Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year SC

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Time-Immemorial
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

Well would you look at this, Democrats in 1960 passed a bill not to appoint SC Justice in a election year.

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot.

laughing out loud

AlmightyKfish
Isn't that about the fact they were recess appointments though?

Ie Eisenhower appointed them without first getting the Senate's approval which they got later.

Not just the idea of a SC Justice being nominated in an election year?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
Isn't that about the fact they were recess appointments though?

Ie Eisenhower appointed them without first getting the Senate's approval which they got later.

Not just the idea of a SC Justice being nominated in an election year?
Yeah, once again TI's reading comprehension isn't the greatest.

Surtur
It seems people are using the word "appointed" and "nominated" interchangeably. But to me a nomination is something that doesn't guarantee a spot, just the possibility of one. Appointing someone is full on giving them a position.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, once again TI's reading comprehension isn't the greatest.

I think its yours..

Time-Immemorial
Obama actually joined filibusters and Justice nominee.

So who was it saying the democrats and Obama are not obstructionists?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261834/obama-filibustered-justice-alito-voted-against-daniel-greenfield

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Surtur
It seems people are using the word "appointed" and "nominated" interchangeably. But to me a nomination is something that doesn't guarantee a spot, just the possibility of one. Appointing someone is full on giving them a position.

First President in US History (Obama) to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/first-president-in-us-history-to-have-voted-to-filibuster-a-supreme-court-nominee-now-hopes-for-clea.html

"On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

Time-Immemorial
Its all in writing here

"Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause that says president's only president for three years."

True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?

I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

It could not be simpler. The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, then the president can appoint him. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation.

Time-Immemorial
FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40IYQjIYC

s2WCG2bKQjg

Hey Omega and Q how you getting around this onelaughing out loud

The Ecks
We got it, Kal-El. You hate democrats. You are a racist too. Get a life.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama actually joined filibusters and Justice nominee.

So who was it saying the democrats and Obama are not obstructionists?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261834/obama-filibustered-justice-alito-voted-against-daniel-greenfield


In comparison to the Republicans? It's not even close.


Yes, filibusters get used- and they're supposed to be used- but you aren't supposed to use it for everything. Furthermore, I'll point out that the Republicans threatened to shut down the government multiple times, and did shut down the government once, in order to try and obstruct things. They go to creative new heights of obstructionism.

Note that the longest gap for a nominee is still several months- and Obama is certainly going to go for a middle-of-the-road nominee here no less, not a Sotomayor or Kagan.

The problem is the Republicans are trying to block what is a directly-outlined in the constitution power of the President for no reason other than 'we don't like him.'



And seriously, why are you even trying to play this card? You have criticized the Republicans- especially John Boehner- for not being obstructionist enough!




We'd get around it if it was even in our path. Note how there's one grand flaw-

The supreme court nominee in question wasn't blocked, and the people who recommended blocking weren't the Majority Leader.


Republicans are allowed to be against specific people, to be sure. They're allowed to complai. Saying they absolutely will not allow anyone for a year because *they* want to nominate someone, though?

And, importantly, if they actually go through with it rather than just make a show? (I mean, if this is just hot air, then that's fine)

Well, that's clearly trying to grab power that is not theirs to have. The constitution is rather direct on the issue, and the level of blocking they're saying they'll do is unprecedented.



Here's this satire article again





It's a satire, but sums it up well. Why is it that the Republicans- and you specifically- are so willing to act like it's their right to stop anything the President does when the President uses legally granted powers in specifically outlined ways? Do you not get that he is the elected leader of the country? Your President?

Q99
I will add that I appreciate that Time is clearly putting more research into these things, but the situation still isn't the same... unless McConnell turns out to be just saber rattling.

Badabing
Originally posted by The Ecks
We got it, Kal-El. You hate democrats. You are a racist too. Get a life. It seems the only reason you joined KMC was to troll I, and report him. It's about time you find another reason to post on KMC.

The Ecks
Originally posted by Badabing
It seems the only reason you joined KMC was to troll I, and report him. It's about time you find another reason to post on KMC.

No other reasons. History of my posts shows I didn't post anything/anywhere else. Feel free to ban, oh you almighty mod laughing out loud

Q99
Odds guide for various SCJ possibilities

Yes, 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Barack Obama' are two technical possibilities ^^ (Though not likely for their own reasons)

The most likely?



Going for the person that no Republicans voted against 3 years ago seems like a real gimmie- it puts McConnell between a rock and a hard place, public wise it'd be very hard to block Sri as anything except blocking for the heck of it.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
In comparison to the Republicans? It's not even close.


Yes, filibusters get used- and they're supposed to be used- but you aren't supposed to use it for everything. Furthermore, I'll point out that the Republicans threatened to shut down the government multiple times, and did shut down the government once, in order to try and obstruct things. They go to creative new heights of obstructionism.

