Well sadly if I didn't remember George W Bush as our president I'd be thinking I just heard the best candidate we have this year.
Think about that!
Think about that!
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I wish I could like this a hundred times. Diversity has nothing to do with the law or applying it.
I heard a reference to this on the radio today. Thanks for posting it
I'm sure there was nothing going on, like has been posted, he was 79, previous heart problems, smoker. Still, someone in his position, there should have been an autopsy performed.
You'll have to wait until John Grisham writes a book about it to find out what really happened.
It occurred to me today that I'm a middle aged dude too old for heroes - and I don't think in those terms anyway. But put a gun to my head and demand the name of a hero, I'd start with Antonin Scalia.
Think Jonah Goldberg makes some good points here on the appointment fight:
"Marcus is surely right that tables can turn. What she leaves out is the simple, glaring, fact that the tables are turning on Democrats who’ve been playing outrageous games with appointment process for a quarter century. When Robert Bork was defenestrated by Joe Biden, despite having said he would have no choice but to vote for someone so well-qualified, he was setting the tables for payback. When Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the nuclear option (on lower court appointments) he was warned that this would come back to haunt him. When Democrats disgustingly blocked Miguel Estrada from the bench solely because he was a Hispanic, they set the table to be turned. When Barack Obama voted to filibuster Alito, he set the table to be turned. Cry me no tears now that Republicans are finally putting their shoulders to the table....
If Scalia’s interpretation of the Constitution held sway in the land, the Court and the government would have much less power over our lives. And that, more than anything else, explains why the left hated him so much.”
The concluding sentences are spot on...
Think Jonah Goldberg makes some good points here on the appointment fight:
"Marcus is surely right that tables can turn. What she leaves out is the simple, glaring, fact that the tables are turning on Democrats who’ve been playing outrageous games with appointment process for a quarter century. When Robert Bork was defenestrated by Joe Biden, despite having said he would have no choice but to vote for someone so well-qualified, he was setting the tables for payback. When Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the nuclear option (on lower court appointments) he was warned that this would come back to haunt him. When Democrats disgustingly blocked Miguel Estrada from the bench solely because he was a Hispanic, they set the table to be turned. When Barack Obama voted to filibuster Alito, he set the table to be turned. Cry me no tears now that Republicans are finally putting their shoulders to the table....
If Scalia’s interpretation of the Constitution held sway in the land, the Court and the government would have much less power over our lives. And that, more than anything else, explains why the left hated him so much.”
The concluding sentences are spot on...
The Bork nomination is something I've read a good bit about. And it's the worst of politics. Joe Biden had previously referenced Bork by name, saying if someone that qualified was put before the Judiciary Committee, he'd have no choice but to vote yes. But joe was running for President that year, was behind Hart and Dukakis and maybe even Gephardt, and he needed something. As head of the Committee that would assess Bork and recommend (or not) him to the full Senate, he had the floor and weeks of free tv coverage. And the verb "Bork" was born. You want to talk about the lack of civility in modern politics, of the mistrust and ideologuing to the point of dysfunction, and wonder when it all started? You could do worse than to guess 1987 and the Bork hearings....
I know in primary season national poll numbers may not be worth much. You need to win a series of states, national numbers may be irrelevant. But I just looked at the RCP average, and it's interesting:
Trump 29.0%
Cruz 21.0
Rubio 20.3
Carson 7.3
Kasich 4.7
Bush 4.0
I'm guessing that NH debate didn't necessarily cripple Rubio. I can't understand why Carson hasn't dropped out yet. I can't understand why the money people continue to stand by Bush. And I find it hard to believe Kasich's plan to target Midwestern states is likely to work......? A really unorthodox year.....
Trump 29.0%
Cruz 21.0
Rubio 20.3
Carson 7.3
Kasich 4.7
Bush 4.0
I'm guessing that NH debate didn't necessarily cripple Rubio. I can't understand why Carson hasn't dropped out yet. I can't understand why the money people continue to stand by Bush. And I find it hard to believe Kasich's plan to target Midwestern states is likely to work......? A really unorthodox year.....
