• 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!

CROOKED Hilary

Deacon923 said:
4. I think campaign finance reform is a huge crying need in this country and I don't think Clinton will address it directly because her ties to Wall Street are too tight. Trump is not going to address it either. At least Clinton gives the issue some lip service, whereas Trump has never said anything about campaign finance reform. Further, Clinton will appoint SCOTUS judges who are more likely to uphold any future campaign finance reform efforts, while Trump will put up more Alito types who have no problem with gazillionaires stuffing the political system with as much Super PAC cash as possible. Clinton clearly wins on this point.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much a single issue voter this election, and for me it's that the next president will appoint at least one and more likely 2 or 3 USSC justices. I want a democrat, any democrat, doing that to drive a final nail into the conservative social platform.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I'm pretty much a single issue voter this election, and for me it's that the next president will appoint at least one and more likely 2 or 3 USSC justices. I want a democrat, any democrat, doing that to drive a final nail into the conservative social platform.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I think 3 is a lock (assuming Garland isn't confirmed). That would be for Scalia, Ginsburg and Kennedy. If Thomas retires, it's even more of a sea change. During her second term, Breyer could be gone. He's 77 now. She could put 4-5 people on the USSC.
 
RJKarl said:
I think 3 is a lock (assuming Garland isn't confirmed). That would be for Scalia, Ginsburg and Kennedy. If Thomas retires, it's even more of a sea change. During her second term, Breyer could be gone. He's 77 now. She could put 4-5 people on the USSC.
Click to expand...

I don't think a Pub Senate would allow her to get more than 3 confirmed. They don't want a single person shaping the future of the court that much.
 
2 questions about the USSC appointment process:

1: If HRC becomes president, but the GOP keeps the Senate, then what keeps the Senate from doing exactly what it is doing now to keep liberal judges from being appointed?

2: (this is likely correlated to answer of the first question) Are the Republicans going all-in, in that if they continue to block Garland and HRC wins the election, they risk her appointing an even more liberal USSC justice?
 
Last edited:
Demonwolverine said:
2 questions about the USSC appointment process:

1: If HRC becomes president, but the GOP keeps the Senate, then what keeps the Senate from doing exactly what it is doing now to keep liberal judges from being appointed?

2: (this is likely correlated to answer of the first question) Are the Republicans going all-in, in that if they continue to block Garland and HRC wins the election, they risk her appointing an even more liberal USSC justice?
Click to expand...

Kirk and Johnson are almost certain to lose. That means the Dems only need to pick up two more to have the Senate.

McConnell has been the obstructionist Majority Leader (and Minority Leader) in US history. Having open Supreme Court seats would be a Constitutional challenge. The public would justifiably crush the GOP for doing so.
 
RJKarl said:
Kirk and Johnson are almost certain to lose. That means the Dems only need to pick up two more to have the Senate.

McConnell has been the obstructionist Majority Leader (and Minority Leader) in US history. Having open Supreme Court seats would be a Constitutional challenge. The public would justifiably crush the GOP for doing so.
Click to expand...

Eh. Years down the road.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I don't think a Pub Senate would allow her to get more than 3 confirmed. They don't want a single person shaping the future of the court that much.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Screw the Constitution.

For the record, I'm not convinced they'll vote on a Hillary nominee either. It's not like Obama's lame duck status was the real issue.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. Screw the Constitution.

For the record, I'm not convinced they'll vote on a Hillary nominee either. It's not like Obama's lame duck status was the real issue.
Click to expand...

I think they'll relent on Garland, probably after the election. And they'll let her replace Ginsburg and Breyer with qualified moderates. But I doubt they're going to let her replace Thomas or Kennedy.
 
cville deac said:
I think they'll relent on Garland, probably after the election. And they'll let her replace Ginsburg and Breyer with qualified moderates. But I doubt they're going to let her replace Thomas or Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Kind of depends on when they die/retire, and the exact composition of the Senate. There is always the nuclear option. If the Dems have, say, 59 seats, and Thomas quits next year, they are not going to let the Pubs filibuster the nomination for 2 whole years while they try to take the Senate back. They'll change the rules. If Ginsburg or Breyer quits/dies in 2017/2018, the Dems are not going to settle for a squishy moderate, either.
 
Why Hillary Is Stalling Her FBI Interview
James Comey, the straight-arrow director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is eager to wind up his investigation of Hillary’s use of an unsecure email system, but he can’t do that until he and Justice Department prosecutors sit down with Hillary and interview her.

Hillary says that neither she nor her campaign have been contacted by the FBI. But that is not true.

Negotiations have been going on for quite some time between the FBI and Hillary’s attorney, David Kendall, who went to law school with Hillary and defended Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial.

Hillary has come up with a dozen excuses why she’s too busy to take time out for an FBI interview.

The strategy she and Kendall have come up with is clear: They want to drag this out as long as possible—if possible until after Hillary is the official Democratic nominee—which will make it harder politically for Comey to recommend an indictment.

Comey is turning up the heat, insisting that the interview be done sooner than later, but it doesn’t look like he will be able to force Hillary’s hand.

Jim Comey and Hillary Clinton are two of the toughest characters in Washington and this has turned into a battle royal.
http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/06/28/why-hillary-is-stalling-her-fbi-interview-n2184884
 
cville deac said:
I thought the hypothetical was a Pub senate.
Click to expand...

oh i see. you're right. I think it is unlikely that Hillary beats Trump and the Pubs keep the Senate, but if it happened that would be a mess. Still, changes in the court earlier in her tenure will be hard for them to block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top