Jump to content

The next Supreme Court justice...


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Speaking for myself I'd much rather have Barry pick a justice than Trump OR Hillary. 

 

It'd be equal parts awful but also kinda hilarious if they blocked a center right/left attempt only to watch Hillary put a real flaming lib in Scalia's seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 minutes ago, atl falcon 89 said:

Speaking for myself I'd much rather have Barry pick a justice than Trump OR Hillary. 

 

It'd be equal parts awful but also kinda hilarious if they blocked a center right/left attempt only to watch Hillary put a real flaming lib in Scalia's seat.

I don't see why Scalia had to leave the bench? In the state he is in now, he would still be more cogent during any case, than anyone Obama may appoint.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atl falcon 89 said:

I've no problem with blocking a justice based on ideological differences. Blocking one cause Obama is a doody head is another matter.

Well, I have ideological differences with the nominee, so I can support blocking him with good conscience then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Well, I have ideological differences with the nominee, so I can support blocking him with good conscience then. 

The guy is pretty much the opposite of myself as well.  At least from the little I have read... Which is sadly what is on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

 

 

Not saying these are wrong, but the methods use to calculate them are based on clerk hirings whereas most of the metrics used to estimate Supreme Court ideology are based on votes.  The authors admit it's not based on his DC court rulings.  In other words, it's an untested measure that could be prone to error.  I wouldn't put complete faith in them until their clerk hiring methodology is tested more extensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defiant Mitch McConnell Holds Merrick Garland’s Severed Head Aloft In Front Of Capitol Building

‘We Meant What We Said,’ Says Blood-Covered Senate Leader

800.jpg

WASHINGTON—Declaring that the president had been warned about naming a justice during an election year, a defiant Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly held up the severed head of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland this afternoon while standing in front of the Capitol building. “We vowed that no nominees would be considered,” said McConnell, his suit reportedly splattered with blood as he flung the centrist appeals court judge’s bespectacled head aside and kicked it down the Capitol steps. “There shall be no hearing. Do not attempt to silence the voice of the American people.” Sources also confirmed that McConnell later wrapped Garland’s severed right hand in his judicial robes and mailed the package to potential nominee Sri Srinivasan.

http://www.theonion.com/article/defiant-mitch-mcconnell-holds-merrick-garlands-sev-52575

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note to DH - this is satire.  Don't have a hissy fit about the picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 16, 2016 at 5:43 PM, JDaveG said:

Uh, yeah, seriously.

Obama, 2006:

"I will 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.”

Obama, 2016:

"It is tempting to make the confirmation process 'an extension of our divided politics.' But he warned that 'to go down that path would be wrong.'”

That's clown shoes funny right there.

1. Hypocrisy is the laziest form of criticism. Everyone is a hypocrite. Even Antonin Scalia, who excoriated anyone who didn't meet his professed level of jurisprudential purity, was grossly hypocritical in many cases. A person's argument does not become more or less correct based on their level of hypocrisy. Obama is absolutely right now, even if his past actions and words contradict his current ones.

2. I'm still not sure why you're engaging in this false equivalency. Voting against, or even attempting to filibuster, a specific Supreme Court nominee is different than refusing to meet with, hold hearings on, and allow a vote on any candidate nominated by the president - in both degree and kind. It's also cowardly. At least in doing the former, you have to take a position on a person, put your name next to a reason. Obama had to state why he was opposed specifically to Alito, and that opposition is now tied to him.  By taking the position the republicans have taken here - based on the completely fault reasoning that a president should be barred from nominating a new justice in an election year - they are insulating themselves from stating specific objections to a specific nominee.

3. Even in 2006, Obama was questioning the reasoning you quoted. From the same interview in which he said the above, he went on to say:

"I will say this, though, I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues. These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

Stephanopoulos: "Well, it sounds to me like you're not really happy about going forward and joining this filibuster. And I've actually seen some reports that inside the Democratic caucus you were arguing against this strategy. Is that true?"

