wadle5
New member
More so just an individual who believed in this country and others.....you should read a bit more.
Last edited:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
- Thread starter ben550
- Start date
Sisente
Member
It is a back and forth. Obama wanted to filibuster Bush appointments as well. Both parties suck, they are all crooked, and they are all in it for themselves. We need term limits, and no lifetime benefits for people serving in congress.
Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush?s Supreme Court Pick | Daily Wire
ben550
New member
As far as Supreme Court Justices, their nominations and their records, I have an observation. It seems to me that Liberals never fail to nominate and confirm far left radicals to the courts... Where conservatives typically are the ones who "compromise" and nominate a "moderate" who will be fair to both sides... And in the case where a "conservative" is nominated and confirmed it is all too common for that Judge to then come out as a moderate or more left leaning justice...
For example:
Eisenhower nominated: Warren who he expected to be a conservative justice yet ended up being an extreme leftist and extreme justice... Eisenhower later said concerning his nominating of Warren: "The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"
Reagan nominated: Robert Bork "True conservative" who failed to be confirmed and then nominated Anthony Kennedy who was confirmed but ended up being a moderate or left leaning justice...
George HW Bush nominated: Souter who ended up being a moderate or left leaning
George W Bush nominated: Roberts who ended up being a moderate or leftist (the guy who rewrote the affordable care act to make it passable)
Obama nominated: Sotomayor and Keagan who were and remain extreme left justices...
Just an observation. If both sided nominated extremes or both sides nominated moderates we would be better off and more balanced than one side nominating extremes and the other being guilted into nominating moderates...
For example:
Eisenhower nominated: Warren who he expected to be a conservative justice yet ended up being an extreme leftist and extreme justice... Eisenhower later said concerning his nominating of Warren: "The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"
Reagan nominated: Robert Bork "True conservative" who failed to be confirmed and then nominated Anthony Kennedy who was confirmed but ended up being a moderate or left leaning justice...
George HW Bush nominated: Souter who ended up being a moderate or left leaning
George W Bush nominated: Roberts who ended up being a moderate or leftist (the guy who rewrote the affordable care act to make it passable)
Obama nominated: Sotomayor and Keagan who were and remain extreme left justices...
Just an observation. If both sided nominated extremes or both sides nominated moderates we would be better off and more balanced than one side nominating extremes and the other being guilted into nominating moderates...
Last edited:
Jimmy_D
Member
From a New York Times 1987 editorial..........
"The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year."
"The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year."
ben550
New member
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DRutwOF0T48" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Joking around... telling.
Why some people hate history... Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election..."
<iframe scrollable="no" src="http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4581759" frameborder="0" height="330" width="512"></iframe>
Joking around... telling.
Why some people hate history... Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election..."
<iframe scrollable="no" src="http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4581759" frameborder="0" height="330" width="512"></iframe>
Last edited:
mnofpeace
Member
Clowns on both sides...they argue for what they want NOW...as appose to doing what most of us do everyday...
In the words of Markie Mark in "The Departed"
"I'm the guy who does his job...YOU must be the OTHER guy!!!"
Just do your jobs, Obama-choose a person, Senate, if you dont like or want that candidate, then vote that person down...how difficult is that.
That way, both the Exec and Legislative branches has done their jobs, and it will be August or so...and a new president will be at our fingertips shortly there after.
In the words of Markie Mark in "The Departed"
"I'm the guy who does his job...YOU must be the OTHER guy!!!"
Just do your jobs, Obama-choose a person, Senate, if you dont like or want that candidate, then vote that person down...how difficult is that.
That way, both the Exec and Legislative branches has done their jobs, and it will be August or so...and a new president will be at our fingertips shortly there after.
ndcent
New member
Obama Vets Republican Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval for Supreme Court Seat - WSJ
Interesting option. Republican Governor, ex federal judge, Latino, moderate, strong record. Will the GOP still block a nomination proving how childish and spiteful they are? Probably.
Interesting option. Republican Governor, ex federal judge, Latino, moderate, strong record. Will the GOP still block a nomination proving how childish and spiteful they are? Probably.
wadle5
New member
So they are being stubborn in justifying or the president is? Seems both parties are at fault.
GW Bush also nominated Alito, who has turned out to be mini-Scalia, so the conservatives got what they wanted with him.
ndcent
New member
Good bit I read..
The Senate Republicans are wrong. And, the gop candidates keep repeating the lie that there is somehow historic precedent to delay appointments of judicial nominees in a presidential election year in order to fulfill their pathologic commitment to obstructionism. Reagan's appointee, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, a presidential election year. The then Democratically controlled Senate, voted to approve Reagan's nominee by 97-0 in that last year of Reagan's presidency. 1988 is less than 80 years ago ( for the math wizards of the gop: 2016-1988=28; 28<80).
A little historical refresher is in order here: President Reagan's first nominee, Robert Bork, was nominated in October, 1987. He was found wanting during the Senate vetting process, both with respect to issues concerning judicial temperament and qualifications with respect to his writings. Next up from Reagan, was his November., 1987 nomination of Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration when the matter of his marijuana use would have been an embarrassment to the Reagan administration, which trafficked in the "just say no" anti-drug rhetoric. Then, in December, 1987, Reagan nominated Kennedy, on the eve of the congressional holiday recess, with both the knowledge and expectation that the vetting process would not and could not proceed until after congress reconvened in the new year, a presidential election year. The Democratically controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy by an overwhelming 97-0 vote; turns out that the third nominee in as many months proved to be "the charm."