As if the circus surrounding Abe Fortas were any more civil.
This is the way SCOTUS nominations work. It's high-stakes. Bring your big boy pants.
Nope. Bork was arguably the preeminent legal mind of his generation. Fortas was a hack. Not all nominees are created equal. The Bork rejection stands alone for naked politics.
Edit: my brilliant friends at Wikipedia offer irrefutable proof of my basic rightness!
"24 years after Bork's nomination was rejected, in 2011, New York Times columnist Joe Nocera claimed that "[t]he Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics... The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust--the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one." Nocera cited Democratic activist Ann Lewis who acknowledged that if Bork's nomination "were carried out as an internal Senate debate we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose."
I don't know Joe Nocera, but he sounds like a smart fella. Prior nominees to the Court had been controversial, some rejected. I'm not saying the Senate should rubber stamp. But prior to Bork it was always about character faults or lack of qualification. Everyone knew that Bork's character was fine, and that he was imminently qualified. He was defeated only because of his judicial philosophy. Pure politics.
Edit: my brilliant friends at Wikipedia offer irrefutable proof of my basic rightness!
"24 years after Bork's nomination was rejected, in 2011, New York Times columnist Joe Nocera claimed that "[t]he Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics... The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust--the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one." Nocera cited Democratic activist Ann Lewis who acknowledged that if Bork's nomination "were carried out as an internal Senate debate we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose."
I don't know Joe Nocera, but he sounds like a smart fella. Prior nominees to the Court had been controversial, some rejected. I'm not saying the Senate should rubber stamp. But prior to Bork it was always about character faults or lack of qualification. Everyone knew that Bork's character was fine, and that he was imminently qualified. He was defeated only because of his judicial philosophy. Pure politics.
Last edited:
It is. What kinda cigarettes was he smoking? American Spirits don't cause cancer or health problems..
He rolled his own Prince Alberts. No one ever talked about lung cancer crap back in the day when people rolled their own. IMO, it's the packs they put the cigs in that cause cancer.
Exactly Ram. 4/5 doctors would agree.
So. Who killed Scalia? Obama or Hillary? Hillary has had at least 2 people murdered already. My money is on her.
The average Joe that only catches the headlines and hot takes will not hear a word of those hypocrisies. GOP hates(fillinblank) will be all they hear.
Obama says he’s partly to blame for Washington’s very partisan environment because he could have reached out more to Republicans during his time in office, LA Times reports, citing interview (http://lat.ms/1Wg2CFb).
The Bush family will always have a segment of the old conservative base that will stand behind them no matter what. They do not want business as usual in Washington to change because it is making them too much money (his big donors, lobbyists, etc) and they know Jeb is just another Bush puppet that will keep it the same. What these folks cannot realize or accept is that the majority of Republicans and America are tired of the Bush family (would add the Clinton's as well).
Their backers are so invested in Jeb now that they must just be praying at this point that Trump does something extremely bad that will allow Jeb to start to climb out of the deep dark pit he is currently in. Its pretty sad that such a "nice guy" that Jeb is has spent a fortune on a ton of negative ads, attacks Trump on issues that himself and his family have been apart of as well (imminent domain), and has had to bring out both his Mom and Brother to try and salvage his failed campaign. Its obvious Jeb initially started his campaign not tying the Bush name to his campaign because he knew is brother left office pretty unpopular because of the financial collapse. Now, he is trying to use the family name. He could not answer the question about the Iraq war being a mistake early on only to change his position once his advisors told him what to say.
Point being Jeb Bush is a complete puppet to his backers and Trump exposed him. I will admit, early on I thought it was a shoe in for both Jeb and Hilary which scared the heck out of me. I also thought Trump would make the race entertaining (read my posts back when he put his name into the race), but I did not think Trump had enough firepower to destroy Jeb's campaign. Jeb has no chance at this point no matter what Trump does. The only other Governor in this race with any chance is John Kasich and unless he completely owns the Midwestern States he has no chance either.
The possibility of a brokered convention is keeping Bush, probably Rubio, possibly Kasich, in the race. If this happens and back room deals start happening, all bets are off. Trump has to win this outright in the primaries, I would think he has no shot in a brokered convention setting.
