SCOTUS Nomination Battle

Page 9 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. #121

    Join Date
    Nov 10
    Posts
    1,192

    Chuck Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush SCOTUS Noms | The Daily Caller

    Yeah, those big bad republicans...damn them for being obstructionists...
    Advertisement

  2. #122
    BlueTip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 11
    Posts
    1,182

    The obvious compromise choice for Supreme Court...

    Name:  unfrozen.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  20.2 KB

  3. #123

    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,218

    Quote Originally Posted by cammando View Post
    The Kennedy appointment followed a unique sequence.. The Dems had already delayed, and no voted on two nominees.. Kennedy was actually nominated in late 87.. Appointed in 88.. And Reagen had to strong arm the Dems to get the vote then..
    I get that but the argument put forth is to let the new President nominate and get his guy/gal in. The Kennedy appointment would seem to fall into that same situation. Why didn't the Senate wait until the election ?

    That's where I see the inconsistency (and , yes, politics is full of inconsistencies).

  4. #124
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    32,984

    I think the Republicans are looking at this wrong. They are pinning their hopes on this on this fall and that is iffy. They control Congress and have a lame duck president. I think there is a good chance they can get a more favorable nominee now then they can next year at this time. A bird in the hand ...

  5. #125
    B-Ball-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 02
    Posts
    13,792

    I know that it's trendy to use the acronyms POTUS and SCOTUS, but disturbingly every time I see SCOTUS my brain keeps reading it as SCROTUM, making this thread title read "SCROTUM Nomination Battle". It's driving me nuts.

  6. #126
    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 Voice of Reason View Post
    I think the Republicans are looking at this wrong. They are pinning their hopes on this on this fall and that is iffy. They control Congress and have a lame duck president. I think there is a good chance they can get a more favorable nominee now then they can next year at this time. A bird in the hand ...
    I'm with you. The fear that should lie at the back of the mind of every Republican ought to be that Hillary wins the presidency AND the republican nominee is not charismatic enough to voters around the country that the Democrats actually take back the senate. Would make the delay not only all for naught, but could conceivably end up forcing them to take a really undesirable nomination.

  7. #127
    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

    Last time the Court had a majority of justices appointed by Democratic presidents: 1972, just before William Rhenquist was appointed.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Jan 11
    Posts
    8,910

    Quote Originally Posted by B-Ball-fan View Post
    I know that it's trendy to use the acronyms POTUS and SCOTUS, but disturbingly every time I see SCOTUS my brain keeps reading it as SCROTUM, making this thread title read "SCROTUM Nomination Battle". It's driving me nuts.

    I see what you did here

  9. #129
    B-Ball-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 02
    Posts
    13,792

    Quote Originally Posted by rjs4470 View Post
    I see what you did here

  10. #130
    B-Ball-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 02
    Posts
    13,792

    Quote Originally Posted by rjs4470 View Post
    I see what you did here
    I think that they should bag this whole of idea of stalling the SCROTUM nomination process. This whole thing has just been a sack of lies.

  11. #131

    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    14,545

    Quote Originally Posted by B-Ball-fan View Post
    I know that it's trendy to use the acronyms POTUS and SCOTUS, but disturbingly every time I see SCOTUS my brain keeps reading it as SCROTUM, making this thread title read "SCROTUM Nomination Battle". It's driving me nuts.
    Pun intended????

  12. #132
    B-Ball-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 02
    Posts
    13,792

    Can we all agree that stalling the SCROTUM nomination process is just going to make things hang in the air. I mean how long do they intend to keep us dangling before making a decision?

  13. #133
    B-Ball-fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 02
    Posts
    13,792


  14. #134
    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 Getslow View Post
    Last time the Court had a majority of justices appointed by Democratic presidents: 1972, just before William Rhenquist was appointed.
    I mention this to say that, despite the way a lot of folks view the court, it's turned pretty sharply away from the progressivism it was famous for during the Warren and Burger court eras.

    A lot of it hinges on one guy: David Souter. Assured as a home run for conservatism when recommended to George H.W. Bush, by the time he was four or five years on the bench, he was regularly voting with the liberals.

    Had Souter's conservative credentials held true, the Rhenquist court would almost certainly overturned Roe v. Wade in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992 and who know what other cases could have gone the other way. The story goes that Souter was preparing to go with Scalia and Rhenquist and overturn the previous decision and that a long conversation with Sandra Day O'Connor persuaded him to go the other way.

  15. #135

    Join Date
    Dec 01
    Location
    Freedom is NORML!
    Posts
    27,399

    Quote Originally Posted by Getslow View Post
    I mention this to say that, despite the way a lot of folks view the court, it's turned pretty sharply away from the progressivism it was famous for during the Warren and Burger court eras.

    A lot of it hinges on one guy: David Souter. Assured as a home run for conservatism when recommended to George H.W. Bush, by the time he was four or five years on the bench, he was regularly voting with the liberals.

    Had Souter's conservative credentials held true, the Rhenquist court would almost certainly overturned Roe v. Wade in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992 and who know what other cases could have gone the other way. The story goes that Souter was preparing to go with Scalia and Rhenquist and overturn the previous decision and that a long conversation with Sandra Day O'Connor persuaded him to go the other way.
    "Getslow's insiders look at the Supreme Court" is quickly overtaking "Getslow hates the people who run pro sports in the U.S."...

Top