SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

[z0sa]

698630568515342336

[DMX7]

He seemed to be in ok health. I would like to know how he died.

[Th'Pusher]

Obama gonna stack that shit

[z0sa]

He seemed to be in ok health. I would like to know how he died.

http://m.kvia.com/news/breaking-surpreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-during-hunting-trip-in-marfa/37981652

according to this source he died in his sleep after a hunting trip.

[Pelicans78]

http://m.kvia.com/news/breaking-surpreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-during-hunting-trip-in-marfa/37981652

according to this source he died in his sleep after a hunting trip.

Dick Cheney took him out in his sleep.

[DMX7]

b_d is in here. He probably has something snarky to say.

[Th'Pusher]

Conservatives everywhere are collectively shitting their pants.

[Th'Pusher]

b_d is in here. He probably has something snarky to say.

He's probably celebrating.

[Agloco]

Well, the court is getting more liberal.

[baseline bum]

http://s17.postimg.org/64lvmkapb/81386d1326155276_your_best_acid_southpark_nice.png

[Splits]

Fuck him and everything he stood for. Millions of people have suffered because of this miserable fuck.

[FromWayDowntown]

While I disagreed frequently with Justice Scalia's conclusions, I was always struck by his intellect and enjoyed reading his opinions. He will be rightly remembered as a Supreme Court Titan and one of its greatest thinkers. His is a great loss for the Court.

[HI-FI]

RIP.

While I disagreed frequently with Justice Scalia's conclusions, I was always struck by his intellect and enjoyed reading his opinions. He will be rightly remembered as a Supreme Court Titan and one of its greatest thinkers. His is a great loss for the Court.
classy as usual.

[Splits]

Classy.

698633067066425344

[Bartleby]

Fuck him and everything he stood for. Millions of people have suffered because of this miserable fuck.

This.

[baseline bum]

Now we just need Thomas to get hit by a Mack truck.

[SnakeBoy]

Obama gonna stack that shit

I can't imagine the Republicans not blocking any appointee he makes at least until the election.

[boutons_deux]

All Bad Things Must Come To An End.

Repugs have been blocking, or slow walking, all of Obama's judicial appointees, screwing up the judiciary, and certainly they will block any Obama appointee for the SCOTUS.

Repugs fuck up everything they touch, MISgoverning at every opportunity.

[baseline bum]

Too bad it didn't happen six years ago. Thank you for Citzens United you fucking faggot.

[Splits]

I can't imagine the Republicans not blocking any appointee he makes at least until the election.

Cruz and Lee have already made this case. Shit 'bout to get real fuckin' ugly

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987012/should-obama-replace-scalia

[boutons_deux]

Scalia’s death comes just a month before the court’s biggest abortion case in years

Scalia was a near certain vote in favor of upholding the Texas law. Without him, things get a bit more complicated. But the key thing to know is this: without Scalia, its very hard to see a world where the Supreme Court affirms the Texas law's constitutionality.

Here's why: there are near-certainly four votes against the law from the Court's liberal wing. And it's possible there are five votes, as justice Anthony Kennedy has been a swing vote (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/11/constitution-check-where-does-justice-kennedy-now-stand-on-abortion-rights/)on abortion cases.

The best case outcome, then, for the abortion rights opponents, is a 4-4 tie. In that case, the ruling of the circuit court is upheld without setting any constitutional precedent.

This would let the Texas law stand, since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the restriction. That would be far from an ideal outcome for the law's challengers and would leave abortion access greatly restricted in Texas.

Texas law would leave 900,000 women more than 150 miles from an abortion clinic

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/13/9731550/supreme-court-abortion-texas

5th circuit! full of Repug shit.

Repugs' War on (black, brown) Women's Vaginas

[Trill Clinton]

Fuck him and everything he stood for. Millions of people have suffered because of this miserable fuck.


Now we just need Thomas to get hit by a Mack truck.

These

[Thread]

For once we didn't miss.

The Dems? They never miss. They pick somebody and that mf'er is straight down the line, never deviates a millimeter off the left. None.
Us? We're always making incredibly stupid picks. Even when we get a supposed ringer. Ha. Fuck me,,,he turns.

He'll come after the guns now with his pick. The POS.

[hitmanyr2k]

Condolences to his family. I'm not going to pretend this news didn't make me smile though.

[TeyshaBlue]

Conservatives everywhere are collectively shitting their pants.
Um, no.

[TeyshaBlue]

CG!

[baseline bum]

So what the fuck's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year? :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

DNC coin flip.

[baseline bum]

DNC coin flip.

:lol

Apparently the lower court ruling holds

[Splits]

He'll come after the guns now with his pick. The POS.

"He" won't be making that pick. Your side will cheat again and not even bring up his pick for a vote. Which will drive voter turnout. Which always helps my side. Which means most likely "she" will be making that pick. And yes, that pick will be coming after the guns. Blazing after them.

Ha ha.

[Shastafarian]

"He" won't be making that pick. Your side will cheat again and not even bring up his pick for a vote. Which will drive voter turnout. Which always helps my side. Which means most likely "she" will be making that pick. And yes, that pick will be coming after the guns. Blazing after them.

Ha ha.

This. It's a risk, albeit one the democrats have no control over, to allow the next president to choose the replacement. But if the democrats can take back a majority in the senate and once they take the white house, we could see a far more liberal judge be nominated than whomever Obama would put up for confirmation.

[boutons_deux]

So what the fuck's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year? :lol

see above, get smart

" a 4-4 tie. In that case, the ruling of the circuit court is upheld without setting any constitutional precedent."

[Thread]

"He" won't be making that pick. Your side will cheat again and not even bring up his pick for a vote. Which will drive voter turnout. Which always helps my side. Which means most likely "she" will be making that pick.

I'll take that gamble. Better than him picking it now.

[spurraider21]

So what the fuck's going to happen when all the Supreme Court cases are 4-4 this year? :lol


DNC coin flip.
:lmao

[boutons_deux]

In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president's term.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5?ir=Politic s&section=us_politics&utm_campaign=021316&utm_content=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics

[baseline bum]

In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president's term.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5?ir=Politic s§ion=us_politics&utm_campaign=021316&utm_content=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics

Hillary should nominate Bill January 2017

[TeyshaBlue]

"He" won't be making that pick. Your side will cheat again and not even bring up his pick for a vote. Which will drive voter turnout. Which always helps my side. Which means most likely "she" will be making that pick. And yes, that pick will be coming after the guns. Blazing after them.

Ha ha.

Sides!

lol 3rd grade.

[boutons_deux]

Scaly was ideological asshole, with little respect for the law, hypocrit "originalist", just like Krazy Kruz (his originalism says he is not a "natural born" asshole)

Antonin Scalia was only an ‘originalist’ when it was convenient

The Supreme Court’s creation of new religious rights for closely-held corporations,Burwell, Secretary of HHS v. Hobby Lobby, makes clear that while Antonin Scalia is winning his career-long war for more governmental accommodation of religion, he is doing it by silently consenting to the further dismantling of one of his most important decisions, Employment Division v. Smith.

The Hobby Lobby decision follows the logic of Citizens’ United in arguing that corporations, which have been ruled to have protected Free Speech rights for election campaign donations, now have the right to ignore portions of a federal law if they are “closely held corporations,” whose owners object to the law on religious grounds.

Prior to 1990, the Court used a complicated “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means” test, requiring that the state make an exception to its law if that regulation “substantially burdened” a “central” belief in a person’s religion, unless the state could demonstrate that there was no other way to achieve its aim. The complication was that despite what seemed to be a balance here that favored protecting religious rights, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor always provided the fifth vote in favor of state regulation, because she argued that the laws did not affect “central” religious views.

Scalia changed the standard in a 1990 case called Employment Division v. Smith,dealing with the firing of a Native American who was a drug counselor for a private company and who ingested peyote for religious reasons, thus was denied his right to receive unemployment benefits from the state. Ignoring that using peyote was a central part of some Native Americans’ religion, Scalia returned to a much older “secular regulation rule,” under which general state regulations, that applied to everyone equally and did not target specific religious groups, would be upheld if they were “reasonable.” Contrary to Hobby Lobby, in which the Court animates corporations in order to protect their religious rights, Scalia allowed Oregon’s anti-drug law to operate regardless of its religiously discriminatory effect on the Native American litigant’s religion.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/antonin-scalia-was-only-an-originalist-when-it-was-convenient/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

So Scaly defended Christian Taliban the right to discriminate, harass, for their Christian bullshit, but overturned stare decisis to block a non-Christian from following his religion.

Typical Repug jurist, just another politicized asshole ideological turd.

[Th'Pusher]

Barry ought to nominate a constitutional conservative just to fuck with McConnell.

I'm interested to see how the whitehouse plays this.

[baseline bum]

Barry ought to nominate a constitutional conservative just to fuck with McConnell.

I'm interested to see how the whitehouse plays this.

He's going to nominate someone he would never want who is really liberal, who is against Wall Street, hates Citizen United, and so on, and then the Democrats will run in 2016 on the platform of the Republicans once again stonewalling everything. It might be a good tactic to increase voter turnout.

[Koolaid_Man]

Fuck him and everything he stood for. Millions of people have suffered because of this miserable fuck.

I couldn't agree more

[Th'Pusher]

This is a game changer. Could increase voter turnout on both sides. I guess that's a good thing, right??

[boutons_deux]

This is a game changer. Could increase voter turnout on both sides. I guess that's a good thing, right??

High voter turnout is bad for the Repugs, who, as the minority, depend on low voter turnout, eg, 2014. That's why Repugs are always so relentless in suppressing voters.

[Koolaid_Man]

May his journey to hell be swift

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/Smoking-a-Cigar-Like-A-Boss-1024x640_zpso0enduqx.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

High voter turnout is bad for the Repugs, who, as the minority, depend on low voter turnout, eg, 2014. That's why Repugs are always so relentless in suppressing voters.
Yeah. I just don't see a path where this plays out well for conservatives. the locals are all playing it cool since the senate can block Obama's nominee, but the reality is they lost their anchor on the SCOTUS. This is devisistating for constitutional conservatism.

[boutons_deux]

While I differed with Justice Scalia’s views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/?fref=nf

[baseline bum]

This is a game changer. Could increase voter turnout on both sides. I guess that's a good thing, right??

Repubs don't want that, especially when they have to defend a lot of senate seats.

[Splits]

I'll take that gamble. Better than him picking it now.

You might want to re-think that. Obummer is going to be his squishy, centrist, "compromising" self just to get someone through. He'll nominate some corporatist status-quo loser who won't overturn RvW or marriage equality, but will vote with your side 1/2 the time.

Shillary on the other hand will come in with a big fat mandate, nominate the most liberal jurist available, and the Senate (regardless of composition) will have no choice but to approve.

You're better off with Obummer unless you think Trump can actually win, in which case you're even dumber than I thought.

[ElNono]

rip

[Koolaid_Man]

How I feel about that asshole
?

https://youtube/rHJoj9IqeKg

[Splits]

Repubs don't want that, especially when they have to defend a lot of senate seats.

Ayotte, Johnson, Kirk, Portman all lose in that scenario.

[Splits]

rip

No. Rest In Misery.

Fuck him.

[pgardn]

He was pleased when Kagan got on the court because he said he looked forward to her intellectual capacity to discuss important ideas. His best friend on the court was Ginsburg, their families enjoyed each other's company...

Cruz is gonna get run out of this IMO. I think this actually works in the Republican's favor. This could be more of a uniting factor.

[baseline bum]

He was pleased when Kagan got on the court because he said he looked forward to her intellectual capacity to discuss important ideas. His best friend on the court was Ginsburg, their families enjoyed each other's company...

Cruz is gonna get run out of this IMO. I think this actually works in the Republican's favor. This could be more of a uniting factor.

Obama should nominate Cruz, would make great comedy with the senate that hates him

[hater]

:lmao Fat Booty's body is still warm and Repugs and Demonrats are already arguing over the replacemant :lmao

this country is a fucking sewage pit of shit :lol

it deserve everthing that's coming....

[hater]

and believe me I say that with a heavy heart as I have businesses and live here. but we are royally fucked

[pgardn]

:lmao Fat Booty's body is still warm and Repugs and Demonrats are already arguing over the replacemant :lmao

this country is a fucking sewage pit of shit :lol

it deserve everthing that's coming....

What?

You mean giving opinions about a replacement.
I guess it's easier in Russia where Vlad decides everything for you.

Idiot...

[pgardn]

and believe me I say that with a heavy heart as I have businesses and live here. but we are royally fucked

What does the business involve comrade?

