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

Handyman said:
Or I just dont care that a guy who hated everyone is dead. I didnt wish him dead but I can be happy he doesnt have the power to restrict the rights of others anymore. If that is being lost so be it :)
Click to expand...

I just think between "scum" and "a guy who hated everyone", you're laying your personal dislike of the man on a little thick.

Rover said:
Won't blast Scalia until the dude is in the ground, but this is an epic disaster for the Republicans. Before this, you always had the notion that the next President could change the court, but not necessarily. Justices have served into their 90's (Stevens) so it was possible the oldest justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia and Thomas) would have outlast the next President. Not anymore.

So, you either delay the nomination while Obama smartly picks a minority or woman candidate (and spare me the cries of 'politics' knuckledraggers, what do you think the GOP Senate is going now :rolleyes:) and watch your incumbent Senators up for re-election get crushed in the court of public opinion only to hope President Cruz or President Trump gets to nominate their own candidate :eek: Not very likely either of those guys win. Then the Dems are going to be out for blood and ram the most liberal person they can find down the GOP's throat. In the meantime, as Dems control most court of appeals, all rulings will stand in a 4-4 SCOTUS decision. That EPA ruling? Fahgettaboudit.

Or, you approve an Obama nominee in the hopes you get a Souter type in there with a touch of corporate leanings. While that may PO the Sanders crowd, perhaps rightly so, hard core Trumpites and Cruz voters bang the drum on GOP Establishment being sell outs. This continues to split the party in two between sane and insane, with insane winning!

I love a win-win situation. ;)
Click to expand...

"Elections have consequences". Republicans don't have to like or even approve Obama's nominee(s) this year, but they sure will look petty and obstructionist come November if they block him for a whole year. Especially if Obama chooses well.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

While I do hope for another legal mind like Roberts...I agree with Rover. Obama could simply nominate a Hispanic and dare the GOP to shoot em down.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Folks, here's the ultimate rope-a-dope:

Mr. Obama should nominate ... Ted Cruz.

Why?

Firstly, he'd still end up with a more liberal Court than he had.

Next, he jams up the establishment Republican Senate. Do they want to get rid of Cruz from the Presidential race? Do they dare disrespect Cruz and thus further disenfranchise their far right wing?

Finally, that leaves the GOP with either Trump (who will self-destruct sooner or later) or an establishment candidate ("25 second" or !). The far right of the GOP will stay home in November just like they stayed home for establishment Romney which cleared the path for BHO's second term. When the far right stays home in 2016 it makes way for the guy older than Reagan was when elected or the lady with the email and demographics problems.

Pick Cruz for the Court and BHO assures his policies and legacy live on (through Bern or Hill).

And as an added bonus, BHO takes de facto control of the GOP and further guarantees an internal ideological split (into a third party?), further entrenching Dems.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

5mn_Major said:
While I do hope for another legal mind like Roberts...I agree with Rover. Obama could simply nominate a Hispanic and dare the GOP to shoot em down.
Click to expand...

... and Ted Cruz is Cuban. Close enough for most. ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

There's a couple of others on the Court that I would have rather have had retired then having the surprise death of Scalia. Scalia IMO is the kind of jurist that is needed on the Court. His friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and his appreciation for the argument are what makes our Democracy work. Though I disagree with many of his opinions he made the left work harder on their opinions. I don't see Thomas or Alito offering the same things.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I see it a little differently. Its untenable to not have a hearing on a nominee. Purely for political reasons, it just looks bad. I see a long process of having hearings on the nominee, which bleeds into the August recess and then the election. After the election, in the lame duck session if the Dems prevail for the WH I see that nominee getting approved. I don't see a vote for or against beforehand. Especially after Obama rightfully puts them in a tough spot by nominating a minority candidate or a female justice.

Kirk and Johnson are already screwed, and Ayotte seems to be going out of her way to lose her job by opposing even a nomination. Her opponent is simply going to say in a debate if NH native David Souter was nominated again, you wouldn't a vote on him? She's toast in November as well. Portman is really jammed up in Ohio on this as well as Toomey in PA. If the Dems were smart, I'd also put pressure on senile old hypocritical fuk Charles Grassley. Yes, he's not going to be easy to beat but neither was Roth or Stevens, also entrenched Republican Senators who lost. I'm curious where McCain falls on this too.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

frankly, if Obama nominates someone "moderate" to just to get past the Senate, he's a lot dumber than I thought. If he's smart, and I think he is, he nominates someone that fits his vision for the court and bludgeons the GOP with him or her. Frankly, Rover is right. This is lose-lose for the GOP. If they stall, I think the Dems get whipped up in a frenzy by the election time and moderates move away from the GOP and their stall tactics. As my empirical research indicates, most people are idiots. However, they don't like "unfair" (at a lack of a better word) tactics. I wanted to say they're pragmatic, but they aren't that either, for the most part.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I think the dark horse here is Amy Klobuchar. You have an opportunity to move a "liberal" onto the court that is in the senate and with a DFL governor a chance to refill that seat with a dem

ETA: A liberal with a strong background in law.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

dxmnkd316 said:
... most people are idiots.
Click to expand...

I'll stop short of "idiots"; however, I will say "think, act, and behave as sixth-graders."
Hence, the ascendance of The Donald, and quite frankly "what'll ya give me" Bernie as well.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The Sicatoka said:
I'll stop short of "idiots"; however, I will say "think, act, and behave as sixth-graders."
Hence, the ascendance of The Donald, and quite frankly "what'll ya give me" Bernie as well.
Click to expand...

No, no. Idiots is entirely appropriate. You need not look any further than social media. There are billions of examples every day. I think people vastly overestimate the collective intelligence of the US. Average, median, whatever. It's all pretty embarrassing.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

dxmnkd316 said:
frankly, if Obama nominates someone "moderate" to just to get past the Senate, he's a lot dumber than I thought. If he's smart, and I think he is, he nominates someone that fits his vision for the court and bludgeons the GOP with him or her. Frankly, Rover is right. This is lose-lose for the GOP. If they stall, I think the Dems get whipped up in a frenzy by the election time and moderates move away from the GOP and their stall tactics. As my empirical research indicates, most people are idiots. However, they don't like "unfair" (at a lack of a better word) tactics. I wanted to say they're pragmatic, but they aren't that either, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Frankly in today's "political climate" (I'd prefer 'rampant idiocy') the people who vote GOP for party's sake are those who would see a refusal to hold confirmation hearings as a political victory in itself. It'll be more of the same ****show we've been seeing for years and won't hurt the GOP any more than the damage they've already done among us moderates.
They might, however, be able to turn it into a turn-out-the-vote issue to stop the commie takeover. Which is probably the goal of putting it off for a year (which, btw, I find very offensive to the dignity of our system of gov't)
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

ScoobyDoo said:
There's a couple of others on the Court that I would have rather have had retired then having the surprise death of Scalia. Scalia IMO is the kind of jurist that is needed on the Court. His friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and his appreciation for the argument are what makes our Democracy work. Though I disagree with many of his opinions he made the left work harder on their opinions. I don't see Thomas or Alito offering the same things.
Click to expand...

Hooray for ScoobyDoo!!! You nailed it here.

Opposing opinions are a requirement in our democracy. To be able to completely disagree with someone and still respect them takes a great mind. Scalia, like RBG, had/have that ability and the country is better for it. Too many who disagree feel the other side is nothing but scum and that gives us the level of discourse (and the clowns who practice it) that we have today
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

busterman62 said:
Hooray for ScoobyDoo!!! You nailed it here.

Opposing opinions are a requirement in our democracy. To be able to completely disagree with someone and still respect them takes a great mind. Scalia, like RBG, had/have that ability and the country is better for it. Too many who disagree feel the other side is nothing but scum and that gives us the level of discourse (and the clowns who practice it) that we have today
Click to expand...

It was also interesting to hear that Scalia suggested Kagan to the Obama administration. They went with Sotomayer first but Kagan was finally confirmed in Obama's second appointment. Scalia was smart enough to know that a liberal would be coming and he always liked liberals who could make textual arguments. That's why he and RBG got along so well.

He's going to be missed. The rest of the conservatives aren't as interesting nor logical as Scalia was.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

dxmnkd316 said:
However, they don't like "unfair" (at a lack of a better word) tactics. I wanted to say they're pragmatic, but they aren't that either, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Agree. Americans understand when someone is blatantly trying to change the rules that they once were perfectly happy to live by a few years earlier. Nobody likes a sniveling hypocrite. Problem for the GOP is 1) they get little benefit from a delay as most liberal court rulings will not get upheld by evenly divided court, and 2) they're putting all of their eggs in a Trump or Cruz basket - the two people most likely to be the GOP nominee for President. Play games like this and if the Dems win WH and Senate don't cry when they eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Maybe Useless Harry Reid would have gotten snookered into keeping it for God knows why, but he's gone after this year and the Lizzy Warren's of the world aren't going to be nearly as accommodating to Itch McConnell and his pals.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Want to drop a 20 megaton nuke?

Anita Hill
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I think it's funny that the strict constructionists so opposed to anything Obama does will argue that although Article II, Section II of the constitution expressly requires the president to nominate Supreme Court Justices, that plain language should be interpreted to include a lame duck exception.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

burd said:
I think it's funny that the strict constructionists so opposed to anything Obama does will argue that although Article II, Section II of the constitution expressly requires the president to nominate Supreme Court Justices, that plain language should be interpreted to include a lame duck exception.
Click to expand...

A strict constructionist would mention there that the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate*, to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.

The Senate can choose to or not consent and that's by the Constitution.


*That's why Article II, Section 2 is normally called the "advice and consent" section.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Why no autopsy?
Doesn't Texas have "unattended death" laws?
Or did Scalia have an unpublicized medical condition?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top