Obama: "Well, you know, I don't talk about what I, you know, what takes place in caucus but what I will say is that there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/11/jon-kyl/obama-criticized-supreme-court-filibuster-alito-ev/

Now, he still joined the filibuster, which as your brother has noted repeatedly, was wrong. Filibustering is generally a poor idea, and I wouldn't be opposed to abolishing it, also as suggested by your brother. But he is right about the circumstances now, even as he was wrong then. Jeering about comeuppance here is not productive, nor is it based on an equivalent situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about comeuppance.  It's about both sides playing by the same rules.  For 30 years -- 30 YEARS -- Democrats have consistently tried to block Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, especially when the balance of the Court was at stake (as it is now).  For that same 30 YEARS, Republicans have not.  They have given votes and they have confirmed justices.  Sometimes they voted against them, but you cannot point to 1 time in that 30 YEAR history of Republicans filibustering, or slandering, or otherwise illicitly trying to block appointments to the Court for Democratic Presidents, even when they had the majority and could have.

So this whole "Obama is right now even if he was wrong then" is ludicrous.  Because if given the chance, he'll be wrong again in the future.  This isn't about integrity of the process.  This is about winning.  And it has worked to an extent -- we have Justice Kennedy on the Court instead of approximately 24 years of rulings with Bork taking his votes because Democrats did this.  And if it weren't for a handful of votes, Thomas would be off the Court too.  You and others may justify this by saying "well, they shouldn't be on the Court."  Because they disagree with you.  Okay.  Republicans are entitled to play that game too.  And they're doing it for the same reason.  It didn't become illegitimate because they decided to join the game.  And if Democrats are going to do it -- and we have that 30 YEAR history to tell us they absolutely are -- then both sides play by the same rules or Democrats always win.  That is what is at stake.  Oddly, my position -- that both sides need to play by the same rules -- is the only one that preserves the integrity of the process.  The process only works if both sides do the same things.

So spare me the crocodile tears.  Unless you were there objecting to their treatment of Bork, and Thomas, and Alito, etc., then you have no basis to complain now.  I was, and I was told all of this was fair game.  Funny how that changes when it's your ox being gored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? All of those people got a hearing. All got a vote. Senators stated objections, their votes recorded. And I didn't say, nor would I say, Thomas should be off the Court. He got a vote, he got confirmed. 

This has nothing to do with whose ox is being gored.  It's about the wholesale shutting down of a process. Give Garland a hearing. State objections. I mean, for **** sake, republicans have the votes, just vote him down. But at least follow the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? All of those people got a hearing. All got a vote. Senators stated objections, their votes recorded. And I didn't say, nor would I say, Thomas should be off the Court. He got a vote, he got confirmed. 

This has nothing to do with whose ox is being gored.  It's about the wholesale shutting down of a process. Give Garland a hearing. State objections. I mean, for **** sake, republicans have the votes, just vote him down. But at least follow the process.

Why did the Democrats, including the President and the Vice President and the current Secretary of State and the former Secretary of State -- filibuster Alito.

To make sure he got a vote?

Give me a ****ing break.  "Follow the process," LOL.  The Republicans don't need to filibuster, though ironically that's apparently okay as long as it fails or something.  They also don't need to vote.  They have the votes to stop a vote.  They're doing EXACTLY what the Democrats have always done -- obstructing the process to stop a perceived imbalance on the Court.

But man, it sure is awful.  You know, when Republicans do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So spare me the crocodile tears.  Unless you were there objecting to their treatment of Bork, and Thomas, and Alito, etc., then you have no basis to complain now.  I was, and I was told all of this was fair game.  Funny how that changes when it's your ox being gored."

 

This quote shows exactly why these are different situations. So, I should have demanded what of Bork and Thomas to be allowed to have an opinion now? That they simply vote yes for them? Because they both got hearings and votes. So what should I have been objecting to? Btw, I was 8 and 11 then, so no, I wasn't really that involved.

As for Alito, I (and your brother) have made clear the filibuster was wrong. But he got his hearing. He got a vote. And, 19 dems voted for cloture to defeat the filibuster. Almost half. 

Edit: also, what? So, to complain now, I must have complained then. The converse of that simplistic, and wrong, absolute is that to cheer the republicans' tactics now, you must have cheered the dems' tactics then. Yet you said you complained then, but you're cheering now. I ask again: seriously, wtf?