[exstatic]

While I disagreed frequently with Justice Scalia's conclusions, I was always struck by his intellect and enjoyed reading his opinions. He will be rightly remembered as a Supreme Court Titan and one of its greatest thinkers. His is a great loss for the Court.

I think that might have been true up until maybe 5-6 years ago, but he's been an old man screaming at kids to get off his lawn since. He stopped even pretending that he wasn't implementing an agenda, no matter how cruel or unfair the rulings.

[Koolaid_Man]

and believe me I say that with a heavy heart as I have businesses and live here. but we are royally fucked


Taco stands and whore houses dont count :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Obama should use an executive order to put a nice liberal on the court.

Then, the conservatives could file a complaint with the Supreme Court.

Then, the Supreme Court, with it's new member could uphold Obama's nomination. Problem solved.

[exstatic]

Maybe Uncle Thomas will freeze like a bunny in the headlights and not know how to vote with Scalia gone, and they'll all be 4-3 decisions.

[Th'Pusher]

The GOP’s blanket block of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee could backfire in a big way.

Specific nominees have been blocked in the past. But what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his confreres are proposing (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129879/mitch-mcconnell-says-will-no-scalia-supreme-court-replacement-president-obama) is different, amounting to an usurpation of a presidential prerogative. Perhaps the threat to block all nominees, before the Senate even has a chance to weigh their qualifications, could be justified if we were closer to November, but in February it deprives the court of a ninth vote for at least 11 months. The president is elected to a four-year term, not a three-year term, and it’s his right to appoint Supreme Court justices. The Senate’s role, per the Constitution, is merely to “advise and consent.”
If McConnell follows through with this threat, what is to stop a Democratic minority from issuing blanket bans on Republican nominees, should a Republican be elected president in the fall? (Harry Reid removed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html) the filibuster for judicial appointees, but there is an exception for SCOTUS nominees.) If McConnell wants to turn “advise and consent” into a much stronger weapon, what’s to stop Democrats from using it? It seems entirely possible that we’re heading toward a constitutional crisis, at a time when the court is evenly divided 4-4 ideologically.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129885/gops-blanket-block-obamas-supreme-court-nominee-backfire-big-way

[Koolaid_Man]

Maybe Uncle Thomas will freeze like a bunny in the headlights and not know how to vote with Scalia gone, and they'll all be 4-3 decisions.


He's an embarrassment to humanity dumb ass ugly black fucker

[hater]

Taco stands and whore houses dont count :lol

of course they count. those are the only 2 places you can get some pussy :lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

The GOP’s blanket block of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee could backfire in a big way.

Specific nominees have been blocked in the past. But what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his confreres are proposing (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129879/mitch-mcconnell-says-will-no-scalia-supreme-court-replacement-president-obama) is different, amounting to an usurpation of a presidential prerogative. Perhaps the threat to block all nominees, before the Senate even has a chance to weigh their qualifications, could be justified if we were closer to November, but in February it deprives the court of a ninth vote for at least 11 months. The president is elected to a four-year term, not a three-year term, and it’s his right to appoint Supreme Court justices. The Senate’s role, per the Constitution, is merely to “advise and consent.”
If McConnell follows through with this threat, what is to stop a Democratic minority from issuing blanket bans on Republican nominees, should a Republican be elected president in the fall? (Harry Reid removed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html) the filibuster for judicial appointees, but there is an exception for SCOTUS nominees.) If McConnell wants to turn “advise and consent” into a much stronger weapon, what’s to stop Democrats from using it? It seems entirely possible that we’re heading toward a constitutional crisis, at a time when the court is evenly divided 4-4 ideologically.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129885/gops-blanket-block-obamas-supreme-court-nominee-backfire-big-way


Regardless of what happens Obama holds the trump card here... He could do as I said earlier...appoint via executive order and let them sue....or appoint an Hispanic and let them hold it up and use it as election blue meat

[Koolaid_Man]

of course they count. those are the only 2 places you can get some pussy :lmao


Diseased pussy :lol

[Thread]

You might want to re-think that. Obummer is going to be his squishy, centrist, "compromising" self


That'd be the first time.

He's a monster.

[Splits]

That'd be the first time.

He's a monster.

He's a corporatist centrist. He punished nobody for torture. He punished nobody for the economic collapse. Every proposal, from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank, has been a lukewarm, modest "c'mon guys let's compromise" capitulation before negotiations ever began. His policies and enacted legislation is to the right of Reagan.

He inherited a total fucking disaster from your team, and managed to right the ship amazingly enough. But to characterize him as a radical or monster is completely disingenuous. He was basically Dubya-lite.

[Thread]

He's a corporatist centrist. He punished nobody for torture. He punished nobody for the economic collapse. Every proposal, from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank, has been a lukewarm, modest "c'mon guys let's compromise" capitulation before negotiations ever began. His policies and enacted legislation is to the right of Reagan.

He inherited a total fucking disaster from your team, and managed to right the ship amazingly enough. But to characterize him as a radical or monster is completely disingenuous. He was basically Dubya-lite.

He's a louse, Splits.

[Splits]

He's a louse, Splits.

Nope. He's a typical centrist who was ashamed to advocate or propose policies anywhere left of center because of his skin color. He could have been great if he recognized in 2009 his "let's all hold hands and come together" approach was doomed to fail by 2010. But it took him till 2014 to realize your side are a bunch of lunatics who will never negotiate with a ######.

[boutons_deux]

Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress


http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356 (http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356)

[Thread]

But it took him till 2014 to realize your side are a bunch of lunatics who will never negotiate with a ######.

But, he wasn't a niqqer to start with. Swore up & down he wasn't.

[Koolaid_Man]

He's a corporatist centrist. He punished nobody for torture. He punished nobody for the economic collapse. Every proposal, from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank, has been a lukewarm, modest "c'mon guys let's compromise" capitulation before negotiations ever began. His policies and enacted legislation is to the right of Reagan.

He inherited a total fucking disaster from your team, and managed to right the ship amazingly enough. But to characterize him as a radical or monster is completely disingenuous. He was basically Dubya-lite.

He didn't need to punish anyone for torture...you people trip me out..you can't fight every political battle and win....he got plenty done while 100% obstruction.....

[Koolaid_Man]

Nope. He's a typical centrist who was ashamed to advocate or propose policies anywhere left of center because of his skin color. He could have been great if he recognized in 2009 his "let's all hold hands and come together" approach was doomed to fail by 2010. But it took him till 2014 to realize your side are a bunch of lunatics who will never negotiate with a ######.


And just what are your specific alternatives to Obama's policies? And don't give me pie in the sky shit....what would you have prioritized and done differently and how would you've garnered support for it? Saying he should have been far left is nothing but your version of Tea Party bullshit

[baseline bum]

I think this actually works in the Republican's favor. This could be more of a uniting factor.

I think it's going to be a really easy case for the Democrats to make that the Republicans are the party of obstructionism if the seat goes vacant because they won't confirm anyone. It's going to be a great battle cry for high voter turnout. I suspect they'll eventually cave and confirm a moderate appointment. And I can't see Cruz winning the general election. Not when he filibustered Obamacare. 2012 felt like the vote on the ACA, and the repealers got spanked. Cruz is the only Republican I think Sanders would actually beat in the general because of that filibuster.

[tenbeersbold]

Regardless of politics,he was a miserable cheap curmudgeon of a person.I had to deal with him on the regular for years

[boutons_deux]

A nasty little asshole. Racist, misogynist, Catholic, LGBT-hater, killer, SUPREME hypocrite, the PERFECT Repug "justice"

Thanks, Repugs

12 “memorable” quotes from Antonin Scalia

Conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who spent decades warning the nation about the flag-pole-like sitting nature of homosexuality, died of natural courses on Friday at a luxury resort in Texas. He was 79. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/breaking-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-has-died/)

Death is always sad. I feel bad for his family. And it’s not time to talk about politics. (Unless you’re a Republican who really wants to honor Scalia’s memory by using his death (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/minutes-after-scalias-death-right-wingers-seek-to-block-nominee-obama-hasnt-even-appointed-yet/) to push for a totally unheard of postponement of his replacement so it happens after Obama leaves office.)

But it might be time to memorialize the man through rounding up some of the most memorable things he ever said or wrote.

1.Homosexuality: It’s a lot like murder!

Romer v. Evans (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZD.html) challenged a Colorado amendment which banned outlawing anti-gay discrimination (I know, I have a headache, too) in 1993. Justice Scalia expressed his sympathy for the people of Colorado, who wanted nothing more than to protect themselves from gay sex like they would from murder:

The Court’s opinion contains… hints that Coloradans have been guilty of ‘animus’ or ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. . . . I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.


2. Homosexuality: it’s a lot like incest (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html)!

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on sodomy in 2003 in Lawrence v Texas. Amazingly, Scalia’s murder comparison had not convinced his colleagues of the danger posed by the gays. So he tried again. Only this time, with a different analogy.
States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults “in matters pertaining to sex”: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography


3. Homosexuality: it’s a lot like flagpole sitting!

To his credit, Scalia would try, time and time again, to use the power of simile to enlighten his colleagues. Within the same dissent, he pointed out that not everything was a right just because it had once been illegal. The act he chose to use to demonstrate is a great American pastime:

Suppose that all the states had laws against flagpole sitting at one time [which they then overturned].Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?


4. Legalizing same-sex marriage: nothing more than ‘fortune cookie justice.’

When the Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf) in 2015, Scalia lamented (http://time.com/3937626/gay-marriage-antonin-scalia/) that,

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.


5. Legalizing same-sex marriage: nothing more than pretentious, egomaniacal ‘fortune cookie justice.’

In the same dissent, he described the majority opinion as being, couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.

6. ladies: not protected by the Constitution.

Scalia didn’t limit himself to reactionary ideologies based on sexual orientation. Ironically, his bigotry embraced the diversity and equality that, he claimed, the Constitution lacked.During a 2011 interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html)withCalifornia Lawyer, Scalia said (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scalia-constitution-doesnt-protect-women-or-gays-from-discrimination/),

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.
Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.


7. Women: can’t live with em, can’t stand having to sit on The Supreme Court with them because they’re hysterical, shrieking, fetus-viability redefining banshees.

Sandra Day O’Connor had already made the mistake of becoming the first woman on the United States Supreme Court. Then, adding insult to injury, she refused to join Scalia’s effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, 1989. Always a gentleman, Scalia offered O’Conner some subtle and respectful constructive criticism, describing (http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-14/opinion/op-24100_1_justice-antonin-scalia)her reasoning as “irrational,” and not to “be taken seriously.”

8. Blacks: better off in slower schools?

Duringoral arguments in the still pending Affirmative Action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Scalia said, out loud (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/justice-scalia-suggests-blacks-belong-slower-colleges-fisher-university-texas),

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.


9. Voting rights: the result of peer pressure and popularity contests.

During the oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, 2013,Scalia referred to voting rights as “perpetual racial entitlements,” the passage of which is (http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-voting-rights-act-racial-entitlement-supreme-court-vra-2013-2),

I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.


10. Executing intellectually disabled people: kosher.

Interestingly, when it came to the death penalty, Scalia wasn’t as critical of the kind of group think that tricks people into supporting voting rights. In his dissent in Atkins v. Virginia (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/20/national/20CND-DEAT.html), 2002, which barred executing people with mental disabilities, Scalia defended sentencing retarded people to death because everyone is doing it!

The fact that juries continue to sentence mentally retarded offenders to death for extreme crimes shows that society’s moral outrage sometimes demands execution of retarded offenders.


11. Executing innocent people: also kosher.

Scalia he went so far as to argue that executing the innocent didn’t even violate the constitution (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/):

[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.


So, if you’re feeling conflicted about Scalia’s death, don’t lose too much sleep over it. You probably feel guiltier over his natural death, than he ever did about the government-sanctioned killing he so enthusiastically supported.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/12-memorable-quotes-from-antonin-scalia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

The originalist, fundamentalist constitutional ideas that have driven many of the court’s decisions were more the product of Mr. Scalia’s intellect and politics than of the other conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote few of the divided court’s 5-to-4 decisions, perhaps because

the chief justices were aware that Justice Scalia’s lack of self-control in his judgments made him unreliable in those cases.

From abortion rights to marriage equality and desegregation, Justice Scalia opposed much of the social and political progress of the late 20th century and this one.

The question now is whether the Senate will honor Justice Scalia’s originalist view of the Constitution by allowing President Obama to appoint a successor, and providing its advice and consent in good faith.

