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

mookie1995 said:
They can't control their votes.
Click to expand...

And nobody believes anything that comes out of Mitch's mouth. I personally can't believe that Clown is Leader of anything. A stain on this country's history for sure.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
Bork was a nutter; Reagan deserved what he got. You didn't see the Dems nominating Richard Posner.
Click to expand...

It's been quite a while, but I recall The Tempting of America as being a decent read. I don't remember why--I may have been taking Oxy at the time.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
From the omphalos of wisdom:

As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:

+ 12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate.
+ 7 (including a nomination of an Associate Justice for Chief Justice) were withdrawn by the President before a formal consideration could be taken by the Senate.
+ One of these nominations was withdrawn because of the Ineligibility Clause, but was confirmed after its applicability was no longer an issue.
+ 5 had no action taken on them.
+ One of these was because of a change in the Presidency, but the nomination was resubmitted by the incoming President and confirmed.
+ 3 had formal votes on the nominations that were postponed.
+ One of these nominations was reconsidered after a change in Senate composition and confirmed.
+ 2 had nominations nullified by other circumstances without being formally considered.

These 29 people represent more than 29 individual nominations. For example, President John Tyler (1841–1845) lacked political support in the Senate, resulting in all four of his nominees being unsuccessful, including three who were nominated by Tyler on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

I believe the longest ever vacancy had something like three or four nominations rejected in a row.

I was interested in the data so I pulled together a full spreadsheet of justices. Rejected nominations would be interesting to add as well.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Hi, I'm Obama. I filibustered Alito and now I'm calling on all Republicans not to do something so stupid as to filibuster my nominee to the Supreme Court in my last year in office. I approve this message.

Oh, and Trump won't be President and Hillary is not getting spanked in Nevada after being up 60 pts when the race began.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Alito still got confirmed. It's like people pointing out Obama voted against the debt ceiling as symbolic gesture as a senator, ignoring the fact that it still got passed without requiring a government shutdown or a downgrade to our debt.
 
Kepler said:
Bork was a nutter; Reagan deserved what he got. You didn't see the Dems nominating Richard Posner.
Click to expand...

Why would the Dems nominate Posner? He's a great judge, but would vote about the same as Scalia on most issues, especially economic ones.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
Why would the Dems nominate Posner? He's a great judge, but would vote about the same as Scalia on most issues, especially economic ones.
Click to expand...

I needed a candidate who was a brilliant legal mind but too "out there." Let's say instead Martha Nussbaum. I would dance if I lived in a country grown up enough to have Martha Nussbaum on the Supreme Court.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The Sicatoka said:
The most famous became a verb: Bork-ed.
Click to expand...

Ok, recent nominee got rejected by the Senate. How many this time until it's beyond reasonable?

That's what I'm asking.

If the Senate rejects one- fine. Two, well, hmm.. Three- quickly becoming obstructionist. 4 or more- we'll see how many of R Senators make it through November.

Here's another way of looking at it- if the Senate is asking the President to not actually do his job for the last year of his term, then the President should be allowed to ask the Senators who are up for election to do the same.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

alfablue said:
Ok, recent nominee got rejected by the Senate. How many this time until it's beyond reasonable?

That's what I'm asking.

If the Senate rejects one- fine. Two, well, hmm.. Three- quickly becoming obstructionist. 4 or more- we'll see how many of R Senators make it through November.

Here's another way of looking at it- if the Senate is asking the President to not actually do his job for the last year of his term, then the President should be allowed to ask the Senators who are up for election to do the same.
Click to expand...

They don't have to go past 1. IINM there is no limit on how long the Senate can take to review a candidate, so they just walk it to the day of recess, then vote it down on party lines.

There is no way to stop them, but Obama can make it very painful for them. He needs a sitting federal judge who sailed through confirmation. There are a lot of candidates. Now mix in some demographic considerations to embarrass and perhaps even punish the GOP at the polls.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Sri could be music to Clinton's ears.

My preference is keep nominating chicks. They live longer.

Also: Orrin Hatch still has his sense of humor, which means there is one redeeming feature of Orrin Hatch.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
They don't have to go past 1. IINM there is no limit on how long the Senate can take to review a candidate, so they just walk it to the day of recess, then vote it down on party lines.

There is no way to stop them, but Obama can make it very painful for them. He needs a sitting federal judge who sailed through confirmation. There are a lot of candidates. Now mix in some demographic considerations to embarrass and perhaps even punish the GOP at the polls.
Click to expand...

That's my point.

If they hold this up too much, and basically make the second term 3 instead of 4 years, payback will happen, eventually.

And with so many R senators in swing states, well... This is the most obvious obstruction that can get them out of office. I don't think it's a great idea to prevent a President for fulfilling his Constitutional duties just because he's a lame duck.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

alfablue said:
That's my point.

If they hold this up too much, and basically make the second term 3 instead of 4 years, payback will happen, eventually.

And with so many R senators in swing states, well... This is the most obvious obstruction that can get them out of office. I don't think it's a great idea to prevent a President for fulfilling his Constitutional duties just because he's a lame duck.
Click to expand...

I don't think this electorate is smart enough to notice.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I predict absolutely no vote will change because of the GOP's obstruction. For God's sake, they've been hugging their ball to their chest crying in the corner with their thumb in the arse for seven years ever since getting spanked by the Chicago Shine, and they've got both chambers of Congress and seemingly every state leg.

Supposedly it could bring more folks to the polls for the Democrats, but given that this is the tenth presidential election I will have followed closely, I'll believe it when I see it. That wave is always promised, and it never quite makes the shore. I'm starting to believe it doesn't really exist and the people who don't vote are in fact... lifetime non-voters.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Everyone wants congress to change - EXCEPT FOR THEIR OWN REP AND SEN.

Nobody losing their job come November
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

mookie1995 said:
Everyone wants congress to change - EXCEPT FOR THEIR OWN REP AND SEN.

Nobody losing their job come November
Click to expand...

At least with the House there's an excuse, since they are so beautifully gerrymandered that an incumbent basically needs a dead girl AND a live boy now, and it's still no guarantee.

With the Senate it is inexcusable.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

mookie1995 said:
Everyone wants congress to change - EXCEPT FOR THEIR OWN REP AND SEN.

Nobody losing their job come November
Click to expand...

If a Dem wins the Presidency (against Cruz or Trump) at least 4 Senators are losing their jobs and maybe a couple more.

Kep, I recommend Prozac! ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

ScoobyDoo said:
I don't think this electorate is smart enough to notice.
Click to expand...

But it will be the easiest thing to advertise about. Especially in swing states where R's have a Senator up.

It's one thing to obstruct basic policy things, this seems to be another. And if it becomes a direct Presidential election issue, then it's more on the Senators as well.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

alfablue said:
But it will be the easiest thing to advertise about. Especially in swing states where R's have a Senator up.

It's one thing to obstruct basic policy things, this seems to be another. And if it becomes a direct Presidential election issue, then it's more on the Senators as well.
Click to expand...

Advertising is dead this cycle. Bush has more money than anyone to spend and he's moved the needle zero with tons of advertising. Trump has spent nothing. You've got old school thinking there if you think this electorate is going to move on the basis of TV advertising.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Rover said:
If a Dem wins the Presidency (against Cruz or Trump) at least 4 Senators are losing their jobs and maybe a couple more.

Kep, I recommend Prozac! ;)
Click to expand...

If the good guys win we should turn 5. If Cruz wins the nomination we could turn 10.

Rover, if we're going to have to listen to Hillary for four years I recommend Phenethylamine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top