Face the fax wrote:
Currently 9 of 13 circuit courts have a liberal majority.
At most, that would simply be the opinion of an individual observer.
Face the fax wrote:
Currently 9 of 13 circuit courts have a liberal majority.
At most, that would simply be the opinion of an individual observer.
fair and balanced wrote:
I did a google search "site:letsrun.com libtard" and got 1500 hits.
I'm a popular guy.
Every GOOD human should rejoice in the death of this person. You're not a good human if you don't hate your opponents.
Long live the cause!
Avocado's Number wrote:
(Democrats, for example, blocked John Roberts from becoming a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1992.) These tactics disgust me. McConnell has made little secret of his disdain for the President, but that's not a good reason for preventing the President from exercising the rights and obligations of his office.
Maybe our deer leader should exercise his obligation to appoint an Inspector General first?
Wtfunny wrote:
Lorenzo (Larry) Liberal wrote:... The Republican party and its conservative platform haven't won the popular vote in a national election since 1988 when George HW Bush beat Dukakis (Al Gore had more popular vote than George W Bush, but lost due to electoral college via the Supreme Court). So in the only national referendum on their platform, conservatives haven't won in nearly 20 years. ....
Well, this isn't true. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. And both the 2010 and 2014 midterms were decidedly republican. Even 2012, though Barack Obama won handily, saw a decisive win for the republicans in Congress.
LOL, I keep forgetting about that second Bush term......thx.
Lorenzo (Larry) Liberal wrote:
LOL, I keep forgetting about that second Bush term.......
:) I can imagine why.
Best Obama nominee for the new vacancy on the SC -
1. Anita Hill
Though, just for kicks, it'd be awesome to hear him start bandying the name Ted Cruz, Constitutional Scholar, around as someone he's seriously considering.
If Republicans try to mess with the process, it will only hurt them in the election. Republicans (especially in Congress) don't really seem to be actually trying to win the presidency, so I expect more gun to footery. The only hope for Republicans is a split in the party to weed out the crazies. Remember after the last election, all the talk was about a bigger tent and winning over the Latino vote? Didn't happen.
Apulia Station wrote:
The only hope for Republicans is a split in the party to weed out the crazies.
Don't worry. Trump is busy weeding out the crazies. Most of them have already joined the dems.
jjjjj wrote:
Bill Clinton doesn't fit the age/health criterion that Obama has been using to make sure his nominees last somewhat close to as long as Republican nominees, but more importantly, I believe that what they got out of all that nonsense Lewinsky scandal was an agreement that he couldn't serve as a justice--something on his legal record.
Jeh Johnson would be the kind of nominee that might work with the Senate as currently composed. He wasn't on previous long lists of possibles.
Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice. He might even want that. Who knows? Clinton would have made a very good one if there had been a President Gore and the aforesaid plea deal was annulled. The Democrats have not nominated a male justice, I believe, since Clinton's presidency. There are surely many very strong male democratic candidates by this time, several generations of them.
Hard to believe you are allowed to roam free.
Common Core Kid? wrote:
"It would be sort of amusing if Bernie wins, democrats pick up 5 seats and some ultraliberal person gets nominated. Or if democrats get 51 votes and the republicans win the presidency. Do they just veto everyone until the next election so that the people have a chance to speak? What about is another justice or 2 die/retire (i.e. a couple of them are getting north of 80)?"
Yes it's always quite a side buster watching a once great Republic turn into a cesspool of moral-less, politically correct, embicilic decay.
yeah it was so much better when we didn't let woman and the coloreds vote. :) And even worse the conservatives these days instead have adopted the liberal policey of interpereting the constition (last time I read it there was no crap about lame duck periods in it) rather than obeying it.
Seriously the humor is the republicans assumption of that they will win. There is a pretty decent chance they will be in a worse place in 12 months. Sanders is far more liberal than Obama and even a moderate like Hillary will have a lot less incentive to nominate a moderate. The republicans are gambling they will be able to get a conservative (note even if they win the presidency odds are against having 60 votes) at the expense of getting a more liberal one. They might really regret that choice in 12 months.