Or will the Republicans be willing to create a constitutional crisis and usurp the authority of the president to ensure that the Supreme Court functions as one branch of this government?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/justice-antonin-scalias-supreme-court-legacy.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Koolaid_Man]

I could care less about Scalia just like he cared less about people in life....he can rot in hell for all I csre...good fucking riddance to be honest

[Will Hunting]

And just what are your specific alternatives to Obama's policies? And don't give me pie in the sky shit....what would you have prioritized and done differently and how would you've garnered support for it? Saying he should have been far left is nothing but your version of Tea Party bullshit

In 2009, Pelosi was able to push a health plan that included a public option through the house. Then Obama + Reid got their hands on it, chopped it up, and turned it into Romneycare. Maybe a single payer option wasn't going to happen with the tea party, but I don't think Obama needed to cave on a public healthcare option the way he did. He caved because he's in bed with Blue Cross/United/CIGNA and they didn't want a public option driving down healthcare prices. Regarding what else I would have done differently:

1) I wouldn't have bombed Libya and destabilized a country with a secular dictator
2) I wouldn't have increased federal enforcement of marijuana offenses the way he did
3) I wouldn't have picked an uncle tom attorney general who represented Wall Street his entire career and proceeded to let HSBC off the hook for offenses that would get any small bank shut down
4) I wouldn't have agreed to the countless estate tax loopholes that became law during Obama's presidency
5) I wouldn't have nominated a judge who made a ruling on the court of appeals that disenfranchised college athletes to the supreme court
6) I wouldn't have made immigration such a high priority. Working class white families feel like they've been disenfranchised by Democrats over the last 40 years and I would have tried more to fix that
7) I would have nationalized any bank that needed bailout rather than giving it free money
8) I wouldn't have picked a cabinet full of corporate shill Clintonites

The list goes on...

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah. I just don't see a path where this plays out well for conservatives. the locals are all playing it cool since the senate can block Obama's nominee, but the reality is they lost their anchor on the SCOTUS. This is devisistating for constitutional conservatism.

You mean it's devastating for constitutional "religiosity". Scalia was anything but "conservative" when attempting to interpret the constitution, unless you're just associating conservatives with right-wing ideologies (which are not congruous at all).

[Winehole23]

RIP, the court lost a keen mind and one of its best writers ever.

[Winehole23]

Tom Goldstein in scotusblog on the 3D chess related to replacement:


If Kemala Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.


Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a serious possibility. But she would likely have to recuse from her job, leaving that position open indefinitely. I also think that the Republicans would have an argument that the attorney general’s position shouldn’t be left open.


No other black woman immediately comes to mind as a nominee, though I haven’t researched the question in some time. But there is an obvious black male: Paul Watford, an Obama appointee to the Ninth Circuit. Watford is in his late forties. He is well respected and reasonably well known in Democratic legal circles.


Watford was confirmed by the Senate in 2012 by a vote of sixty-one to thirty-four, which is a filibuster-proof majority. Nine Republicans voted in favor of his nomination. That gives the Administration considerable ammunition to argue publicly that Republicans, by refusing to process the nomination, are blocking someone who is recognized to be qualified.


Logistically, the fact that Watford was vetted so recently also makes it practical for the president to nominate him in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”


The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.


So while I will update my research on potential nominees, at this point I think that Judge Paul Watford is the most likely candidate.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ninth-circuit-judge-paul-watford-is-the-most-likely-nominee-to-replace-antonin-scalia/

[Winehole23]

So given the dynamic, how does each side proceed? The administration can pick a nominee that fulfills both its jurisprudential and political goals, without giving Republicans a tool with which to fight back to persuade undecided voters. Dozens of nominees fit the ideological bill of being solidly progressive and changing the Court’s ideological balance if confirmed. The more interesting question for the administration will be which one creates the greatest political benefit and exacts the greatest political costs for Republicans in the general election.


Democrats have two political priorities: motivating turnout by their own voters and persuading independents to vote for the Democratic nominee. Two Democratic constituencies in particular vote in disproportionately low numbers: young Democrats and minorities.

same

[FromWayDowntown]

While McConnell's position on a replacement nominee is hardly surprising (and reeks, in many ways, of desperation), I don't think it's an intellectually honest position.

Had a "liberal" justice passed away in the early spring of 2008 and had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed so expressly to block any nomination that President Bush might have made, I suspect the rancor of the Republicans would have been nearly without precedent. It's a relevant test, I think, to assess the honesty of the position: if you would have opposed the other guy doing it (and Senate Republicans, Republican Presidential candidates, and their mouthpieces in the media almost certainly would have), I don't know that it's a respectable choice to take that road yourself.

Of course, intellectual dishonesty is hardly without precedent on either Capital Hill or on the presidential campaign trail.

[Winehole23]

the attempt to win every battle, while characterizing the President and Democrats as illegitmate, dangerous to the country, and unworthy partners in statecraft, has been strategically costly for the GOP and may be again.

the vacancy on the Supreme Court and upcoming election raises the stakes and throws the strategy of delegitimizing the opposition (and government per se) into clear relief.

[Will Hunting]

RIP, the court lost a keen mind and one of its best writers ever.

Keen mind? Scalia did an interview not too long ago about how "You used to be able to see the devil 2000 years ago but he's gotten more 'wily' recently." He was a religious zealot who set America back.

[Winehole23]

off the cuff remarks and ideology don't speak to Scalia's mental acuity or rhetorical craft.

his opinions, agree or disagree with them, are entertaining to read. that's pretty unusual for a judge at any level.

[Will Hunting]

off the cuff remarks and ideology don't speak to Scalia's mental acuity or rhetorical craft.

his opinions, agree or disagree with them, are entertaining to read. that's pretty unusual for a judge at any level.

:lol it wasn't an off the cuff remark. He was literally talking about how the devil had gotten more wily and was harder to detect.

I personally don't want a supreme court justice who's paranoid about the devil being sneaky.

[Winehole23]

totally understandable

[Will Hunting]

totally understandable

Elaborate.

[Winehole23]

Scalia isn't necessarily a dimwit because he holds beliefs you think outlandish or unreasonable. it's no secret Scalia was a practicing Roman Catholic.

[Will Hunting]

Scalia isn't necessarily a dimwit because he holds beliefs you think outlandish or unreasonable. it's no secret Scalia was a practicing Roman Catholic.

I didn't say he was a dimwit. I said he shouldn't be a supreme court justice if some devil that may or may not exist plays a significant role in his decision making.

[boutons_deux]

it's no secret Scalia was a practicing Roman Catholic.

A lot of the nastiest, craziest top Repugs and judges are RCCs. Steve "cantaloupe calves" King, Rick "man on dog" Santorum, Boner, Paul Ryan, Gregg Abbott

I think the 4 remaining for Repug extremist SCOTUS assholes are RCCs.

5 Catholics and 3 Jews. I think all of them are Harvard and Yale, and nearly all from NY area, just a wonderfully representative cross-section of America.

[Spurminator]

There are a lot of very intelligent assholes. I'm hesitant to fondly remember Justice Scalia because of his gift with words.

RIH, frankly.

[baseline bum]

There are a lot of very intelligent assholes. I'm hesitant to fondly remember Justice Scalia because of his gift with words.

RIH, frankly.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/64/6494d9a65195279d35717e6d97375037c34660e076011dc05b cc67011a212df0.jpg

[Spurminator]

And for Republicans who (predictably) don't want the current President nominating Scalia's replacement, exactly when is the appropriate cutoff point at which a sitting President should pass the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice on to the next elected President? A year? After the first opponent announces his candidacy? One month after inauguration?

What a fucking joke.

[boutons_deux]

And for Republicans who (predictably) don't want the current President nominating Scalia's replacement, exactly when is the appropriate cutoff point at which a sitting President should pass the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice on to the next elected President? A year? After the first opponent announces his candidacy? One month after inauguration?

What a fucking joke.

avg confirm time for SCOTUS appointee is 120 days. Obama has 300+ days.

Fuck Repugs to hell, every one of them. They're fucking up, have fucked America, the Middle East worse than Muslim terrorists.

[Aztecfan03]

While McConnell's position on a replacement nominee is hardly surprising (and reeks, in many ways, of desperation), I don't think it's an intellectually honest position.

Had a "liberal" justice passed away in the early spring of 2008 and had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed so expressly to block any nomination that President Bush might have made, I suspect the rancor of the Republicans would have been nearly without precedent. It's a relevant test, I think, to assess the honesty of the position: if you would have opposed the other guy doing it (and Senate Republicans, Republican Presidential candidates, and their mouthpieces in the media almost certainly would have), I don't know that it's a respectable choice to take that road yourself.

Of course, intellectual dishonesty is hardly without precedent on either Capital Hill or on the presidential campaign trail.

GO talk to Schumer ala 2007

[pgardn]

I think it's going to be a really easy case for the Democrats to make that the Republicans are the party of obstructionism if the seat goes vacant because they won't confirm anyone. It's going to be a great battle cry for high voter turnout. I suspect they'll eventually cave and confirm a moderate appointment. And I can't see Cruz winning the general election. Not when he filibustered Obamacare. 2012 felt like the vote on the ACA, and the repealers got spanked. Cruz is the only Republican I think Sanders would actually beat in the general because of that filibuster.

Reasonable point.

[pgardn]

He's an embarrassment to humanity dumb ass ugly black fucker

You should love the guy.
He is a pornography freak and has no decency when it comes to women.

He also is most likely better looking than you and definitely smarter.
Go back to the NBA thread.

[FromWayDowntown]

GO talk to Schumer ala 2007

So was he right then or wrong?

[Winehole23]

I didn't say he was a dimwit. I said he shouldn't be a supreme court justice if some devil that may or may not exist plays a significant role in his decision making.
Confirmed 98-0 in the Senate. There's no religious test for public officers in the USA. Religious beliefs are neither qualifying nor disqualifying. You're of course free to believe otherwise, but the constitution trumps.

[Winehole23]

There are a lot of very intelligent assholes. I'm hesitant to fondly remember Justice Scalia because of his gift with words.

RIH, frankly.fair enough.

[Warlord23]

Maybe Mitch McConnell needs to listen to Mitch McConnell from 2005:

The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.

... The Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.

What a difference 11 years and a Democratic presidency make.

[Aztecfan03]

So was he right then or wrong?
that was a year and a half away from a new president, but still would have been within their power. The president shouldn't be a king like obama seems to think he is.

[FromWayDowntown]

that was a year and a half away from a new president, but still would have been within their power. The president shouldn't be a king like obama seems to think he is.

So where do you draw the line? How soon before an election is too soon? Had Justice Ginsberg died in early 2008, would it have been acceptable for George W. Bush to appoint a replacement and expect full Senate hearings?

I'm not sure when the exercise of constitutionally-delegated responsibilities became monarchical.

I'm also curious about what happened to all of the Republican insistence that any judicial nominee presented by a President was entitled to a full hearing and a simple up-or-down vote. That was a thing not too long ago.

[Aztecfan03]

Obama in 2006:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled."


Considering who he has already nominated, i can't envision him nominating people that could have acceptable philosophy/ideology to conservatives.

[Aztecfan03]

So where do you draw the line? How soon before an election is too soon? Had Justice Ginsberg died in early 2008, would it have been acceptable for George W. Bush to appoint a replacement and expect full Senate hearings?

I'm not sure when the exercise of constitutionally-delegated responsibilities became monarchical.

I'm also curious about what happened to all of the Republican insistence that any judicial nominee presented by a President was entitled to a full hearing and a simple up-or-down vote. That was a thing not too long ago.

G.W. could have nominated people, but i know doubt democrats would have accepted.

[boutons_deux]

Obama in 2006:

Considering who he has already nominated, i can't envision him nominating people that could have acceptable philosophy/ideology to conservatives.

but they won't be as horrible, extreme as Robert Bork was when nominated, and continued to be until his death. Bork was really a "fuck all y'all. We nominate a judicial monster" nominee or as garbage-y as Prsiscilla Owen of the 5th Circuit/New Orleans.

Obviously, Sotomayor and Kagan are serious jurists. I'm sure Barry has more like them.

[ChumpDumper]

G.W. could have nominated people, but i know doubt democrats would have accepted.So where do you draw the line?

[boutons_deux]

John Oliver pounds GOP for invoking ‘bullsh*t’ rule to keep from voting for Scalia’s replacement
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/john-oliver-pounds-gop-for-invoking-bullsht-rule-to-keep-from-voting-for-scalias-replacement/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[RandomGuy]

I can't imagine the Republicans not blocking any appointee he makes at least until the election.

Going to be hard to argue credibly that the Supreme court needs to be without a nominee for almost a full year. They are already trying to do just that. "We have to wait until after the presidential election"

They are gambling that they will get back the white house, and holding a branch of government, SCOTUS, hostage.

More classiness out of the GOP in Congress.

[RandomGuy]

G.W. could have nominated people, but i know doubt democrats would have accepted.