Note that the longest gap for a nominee is still several months- and Obama is certainly going to go for a middle-of-the-road nominee here no less, not a Sotomayor or Kagan.

The problem is the Republicans are trying to block what is a directly-outlined in the constitution power of the President for no reason other than 'we don't like him.'



And seriously, why are you even trying to play this card? You have criticized the Republicans- especially John Boehner- for not being obstructionist enough!




We'd get around it if it was even in our path. Note how there's one grand flaw-

The supreme court nominee in question wasn't blocked, and the people who recommended blocking weren't the Majority Leader.


Republicans are allowed to be against specific people, to be sure. They're allowed to complai. Saying they absolutely will not allow anyone for a year because *they* want to nominate someone, though?

And, importantly, if they actually go through with it rather than just make a show? (I mean, if this is just hot air, then that's fine)

Well, that's clearly trying to grab power that is not theirs to have. The constitution is rather direct on the issue, and the level of blocking they're saying they'll do is unprecedented.



Here's this satire article again





It's a satire, but sums it up well. Why is it that the Republicans- and you specifically- are so willing to act like it's their right to stop anything the President does when the President uses legally granted powers in specifically outlined ways? Do you not get that he is the elected leader of the country? Your President?

Muddying the waters, chaging the subject to other matters of politics without providing relevance.

The fact is Schumer and Obama himself have philibuster SC nominations.

I notice how you are trying to say its not the same thing but who are you kidding?

What you are saying is its ok for the Dems to do it because, and its not ok for the Reps to do it because thats obstructionism.

So the dems in the senate have the right to use their constitutional right, but not the republicans?

Double standard much?

Bardock42
The Republicans have stated they will delay and obstruct any nominee, that's completely different from looking at a nominee and deciding to vote against them, and it's completely against the constitutions that Republicans lie about wanting to uphold.

Time-Immemorial
Wrong
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

...

You realise that by being able to say that it is Alito that he rejects that is completely different than what Republicans are doing?

The Republicans have rejected EVERYONE, sight unseen. That's undemocratic and completely against the letter and spirit of the constitution.

Time-Immemorial
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

s2WCG2bKQjg

"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."

Newjak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

s2WCG2bKQjg

"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court." Is there any time limit on how it should take to approve a new judge to the Supreme Court?

Time-Immemorial
DP

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

s2WCG2bKQjg

"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."

Are you agreeing with Schumer?

At any rate he did say he would appoint a judge if they were proven to be in the mainstream...that, again, is completely different to the outright refusal of the Republicans.

Time-Immemorial
"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."

Anyways, I'm sure the republicans are bluffing, they have no spine anyways.

Glad we can agree there is hypocrisy on the democrats though.

Newjak
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you agreeing with Schumer?

At any rate he did say he would appoint a judge if they were proven to be in the mainstream...that, again, is completely different to the outright refusal of the Republicans.

Originally posted by Newjak
Is there any time limit on how it should take to approve a new judge to the Supreme Court? Hey Bardock I originally was trying to quote you when I asked this question lol.

Do you have any idea on it?

Time-Immemorial
Sure you werelaughing out loud

Bardock42
Originally posted by Newjak
Hey Bardock I originally was trying to quote you when I asked this question lol.

Do you have any idea on it?

There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years)

Newjak
Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years) That is interesting. So I guess there is nothing truly illegal about what they are doing.

But to ensure the effectiveness of the Supreme Court I would think people would rather get a new Judge elected earlier rather than later.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no time limit, potentially the Senate can stall forever, but a president can make a recess appointment, without the approval of the Senate, the judge chosen would then serve until the next Senate session (so at most up to 2 years)

He can make a interm recess appointment which still has to be approved, however if they keep people on the floor, it can still be blocked.

Adam_PoE
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIzms1UsAAHPsn.jpg

Surtur
So again does Obama get to NOMINATE someone or appoint them?

Time-Immemorial
He can nominate then with the advice and consent of the senate who approves the nomination can the person be confirmed.

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIzms1UsAAHPsn.jpg

That would be hilarious

Newjak
Originally posted by Surtur
So again does Obama get to NOMINATE someone or appoint them? He gets to nominate them but to be fair what the Republicans are doing is pretty stand offish. I mean it's one thing to say you don't like a candidate being nominated but it is entirely something else to say you will block all nominees before they are even brought to the table.

I mean if they hold true that means we will now have to wait until the end of the election to get the next Justice which imo makes the Supreme Court less effective currently in doing their job.

Also what happens if Democrats win the election will the Republicans just continue to decline any Justices on principle.

Some of this does come off childish to me

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

s2WCG2bKQjg

"We should not approve any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court."

