• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

Cl1mh4224rd said:
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

It's the Senate's job to review nominations and accept or reject them by vote. It is absolutely not their job to give or deny the President permission to make that nomination in the first place. They're out of line.
Click to expand...
What line?
 
BobTheCoward said:
If they think total resistance is in the interest of America and they don't violate the Constitution (which almost no one is suggestion) then they have the responsibility to act.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the Republicans in congress are not really interested in what is actually best for the United States and the people of the country.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If they think total resistance is in the interest of America and they don't violate the Constitution (which almost no one is suggestion) then they have the responsibility to act.
Click to expand...
Most Americans think that they are wrong - that they should at least consider Obama's nominee. So we'll see how well their total obstruction will work out for them.
 
Desert Fox said:
I would argue that the Republicans in congress are not really interested in what is actually best for the United States and the people of the country.
Click to expand...
They are interested in what is best for rich people. And that's about it.
 
Tony Stark said:
Most Americans think that they are wrong - that they should at least consider Obama's nominee. So we'll see how well their total obstruction will work out for them.
Click to expand...

I hope it ends poorly for them. But I get angry at the notion this is unconstitutional or some actionable violation of their oath.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I hope it ends poorly for them. But I get angry at the notion this is unconstitutional or some actionable violation of their oath.
Click to expand...
It might not be actionable, but they are clearly not doing the thing the constitution says they're supposed to do. A blanket refusal to consider any candidate in order to avoid a presidential appointment is not what they're supposed to do.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I hope it ends poorly for them. But I get angry at the notion this is unconstitutional or some actionable violation of their oath.
Click to expand...
They can obviously do this if they want to. But I doubt the founders would have been happy about the Senate refusing to even consider the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. And you are a strict originalist, right?
 
I'm pretty sure the Founders just assumed that when a Senator proposed something or a President nominated someone they would vote on them. The idea that they would act like children not even allowing things to come to a vote would have appalled them.

I think we need a new amendment to stop it.
 
Obama hasn't even nominated anybody yet, and all the Senate Republicans have done is make some vague recommendations. All this talk about the Senate not doing its job is a bit premature, innit? I think making statements and negotiating through the media is a quintessential part of a Senator's job actually.

If you want an example of the Senate not doing its job, I refer you to the last four years of Harry Reid's tenure as majority leader. The Senate didn't pass a budget resolution for fiscal years 2011, 2012, or 2013, even though a budget resolution is an important part of the budgeting process.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Obama hasn't even nominated anybody yet, and all the Senate Republicans have done is make some vague recommendations. All this talk about the Senate not doing its job is a bit premature, innit? I think making statements and negotiating through the media is a quintessential part of a Senator's job actually.

If you want an example of the Senate not doing its job, I refer you to the last four years of Harry Reid's tenure as majority leader. The Senate didn't pass a budget resolution for fiscal years 2011, 2012, or 2013, even though a budget resolution is an important part of the budgeting process.
Click to expand...
Please, Mitch McConnell has said unequivocally that there is no chance that he is going to back down from his stated position that the next President will appoint Scalia's successor. Do you think he is lying about this?
 
Tony Stark said:
They can obviously do this if they want to. But I doubt the founders would have been happy about the Senate refusing to even consider the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. And you are a strict originalist, right?
Click to expand...

I have said I'm an originalist where all major sides concede a single interpretation of the historical understanding (such as anti interracial marriage laws)

Either way, I would be extremely interested if your doubts were founded. Is there evidence or just a vague notion?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have said I'm an originalist where all major sides concede a single interpretation of the historical understanding (such as anti interracial marriage laws)

Either way, I would be extremely interested if your doubts were founded. Is there evidence or just a vague notion?
Click to expand...
Do you really think that they would have been fine with the Senate keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year without even holding hearings/votes regarding the President's nominee?
 
Tony Stark said:
Do you really think that they would have been fine with the Senate keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year without even holding hearings/votes regarding the President's nominee?
Click to expand...

I have no evidence to point me in any particular direction so I have no opinion on the question.
 
American Public: Proceed with the nomination, hearings and appointment.
Barack Obama: I'd like to place a name in consideration for the vacated post of...
GOP Congress: La La La La We Can't Hear You. Not listening La La La La.
Fuzzy-Headed Conservatives: You go, girls!


Yeah, this'll go over real well.
 
Tony Stark said:
Do you really think that they would have been fine with the Senate keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year without even holding hearings/votes regarding the President's nominee?
Click to expand...

Strict originalist only means it is okay to govern bigotry into law. It has nothing to do with processes or actual law.
 
I have been watching the Jim Barton legal case and found this
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/ne...t-justices-death-may-affect-ex-springb/nqSFj/

“Scalia had strong views about federal-court deference to state decisions, even unlawful ones,” Pagan said in an email. “His absence takes away a potential vote for the warden.”

Maybe I am misunderstanding it but the idea is that one could not appeal cases to the federal court system? Scalia would have supported this?
 
Tony Stark said:
Please, Mitch McConnell has said unequivocally that there is no chance that he is going to back down from his stated position that the next President will appoint Scalia's successor. Do you think he is lying about this?
Click to expand...

Of course he is. Do you think he wouldn't approve a moderately conservative justice? He's telegraphing to Obama that anybody left of center has no chance, and maybe even a moderate has no chance. If Obama wants to get another pick, he should nominate a slightly right-of-center judge, which, for liberals would be a big improvement over Scalia anyway.

Trying to use Senate obstruction of a liberal nominee as a campaign talking point isn't going to work. I suspect Democrats think so, but the typical voter, and especially the typical swing voter, couldn't care less about that sort of thing. It's especially not going to work now that Republicans have Democratic hypocrites (e.g. Biden and Schumer) to use as a shield.

It's a game, and the Republicans are trying to move Obama as far right as possible. Of course, Republicans aren't holding very good cards. Although I think Trump is likely to beat Hillary, he's also about as likely to nominate Howard Stern to fill Scalia's seat as he is a conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom