Trump will nominate either Ivanka Trump or Gary Busey.
Team Gary Busey here.
Team Gary Busey here.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Tell Barrack it was only business. I always liked him.
It being the responsibility of the sitting president and all.
Only republicans would imagine it being a controversy that the president fill a supreme court eleven months before leaving office. Somehow I don't see McConnell not voting if his seat was up for election this year. Maybe Obama can nominate a justice who wants to prevent coal miners from getting pensions. Then McConnell would push it through just to screw over poor Kentuckians.
I was no fan of Scalia but it is sad for the country when a major public figure dies in office. It's ironic that the justice that gave us the Citizens United decision and opened the flood gates on special interest and foreign money purchasing elections, has died during a campaign when special interest money has become a huge issue - perhaps the biggest issue for both Demarcates and Republicans.
It will be interesting to see who the president nominates and what type of battle lines are set up in the Senate. I know it's probably too much to hope for but it would be nice if they were to come up with a justice that has a record of political neutrality, and have no other acid test applied except their legal competency and experience.
It will be interesting to see who the president nominates and what type of battle lines are set up in the Senate. I know it's probably too much to hope for but it would be nice if they were to come up with a justice that has a record of political neutrality, and have no other acid test applied except their legal competency and experience.
Hmmmm, I don't know how to take that.Cheers warrior, you're one of the best.![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Nope. He usually starts by calling you an idiot. declares himself the argument winner because he has "facts" (that he doesn't produce but could if he wanted to).
I think some people on here really do not know what a racist really is. Some need to have it defined for them.
Not to sound like a dick, but what does this even mean? Most people I know just have disagreements with the outcome, not necessarily the process or the reasoning (although I work in appellate law, so I run into plenty of disagreements with the reasoning!). It's a very high level platitude that doesn't really mean anything, because at a granular level it's just not clear what is "follow[ing] the constitution" is in most cases. Take Citizens United as a great example of a case where "follow[ing] the constitution" doesn't get you anywhere. Or any case interpreting the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, etc... Third Amendment, though, not a lot of action there. Do we want a textual interpretation of the 14th (equal protection)? Some nuance where you weigh a legitimate government interest?
We have a common law system in the United States, and part and parcel to that is that law is shaped by custom and precedent. A lot of what we accept as laws in this country are either common law or common law later enacted as statute (for instance, pretty much every product liability law). System has pluses and minuses.
Got that right. Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice would probably make the Secret Service nervous.
Obama would have a hard time beating out Elena Kagan for most ridiculous Supreme Court appointment. Would be close though
Well, i guess what I mean is, on most of the major issues that go before the SCOTUS, the media knows before hand, pretty much how each justice will vote based on whether they lean left or right. i just wish it wasn't that way. I guess that is naive but that's how I feel.
*Racist: a term that was formerly used to describe a person who wishes ill on people of other races regardless of what they are really like, but is now used mainly as a tactic to shame or scare others into not saying anything regarding race that might contradict the PC agenda.
* "Bigot" and "redneck hillbilly" are acceptable substitutes which may sometimes be more powerful in closing arguments and thus should not be overlooked
**I think the effective use of this tactic has been a required class at universities since the late 1960s. Numerous Paddock posters aced the class.
Last edited:
Scalia was the brains of that band. A true legal maestro.
I think that's a fair assessment. At the same time there are a lot of racists using this whole PC agenda as a way to cloak their racism. So it goes both ways.
Today's bluster aside, McConnell is in a quandary here. If they stone-cold cockblock Obama all year and end up losing the Senate (very possible), they could end up watching an extremely liberal Justice appointed once the next congress takes office.
If they negotiate towards a moderately-liberal appointment this spring, they might avoid another RBG and instead compromise on a Kennedy
If they negotiate towards a moderately-liberal appointment this spring, they might avoid another RBG and instead compromise on a Kennedy
It's pretty disconcerting to already be resigned to the fact that no one who respects the actual language of the Constitution has even a modicum of a chance of even being mentioned as a possibility
If it isn't filled in Obama's term, and a Repub wins in Nov, it won't be filled anytime soon.
I am of the opinion that a Pres should be able to appoint whomever he wishes. As long as the nominee meets the criteria, the Senate should comply.
I am of the opinion that a Pres should be able to appoint whomever he wishes. As long as the nominee meets the criteria, the Senate should comply.
It used to be like that. Ginsburg was suggested by Orrin f*cking Hatch and was confirmed by a 96-3 vote.
Well if the Republicans hold the Senate next term and a Republican president is nominated, it will most surely get filled. This is going to be a major talking point in the coming elections. The General public will have to decide how this is going to go down. I'm not sure most Americans will truly know what's at stake come November.
He'd be up there, but (this is from memory) it used to be pretty loose in qualifications. Think there was a justice appointed as a political favor for delivering California ~ 1920. Many (most?) never graduated from law school.
But a lot of that is the views they have on things like statutory interpretation, constitutional law, etc... I think it's hard to suss out the left/right from the other bases for differing views. And justices are selected left/right in part because their legal views. So it has a reinforcing effect.
Two other points. First, easy cases generally don't make it to SCOTUS. They're filtered out in lower courts. If every single case about anything constitutional made it to SCOTUS, you would see that the justices have much more in common than you'd think based on the cases that they do accept. Second, most of the public's reaction is based on a handful of high-profile cases. A lot of other cases are less interesting to the public at large. For example, if Kennedy (very strong on state's rights) and Scalia (not as much) disagree, was it left/right or legal principal? How about the criminal cases that make strange bedfellows between left/right appointees? Combine those two factors and you get a caricature of the justices' views where features (views) are grossly exaggerated.
Last edited:
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
I'm not talking about political persuasion, troglodyte. Just qualifications. One was a federal judge, the other was a law professor
Yep. Lots of people were PISSED she didn't retire after the 2012 election.
Some say she was holding on for the gay marriage watershed case. Some say she's holding on in hopes of swearing in Hillary.
Get ready for Justice Roberts 2.0!!!
Obama will look for the most polarizing progressive political thinker he can find who fits all the needed criteria.
The Constitution disagrees with you, and pretty explicitly so.
Similar threads