A big Ouch for hypocritical liberal democrats.

Surtur
Originally posted by Newjak
He gets to nominate them but to be fair what the Republicans are doing is pretty stand offish. I mean it's one thing to say you don't like a candidate being nominated but it is entirely something else to say you will block all nominees before they are even brought to the table.

I mean if they hold true that means we will now have to wait until the end of the election to get the next Justice which imo makes the Supreme Court less effective currently in doing their job.

Also what happens if Democrats win the election will the Republicans just continue to decline any Justices on principle.

Some of this does come off childish to me

I actually agree that they shouldn't of said they would block all nominees no matter what. Even if that was actually what they intended to do..it was just not a wise move to come out and say that. They could of easily just waited for a nomination and then said they felt the specific candidate wasn't right. Then they could of made it more about the candidate then about Obama.

Newjak
Originally posted by Surtur
I actually agree that they shouldn't of said they would block all nominees no matter what. Even if that was actually what they intended to do..it was just not a wise move to come out and say that. They could of easily just waited for a nomination and then said they felt the specific candidate wasn't right. Then they could of made it more about the candidate then about Obama. That would have been the wise move but then they may have been thinking their core group of supporters would have seen them as weak against Democrats.

I mean just look at how much bad publicity a photo of Chris Christy hugging Obama brought him with a vocal number of conservatives.

If they decided to actually entertain or pretend to entertain the idea of appointing an Obama Justice who knows how it might hurt them.

Which is silly as can be.

Bardock42
-

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
That would have been the wise move but then they may have been thinking their core group of supporters would have seen them as weak against Democrats.

I mean just look at how much bad publicity a photo of Chris Christy hugging Obama brought him with a vocal number of conservatives.

If they decided to actually entertain or pretend to entertain the idea of appointing an Obama Justice who knows how it might hurt them.

Which is silly as can be.

Sillier then Obama saying he like justice roberts but refused to vote for him?

Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law..."

But, no he wasn't going to vote for him anyway.

"I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination."



Just face it Obama is a hypocrite and you are one for supporting the hypocrisy.

Time-Immemorial
7wb9cNQ9F6o

LOL IS THIS GUY FOR REAL

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
-

I guess you didn't know the constitution does not say how many judges have to be seated in the supreme court. The court can operate just fine with 8 and there has not always been 9 judges..

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I guess you didn't know the constitution does not say how many judges have to be seated in the supreme court. The court can operate just fine with 8 and there has not always been 9 judges..

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

Of course I knew that the number is not set by the constitution. It is currently 9 however, if Congress would want to make it 8 (a very stupid number, for obvious reasons, imo), they could, but they haven't done so currently, meaning that right now the supreme court has 9 seats, and the vacancy should be filled according to the constitution.

dadudemon
Okay, let me understand this thread...


TI is pointing out that the Democrats are being hypocrites because there are clearly dems who were going to obstruct a Supreme Court nomination from the GOP back in the day?

And now the GOP wants to obstruct any nominations Obama makes and they are crying foul? Do I have it right?



Because this seems like a simple discussion. I can sum it up:


"Democrats and Republicans act like children again."

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, let me understand this thread...


TI is pointing out that the Democrats are being hypocrites because there are clearly dems who were going to obstruct a Supreme Court nomination from the GOP back in the day?

And now the GOP wants to obstruct any nominations Obama makes and they are crying foul? Do I have it right?



Because this seems like a simple discussion. I can sum it up:


"Democrats and Republicans act like children again."

TI is trying to point out that Democrats are hypocritical, but the examples he cites have major differences that need to be considered, so the argument falls flat.

Time-Immemorial
Wrong again.

Just because you say it's different does not make it different.

It is in fact the exact same thing and your either a liar or to stupid to understand it.

Surtur
I mean either they obstructed a nomination in the past or they didn't.

Time-Immemorial
Yea it's really that simple. Bardock is a liar

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong again.

Just because you say it's different does not make it different.

It is in fact the exact same thing and your either a liar or to stupid to understand it.

I explained to you how it's different, and every source you cited includes how it is different, just because you do not accept this fact does not make it disappear.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean either they obstructed a nomination in the past or they didn't.

It's obvious what they did, he refuses to accept it. Now he's just lying.

Surtur
He is saying they did it for different reasons. But isn't the point that..it can be done? It doesn't matter why..and it wouldn't be the first time any kind of politician took advantage of a kind of loophole. I'd be surprised if Hilldog has never taken advantage of some kind of legal loophole or something.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
He is saying they did it for different reasons. But isn't the point that..it can be done? It doesn't matter why..and it wouldn't be the first time any kind of politician took advantage of a kind of loophole. I'd be surprised if Hilldog has never taken advantage of some kind of legal loophole or something.

