Author Topic: Scalia died  (Read 77734 times)

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2016, 10:35:22 AM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Oooooh that's an interesting (read crazy) take on it. Although I guess it's possible...

Interestingly, Scalia happened to die while the Senate was in recess. If Obama really wanted to get on the Court, he could resign the presidency, have President Biden make a recess appointment, and be wearing judicial robes by dinnertime. The appointment would only be good for a year or so, but it would be a pretty massive trolling job if he did it.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2016, 11:01:15 AM »
It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

Yeah...so what if Hillary has not only lied outright to the public, but also should be in jail. She's a Democrat and the rules don't matter.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2016, 11:19:35 AM »
It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

Yeah...so what if Hillary has not only lied outright to the public, but also should be in jail. She's a Democrat and the rules don't matter.

Lol

geekette

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2550
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2016, 12:51:47 PM »
Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

There's an update to that blog, and more info on SCOTUSblog as well: 
Quote
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

Nominated just prior to an election year (but certainly things were rolling by then); confirmed in an election year.

Silverado

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2016, 02:08:23 PM »
I heard. And I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope Obama nominates someone who actually has actually read the Constitution.

I'm bowing out of this thread because this sort of comment just makes me sad for humanity and democratic society.  Can you imagine if Obama were to die and people said they "couldn't be more thrilled"?  That is horrifying to contemplate.  IMO, it's sick.  We don't have to agree with other people, and vigorous debate is an essential tool for achieving a better outcome, but there should always be basic respect for the lives of other human beings.  Did you know that long before Elena Kagan was even nominated to the Supreme Court, Scalia said he would be thrilled to serve with her on the Court because he respected her intellect so much?  Anyhow, I just get upset when I hear people say they are "thrilled" that another person died.  I guess I'm probably too sensitive, but I'm okay with that.

Read it like this: The president gets to nominate a new justice, and I am thrilled!

Forget about why the nomination is coming. The rejoicing is not about someone dropping dead, but what comes next.

I heard the a couple interviews by Scaly, and he seemed like quite a politician. Two minute spot and huge amount of contradiction.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2016, 02:37:54 PM »
Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

There's an update to that blog, and more info on SCOTUSblog as well: 
Quote
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

Nominated just prior to an election year (but certainly things were rolling by then); confirmed in an election year.

Yes, that's actually a pretty interesting example because it resulted from a HUGE political play within the Senate when the Democrats rejected President Reagan's first nominee.  Like most people here are suggesting that Obama should nominate whom he wants and the Senate should then confirm, that was not at all how the Democrats played back then.  In fact, the Democrats acted exactly in the way for which they are now decrying Republicans.  But people should not be surprised by this -- politics is politics, and both sides play this game all the time!

Justice Powell had resigned effective June 26, 1987.  Even before the nomination, there were Democrats calling for their leaders to oppose whomever Reagan appointed to replace Powell.  Then, Reagan nominated Robert Bork just days later on July 1, 1987.  There was a massive, public fight over this nomination, and ultimately Bork was rejected by the Senate on October 23, 1987.  Reagan announced his next choice would be Judge Douglas Ginsburg, but Ginsburg soon after withdrew from consideration.  Reagan's third selection for this vacancy was Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated on November 30, 1987, and then not confirmed until February 3, 1988.  When you total that up, the Supreme Court went without its ninth justice for 222 days.

When you study the history of the Supreme Court, that political warfare the Democrats waged in 1987 over Judge Bork is a major event.  It was pretty brutal.  It even led to the creation of the word "bork" as a verb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Bork_as_verb):

"In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: 'To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.'"

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2016, 02:39:56 PM »
Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

There's an update to that blog, and more info on SCOTUSblog as well: 
Quote
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

Nominated just prior to an election year (but certainly things were rolling by then); confirmed in an election year.

Yes, that's actually a pretty interesting example because it resulted from a HUGE political play within the Senate when the Democrats rejected President Reagan's first nominee.  Like most people here are suggesting that Obama should nominate whom he wants and the Senate should then confirm, that was not at all how the Democrats played back then.  In fact, the Democrats acted exactly in the way for which they are now decrying Republicans.  But people should not be surprised by this -- politics is politics, and both sides play this game all the time!

Justice Powell had resigned effective June 26, 1987.  Even before the nomination, there were Democrats calling for their leaders to oppose whomever Reagan appointed to replace Powell.  Then, Reagan nominated Robert Bork just days later on July 1, 1987.  There was a massive, public fight over this nomination, and ultimately Bork was rejected by the Senate on October 23, 1987.  Reagan announced his next choice would be Judge Douglas Ginsburg, but Ginsburg soon after withdrew from consideration.  Reagan's third selection for this vacancy was Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated on November 30, 1987, and then not confirmed until February 3, 1988.  When you total that up, the Supreme Court went without its ninth justice for 222 days.

When you study the history of the Supreme Court, that political warfare the Democrats waged in 1987 over Judge Bork is a major event.  It was pretty brutal.  It even led to the creation of the word "bork" as a verb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Bork_as_verb):

"In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: 'To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.'"

