Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Scalia's replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I apologize - I thought I was in the other thread, but.... honoring your request.

    Apology accepted in the spirit offered. Please feel free to post here again with a thoughtful response.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post


      Obama is reportedly unleashing advocacy groups to push for consideration of his nomination, but he doesn't do that kind of retail politicking himself.
      In a call that one participant described as part pep rally and part planning session, Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, and Neil Eggleston, the White House chief counsel, urged dozens of the president’s allies not to hold back in their condemnation of Republicans for refusing to hold hearings to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last week.

      The point of my earlier post was that Hillary has a different history. She handles those details personally.
      Do you consider one of those "advocacy groups" to be the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which only hours after Scalia's death were sending out fundraising requests?

      And with Jarret and Eggleston leading the charge it is fair to say that the White House itself is another "advocacy group" involved.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        Klaus and CP, please exit the thread.
        And Adam?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Do you consider one of those "advocacy groups" to be the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which only hours after Scalia's death were sending out fundraising requests?
          Yes, I do, though I don't find fund-raising requests any more inappropriate than McConnell's immediate reaction. I'd have to see the fund-raising request for a more considered response.

          And with Jarret and Eggleston leading the charge it is fair to say that the White House itself is another "advocacy group" involved.
          The issue could well become moot even before a nomination is made.

          I suspect light is dawning on McConnell and those who've followed his lead. Withholding consideration was never a sustainable position, and he was simply incorrect on the facts. Listening to NPR on the way in for my evening classes tonight, I understand that Sen. Cornyn, and another I can't now recall, are already backing away.

          I can see other stories that were read, but this one hasn't been posted yet.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            And Adam?
            You've been asked to leave, klaus. Please do not reply to this thread again.

            _____

            To those who may wonder, CP has removed the video that occasioned my request. I do not object to partisanship in this thread, so long as civility is maintained.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Yes, I do, though I don't find fund-raising requests any more inappropriate than McConnell's immediate reaction. I'd have to see the fund-raising request for a more considered response.



              The issue could well become moot even before a nomination is made.

              I suspect light is dawning on McConnell and those who've followed his lead. Withholding consideration was never a sustainable position, and he was simply incorrect on the facts. Listening to NPR on the way in for my evening classes tonight, I understand that Sen. Cornyn, and another I can't now recall, are already backing away.

              I can see other stories that were read, but this one hasn't been posted yet.
              It was an incredibly politically inept position. Or, I should say, that publicly stating that is what you would do is.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                It was an incredibly politically inept position. Or, I should say, that publicly stating that is what you would do is.
                It would have been so much smarter to challenge Obama to send them a nomination they COULD confirm.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  However, on Feb 3 2017 (I believe, though that date may be slightly wrong), the Senate gets officially dissolved pending the swearing in of the new senators.
                  Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                  ... Obama will no longer be the president.
                  I believe I've found a reference for your suggestion, though it was off by a year. Looking to see if the NPR story about backstepping by Sen. Cornyn and another I can't recall had been posted, I ran into this.

                  Obama Won't Appoint Scalia Replacement While Senate Is Out This Week

                  Updated February 16, 20167:58 AM ET
                  Published February 15, 20164:30 PM ET
                  The White House says the president will not move to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia while the Senate is in recess this week.

                  In an interview with ABC News, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would would wait to announce his nominee until Congress returns from its break later this month. In an email to NPR, Schultz said the White House had ruled out a recess appointment "this week."

                  So apparently there was talk I missed, not that I'd have credited the rumor if I'd heard it. Obama's been burned on recess appointments already, though the challenge came from the nature of the recess. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that burned him, declaring that the congress' maneuvers to avoid a recess were constitutional. The situation was similar though, as the appointments were made to bypass the congress' refusal to consider nominees.

                  No, I think it's been clear from the outset that Obama would resist McConnell's novel approach to denying a nomination by contrasting it with standard practices.

                  The NPR article is worth reading in any case. In particular, it answered my question about the duration of a recess appointment.
                  According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                    While it's clear there is no precedent for leaving it vacant, the rhetoric from either side is business as usual for Washington, don't you think.
                    Yes, I do, and my apologies for the delay in my response. I was hoping for more robust reporting before commenting. The New York Times came through a couple of days ago, but I haven't had the chance to attend for substantial posts until now. It's been a busy week. Schumer in particular was singled out in the following.

                    Senators Limber Up for a Dexterous Flip on Judicial Nominees
                    The long-serving senator professed outrage. How dare the opposition refuse a vote on a high-level presidential judicial nominee.

                    “Do not continue to treat the third branch of our federal government — the one branch intended to be insulated from political pressures — with such disregard that we filibuster its nominees,” he thundered. “Do not perpetuate this campaign of unfairness. Vote for him or vote against him, but just vote.”

                    The opposition leader was equally emphatic in his position of denying the president. “History will look kindly on us for doing so because never has a president of the United States been more ideological in his selection of judges,” he declared.

