RIP Scalia

Page 8 of 9« First<56789>
March 16th, 2016 at 2:07:16 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 312
Posts: 10503
Quote: Dalex64
Pretty pointless.


Huh?

Quote:
Unless Obama threatens to make a recess appointment, no hearings will be scheduled and there will just be accusations thrown back and forth in the press


I think that's the whole point.

SPIN(*): The Constitution-loving Republicans DEMAND the president abstain from fulfilling his CONSTITUTIONAL duties.

It should play well in Peoria.


(*) Spin doesn't have to be true. It merely has to sound good.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 16th, 2016 at 7:13:42 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 1703
Yeah, because if he doesn't make that threat, or doesn't plan on following through on that threat if he does make it, then he is just wasting everyone's time, like the republicans did with all of those votes to repeal obamacare.

The republicans will come off as weak and damage their chances in all of their races in the election if they back down now.

The only other way is if they do something during the lame duck session - maybe if they figure this nominee is better than any one they would get from whoever won the presidency in november. At least then people will forgive and forget that they promised a nominee to the next president by the time the next election cycle comes around.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
April 7th, 2017 at 9:31:52 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 677
Posts: 7739
Did the Democrats want the senate to go nuclear on the SCOTUS nomination? If you think about it, DJT was never going to nominate a liberal candidate for the Supreme court. The Democrats couldn't delay for four years.

The Republicans have 52 Senate seats, so there is always a remote possibility of Democrats gaining control in 2018. However, 2018 favors Republicans as the GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats.

However, forcing the rule change to simple majority, may work essentially have no change in Republican position, as the older judges retire (or die) in this term, their candidate was destined to win eventually. But if Democrats do sneak out a simple majority, they can retain liberal judges in those seats.

=================================================

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice,
was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice,
was born in Sacramento, California, July 23, 1936. He married Mary Davis and has three children. He received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He was in private practice in San Francisco, California from 1961–1963, as well as in Sacramento, California from 1963–1975. From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. He has served in numerous positions during his career, including a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961, the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987–1988, and two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities, subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct, from 1979–1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979–1990, which he chaired from 1982–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,
was born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. He married Joanna Hare in 1967, and has three children - Chloe, Nell, and Michael. He received an A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, as Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974–1975, and as Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979–1980. He was an Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967–1994, a Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980, and a Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990–1994, and of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985–1989. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.

Of the three retired judges, Souter is younger than the three oldest that are still active.
David H. Souter (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, September 17, 1939.
Sandra Day O’Connor (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in El Paso, Texas, March 26, 1930.
John Paul Stevens (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in Chicago, Illinois, April 20, 1920.
April 8th, 2017 at 3:57:26 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6180
Quote: Pacomartin
Did the Democrats want the senate to go nuclear on the SCOTUS nomination? If you think about it, DJT was never going to nominate a liberal candidate for the Supreme court. The Democrats couldn't delay for four years.

The Republicans have 52 Senate seats, so there is always a remote possibility of Democrats gaining control in 2018. However, 2018 favors Republicans as the GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats.

However, forcing the rule change to simple majority, may work essentially have no change in Republican position, as the older judges retire (or die) in this term, their candidate was destined to win eventually. But if Democrats do sneak out a simple majority, they can retain liberal judges in those seats.


Democrats have been obstructing judges they just don't like since Bork. Before that the idea was to be sure the judge was qualified. But then it became about ideology. By the last year of Bush43 they were quietly saying they would not nominate anyone. This after years of filibustering lower judges for the same reason.

This behavior came back to bite them under Obama, as it was now acceptable. So now the SCOTUS filibuster is dead. One must wonder why the Democrats made the fight here and not when RBG goes. That replacement shifts the court, and the re-election math is way against them.

We may see the end of the filibuster entirely this term. At the least some major modifications to it.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
April 8th, 2017 at 7:06:01 AM permalink
terapined
Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 35
Posts: 2789
Quote: AZDuffman
Democrats have been obstructing judges they just don't like since Bork. Before that the idea was to be sure the judge was qualified. .