The duty to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court belongs to the president who holds office at the time a vacancy arises. That is according to the US Constitution.
Even under prior political obstructionism in the "advice and consent" function by the Senate, the longest it's ever taken was 125 days. That was in 1916, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's nominee, Louis Brandeis, was skewered by the majority Republican Senate, for what they criticized as his socially liberal "tendencies." Our current president has 340 days left in his term, as of this writing, more than twice the length of the last record-setting Republican delay tactic, and ample to for both branches of government to fulfill their respective Constitutionally mandated obligations. They will be on shakier ground this time around, insofar as their a priori declaration of war on the institutions of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, whom the Republicans regularly profess to lionize. The Republican's throwing down their political gauntlet is an inexcusable dereliction of their duties under the Constitution.
Anyone with an understanding of the legal process, will know that the effect of 8 justices increases the likelihood of tie votes in hotly contested issues, with the result being an affirmation of the appellate court's decisions which, in many cases heading to final appeal, will not necessarily produce the political outcomes desired by the obstructionist gop--so they should be careful of what they wish for...not to mention that, with their clown car of presidential fantasists, it's unlikely that the next president will do their bidding.
Further, liberal and conservative are far too simplistic concepts when it comes to Supreme Court jurisprudence and Constitutional analysis--history has shown that politically conservative justices have been judicial activists at times, with the effect of activism leading to outcomes that support politically liberal positions, and politically liberal justices have, whether through activism or strict construction, arrived at politically conservative outcomes. The requirements and qualifications for the Court do not reduce themselves to convenient political diktat, despite what politicians would like the public to think. History is full of examples of appointments to the Court that do not result in Justices performing at the behest of their appointing president's political party; though the cynical appointment of an incompetent jurist, Clarence Thomas, illustrates which party has undermined the institution of the judiciary for political purpose. Unfortunately for the gop, justices' deaths don't necessarily occur conveniently when a Republican president occupies office, and all of the frothing at the mouth does not change the legal and Constitutional climate to accommodate their political wet dreams.
The Senate Republicans are wrong. And, the gop candidates keep repeating the lie that there is somehow historic precedent to delay appointments of judicial nominees in a presidential election year in order to fulfill their pathologic commitment to obstructionism. Reagan's appointee, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, a presidential election year. The then Democratically controlled Senate, voted to approve Reagan's nominee by 97-0 in that last year of Reagan's presidency. 1988 is less than 80 years ago ( for the math wizards of the gop: 2016-1988=28; 28<80).
A little historical refresher is in order here: President Reagan's first nominee, Robert Bork, was nominated in October, 1987. He was found wanting during the Senate vetting process, both with respect to issues concerning judicial temperament and qualifications with respect to his writings. Next up from Reagan, was his November., 1987 nomination of Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration when the matter of his marijuana use would have been an embarrassment to the Reagan administration, which trafficked in the "just say no" anti-drug rhetoric. Then, in December, 1987, Reagan nominated Kennedy, on the eve of the congressional holiday recess, with both the knowledge and expectation that the vetting process would not and could not proceed until after congress reconvened in the new year, a presidential election year. The Democratically controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy by an overwhelming 97-0 vote; turns out that the third nominee in as many months proved to be "the charm."
The duty to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court belongs to the president who holds office at the time a vacancy arises. That is according to the US Constitution.
Even under prior political obstructionism in the "advice and consent" function by the Senate, the longest it's ever taken was 125 days. That was in 1916, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's nominee, Louis Brandeis, was skewered by the majority Republican Senate, for what they criticized as his socially liberal "tendencies." Our current president has 340 days left in his term, as of this writing, more than twice the length of the last record-setting Republican delay tactic, and ample to for both branches of government to fulfill their respective Constitutionally mandated obligations. They will be on shakier ground this time around, insofar as their a priori declaration of war on the institutions of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, whom the Republicans regularly profess to lionize. The Republican's throwing down their political gauntlet is an inexcusable dereliction of their duties under the Constitution.
Anyone with an understanding of the legal process, will know that the effect of 8 justices increases the likelihood of tie votes in hotly contested issues, with the result being an affirmation of the appellate court's decisions which, in many cases heading to final appeal, will not necessarily produce the political outcomes desired by the obstructionist gop--so they should be careful of what they wish for...not to mention that, with their clown car of presidential fantasists, it's unlikely that the next president will do their bidding.
Further, liberal and conservative are far too simplistic concepts when it comes to Supreme Court jurisprudence and Constitutional analysis--history has shown that politically conservative justices have been judicial activists at times, with the effect of activism leading to outcomes that support politically liberal positions, and politically liberal justices have, whether through activism or strict construction, arrived at politically conservative outcomes. The requirements and qualifications for the Court do not reduce themselves to convenient political diktat, despite what politicians would like the public to think. History is full of examples of appointments to the Court that do not result in Justices performing at the behest of their appointing president's political party; though the cynical appointment of an incompetent jurist, Clarence Thomas, illustrates which party has undermined the institution of the judiciary for political purpose. Unfortunately for the gop, justices' deaths don't necessarily occur conveniently when a Republican president occupies office, and all of the frothing at the mouth does not change the legal and Constitutional climate to accommodate their political wet dreams.
