• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

You did what we all do -- you defended a statement merely because it was stated by someone of your political persuasion. I do it too, but don't pretend like you don't.

I didn't defend it. I said it was a dumb thing to say. I also don't agree with it.

My point was that it was not as dumb as what Republicans are saying now
 
I think it would. The court has had a 5-4 (quasi-)conservative/liberal breakdown since at least early 1990s A lot of the seminal decisions over that time period -- cases involving the commerce clause, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, fourth amendment cases, federalism, partial birth abortion, section 5 of the 14th amendment -- were 5-4 decisions involving interpretations of the constitution. It is generally thought that starie decisis is at its weakest in cases involving constitutional (as opposed to statutory) interpretation, so a 4-5 realignment could drastically alter decades-long expectations in many different areas of the law. Constitutional law, in particular, gains part of its legitimacy through permancy, and people order their lives, affairs, and businesses according to the laws in place at the time. I have no doubt that a 4-5 court would attempt to systematically dismantle all of the 5-4 holdings issued over the past 25 years. That kind of a sea change in the SCOUTUS could be monumental.

I mean yeah, but its the same type of shift that happened when conservatives took control of the court post-Warren...Citizens United and its ilk would never have come out the way they did back then. But I doubt you think the shift away from Warren destabilized our legal system. Maybe I'm wrong
 
The thing that drives me nuts about the political debate on this board is that you can't have logically honest conversations with Junebug and the other conservatives. They want to dodge, dodge, dodge, and then jump in to try to score a political point on something not on topic and then just keep dodging.

this has a lot of truth to it
 
MM, didn't you used to be a conservative on the old boards? Did you do like numbers and go to law school and become a liberal?
 
MM, didn't you used to be a conservative on the old boards? Did you do like numbers and go to law school and become a liberal?

Big, if true.

MM used to think for himself, but he went off to school and now lets liberal academic elites think for him. Sad! Make MM great again!
 
If there were any doubt that McConnell wouldn't let a vote come to the floor, there isn't any longer. Orrin Hatch, who is on the judiciary committee, was interviewed on NPR this a.m. and agreed completely with not allowing an up or down vote.
 
If there were any doubt that McConnell wouldn't let a vote come to the floor, there isn't any longer. Orrin Hatch, who is on the judiciary committee, was interviewed on NPR this a.m. and agreed completely with not allowing an up or down vote.

I can't believe Obama can't be a better leader and unite a Congress that has always been thirsting for cooperation.
 
MM, didn't you used to be a conservative on the old boards? Did you do like numbers and go to law school and become a liberal?

I was not conservative. I was perhaps a bit more independent, especially on non-social issues, but I've never voted for a republican in any election (other than McCrory, which was a big mistake).

I still don't consider myself super liberal. I define my political views as being generally opposed to anti-logic in politics, which sadly these days seems to be flourishing in the Republican Party. But I'm definitely open to views from the right that make sense logically and aren't just appeals to raw emotion
 
Antonin Scalia Reportedly Dead at 79

I would think this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate to the court and work with republicans on the choice. Both sides should be grown ups. If Obama nominates without input then I have no doubt the senate will block it.

Obama has made it a point to lament the angst of our political system. He know has an opportunity to make a major play in that direction.
 
Are the 'pubs that afraid of actually doing their jobs that they won't even entertain the idea that the President might appoint a well-qualified candidate?

I agree with the idea that they are not violating the constitution by refusing to confirm (at least not at this point), but the idea of not having a straight up or down vote when you hold the majority makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you want revenge for Bork, then get your revenge by doing exactly what the Democrats did.
 
I would think this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate to the court and work with republicans on the choice. Both sides should be grown ups. If Obama nominates without input then I have no doubt the senate will block it.

Obama has made it a point to lament the angst of our political system. He know has an opportunity to make a major play in that direction.

Yeah, that bullshit won't work this time. The Senate has already said they won't hold hearings on ANY nominee.
 
I'd be all for the liberal version of the moderate Samuel Alito.

I love the idea that we have to respect the status quo of the previous Supreme Court makeup.
 
Are the 'pubs that afraid of actually doing their jobs that they won't even entertain the idea that the President might appoint a well-qualified candidate?

I agree with the idea that they are not violating the constitution by refusing to confirm (at least not at this point), but the idea of not having a straight up or down vote when you hold the majority makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you want revenge for Bork, then get your revenge by doing exactly what the Democrats did.

I think they are looking at the evidence. Obama talks a good game about cooperation and then does whatever he wants.

I am not going to defend the republicans actions. They have been terrible on cooperation as well, but Obamas first action was to cram ACA down the gullet. At no point has their been honest effort for cooperation from either side. Obama even uses SOTU addresses to take serious pot shots at the other side.

There is no evidence that either side will cooperate. So both sides instead uses the tools they have to attempt to neutralize the other. There is no reason to get indignant when both sides are doing the same thing.

I would hope that Obama would nominate a moderate, smart justice, and I would hope that the senate would confirm him/her. I doubt that happens on either side. Sometimes the coin flips in the opponents favor and that is what happened for republicans.
 
I'd be all for the liberal version of the moderate Samuel Alito.

I love the idea that we have to respect the status quo of the previous Supreme Court makeup.

I don't think you do, but if that is the route Obama goes that nominee will never be confirmed. Might not even be voted on.
 
How is the President supposed to "work with Republicans" when they have said they won't vote on any person he chooses?
 
And why is the nominee all of a sudden supposed to be a compromise? Was that the requirement for the last 250 years?
 
I think they are looking at the evidence. Obama talks a good game about cooperation and then does whatever he wants.

I am not going to defend the republicans actions. They have been terrible on cooperation as well, but Obamas first action was to cram ACA down the gullet. At no point has their been honest effort for cooperation from either side. Obama even uses SOTU addresses to take serious pot shots at the other side.

There is no evidence that either side will cooperate. So both sides instead uses the tools they have to attempt to neutralize the other. There is no reason to get indignant when both sides are doing the same thing.

I would hope that Obama would nominate a moderate, smart justice, and I would hope that the senate would confirm him/her. I doubt that happens on either side. Sometimes the coin flips in the opponents favor and that is what happened for republicans.

There were plenty of attempts to do a bipartisan ACA and they were rebuffed.
 
There's no reason for the nominee to be any sort of compromise. Obama can nominate whoever the fuck he wants. That's the way it works. When Thurgood Marshall stepped down, the left whined that his nominee should be black and liberal and Bush "compromised" by giving them Clarence Thomas. It is the way the cookie crumbles. Let him nominate whoever he wants and vote it up or down. Maybe have a nice drawn out confirmation hearing.
 
Back
Top