Sometimes its obvious the person is not qualified
Harriet Miers
:-)
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"
April 8th, 2017 at 8:14:49 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6180
Quote: terapined
Sometimes its obvious the person is not qualified
Harriet Miers
:-)


Still does not explain Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

GOP did not block the unqualified Sotomayor. That was a nomination that should have been blocked if any ever was.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
April 8th, 2017 at 12:48:35 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 677
Posts: 7739
Quote: AZDuffman
Democrats have been obstructing judges they just don't like since Bork.


President Reagan nominated
Bork for the seat in July 1987
Ginsburg for the seat in October 1987 but soon withdrew from consideration after his earlier marijuana use created a controversy.
Kennedy for the seat in November 1987

At least the protests 30 years ago resulted in a nomination of a judge Democrats considered an improvement.

My point about the present situation is that the filibuster would never result in a nomination that Democrats would consider an improvement. So they knew with absolute certainty that the Republicans would exercise the nuclear option.

The whole point of political battles is to win something. Do you think the Democrats feel like winners here? Or at the very least they are not any worse off.

As I said earlier, there is a long shot possibility of the Democrats gaining control of the Senate in 2018. Then they would have the simple majority.
April 8th, 2017 at 2:06:12 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6180
Quote: Pacomartin


The whole point of political battles is to win something. Do you think the Democrats feel like winners here? Or at the very least they are not any worse off.

As I said earlier, there is a long shot possibility of the Democrats gaining control of the Senate in 2018. Then they would have the simple majority.


I think it was to appease the nuts on the fringes. They could have done the same when the get the majority, though I doubt that is in 2018. But now it has been done. It used to be that senators said, "can't get rid of it because we will one day be in the minority!" This clearly has changed. Even under Clinton there was deal making. After 2000 the Democrats started deciding they would not cooperate with much of anything. Then Obama told the GOP to sit down and shut up, he had no desire to work with them, so they did not work with him. Now I do not think that it matters that it is Trump who won, but clearly Trump being a direct and manly individual get the Democrats extra upset.

So we may be in a once in 100 year shift in how things work. Democrats are running a scorched earth plan at the moment. If they make the GOP kill the filibuster they willingly give up all of their remaining power, and we essentially have a second House rule wise. A smarter minority party would negotiate.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
April 8th, 2017 at 3:05:20 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 677
Posts: 7739
Quote: AZDuffman
I think it was to appease the nuts on the fringes.
...
Democrats are running a scorched earth plan at the moment.


I tend to think that politicians do something for a reason, and not just appeasing nuts. They must figure that these judges will hold their positions for at least 4 years, and then it will be easier for them to secure their candidates if they use a rule change made by Republicans (assuming they can win back control in 2020).

Senate elections assuming no changes due to death, retirement, or changing parties:
2018: 8 Republicans and 21 Democrats along with 2 independents who caucus with them + Senator Jeff Sessions successor
2020: 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats
2022: 22 Republicans and 12 Democrats

Jeff Sessions won election to U.S. Senate in 1996, 2002, 2008, and 2014. Luther Strange was appointed to serve until special election in 2018.

The three Democrats who are most vulnerable to defeat in 2018 (each has won one election apiece) all voted to confirm Gorusch for the Supreme Court
Indiana Joe Donnelly (D) ONE ELECTION
North Dakota Heidi Heitkamp (D) ONE ELECTION
West Virginia Joe Manchin (D) ONE ELECTION

The next most vulnerable Democrat has already won two elections, and did not vote to confirm
Missouri Claire McCaskill (D) TWO ELECTIONS



Last Senate controlled by Democrats was 113th Congress (2013-2015)
Majority Party: Democrat (53 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats
April 8th, 2017 at 3:23:45 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6180
Quote: Pacomartin
I tend to think that politicians do something for a reason, and not just appeasing nuts. They must figure that these judges will hold their positions for at least 4 years, and then it will be easier for them to secure their candidates if they use a rule change made by Republicans (assuming they can win back control)

Senate elections as of today
2018: 8 Republicans and 21 Democrats along with 2 independents who caucus with them + Senator Jeff Sessions successor


This is what makes it crazy. I can't remember when electoral math was against a party like it is them in the Senate 2018. They have to be assuming a total wipe-out of Trump. They have been betting on this since he announced and been wrong each time.

All they get is to be able to say the GOP killed the filibuster. Half the public does not even know what that is.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
Page 8 of 9« First<56789>