“Yes, the Strom Thurmond Rule,” Oliver said before suggesting that he thought it might be about paying “hush money required to keep your secret family a secret” –referring to Thurmond’s out-of-wedlock child — or “how racist an old person is allowed to become before their age is no longer an excuse.”

Oliver cautioned McConnell against using the informal rule — which he termed “bullshit” — by noting that McConnell himself had previously dismissed it.

“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule,’ under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year,” McConnell said in a 2008 clip from the Senate floor. “This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn’t exist is an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly needed vacancies.”

“Yes, it seems the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a bit like God: when things are going your way, you don’t bring it up a lot. But as soon as you’re in trouble — it is all that you talk about,” he smirked.

9Vt9xV9ZI74

Dems used it for federal judges towards the end of Bush's term, but there wasn't an opening on SCOTUS

[RandomGuy]

Oliver also makes a really good point about Scalia, who was big on the original meaning of the constitution.


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Don't see nuthin' there limiting the Presidents power of nomination.

Oliver also pointed out that even *if* you consider the Thurmond rule valid, that doesn't technically apply until July 20.

[boutons_deux]

9Vt9xV9ZI74

Dems used it for federal judges towards the end of Bush's term, but there wasn't an opening on SCOTUS

and Repugs said there was no rule.

[rmt]

Seems like a lot of people are missing, "with the Advice" part.

[Winehole23]

lagniappe:

http://www.juancole.com/2016/02/top-5-scalia-rulings-that-helped-progressives.html

[ChumpDumper]

Seems like a lot of people are missing, "with the Advice" part.what is their advice?

[boutons_deux]

Surprise! Repugs are fucking LYING to their ignorant base

Justice Kennedy’s confirmation debunks key GOP talking point

Soon after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

The fact of the matter is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should have done his homework before getting this wrong.

The “80 years” talking point spread like wildfire in Republican circles – it was repeated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/the-cbs-republican-debate-transcript-annotated/) by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio during Saturday night’s debate – to the point that the GOP has convinced itself that at no point in the modern era has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

About 14 justices (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987692/14-supreme-court-confirmations) were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scalias-passing-starts-a-court-fight-for-the-ages/2016/02/14/5502564a-d339-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html) this morning:

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.


Yes, in Reagan’s eighth year, nine months before Election Day 1988, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Kennedy with ease.

Chuck Grassley, who’d already been in the Senate for seven years at that point, delivered remarks (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4580671/grassley-supports-kennedy) on Feb. 13, 1988 – exactly 28 years to the day before Scalia’s passing – urging the Senate to confirm Kennedy during that election year.

Ronald Reagan, stung by two failed nominees to the high court (Douglas Ginsburg and Robert Bork), said at the time that if Senate Democrats played election-year games by stalling on Kennedy’s nomination in 1988, the “American people will know what’s up.”

And on this, he was correct.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/justice-kennedys-confirmation-debunks-key-gop-talking-point?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Lamar Rucker, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Fuck the Repugs to hell, everyone of them.

[FromWayDowntown]

Seems like a lot of people are missing, "with the Advice" part.

Unquestionably, any nominee has to be confirmed by the Senate.

I don't think that there could be much quarrel with the Republicans if they allowed full hearings on a nominee and then chose to reject a nominee -- though I also think that the optics of rejecting an obviously qualified nominee could be really bad.

But "advice" doesn't appear, in this context, to include the right to deny any consideration at all - it certainly didn't in 2005 when Senator Cornyn said:


"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat... We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote." [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees," 5/9/05]

or when Senator McConnell said:


"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

or when Senator Hatch said:


“The advice and consent clause [of the Constitution] is clearly an up or down vote—a majority vote—on the floor of the Senate.” (Deseret News, Nov. 13, 2003)

or when Senator Vitter said:


“As U.S. Senators, it is our constitutional duty to give advice and consent when a president nominates individuals to the bench. I think that every nominee deserves a vote. It’s a matter of fairness.” [Vitter.Senate.gov, "Vitter Supports Senate Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/19/05]

So, I don't think anyone who is taking issue with the Republicans is disputing their right to vote on the confirmation of a judicial nominee. The issue is: (1) the President is constitutionally vested with the responsibility to put nominees before the Senate for that purpose; (2) the very same GOP Senators who are threatening to obstruct any nomination were screaming and yelling in the recent past about the absolute obligation of the Senate to give full and timely hearings to judicial nominees and to have simple up-or-down votes on them without delay; and (3) changing course now is entirely political, is an absolute abdication of the Constitution borne of a desperate fear about the makeup of the Supreme Court, and suggests strongly that the interest of the GOP is not really in governance but in the hope to just aggregate power.

In fact, the very same Republican Senators who are so steadfast in obstructing any nomination by President Obama now have noted the need to act on these nominations -- on a non-partisan basis and without regard to the ultimate composition of the Court -- in the past, too.

Senator Hatch has recognized the secondary (but important) role that the Senate plays with respect to judicial nominees"


“Under the Constitution, the President has the primary appointment authority. We check that authority, but we may not hijack it. We may not use our role of advise and consent to undermine the President’s authority to appoint judges.” (Floor Statement, Oct. 24, 2007, Cong. Rec. S13289)

And Senator Thune has acknowledged that in considering the President's nominees, "there should be no ideological litmus test" that determines how a nomination is resolved in the Senate:


According to the Constitution, the President is entitled to nominate the individuals he desires to have on the courts, and we in the Senate must determine whether the nominee is fit and qualified. There should be no ideological litmus test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or she should be confirmed." [Senate Floor Speech, 9/28/05]

So, it isn't just some rhetorical flourish to say that the very same Republicans who now threaten obstruction are contradicting themselves (all of the quotes provided above come from men who are still occupying their seats in the United States Senate -- and are only a fraction of their party's rhetoric on this issue); their own words demonstrate that contradiction and spell out clearly the fact that there isn't any real principle involved here. It's pure and simple politics because it is their ox that's being gored.

And Republicans can say all they want about some tradition of not filling vacancies in election years, but you can be absolutely certain that if President Romney were dealing with this problem, his nominee would have full hearings and an unfettered up-or-down vote no matter how close to the election the need to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia might have arisen. Indeed, when it was their people who were being blocked, they screamed and yelled about the need to protect the integrity of the courts by acting quickly on nominations:

Senator Burr from North Carolina explained that delaying votes on Presidential nominees "threatens the future of our judicial system and the nature of the Supreme Court:"


“There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees on [sic] up-or-down votes… Obstructing votes on Presidential nominees threatens the future of our judicial system and the nature of the Supreme Court.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Senator Graham has warned that obstruction for political gain is ultimately deleterious to the nation:


“I would argue strongly it is not by accident that the majority requirement applying to judges was put there on purpose. Our job, as I see it, is not to say what we would do if we were President. Our job, as the Constitution lays out for us, is to advise and consent by a majority vote to make sure the President . . . is not sending over their brother-in-law or sister-in-law or unqualified people. . . . What we have done this year, different from other years, is we have taken our political differences and our desire to make the court go one way versus the other and we have hijacked the Constitution for political reasons. . . . If we keep up this practice, it will do long-term damage to this country.” (Floor statement, Nov. 12, 2003)


To me, though, the whole episode is a sad reflection of the GOP's current posture. Much of Republican politics these days seems (to me -- admittedly, an occasional Republican voter) to be way too cynical about the real value of democracy. Republicans (I think) would gladly disenfranchise as many people as they can if it meant that they could ensure electoral majorities -- the individual right of the voter is subsidiary to the party interest in gaining and then maintaining ruling majorities. The Supreme Court ploy is an extension of that idea, I think, and that cynicism doesn't seem (to me) to be very helpful to governance or respectful of the rights of voters (who, after all, elected Barack Obama to do precisely this job in the last Presidential election).

[Aztecfan03]

Oliver also makes a really good point about Scalia, who was big on the original meaning of the constitution.



Don't see nuthin' there limiting the Presidents power of nomination.

Oliver also pointed out that even *if* you consider the Thurmond rule valid, that doesn't technically apply until July 20.
The president can nominate, but senate has to concur.

[Chinook]

OMG FWD completely obliterated this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OMG FWD completely obliterated this thread.

The 'advice and consent' clause does not 'clearly' denote an up or down vote without debate.

All of those quotes are from one side of the aisle and from when a GOP president was sitting. Your critical thinking sucks.

[ChumpDumper]

The president can nominate, but senate has to concur.So where do you draw the line?

Any time after a second term election?

[Winehole23]

it'll go on oblivious to him, most likely




Logomachyn. A war (http://dd.pangyre.org/w/war.html) in which the weapons are words and the wounds punctures in the swim-bladder of self-esteem (http://dd.pangyre.org/s/self-esteem.html) — a kind of contest in which, the vanquished being unconscious of defeat, the victor is denied the reward of success (http://dd.pangyre.org/s/success.html).
http://dd.pangyre.org/l/logomachy.html

[FromWayDowntown]

The 'advice and consent' clause does not 'clearly' denote an up or down vote without debate.

Well, that's not what Republicans were saying 10 years ago. They were insistent that the Senate should maintain fidelity to its Constitutional obligation to advise and consent (or deny consent) on judicial nominees. And while you can say that the up-and-down vote requires a predicate of initial debate, what Senate Republicans were all saying back then was that all judicial nominees should be given an up-or-down vote; if you believe all nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote, then you must necessarily be acknowledging that all nominees should get timely hearings as well.

There's no way to ignore the fact that their strident song of 10 years ago has changed.


All of those quotes are from one side of the aisle and from when a GOP president was sitting.

And that's precisely the point. They didn't really mean what they said back then about bipartisanship (unless, of course, it was one of their preferred nominees, in which case, they were insistent upon bipartisanship).

[z0sa]

The senate must consent. It is right there in the Constitution. Regardless of the obvious partisan bullshit card being played by the Republicans, they have a point. However, the cards are in the president's favor. The Senate republicans hope he wont call their bluff. but they know he will. They end up painting this as just another absolutely egregious attack on American tradition by a sinister Democrat and hope the expected downvote doesnt blow up in their face.

[Chinook]

No one's questioning whether the Senate can legally do what they're doing. We all get that. We just can see they're being hypocrites for doing it now and that it will probably cost a number of them seats if the Democrats play this appropriately.

[SnakeBoy]

Oliver also makes a really good point about Scalia, who was big on the original meaning of the constitution.



Don't see nuthin' there limiting the Presidents power of nomination.

Oliver also pointed out that even *if* you consider the Thurmond rule valid, that doesn't technically apply until July 20.

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

[SnakeBoy]

Going to be hard to argue credibly that the Supreme court needs to be without a nominee for almost a full year. They are already trying to do just that. "We have to wait until after the presidential election"

They are gambling that they will get back the white house, and holding a branch of government, SCOTUS, hostage.

More classiness out of the GOP in Congress.

lol then Democrats would be classy and let a lame duck stack the court?


During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40GSfk2L5

[FromWayDowntown]

Tom Goldstein in scotusblog on the 3D chess related to replacement:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ninth-circuit-judge-paul-watford-is-the-most-likely-nominee-to-replace-antonin-scalia/

Update: Goldstein has superseded this discussion with a similar (but expanded) piece arguing that Loretta Lynch might be the more likely nominee:


But Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. At some point in the process, she likely would have to recuse from her current position, but the Department of Justice could proceed to function with an acting head. Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal.

Perhaps Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle.

The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/

[RandomGuy]

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

Good point. Senate can hold SCOTUS hostage if that is the will of those elected.

[RandomGuy]

lol then Democrats would be classy and let a lame duck stack the court?

How long is it acceptable to you that the Supreme court not have a functioning plurality?

Next president isn't going to be sworn in for 11 months. Assuming nomination process goes forward that would take at least another 1-3 months.

[RandomGuy]

What's funny is that an extended fight like this will rile up the Dem base. GOP only really wins presidential contests if Democrats stay home.

GOP honchos may think this is a battle worth fighting over, then lose their gamble, get another Democrat in the White House and lose their hold on congress. Seems lose/lose to me from a strategic standpoint, but I lost much confidence in the GOP to produce sane decision makers a while back.

[101A]

Surprise! Repugs are fucking LYING to their ignorant base

Justice Kennedy’s confirmation debunks key GOP talking point

Soon after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

The fact of the matter is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee should have done his homework before getting this wrong.

The “80 years” talking point spread like wildfire in Republican circles – it was repeated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/the-cbs-republican-debate-transcript-annotated/) by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio during Saturday night’s debate – to the point that the GOP has convinced itself that at no point in the modern era has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

About 14 justices (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987692/14-supreme-court-confirmations) were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scalias-passing-starts-a-court-fight-for-the-ages/2016/02/14/5502564a-d339-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html) this morning:

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.


