+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 81
Latest: usa3000#2018
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112473
Total Topics: 4369
Most Online Today: 10
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 1
Total: 2

Poll

Who is your favorite SCOTUS Justice?

John Roberts
1 (100%)
Anthony Kennedy
0 (0%)
Clarence Thomas
0 (0%)
Ruth Baden Ginsburg
0 (0%)
Stephen Breyer
0 (0%)
Samuel Alito
0 (0%)
Sonia Sotomayor
0 (0%)
Elena Kagan
0 (0%)
Neil Gorsuch
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Author Topic: The US Supreme Court Thread  (Read 328 times)

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7476
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2018, 11:18:29 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4659
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2018, 11:49:30 pm »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.
Nah, it's a pretty damn strong example of false equivalency. I'll list off the differences and tell me if you can really claim these are the same:

In 1992, there is no Supreme Cout seat open. Biden said that, should one happen to open up, that Bush should consider delaying his nominee until after the November election to avoid further politicization of the process. Remember, this speech is given on June 25th, just over four months from the election. Here's the piece of Biden's speech I alluded to, "it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not ó and not ó name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Now, in February 2016 (I remembered it being in June, that's my bad on the year-long comment before), Justice Scalia dies. About a month later, Obama nominates Garland and McConnell flatly refuses to even discuss the nominee, invoking what he calls "The Biden Rule". However, this ignores a few key points of context: 1. When Biden made that speech in late June, there was no open seat, so he was speaking hypothetically. In 2016, there had already been an open seat on the court for a month, plus McConnell's speech occurred in March. 2. Biden recommends that Bush not name a nominee until after the election to avoid further politicization of the Court. This is extremely different from the 2016 Senate Republicans refusing to give Garland a hearing. 3. Garland was a moderate. This is a crucial point when considering the original purpose of Biden's speech was to avoid politicizing the Court. In fact, the (deeply conservative) Republican senator Orrin Hatch said at the time that, ďThe president told me several times heís going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I donít believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably wonít do that because this appointment is about the election. So Iím pretty sure heíll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.Ē This quote admits that Hatch wants Obama to nominate a moderate justice, and yet when Obama actually did so, Hatch and his party refused to consider that nominee.

These situations were blatantly not the same and the idea that they were is a ridiculous view espoused by McConnell and other senate Republicans to avoid admitting that they had blatantly and willfully misinterpreted Biden's comments in an effort to sell their ridiculous nominee blocking strategy to the American people.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7476
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2018, 08:52:16 am »
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.
Nah, it's a pretty damn strong example of false equivalency. I'll list off the differences and tell me if you can really claim these are the same:

In 1992, there is no Supreme Cout seat open. Biden said that, should one happen to open up, that Bush should consider delaying his nominee until after the November election to avoid further politicization of the process. Remember, this speech is given on June 25th, just over four months from the election. Here's the piece of Biden's speech I alluded to, "it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not ó and not ó name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Now, in February 2016 (I remembered it being in June, that's my bad on the year-long comment before), Justice Scalia dies. About a month later, Obama nominates Garland and McConnell flatly refuses to even discuss the nominee, invoking what he calls "The Biden Rule". However, this ignores a few key points of context: 1. When Biden made that speech in late June, there was no open seat, so he was speaking hypothetically. In 2016, there had already been an open seat on the court for a month, plus McConnell's speech occurred in March. 2. Biden recommends that Bush not name a nominee until after the election to avoid further politicization of the Court. This is extremely different from the 2016 Senate Republicans refusing to give Garland a hearing. 3. Garland was a moderate. This is a crucial point when considering the original purpose of Biden's speech was to avoid politicizing the Court. In fact, the (deeply conservative) Republican senator Orrin Hatch said at the time that, ďThe president told me several times heís going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I donít believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably wonít do that because this appointment is about the election. So Iím pretty sure heíll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.Ē This quote admits that Hatch wants Obama to nominate a moderate justice, and yet when Obama actually did so, Hatch and his party refused to consider that nominee.

These situations were blatantly not the same and the idea that they were is a ridiculous view espoused by McConnell and other senate Republicans to avoid admitting that they had blatantly and willfully misinterpreted Biden's comments in an effort to sell their ridiculous nominee blocking strategy to the American people.

