Reply With Quote
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.
Reasonable point.
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.
So was he right then or wrong?
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 cons ution trumps.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-15-2016 at 01:13 AM.
fair enough.
Maybe Mitch McConnell needs to listen to Mitch McConnell from 2005:
What a difference 11 years and a Democratic presidency make.The Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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.
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 cons utionally-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 en led to a full hearing and a simple up-or-down vote. That was a thing not too long ago.
Obama in 2006:Considering who he has already nominated, i can't envision him nominating people that could have acceptable philosophy/ideology to conservatives."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 Cons ution 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."
G.W. could have nominated people, but i know doubt democrats would have accepted.
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 " 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.
So where do you draw the line?
John Oliver pounds GOP for invoking ‘bullsh*t’ rule to keep from voting for Scalia’s replacement
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/john...e+Raw+Story%29
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.
“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 “bull ” — 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.
Dems used it for federal judges towards the end of Bush's term, but there wasn't an opening on SCOTUS
Oliver also makes a really good point about Scalia, who was big on the original meaning of the cons ution.
Don't see nuthin' there limiting the Presidents power of nomination.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.
Oliver also pointed out that even *if* you consider the Thurmond rule valid, that doesn't technically apply until July 20.
and Repugs said there was no rule.
Seems like a lot of people are missing, "with the Advice" part.
what is their advice?
Surprise! Repugs are ing 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 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 were confirmed in election years, and perhaps the most pertinent example is Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne noted 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 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-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
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/su...lection-years/
the Repugs to , everyone of them.
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:
or when Senator McConnell said:
or when Senator Hatch said:
or when Senator Vitter said:
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 cons utionally 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 Cons ution 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"
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:
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:"
Senator Graham has warned that obstruction for political gain is ultimately deleterious to the nation:
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).
The president can nominate, but senate has to concur.
OMG FWD completely obliterated this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