Edited by BrockSamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

"So spare me the crocodile tears.  Unless you were there objecting to their treatment of Bork, and Thomas, and Alito, etc., then you have no basis to complain now.  I was, and I was told all of this was fair game.  Funny how that changes when it's your ox being gored."

 

This quote shows exactly why these are different situations. So, I should have demanded what of Bork and Thomas to be allowed to have an opinion now? That they simply vote yes for them? Because they both got hearings and votes. So what should I have been objecting to? Btw, I was 8 and 11 then, so no, I wasn't really that involved.

As for Alito, I (and your brother) have made clear the filibuster was wrong. But he got his hearing. He got a vote. And, 19 dems voted for cloture to defeat the filibuster. Almost half. 

 

That they not be slandered over politics, for one?  Bork was excoriated by Kennedy publicly.  Thomas was worse -- he was accused of sexual harassment by a woman who followed him to his next appointment.

Can you point to a parallel where that has occurred with a Democratic nominee?  If the Republicans did it would you say "yeah, I understand?"  Or would you tell us how terrible it is?

Over half of dems voted to filibuster.  Including the ones doing the complaining now.  Their names are:

Joe Biden (D-DE)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Mark Dayton (D-MN)

Chris Dodd (D-CT)

**** Durbin (D-IL)

Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Jim Jeffords (I-VT)

Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

John Kerry (D-MA)

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Carl Levin (D-MI)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Barack Obama (D-IL)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Harry Reid (D-NV)

Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

 

Sorry if my sympathy isn't oozing from every pore right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S., only 4 Democrats voted to confirm Alito.  Do you think Alito is qualified to sit on the Court?

Keep in mind, I'm not a fan of Samuel Alito either.  I don't like his jurisprudence.  But that isn't (supposed to be) the question.  Everyone keeps talking about Garland's qualifications -- do you think the vote on Alito indicated a vote on qualifications or......something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I didn't say, ever, that the republicans can't or shouldn't lodge attacks on Garland. In fact, I've been asking them to do so. State your reasons. Put him through the ringer. Vote "no."

I just don't understand why you're wallowing in this false equivalency. It amounts to, "dems were mean to 3 republican nominees, all of whom got votes and two of whom were confirmed, so it's ok to completely shut the process down so that no nominee can even get a hearing." 

It's strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Dude, I didn't say, ever, that the republicans can't or shouldn't lodge attacks on Garland. In fact, I've been asking them to do so. State your reasons. Put him through the ringer. Vote "no."

I just don't understand why you're wallowing in this false equivalency. It amounts to, "dems were mean to 3 republican nominees, all of whom got votes and two of whom were confirmed, so it's ok to completely shut the process down so that no nominee can even get a hearing." 

It's strange.

I'll ask again -- why did over half of the Democratic caucus vote to filibuster Alito?

You seem to think that trying to deny someone a vote is cool as long as it fails.  So is your problem with Republicans that they want to block the vote or that they are going to succeed in doing so?

I know you didn't support the filibuster, but you keep pretending "Alito got a vote" addresses the fact that the guy making this appointment right here, right now voted to block him from getting one.  This isn't false equivalence.  It's the same **** thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I'll ask again -- why did over half of the Democratic caucus vote to filibuster Alito?

You seem to think that trying to deny someone a vote is cool as long as it fails.  So is your problem with Republicans that they want to block the vote or that they are going to succeed in doing so?

I know you didn't support the filibuster, but you keep pretending "Alito got a vote" addresses the fact that the guy making this appointment right here, right now voted to block him from getting one.  This isn't false equivalence.  It's the same **** thing!

It's almost like you're not reading. THE FILIBUSTER WAS WRONG. Ok? 

But that's not the argument you're making. You're basically saying that unless I would have voted "yes" on Alito, and by extension unless I think every senator should vote yes on every nominee, I can't complain about the republicans completely shutting down the process. It's ludicrous. Again, I would be fine with senators voting no on Garland.

And you love saying only 4 dems voted to confirm Alito, so let me repeat: 19 democrats voted on Cloture. That means 19 dems cast a vote knowing full **** well Alito would be confirmed if they did so. 

 

 

Edited by BrockSamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

It's almost like you're not reading. THE FILIBUSTER WAS WRONG. Ok? 