That doesn't make it right.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2016, 02:43:56 PM »
That doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it did.  Just pointing out that this is par for the course in politics.  And I think it's kind of silly to be shocked or outraged.  When it's in one side's favor, the other is crying foul and acting so righteous.  Then the shoe is on the other foot, and it's the same in reverse.  It's to be expected, IMO, so I don't get too worked up about it either way.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2016, 02:45:17 PM »
Reagan's third selection for this vacancy was Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated on November 30, 1987, and then not confirmed until February 3, 1988.  When you total that up, the Supreme Court went without its ninth justice for 222 days.

I find it interesting that even the extreme example you provided, of the first two nominations being denied by the Senate and then the third one getting stalled for so long, resulted in an appointment in less time than remains in Obama's term of office. 

I think Obama gets to appoint someone, and the Senate gets to confirm or deny.  Just like it has always been done.  If the Senate wants to try to stall for longer than it has ever stalled before, I'm happy to let them try.  Basically, they'll have to actually interview and the reject like five or six nominations in a row in order to let the next President have a shot at nominating someone, and there's no guarantee that the next President will be a Republican or that the Senate will remain in Republican control. 

Maybe they should just do this the same way it's always been done?  When a SCOTUS seat opens up, the President nominates someone in about two weeks, and the Senate does confirmation hearings during their next session.  If they don't like the nominee they fail to confirm them, and the President nominates someone else.  Why is this suddenly such a hot political football?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia
« Reply #59 on: February 14, 2016, 02:47:26 PM »
Reagan's third selection for this vacancy was Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated on November 30, 1987, and then not confirmed until February 3, 1988.  When you total that up, the Supreme Court went without its ninth justice for 222 days.

I find it interesting that even the extreme example you provided, of the first two nominations being denied by the Senate and then the third one getting stalled for so long, resulted in an appointment in less time than remains in Obama's term of office. 

I think Obama gets to appoint someone, and the Senate gets to confirm or deny.  Just like it has always been done.  If the Senate wants to try to stall for longer than it has ever stalled before, I'm happy to let them try.  Basically, they'll have to actually interview and the reject like five or six nominations in a row in order to let the next President have a shot at nominating someone, and there's no guarantee that the next President will be a Republican or that the Senate will remain in Republican control. 

Maybe they should just do this the same way it's always been done?  When a SCOTUS seat opens up, the President nominates someone in about two weeks, and the Senate does confirmation hearings during their next session.  If they don't like the nominee they fail to confirm them, and the President nominates someone else.  Why is this suddenly such a hot political football?

Because the Republicans have vowed to block any and all nominees.  And that is new. And it should be called out for what it is.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia
« Reply #60 on: February 14, 2016, 02:52:15 PM »
Reagan's third selection for this vacancy was Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated on November 30, 1987, and then not confirmed until February 3, 1988.  When you total that up, the Supreme Court went without its ninth justice for 222 days.

I find it interesting that even the extreme example you provided, of the first two nominations being denied by the Senate and then the third one getting stalled for so long, resulted in an appointment in less time than remains in Obama's term of office. 

I think Obama gets to appoint someone, and the Senate gets to confirm or deny.  Just like it has always been done.  If the Senate wants to try to stall for longer than it has ever stalled before, I'm happy to let them try.  Basically, they'll have to actually interview and the reject like five or six nominations in a row in order to let the next President have a shot at nominating someone, and there's no guarantee that the next President will be a Republican or that the Senate will remain in Republican control. 

Maybe they should just do this the same way it's always been done?  When a SCOTUS seat opens up, the President nominates someone in about two weeks, and the Senate does confirmation hearings during their next session.  If they don't like the nominee they fail to confirm them, and the President nominates someone else.  Why is this suddenly such a hot political football?

Because the Republicans have vowed to block any and all nominees.  And that is new. And it should be called out for what it is.

Again, that is not new.  That is precisely what happened when the Democrats vowed to block whomever Reagan first nominated following Justice Powell's retirement.  The Democrats made that same call before Judge Bork was nominated.

Maybe they should just do this the same way it's always been done?  When a SCOTUS seat opens up, the President nominates someone in about two weeks, and the Senate does confirmation hearings during their next session.  If they don't like the nominee they fail to confirm them, and the President nominates someone else.  Why is this suddenly such a hot political football?

I agree.  The constitutional process should move forward as usual.  The Republicans don't even know whom Obama is going to nominate yet, so how can they possibly know that that the person would not be an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court bench?  They can't!

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Scalia
« Reply #61 on: February 14, 2016, 03:41:06 PM »
I agree.  The constitutional process should move forward as usual.  The Republicans don't even know whom Obama is going to nominate yet, so how can they possibly know that that the person would not be an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court bench?  They can't!

This is what's so frustrating as an independent.  Just do your jobs people.

