|
evilmiera posted:I just tried to look up what kind of smokes he used to take part in, and I found another reason not to like him much. I assume the cross mentioned in the article is the Mt. Soledad cross. With Scalia gone, is it finally going to be removed from government lands like it should have been 27 years ago?
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Henker posted:I don't even care that it's a giant cross on public land, I want it gone because it's ugly as hell. Looks like someone stacked a bunch of cinder blocks on top of each other. Look, you can't get a court order for legally indefensible artistic failure. So you've got to point out that it's very existence is unconstitutional on other grounds. Let Madison do the heavy lifting for reasonable aesthetic taste.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
When the Republicans stonewall Obama's nominees through the election, I hope the Democratic winner of the General brings props to their victory speech. Mention their views on Supreme Court nominees and state that among the most important qualifications is being able to lift these *holds up moderately large hammer and sickle*. Then they wait at least 3 days before confusingly responding to media questions that they just meant they needed to be fit enough to lift some weights, why would you think otherwise?Discendo Vox posted:Obama for mayor of DC. Of all the jobs put forth for Obama so far, this is by far the worst. Please stop hatting on Barry. UrbicaMortis posted:Have any presidents ever done that before? I can't imagine hillary would be pleased. John Quincy Adams served in the House for years after his Presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:If God forbid Ginsburg had died instead of Scalia, would conservatives be putting up a fight since Ginsburg would be replaced with another liberal Judge? Or do you think this big unprecedented FU would've happened regardless as one final big FU? Nope. Cruz and his ilk would cry crocodile tears and vote no. But the Senate would confirm and there would be no general outrage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:RBG dying instead means they could have a chance at locking down the SCOTUS as a conservative institute for a generation or more. We would absolutely see the same bullshit since the idea of a 5+Kennedy conservative SCOTUS in addition to holding Congress and maybe getting the White House means there would be zero chance of opposing any crazy poo poo they want to pass since the SCOTUS would move to outlaw SSM and enshrine religious discrimination as soon as the first ALEC-crafted case made it to them. The only reason they're getting any sort of traction right now is because Obama would actually flip the court with a Scalia replacement. If him choosing someone is just keeping the status quo only the most fringe part of the right, the part that jerks off to impeachments and government shut downs, would get up in arms. The Senate would do a tiny bit of saber rattling and many a speech about the terrifying communist Obama influence, but there would be no real hot air in the sails. The usual group of Republican Senators who vote for Democratic nominees when they actually come to a vote aren't going to be very excited about stonewalling a liberal replacement of a liberal justice either. Also while the Media and "neutral" observers are currently willing to at least postulate the idea that the Republicans aren't totally full of poo poo right now, holding up the replacement of RGB with a liberal isn't going to be defended. Also there's no way the Cruz crew and the right wing media don't poo poo all over RGB in absentia. So in this situation Scalia is gonna be pised that fuckers are dissing his girl RGB. He'd be fine with the 5-4 status quo, as would the rest of the conservative block, and they'd be much more likely to vocally call out the bullshit. Further, the Republican Senators in questionably winnable races would pretty much have to publicly come out against trying to save RGB's seat for a conservative. Right now they can probably get by with pointing to Grassley and McConnell and shrugging their shoulders, because people will give far more weight to the idea Obama shouldn't flip the ideology of the court than he shouldn't replace a liberal justice. The only thing that gives this replacement nomination stonewalling any sort of traction with the general population is the nebulous idea of misplaced fairness and that the flipping of the court is a big deal. Take that away and the Republicans are just being dicks to be dicks in a far more public way than usual. The base isn't going to care any more than they did when Obama got Kagan and Sotomayor on the court either, so there's not nearly as much upside for all the downside.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:An even number of jurists is a really terrible idea at any level. A bunch of 4-4 splits ends up with hugely dysfunctional governm... It'll be a great Nina Totenberg piece about the unsolicited 8-0 SC ruling that Congress is loving dumb though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This. There is a very low glass ceiling at the UN for US citizens. Kenya can advance him pretty far though. It'd be worth the hassle of finding a way toward some sort of dual citizenship deal just to watch the right wing explode from the UN building.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Fair enough point. What's the longest it's taken to confirm a supreme court nominee? The longest time to confirm a nominee is kind of irrelevant. If the Senate refuses to affirm a a nominee they'll be withdrawn for a new nominee, but the time for confirmation goes from nomination to confirmation. So those who aren't confirmed don't count. Other than W's Miers nomination and Reagan's aborted Ginsburg nomination, they've all nominees have been voted on in modern times. Nixon almost made the list too, but his Miers type incompetent nominees were going to be declared incompetent so he didn't actually nominate them. Since Tyler the Senate has pretty much accepted or rejected every nominee that didn't have their nomination withdrawn. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson had nominees that the Senate passed a resolution to postpone the nomination of, which was meant to be indefinite. Tyler just had all his nominations end with a resolution to table the nomination. The only real parallel to the current threat is from Hayes' administration. Where he nominated someone controversial and the Senate just ignored it until the next guy was elected. Of course Hayes did make the nomination in January 1881 and Garfield took office in March 1881, so that's a pretty shaky precedent to try and lean on. Aside from the general bad idea of pointing to the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidency and saying "let's do that!" The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months, when the Senate refused to accept Tyler nominees. The longest vacancy since the Court went to 9 Justices is 391 days, when Nixon had a couple nominees rejected. Gyges fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Look, if I can find a single clip of just one person aligned with your side saying something dumb that means it's totally defensible for my entire side to be doing incredibly dumb poo poo. Fair's fair, and now I'm off to sponsor a bill to require Senators to douse any supreme court nominee in Hershey's syrup because of this clip I've found of then Senator Santorum saying just the dumbest poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Al! posted:How hard would the senate judiciary committee to scramble to get whomever Obama wanted confirmed if we are looking at a Hillary/Trump race. Bernie Sanders wins in November, then immediately after the Electoral College votes him and his Vice President, Full Communism Now, in Bernie is raptured to Heaven like Elijah. The scramble to get Obama to nominate someone that they can confirm will be delightful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No. It happened for Rutherford B. Hayes. Associate Justice Noah Swayne resigned with the understanding that Hayes would appoint Swayne's buddy to the court. Congress ignored it until Garfield took office, and once Garfield renominated Sayne's buddy Matthews the Senate confirmed him. Of course the resignation and first nomination happened at the rear end end of January 1881 and Garfield resent the nomination in the spring after he was sworn in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:Just tossing this out there: in my opinion there should be a cap on the number of justices a president can appoint. I think everyone can agree that 10 is a bit much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
The only fair way is to let a highly qualified individual who was good friends with Scalia decide his original intent. Until the vacancy is filled RBG gets two votes in every case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 20:26
|
|