Maybe just read the thread instead of making inane assumptions?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe just read the thread instead of making inane assumptions?

So just to be clear, you weren't pointing out that they were different because on one side we have people saying they won't support any nominee while on the other it was the specific person they nominated they had a problem with? Since your first post in this thread points out that difference.

Time-Immemorial
It would be funny to hear him explain the supposid difference and when he does he realizes it's the exact same thing.

The democrats tried to block two justices. Allito and Roberts.

Bardock is just lying through his teeth.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear, you weren't pointing out that they were different because on one side we have people saying they won't support any nominee while on the other it was the specific person they nominated they had a problem with? Since your first post in this thread points out that difference.

That is why one of the examples that TI gave is different, yes. You see that difference, right?

Time-Immemorial
You didn't and now your lying

Time-Immemorial
7wb9cNQ9F6o

From the man himself

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It would be funny to hear him explain the supposid difference and when he does he realizes it's the exact same thing.

The democrats tried to block two justices. Allito and Roberts.

Bardock is just lying through his teeth.

There are three main claims you made

1.

Obama said "I will not vote positively for Judge Alito"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone Obama puts forth"

That's different

2.
Schumer said "I urge you not to vote for anyone unless they prove themselves to be in the Mainstream of America"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone that Obama puts forth"

That's different

3.
Democrats under Eisenhower wanted to curb recess appointments in the last year of a president's reign.
Republicans say they want to curb any appointments in the last year of a president's reign.

That's different



All the examples you gave fall short of being similar examples of what the Republicans are currently doing.

Time-Immemorial
So the wording was different it's not the same thinglaughing out loud
Confession accepted

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is why one of the examples that TI gave is different, yes. You see that difference, right?

The first line was that they did it for different reasons.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So the wording was different it's not the same thinglaughing out loud
Confession accepted

No, the action was different, so it's not the same thing.

And you're not my priest.

Time-Immemorial
He's full of lies and deceit.

According to his liberal faulty logic if the way people speak was not the exact same thing it's not hypocritical.

This is what we get for arguing wrh a liberal from another country.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are three main claims you made

1.

Obama said "I will not vote positively for Judge Alito"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone Obama puts forth"

That's different

2.
Schumer said "I urge you not to vote for anyone unless they prove themselves to be in the Mainstream of America"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone that Obama puts forth"

That's different

3.
Democrats under Eisenhower wanted to curb recess appointments in the last year of a president's reign.
Republicans say they want to curb any appointments in the last year of a president's reign.

That's different



All the examples you gave fall short of being similar examples of what the Republicans are currently doing.

I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.



Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office."

Raisen
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.



Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office."

there's really no difference. bardock is biased through and through. he makes no attempt to keep it in check.

Bardock42
Obama looked at the candidate and decided he can't recommend him, which is his duty as a US Senator

Many Republicans have outright said they will not vote for any candidate Obama nominates, and in fact might use procedural tools from stopping him to nominate at all, thereby circumventing and preventing their duties as US Senators.

Time-Immemorial
Lies from a liar

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Obama looked at the candidate and decided he can't recommend him, which is his duty as a US Senator

Many Republicans have outright said they will not vote for any candidate Obama nominates, and in fact might use procedural tools from stopping him to nominate at all, thereby circumventing and preventing their duties as US Senators.

Why do you think there is a big difference between the two? Both situations are politicians opposing political actions from an opposing parties.

Also, why is one worse than the other? Why are you making it out to be a big difference? Maybe I should ask: Why should we care about those differences?



Also, is there any hypocrisy taking place from the democrats? Even a little? Don't mistake my position: I think there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Bardock42
I think I have made clear why I think there is a large difference between the two, mainly one doing the job that he is tasked with under the constitution and the others refusing to for political reasons.

If you don't see the difference, fair enough, it's out there for everyone to judge for themselves now.

Time-Immemorial
Even CNN says the democrats are hypocriteslaughing out loud

But Bardock has his own "opinion"

The same guy who says Wilson shot and kill Brown without cause which goes against all evidence.

Who would listen to anything you said ever.

Raisen
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Even CNN says the democrats are hypocriteslaughing out loud

But Bardock has his own "opinion"

The same guy who says Wilson shot and kill Brown without cause which goes against all evidence.

Who would listen to anything you said ever.

did he really say that about wilson

Time-Immemorial
Yup to this day he says Wilson is guilty and brown did nothing.

Raisen
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yup to this day he says Wilson is guilty and brown did nothing.

my god. this guy is such a spoiled tool

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I have made clear why I think there is a large difference between the two, mainly one doing the job that he is tasked with under the constitution and the others refusing to for political reasons.

