|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It wasn't that good a point at all. Sure the average life expectancy was lower but that's partly because of infant mortality rates which were much higher. If you got old you had a good chance to become pretty old. Of course still not as old as now.
|
United States4748 Posts
On February 15 2016 06:00 RvB wrote:It wasn't that good a point at all. Sure the average life expectancy was lower but that's partly because of infant mortality rates which were much higher. If you got old you had a good chance to become pretty old. Of course still not as old as now.
I understand that, but nonetheless I still think term limits are a excellent idea. And it's still a factor.
Edit: although I'm not sure how many actual justices lived to 80+. I still thought it was an interesting point, though it is not the most important one.
|
On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for?
Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges.
51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices.
The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list.
Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
|
On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time.
|
Or he could pick a consensus candidate, say, someone who was unanimously confirmed to a federal judgeship.
And if the Rep's go against him, lay into their presidential candidates for voting for him once, but not later.
Also, don't the Republicans get that a lot of Americans like their policies but are scared shitless of their supreme court picks? Lots of people are way more likely to vote R in November if a liberal-ish judge goes in this year. I realize Cruz is too much of an ideologue to get this, but is Rubio? Hell, are Bush/Kasich?
|
United States42682 Posts
On February 15 2016 04:43 LuckyFool wrote:
The true character of an individual is evident in how they respond to the death of someone they disagree with.
Dead men are no more virtuous than the living, they just smell worse.
|
Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person.
And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work?
If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.".
Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something."
|
On February 15 2016 06:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio) No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time.
The problem is who Obama thinks is the best justice is not important.. it is who Obama and 51 Senators AGREE is the best justice.
I agree the 'who is being obstructionist' v. 'who is standing on principle' when the two sides don't agree will be decided by public opinion.
(hence why republicans are saying "the people should get a choice" instead of my idea of presenting a list to Obama of acceptable candidates.. their idea is Probably better politics.)
On February 15 2016 06:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person. And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work? If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.". Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something."
The point is if the two sides can't agree then nothing SHOULD get done... If there is that much disagreement in the country, then you shouldn't have laws/regulations/precedent setting decisions being made.
If we end up with Trump as President, I hope the Congress is going to obstruct his bad ideas. (I also hope a President Trump/Sanders/Clinton/Mickey Mouse would veto and obstruct bad ideas from Congress)
|
On February 15 2016 07:00 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 06:52 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio) No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time. The problem is who Obama thinks is the best justice is not important.. it is who Obama and 51 Senators AGREE is the best justice. I agree the 'who is being obstructionist' v. 'who is standing on principle' when the two sides don't agree will be decided by public opinion. (hence why republicans are saying "the people should get a choice" instead of my idea of presenting a list to Obama of acceptable candidates.. their idea is Probably better politics.) Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 06:59 m4ini wrote:Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person. And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work? If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.". Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something." The point is if the two sides can't agree then nothing SHOULD get done... If there is that much disagreement in the country, then you shouldn't have laws/regulations/precedent setting decisions being made.
The American people elected Obama for 4 year, not three. They already got to choose and pick until January 2017. Obama is going to pick the candidate that he thinks is best and then its up to the Senate to see if that person is qualified.
|
The problem is Obama hasn't even picked a nominee, and he's already been denied. Pre-emptively. Without even looking at the nominee, they've decided they're going to deny the President anything. For an entire year.
This is the integrity we've come to expect from the GOP.
|
On February 15 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 07:00 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 06:52 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio) No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time. The problem is who Obama thinks is the best justice is not important.. it is who Obama and 51 Senators AGREE is the best justice. I agree the 'who is being obstructionist' v. 'who is standing on principle' when the two sides don't agree will be decided by public opinion. (hence why republicans are saying "the people should get a choice" instead of my idea of presenting a list to Obama of acceptable candidates.. their idea is Probably better politics.) On February 15 2016 06:59 m4ini wrote:Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person. And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work? If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.". Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something." The point is if the two sides can't agree then nothing SHOULD get done... If there is that much disagreement in the country, then you shouldn't have laws/regulations/precedent setting decisions being made. The American people elected Obama for 4 year, not three. They already got to choose and pick until January 2017. Obama is going to pick the candidate that he thinks is best and then its up to the Senate to see if that person is qualified.
They also elected their Senators for 6 years not 0.
Obama will pick someone (nothing to do with "best"*)
and the Senate will decide whether to consent or to give advice (nothing to do with qualified*)
*instead both sides will make their decisions based on "will the way this looks help me get reelected / secure my legacy/affect the country the way I think it should be affected" (including the reputation of the candidate, their ideological leanings and what they think the other side would do)
On February 15 2016 07:13 Leporello wrote:
The problem is Obama hasn't even picked a nominee, and he's already been denied. Pre-emptively. Without even looking at the nominee, they've decided they're going to deny the President anything. For an entire year.
This is the integrity we've come to expect from the GOP.
That's probably because I don't think that anyone Obama will nominate would be acceptable to them as replacement (especially for Scalia... If Ginsburg died, Obama may be able to get a moderate through)
I personally think the greater level of integrity might be to advise Obama what the Senate would consent to by offering him a list to choose from.
However, the "let the people decide" has potential for integrity (and I think it is probably better politics..since I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone on a Senate approved list)
...of course I do agree with earlier posters thinking this would be a good reason for Supreme Court Justices to have terms (new one appointed every two years..18 year terms) so that this would be more predictable.
|
Politically that was a really stupid announcement on their part. By saying that, any objection that is raised, legit or otherwise, will be seen as obstructionist. But high level planning isn't really the GOP's thing.
Krikkitone: I really enjoy how you are inside Obama's head and know his decision making process. Pretty sure he is going to pick the best person for the job that he feels can get through the confirmation process.
|
It won't happen, but Obama should nominate Posner. The dude is long overdue to be on the Supreme Court.
|
On February 15 2016 07:13 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 07:00 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 06:52 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio) No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time. The problem is who Obama thinks is the best justice is not important.. it is who Obama and 51 Senators AGREE is the best justice. I agree the 'who is being obstructionist' v. 'who is standing on principle' when the two sides don't agree will be decided by public opinion. (hence why republicans are saying "the people should get a choice" instead of my idea of presenting a list to Obama of acceptable candidates.. their idea is Probably better politics.) On February 15 2016 06:59 m4ini wrote:Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person. And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work? If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.". Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something." The point is if the two sides can't agree then nothing SHOULD get done... If there is that much disagreement in the country, then you shouldn't have laws/regulations/precedent setting decisions being made. The American people elected Obama for 4 year, not three. They already got to choose and pick until January 2017. Obama is going to pick the candidate that he thinks is best and then its up to the Senate to see if that person is qualified. They also elected their Senators for 6 years not 0. Obama will pick someone (nothing to do with "best"*) and the Senate will decide whether to consent or to give advice (nothing to do with qualified*) *instead both sides will make their decisions based on "will the way this looks help me get reelected / secure my legacy/affect the country the way I think it should be affected" (including the reputation of the candidate, their ideological leanings and what they think the other side would do)
And that is exactly the reason why your earlier statement is dumb.
You clearly have two oppositions, both working, according to you, for their own personal agenda. You clearly said, that if those two oppositions can't reach a verdict, nothing SHOULD get done. That's borderline idiotic, because that just gives both parties opportunity to be obstructionist without repercussion.
How it actually SHOULD work is, have both parties find two candidates each, Obama choses one. Why? That's easy. Because republicans, in the current system, can simply be obstructionist and actually get what they want. They don't WANT a new judge appointed. So no matter what obama suggests, they will slap it down. How can someone look at a system like that and say "well that doesn't need an overhaul, does it".
edit: to be a bit clearer, obama shouldn't cater the GOP, but the other way around. If the GOP wants a conservative elected judge, find one that resonates with obama, instead of simply rejecting every choice hoping that in a year or so you have a republican as president. It's so dumb, honestly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im on the diane wood wagon.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 15 2016 07:13 Leporello wrote:
The problem is Obama hasn't even picked a nominee, and he's already been denied. Pre-emptively. Without even looking at the nominee, they've decided they're going to deny the President anything. For an entire year.
This is the integrity we've come to expect from the GOP.
too bad we dont have scalia to tell us the gop is really doing what the Founding Fathers intended with this move
|
On February 15 2016 07:00 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 06:52 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works.
I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved.
If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio) No. Its his job to nominate the the judge he feels will be best for the job. The Senate can then confirm the appointment or not. The court of public opinion who is being obstructionist if no judge is confirmed over a long period of time. The problem is who Obama thinks is the best justice is not important.. it is who Obama and 51 Senators AGREE is the best justice. I agree the 'who is being obstructionist' v. 'who is standing on principle' when the two sides don't agree will be decided by public opinion. (hence why republicans are saying "the people should get a choice" instead of my idea of presenting a list to Obama of acceptable candidates.. their idea is Probably better politics.) Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 06:59 m4ini wrote:Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
Strange that people actually think it's his job to take a, from his perspective, shitty choice only to make sure that obstructionist dumbasses actually elect that person. And these mostly are the same people who complain that Obama next to others don't "stick to their guns". How does that mental gymnastic even work? If anything, this election cycle just shows that the whole US governing system is laid out to be purely obstructionist. "You got elected president? Fair enough, WE make sure that you can't get shit done.". "You want to implement obamacare? We threaten to shut down the country.". Like, who thought that was an amazing way to rule a country? It's completely pointless who's elected president, since he can't do a fucking thing (exaggerated) if his opposition doesn't want him to. That leads, and did lead, to obstruction just in spite. Just because. "That black guy, fuck him. Bet he's arab or something." The point is if the two sides can't agree then nothing SHOULD get done... If there is that much disagreement in the country, then you shouldn't have laws/regulations/precedent setting decisions being made. If we end up with Trump as President, I hope the Congress is going to obstruct his bad ideas. (I also hope a President Trump/Sanders/Clinton/Mickey Mouse would veto and obstruct bad ideas from Congress)
A country cannot afford to do nothing for 2+ years tho.
How long has the US been this dysfunction, 6 years now?
I said it long ago but if you have a government that can get into the position where nothing gets done there should be safeguards in place to resolve the stalemate.
Taking the Netherlands as an example if we get in a gridlock the likes of which the US has had we get forced elections in order to get a new government that holds the majority.
Its not just that the government cant enact new, apparently dividing laws. The US didn't even have a budget passed for 6 years.
|
On February 15 2016 07:15 Plansix wrote:
Politically that was a really stupid announcement on their part. By saying that, any objection that is raised, legit or otherwise, will be seen as obstructionist. But high level planning isn't really the GOP's thing.
Krikkitone: I really enjoy how you are inside Obama's head and know his decision making process. Pretty sure he is going to pick the best person for the job that he feels can get through the confirmation process.
Just saying what "best for the job" means. Its not like making widgets where person X (11 widgets an hour) is 10% better than person Y (10 widgets an hour)
"Best for the job" on the Supreme court means
-they influence the country the way I think it should be influenced (same as any other governmental position)
Now if Obama appointed someone with a 40 IQ who was illiterate and had severe dementia... that person won't be ABLE to influence the country the way Obama wants (they won't influence the country at all). However, if he appointed a brilliant and charismatic Grand Wizard of the KKK, that person would be ABLE to influence the country the way Obama wants, but they wouldn't do it.
So you want to have someone smart enough to get others to agree with them, but who will generally try to get people to agree with what you think is best.
(and as a politician you also want someone who will help your personal legacy..someone you can be proud of)
On February 15 2016 07:27 Gorsameth wrote:
Its not just that the government cant enact new, apparently dividing laws. The US didn't even have a budget passed for 6 years.
Yet surprisingly enough they still managed to spend and collect money.
|
On February 15 2016 07:13 Leporello wrote:
The problem is Obama hasn't even picked a nominee, and he's already been denied. Pre-emptively. Without even looking at the nominee, they've decided they're going to deny the President anything. For an entire year.
This is the integrity we've come to expect from the GOP.
at least theyre consistent?
|
Krikkitone, you seem to be arguing with a fictional person suggesting Obama should appoint a racist or something. Maybe come back down here with the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