I am late to this thread but let it be known that these republicans are unamerican and in full dereliction of their duties. As usual.
agip wrote:
I am late to this thread but let it be known that these republicans are unamerican and in full dereliction of their duties. As usual.
Smokescreen...the fool in the White House fits your description better than anybody.
He died at one of those hunting ranches in Texas huh?
Seeing he's a hunting buddy with that all time draft dodger Dickie Boy Cheney..I'll bet it was one of those hunting ranches where the staff round up helpless animals in a pen and rich fat ass old "up from the boot straps" conservatives shoot them down....
So, in this case, defenseless animals 1....big game hunters from a truck 0
dxc wrote:
He died at one of those hunting ranches in Texas huh?
Seeing he's a hunting buddy with that all time draft dodger Dickie Boy Cheney..I'll bet it was one of those hunting ranches where the staff round up helpless animals in a pen and rich fat ass old "up from the boot straps" conservatives shoot them down....
So, in this case, defenseless animals 1....big game hunters from a truck 0
He was also a hunting buddy of Justice Kagan.
agip wrote:
I am late to this thread but let it be known that these republicans are unamerican and in full dereliction of their duties. As usual.
Both sides have obstructed past confirmations... no one can claim innocence in this game.
Nothing else to discuss wrote:
agip wrote:I am late to this thread but let it be known that these republicans are unamerican and in full dereliction of their duties. As usual.
Both sides have obstructed past confirmations... no one can claim innocence in this game.
no democratic majority has flatly refused to fill an opening on the Supreme court.
this is a complete outrage and shows the repubs don't care about the constitution - they only care about power and reelection.
it is a constitutional crisis. A political party withdrawing from its responsibilities in the Senate.
shockingly embarrasing.
not only allowed but encouraged. It helps to have a brain and the willingness to use it.
Srinivasan does sound like he fits the criteria as well (born in 1967, substantial experience before the court, no opposition from Republicans previously, etc.).
Though it is not my field, I pitched in when there was a need and taught constitutional law twice a few years back. From reading many, many opinions, I believe that Scalia's opinions are much worse than you allow, whether the question is intemperance, ignorance of precedent, hypocrisy, or political engineering. The decisions come first and are nearly all predictable (pro-business, pro-republican ideology, obviously), the reasoning comes after the fact and is invalid.
The point here, however, is that while a party may very well decide to block a particular nominee in exceptional circumstances--blocking Roberts from the Court of Appeals was absolutely the right decision, as he is a political hack, though certainly intelligent and more of the death from a thousand cuts type than Scalia's revolutionary type--it cannot decide to close off ANY nomination for the court and simply prevent any consideration for a protracted period of time.
agip wrote:
Nothing else to discuss wrote:Both sides have obstructed past confirmations... no one can claim innocence in this game.
no democratic majority has flatly refused to fill an opening on the Supreme court.
this is a complete outrage and shows the repubs don't care about the constitution - they only care about power and reelection.
it is a constitutional crisis. A political party withdrawing from its responsibilities in the Senate.
shockingly embarrasing.
I respectfully disagree. Democrats were well known to obstruct Bush appointees to federal benches, appellate specifically. Liberal pundits and scholars openly encourage any and all Bush judicial appointees, including to the Supreme Court, be blocked. This Yale law professor claimed at the time the Supreme Court could function quite well without its "full complement."
https://web.archive.org/web/20041224170504/http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=5663According to this scholarly panel, the Senate has no duty to confirm a nominee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/us/washington-talk-democrats-readying-for-judicial-fight.htmlPeoples perceptions differ on this issue depending on the make up of the Court and who's doing the appointing.
Robert Bork was blackballed for political reasons by a democratic senate majority in 1987. Clarence Thomas narrowly overcame a similar strategy in 1991.For all ya'll talking smack about Justice Thomas, watch "Conrack" on Netflix. That's the culture where he was raised. Pretty amazing that he could overcome that, and rise to the top of the Legal profession.
[
no democratic majority has flatly refused to fill an opening on the Supreme court.
this is a complete outrage and shows the repubs don't care about the constitution - they only care about power and reelection.
it is a constitutional crisis. A political party withdrawing from its responsibilities in the Senate.
shockingly embarrasing.