If you don't see the difference, fair enough, it's out there for everyone to judge for themselves now.

Aren't both parties operating within Constitutional parameters? Is it not the GOP's job to block nominations from the Democrats, under the constitution, as well? Are they not representing their constituents by obstructing nominations from the Dems that would result in some judicial decisions that could dissatisfy their respective voters (and the same for the other way around)?

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.



Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office." I understand what Bardock is saying and he is right there is a difference. For some it may only be minor for others I can see why it makes a huge difference.

I've been trying to thank of a decent analogy this the best one I came up with so far.

Imagine you have a group Judges(The Senate) at a Fair with an award given to best animal presented(The Award in this case being the Supreme Court Vacancy).

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this:

The Republican Judges look at the person bringing the animals and decide to not Judge any of them at all.

The Democrat Judges at least look at the animals presented before saying no to them winning the award.

The difference is that one extra step of actually looking at the candidates before coming to a judgement on them. And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.

You use the words childish to describe both parties but I do think what the Republicans do comes off as slightly more childish. The fact they preemptively said no to any nominees by the President makes this seem so much more politically motivated from the offset.

Raisen
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand what Bardock is saying and he is right there is a difference. For some it may only be minor for others I can see why it makes a huge difference.

I've been trying to thank of a decent analogy this the best one I came up with so far.

Imagine you have a group Judges(The Senate) at a Fair with an award given to best animal presented(The Award in this case being the Supreme Court Vacancy).

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this:

The Republican Judges look at the person bringing the animals and decide to not Judge any of them at all.

The Democrat Judges at least look at the animals presented before saying no to them winning the award.

The difference is that one extra step of actually looking at the candidates before coming to a judgement on them. And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.

You use the words childish to describe both parties but I do think what the Republicans do comes off as slightly more childish. The fact they preemptively said no to any nominees by the President makes this seem so much more politically motivated from the offset.

you are assuming that the democrats are actually looking at the animals. these republicans always put their foot in their mouth. the democrats know how to play the game better.
their words mean nothing

Time-Immemorial
CEHdSMxlec0

Owned

Raisen
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
CEHdSMxlec0

Owned

i actually appreciate his honesty.

Time-Immemorial
He didn't really answer the question though. He nixed it.

Raisen
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He didn't really answer the question though. He nixed it.

just like all presidents would. i'm disillusioned with it all quite honestly.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Newjak
And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.


Big effing surprise here.

Can't come up with your own opinion so you just piggy back a falsehood.

Even Obama had no answer for his hypocrisy, yet you think you dolaughing out loud

Time-Immemorial
Obama dismisses his own filibuster as GOP threatens to nix nominee

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-dismisses-his-own-filibuster-as-gop-threatens-to-nix-nominee/article/2583391

No one can get around this, not even Obama.

Democrats: We have the right to use the constitution

Republicans: So do we.

Democrats: No you dont!

Bardock42
I believe the constitution says that the president appoints the judge with the advice and consent of the senate. The senate refusing to give any advice is blatantly against the constitution.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the constitution says that the president appoints the judge with the advice and consent of the senate. The senate refusing to give any advice is blatantly against the constitution.

I guess you forgot all the time Harry Reid would not even allow votes and bills to enter the senate.

Bardock42
On the contrary, I'm very unhappy about the partisan nature of the US congress, however that has been completely caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate and compromise with Democrats.

Time-Immemorial
Obama has not even nominated anyone, so you don't get to pick a future you want to see.

You already got proven wrong.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama has not even nominated anyone, so you don't get to pick a future you want to see.

You already got proven wrong.

I have only spoken about Republicans speaking out right now about how they will not consider any nominee and don't think Obama should be able to appoint anyone. That has already happened.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have only spoken about Republicans speaking out right now about how they will not consider any nominee and don't think Obama should be able to appoint anyone. That has already happened.

Yet you are still wrong on the democrats being hypocrites, as well as pretty much every news media including MSNBC doing a "Say what" on the hypocrisy. This is just another example of you ignoring all the facts like you did in the Michael Brown case and saying its your way or the highway, to hell with the evidence.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yet you are still wrong on the democrats being hypocrites, as well as pretty much every news media including MSNBC doing a "Say what" on the hypocrisy. This is just another example of you ignoring all the facts like you did in the Michael Brown case and saying its your way or the highway, to hell with the evidence.

So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?

Simply acknowledging the hypocrisy would be good enough for me. Instead of trying to lie and twist around it. I dont like the republicans any more then the democrats, hence me voting for Trump or Sanders.

But just acknowledge this exists, which no one here on the left will do.

The fact is neither side is actually wrong, this is within the constitution, but the lie that the democrats have never done it is atrocious.

Bardock42
I don't deny that Democrats are hypocritical. What I am denying is that the three examples that you gave show hypocrisy, because they do not deal with the same subject.