Yes, in Reagan’s eighth year, nine months before Election Day 1988, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Kennedy with ease.

Chuck Grassley, who’d already been in the Senate for seven years at that point, delivered remarks (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4580671/grassley-supports-kennedy) on Feb. 13, 1988 – exactly 28 years to the day before Scalia’s passing – urging the Senate to confirm Kennedy during that election year.

Ronald Reagan, stung by two failed nominees to the high court (Douglas Ginsburg and Robert Bork), said at the time that if Senate Democrats played election-year games by stalling on Kennedy’s nomination in 1988, the “American people will know what’s up.”

And on this, he was correct.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/justice-kennedys-confirmation-debunks-key-gop-talking-point?cid=sm_fb_maddow





Everyone involved is always a hypocrite in such matters (look at what Dems were saying in Ike's last year with similar situation). In this case, you have not told the whole truth. Are you interested in doing so, or are you just playing the same political games/issuing talking points like everyone else?

You are just a Dem mouthpiece, after all.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for appointees' getting an up or down vote in a couple months' time, regardless of which party's president does the appointing.

Board Republicans fall silent when asked directly where they draw the line; probably because supporting the current Republican strategy will sound pretty absurd.

[SnakeBoy]

How long is it acceptable to you that the Supreme court not have a functioning plurality?

Next president isn't going to be sworn in for 11 months. Assuming nomination process goes forward that would take at least another 1-3 months.

In this case I don't see any problem with waiting until November to see which way Americans choose to go. It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

As far as political strategy, I think it is another case of the GOP being retarded. They could force Obama to put a moderate on the court. After the Republicans most likely lose in November, they will be forced to accept liberal justice.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

Actually, that's not entirely true, since the Court has now taken what is essentially a full year's worth of cases of significance to various constituencies and a considerable number of those are now likely to go without an actual determination and to require re-argument next term, which can be extremely costly to private parties and leave substantial uncertainty in areas of the law where clarification was needed. If the Court can't decide cases without 8 justices, it can't serve its primary function.

I agree that the game is politics, but the notion that the game has no immediate consequence strikes me as being incorrect.

[z0sa]

What's funny is that an extended fight like this will rile up the Dem base. GOP only really wins presidential contests if Democrats stay home.

GOP honchos may think this is a battle worth fighting over, then lose their gamble, get another Democrat in the White House and lose their hold on congress. Seems lose/lose to me from a strategic standpoint, but I lost much confidence in the GOP to produce sane decision makers a while back.

Yeah it is odd. If Obama was running again, it would make a lot more sense.

[boutons_deux]

Everyone involved is always a hypocrite in such matters (look at what Dems were saying in Ike's last year with similar situation). In this case, you have not told the whole truth. Are you interested in doing so, or are you just playing the same political games/issuing talking points like everyone else?

You are just a Dem mouthpiece, after all.

:lol

[Spurminator]

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5271/0/16x9/800.jpg

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

[101A]

:lol

So, Yes.

[SnakeBoy]

Actually, that's not entirely true, since the Court has now taken what is essentially a full year's worth of cases of significance to various constituencies and a considerable number of those are now likely to go without an actual determination and to require re-argument next term, which can be extremely costly to private parties and leave substantial uncertainty in areas of the law where clarification was needed. If the Court can't decide cases without 8 justices, it can't serve its primary function.

I agree that the game is politics, but the notion that the game has no immediate consequence strikes me as being incorrect.

Well yes some cases will be affected but most will not end in a tie. There are a lot more 9-0 decisions than 5-4 splits on the court. Sure there will be some big issue cases that essentially get put off until next year but that's not the end of the world.

[rmt]

Obam can nominate all he wants. Don't see nuthin' there saying the Senate can't delay delay delay.

See the Trumpism :lol

[z0sa]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

According to this article the longest the Senate has ever taken to vote on a nominee is 125 days. The average is 25. If the republicans are looking at completely blocking the nomination, they would need to take their obstructionist agenda far beyond historical levels. It seems theyll have to vote on at least one nominee. Maybe two.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

According to this article the longest the Senate has ever taken to vote on a nominee is 125 days. The average is 25. If the republicans are looking at completely blocking the nomination, they would need to take their obstructionist agenda far beyond historical levels. It seems theyll have to vote on at least one nominee. Maybe two.To the posters here who are fine with the obstructionist agenda, what is your cutoff date? Or is it infinite if you hate the guy in office enough.

[SnakeBoy]

See the Trumpism :lol

I took a facebook quiz to see which candidate I most agreed with...it was Trump #1 and Paul #2:lol.

[SnakeBoy]

To the posters here who are fine with the obstructionist agenda, what is your cutoff date? Or is it infinite if you hate the guy in office enough.

TBD November 8th.

[ChumpDumper]

TBD November 8th.No, you seem to be fine with the obstruction now. Is there an actual period of time you wouldn't be fine with putting off a SCOTUS appointment.

1 full calendar year?

2?

[rmt]

The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations - also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. See Trump's advice - delay, delay, delay :lol - if not for the death of a human being and from all accounts a brilliant mind, this situation is a soap opera. Both sides are laughable - one politicizing and the other hypocritical (like they wouldn't do the same exact thing).

[SnakeBoy]

No, you seem to be fine with the obstruction now. Is there an actual period of time you wouldn't be fine with putting off a SCOTUS appointment.

1 full calendar year?

2?

Depends what happens on Nov 8th. Two years would be too long.

[ChumpDumper]

Depends what happens on Nov 8th. Two years would be too long.18 months then?

[rmt]

I took a facebook quiz to see which candidate I most agreed with...it was Trump #1 and Paul #2:lol.

The candidate I most agree with is probably Carson (likable [unlike Cruz], conservative, common sense - not too wed to ideology) but unelectable. I'm willing to forego conservatism in the hope that Trump can bring back the jobs - that's the best cure for all our ills.

[z0sa]

The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations - also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. See Trump's advice - delay, delay, delay :lol - if not for the death of a human being and from all accounts a brilliant mind, this situation is a soap opera. Both sides are laughable - one politicizing and the other hypocritical (like they wouldn't do the same exact thing).

Why are you crying delay delay delay before you even see a nominee?

[FromWayDowntown]

It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.

[rmt]

Why are you crying delay delay delay before you even see a nominee?

I don't really believe the repubs should delay, delay, delay - meaning not consider any nominee. I think they should do their constitutional duty, consider but reject the very probable liberal judges Obama is going to nominate. But the way the repubs are that's taking a big chance - some are sure to buckle and vote with the dems - either cut some deal or no backbone.

[rmt]

It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.

Or he could nominate someone that both sides could agree on - that a middle of the road judge is replacing a staunch conservative like Scalia is a shift (to the left) in the SC.

[z0sa]

I don't really believe the repubs should delay, delay, delay - meaning not consider any nominee. I think they should do their constitutional duty, consider but reject the very probable liberal judges Obama is going to nominate. But the way the repubs are that's taking a big chance - some are sure to buckle and vote with the dems - either cut some deal or no backbone.

Calling for outright rejection of nominees you dont even know the identities of kinda sounds like delay delay delay to me. At the top of most people's list is a pro business moderate, Sri Srinivasan, whose appointment to the District Court was confirmed by the senate only a few years ago at a whopping 97-0.

[elbamba]

I'm all for appointees' getting an up or down vote in a couple months' time, regardless of which party's president does the appointing.

Board Republicans fall silent when asked directly where they draw the line; probably because supporting the current Republican strategy will sound pretty absurd.

I believe Schummer was at 18 months when Bush was in office with respect to when a president should no longer be able to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court. My feeling is that at any point during the presidency the president should be able to nominate and within 120 - 180 days you have an up or down vote. 4 to 6 months for a lifetime appointment does not seem unreasonable.

[Splits]

Or he could nominate someone that both sides could agree on - that a middle of the road judge is replacing a staunch conservative like Scalia is a shift (to the left) in the SC.

I'd venture a guess that such a candidate does not exist. If they aren't anti-abortion climate change denialists, then the Republicans are going to paint them left of Marx.

[boutons_deux]

Holy Shit :lol Ayn Rand Paul is a truly ignorant SOB

Ayn Rand Paul: It’s A ‘Conflict Of Interest’ For Obama To Nominate A Supreme Court Justice

the former Republican presidential candidate said he would likely oppose any Obama pick for the Supreme Court, because he believes Obama has too many of his own policies at stake before the high court — his executive actions on immigration (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-obama-immigration-actions.html) and climate change regulations (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/12/3748062/inside-the-most-important-supreme-court-case-in-human-history/),

“The president has said he has the power basically to create immigration law out of nothing,” :lol

“He says he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress. :lol

So see, we have a Constitutional debate on whose powers is it, the president or Congress? :lol

And I think the president sort of has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody while we’re trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power.” :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/15/3749689/rand-paul-scalia-supreme-court-obama-nominee/

[SnakeBoy]

It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.

That would be a brilliant move. Nominate Cruz, republicans say ok we won't block him, Obama withdraws the nomination.

[RandomGuy]

In this case I don't see any problem with waiting until November to see which way Americans choose to go. It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

As far as political strategy, I think it is another case of the GOP being retarded. They could force Obama to put a moderate on the court. After the Republicans most likely lose in November, they will be forced to accept liberal justice.

Um, you do know that Obama is president until January 20, 2017, right?

[rmt]

Cruz would be the nightmare for dems just like Eric Holder would be for the right. I wonder if he would give up a possible presidential run for a sure SC appointment - will never happen, of course.

[RandomGuy]

The candidate I most agree with is probably Carson (likable [unlike Cruz], conservative, common sense - not too wed to ideology) but unelectable. I'm willing to forego conservatism in the hope that Trump can bring back the jobs - that's the best cure for all our ills.

Carson is a conspiratard creationist.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-conspiracy-theories-of-ben-carson-a-brief-introduction/



The world is now a-BuzzFeed with the discovery of a video from 1998, in which Dr. Ben Carson opined that the pyramids of Egypt were really built as grain houses — not as majestic tombs for the kings. Carson made his case by citing the Bible — specifically the story from Genesis of Joseph advising the Pharaoh of his day to store up grain in order to prepare for seven years of famine.

The alternative, Carson said, was to listen to all those scientists who say the pyramids were built by aliens. As if there were no middle ground there.







The world is now a-BuzzFeed with the discovery of a video from 1998, in which Dr. Ben Carson opined that the pyramids of Egypt were really built as grain houses — not as majestic tombs for the kings. Carson made his case by citing the Bible — specifically the story from Genesis of Joseph advising the Pharaoh of his day to store up grain in order to prepare for seven years of famine.

The alternative, Carson said, was to listen to all those scientists who say the pyramids were built by aliens. As if there were no middle ground there.


In recent days, Carson has reaffirmed these beliefs to a CBS reporter. (Is it possible that Carson was wary of discussing “pyramids” on the record, lest he give a subtle tipoff about his campaign’s very suspicious fundraising and spending operation?)

But this got us wondering: What other wild and wacky stuff does Ben Carson believe, which the wider electorate just hasn’t become totally aware yet? Here’s just a short introduction.



1. Barack Obama Is Part Of The Communist Conspiracy To Bring Down America

In 2014, Carson declared that President Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder were acting out roles in a decades-long communist conspiracy to subvert America.
In doing so, he cited a book from the 1950s by fringe right-wing conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist.



2. The Theory Of Evolution Came From The Devil
In a 2011 speech to a church group, Carson declared: “I personally believe that this theory, that Darwin came up with, was something that was encouraged by the Adversary.”


3. Gay Rights Is A Communist Plot — And Men In Prison Prove That Homosexuality Is A Choice

In a 2014 speech to the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, Carson again referenced the aforementioned Cleon Skousen — and said that “neo-Marxists” had “systematically attacked” the family in order to bring down the United States

...
“Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,” Carson said.

Yes — “something” did happen to them in there. In addition to sexual assault, which is rampant in prisons, there is also what is referred to as “situational homosexuality,” which occurs to men in prisons.

LOL at anyone being suckered into thinking Trump can reverse trillion dollar global capital flows by fiat.

As a Democrat... please vote for either, because that pretty much locks the presidency for whichever Democrat gets the nod.

[RandomGuy]

Cruz would be the nightmare for dems

:lmao

Sure. Keep thinking that.

Let's try a quick study in voting blocs, to see if your logic holds up to some minimal scrutiny.

You have a three person voting system. A, B, C.

A and C vote opposite on almost every vote.

Who really makes the decisions?

What the angry idiots on the right don't seem to grasp is that elections are won by pandering to the middle, which Cruz cannot, and will not do.