                    The aggrieved party? Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. His confident opponent? Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York.

                    The nomination in question was for Miguel Estrada to an appeals court, creating additional context for my earlier post on the lack of progress on Obama's appeals court nominations.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      I think his biggest obstacle are the Democrats themselves. Not that they would stop [Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan]'s nomination if picked but that they'll work hard to keep him from being nominated. Why? His views are an enigma. He has no record really to speak of and for the last 50 years the Democrats have been very good at putting people on the Supreme Court that they could absolutely count on to march in lock step. Something that the Republicans have a rather poor record of accomplishing (starting back with Warren Burger).

                      The Democrats will not want to blow this chance on a crap shoot and frankly Obama has shown an absolute loathing toward triangulation.
                      I agree with your main thrust. There's likely to be a Democratic push to reverse Thurgood Marshall's replacement with Clarence Thomas, or more recently, the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, which, along with John Roberts' appointment occasioned the remarks cited by Littlejoe in his initial post. The pendulum is going to swing back, at question is how far. The more partisan Democrats are going to be pushing for someone more demonstratively liberal.

                      But no, I don't think it's reasonable to characterize this as the "biggest obstacle" in light of comments by McConnell, Rubio, and especially Cruz. Trump, too, but I don't take him as seriously to begin with, and, more relevantly, he's not a senator.

                      I like the Sri pick a lot, but he's hardly the only potential nominee, even within the appellate roll call. At this point in the thread, I think it'd be good to look at other potential nominees. Here are some names put forward earlier this week, please feel free to add your own.

                      Potential Nominees Obama May Consider to Fill Antonin Scalia’s Seat

                      [Abstracted list]
                      • Merrick B. Garland, AGE 63.
                        CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
                      • Kamala D. Harris, AGE 51.
                        CURRENT ROLE Attorney general, State of California.
                      • Adalberto J. Jordan, AGE 54.
                        CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
                      • Jane L. Kelly, AGE 51.
                        CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
                      • Srikanth Srinivasan, AGE 48.
                        CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
                      • Paul J. Watford, AGE 48.
                        CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


                      There is background and discussion at the link.

                      I believe we're long past overdue for a political, rather than judicial nominee, but I don't believe this is the nomination for correcting that balance. And with all due respect for that persuasion, please, not another Catholic.
                      Last edited by Juvenal; 02-19-2016, 08:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        Yes, I do, and my apologies for the delay in my response.
                        Littlejoe and others may appreciate this article as well.

                        That time when they said...
                        President Barack Obama
                        Speaking when he was a Democratic senator from Illinois

                        “There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.” -2006

                        The list includes the Schumer quote Littlejoe cited earlier, though without the excellent link he provided.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Latest news is about possibly nominating Vice-President Joe Biden to SCOTUS. Repubs should like that, he's so old the liberal imbalance it would cause might not last long. Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.
                          Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Adam View Post
                            Latest news is about possibly nominating Vice-President Joe Biden to SCOTUS. Repubs should like that, he's so old the liberal imbalance it would cause might not last long. Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.
                            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                            I believe we're long past overdue for a political, rather than judicial nominee, but I don't believe this is the nomination for correcting that balance. And with all due respect for that persuasion, please, not another Catholic.
                            Biden Says Obama Won't Be Able to Pick the 'Most Liberal Jurist'
                            In a separate interview broadcast on MSNBC, Biden said he would be deeply involved in advising Obama but that he had no desire himself to be named to the high court. Biden told MSNBC the president had sought his advice but they had yet to discuss potential candidates.

                            I expect Loretta Lynch is higher on the pick list if Obama's going to go political, but I still don't expect him to go with a political appointee. And I'd still prefer he steer away from another Catholic. Scalia himself is in my corner on this one.

                            What Would Scalia Want in His Successor? A Dissent Offers Clues
                            Since Justice John Paul Stevens retired in 2010, the court, for the first time, has no Protestant member. Justice Scalia was Catholic, as are five other justices. The other three are Jewish.

                            In his dissent from June, Justice Scalia lamented this state of affairs, writing, “Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              A) The president doesn't make "appointments" to the SCOTUS, he offers nominations.
                              2) It is not the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to approve, but to consider.

                              Your ignorance of this process is quite profound.
                              Glad to see that you agree, it is the Senates responsibility to consider and vote on the presidents nominee.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                Littlejoe and others may appreciate this article as well.

                                That time when they said...
                                President Barack Obama
                                Speaking when he was a Democratic senator from Illinois

                                “There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.” -2006

                                The list includes the Schumer quote Littlejoe cited earlier, though without the excellent link he provided.
                                The argument is not whether the Senate is obligated to approve a nominee, it is whether or not they are constitutionally obligated to have a hearing and vote on the nominee. The Obama quote you cited above is not hypocricy. Intellect and personal character are considerations, but they are not necessarily, according to many, the only things to consider when voting. That quote says nothing about the Presidents responsibility to to nominate and the Senates responsibility to consider and vote on the nominee.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X