Newjak
Originally posted by Raisen
you are assuming that the democrats are actually looking at the animals. these republicans always put their foot in their mouth. the democrats know how to play the game better.
their words mean nothing At the very least in the scenario they actually physically looked at them.

And you could be right. Perhaps the Democrats are just better at playing the game but that is conjecture at this point. Like I said you can say the difference is slight or doesn't matter but there is a difference between the two.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't deny that Democrats are hypocritical. What I am denying is that the three examples that you gave show hypocrisy, because they do not deal with the same subject.

It is the exact same thing, and the examples you gave are meanining less because as of now, the democrats have done this, vs the republicans are just pre bluffing as no actual nominee has been put forth.

We all know the republicans are spineless empty suits that do the bidding of Obama.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

We all know the republicans are spineless empty suits that do the bidding of Obama.

Lets hope so.

Time-Immemorial
My guess is Obama will nominate a someone as far left as possible because it was Scalia's wish that he hopes the person who takes his place would continue in his originalism (textualism).

The next justice will not follow any written law and will judge though personal belief and legislation.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
My guess is Obama will nominate a someone as far left as possible because it was Scalia's wish that he hopes the person who takes his place would continue in his originalism (textualism).

The next justice will not follow any written law and will judge though personal belief and legislation.

As has been traditional in the US before Scalia.

Time-Immemorial
Huh?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand what Bardock is saying and he is right there is a difference. For some it may only be minor for others I can see why it makes a huge difference.

I've been trying to thank of a decent analogy this the best one I came up with so far.

Imagine you have a group Judges(The Senate) at a Fair with an award given to best animal presented(The Award in this case being the Supreme Court Vacancy).

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this:

The Republican Judges look at the person bringing the animals and decide to not Judge any of them at all.

The Democrat Judges at least look at the animals presented before saying no to them winning the award.

The difference is that one extra step of actually looking at the candidates before coming to a judgement on them. And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.

You use the words childish to describe both parties but I do think what the Republicans do comes off as slightly more childish. The fact they preemptively said no to any nominees by the President makes this seem so much more politically motivated from the offset.


Your scenario seems accurate but I would make a change. There is a tradition where two families always compete in this fair: Family A and Family B. The judges are roughly split even in their bias towards these two families. The A judges say they will vote against any of the entries the B family brings to the fair, no matter what they bring to the show this year. The B judges say they will vote no to the A family animals this year after seeing the entrants.


The outcome is the same: both A and B judges vote "no."


And the childishness is debatable. From another perspective, we have one saying, "No, I'm not going to like that so don't even try to keep pushing it on me." And the other is saying, "Go ahead and try to push it on me. Okay I've looked: nope!"

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the constitution says that the president appoints the judge with the advice and consent of the senate. The senate refusing to give any advice is blatantly against the constitution.


They are not refusing to give advice. They are quite obviously stating a negative vote (similar to a straight ticket vote). Please be honest in representing the discussion: some people are not smart enough to understand what you're doing who may read this thread. wink

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the contrary, I'm very unhappy about the partisan nature of the US congress, however that has been completely caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate and compromise with Democrats.


Ugh...this is such a sweeping statement that surely you realize how ignorant it is?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?

I agree. thumb up

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
.. some people are not smart enough...
Oh, interesting, so who do you think is not smart enough?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, interesting, so who do you think is not smart enough?

You, obviously.

haha


JK, JK.


I'll let you guess (but won't clarify), as usual. smile

Bardock42
I think we both know already, just thought I'd see if you are gonna say.

Raisen
Really

Time-Immemorial
Gutless spineless coward republicans

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/17/dems-predict-gop-cave-on-scalia-replacement-its-going-to-be-deja-vu-all-over-again/

Robtard
It's just a prediction, so can you wait on labeling them 'gutless' and 'spineless' until after they spread cheek and offer unrestricted access of anus to Obama? Thanks.

Bardock42
I wouldn't be so sure. The government shutdown actually had huge negative implications every day, so people were outraged. The Supreme Court only having 8 judges will really not affect people clearly for a while.

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your scenario seems accurate but I would make a change. There is a tradition where two families always compete in this fair: Family A and Family B. The judges are roughly split even in their bias towards these two families. The A judges say they will vote against any of the entries the B family brings to the fair, no matter what they bring to the show this year. The B judges say they will vote no to the A family animals this year after seeing the entrants.


The outcome is the same: both A and B judges vote "no."


And the childishness is debatable. From another perspective, we have one saying, "No, I'm not going to like that so don't even try to keep pushing it on me." And the other is saying, "Go ahead and try to push it on me. Okay I've looked: nope!" That's fair to add to the scenario.

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

Raisen
Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair to add to the scenario.

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

I can agree in a way. However that is the appeal to their people now

Newjak
Originally posted by Raisen
I can agree in a way. However that is the appeal to their people now I can agree with that. Surtur and I even talked a little about it. That the Republicans probably did this because they want to look good to their voters.

Raisen
Originally posted by Newjak
I can agree with that. Surtur and I even talked a little about it. That the Republicans probably did this because they want to look good to their voters.

That's the first thing I thought. I don't think it's a good idea either. The dems only feign consideration but it's bs and we all know it

Raisen
The Donald has everyone talking about insurgency. It's all a game and the establishment is still in the game

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair to add to the scenario.

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

I forgot to comment that your reply to me is fair and I like it. thumb up

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
I forgot to comment that your reply to me is fair and I like it. thumb up Cool

I love civil debates smile

I'm wondering how far Republicans are going to push this issue though because I'm sure Obama will nominate a candidate. I wonder if he will try to nominate the most moderate person he can get away with. That way it makes the Republicans seem too uncompromising when they oppose the nominee. Which might make Obama look better.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm wondering how far Republicans are going to push this issue though because I'm sure Obama will nominate a candidate. I wonder if he will try to nominate the most moderate person he can get away with. That way it makes the Republicans seem too uncompromising when they oppose the nominee. Which might make Obama look better.

He will probably nominate someone whom the Republicans overwhelmingly confirmed to another position. That way, they cannot justify a "no" vote this time around. "You unanimously confirmed this person to the federal court, so you cannot have any objections to confirming her to the Supreme Court." It takes away their excuse.

Time-Immemorial
Obama's SC Nominee will fall on death ears as Grassly invokes Joe Biden's 1992 Rule: No lame duck president shall nominate a SC judge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/

This most likely will give even more power to the republicans now as they now have Obama and Good Time Joe now on record trying to scuttle a SC nominee in the last year of an Presidential Election.

Time-Immemorial

Omega Vision
Joe Biden should just admit he was wrong to say it then and then everyone moves on.

Time-Immemorial
Its interesting how him and Obama are allowed to use the powers of the senate given by the constitution, but now, 24 years later in this case, suddenly the constitution has some how changed and was re written for democrats, but not for the rest of the country.

Time-Immemorial
7wb9cNQ9F6o
s2WCG2bKQjg
oVvxGa0zhWo

Just keeps getting worse for the hypocrites.

Newjak
So this is a pretty scary set of data to me

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html

I mean Trump has the most supporters right now so when 30% of his supporters say some of this stuff that is a scary percentage to me.

Time-Immemorial
And what does that have to do with OP or the Supreme Court or are you just purely posting in the wrong thread off topic for the given reason of getting at me because I am Trump supporter and you trying to hide the hypocrisy of the democrats.

Nothing in that article nor your opinion has to do with the Supreme Court vacancy.

Newjak
You are correct the article I posted has nothing to do with the supreme court. I meant to post it in the General Primary thread. I clocked the wrong one.

Time-Immemorial
Anyways back on topic.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/harry-reid-brian-sandoval-supreme-court/index.html

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Anyways back on topic.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/harry-reid-brian-sandoval-supreme-court/index.html


Now that's a curve ball. Replacing a 'Scalia' with a 'Kennedy'- not a left judge, but a swing judge.



It gives the Republicans a hard choice- if they stall, they risk getting a much more liberal justice if Hillary wins. And excuses for obstructionism seem less, they can't claim that Obama is throwing a partisan choice at them.

This, this is going to be interesting.



Btw, a story on him from a few days ago, on how despite him being a Republican governor with high approval ratings, not long ago considered one of the two most valuable endorsements in the party (and still likely valuable in the general), the campaigns (*especially* Cruz) were shunning him due to him going for a tax raise to specifically fund Nevada's underfunded education system.

So that's some additional background.

Time-Immemorial
Lets not pretend the republican governor is some big difference between Obama, he has supported amnesty, he has supported obamacare, he has supported planned parent hood, he is pro choice.

He is a liberal. Just because you put the word republican before someones name means absolutely nothing.

Adam_PoE
4j5aYGxtGdw

Time-Immemorial
7wb9cNQ9F6o
s2WCG2bKQjg
oVvxGa0zhWo

Robtard

Raisen
why do liberals always use comedians as their news.




i do like how they seem to bash both sides tho.


and lol at thurman rule. that dude is a blemish on all republicans

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Raisen
why do liberals always use comedians as their news.

being a comedian doesn't invalidate his argument if it's otherwise sound.

Robtard
Originally posted by Raisen
why do liberals always use comedians as their news.


Is Jon Oliver wrong there?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Raisen
why do liberals always use comedians as their news.

