What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
The confirmation mess started with Robert Bork. You reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#.22Saturday_Night_Massacre.22

"On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the "Saturday Night Massacre", U.S. President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[16] and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox, an act found illegal in November of that year in a suit brought by Ralph Nader."

You're saying that describes the actions of a future Supreme Court Justice?
You're saying that not confirming someone who acted in that manner started "the confirmation mess"? That it was unreasonable not confirm someone who illegally fired a Special Prosecutor, the Special Prosecutor investing the Watergate scandal no less?

I'd say the Republicans reaped what they sowed when they made that despicable nomination.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Bork didn't fail the confirmation process because of the Watergate fiasco. He failed confirmation for answering questions honestly, giving his opinions on various politically charged SCOTUS cases when asked by the Senate. Since then, confirmation proceedings have been far less informative as nominees will give evasive answers or complete non-answers.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Bork was also a wackjob who pioneered the so-called "originalist" fig leaf for cynical conservative partisanship later perfected by Scalia.

He didn't belong anywhere near the Court. Bye, Felicia.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

St. Clown said:
Bork didn't fail the confirmation process because of the Watergate fiasco. He failed confirmation for answering questions honestly, giving his opinions on various politically charged SCOTUS cases when asked by the Senate. Since then, confirmation proceedings have been far less informative as nominees will give evasive answers or complete non-answers.
Click to expand...
I don't know you so I can't say whether that's naive or whether it's delusional, but it is one of those.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Sounds like the list was down to three appeals court judges. I say 'was' because he's announcing his appointment at 10 CDT today.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Merrick Garland. What do we know about him?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Merrick Garland. What do we know about him?
Click to expand...

He's a guy named Merrick Garland, his name passes spellcheck within IE11, and he has some sort of training in the law.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Merrick Garland. What do we know about him?
Click to expand...

You'll probably hate him since I doubt he thinks we should just wait around and let people come around on civil rights. I know you're still butt hurt that gay people are starting to get treated like normal human beings.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

His name and qualifications are irrelevant to the GOP, that much we know.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

He's falling on the grenade so Hillary can pick the libbyist lib ever next March.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

He's a centrist who is in his sixties. He's probably one the Dems would be ok getting confirmed but probably also willing to fall on his sword in the face of likely GOP obstruction, leaving younger or more preferred nominees available down the road.

Only reason to pick him over Sri is you think you'll nominate Sri later when he has a better chance of being confirmed.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

bronconick said:
He's falling on the grenade so Hillary can pick the libbyist lib ever next March.
Click to expand...

He may be a stalking horse, but I don't see "libbyist lib" unless Hillary wins and the Dems win not only control of the Senate, but a filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Hillary may win, and the Dems may gain control of the Senate, but they ain't getting enough control to confirm a left winger.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

CLS said:
He may be a stalking horse, but I don't see "libbyist lib" unless Hillary wins and the Dems win not only control of the Senate, but a filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Hillary may win, and the Dems may gain control of the Senate, but they ain't getting enough control to confirm a left winger.
Click to expand...

Yet the Repubs had enough control to get Alito through? JFC the conservatives never learn do they.

If Obama picks Garland over Sri it's epic fail.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

ScoobyDoo said:
Yet the Repubs had enough control to get Alito through? JFC the conservatives never learn do they.

If Obama picks Garland over Sri it's epic fail.
Click to expand...

Alito for sure was a shift to the right, but not a polar opposite from O'Connor, as a left winger would be relative to Scalia. And I'm not sure what you're saying. That Sri would be a stalking horse also? That he's a lib? Garland strikes me as quite similar to Srinivasan.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

CLS said:
Alito for sure was a shift to the right, but not a polar opposite from O'Connor, as a left winger would be relative to Scalia. And I'm not sure what you're saying. That Sri would be a stalking horse also? That he's a lib? Garland strikes me as quite similar to Srinivasan.
Click to expand...

A shift to the right? A shift? He's more right than Scalia. So is Thomas for that matter. I don't care who's a lib or not. Sri may be more right than Garland. I just want the pressure/screws put to the Republicans and Garland doesn't accomplish that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

CLS said:
He may be a stalking horse, but I don't see "libbyist lib" unless Hillary wins and the Dems win not only control of the Senate, but a filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Hillary may win, and the Dems may gain control of the Senate, but they ain't getting enough control to confirm a left winger.
Click to expand...

Well that depends how much Hillary wants to use their own words against them. (and how effective she is at it) Remember it is the GOP that is couching the nomination on the "will of the people" and of the people put her in office then they obviously will support who she wants on the court. (this is all in theory of course) They wont have a leg to stand on if they wont confirm someone after they said the people get to decide...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Senate Dems if in the majority will not put up with a GOP filibuster of a Dem SCOTUS nominee. They will simply eliminate it. That may have worked 10 years ago when too many lefties still thought they could make peace with Itch McConnell and crew, but that ship has sailed.
 
CLS said:
He may be a stalking horse, but I don't see "libbyist lib" unless Hillary wins and the Dems win not only control of the Senate, but a filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Hillary may win, and the Dems may gain control of the Senate, but they ain't getting enough control to confirm a left winger.
Click to expand...

After the GOP spent 11 months saying the American people deserve a voice, if they tried to filibuster Clinton's nomination the Dems would have solid ground to go nuclear
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top