But that's not the argument you're making. You're basically saying that unless I would have voted "yes" on Alito, and by extension unless I think every senator should vote yes on every nominee, I can't complain about the republicans completely shutting down the process. It's ludicrous. Again, I would be fine with senators voting no on Garland.

And you love saying only 4 dems voted to confirm Alito, so let me repeat: 19 democrats voted on Cloture. That means 19 dems cast a vote knowing full **** well Alito would be confirmed if they did so. 

I'm saying no such thing.  In fact, I said in my post I understood you didn't support the filibuster.  But yet you keep saying "but Alito got a vote."  Okay, why?

Because 19 Democrats voted for cloture, sure.  But 24 voted to block a vote, including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of State.  You act as if those votes are meaningless because they failed.  So I ask again, is it denying a vote that you have a problem with, or succeeding?  Because if it's voting to deny a vote, then your defense that "Alito got a vote" makes no sense.  The entire point is the guy who made this appointment voted to block a vote for Alito.  You act as if that's irrelevant to the discussion, which I find bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for referencing the 4 Democratic votes to confirm Alito, my point there was not WRT blocking justices, but WRT why they are being blocked.  We keep hearing Garland is "qualified."  Well, so was Alito. Why is that relevant now but not then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

 

So I ask again, is it denying a vote that you have a problem with, or succeeding?  Because if it's voting to deny a vote, then your defense that "Alito got a vote" makes no sense.  The entire point is the guy who made this appointment voted to block a vote for Alito.  You act as if that's irrelevant to the discussion, which I find bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phone is being annoying.

"So I ask again, is it denying a vote that you have a problem with, or succeeding?  Because if it's voting to deny a vote, then your defense that "Alito got a vote" makes no sense.  The entire point is the guy who made this appointment voted to block a vote for Alito.  You act as if that's irrelevant to the discussion, which I find bizarre."

I'm going to try and simplify and answer this question. As I've said, repeatedly, the filibuster was wrong. Ergo, attempting to block the vote on Alito was wrong. They are both wrong, and I have problem with both. That both are wrong does not, however, make them equivalent.  The reasons I've tried to make clear. For one, there were specific objections to a specific nominee. The filibuster attempt was after hearings. And, the filibusterers did it knowing Alito would nonetheless be confirmed. Indeed, if they were the same, Alito wouldn't be a justice, he never would have had a hearing, and we wouldn't know that Obama's opposition to him was based on ideology. And the Bork and Thomas situations are not even remotely close.

If republicans have specific opposition for Garland, great. Let's hear them. But so far their only objection is "Obama nominated him during an election year."  

I just don't see how you think, "you did something wrong, therefore we should do something even more wrong" is a legitimate stance to take.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Phone is being annoying.

"So I ask again, is it denying a vote that you have a problem with, or succeeding?  Because if it's voting to deny a vote, then your defense that "Alito got a vote" makes no sense.  The entire point is the guy who made this appointment voted to block a vote for Alito.  You act as if that's irrelevant to the discussion, which I find bizarre."

I'm going to try and simplify and answer this question. As I've said, repeatedly, the filibuster was wrong. Ergo, attempting to block the vote on Alito was wrong. They are both wrong, and I have problem with both. That both are wrong does not, however, make them equivalent.  The reasons I've tried to make clear. For one, there were specific objections to a specific nominee. The filibuster attempt was after hearings. And, the filibusterers did it knowing Alito would nonetheless be confirmed. Indeed, if they were the same, Alito wouldn't be a justice, he never would have had a hearing, and we wouldn't know that Obama's opposition to him was based on ideology. And the Bork and Thomas situations are not even remotely close.

If republicans have specific opposition for Garland, great. Let's hear them. But so far their only objection is "Obama nominated him during an election year."  

I just don't see how you think, "you did something wrong, therefore we should do something even more wrong" is a legitimate stance to take.

It's not "you did something wrong, therefore we should do something even more wrong."

It's, as I said, that Republicans do not put up opposition to Democratic Supreme Court nominees (beyond simply not voting for them) and Democrats do for Republican nominees.  Both need to play the same game. If you want a ceasefire, tell the Democrats to stop firing shots.  If you want peace, tell your side to stop making war.

