamdi v Rumsfeld iirc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
All of the justices have top notch staffs of like the best lawyers in the country and they themselves are good lawyers . The authority of their branch of government rests on persuasion and the appearance of expertise. You are going to get well written opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:I imagine that lawyers who loathed Scalia's jurisprudence still mourning him is like how Hunter S. Thompson felt when Nixon died - all of a sudden, this great adversary who gave your career, nay, your life meaning, your own personal white whale, is gone, and no matter how much you may have hated them, you still feel a little lost without them. At least they gave you something to focus on. Nah he isn't it wasn't the perfect robot conservative .
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
"Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.” " These are terrible "facts". If this is the best the right can come up with they aren't going to win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
The decision is to hold hearings or not. Obama will nominate someone soon after the funeral imho.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously. It makes the most sense by far. Let them argue why they won't have hearings for someone they unanimously approved.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:Has the funeral been scheduled yet? Obama needs to name a nominee already so these right wing jerks can put up or shut up. Saturday
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
It's not even a generation. If a republican wins the White House it is likely control will flip back soon. If a democrat wins, they are losing anyway. I wonder if they really want to spend a lot of capital on this. IMHO of course.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Biden was on the judiciary committee in 92 iirc
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:A disgusting level of partisanship of both parties at equal magnitudes. Certainly contemporary Republicans have done nothing that Democrats haven't done countless times before. Do you have a source for this claim.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Could someone sue the Senate for not living up to their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent, since they have outright stated that not only will they not confirm a nominee, they won't even consider having a hearing for one? No. No.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Yep, this is right. Really the idea that nomination confirmations should not be contentious or politicized is the actual "mere tradition" in this case. Congress has every right to reject or accept nominees as they see fit, the idea that it should not be politically based is just a thing like earmarks that mainly exist to grease the wheels of the system. Rejecting is fine. Not even holding hearings is anti democratic nihilism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Only because the south is allied with the midwest, and contains our larger military bases, so probably. 200+ years of timely holding hearing means firmly holding hearings is constitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Yes. They are allowed to hold their hearings in a timely manner. But they are not disallowed from holding them in an untimely manner, there's no speed requirement like there is for court cases, unless I'm unaware of existing precedent on it. Either way, it's not there as a strict reading, only possibly implied as being necessary for the actual functioning of the system. What has been done for 200 years without controversy IS the Constitution. That is constitutional law. Not only what the document says by how it is interpreted. For 200 years the senate had interpreted the constitution to mean X. Now out of the blue and for entirely base reasons they are saying -X. Unconstitutional in its more flagrant sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Like if this were January 2017 and trump was elected maybe the Gop would have a point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
foobardog posted:No, it's not, at least that's not what constitutional law/unconstitutional usually means. The Senate's interpretation of the Constitution doesn't mean poo poo, only the Supreme Court's does. For example, filibustering appears nowhere in the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court has generally stayed out of controlling how Congress runs its business, they're not going to strike it down. That's extremely wrong. congress and the president are co equal branches with the Supreme Court and their interpretation is equally valid except in the extreme fringe cases of judicial review. The practice of government over time has always informed "constitutionality" and in jurisdictions without written constitution are even more important, for example. Constitutional law is way broader than the dry words written in the Constitution. Don't let he fact that out foundational written document is called the "Constitution" confuse you from the fact that many sources inform American constitutional law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
foobardog posted:
No. A vacancy on the sc has never happened in a lame duck period so the senate would be acting in the first instance. So fine. We are not now in a lame duck period so it's situation normal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:I believe the phrase you're looking for is "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Which is stupid. It should the absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Especially if you want to invade Iraq. Yeah this is the important part.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 14:33
|
|