It is tragically ridiculous all the way around, you (general not personal) political fools are ruining it all from both sides like a damn vice grip.
Undoubtedly true - although that Schumer quote is direct, on point and easy to digest. The Rs need to be making posters out of it......
I agree that just having the name Bush means Jeb is connected to old money, and loyalty is no doubt a big thing in that crowd. Still, in any other year, if after Iowa and NH Jeb was at 4%, those money guys, loyal or no, would have pulled up stakes. Just not happening this year, Jeb old boy. But this is a weird year. Trump at times looks like a runaway train, and in most years others would just accede to that and bow out. But we've never had a runaway train with such a hard and fast ceiling. Everyone thinks once it gets down to 2 guys Trump simply cannot win. That's the only reason I can see the Bush people are still in it.
One thing is sure - the Bush campaign will serve as a referendum of sorts on SuperPACs, Citizen United, and the whole argument about money distorting politics. Either he loses, as appears to be likely - in which case the guy who raised by far the most money will show first hand that money doesn't really buy elections, and the left's arguments on that will be deflated. Or he makes an amazing comeback, in which case everyone will agree no one else could have done that and the only reason Bush could do it was because of his vast war-chest, which will be taken as vindication by the left......
Obama's an unpopular president ending his divisive unaccomplished time, the idea that the American people are going to rise up in rage and vote out every GOP from Pres to local dog catcher if he can't fill this slot is fantasy fiction of the far left
most Average Joe America is gonna think it is perfectly reasonable for whoever wins in Nov to make the pick
the GOP Senate should feel like the Joker in the Dark Knight interrogation room scene. No matter how vicious a beating they get from Obama/Dems/Media they can just lay on the floor bleeding yet laughing. And say there is nothing, nothing you can threaten us with to get your way, you are dickless and ball-less despite all your advantages and strengths. sucks don't it?
most Average Joe America is gonna think it is perfectly reasonable for whoever wins in Nov to make the pick
the GOP Senate should feel like the Joker in the Dark Knight interrogation room scene. No matter how vicious a beating they get from Obama/Dems/Media they can just lay on the floor bleeding yet laughing. And say there is nothing, nothing you can threaten us with to get your way, you are dickless and ball-less despite all your advantages and strengths. sucks don't it?
While I think Obama has the right/responsibility to appoint a judge, and the Senate has the right/responsibility to advise and consent his choice, the words of Schumer needs to kept front and center of everybody's mind.
Yes.
Yep. The push from MSM and pop culture will be immense, and all similar tactics from the dems will be ignored, although they pioneered it.
Not sure if he can do it at that point, but if he can, I can easily see Trump running third party and killing any chance the Republicans have if they try to pull that stunt at the convention. Trump holds all the cards against the RNC. They better tread lightly with him. I do think if he loses fair and square in the primaries he will honor his agreement with them and not run third party. If not, then I will admit he pulled a fast one on me and millions and others and will pray folks will run away from him.
When you're a conspiracy nut you automatically assume Scalia was murdered, it's what you do.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
Remember when Bush and the GOP considered using the nuclear option to free up his judicial nominees which were being refused a vote. The media acted like it would be the end of civilization if this was allowed to happen. Ultimately, the GOP backed down due to media pressure. Fast forward a few years and Reid at the behest of Obama pulls the trigger on the nuclear option. There was virtually no negative response from the media and some like Chris Matthews actually cheered the move.
Not moving or rejecting Obama's final nominee may very well be the price that the GOP charges the dems for using the nuclear option. Seems fitting to me.
More than fitting. It would be payback long overdue. Problem is, what damage will be done in the general election? We know the MSM and others will make the GOP pay a heavy price.
Related question: What can the GOP do to level of the field in terms of MSM and pop culture? Or can it even be done?
It is pretty comical if you look at the only two possible scenario's that play out in politics
Democrats: Screw the Republicans, we have the votes we will do whatever we want. It will fire up our base to see us flexing our muscles.
