2016 Election
Quote: SOOPOOWhat bothers me most about this whole discussion about the Supreme Court is that there are not just jurists who try and interpret the constitution without a bias.
I expect Obama will nominate an African American woman. Apparently there is one who is 'qualified', whatever that means. I can't wait for the hearings where the dozen old white men try and excoriate the poor black nominee. This won't go well for the Republicans on any level.
SCOTUS blog is predicting current attorney general Loretta Lynch will be Obama's choice.
Republicans pointlessly blocking a qualified black woman will fire up the Dem base.
In the written statement, Trump said: "One of the ways I can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against him relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be President. If he doesn’t take down his false ads and retract his lies, I will do so immediately."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/15/donald-trump-jeb-bush-republican-2016/80410376/
Okay...if you don't think Cruz should be allowed to be a candidate and you think you have standing to sue him, just sue him. Why does it matter if he lies or not? If you feel strongly that he is ineligible, file the suit.
He's also fired up the independent thing again. The RNC hasn't treated him "fairly"...of course, he decides what fairly is...
Quote: RonCOkay...if you don't think Cruz should be allowed to be a candidate and you think you have standing to sue him, just sue him. Why does it matter if he lies or not? If you feel strongly that he is ineligible, file the suit.
This is the 2nd time he has made that exact same threat.
I completely agree with you: what does Ted Cruz lying on the campaign trail have to do with Trump's ability to sue him over his citizenship?
Absolutely nothing. Trump is just a big old crybaby.
Quote: ams288SCOTUS blog is predicting current attorney general Loretta Lynch will be Obama's choice.
Republicans pointlessly blocking a qualified black woman will fire up the Dem base.
Here the link to a list of previous Justices who did not serve as judges...
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
It has been 44 years since the last appointment of a non-judge was made. Previous to this long period, it was fairly common to nominate someone who was not a judge--more than one third (44 of 112) who have served were not judges.
Attorney General is prominent on the list of positions that the non-judged served in.
She brings no record with her as far as decisions go...
Should be interesting!
Quote: WizardI thought Al was the manager of the store.
This from the trivia master ? Al was a shoe salesman. Running thread was he made minimum wages, while Al always countered he got 10% commission on sales.
Your membership in NO'MAAM is indefinitely suspended.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Of course, you would come to the erroneous conclusion .
The whole post is a quote, I came to no
conclusions. Try reading it next time
instead of just assuming.
Thanks.. (I have to turn my water heater
down a few degrees to save the planet.
See ya later)
Quote: WizardI thought Al was the manager of the store.
Al was a shoe salesman, and a crappy one too.
Al peaked in high school.
Quote: EvenBob
Thanks.. (I have to turn my water heater
down a few degrees to save the planet.
See ya later)
I'm removed all my LED bulbs and put the incandescent bulbs back into service. And my car is in the driveway, just running for no apparent reason. And I'll set my thermostat at 78 degrees before I go to bed.
This will easily counteract your water heater adjustment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DikpddPf79g
Quote: HowManyI'm removed all my LED bulbs and put the incandescent bulbs back into service.
I cleaned out a closet recently and found
15 incan' bulbs. Yipee! I replaced 5 squiggle
ones right away. I hate the color of light
they put off, it gives me a headache.
Quote: HowManyAl was a shoe salesman, and a crappy one too.
Al peaked in high school.
I love the episode where he says he spends
the first half hour of every day in the bathroom
at work, crying. I never understood till I'd been
married for awhile why he never wanted to have
sex with his wife, she was hot. I learned why
the hard way.
Okay, so we're supposed to believe that you *don't* think that "Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments", even though that's exactly what you posted? If you don't think that, then why did you post those exact words?Quote: EvenBobThe whole post is a quote, I came to no conclusions. Try reading it next time instead of just assuming.
I suppose that;s a pretty good way to get typecast though. Better than always getting cast as a homeless dude living by trashcans in an alley.
"For what it’s worth, the last time a justice was nominated to the Court in a presidential election year and confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party was 1888, when President Grover Cleveland nominated Justice Melville Fuller to be Chief Justice."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/on-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies/
This column goes through many of the election year appointments and also has been updated when errors were made or something was overlooked in the original article.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, so we're supposed to believe that you *don't* think that "Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments", even though that's exactly what you posted? If you don't think that, then why did you post those exact words?
Wait a minute. What?
(I have to check the tire pressure on my
bicycle tires now to try and save the
planet. Be right back.)
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, so we're supposed to believe that you *don't* think that "Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments", even though that's exactly what you posted? If you don't think that, then why did you post those exact words?
Have you heard of a quote (also known as quotation)?
Sure. They're supposed to be enclosed in quotation marks, or otherwise formatted to look like a quote, so the reader has some clue that you're quoting rather than speaking. But EvenBob's failure to identify his quote as such is beside the point. Quote or not, are we supposed to believe that EvenBob *doesn't* think that "Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments", even though that's exactly what he posted?" (Hint: This is a yes/no question.)Quote: RSHave you heard of a quote (also known as quotation)?
I wonder why Elena Kagan isn't on that list. According to her Wikipedia entry she should be.Quote: RonCHere the link to a list of previous Justices who did not serve as judges...
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
It has been 44 years since the last appointment of a non-judge was made. Previous to this long period, it was fairly common to nominate someone who was not a judge--more than one third (44 of 112) who have served were not judges.
Quote: RonC"The last time a justice was both nominated and confirmed in an election year was in 1940."
"For what it’s worth, the last time a justice was nominated to the Court in a presidential election year and confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party was 1888, when President Grover Cleveland nominated Justice Melville Fuller to be Chief Justice."
These are like cherry picked stats. Both sides are doing this right now. The fact is because of the nature of the situation (very long terms), the sample size to look at is very small. When a sitting justice decides to retire, they do so earlier in a presidential term, so as not to create this situation, so the only way the situation can occur is if a justice passes away in the final year of a presidency...very small sample size. So when one side says this or that hasn't happens since 19xx, there are probably only 1 or 2 opportunities for it to have happened.
Kennedy was appointed in late 1987, and confirmed in 1988 (an election year). Since we are only in February that is close to the same situation.
If you want to cherry pick facts, the last time the senate waited a full year to fill a vacancy on the supreme court was during the civil war and that was a situation where the southern states just weren't participating in government, so it couldn't get done.
Even though, I am aligning with the republicans this cycle, I don't like this obstructionist thing the republican senate is doing at all. The constitution say the president picks the nominee and the senate is supposed to schedule 'timely' hearings and approve or disapprove based on merit. The presidents term is 4 year not 3. Nowhere does it says things cease to operate in the 4th year of the term.
So whether you like Barack Obama or not, or agree or disagree with his politics or think he has done a bad job (as I do), he is President another 11 months and he has not only the right, but the responsibility to nominate a new justice and the senate has a responsibility to have hearing and vote one way or the other. He has EARNED that right by winning re-election in 2012 to a second term which runs until January 2017, not February 2016! If republicans wanted to pick a justice vacancy in 2016, they should have won the 2012 presidential election. :/
I think this is a losing battle for Repubs. Their base will applaud this obstructionist tactic for obvious reasons, but real independents voters will be strongly turned off. I believe it will not only be a losing play in the presidential election next fall, but a very difficult position for 5 or 6 key republican senators to defend in blue leaning states, like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin, and swing states, like Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada, to name a few.
As I stated earlier, this "gamble" could cost the repubs the senate and if a dem wins the presidency, which is probably more likely than not right now, could create a far worse situation for conservatives. What they should do in my opinion is do there job and go through the process as they swore to do, but use the leverage they now have to force as moderate a pick as possible.
Quote: kewlj
As I stated earlier, this "gamble" could cost the repubs the senate and if a dem wins the presidency, which is probably more likely than not right now, could create a far worse situation for conservatives. What they should do in my opinion is do there job and go through the process as they swore to do, but use the leverage they now have to force as moderate a pick as possible.
Basically echoing kewlj's sentiments.... What the repubs should have done is ask Obama not to nominate someone, but not out of hand state they will reject anyone he does nominate. Then they could have gone through the hearings, made up some phony reason for rejecting the candidate, and essentially gotten what they want. Now they just look like the partisans which we of course know they are.....
Quote: JoemanI wonder why Elena Kagan isn't on that list. According to her Wikipedia entry she should be.
No idea...they missed that one....
Quote: kewljThese are like cherry picked stats...
Like that never happens around here....
Actually, I didn't link some partisan article from a conservative publication...I specifically picked a Washington Post article that seemed balanced on the issue.
I've also stated much that is in agreement with what you are saying.
Oh well....
Quote: SOOPOOWhat the repubs should have done is ask Obama not to nominate someone
That is not even a possibility that he would have considered and they would have got blasted for telling the President what to do, so I understand why they did not do that. It would have been pointless...
Quote: SOOPOObut not out of hand state they will reject anyone he does nominate. Then they could have gone through the hearings, made up some phony reason for rejecting the candidate, and essentially gotten what they want.
They severely overplayed their hand to this point. They should have examined the candidates as he nominated them, knowing that he will likely try to get a committed liberal/progressive, and rejected the nomination. Two or three times--but they should also have held open the possibility of confirming someone. It could be to their advantage to confirm a more moderate nominee if the election is going badly...
They put themselves in a corner...