No, it's not at all false equivalency.

1 - So what?  The thought process is EXACTLY the same.  It is complete partisan hypocrisy at the highest level.  1992-Can't do it, 2010-Can do it, 2015-Must do it, 2018-Can't do it. 

2 - 2016.  An election year.  The exact thing he said we SHOULDN'T do.  But now it's okay to do it?  Hmmmmmm - wonder why?  It's not that it's a matter of a few months, it's that the roles were reversed.  You can't possibly be arguing that, because it's February instead of June of an election year that changes WHAT HE SAID.  He made no such qualifiers during that speech.  It's hypocrisy plain and simple.  Furthermore, Obama nominated Kagan in MAY of 2010 and she was confirmed in AUGUST of 2010 - and Biden didn't speak out against it then.  So the February to June comparison is moot anyway.

3 - Yes they are the same.  Again, Biden said NOT IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  These are HIS WORDS: 

"It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

I did NOT make up these words.  These are straight from Biden's mouth.  So this notion that McConnell came up with this idea out of nowhere is an erroneous talking point of the far-left who have their panties in a wad because the shoe is on the other foot.  If he had continued with this thought process with regard to Garland, then I wouldn't have a problem with Biden's statements.  But, predictably, he didn't.  Because he's a partisan sheep.  Like ALL of these guys are.


And, again, I think ALL of these guys are equally two-faced.  And, again, I think there should be a RULE that establishes when you can and cannot nominate SC judges in an election year - I floated 6 months, but it could be 3 months or 9 months or whatever.  Just something that is a rule that we all know.  That would stop all this bullshit, and everyone would know the rules and we could stop the hypocrisy on this political point.  But to hang your argument on "well it was a couple of months different", is insanely stupid and extremely partisan as I can guarantee you wouldn't be making this argument if the roles were reversed, especially seeing that May of 2010 (election year) Obama nominated Kagan who was confirmed in August of 2010.

Frankie

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6692
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2018, 09:59:05 am »
These elections are always going to be politicized whether we like it or not. Thatís the way the process works and always worked. Every time that a President in question thatís made an appellate nomination during their last year of their Presidency they did, itís an extremely rare occurance but it happens from time to time and every time it has theyíve done it. I donít expect it to change. The same goes for the re-election process.

cupcake

  • Alfred Hitchcock
  • **********
  • Posts: 9416
  • Hello
  • Location: Bryan Singer's lap
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2018, 12:45:59 pm »
Reading Dylan's mental gymnastics is really entertaining.
goodbye!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6620
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2018, 01:28:14 pm »
Reading Dylan's mental gymnastics is really entertaining.

It takes some serious dementia to think that what Biden said and what McConnell did are in any way equivalent.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7089
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2018, 12:40:52 pm »
Anyone up for predicting who Trumpís SCOTUS pick is? Iím leaning towards Kethledge at the present.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7089
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2018, 09:26:07 pm »
Anyone up for predicting who Trumpís SCOTUS pick is? Iím leaning towards Kethledge at the present.
Whoops. Instead weíre getting Tucker Carlson as our potential next SCOTUS Justice.

I canít be the only one who sees this vague resemblance...




 

+- Hot Threads

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Tut
Today at 01:40:07 am

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jed by Tut
Today at 01:35:42 am

Best and Worst Performances of 2018 by Charles Longboat Jr.
Today at 12:24:08 am

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by ChillinDylan Godsend
July 18, 2018, 10:51:48 am

The Trump Presidency Thread by Kale Pasta
July 17, 2018, 06:15:13 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 17, 2018, 03:50:49 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 16, 2018, 05:07:06 pm

2018 Standings by ChillinDylan Godsend
July 16, 2018, 11:21:47 am

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
July 16, 2018, 01:49:37 am

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by Crohn's Boy
July 12, 2018, 04:11:39 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 09, 2018, 09:26:07 pm

2018 Russia World Cup thread by Kale Pasta
July 09, 2018, 05:55:49 pm

How are my fellow traitors to The Crown celebrating the Fourth? by Rupert Pupkin
July 06, 2018, 10:55:50 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 05, 2018, 03:23:36 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 05, 2018, 12:12:29 am