|
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. |
On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it.
The rule itself is not working, and the system is totally broken. Both parties have been hypocrites of course, and it makes plenty of sense for politicians to lie and claim they're all about the rules instead of which party is removing them, but I'm pretty sure none of the posters here are United States Senators. The only consistent ideological reason to want to maintain the system of allowing both sides to simply prevent judicial and executive roles from being filled indefinitely is if you want to subvert the power of the government in general, whether by legislative or procedural means, and the partisan dimension to this is that it is primarily Republican who feel this way (though of course not all Republicans agree).
With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty.
If you really think there's some third way to go back to the understanding that the filibuster is only an emergency option to delay appointments, I'd love to hear it, but I'm pretty skeptical. Right now I think the nuclear option really IS the best way to adhere to the rules, both in terms of the letter of the Constitutional, and the unwritten tradition of the Senate.
|
On November 24 2013 19:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 17:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2013 15:42 Sub40APM wrote:On November 24 2013 14:13 Danglars wrote:
How conveniently we forget all the wars from the arab world after 1948 designed to exterminate the new Israeli state. Israel is just as bad as the lot of them ... umm... hold the phone.
. I know you live in an alternative reality but of the wars fought between Israel and the Arab states: 1948 was an invasion of Israel by the Arab states 1956 was an invasion of Egypt by Israel and UK-France 1967 was an Israeli invasion of Egypt and later Jordan and Syria 1973 was a Egyptian-Syrian invasion of Israel 1978 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon War of Independence (1948). Attack by the Arab states on Israel. Suez Crisis (1956) started with Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal, calling it an invasion by Israel neglects everything that made it unique in Nasser's governing of Egypt and indeed leadership of the nationalization movement. Six Day War (1967) followed an Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the suez zone. Provoke a war and sometimes you get a war. September 1967: The Arab states formulate the Three No's policy. No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. The Khartoum Resolution made it very clear what the goals of the Arab world were. Yom Kippur War (1973) another Arab invasion. Very cute to put it on an Israeli holiday. Lebanon Conflict (1978) followup to the Coastal Road massacre, as Time would call it the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history. Lebanon War aka First Lebanon War (1982) pretty much right on. Second Labanon War (2006) was preceded by Hezbollah heavy rocket attacks and fueled by Iranian military support. It is a fabrication by intellectuals that Israel is some bully in the region. They have the unmistakable right to defend themselves against enemies perfectly content to lob rockets and engage in sabotage and terrorist attacks in "peacetime." Attainment of political objectives, particularly involving land, through outright war and terrorism reaps the kind of responses they merited. They must protect their own citizens if they even hope to represent their interests in government. It is a fabrication by people like you that Israel is being bullied by all Arabs countries. If you look at the history of each conflict, the Israelis have their own share of guilt (for exemple, look at all the event that lead to the invasion of Israel by the Arab countries back in 1948, with the massacre and the enormous exile of palestinians that almost forced neighbour countries to intervene). Plus it was Israel at his creation that crushed all its neighbour, with the help of developped countries. Today, this country is undoubtedly the super power of the region : not the little village who need to "defend" itself from its barbaric neighbour. Whatever, people like you always refute the facts they want just to reassure themselves in their twisted view of reality. At least be fair and present yourself as a believer head on and not some kind of enlightened historian, we would know what to expect.
I set out the wars and the provocations; what do you have? Cast doubt here, retreat there. Do you have anything to say, really?
You might want to develop your points. You clearly want countries to project weakness and lose in wars, otherwise you bring your petty "crushed all its neighbour[sic]." The record of history is clear; it was not Israel launching missiles in, bombing civilian buses. I don't know if you want to elaborate or explain even one of your points. Show please, don't tell, and don't argue in absentia.
|
On November 24 2013 22:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 19:22 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 17:55 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2013 15:42 Sub40APM wrote:On November 24 2013 14:13 Danglars wrote:
How conveniently we forget all the wars from the arab world after 1948 designed to exterminate the new Israeli state. Israel is just as bad as the lot of them ... umm... hold the phone.