"A" will always vote for Democrats and "C" will always vote for Republicans. The low-info asshats in the middle pick, and Cruz is laughably unelectable for a national office on the basis that he is far too extremist, with easy sound bites and positions to paint him as a ravening lunatic.

[boutons_deux]

The candidate I most agree with is probably Carson

do you really want to say that in public? :lol

[SnakeBoy]

Um, you do know that Obama is president until January 20, 2017, right?

Seriously, you don't understand what I meant by that sentence?

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, you don't understand what I meant by that sentence?

Yes. But I wanted to be sure you yourself fully comprehended what you were saying. But I don't think tying the current presidents hands is worthwhile. I would think so even if there were a Republican in office.

A year plus is far too long to have one branch of the federal government impaired.

[SnakeBoy]

Yes. But I wanted to be sure you yourself fully comprehended what you were saying. But I don't think tying the current presidents hands is worthwhile. I would think so even if there were a Republican in office.

A year plus is far too long to have one branch of the federal government impaired.

:lol

Yeah I'm sure if a lame duck Dubya would have had a chance to stack the court you would've been just fine with it.

[Splits]

699291229175963648

[Splits]

The low-info asshats in the middle pick

:lol spurraider21

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Yeah I'm sure if a lame duck Dubya would have had a chance to stack the court you would've been just fine with it.

The president gets to pick, and a year out, I would think the president should get on with it. I would have said so, even if it had been Dubya in the position.

In the long run the GOP is doomed on the national level anyway. I take the long view. It will not be Republicans picking SCOTUS nominees.

2016 is the last major national election that Texas will not be in play, and that changes a LOT of things.

[Spurminator]

699291229175963648

Ronald Christ Reagan has spoken, this debate is over.

[RandomGuy]

[Orrin] Hatch in 2004: "There are plenty of examples of confirmation of judges in Presidential election years"


Hatch on @FoxNews earlier tonight: "It would be wise for everybody to wait until the next president is chosen."

(sigh)

[rmt]

Carson is a conspiratard creationist.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-conspiracy-theories-of-ben-carson-a-brief-introduction/














LOL at anyone being suckered into thinking Trump can reverse trillion dollar global capital flows by fiat.

As a Democrat... please vote for either, because that pretty much locks the presidency for whichever Democrat gets the nod.

So, what's the alternative - one of the many lawyers who are running who majored in what? history? political science? Who lie, cheat and smooth talk their way to power? At least, he's got real, live business experience. And what's gonna get us out of this mess? Only jobs - that Trump's got more experience in than anyone in either field.

[rmt]

:lmao

Sure. Keep thinking that.

Let's try a quick study in voting blocs, to see if your logic holds up to some minimal scrutiny.

You have a three person voting system. A, B, C.

A and C vote opposite on almost every vote.

Who really makes the decisions?

What the angry idiots on the right don't seem to grasp is that elections are won by pandering to the middle, which Cruz cannot, and will not do.

"A" will always vote for Democrats and "C" will always vote for Republicans. The low-info asshats in the middle pick, and Cruz is laughably unelectable for a national office on the basis that he is far too extremist, with easy sound bites and positions to paint him as a ravening lunatic.

We were talking about the SC - not elections. I am voting for Trump who I hope will get the independents and disenfranchised democrats - not an unelectable like Cruz. Maybe you missed my post above where I clearly said that I'm putting aside my conservatism in exchange for jobs.

[SnakeBoy]

The president gets to pick, and a year out, I would think the president should get on with it. I would have said so, even if it had been Dubya in the position.

In the long run the GOP is doomed on the national level anyway. I take the long view. It will not be Republicans picking SCOTUS nominees.

2016 is the last major national election that Texas will not be in play, and that changes a LOT of things.

You still think Texas is on the verge of turning blue? I assumed you learned something when you thought abortion Barbie was going to win only to see her get crushed.

[spurraider21]

:lmao

Sure. Keep thinking that.

Let's try a quick study in voting blocs, to see if your logic holds up to some minimal scrutiny.

You have a three person voting system. A, B, C.

A and C vote opposite on almost every vote.

Who really makes the decisions?

What the angry idiots on the right don't seem to grasp is that elections are won by pandering to the middle, which Cruz cannot, and will not do.

"A" will always vote for Democrats and "C" will always vote for Republicans. The low-info asshats in the middle pick, and Cruz is laughably unelectable for a national office on the basis that he is far too extremist, with easy sound bites and positions to paint him as a ravening lunatic.
conservatives believe they're going to win by pandering to the far right to get higher voter turnout among "group c", rather than trying to win over group b

i doubt it ends well for them

[spurraider21]

:lol spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)
ok

[baseline bum]

:lol

Yeah I'm sure if a lame duck Dubya would have had a chance to stack the court you would've been just fine with it.

I don't think anyone expects Obama to be able to nominate a liberal judge when the Democrats don't have the Senate. Though the Republicans will surely paint anyone to the left of Scalia as a socialist.

[FromWayDowntown]

699291229175963648

And a Senate controlled by Democrats did exactly what he asked.

[spurraider21]

I don't think anyone expects Obama to be able to nominate a liberal judge when the Democrats don't have the Senate. Though the Republicans will surely paint anyone to the left of Scalia as a socialist.
so basically everybody not named ted cruz?

[SnakeBoy]

I don't think anyone expects Obama to be able to nominate a liberal judge when the Democrats don't have the Senate. Though the Republicans will surely paint anyone to the left of Scalia as a socialist.

Well I said earlier that Repubs are fucking themselves if they pass on a moderate nominee. If Obama puts up a liberal then he's just playing politics also instead actually trying to fill the seat.

[baseline bum]

Well I said earlier that Repubs are fucking themselves if they pass on a moderate nominee. If Obama puts up a liberal then he's just playing politics also instead actually trying to fill the seat.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate someone black, as the Democrats can use Republican opposition to mobilize a large black voter turnout. If Hillary gets the nomination and black voters show up the Democrats likely win the White House and will have a great chance to flip enough Senate seats to take it back too.

[SnakeBoy]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate someone black, as the Democrats can use Republican opposition to mobilize a large black voter turnout. If Hillary gets the nomination and black voters show up the Democrats likely win the White House and will have a great chance to flip enough Senate seats to take it back too.

I hadn't thought of that but I could see Obama using that strategy. I don't see the GOP winning the WH regardless with the shitty field they have, but yeah that could work to possibly get back the senate also.

[Bartleby]

Well I said earlier that Repubs are fucking themselves if they pass on a moderate nominee. If Obama puts up a liberal then he's just playing politics also instead actually trying to fill the seat.

The odds are extremely high that they're going to delay or reject whoever he nominates anyway, so why not swing for the fences?

[pgardn]

The odds are extremely high that they're going to delay or reject whoever he nominates anyway, so why not swing for the fences?

Yep.

Keep putting people up and let em keep rejecting and delaying.
Then label it as the Republican way.

[Splits]

As a liberal, the more I think about this the more I hope the Repubs do obstruct. There's very little upside politically and huge risk. But more importantly, Obummer is going to name some smarmy, middle of the road, compromised, establishment shill who won't be a dependable vote. I've got the Dems at 80% chance of taking the WH. I'd rather Bernie or Shillary come in with a full mandate and get the furthest left wing, anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-voting rights, anti-1% (Bernie only), crazy ass liberal. The court has been right wing since Berger. We need a solid, young left wing to right the wrongs of the past 45 years.

Obstruct away, Repubs. You're playing with fucking fire.

[Will Hunting]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate someone black, as the Democrats can use Republican opposition to mobilize a large black voter turnout. If Hillary gets the nomination and black voters show up the Democrats likely win the White House and will have a great chance to flip enough Senate seats to take it back too.

I wanna see Obama nominate himself with the proposition that Biden finishes his term out :lol

He'll probably nominate some center right wing corporate shill house n!gger like Eric Holder just to see conservatives react insanely and call Holder a communist.

[Will Hunting]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with baseline bum. You couldn't ask for a better opportunity to mobilize the black vote than nominating a far left wing black judge and daring the Republicans to obstruct his confirmation.

Republicans might not ever get the black vote, but they win elections when black people don't show up (which is why they dominate the midterms). They'd almost be forced to confirm a black nominee.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama could just throw Lynch back in there since she has been confirmed before.

[baseline bum]

I wanna see Obama nominate himself with the proposition that Biden finishes his term out :lol

He'll probably nominate some center right wing corporate shill house n!gger like Eric Holder just to see conservatives react insanely and call Holder a communist.

Yeah, the Democratic party will love Obama for doing something like that. Either (1) the Republicans don't confirm him and the Dems can play the race card and get a strong showing from black voters to take the presidency and the senate or (2) get a judge who won't act any differently than the conservative judges other than abortion and all the social issue crap, and then tout how they put a progressive black judge in power who is going to pay their gas and mortgage.

[Will Hunting]

You still think Texas is on the verge of turning blue? I assumed you learned something when you thought abortion Barbie was going to win only to see her get crushed.

The whole Texas becoming a swing state talk is extremely premature at the very least, but I don't think abortion barbie's performance was an accurate reflection on how much red/blue Texas is. She was a horrible candidate who would probably struggle to win in a state that's solid blue.

[baseline bum]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with baseline bum. You couldn't ask for a better opportunity to mobilize the black vote than nominating a far left wing black judge and daring the Republicans to obstruct his confirmation.

Republicans might not ever get the black vote, but they win elections when black people don't show up (which is why they dominate the midterms). They'd almost be forced to confirm a black nominee.

A far left black judge wouldn't be optimal since it might turn off undecided white yuppie voters while still looking exactly the same to most black voters. Get the moderate appointment and the race card works with both blacks and yuppie+college whites if the Republicans obstruct.

[Spurminator]

Her campaign was the worst. It basically boiled down to, "Here's something Republicans said about me that you should be mad about."

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, the Democratic party will love Obama for doing something like that. Either (1) the Republicans don't confirm him and the Dems can play the race card and get a strong showing from black voters to take the presidency and the senate or (2) get a judge who won't act any differently that the conservative judges other than abortion and all the social issue crap, and then tout how they put a progressive black judge in power who is going to pay their gas and mortgage.

To be fair, the two justices Obama picked have been fairly good on all issues, not just social issues. I still hate that spic bitch Sotomayor for her Maurice Clarrett ruling when she was on the court of appeals, but Kagan has been solid.

[Will Hunting]

A far left black judge wouldn't be optimal since it might turn off undecided white yuppie voters while still looking exactly the same to most black voters. Get the moderate appointment and the race card works with both blacks and yuppie+college whites if the Republicans obstruct.

I say far left because I would be trying to trick the Republicans into obstructing. If he picks some moderate corporate shill house n!gger then the Republicans get their way, won't obstruct and keep their majority.

The other thing to think about is that if he picks a weak moderate, it adds fuel to Sanders' campaign when Barry is obv going to be pushing for Shillary.

[Splits]

A far left black judge wouldn't be optimal since it might turn off undecided white yuppie voters while still looking exactly the same to most black voters. Get the moderate appointment and the race card works with both blacks and yuppie+college whites if the Republicans obstruct.

I would love to come full circle and have him nominate:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jeremiah-wright-trick.jpg

That dude spoke truth.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, the Democratic party will love Obama for doing something like that. Either (1) the Republicans don't confirm him and the Dems can play the race card and get a strong showing from black voters to take the presidency and the senate or (2) get a judge who won't act any differently than the conservative judges other than abortion and all the social issue crap, and then tout how they put a progressive black judge in power who is going to pay their gas and mortgage.
dont see how the race card works with clarence uncle thomas in there tbh

[Will Hunting]

I would love to come full circle and have him nominate:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jeremiah-wright-trick.jpg

That dude spoke truth.

:lol for every black vote he'd gain, he'd lose 5 Jewish votes

[Aztecfan03]

No one's questioning whether the Senate can legally do what they're doing. We all get that. We just can see they're being hypocrites for doing it now and that it will probably cost a number of them seats if the Democrats play this appropriately.

You can name some for sure. You can also name some democrats that are being hypocrites over this issue also.

[Aztecfan03]

In this case I don't see any problem with waiting until November to see which way Americans choose to go. It's not like the court/country can't function without a 9th justice. So it's primarily just politics.

As far as political strategy, I think it is another case of the GOP being retarded. They could force Obama to put a moderate on the court. After the Republicans most likely lose in November, they will be forced to accept liberal justice.

Obama wouldn't nominate a moderate.

[ElNono]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate someone black, as the Democrats can use Republican opposition to mobilize a large black voter turnout. If Hillary gets the nomination and black voters show up the Democrats likely win the White House and will have a great chance to flip enough Senate seats to take it back too.


The more I think about it, the more I agree with baseline bum. You couldn't ask for a better opportunity to mobilize the black vote than nominating a far left wing black judge and daring the Republicans to obstruct his confirmation.

