SCOTUS Nomination Battle

Page 15 of Originally Posted by Twotoplace Should be an opportunity for more Roberts arm-twisting and agenda-setting now. Neither of the other two far-right justi... 266 comments | 8203 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #211

    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    14,545

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Parker View Post
    Looking at past nominations is interesting to me. Scalia was approved by a 98-0 vote. Anthony Kennedy 97-0. Ginsburg 96-3. Breyer 87-9. You just don't see those numbers anymore.

    The four most recent votes: Roberts 78-22 (Obama voted no). Alito 58-42 (Obama voted no). Sotomayor 68-31. Kagan 63-37.

    My take on the whole thing is that the President is supposed to nominate justices, so Obama should do that. But it's also the Senate's job to confirm or reject nominees. Obama voted to reject the two times he had the opportunity in the Senate. The Republicans should simply return him the favor.
    This is a bi-product of Bork. No one disputes Bork was highly qualified, he was blocked simply on ideological grounds.
    Advertisement

  2. #212
    Randy Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 08
    Location
    In the snow, laying there like a slug
    Posts
    68,909

    Quote Originally Posted by All Tell View Post
    This is a bi-product of Bork. No one disputes Bork was highly qualified, he was blocked simply on ideological grounds.
    I'm not sure. Kennedy (97-0), Souter (90-9), Ginsburg (96-3), & Breyer (89-7) all came after Bork.

  3. #213
    Getslow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 01
    Location
    In Lothlorien, where the trees bore flowers of gold and no evil thing ever dared come.
    Posts
    23,116

    Quote Originally Posted by Twotoplace View Post
    Stephen Breyer certainly. Check out the Breyer-Scalia constitutional debates on youtube.

    I noticed that in recent years ... when Scalia was peddling one of his books on TV squawk shows ... he never appeared solo. Always had a "co-author" with him to tackle questions he didn't care to respond to. Scalia was an odd duck in many ways. For starters, he was born in the wrong century.
    Breyer is a big proponent of a school of legal interpretation with a name that is near impossible for me to say aloud: purposivism. I really hate the way that word looks. The debates between he and the originalist/textualist justices are fascinating.

  4. #214

    Join Date
    May 01
    Location
    City of Beautiful Homes
    Posts
    25,561

    Quote Originally Posted by Twotoplace View Post
    Stephen Breyer certainly. Check out the Breyer-Scalia constitutional debates on youtube.

    I noticed that in recent years ... when Scalia was peddling one of his books on TV squawk shows ... he never appeared solo. Always had a "co-author" with him to tackle questions he didn't care to respond to. Scalia was an odd duck in many ways. For starters, he was born in the wrong century.
    Don't see Breyer as persuasive, always seemed like quite the milquetoast.

  5. #215

    Join Date
    Apr 13
    Location
    Hunkered Down in the Arena Awaiting Corbin-Knox Central: WWIII
    Posts
    8,978

    Quote Originally Posted by Getslow View Post
    Thank you. Eisenhower was the one that put Buger on the federal bench, but it was Nixon that put him on the Supreme Court.
    I think all Presidents should avoid putting a buger on the bench.

  6. #216
    MayfieldFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 14
    Posts
    1,105

    Quote Originally Posted by All Tell View Post
    This is a bi-product of Bork. No one disputes Bork was highly qualified, he was blocked simply on ideological grounds.
    Some people dispute it. I do. I have posted previously about Bork, will stand by those posts.

  7. #217
    Getslow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 01
    Location
    In Lothlorien, where the trees bore flowers of gold and no evil thing ever dared come.
    Posts
    23,116

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    I think all Presidents should avoid putting a buger on the bench.
    Just don't put your hand on the underside of it and you'll be fine.

  8. #218
    Jim Schue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 03
    Location
    Let me tell you something, brother!!!!
    Posts
    54,173

    Rand Paul has been on a tour of the state the past few days, and stopped in Bardstown yesterday. As you can imagine, the topic of SC appointments came up.

    Paul unlikely to support Obama?s choice for justice | KYStandard.com

  9. #219
    mcpapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 05
    Location
    Home of a proud papa
    Posts
    61,574

    ^ There's a shocker.

  10. #220
    True blue (and gold)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Location
    “The world’s problems begin with the belief that some human lives are more important than others.”
    Posts
    29,440

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Parker View Post
    Looking at past nominations is interesting to me. Scalia was approved by a 98-0 vote. Anthony Kennedy 97-0. Ginsburg 96-3. Breyer 87-9. You just don't see those numbers anymore.

    The four most recent votes: Roberts 78-22 (Obama voted no). Alito 58-42 (Obama voted no). Sotomayor 68-31. Kagan 63-37.

    My take on the whole thing is that the President is supposed to nominate justices, so Obama should do that. But it's also the Senate's job to confirm or reject nominees. Obama voted to reject the two times he had the opportunity in the Senate. The Republicans should simply return him the favor.
    I'm surprised that you feel that way.

    I believe each candidate should be be judged on their own merits and not used as retribution toward a president. But, then again, I am also against the philosophy of creating stalemate so that nothing can be done.

  11. #221

    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    10,692

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpapa View Post
    Another serious question.

    If SCOTUS judges are supposed to be Constitutional scholars, why are there so many 5-4 (soon to be 4-4) decisions?
    I believe part of the answer is that they are dealing with much more complex laws. The most recent ACA ruling shows the reluctance of the court to address complex, large-scale implementations that would create chaos due to the far reaching effect.

    To get to the ruling the court had to:

    a) ignore the clear of the wording of the law (the direction that States, not the Federal government, establish exchanges.)
    b) ignore the clear reason and intent of the key part the law (politically incent states to create State level exchanges).
    c) ignore that the law contained a tax that clearly violated the constitution (the law as passed originated in the Senate, not the house, as constitutionally required for any law that creates taxes.)
    d) ignore the fact that the Federal government itself has violated the law (by arbitrarily delaying the individual mandate for a year when there is no legal provision to do so.)

    They had to thread the needle with a concocted ruling since there was not even an eye in the needle. But they would have then been in charge of fixing the 2,000+ page mess and they just did not want that role.

    The recent ruling against the EPA was not close. I believe 7-2 on the merits. It was the action to suspend the actions of the EPA that was close 5-4.

    So with a Federal government that has absorbed powers in ways never imagined by the founders or the amenders the court is left in a very difficult place.

  12. #222

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Oops, crazy Uncle Joe steps in it again!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

  13. #223
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,079

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoozYoDaddy View Post
    Oops, crazy Uncle Joe steps in it again!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo
    Biden in ?92: Wait to Appoint New SCOTUS Justice Until After the Election | Mediaite

    I was just about to post this article.

    It's hysterical how can Obama or Biden attack the GOP now?

  14. #224
    capt278's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 08
    Posts
    4,320

    Quote Originally Posted by LIPTON BASH View Post
    Biden in ?92: Wait to Appoint New SCOTUS Justice Until After the Election | Mediaite

    I was just about to post this article.

    It's hysterical how can Obama or Biden attack the GOP now?
    You forget, it's OK for the Dems to do this stuff. They are as hypocritical as it comes.

  15. #225
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,079

    Quote Originally Posted by capt278 View Post
    You forget, it's OK for the Dems to do this stuff. They are as hypocritical as it comes.
    I'm fair both sides are hypocrites . Just in this specific case when both the VP and President have taken tactics similar to what the GOP is suggesting their attacks come hollow.

Top