Of course, while I'm wishing for unicorns, I'd like either party to come up with a viable candidate.  I understand the primary system is in place to prevent one side from sabotaging the other, but honestly, it doesn't work.  Each party gravitates to the most insane/inappropriate people while those of us that are independents are excluded from the process.  Sanders is practically frothing at the mouth with wackiness and he's the *best* candidate I can see.  At least I think he's a decent (albeit delusional) person.  Clinton is not trustworthy enough to run a lemonade stand, nevermind the country.  Trump has had unbelievable good luck at business that has managed to completely offset all the boneheaded decisions he's made his whole life.

I suppose we'll survive though.  We survived Bush Jr. and his trainwreck of bad choices.  We're still surviving Obama despite the fact that he's in so far over his head and seems completely unable to learn from his prior mistakes.  Sigh...

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Scalia
« Reply #62 on: February 14, 2016, 08:19:54 PM »
Because the Republicans have vowed to block any and all nominees.  And that is new. And it should be called out for what it is.

Again, that is not new.  That is precisely what happened when the Democrats vowed to block whomever Reagan first nominated following Justice Powell's retirement.  The Democrats made that same call before Judge Bork was nominated.

Do you have any references for this? The article mentioned in wiki states specifically it was about Bork,

Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
The majority leader, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, also said a nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork, a leading contender to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., ''would be inviting problems'' in the Senate because of his role in the Watergate scandals.
(emphasis added)

The article continues,

Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
At the same time the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Alan Cranston of California, the party whip, urged colleagues in a letter to form a ''solid phalanx'' of opposition if the President's nominee was an ideological extremist.
(ea)

That's to be expected -- neither party wants an extremist in the SC -- but it's different from what Mitch stated,

Quote from: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-replace-scalia-until-after-election
Because McConnell sets the Senate schedule, and the upper chamber confirms Supreme Court nominations, his remarks signal the GOP's intent to not confirm any nominee offered by President Obama.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
(ea)

It's not the same at all, from what I can tell. Byrd and crew had problems with Bork and ideological extremists and McConnell and crew have a problem with any nominee. This is why Kennedy -- not an extremist -- was accepted in about 63 days (over the holidays, too).

It may be that the Repubs will eventually accept a slightly-left leaning nominee after all but, if they reject "any" nominee, then it would be unprecedented.

Mr Dorothy Dollar

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
  • Location: Ohio
    • Dorothy Dollar
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #63 on: February 14, 2016, 08:26:57 PM »
I will miss his dissents. However, I will not miss his majority opinions.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #64 on: February 14, 2016, 09:46:53 PM »
I apologize for the length of this, but for those who are just as genuinely interested in the history of these issues as I am, below are some thought-provoking passages from the introduction chapter of one of the books that my "United States Supreme Court" class (crossover between college and graduate poli-sci students) read in the early 2000s.  The book is The Selling of Supreme Court Nominees by John Anthony Maltese (The John Hopkins University Press 1998).

Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
"Weak" presidents--those who are unelected, those who face a Senate controlled by the opposition, and those in their terminal year in office--are statistically less likely to secure confirmation of their Supreme Court nominees: . . .

- Divided government.  Presidents have made thirty-three Supreme Court nominations when the opposition party controlled the Senate . . . .  During these periods, presidents had a success rate of 54.5 percent (compared to 87.9 percent when the same party controlled both the presidency and the Senate).

- Presidents in their terminal year in office.  The Senate has considered twenty-five Supreme Court nominations during the terminal year of presidential terms but has confirmed only thirteen of them. . . . Thus, the presidential success rate dropped from 86.2 percent during their early years in office to only 52 percent during their terminal year.  (p.5)  [The footnote clarifies:  "Presidents made three of these twenty-five nominations just prior to their terminal year (Taney, Barbour, and Pitney), but Senate action took place during their terminal year."]
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
The long periods of divided government that have marked the years since 1969 have contributed to the increasingly contentious nature of recent confirmations.  So, too, has the "transformative" nature of many recent Supreme Court vacancies, in which single appointments had the potential to alter key voting blocs on the Court, thereby determining the direction of future policy decisions by the Court on such controversial issues as abortion.  In such an atmosphere, interest groups eagerly entered the fray, waging massive lobbying and public relations campaigns for and against judicial nominees.

The nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 was unprecedented in the history of Supreme Court confirmation politics in terms of the breadth of involvement by organized interests . . . , the degree of grassroots support that these groups generated, the extensive use of marketing techniques in the nomination struggle, the length and detail of Bork's public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the number of witnesses appearing at the televised hearing.  The process even generated a new verb: to Bork, which means to unleash a lobbying and public relations campaign of the kind employed against Robert Bork.  It also entails the defeat of the nominee--as was the case with Bork.  (p. 7)
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
As a result of this new atmosphere, critics have complained that the confirmation process has been perverted.  In 1988, a Twentieth Century Fund task force of distinguished scholars, lawyers, and public officials studied the Supreme Court confirmation process and made suggestions for reform.  The task force concluded that the modern confirmation process was "dangerously close to looking like the electoral process."  It further noted that the selection process had become "very much a national referendum on the appointment, with media campaigns, polling techniques, and political rhetoric that distract attention from, and sometimes completely distort, the legal qualifications of the nominee."  (p. 9)
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
Notwithstanding the unique characteristics of the Bork battle, politics has been a part of the Supreme Court selection and confirmation process since the earliest days of the Republic.  As early as 1795, the Senate rejected President George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be chief justice because of the overtly political motivations of the emerging Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties.  As we shall see . . . , Rutledge could hardly be faulted for his judicial qualifications. . . . The active involvement of partisan Federalist newspapers fanned the opposition.  (p. 10)
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
Henry Paul Monaghan points out that, in the century following the Rutledge defeat, "the Senate rejected or tabled Supreme Court nominations for virtually every conceivable reason, including the nominee's political views, political opposition to the incumbent president, senatorial courtesy, interest group pressure, and on occasion even the nominee's failure to meet minimum professional standards." . . . Joel B. Grossman and Stephen L. Wasby note that "nominations to the Supreme Court in the 18th and 19th centuries were expected to be subject to politically motivated attacks."  (p. 10)