Republicans might not ever get the black vote, but they win elections when black people don't show up (which is why they dominate the midterms). They'd almost be forced to confirm a black nominee.


Yeah, the Democratic party will love Obama for doing something like that. Either (1) the Republicans don't confirm him and the Dems can play the race card and get a strong showing from black voters to take the presidency and the senate or (2) get a judge who won't act any differently than the conservative judges other than abortion and all the social issue crap, and then tout how they put a progressive black judge in power who is going to pay their gas and mortgage.

He could actually try to pull this off with a Hispanic... lots of pros for Dems to do this:
1) Latinos are now 17% of the US population (way more than black/asian voters), even outpacing whites in some areas
2) They could see this a door for some form of paving the way to immigration amnesty/reform, which would really get their asses in gear to go vote
3) Plays well against the Trump latino hate

Just don't know if there's any candidate they have at hand... Maybe that faggot Julian Castro... he's in his early 40s.... hmmm

[Aztecfan03]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

According to this article the longest the Senate has ever taken to vote on a nominee is 125 days. The average is 25. If the republicans are looking at completely blocking the nomination, they would need to take their obstructionist agenda far beyond historical levels. It seems theyll have to vote on at least one nominee. Maybe two.

How so? They can block the nomination by voting no. Keep in mind that the longest vacancy has been 27 months. The 391 day vacancy when Nixon was president is more applicable though. NIxon's first two nominations were rejected.

[Aztecfan03]

It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.
It would be awesome. Even though cruz is my choice for president, rubio would pick up most of the cruz voters and defeat trump.

[Aztecfan03]

We were talking about the SC - not elections. I am voting for Trump who I hope will get the independents and disenfranchised democrats - not an unelectable like Cruz. Maybe you missed my post above where I clearly said that I'm putting aside my conservatism in exchange for jobs.
Trump may get some of those, but he would cause a lot of republicans to vote third party.

[Aztecfan03]

dont see how the race card works with clarence uncle thomas in there tbh
Liberals don't consider black republicans to be black.

[rmt]

Liberals don't consider black republicans to be black.

Ditto with Carson.

[Nbadan]

Ditto with Carson.

BS...Liberal just don't consider Carson and Thomas to be representatives of the general black community since they haven't been a part of the community for so long...

[rmt]

BS...Liberal just don't consider Carson and Thomas to be representatives of the general black community since they haven't been a part of the community for so long...

So what about Obama? He didn't grow up as part of the general black community. It wasn't until he finished college that he even mixed with it. Carson grew up very poor in Detroit. Thomas the same in Savannah. Their whole childhoods.

[Nbadan]

So what about Obama? He didn't grow up as part of the general black community. It wasn't until he finished college that he even mixed with it. Carson grew up very poor in Detroit. Thomas the same in Savannah. Their whole childhoods.

He was a community organizer for the black community of Chicago.....on top of a legal scholar.....it isn't a joke to say he could nominate himself for Alito's spot on the SCOTUS....I don't think it will happen....but if he really wanted to fuck with the GOP he could nominate Hillary

[baseline bum]

He could actually try to pull this off with a Hispanic... lots of pros for Dems to do this:
1) Latinos are now 17% of the US population (way more than black/asian voters), even outpacing whites in some areas
2) They could see this a door for some form of paving the way to immigration amnesty/reform, which would really get their asses in gear to go vote
3) Plays well against the Trump latino hate

Just don't know if there's any candidate they have at hand... Maybe that faggot Julian Castro... he's in his early 40s.... hmmm

I'm not sure if the latino vote is as important electorally though or for battleground states when it comes to the senate. What does it matter if they get more votes in Texas or California?

[ElNono]

I'm not sure if the latino vote is as important electorally though or for battleground states when it comes to the senate. What does it matter if they get more votes in Texas or California?

It matters on swing states like Nevada (25% of their population is latino, see the Latino Democrat running for Reid's job), Colorado (21% pop are Latino) and Florida...

If they nab those 3 states, especially Florida and Colorado, it will be pretty much over.

[RandomGuy]

conservatives believe they're going to win by pandering to the far right to get higher voter turnout among "group c", rather than trying to win over group b

i doubt it ends well for them

Republicans already turn out in higher numbers than Democrats generally, to my understanding. If that is the case, you get a lot of diminishing returns in terms of "get out the vote" efforts.

As the GOP gets older and simple mortality starts removing Republican voters faster than they are being replaced, sustaining turnout will get harder each cycle and require more and more effort.

[RandomGuy]

You still think Texas is on the verge of turning blue? I assumed you learned something when you thought abortion Barbie was going to win only to see her get crushed.

Dude, you seem to be trying to do an awful lot of believing/thinking for me. You should stop that, because you keep getting it wrong.

I never assumed Davis was going to win.

Texas will not "turn blue", i.e. vote consistently for Democrats for another 12+ years or so. It will at the very least begin to turn competitive for Democrats roughly 2020ish, four years away. We will know a LOT more this fall when we get some current data as to who shows up to vote at the polls.

A bit more:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mapping-the-changing-face-of-the-lone-star-state/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/07/politics-counts-why-texas-could-flip-quickly-from-red-to-blue/

Read a bit outside your normal information bubble. Use evidence and facts, as opposed to "truthiness", and your internal model of the world might get a bit closer to being accurate.

[RandomGuy]

So, what's the alternative - one of the many lawyers who are running who majored in what? history? political science? Who lie, cheat and smooth talk their way to power? At least, he's got real, live business experience. And what's gonna get us out of this mess? Only jobs - that Trump's got more experience in than anyone in either field.

Trump is lying through his teeth to you, and he knows it.

He outlined his strategy already, and that strategy was predicated on "capturing the media cycle", i.e. saying the most outrageous shit possible to keep people talking about him.

Sad thing is, you seem to think Trump isn't lying and actually believes what he is saying.

You said it yourself: he isn't stupid.

He is just counting on you to be.

Don't let him get that right. You are better than that.

[RandomGuy]

We were talking about the SC - not elections. I am voting for Trump who I hope will get the independents and disenfranchised democrats - not an unelectable like Cruz. Maybe you missed my post above where I clearly said that I'm putting aside my conservatism in exchange for jobs.

Trump has made himself even more unelectable than Cruz by virtue of his statements so far. Easy, easy, fodder for negative ads, made all the worse because they would be accurate.



Not sure I would be relying much on the "jobs record" of someone with the record of bankruptcies that Trump has.

Trump was handed tens of millions by his father, and did worse with that money than an index fund based on the S & P would have. I am not all that impressed.

[boutons_deux]

All the Repugs count on their voters to be stupid.

[101A]

You said it yourself: he isn't stupid.

He is just counting on you to be.



And he's unique in this regard?

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate someone black, as the Democrats can use Republican opposition to mobilize a large black voter turnout. If Hillary gets the nomination and black voters show up the Democrats likely win the White House and will have a great chance to flip enough Senate seats to take it back too.

Hispanic. Obama will campaign to hoover up the black vote, but increasing hispanic turnout will be part of a Democratic strategy.

The optics of the Whitey Club senate Republicans beating up on someone with a Spanish surname will be an easy way to do that.

That makes "delay, delay, delay" yet another bullet in the foot for the GOP, IMO. It is like there is a target painted on their collective shoes.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Sanders will bump up white youth participation, even if he loses nomination. More whites voting, and voting Democratic.
Hispanic SCOTUS nominee being beaten up by Whitey Club bumps up hispanic participation, keep the % split the same.



DEMOCRATS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 358 ✔
POPULAR VOTE: 54.5%
REPUBLICANS
ELECTORAL VOTES: 180
POPULAR VOTE: 43.8%

[RandomGuy]

And he's unique in this regard?

(nods)

All politicians do that to some extent. In that sense the answer is no.

BUT

To the extent he is being cynical about it, yes. It is pretty shockingly obvious how much he is doing just that, and the degree... wow.

[101A]

All the Repugs count on their voters to be stupid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health_us_56b25e8fe4b04f9b57d83008

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/liberal-economists-pour-cold-water-on-bernies-plans-for-education-and-healthcare/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/bernie-sanders-plan-fight-mass-incarceration-doesnt-add-up

And those are just the liberal links I found. Is Bernie stupid, or is he lying?

[101A]

(nods)

All politicians do that to some extent. In that sense the answer is no.

BUT

To the extent he is being cynical about it, yes. It is pretty shockingly obvious how much he is doing just that, and the degree... wow.

I agree - although I would say Bernie is possibly as bold-faced in the scope of his misrepresentations of what he can/will do - neither is playing by "the rules"; and it's working for them.

This guy has a take on Trump's shtick, and why he's having success with it:

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/donald-trump-has-invented-a-new-way-to-win/

[101A]

If this keeps up, btw, I think we could very well end up with a President Bloomberg.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm)

[Splits]

:lmao President Bloomberg

[RandomGuy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health_us_56b25e8fe4b04f9b57d83008

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/liberal-economists-pour-cold-water-on-bernies-plans-for-education-and-healthcare/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/bernie-sanders-plan-fight-mass-incarceration-doesnt-add-up

And those are just the liberal links I found. Is Bernie stupid, or is he lying?


Senator Sanders is committed to accomplishing the goal of the United Stares not having more people in jail than any other. During his first hundred days, he will appoint a commission of criminal justice experts, leaders in the African American, Hispanic, and Native American communities, and others who have had success on the local level in reducing the number of young adults going to jail and in transitioning people out of prison to other settings.

The Sanders Administration will rely on both legislative and executive actions to reorient the criminal justice system. What the campaign has done is lay out just some elements of what those actions would be. We envision this commission would propose even more.

point well made. I think Sanders is committed to his bullshit though. He is just fuzzy on the deets, or hasn't had someone sit him down and realistically step him through it. This would make things a lot like the pledge to close Gitmo. Easier said than done.

My question, is why aren't Republican candidates talking about prison reform? One would hope that billions in unnecessary government spending would be a GOP priority.

The differences here, is that Democrats have some ideas, even if they are ill-formed or even bad. What does the GOP offer in response?
"ISIS bad!" ?
"obamacare booga booga, bargle!" ?

(edit)

Some republicans, to their credit are talking about prison reform. Just not the ones on national stage.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao President Bloomberg

Better than the current crop, IMO. We could do worse, and the GOP seems set on giving us that.

Not someone I would vote for tho.

[Splits]

Better than the current crop, IMO. We could do worse, and the GOP seems set on giving us that.

Not someone I would vote for tho.

I was laughing at the suggestion that it could ever happen. Obviously he's sane, so he'd be better than any of the current GOP crop. But there's no possible way he's going to win a 3rd party bid.

[FromWayDowntown]

An interesting reflection on Justice Scalia's originalism and the issue upon which his devotion to originalism would have been set aside in order to achieve the right result. So, even the standard bearer for "originalism" (a term used frequently by modern conservatives when discussing Constitutional matters, but rarely with fidelity to Justice Scalia's actual approach) recognized that there are times when originalism should be disregarded to achieve the right result:


I saw Justice Scalia speak a number of times, when I was profiling him for the magazine, in 2004 and 2005, and the question he hated most was how he would have ruled on Brown v. Board of Education. Scalia was committed to an originalist approach to jurisprudence, but a literal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection would not seem to require a ruling to desegregate schools. The famous ruling against state-sponsored segregation came out of an approach Scalia loathed: extrapolating from underlying values expressed in the Constitution rather than treating that document in a manner both reverent and rigid. It was that idea of a “living Constitution”—how Scalia disdained the phrase!—that made Brown v. Board possible. Scalia, it seemed to me, knew that and was chagrined about it. “Waving the bloody shirt of Brown again!” he’d complain when people brought it up.

When I met with him, Scalia told me he’d have voted with the majority on Brown—but he didn’t explain why. In a public conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer at the University of Arizona in 2009, Scalia broached but did not answer the question, noted Adam Liptak of the Times. Instead, he said he would have voted with the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that Brown overruled. To law students who pointed out that it was the flexible, not the originalist approach that enabled Brown and other civil-rights breakthroughs, he’d reply that “Even Mussolini made the trains run on time,” or “Hitler developed a wonderful automobile. What does that prove? I’ll stipulate that you can reach some results you like with the other system. But that’s not the test.” In short, he never did reconcile originalism with Brown.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/postscript-antonin-scalia-1936-2016

[101A]

point well made. I think Sanders is committed to his bullshit though. He is just fuzzy on the deets, or hasn't had someone sit him down and realistically step him through it. This would make things a lot like the pledge to close Gitmo. Easier said than done.

My question, is why aren't Republican candidates talking about prison reform? One would hope that billions in unnecessary government spending would be a GOP priority.