Democrats: I know Republicans have the votes and don't need to work across party lines, but if you do that it will fire up our base and you will get destroyed next election.
Democrats: Screw the Republicans, we have the votes we will do whatever we want. It will fire up our base to see us flexing our muscles.
Democrats: I know Republicans have the votes and don't need to work across party lines, but if you do that it will fire up our base and you will get destroyed next election.
I think the Senate should at least make sure we're nominating someone who passed the bar - the exam, not the uneven bars at the circus. Wasn't aware that a circus freak (liberal or conservative) was in the running, so to speak.
Thomas' approach for clerks is refreshing. But the reality is there is an immense concentration of talent at the top law schools, and the networks developed there don't hurt, either. The cycle has become reinforcing. Top students tend to pick those schools, where they receive perform well and gain valuable experience (kinda like how UK practices help develop players for the NBA), and they are hired to elite feeder clerkships. Then they become judges and hire the top clerks, who went to Harvard and Yale, etc... The legal profession (from an employment angle) is almost entirely built on prestige.
He was an originalist. I think the approach is just as prone to partisanship (one way only, though) as any other for the reasons that Scalia rejected the approach for statutes.
Estrada is ridiculously smart. Saw him at a SCOTUS preview panel and he had a well-reasoned opinion on every case and issue, including an almost encyclopedic knowledge of any tangentially related cases. He's also extremely conservative (more Alito than Scalia). Anyways, he wasn't rejected because he is Hispanic. The Latino part was that he was being groomed as a SCOTUS justice, and his ethnicity would make him harder to reject. It was about preventing a conservative appointment to SCOTUS down the line.
Only commenting on Nocera here. He spoke to my sports law class in spring 2012 (iirc) about the NCAA and specifically Nerlens Noel. His facts were a bit... loose. Like stating, unequivocally, that no UK players went to school in the spring. When I pointed out that only Orton (a BCG recruit) was the only one to skip class, he conceded the point (so he obviously didn't have a factual basis) and just switched to bashing Noel and stating that UK would get in trouble for recruiting the kid. And he owes me money because I bet him that Noel would make > $10m playing basketball (he said Noel would wash out due to character issues). He was good buddies with our boy Pete Thamel, a hack. Good times.
^ eh, I don't think those people are trying to unite anyone. If RBG died in office while a Republican was in office there would be some that said good riddance. I think we're just at that point as a country. Last Chief Justice to die in office was Rehnquist in 2005, and the last associate Justice to die in office was Jackson in 1954. Link. I don't remember coverage of Rehnquist's death, frankly. But in today's political climate, I would expect that many would celebrate the death of a justice on the other side of the most public cases, especially someone as outspoken as Scalia. I find it hard to believe that the glee at Ted Kennedy's death was entirely over the woman who died at Chappaquidich (sp).
Most of the sentiments I've seen from my more liberal friends is looking forward to someone other than Scalia. A few mentioned something like "sorry he's dead, but not sorry he's not on the Court." One said she shouldn't be happy that someone was dead, but felt happy nonetheless because the impact of his departure will be positive.
Most of the sentiments I've seen from my more liberal friends is looking forward to someone other than Scalia. A few mentioned something like "sorry he's dead, but not sorry he's not on the Court." One said she shouldn't be happy that someone was dead, but felt happy nonetheless because the impact of his departure will be positive.
Can you see this one?
Speaking during a Senate session in July 2008, Sen. Mitch McConnell criticized the concept of the "Thurmond Rule" which some suggest allows senators to oppose the president's judicial nominations in the months before a presidential election. McConnell said Feb. 13 that the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until after the presidential election.
The "Thurmond Rule" is said to apply to the last 6 months of a president's term. BO has 11 months to go.
So in a nutshell...in 2008 it was bad for the Senate to opposed judicial nominations but in 2016 it is good.
I generally like when hypocrisy is so clearly and neatly pointed out...be it from the left or right.
What will be really entertaining to watch is the shit-storm that will ensue after Bernie wins the election...or even Trump for that matter.
News flash to no one, Bill Clinton is a kinky SOB and Hillary prefers women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