Quote: SOOPOONow they just look like the partisans which we of course know they are.....
Yes, that is such a different look than the norm!
Neither party has that market cornered!
He did Obama a huge favor. It doesn't matter who Obama nominates if the Republicans are automatically dead set against anyone. So Obama is free to pick the most politically advantageous candidate for the Dems.
Loretta Lynch seems to fit that bill: she was vetted very recently by the Obama administration and the Senate did confirm her for the attorney general position (after a long pointless delay, of course).
Seeing a bunch of old white senators obstruct her nomination for purely political reasons would surely fire up the Dem base.... And put a bunch of swing state Republican senators who are up for reelection at risk of losing their seats.
No matter what happens over the next few months, it's sure to be interesting...
I miss that kind of reasoned discourse. Where has that measure of sanity gone from the Republican party? When I grew up it seemed like the right disagreed with the left, but didn't act like they were from another planet. (e.g., Obama is a secret muslim, build a wall across the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, worst president ever, a properly-elected president doesn't have the right to make Supreme Court appointments, etc.) Today's GOP group makes Reagan look like Gandhi.Quote: kewljSo whether you like Barack Obama or not, or agree or disagree with his politics or think he has done a bad job (as I do), he is President another 11 months and he has not only the right, but the responsibility to nominate a new justice and the senate has a responsibility to have hearing and vote one way or the other. He has EARNED that right by winning re-election in 2012 to a second term which runs until January 2017, not February 2016! If republicans wanted to pick a justice vacancy in 2016, they should have won the 2012 presidential election.
Quote: MichaelBluejayToday's GOP group makes Reagan look like Gandhi.
LOLOL
Quote: MichaelBluejay Today's GOP group makes Reagan look like Gandhi.[/qThe Reagan who used to go back and forth with Tip O'Neill. The Clinton who did the same with New Gingrich. Leadership comes from the top.
Quote: kewljThese are like cherry picked stats. Both sides are doing this right now. The fact is because of the nature of the situation (very long terms), the sample size to look at is very small. When a sitting justice decides to retire, they do so earlier in a presidential term, so as not to create this situation, so the only way the situation can occur is if a justice passes away in the final year of a presidency...very small sample size. So when one side says this or that hasn't happens since 19xx, there are probably only 1 or 2 opportunities for it to have happened.
Yes. This is the sort of thing you'd expect people to get right away on a gambling forum.
Also agree with the other poster that Obama's smartest move is to nominate his ideal choice (though, that won't nec. be someone far left. Obama is pro-TPP, for example).
I think Republicans are being vocal and adversarial now because they know that they will eventually capitulate. But, they want their base to be fired up about the "crisis" in the court, or however they sell it.
Worst thing Obama could do, from his POV, is to hand the Republicans a "compromise" appointment, AND let them have the Supreme Court rallying cry.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/16/hookers-for-hillary-in-clintons-corner-ahead-nevada-caucuses.html
Quote: nodummy57I am undecided, but will make up my mind after reviewing the issue completely. And when Russ Limbaugh tells me the proper talking points.
Rush never supports a candidate in the
primaries, but he praises Ted Cruz every
day.
Quote: ams288The only bright side I can see to the Scalia stuff is the fact that he is old and fat, so he likely won't be around much longer to stink up the Supreme Court with his casual racism.
Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal.
(^^^^If someone were to describe this post as liberal fan fiction, I would not be offended.)
Eek. I posted this on Dec. 9th.
I promise I won't make any disparaging remarks about Clarence Thomas's age and/or weight! My conscience couldn't take it!
"Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal." ---- this may become a way more accurate a prediction than I ever could have imagined.
I noted you didn't say you regretted your earlier statement. You did bring it up though, good for you.Quote: ams288Eek. I posted this on Dec. 9th.
I promise I won't make any disparaging remarks about Clarence Thomas's age and/or weight! My conscience couldn't take it!
"Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal." ---- this may become a way more accurate a prediction than I ever could have imagined.
Why would she? She's as moderate as they come.Quote: ams288Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal.
Quote: EvenBobRush never supports a candidate in the
primaries, but he praises Ted Cruz every
day.
Just a coincidence , I am sure.
Quote: ams288Quote: ams288The only bright side I can see to the Scalia stuff is the fact that he is old and fat, so he likely won't be around much longer to stink up the Supreme Court with his casual racism.
Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal.
(^^^^If someone were to describe this post as liberal fan fiction, I would not be offended.)Quote: ams288Eek. I posted this on Dec. 9th.
I promise I won't make any disparaging remarks about Clarence Thomas's age and/or weight! My conscience couldn't take it!
"Hopefully Hillary can replace him with a good liberal." ---- this may become a way more accurate a prediction than I ever could have imagined.