I guess liberals are generally more honest, so they can admit that they like their politics wrapped in entertainment, unlike people like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are obviously clowns and comedians, but pretend not to be.

Time-Immemorial
Hilary is the most dishonest politician in existence, it does not show much when the democrats are split between an all out socialist and herself. I see your losing touch with the movement and more concerned about TV show hosts. Just currently the only one under federal investigation by congress, the courts and FBI.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary is the most dishonest politician in existence
That had better be hyperbole.

Time-Immemorial
Sandavol said to Obama "nah, I'm good brah."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/25/gop-gov-sandoval-says-not-interested-in-supreme-court-nomination.html

Time-Immemorial
This will sink the Democrats

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/10/on-this-day-senate-rejects-robert-bork-for-the-supreme-court/

Robtard
Apples to Oranges.

Bork was blocked for many reasons noted, here's some from your article:



That's not the same as McConnell's "no matter who is nominated we will reject, Obama doesn't get to choose!" stance.

Time-Immemorial
Sorry Biden's 1992 Rule Trumps your agreement.

Adam_PoE

Time-Immemorial
Shut up, he said it on camera.

Time-Immemorial
And your left winged liberal website is lying as usual.

Then there is this

s2WCG2bKQjg

Time-Immemorial
Well Obama tried to pull a fast one.

Look like Garland will be far left then his claim of being a "moderate."

Even the NYT calls this bull shit out

"A Supreme Court with Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html

If it were up to Judge Garland, DC citizens would have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights and the EPA would have virtually unlimited control over the private property of Americans.

Republican Senate leaders should be applauded for standing on principle and upholding their role of advice and consent in filling Supreme Court vacancies.

Time-Immemorial
So funny to see the NYT tell the truth on this matter while politico is flat out lying

Merreck is one of the most liberal judges to possibly ever step foot on the bench.

NYT:"A Supreme Court with Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html

Politco:The appellate court judge blends a penchant for judicial restraint associated with conservatives with a deference to executive power more typical of liberals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/supreme-court-merrick-garland-220904

Ushgarak
As noted in the NYT piece, TI, they made an error- that's Bill Clinton's score, not Garlands's. What you put in quote marks in your post is not in the piece.

Garland has had Republican support in the past; he's considered a moderate.

Time-Immemorial
Typical, they print shit for headlines, then edit after with tiny footnotes that nullifies the whole thing.thumb up

Might as well pull the whole god damn story.

I copied and pasted the wrong quote, this is where that came from.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/17/nyt-a-supreme-court-with-merrick-garland-would-be-the-most-liberal-in-decades/

Time-Immemorial
Matt Schlapp of CPAC says he is still far left and no way a moderate.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/acu-slams-scotus-pick

"If it were up to Judge Garland, DC citizens would have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights and the EPA would have virtually unlimited control over the private property of Americans. Republican Senate leaders should be applauded for standing on principle and upholding their role of advice and consent in filling Supreme Court vacancies."

Ushgarak
Well you are always going to be able to find Republicans who despise him as a choice- it's not as if the ACU represents the consensual wing of the Republicans.

The fact remains that Garland is not a judge with a history of Republican antagonism- on the contrary, Republicans have previously voted in favour of his court appointments. That makes him about as moderate as these things get.

Time-Immemorial
He is not pro second ammendement and his views and past decions with the EPA would be disasterous for the low income portion of America.

Obama has picked him for those two reasons. Scalia shot down Obama's climate change legislation. And Heller vs DC.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-obama-climate-change-20160209-story.html

Now Obama has picked a judge that will defy and try and reverse the ruling on this as well as second amendment rights like he did in DC.

Ushgarak
Well, yes. But also a judge who has some Republican support. 'Moderate' is not code for 'Republican' you know. Obviously Obama will want to pick someone who represents his views- that is Obama's right as President. But this is not a completely partisan pick; it is a person who has support on both sides. You may not like his views- fine. But he's still a compromise candidate as these things go.

Time-Immemorial

Time-Immemorial
From the first source above

"However, there is one politically-charged issue Garland has come across in his legal career and his record on the matter should concern conservatives.

In two separate court cases, Judge Garland voted in a way that favored gun control provisions.

As a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals justice, he ruled against the NRA and in favor of the Clinton administration in 2000 on a practice that allowed the federal government to retain background information on gun owners. Second Amendment advocates consider this program a precursor to a more-developed federal gun registry, an idea strongly backed by liberals.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/is-obamas-moderate-supreme-court-pick-a-trojan-horse-for-gun-control/#ixzz43Ayt2Kao"

Ushgarak
Well you did just post a bunch of stuff trying to shoot down the idea that Garland was a moderate. If he has Republican support, that rather bolsters the 'moderate' argument.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>