. I know you live in an alternative reality but of the wars fought between Israel and the Arab states: 1948 was an invasion of Israel by the Arab states 1956 was an invasion of Egypt by Israel and UK-France 1967 was an Israeli invasion of Egypt and later Jordan and Syria 1973 was a Egyptian-Syrian invasion of Israel 1978 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon War of Independence (1948). Attack by the Arab states on Israel. Suez Crisis (1956) started with Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal, calling it an invasion by Israel neglects everything that made it unique in Nasser's governing of Egypt and indeed leadership of the nationalization movement. Six Day War (1967) followed an Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the suez zone. Provoke a war and sometimes you get a war. September 1967: The Arab states formulate the Three No's policy. No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. The Khartoum Resolution made it very clear what the goals of the Arab world were. Yom Kippur War (1973) another Arab invasion. Very cute to put it on an Israeli holiday. Lebanon Conflict (1978) followup to the Coastal Road massacre, as Time would call it the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history. Lebanon War aka First Lebanon War (1982) pretty much right on. Second Labanon War (2006) was preceded by Hezbollah heavy rocket attacks and fueled by Iranian military support. It is a fabrication by intellectuals that Israel is some bully in the region. They have the unmistakable right to defend themselves against enemies perfectly content to lob rockets and engage in sabotage and terrorist attacks in "peacetime." Attainment of political objectives, particularly involving land, through outright war and terrorism reaps the kind of responses they merited. They must protect their own citizens if they even hope to represent their interests in government. It is a fabrication by people like you that Israel is being bullied by all Arabs countries. If you look at the history of each conflict, the Israelis have their own share of guilt (for exemple, look at all the event that lead to the invasion of Israel by the Arab countries back in 1948, with the massacre and the enormous exile of palestinians that almost forced neighbour countries to intervene). Plus it was Israel at his creation that crushed all its neighbour, with the help of developped countries. Today, this country is undoubtedly the super power of the region : not the little village who need to "defend" itself from its barbaric neighbour. Whatever, people like you always refute the facts they want just to reassure themselves in their twisted view of reality. At least be fair and present yourself as a believer head on and not some kind of enlightened historian, we would know what to expect. I set out the wars and the provocations; what do you have? Cast doubt here, retreat there. Do you have anything to say, really? You might want to develop your points. You clearly want countries to project weakness and lose in wars, otherwise you bring your petty "crushed all its neighbour[sic]." The record of history is clear; it was not Israel launching missiles in, bombing civilian buses. I don't know if you want to elaborate or explain even one of your points. Show please, don't tell, and don't argue in absentia.
Like I said, dig into the history and stop presenting your own view as "historical facts".
You want me to give you some insight ?
Mapam's leaders later concluded that the fall of Deir Yassin and Haifa were the two pivotal events of the Palestinian exodus. On April 14, Irgun radio broadcast that villages around Deir Yassin and elsewhere were being evacuated. HIS intelligence reported that the residents of Beit Iksa and Al Maliha had fled. The village of Fureidis appealed for arms. The villages of Fajja and Mansura reached a peace agreement with their Jewish neighbors. Arabs fled from Haifa and Khirbet Azzun. A Haganah attack on Saris encountered no resistance, because of the fear of Deir Yassin, in the view of the British. Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun at the time of the attack, though not present at the village, wrote in 1977:
"The enemy propaganda was designed to besmirch our name. In the result it helped us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places overlooked the main road; and their fall, together with the capture of al-Qastal by the Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces. Not what happened at Deir Yassin, but what was invented about Deir Yassin, helped to carve the way to our decisive victories on the battlefield ... The legend was worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel."
The Deir Yassin attack, along with attacks on Tiberias, Haifa, and Jaffa, put pressure on Arab governments to invade Palestine. News of the killings had aroused public anger in the Arab world, which the governments felt unable to ignore. Syria's foreign minister remarked that the Arab public's desire for war was irresistible. The arrival of tens of thousands of refugees further convinced them to act. A consensus favoring invasion began to emerge the day after Deir Yassin, at a meeting on April 10 in Cairo of the Arab League Political Committee. Golda Meir, disguised in an Arab robe, met King Abdullah in Amman on May 10–11, the second such meeting between them. During their first, Abdullah had agreed to a partition of Palestine to include a Jewish state. Now, he retracted, suggesting instead a Jewish canton within a Hashemite kingdom. Deir Yassin had changed things, he said. Meir reported later that Abdullah was approaching war "as a person who is in a trap and can't get out." The Arab invasion began at midnight on May 14, when Abdullah fired a symbolic shot in the air, and shouted "Forward!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
Congratz on pointing out my faults by the way, I'm not english so it doesn't really hurt me a lot, plus it is nothing more than an internet forum.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 21:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty.
They don't have a duty to give assent. They can refuse to consent. Their refusal to give consent is advice.
|
On November 24 2013 15:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:14 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard. First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president. Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did. It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges. The senate has to approve them because they have to vet them and make sure the nominee is qualified for the position in question which if they are the nominee should succeed. Its been silly watching it go back and forth to the point where the last time they considered it McConnell was pushing for it and the democrats and now the democrats are pushing for it and McConnell is opposed. I do not really care which party did it as long as it got done in the end. They are being vetted. They aren't passing the test.
This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected?
|
WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. government's authority to regulate air pollution nationwide, often against the wishes of Republican-leaning states, could face new curbs when the U.S. Supreme Court takes on two high-stakes cases in coming months.
The cases focus on the broad-ranging power wielded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the landmark Clean Air Act, first enacted in 1970.
The law was envisioned as a cooperative effort between the federal government and states in which the EPA sets standards but states have to set plans to comply.
That flexibility has allowed states which favor looser regulations, like Texas and Kansas, to resist - with the support of industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers - when the agency wants to impose more stringent standards.
In both cases before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, mainly Republican-led states and industry groups have challenged different EPA regulations, in the hope of weakening the agency's authority. The EPA has support from Democratic-leaning states, like Massachusetts and New York, and from environmental groups.
Source
|
On November 24 2013 21:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. The rule itself is not working, and the system is totally broken. Both parties have been hypocrites of course, and it makes plenty of sense for politicians to lie and claim they're all about the rules instead of which party is removing them, but I'm pretty sure none of the posters here are United States Senators. The only consistent ideological reason to want to maintain the system of allowing both sides to simply prevent judicial and executive roles from being filled indefinitely is if you want to subvert the power of the government in general, whether by legislative or procedural means, and the partisan dimension to this is that it is primarily Republican who feel this way (though of course not all Republicans agree). With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty. If you really think there's some third way to go back to the understanding that the filibuster is only an emergency option to delay appointments, I'd love to hear it, but I'm pretty skeptical. Right now I think the nuclear option really IS the best way to adhere to the rules, both in terms of the letter of the Constitutional, and the unwritten tradition of the Senate.
It's a democrat talking point that there is some crisis in terms of vacancies.
The system is working, the Senate has approved LOTS of Obama appointees, the Republicans are holding up some of them, not all of them. The president won't withdraw those candidates, as he could do, instead he just sits there (and in this case waited for Reid to change the rules.) It has nothing to do with "subverting the power of government." Thats' like saying that the Democrats with Bush were trying to weaken the government.. the Democrats love government.
But before you assume to much about me: I'm actually pro Constitution. Like, really pro Constitution. More so than many here. I would do away with most of the extra crap we have now. Obamacase is unconstitutional, and thus should be repealed. I despise the EPA, it's a massive bureaucracy that tries to regulate not only car standards, but individual citizens and their land. I would repeal the 17th amendment, so that the Senate is no longer a useless and redundant body. States should actually have some say in what is going on in Washington. The senate is NOT supposed to be just another House of Representatives, and its rules reflect that.
It has a duty to advise and consent. Guess what? They aren't consenting! But Obama won't try someone else, just like Bush waited and waited without trying someone else. The senate doesn't have a duty to just approve whoever the president wants because there is a vacancy.
For the courts in particular, while the laws set how many judges and courts there are, there is no Constitutional mandate that each court must have X number of judges. So you could say "they are breaking written law" (which would still be false), but they are NOT failing a Constitutional duty.
But I don't know what good going down this trail is to you when you say you would get rid of the Constitution. I just don't even know where to start.
This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected?
I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role.
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) And there is no vacancy "crisis."
|
On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance.
Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right?
On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role.
What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees?
On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.)
It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues.
On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis."
There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them.
|
On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them.
Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something.
Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision.
My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other.
I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well.
Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments.
|
There is nothing more to discuss here I reckon; there are disagreements which will not be reconciled. And there's probably someone who's wrong, but they will never admit it.
Also, you seem to be unaware of why Roberts made the decision he did; since he quite clearly did not make the decision based on issues of constitutionality.
Also: your litmus test is terrible, because every member of the supreme court (or most at least) have made decisions which pretty clearly don't match up with the constitution.
|
Is anyone watching the MLG stream? There's an Anonymous ad going on.
Edit: The video from the ad can be found here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Did they hack the MLG network to put that ad? Or did MLG actually let them put it? The latter seems really unlikely. What do you think?
|
On November 25 2013 07:19 zlefin wrote:
There is nothing more to discuss here I reckon; there are disagreements which will not be reconciled. And there's probably someone who's wrong, but they will never admit it.
Also, you seem to be unaware of why Roberts made the decision he did; since he quite clearly did not make the decision based on issues of constitutionality.
Also: your litmus test is terrible, because every member of the supreme court (or most at least) have made decisions which pretty clearly don't match up with the constitution.
I agree, no one is going to change.
I am aware of the Robert's decision, I've read it. It was constitutional because it was a "tax." That was his reason.
My litmus test is an ideal situation. My larger point was that justices are not to be approved merely because they hold the appropriate paper work.
|
On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments.
The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground.
Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low.
|
On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low.
Having followed Introverts post I am pretty sure his response would be that the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 50 years or so is itself an overstep of the bounds of the constitution.
|
the commerce clause is one big casuistry, basically
|
On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low.
What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause.
|
On November 25 2013 08:35 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. Having followed Introverts post I am pretty sure his response would be that the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 50 years or so is itself an overstep of the bounds of the constitution.
This is correct. (edit: though recently the court has been better about the Commerce Clause then it has in the past.) Now obviously I am not an educated judge, nor am I a law student. So most of what I have is from my own research and reading, since the Constitution is a particular interest of mine.
Precedence is a really useful tool, and it's understandable that the Courts rely on it so heavily, but it gives bad decisions more weight than they deserve.
With regard to the commerce clause: It was intended to "make regular" the trade between the states. It wasn't a broad blanket statement that the federal government can just "regulate trade" and use it for the stuff they love to use it for (looking at you, FDR). It's intent was so that the rules across states were consistent and to prevent states from abusing each other.
"For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." James Madison
http://www.consource.org/document/james-madison-to-j-c-cabell-1829-2-13/
We are going into the weeds, however. I don't want to rehash Obamacare.
|
On November 25 2013 08:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause.
Everyone expected it to pass under that because prior precedent matters to the court (or at least enough of the court) and prior rulings on commerce clause made it a safe bet to pass. The tax ruling was an interesting ruling that did also make sense but I surprised they choose to use that justification when commerce clause argument should easily have been enough.
Also, while it is not my job to study courts prior rulings the peoples who job it was seemed fairly confident that the law would be upheld.
|
On November 25 2013 08:35 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. Having followed Introverts post I am pretty sure his response would be that the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 50 years or so is itself an overstep of the bounds of the constitution.
I would say vagueness of the constitution has caused many issues but if it were to be less vague it would be required to be updated far more often then it is so the necessity of it being vague probably outweigh the costs of it being specific enough to make rulings easier.
|
On November 25 2013 09:13 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause. Everyone expected it to pass under that because prior precedent matters to the court (or at least enough of the court) and prior rulings on commerce clause made it a safe bet to pass. The tax ruling was an interesting ruling that did also make sense but I surprised they choose to use that justification when commerce clause argument should easily have been enough. Also, while it is not my job to study courts prior rulings the peoples who job it was seemed fairly confident that the law would be upheld.
As I said, anyone who was paying attention knew it wouldn't survive under the commerce clause. All of the "new federalism" cases made that very clear. It just so happens that way too many of the talking heads on TV are clueless when it comes to legal matters (among other things). This includes TV lawyers. I don't blame the average observer for being a little confused about why I am saying this. Everyone was misguided by the "experts" on TV.
Edit: Remember how laughably retarded the TV experts were commenting on the Zimmerman trial? Why would you expect them to be any better commenting on appellate decisions?
Edit2: In fairness, the legal commentators at all media outlets are bad -- not just TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
