Scalia dead at 79 - Page 57 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Scalia dead at 79

...

Page 57 of 80

First

7 37 47 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 67 77

Last

Page 57 of 80

First

7 37 47 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 67 77

Last

02-23-2016 , 10:37 AM

#1401

problemeliminator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 9,467

Yeah, what Biden said about a hypothetical situation, and what the Republicans have actually done are not the same.

02-23-2016 , 10:41 AM

#1402

raradevils

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by problemeliminator

Yeah, what Biden said about a hypothetical situation, and what the Republicans have actually done are not the same.

Has Obama named any nominee yet?

So nobody's done anything yet except talk. In case you haven't realized it yet, talk is cheap in Washington.

02-23-2016 , 10:43 AM

#1403

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,539

Quote:

Originally Posted by problemeliminator

Yeah, what Biden said about a hypothetical situation, and what the Republicans have actually done are not the same.

So what? I am guessing it offers plenty of ammunition to deflect criticism of the Repubs in the Senate. We'll see how it plays out.

02-23-2016 , 10:44 AM

#1404

True North

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,703

Quote:

Originally Posted by awval999

The Senate is just gonna wait until the primaries are over. If it's Clinton vs Trump I think they snap accept a moderate Obama nomination. If it's Clinton vs RubiOS they obviously wait to see if Rubio wins. If he loses they will confirm Obama's moderate nominee.

If RubiOS loses, there won't be a moderate to confirm. He'll pull back his nominee and let Hillary nominate someone else. Senate will pretty much be forced to confirm because, after all, the people had their say in selecting the new justice.

02-23-2016 , 10:48 AM

#1405

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,539

Quote:

Originally Posted by raradevils

Has Obama named any nominee yet?

So nobody's done anything yet except talk. In case you haven't realized it yet, talk is cheap in Washington.

What you say is true but a big part of it is timing. One aspect is that Scalia just got put in the ground, Obama doesn't want to appear too eager. Second, waiting for a really politically advantageous opportunity to make the annoncement seems like an obvious move.

02-23-2016 , 11:17 AM

#1406

raradevils

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

Agree, but the Rep have been talking for 4-6 years about what they are going to do then fall in line. It's one of the reasons Trump is doing so well.

02-23-2016 , 11:23 AM

#1407

ogallalabob

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,448

Quote:

Originally Posted by True North

Not seeing Obama nominating a moderate. At best it will be someone whose views are not well known and will refuse to give any substantive views in confirmation hearings. But Obama will have assurances that they support the far left in all matters. He is not going to hurt his legacy by putting someone on the Supreme Court that votes against anything on the left.

Right now a messy confirmation hearing process at best can be a wash for the GOP and at worst hurt them in the elections. No reason to not see if it will hurt them.

02-23-2016 , 11:28 AM

#1408

np1235711

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by problemeliminator

Yeah, what Biden said about a hypothetical situation, and what the Republicans have actually done are not the same.

Ummmm... the R's haven't "done" anything other than talk in the same way biden did decades ago.

02-23-2016 , 11:37 AM

#1409

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by np1235711

Hmmmm.... Mr Oliver probably should have quoted VP Joe Biden when he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

https://youtu.be/mI9J4a8IcAo

Now.... in the interest of fairness, this was taken out of a 1.5 hr speech. Biden went on to further say:

https://youtu.be/P1erqNm9nHc

So.... his position was during an election season senators should be to look at a Presidents nominee with an extra jaundiced eye, tabling it in committee if necessary.

He goes on to say if the President nominates a moderate, it should be voted on.

Of course Obama's definition of what is a moderate and the Republican senator's definition might have a problem meeting in the middle.

But Biden clearly reserved the right to block any nomination during an "election season" he didn't agree with philosophically.

Hahahahahahha. Did you completely miss Domer getting soundly mocked for posting this exact clip and us going through the whole context?

02-23-2016 , 11:40 AM

#1410

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by np1235711

Ummmm... the R's haven't "done" anything other than talk in the same way biden did decades ago.

No Democrat has threatened to block any and all nominees. Posturing about blocking extremists so as to confirm moderates happens every time there's a spot on the bench and differing parties in the White House and Senate.

02-23-2016 , 11:43 AM

#1411

np1235711

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

is it that 1990s speech chestnut rearing its head again after having been laughed out of the thread once already?

Being laughed out of a thread on this board is often akin to a red badge of courage :-)

My own personal view is a Supreme Court justice should be chosen on his/her /its ability to actually judge. I loathe justices who in a drone like fashion "judge" by looking at their own philosophical prejudiced position (left or right) and then concocting a legal argument to get to that place.

Kennedy and O'Connor are the sort of Justices I would like to see named.... those that can vote either way on the biggest issues depending on the arguments, not their own personal philosophy.

02-23-2016 , 11:48 AM

#1412

problemeliminator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 9,467

Was there a Supreme Court vacancy at the time Biden was speaking?

02-23-2016 , 11:56 AM

#1413

np1235711

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by problemeliminator

Was there a Supreme Court vacancy at the time Biden was speaking?

I don't honestly know, but he was pretty clear what his position would be.... if he didn't agree with the nominee's philosophy he would look for political cover to be an obstructionist by claiming in the election season , we should wait for the next president.

He was speaking in the Senate, so I assumed he meant what he said.

02-23-2016 , 11:58 AM

#1414

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by np1235711

He was speaking in the Senate, so I assumed he meant what he said.

Hahahahhahahaha

02-23-2016 , 12:18 PM

#1415

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

red badge of courage here, folks

02-23-2016 , 12:26 PM

#1416

np1235711

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1,217

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

red badge of courage here, folks

Stephen Crane lives......

02-23-2016 , 03:10 PM

#1417

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,313

What Scalia said about having 8 justices

Quote:

The Sierra Club petitioned Scalia to recuse himself, citing his personal relationship with Cheney. They had, famously, gone duck-hunting together.
Scalia rejected the request and, in so doing, explained the adverse impact of that losing a justice has on the court. Here is the key passage from Scalia’s memo, noted by a former law clerk for Scalia, Ian Samuel:

Quote:

On the Supreme Court, however, the consequence is different: The Court proceeds with eight Justices, raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. Thus, as Justices stated in their 1993 Statement of Recusal Policy: “[W]e do not think it would serve the public interest to go beyond the requirements of the statute, and to recuse ourselves, out of an excess of caution, whenever a relative is a partner in the firm before us or acted as a lawyer at an earlier stage. Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court.” (Available in Clerk of Court’s case file.) Moreover, granting the motion is (insofar as the outcome of the particular case is concerned) effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner. The petitioner needs five votes to overturn the judgment below, and it makes no difference whether the needed fifth vote is missing because it has been cast for the other side, or because it has not been cast at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...terrible-idea/

02-23-2016 , 03:16 PM

#1418

TrollyWantACracker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,195

If they don't want an even number on the court, we could just dump Alito too.

02-23-2016 , 05:12 PM

#1419

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Greenwald goes HAM on Georgetown Law

Quote:

So far, so good: right? The Georgetown dean lionized Scalia as a “brilliant jurist” from whom we all learned so very much and whom we will “all miss,” while a law professor objected to that view and argued that Scalia was actually a destructive presence on the Court. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of debate that one should find at a major U.S. law school, the sort of debate thinking adults have on a daily basis. Vehement criticisms of Scalia have long been, and still are, commonplace; The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin this week wrote that Scalia “devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy.”

But two conservative law professors on the Georgetown faculty are indignant that this debate took place at all. The right-wing duo, Randy Barnett and Nick Rosenkranz (a senior Rubio adviser), sent their own email denouncing Peller’s anti-Scalia statement: not on substantive grounds that he was wrong on the merits about Scalia, but insisting that he had no right to criticize Scalia at all.

Quote:

After they each recounted fond personal memories they shared with Justice Scalia (“We had lunch together at his favorite pizza place, AV Ristorante. … We once sang a song together, believe it or not: Oh, Danny Boy”), they jointly moved to the crux of their grievance: It was “simply cruel beyond words” to subject these two professors to criticisms of their beloved hero. They literally said that:

Quote:

To hear from one’s colleagues, within hours of the death of a hero, mentor, and friend, that they resent any implication that they might mourn his death — that, in effect, they are glad he is dead — is simply cruel beyond words.

They added, “But, though the insult and cruelty of our colleagues was grievous, at least only two of us had to bear it.” We had to bear it.

Quote:

We’re not talking about Scalia, the Friend, or Scalia, the Grandfather. Virtually none of us knew him in those roles. We’re talking about Scalia, the highly polarizing, highly controversial Supreme Court justice whose actions and beliefs affected the lives of millions of people. We’re not guests at his family’s house for a wake. We’re citizens shaping how he and his public actions will be understood and remembered and perceived. Trying to suppress any criticisms of him, so that only adulation can flourish, is worse than irrational; it’s propagandistic.

02-23-2016 , 05:23 PM

#1420

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Every Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee put out a signed statement that they would not have any hearing for any nominee until 1/20/2017. Probably just bluster, tho, and exactly like what Democrats have done. Lol GOP.

02-23-2016 , 05:27 PM

#1421

miajag

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 17,328

good to see the right's 8-year nonstop temper tantrum over America electing a black president is still in full swing

02-23-2016 , 05:56 PM

#1422

ccotenj

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 2,073

Quote:

Originally Posted by miajag

good to see the right's 8-year nonstop temper tantrum over America electing a black president is still in full swing

they need to stay in form for the upcoming 8-year nonstop temper tantrum over america electing someone even worse, the hated criminal herself.

02-23-2016 , 06:04 PM

#1423

ccotenj

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 2,073

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

man, they just keep digging their hole deeper and deeper. i guess they believe they have a safe enough lock on the senate to pull it off?

02-23-2016 , 06:35 PM

#1424

True North

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,703

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj

man, they just keep digging their hole deeper and deeper. i guess they believe they have a safe enough lock on the senate to pull it off?

It seems more that they DON'T believe the Senate is safe, and so don't want to put their caucus in the position of having to vote and having it used against them, whether it be in the general (if they vote nay) or a primary (if they vote yea). Neither McConnell nor Grassley are up for reelection this year, they can take the heat.