Okay, so the above is all from just the introduction.  There are many more apt passages with sources throughout the book.  Actually, I'm glad this current situation has sparked me to revisit Maltese's book as reminders.  Just a couple more passages for now:
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
Even George Washington seemed to admit that the Senate could reject nominees for whatever reason it wanted.  In a 1789 message to a Senate committee on treaties and nominations, Washington wrote that just "as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs."

In practice, the amount of power exercised by the Senate has ebbed and flowed with changing political circumstances.  Likewise, support for an aggressive senatorial role has come variously from both ends of the political spectrum depending upon whose toes are being pinched.  (pp. 20-21)
Quote from: John Anthony Maltese
What has changed is that the Senate is neither as isolated from public pressure nor as tightly bound together by norms of elite behavior as it used to be. . . . Today's confirmation battles are no longer government affairs between the president and the Senate; they are public affairs, open to a broad range of players.  Thus, overt lobbying, public opinion polls, advertising campaigns, focus groups, and public appeals have all become a routine part of the process.

The highly public nature of modern Supreme Court appointment makes them an important symbolic test of presidential strength.  Senate defeat of a nominee can become a potent symbol of presidential weakness or mismanagement (or both), which can in turn reduce a president's prestige in the eyes of the American people and the Washington community.  Such a loss is something that no president wants, especially with presidential power now so closely tied to public support. (pp. 142-143)

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia
« Reply #65 on: February 14, 2016, 10:01:19 PM »
It's not the same at all, from what I can tell. Byrd and crew had problems with Bork and ideological extremists and McConnell and crew have a problem with any nominee. This is why Kennedy -- not an extremist -- was accepted in about 63 days (over the holidays, too).

It may be that the Repubs will eventually accept a slightly-left leaning nominee after all but, if they reject "any" nominee, then it would be unprecedented.

I think it is a much more similar situation than you will acknowledge.  As a Libertarian, I have no dog in this fight comparing the Democrat-majority Senate of 1987 versus the Republican-majority Senate of 2016.  To me, both are just more stories of the political game that is played in a divided government, especially in a presidential election year.  The whole Bork story comes about because Democrats were so successful in painting him in a certain light, and leveraging interest groups and the media to reinforce that image.

Also, just to go back to the article you cited, after the parts you quoted, it continues on to show that the Democrats' objections before Bork was even nominated served a broader purpose than simply defeating that individual nominee.  The Democrats were pissed that the Republicans had managed to block a couple key bills recently.  Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (Democrat from West Virginia)--famously racist and a former KKK member--explained:

Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
''It might not be a bad idea to say there are equally important matters facing the Senate,'' Mr. Byrd told reporters at a luncheon meeting. ''If we're going to have all this stalling by the Republicans, then let's just slow down and take a closer look at this nomination.''

Mr. Byrd's threat does not mean he would delay the nomination indefinitely. But it indicated that he was willing to hold up the nomination as leverage to force the White House to help him break Republican delaying tactics in the Senate that are holding up consideration of bills on military programs and campaign financing. 'They're Going to Pay'

''What we see now is a policy of confrontation'' from the White House and the Republicans in the Senate, Mr. Byrd said. ''It's a pattern of obstruction.'' But Mr. Byrd said the Republicans and the White House would not succeed. ''I'm going to hit them where it hurts,'' he said, referring to delaying planned recesses and keeping the Senate in session into November. ''They're going to pay,'' he said.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Scalia
« Reply #66 on: February 14, 2016, 10:26:08 PM »
It's not the same at all, from what I can tell. Byrd and crew had problems with Bork and ideological extremists and McConnell and crew have a problem with any nominee. This is why Kennedy -- not an extremist -- was accepted in about 63 days (over the holidays, too).

It may be that the Repubs will eventually accept a slightly-left leaning nominee after all but, if they reject "any" nominee, then it would be unprecedented.

I think it is a much more similar situation than you will acknowledge.  As a Libertarian, I have no dog in this fight comparing the Democrat-majority Senate of 1987 versus the Republican-majority Senate of 2016.  To me, both are just more stories of the political game that is played in a divided government, especially in a presidential election year.  The whole Bork story comes about because Democrats were so successful in painting him in a certain light, and leveraging interest groups and the media to reinforce that image.

It's similar but not "precisely" the same. Closer to the same situation would be if, oh, Obama had Bernardine Dohrn on the short list. She's a radical extremist that was involved in shady dealings back in the day, much like Bork (who was part of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, fired Cox illegally, and supported a poll tax (?!?)).

Obama: Bernardine Dohrn is on the short list.

McConnell: Nominating Dohrn would be "inviting problems."

Cornyn: And don't send any other ideological extremists our way, either, because we'll oppose them.

In reality, McConnell said we'll deny "any" nominee until the next President is in office about 340 days from now.

Quote
Mr. Byrd's threat does not mean he would delay the nomination indefinitely. But it indicated that he was willing to hold up the nomination as leverage to force the White House to help him break Republican delaying tactics in the Senate that are holding up consideration of bills on military programs and campaign financing. 'They're Going to Pay'

Oh, yeah, they were going to use it as a bargaining chip but a delay over never is a big difference.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 10:36:33 PM by bacchi »

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2016, 10:41:50 PM »
Oh, yeah, they were going to use it as a bargaining chip but a delay over never is a big difference.
True that is.  I understand where the Republicans are coming from as a political matter, because they want to make Obama look weak and want to defend the Supreme Court seat of one of their favorite justices, but this move to block consideration of all Obama nominees is a bad move!  I shall quote myself:

The constitutional process should move forward as usual.  The Republicans don't even know whom Obama is going to nominate yet, so how can they possibly know that that the person would not be an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court bench?  They can't!

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Scalia
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2016, 10:53:34 PM »
Oh, yeah, they were going to use it as a bargaining chip but a delay over never is a big difference.
True that is.  I understand where the Republicans are coming from as a political matter, because they want to make Obama look weak and want to defend the Supreme Court seat of one of their favorite justices, but this move to block consideration of all Obama nominees is a bad move!  I shall quote myself:

The constitutional process should move forward as usual.  The Republicans don't even know whom Obama is going to nominate yet, so how can they possibly know that that the person would not be an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court bench?  They can't!

One Dem strategist suggested that the Repubs were going to sacrifice themselves on the altar of Ted Cruz.

This type of tactic is definitely just a progression of our increasingly polarized government (and electorate).


FIRE me

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Location: Louisville, KY
  • So much technology, so little talent.
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2016, 11:49:49 PM »
Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

The facts you're passing on are very carefully worded (not accusing you). Reagan had Anthony Kennedy approved in 1988, in Reagan's final year in office. Mitch McConnell voted to approve Kennedy in February 1988.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #70 on: February 15, 2016, 05:11:34 AM »
I think the thing that is most sad is that we have to play these political games at all. I don't blame Republicans for not wanting to confirm an Obama nominee, I have no doubt in my mind that Harry Reid and the Democrats would engage in the same rhetoric if the roles were reversed. Each party wants their own people to get the nominations, as it's the most important court in the U.S. If you didn't engage in the political games to try and give your side the edge, you'd be a fool.

The problem with the whole thing is that any party can even get an edge with a nomination. The Supreme Court is supposed to be an unbiased mediator and interpreter of the Constitution. Political parties shouldn't come into play at all. On the issue of civil rights (gay marriage, minority voting, slave ownership, etc.) equality means equality. Seems to be pretty straightforward. On the issue of 2nd amendment rights, "shall not be infringed" seems pretty straightforward as well. All of this political nonsense just shouldn't have to occur. It's a shame that it does and the first thoughts to cross our minds is "I hope the current President does/doesn't get their nominee confirmed" rather than condolences for the family.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5345
  • Location: Texas
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #71 on: February 15, 2016, 06:52:18 AM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Oooooh that's an interesting (read crazy) take on it. Although I guess it's possible...

Interestingly, Scalia happened to die while the Senate was in recess. If Obama really wanted to get on the Court, he could resign the presidency, have President Biden make a recess appointment, and be wearing judicial robes by dinnertime. The appointment would only be good for a year or so, but it would be a pretty massive trolling job if he did it.

I don't believe he has to resign first. Numerous sitting legislators have been appointed to the Federal courts.

TomTX

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5345
  • Location: Texas
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #72 on: February 15, 2016, 07:02:32 AM »
It's still the first half of February.  There's almost 12 full months before a new President will be sworn in.  Shouldn't that be enough time to get somebody confirmed?  I'm sure they already have a short list.

It should be, if they wanted it to be.  I don't see it happening.