You made a reasonable prediction about an aged man. That's why all those "dead pools" are so popular. That is also why so many people are wrong in them--no one really knows. There were four justices over 77; it is not absurd to think that all of them could pass within a two or three year period. I'm kind of surprised Ginsburg did not quit to allow Obama to replace her before the election year (not many would think any nomination in the election year would be easy to get confirmed). If the Supreme Court were more political, Breyer and Ginsburg would have left to lower the average age of Democrat appointees (Liberals) and solidify the four liberal justices as far as future service goes.
The issue for Democrats/Liberals now is that two of the three older justices now are Liberals--and their replacements could well be picked by a Republican/Conservative (or even by Donald Trump!). The Scalia seat may or may not be filled. It could be a huge issue in the election but sometimes things that seem like potential huge issues just don't end up being that on Election Day. There are many months before the election and too many other things could come up to make it a lesser issue in the minds of many voters.
Of course, since no one knows what day or time the grim reaper will come, one of the younger justices could go sooner than the older ones...
Quote: mcallister3200Is bush going to sneak through the back door and take the nomination?
Cruz and Rubio look like they may take each other out like gandalf and that monster thingy, and perhaps bush has a better chance in a general than a candidate who is either racist and sexist or just happens to make an inordinate amount of brutally racist and sexist comments.
That would be a Balrog.
Quote: ParadigmI wish a Presidential Candidate from either party would run on this platform.
The comparison doesn't make sense. The Balrog, servant of Melkor, is not a good comparison to either Bush or Rubio. I think for the most part it is hard, prolly inappropriate, to couch the current debate about the next great election in Tolkien terms. He was a genius, his works pitted good against evil, but he really just wanted a place to discuss the elvish language he had created as an experiment in language evolution. I miss him. His works are second only to the bible, just ahead of Heinlein's.Quote: AcesAndEightsQuote: mcallister3200Is bush going to sneak through the back door and take the nomination?
Cruz and Rubio look like they may take each other out like gandalf and that monster thingy, and perhaps bush has a better chance in a general than a candidate who is either racist and sexist or just happens to make an inordinate amount of brutally racist and sexist comments.
That would be a Balrog.
<edit> of course that's just my opinion, you are free to have your own....
debate. Trump is soaring in them. I have to
admit, I thought he blew it when he trashed
Bush about the Iraq war and WMD's. He
would pay for that for sure. But no, repub's
seem to agree with him, who knew.
Q poll: ‘Freight train’ Trump Has 2-1 Lead
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Q-poll-Freight-train-Trump-had-2-1-lead-6835989.php
Cruz 28 Trump 26 Rubio 17 Kasich 11 Carson 10 Bush 4
NBC/WSJ poll. all post-debate. Trump down significantly overall, especially with evangelicals and ultra-conservatives, according to the pollsters who conducted it.
Also sub-poll within this shows Rubio beating Trump head-to-head, as well as Cruz beating Trump.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's another nat'l poll w/ Cruz leading Trump out today. I'll watch to see whose; just caught the blurb.
NBC/WSJ
Could just be an outlier, according to Nate Silver.
We shall see.
Quote: ams288NBC/WSJ
Could just be an outlier, according to Nate Silver.
We shall see.
I think it's real. Trump had to be hurt by
what he said, it makes no sense he's
surging in the Q poll and others that
were done after the debate. His internal
polls are telling him he's in big trouble
in SC with Cruz, that's why he trashes him
every day. I'm with Rush, Cruz is da man.
Quote: EvenBobI think it's real. Trump had to be hurt by
what he said, it makes no sense he's
surging in the Q poll and others that
were done after the debate. His internal
polls are telling him he's in big trouble
in SC with Cruz, that's why he trashes him
every day. I'm with Rush, Cruz is da man.
Trump is totally off his rocker
I saw the attack ad that has Trump fuming
In this instance, Cruz is right. Its a great ad.
I cant believe Trump is threatening to sue over an attack ad
Amazing. Its national politics. Its Brutal. Flip flop attack ads are standard operating procedure.
Attack ads are part of the political landscape.
What a crybaby.
Quote: terapinedTrump is totally off his rocker
.
Quote: terapinedI cant believe Trump is threatening to sue over an attack ad.
You can't?
I can't believe it's taking this long for him to threaten one!
That's Trump's M.O.: threaten lawsuits and then never follow through with them...
Quote: EvenBobI think it's real. Trump had to be hurt by
what he said, it makes no sense he's
surging in the Q poll and others that
were done after the debate.
Uh oh. I just remembered the NBC/WSJ poll
in Oct had Carson beating Trump 29-23
even though every other poll had Trump
way ahead. Remember how the press went
nuts over this one poll and said it was
over for Trump?