The differences here, is that Democrats have some ideas, even if they are ill-formed or even bad. What does the GOP offer in response?
"ISIS bad!" ?
"obamacare booga booga, bargle!" ?

(edit)

Some republicans, to their credit are talking about prison reform. Just not the ones on national stage.

Kasich is a reasonable voice; has (relatively) moderate views on most issues (not a particularly high bar), but is completely drowned out by the louder voices on stage and TV. Those voices do not care about prison reform, nor, ostensibly, do the voters in the Republican primaries. His "on the issues" report cite positions he took in the mid-nineties, when "law and order" positions were all the rage (see Horton, Willie).

I've sent him some money - he's "establishment", but he's better than the other choices at this point.

With Trump leading, and continuing to lead it is obvious that a large swath of Republican voters don't share my concerns or vision of what I want a president to be. Neither, however, do either of the Democrats, whose concepts of what a government should be and do are fundamentally at odds with what I believe. There's no way I vote for Trump, Clinton, Cruz or Bernie, regardless of who their opponent is - I will not affirm any of those people to be my president. Rubio and Bush are puppets, and will give us more of the same with different rhetoric and window dressing, but I could hold my nose and vote for them as a "not the opponent" gesture.

[101A]

An interesting reflection on Justice Scalia's originalism and the issue upon which his devotion to originalism would have been set aside in order to achieve the right result. So, even the standard bearer for "originalism" (a term used frequently by modern conservatives when discussing Constitutional matters, but rarely with fidelity to Justice Scalia's actual approach) recognized that there are times when originalism should be disregarded to achieve the right result:




http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/postscript-antonin-scalia-1936-2016

So if he concedes flexibility at all, doesn't that necessarily mean original ism doesn't exist. A truly slippery slope, that he apparently recognized, given his reticence to discuss bvbe.

[FromWayDowntown]

So if he concedes flexibility at all, doesn't that necessarily mean original ism doesn't exist. A truly slippery slope, that he apparently recognized, given his reticence to discuss bvbe.

I don't dispute that there can be an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, but I think his reluctance on Brown means that originalism can't be used in every circumstance if you have any concern at all for achieving actual justice.

The broader point to me is that many who revere Scalia's originalism today wouldn't be as content with its limits or its results as he was. The piece points to Texas v. Johnson, a case that he frequently cited in justifying his philosophy, explaining that he could maintain the integrity of originalism while not always being happy with the results it compelled. I don't know that many who claim to subscribe to Scalia-ish originalism today would be as content as he was with the result that Johnson produced (striking down flag desecration statutes) -- though to be fair, I'm less certain that the Antonin Scalia of the 2010's would have reached the same result as the Antonin Scalia of the 1980's and 1990's.

[rmt]

Trump is lying through his teeth to you, and he knows it.

He outlined his strategy already, and that strategy was predicated on "capturing the media cycle", i.e. saying the most outrageous shit possible to keep people talking about him.

Sad thing is, you seem to think Trump isn't lying and actually believes what he is saying.

You said it yourself: he isn't stupid.

He is just counting on you to be.

Don't let him get that right. You are better than that.

It is indisputable that he has more business experience than all the others. I am under no disillusion as to who or what Trump is - I'm not expecting him to even build a wall much less have Mexico pay for it or deport 11 million illegals. He is the anti-thesis of almost everything I believe in BUT he has the one skill and experience that might pull this country from the financial disaster it's heading toward. Something none of these politicians have - business sense. All these things both sides fight over pales in comparison to having a JOB where one can provide one's own food, housing, healthcare, education, etc.

They all lie (Carson less so in this area) - even Bernie - if his fans think that rich people have enough money to support all he wants - they don't - it'll be the middle class again who shoulders most of the burden. If he tries to tax the rich as high as he wants, do you think they are going to stay here in the US. They will do what all the companies who did tax inversion do - leave for lower taxes.

I'd like to be so bankrupt as to be flying around the country in a plane with my name displayed on the side.

[Aztecfan03]

It is indisputable that he has more business experience than all the others. I am under no disillusion as to who or what Trump is - I'm not expecting him to even build a wall much less have Mexico pay for it or deport 11 million illegals. He is the anti-thesis of almost everything I believe in BUT he has the one skill and experience that might pull this country from the financial disaster it's heading toward. Something none of these politicians have - business sense. All these things both sides fight over pales in comparison to having a JOB where one can provide one's own food, housing, healthcare, education, etc.

They all lie (Carson less so in this area) - even Bernie - if his fans think that rich people have enough money to support all he wants - they don't - it'll be the middle class again who shoulders most of the burden. If he tries to tax the rich as high as he wants, do you think they are going to stay here in the US. They will do what all the companies who did tax inversion do - leave for lower taxes.

I'd like to be so bankrupt as to be flying around the country in a plane with my name displayed on the side.
Leading businesses to bankruptcy

[rmt]

Leading businesses to bankruptcy

Nothing is ever 100% - whether it's brain surgeries, businesses, stock picks, etc - some are winners and some are losers - 4 bankruptcies among many businesses is not bad. Obviously, his winners have overshadowed his losers.

[101A]

I don't dispute that there can be an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, but I think his reluctance on Brown means that originalism can't be used in every circumstance if you have any concern at all for achieving actual justice.

The broader point to me is that many who revere Scalia's originalism today wouldn't be as content with its limits or its results as he was. The piece points to Texas v. Johnson, a case that he frequently cited in justifying his philosophy, explaining that he could maintain the integrity of originalism while not always being happy with the results it compelled. I don't know that many who claim to subscribe to Scalia-ish originalism today would be as content as he was with the result that Johnson produced (striking down flag desecration statutes) -- though to be fair, I'm less certain that the Antonin Scalia of the 2010's would have reached the same result as the Antonin Scalia of the 1980's and 1990's.

Always enlightening to read your takes. Thanks.

[FromWayDowntown]

Always enlightening to read your takes. Thanks.

Nice to have an actual conversation about something insightful.

[Quetzal-X]

All the Repugs count on their voters to be stupid.


THATS RIGHT!

[TeyshaBlue]

Delicious irony.

[FromWayDowntown]

Unsurprisingly, Carson admits that obstruction isn't about tradition; if a Republican were in the White House, an election year wouldn't furnish a basis to delay an appointment in his eyes:


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carson-gop-wouldnt-stall-scotus-nominee

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson conceded in a recent interview that he didn't think the GOP would stall potential Supreme Court nominees if their own party controlled the White House.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates called on the Senate to not confirm any nominee to replace him until after the 2016 election. In an appearance on South Carolina radio station WRNN, Carson was asked if the presidential candidates on Saturday’s debate stage would have the same position if a Republican controlled the Executive branch.

“No, they wouldn’t,” Carson replied, according to audio flagged Tuesday by BuzzFeed News.

"Recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there’s really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn’t be an ideologue also," Carson added.

Carson said he that he thought the nation's highest court has become a "political tool" and suggested lifetime appointments should be reexamined.

And LOL the idea that President Obama's appointments are just ideologues, but Justice Scalia wasn't.

[RandomGuy]

I agree - although I would say Bernie is possibly as bold-faced in the scope of his misrepresentations of what he can/will do - neither is playing by "the rules"; and it's working for them.

This guy has a take on Trump's shtick, and why he's having success with it:

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/donald-trump-has-invented-a-new-way-to-win/


It’s the same for the huge tariffs on Chinese imports and so on: Politicians never deliver everything they promise, but the higher they aim, the more likely you’ll actually get something.

On that score, gotta hand it to Bernie.

[spurraider21]

Unsurprisingly, Carson admits that obstruction isn't about tradition; if a Republican were in the White House, an election year wouldn't furnish a basis to delay an appointment in his eyes:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carson-gop-wouldnt-stall-scotus-nominee

Republican presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson conceded in a recent interview that he didn't think the GOP would stall potential Supreme Court nominees if their own party controlled the White House.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates called on the Senate to not confirm any nominee to replace him until after the 2016 election. In an appearance on South Carolina radio station WRNN, Carson was asked if the presidential candidates on Saturday’s debate stage would have the same position if a Republican controlled the Executive branch.

“No, they wouldn’t,” Carson replied, according to audio flagged Tuesday by BuzzFeed News.

"Recognize that the two picks that the president has selected are ideologues, so there’s really no reason to believe that his next pick wouldn’t be an ideologue also," Carson added.

Carson said he that he thought the nation's highest court has become a "political tool" and suggested lifetime appointments should be reexamined.

And LOL the idea that President Obama's appointments are just ideologues, but Justice Scalia wasn't.
did he say scalia wasn't?

[boutons_deux]

Yes, Obama Could Appoint a Scalia Replacement Today


The conservative freak-out over the president's recess appointment power is legitimate.


The death of Justice Antonin Scalia came at an inopportune moment for conservatives, all but guaranteeing that the liberal side will prevail on a number ofhot-button cases (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/6-cases-now-decided-justice-scalias-death) before the Supreme Court right now. But some conservatives are fretting that the timing might be far more dangerous than that, allowing President Barack Obama to bypass the Republican-controlled Senate and make a recess appointment to fill Scalia's seat.

"He could appoint [Vice President Joe] Biden tonight if he wanted to," a senior GOP Senate aide told the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-worries-obama-could-install-scalia-successor-through-recess-appointment/article/2583236) over the weekend.

Although the president is extremely unlikely to make a recess appointment in the next few days (a White House spokesman even ruled out (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-rules-recess-appointment-replace-justice-scalia/story?id=36937232) the possibility on Sunday), the hand-wringers on the right do have a point. Between now and 3 p.m. EST on Monday, February 22, Obama could fill Scalia's seat with a recess appointment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/yes-president-obama-could-appoint-scalia-replacement-today

If I were Barry listening to Repugs SWEARING NEVER to approve his SCOTUS appointee(s), I'd fuck 'em all hard and do the recess appointment this week.

[boutons_deux]

Rick Wiles: Obama Killed Scalia As A Pagan Human Sacrifice

esterday on “Trunews (https://www.trunews.com/trunews-021516-steve-quayle-the-death-of-justice/),” End Times radio host Rick Wiles discussed “the possible occult connections” to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he concluded was murdered by President Obama and was a human sacrifice to mark the pagan festival of Lupercalia.

Wiles explained that the “Luciferian” “devil-worshipers” who control the government are out for blood, noting that Lupercalia is observed between February 13 and 15. Scalia’s body was discovered on the 13th. “There’s always human sacrifice involved,” he said, claiming that Scalia was “killed” to mark the beginning of pagan fascism ruling over the U.S.

“The 13th was the 44th day of 2016, Obama is the 44th president of the United States,” Wiles said, “so you have this numerology thing taking place.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-wiles-obama-killed-scalia-pagan-human-sacrifice

[boutons_deux]

Before Scalia’s Death, a Clash Between G.O.P. and Obama Over Appellate Judges

Since Republicans took control of the Senate in January 2015, the process that would enable Mr. Obama to fill vacancies on the 12 regional federal courts of appeal has essentially been halted. Mr. Obama has managed only one appointment because Republican senators have refused to sign off ahead of time on nominees for judgeships in their states — a traditional step before a president makes a nomination.

In the weeks before Justice Scalia’s death, influential conservative groups (http://heritageaction.com/2016/01/memo-stop-confirming-obama-nominees/) and commentators called on Senate Republicans to ensure that Mr. Obama appointed no more appeals court judges.

Among those commentators (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/430992/obamas-2016-appellate-nominees?target=author&tid=1117) was Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia and a prominent blogger. He said in an interview Monday that conservatives could not compromise over any appointments to the upper ranks of the judiciary — including the appeals courts, which get the last word on matters the Supreme Court does not review and often serve as a breeding ground for future justices.

“This fight has been fought by both sides for decades,” Mr. Whelan said.

“Conservatives believe with good reason that liberal judges will twist the Constitution and statutes to reach whatever result they want.” :lol

Just as there is no precedent (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/) for leaving a Supreme Court seat open because it is an election year, as Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, vowed to do hours after Justice Scalia’s death was announced, there is also none for virtually shutting down the appointment of new appeals court judges so early.

Each of Mr. Obama’s predecessors since Ronald Reagan also faced a Senate controlled by the opposing party, yet they appointed between 10 and 18 appellate judges in their last two years in office.

But history is no longer a guide in a polarized Washington, where partisan warfare over judicial nominations has been escalating for more than a generation.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/before-antonin-scalias-death-a-clash-between-gop-and-obama-over-appellate-judges.html?_r=1

Barry MUST do a recess appointment this week and fuck the Repugs.

His problem for 7 years is that he and Dems play softball and Repugs play hardball.

Time for Dem HARD FUCKING BALL

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol