- This topic has 18 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by 147.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 15, 2016 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #617237JosephParticipant
The United States Senate should kill any nominee that isn’t of the same ideological composition as Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitutional prerogative of the Senate to provide “advice and consent” should be exercised to advise the President that only a Scalia-type nominee will be consented to. Any other type of nominee shall result in the Senate exercising its Constitutional right to withhold consent.
February 15, 2016 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #119111010-LuchosParticipant1. That isn’t happening. Please stop your lunatic rants
2. The senators need to be very careful here. Just because the republicans have a majority now, doesn’t mean they would have one in January of 2017. They should use their power to make sure the newly appointed justice is more center than left. If they hold out they can lose their power all together and we’ll get another Kagan.
February 15, 2016 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1191111JosephParticipant1. Exactly the point. Since it isn’t happening the nomination needs to be rejected.
2. Obama will not be nominating anyone who isn’t a liberal/left-wing activist judge. So the point is moot. The Senate needs to reject the nomination.
The Republicans are unlikely to lose the Senate (plus the presidential elections). And even if they might, it is worth the risk of rejecting the nomination this year. Obama’s nomination is unlikely to be much better than Clinton’s. And the Republicans may be able to control the appointment next year, as an upside.
Considering the stakes at hand, an appointment that can last 30 years and flip the court to full liberal control now, it would be extremely foolhardy for Republicans to give this to Obama.
February 15, 2016 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #1191112ubiquitinParticipantWill you say the same thing when Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dies/Retires?
That “The United States Senate should kill any nominee that isn’t of the same ideological composition as Justice [Ginsberg]”?
February 15, 2016 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm #1191113JosephParticipantubiq: No. I would say the Republicans should use whatever power and/or leverage they have at the time to get a conservative replacement for Ginsberg. The point about demanding a conservative replacement now for Scalia is merely as a political ploy, knowing it won’t happen with Obama. (If shockingly he does nominate a soulmate of Scalia, then by all means let the Senate confirm it.)
I have no doubts or illusions that the Democrats would play the same political hardball had the situation been in the reverse. The Republicans shouldn’t be stupid now and kneel over for an Obama appointment when the Democrats will never do that in the (past or) future when they control the Senate.
February 16, 2016 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm #1191114JosephParticipantFrom the President’s perspective, the best move he could make is to make a recess appointment, something he can do now that the Senate is in recess. The appointment, I believe, would last through the court’s 2017 term. This would give the court a liberal majority for over a year. And considering it is almost certain Obama will not be getting to appoint a permanent Justice to the court, this move would give him the most influence he can achieve with the cards he’s been dealt.
I, of course, hope he does not make a recess appointment since that would tilt some critical decisions leftwards.
February 29, 2016 1:12 am at 1:12 am #1191115☢️ Rand0m3x 🎲ParticipantThe United States Senate should kill any nominee that isn’t
of the same ideological composition as Justice Antonin Scalia.
Do we have the death penalty for that?
November 9, 2016 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #1191116JosephParticipantWell, Mr. Luchos, my suggested gambit has paid off and proven correct, you’ll have to admit.
November 10, 2016 1:53 pm at 1:53 pm #1191117WolfishMusingsParticipantWell, Mr. Luchos, my suggested gambit has paid off and proven correct, you’ll have to admit.
And when the power shifts and the Democrats have the Senate in a Republican president’s fourth year, you’re not going to get a conservative jurist on the bench then either.
The sword swings both ways.
The Wolf
November 10, 2016 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #1191118MammeleParticipantWolf: correct, but now we need to replace one justice. And he or she will most likely be a conservative, given the Republican control. We don’t know what the situation will be in four years.
November 10, 2016 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm #1191119JosephParticipantThat’s a price well worth potentially paying, Mr. Wolf, for having very successfully staved off a radical swing right now from a centrist court to a liberal court that would have had generation lasting ramifications.
November 10, 2016 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm #1191120akupermaParticipantThe liklihood is that Trump will be able to replace not only Scalia but also Ginsburg and Kennedy and perhaps Breyer as well. This would mean that by 2024 (if Trump gets re-elected, and the Senate stays Republican) the court will tend to be 7-2 for conservatives and originalists. Since the court in recent years has moved away from deciding cases based on precedent, it will be open season for revisiting many of the socially controversial cases.
November 10, 2016 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #1191121benignumanParticipantGinsburg and Breyer will not retire while Trump is President. Trump will only get to replace them if they die. Also, assuming the Trump will nominate originalists is tenuous.
November 10, 2016 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #1191122JosephParticipantbenignuman, they might become incapacitated (health) or pass away during his term(s).
I understand that Trump pledged to only only nominate conservatives in the mold of Scalia, who are pro-life, etc. And produced a list of judges conservatives are happy with.
November 10, 2016 10:21 pm at 10:21 pm #1191123popa_bar_abbaParticipantAlso, assuming the Trump will nominate originalists is tenuous.
he could always imitate the left and nominate ideologues. Gets to a similar place.
November 11, 2016 12:00 am at 12:00 am #1191124benignumanParticipantJoseph,
He did do that, but Trump keeping a pledge is not something I would hang my hat on.
PBA,
How many conservative ideologue judges are there? If they just rubber stamp government positions it will be tragic.
November 11, 2016 3:36 am at 3:36 am #1191126yehudayonaParticipantTrump, at 70, is the oldest person ever elected president. My guess is that he will be at most a one-term president. One thing we don’t have to worry about — unlike Obama, his hair won’t turn gray.
One other thing — he’s probably going to be the last draft dodger elected president. The draft effectively ended in 1972, so you’d have to have been born before 1953 to have been drafted.
November 11, 2016 10:15 am at 10:15 am #1191127JosephParticipantTrump isn’t much older than Reagan was when first elected. Hillary isn’t much younger than him either. Bloomberg, who seriously considered running, is a number of years older than Trump.
November 11, 2016 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #1191128147ParticipantJustice Antonin Scalia ?’? tragically was assassinated by someone who was a liberal; Hence they signed off on a suspicious death without an autopsy. Strange? .. This was the beginning of the end for Hillary’s campaign.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.