The longest it has ever taken for a supreme court justice to be approved is 125 days. Obama has 361 days left. I've already seen one GOP staffer say on social media that the party will block any nominee put forward.
Longest for a single justice nomination that is eventually approved. Nixon had an appointment blocked for over a year and was on the 3rd nomination by then.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #73 on: February 15, 2016, 08:20:17 AM »
Apparently Scalia said in his will that he'd like to be cremated. Millions of women are to gather to decide if that's best for his body.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2016, 09:15:13 AM »
Apparently Scalia said in his will that he'd like to be cremated. Millions of women are to gather to decide if that's best for his body.
LOL

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2016, 09:23:45 AM »
.... On the issue of 2nd amendment rights, "shall not be infringed" seems pretty straightforward as well. All of this political nonsense just shouldn't have to occur. It's a shame that it does and the first thoughts to cross our minds is "I hope the current President does/doesn't get their nominee confirmed" rather than condolences for the family.
Straightforward? If it was unambiguous there wouldn't be two centuries of legal bickering about it.
The entire 2nd amendment reads:
Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It specifically mentions a Militia and people (plural), but doesn't directly say anything about an individual's right to bear arms.  It's fairly opaque about whether the government can limit an individual's right to keep and bear arms if that person is not part of a militia, or if any regulation can be considered infringement.

I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades.


LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2016, 09:32:03 AM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2016, 09:44:39 AM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.
No thank you; I'll stick with my original statement.  There have been times in the history of the United States when there was far less discord between the parties and more compromises.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2016, 09:46:41 AM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.
No thank you; I'll stick with my original statement.  There have been times in the history of the United States when there was far less discord between the parties and more compromises.

Okay, suit yourself.  *De-Nile* is not just a river in Egypt.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2016, 10:11:50 AM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.
No thank you; I'll stick with my original statement.  There have been times in the history of the United States when there was far less discord between the parties and more compromises.

Okay, suit yourself.  *De-Nile* is not just a river in Egypt.
I'm not sure quite what you are alleging to here.... that there's never been any difference in the amount of cooperation in the US legislature?

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2016, 10:23:29 AM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.
No thank you; I'll stick with my original statement.  There have been times in the history of the United States when there was far less discord between the parties and more compromises.

Okay, suit yourself.  *De-Nile* is not just a river in Egypt.
I'm not sure quite what you are alleging to here.... that there's never been any difference in the amount of cooperation in the US legislature?

No, I read your original statement to mean that this political bickering is a thing of recent decades only.  With your clarification, I see that that's not what you were saying.  I would agree with you that it ebbs and flows over time.  It has been this bad before and it will be again.  I think it's naive to believe that what is happening now is unusual, and people who are up in arms over this just don't seem to see that this is par for the course in American politics--the differences are primarily over which party is upset and when.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2016, 10:39:11 AM »

No, I read your original statement to mean that this political bickering is a thing of recent decades only.  With your clarification, I see that that's not what you were saying.  I would agree with you that it ebbs and flows over time.  It has been this bad before and it will be again.  I think it's naive to believe that what is happening now is unusual, and people who are up in arms over this just don't seem to see that this is par for the course in American politics--the differences are primarily over which party is upset and when.
ok - that's basically what I was trying to say and I agree with what you wrote above. 

On a similar note, every election a large group of people start saying how this is 'the most important Presidential election ever!".  The only way this could be true would be if each election's importance increases every year.  This time around it's because the 'balance of the supreme court' is at stake, or maybe because "we're not winning anymore" or perhaps because "our country is no longer recognizable as American anymore".

Personally, I don't see this election as being more important than many others.  The elections of 1796, 1860, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1948, 1976 and 2000 (among others) also seem to have been incredibly important from a historical perspective.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2016, 10:43:09 AM »

No, I read your original statement to mean that this political bickering is a thing of recent decades only.  With your clarification, I see that that's not what you were saying.  I would agree with you that it ebbs and flows over time.  It has been this bad before and it will be again.  I think it's naive to believe that what is happening now is unusual, and people who are up in arms over this just don't seem to see that this is par for the course in American politics--the differences are primarily over which party is upset and when.
ok - that's basically what I was trying to say and I agree with what you wrote above. 

On a similar note, every election a large group of people start saying how this is 'the most important Presidential election ever!".  The only way this could be true would be if each election's importance increases every year.  This time around it's because the 'balance of the supreme court' is at stake, or maybe because "we're not winning anymore" or perhaps because "our country is no longer recognizable as American anymore".

Personally, I don't see this election as being more important than many others.  The elections of 1796, 1860, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1948, 1976 and 2000 (among others) also seem to have been incredibly important from a historical perspective.
For me it is important, as was the last few because of the supreme court.  Those rulings directly impact my freedom.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17497
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2016, 10:51:54 AM »

No, I read your original statement to mean that this political bickering is a thing of recent decades only.  With your clarification, I see that that's not what you were saying.  I would agree with you that it ebbs and flows over time.  It has been this bad before and it will be again.  I think it's naive to believe that what is happening now is unusual, and people who are up in arms over this just don't seem to see that this is par for the course in American politics--the differences are primarily over which party is upset and when.
ok - that's basically what I was trying to say and I agree with what you wrote above. 

On a similar note, every election a large group of people start saying how this is 'the most important Presidential election ever!".  The only way this could be true would be if each election's importance increases every year.  This time around it's because the 'balance of the supreme court' is at stake, or maybe because "we're not winning anymore" or perhaps because "our country is no longer recognizable as American anymore".

Personally, I don't see this election as being more important than many others.  The elections of 1796, 1860, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1948, 1976 and 2000 (among others) also seem to have been incredibly important from a historical perspective.
For me it is important, as was the last few because of the supreme court.  Those rulings directly impact my freedom.
I have no doubt that the outcome is important.  I am certainly keenly watching to see who will replace Judge Scalia (whenever we actually get a replacement)
My point is simply that it's unlikely that this is the most important presidential election ever for the majority of Americans, even if it may feel that way at the moment.

extremism in beliefs breeds entrenchment, which in turn results in political gridlock. 

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2016, 01:27:37 PM »
This type of political polarization is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers built in the separation of powers.  When people get polarized and pissed off enough at "the other side", they want to railroad "their" change down everyone's throats.  But that's really difficult to do if you don't have a majority in both Congress and have the Presidency and have a sympathetic Supreme Court. 

Getting anything done at all in the political process here in the US is inherently difficult (by design), and the more the average American sees that, well the more pissed off they get.  So they get more involved, which doesn't speed up anything or move anything along.  And so they get even more pissed.  And now we end up with pretty intense polarization.  We can blame the internet for this. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2016, 01:57:08 PM »
If Republicans want to block whoever Obama nominates, they should at least have the balls to have hearings, voice their disapproval and then vote on the nominee. None of this "we're just going to stop the process completely" nonsense.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2016, 02:01:58 PM »
If Republicans want to block whoever Obama nominates, they should at least have the balls to have hearings, voice their disapproval and then vote on the nominee. None of this "we're just going to stop the process completely" nonsense.

+ 1

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2016, 03:07:15 PM »
I wasn't going to weigh in here, but I just had to tell you all that my husband -- who for some reason likes to listen to random talk radio on Sirius -- just came across "Patriot Radio" (https://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmpatriot) on his way home from work. The discussion centered around why Scalia didn't have an autopsy. Apparently they were discussing whether or not Obama could have had something to do with his death.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2016, 03:12:49 PM »
I wasn't going to weigh in here, but I just had to tell you all that my husband -- who for some reason likes to listen to random talk radio on Sirius -- just came across "Patriot Radio" (https://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmpatriot) on his way home from work. The discussion centered around why Scalia didn't have an autopsy. Apparently they were discussing whether or not Obama could have had something to do with his death.

Snopes article on it:
www.snopes.com/2016/02/15/scalia-autopsy-conspiracy-theories/
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2016, 03:30:35 PM »
I wasn't going to weigh in here, but I just had to tell you all that my husband -- who for some reason likes to listen to random talk radio on Sirius -- just came across "Patriot Radio" (https://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmpatriot) on his way home from work. The discussion centered around why Scalia didn't have an autopsy. Apparently they were discussing whether or not Obama could have had something to do with his death.

Snopes article on it:
www.snopes.com/2016/02/15/scalia-autopsy-conspiracy-theories/

Thanks. I'm still trying to wipe my jaw off the floor. I don't consider myself as having a low-information diet, but apparently I haven't been that aware of how crazy the political climate has become or conversely how crazy it has always been. Obviously conspiracy theories are as old as....well, as old as civilization itself probably.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #90 on: February 15, 2016, 03:54:47 PM »
It's an interesting moment.

The court is largely balanced, with a slight conservative tilt, which there are lots of reasons to think is a good thing.  Progress does happen, in time, but there is a sense of a check on congressional and executive overreach.

I see three possibilities:

1.  President Obama takes the opportunity to really lead, and proposes a solid nominee who skews conservative to maintain that balance on the court.  I see this as least likely but I hope for the most (slightly edges out number 3).

2.  President Obama takes the opportunity to remove the conservative tilt from SCOTUS, because it's reasonable for him to try it.  I see this as most likely, and it will largely have no impact on the election, and overall lead to a country with less freedom long term (more social freedom, but far less economic).

3.  President Obama (who knows about the GOP senate block threat) nominates a phenomenally impressive jurist with crazy good credentials who no sane person could argue against, except that he-she is a pre-op whatever married to eight people in 9 states (?) former Buddhist turned Muslim with gages and a face tattoo.  I don't know if such a person exists, but it would drive the GOP off the cliff, I mean right off the bleeding edge.  Some of the pundits would absolutely suffer heart failure.

Number 3 would be entertaining for me personally, and make an eventual liberal nominee much easier to swallow for the majority of the country that really doesn't want to see radical shifts in the overall makeup of the court.  Aside from those times where Scalia was an unrepentant bigot, he was actually really great.  What we want in a replacement is someone just like him who also doesn't care where you put what in whomever.

I respect Obama's talent for the process, and I hope he combines number 1 with some sort of a deal to put a super liberal (a la number 3) on the court as well, and one of the older liberals can retire (2 spots available with that retirement + scalia, two nominees, one conservative, one liberal).  It's what Bartlett did!

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #91 on: February 15, 2016, 04:39:44 PM »
It's what Bartlett did!

Your entire post was leading up to that.  At least, that what I was thinking from your entire last paragraph.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #92 on: February 15, 2016, 06:59:35 PM »
I heard. And I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope Obama nominates someone who actually has actually read the Constitution.