You say Bork and Thomas are different.  Yes, in that they got a vote.  But do you think their treatment was fair?  Do you think they were qualified? Do you think Kennedy's screed against Bork was accurate?  Do you think it makes sense that Thomas really harassed Anita Hill?

This isn't a game.  This has real stakes for the country.  Using your defense of the Democrats, it would be better for the Republicans to make up some dirt to sling at Garland than to simply refuse him a vote.  Because then the process would be "respected."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/21/2016 at 6:09 PM, mdrake34 said:

He's ******* awful. A slightly less obnoxious Lindsey Graham. 

 

congress medical marijuanaToday there was a hearing held in the United States Senate dealing with marijuana, and although I wasn’t there to see it in person, from what I’ve read, it was like something straight out of the 1930’s. The hearing was completely one sided, with one marijuana opponent after another being paraded in and doing their little reefer madness presentation. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who called for the hearing along with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), had the following to say at the hearing, per The Washington Postwhich it sounds like set the tone for the day:

“The Department of Justice decided to all but abandon the enforcement of federal law relating to the possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana.”

Really Senator Grassley? Because a quick Google News search shows that the feds just conducted raids in Colorado, and in recent weeks a very popular cannabis company in Oregon was the target of a federal investigation. I could go on and on, but I think I’ve hammered home the point. To say that the feds have abandoned the enforcement of federal marijuana law is ridiculous. There are people wasting their lives away in federal prison right now for marijuana only offenses and for Senator Grassley to suggest that those lives are not being currently ruined by prohibition is disgusting.

Those weren’t the only disparaging comments made during the hearing. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said something that offended a lot of people today. Per the same Washington Post article:

Caucus member Jeff Sessions (R.-Al.) spoke of the need to foster ”knowledge that this drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about… and to send that message with clarity that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

I agree with Senator Sessions in that I too think that cannabis is not something to laugh about. But I strongly disagree with his blatantly offensive comments towards the moral character of cannabis consumers. To make such a blanket negative statement directed towards tens of millions of Americans that choose to make the safer choice should not be tolerated. Some of the nicest, kindest, most compassionate people I know are cannabis consumers. They volunteer in their communities, help the needy, live responsibly, and don’t harm anyone in anyway. To say such things about them is hurtful and irresponsible. A lot of people consume cannabis for medical purposes, and no one should ever suggest that those suffering patients are bad people by default simply and only because they use cannabis to help treat their conditions.

The ‘what about the kids’ argument was in full force, with Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson leading the charge. You may recognize his name from recent news articles, as his federal lawsuit against Colorado’s legalization law was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Mr. Peterson tried very hard to lay it on thick suggesting that legalization in Colorado has created an epidemic of stoned youth in his state. That of course doesn’t stand up against the facts. Per The Washington Post article:

But official federal data contradict Peterson’s anecdotal evidence. In the period between 2012 and 2014, monthly marijuana use declined slightly among Nebraska high school students, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, although not by a statistically significant amount. Teen marijuana use in Colorado and Washington, the two states that legalized recreational marijuana over that period, was flat.

Senator Grassley tried to blame the current heroin and opioid epidemic to marijuana legalization by stating the following:

“And just last year, the Centers for Disease Control found that people who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to be addicted to heroin. So if the Obama Administration is serious about addressing this epidemic, it should stop burying its head in the sand about what’s happening to its enforcement priorities on recreational marijuana.”

That claim directly conflicts with a recent study that actually found the opposite, that increased medical cannabis use by people that suffered from chronic pain resulted in less opioid use. There are real cannabis reform bills sitting in the Senate right now waiting for a hearing, namely the CARERS act and Bernie Sanders’ de-scheduling bill. But instead of having constructive conversations about those bills or about cannabis policy in America in general, Senators Grassley and Feinstein felt that a reefer madness hearing was a better idea. This is 2016. I cannot believe that the hearing that was held today seemed like a good idea to anyone. What a waste of time, and a slap in the face to the American people.

http://www.theweedblog.com/senator-jeff-sessions-good-people-dont-smoke-marijuana/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheWeedBlogcom+(The+Weed+Blog)

 

******* ass  hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to continue this war should be sent to prison.  That is the nicest thing I can say about anyone who wants to continue this farce.  Though the meth thing does concern me... I wonder if meth would be so popular if people could just smoke weed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...