I'm bowing out of this thread because this sort of comment just makes me sad for humanity and democratic society.  Can you imagine if Obama were to die and people said they "couldn't be more thrilled"?  That is horrifying to contemplate.  IMO, it's sick.  We don't have to agree with other people, and vigorous debate is an essential tool for achieving a better outcome, but there should always be basic respect for the lives of other human beings.  Did you know that long before Elena Kagan was even nominated to the Supreme Court, Scalia said he would be thrilled to serve with her on the Court because he respected her intellect so much?  Anyhow, I just get upset when I hear people say they are "thrilled" that another person died.  I guess I'm probably too sensitive, but I'm okay with that.

Agreed. Rejoicing at the death of another human is poor form at best.

You know, I tend to vote for Democrats most of the time but I really respected Justice Scalia and tended to agree quite often with the opinions of his that I read. His "textualist" viewpoint resounds quite well with me: the Constitution is the law of the land, and whenever possible we should interpret it as the people who wrote it would. If we want to run our country differently than they would (perfectly reasonable after almost 250 years!), we should amend the Constitution instead of twisting its words to mean something opposite from what was intended. I fully support the ability of courts to resolve ambiguity in laws, but they shouldn't be able to simply reverse the meaning of a law that had previously been well understood. I applaud Justice Scalia for trying, in his way, to get us back to operating more toward the original intent of the Constitution.
+1, I don't generally vote for democrats, but I am socially liberal and feel the same.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #93 on: February 15, 2016, 07:05:18 PM »
I agree that all this political nonsense shouldn't have to occur.  Sadly, that's the way it's been going in recent decades since before our country was even formed.

Fixed that for you.
No thank you; I'll stick with my original statement.  There have been times in the history of the United States when there was far less discord between the parties and more compromises.
there was arguing between different groups on deciding whether or not to break free of England and become independent, there was huge arguments over the constitution largely over whether or not states should get an equal amount of congressmen or an amount based on their population. During Washingtons first term, Hamilton started the federalists and Jefferson started the anti-federalists(or democratic republicans), they had smear campaigns against each other, they would start newspapers just to smear each others political parties, they debated over national banks, how to handle revolutionary war debt, where the capitol should be, etc. So it has been going on since at least the 1790's, likely earlier.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 07:07:37 PM by Jeremy E. »

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #94 on: February 15, 2016, 07:11:35 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #95 on: February 15, 2016, 07:19:05 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?
I don't think she'll go to jail, I think she's got a 90% shot at getting the democratic nomination and then a 50/50 shot at winning president, that being said, here is a funny thing I just thought of. I bet she could do more good for the country if she started a kickstarter that where if she raises $250 billion, she'll resign her campaign and spend 5 years in jail, and then use that money to help the country.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2016, 07:28:24 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?
I don't think she'll go to jail, I think she's got a 90% shot at getting the democratic nomination and then a 50/50 shot at winning president, that being said, here is a funny thing I just thought of. I bet she could do more good for the country if she started a kickstarter that where if she raises $250 billion, she'll resign her campaign and spend 5 years in jail, and then use that money to help the country.

Huh? You think the American people would pay an average of 8 grand apiece for her to spend 5 years in jail?

I don't understand this thought process at all.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #97 on: February 15, 2016, 07:29:24 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?

Lol

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #98 on: February 15, 2016, 08:00:01 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?
I don't think she'll go to jail, I think she's got a 90% shot at getting the democratic nomination and then a 50/50 shot at winning president, that being said, here is a funny thing I just thought of. I bet she could do more good for the country if she started a kickstarter that where if she raises $250 billion, she'll resign her campaign and spend 5 years in jail, and then use that money to help the country.

Huh? You think the American people would pay an average of 8 grand apiece for her to spend 5 years in jail?

I don't understand this thought process at all.
Did you make those lottery memes that said everyone could get 1mil each if they split the lottery between everyone? it would be $800 each. The Koch brothers have close to $100 billion alone, I'm sure they would love to see Hillary in jail and a republican president. maybe $100 billion is more reasonable than $250 billion
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 08:03:21 PM by Jeremy E. »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Scalia died
« Reply #99 on: February 15, 2016, 08:05:25 PM »
What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Can she do that from a jail cell?
I don't think she'll go to jail, I think she's got a 90% shot at getting the democratic nomination and then a 50/50 shot at winning president, that being said, here is a funny thing I just thought of. I bet she could do more good for the country if she started a kickstarter that where if she raises $250 billion, she'll resign her campaign and spend 5 years in jail, and then use that money to help the country.

Huh? You think the American people would pay an average of 8 grand apiece for her to spend 5 years in jail?

I don't understand this thought process at all.
Did you make those lottery memes that said everyone could get 1mil each if they split the lottery between everyone? it would be $800 each. The Koch brothers have close to $100 billion alone, I'm sure they would love to see Hillary in jail and a republican president. maybe $100 billion is more reasonable than $250 billion

So, what you are saying is that two people could send her to jail.  Not that the American people could.

I'm going to say that most people who would like to see Hillary in jail probably couldn't rustle up $800 to contribute.