• 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

wakephan09 said:
Meh, "originalism" and "textualism" are just late-twentieth century bastardizations of formalist literary hermaneutics that have been vigorously debated for more than two centuries.

Perhaps more legal scholars should train first as humanists. Seems like it would be helpful.
Click to expand...

I thought originalism had its philosophical underpinnings in Marbury v Madison.

I'm not a legal scholar obviously, but I did read The Nine, and also stayed in Holiday Inn once.
 
P4nthers11 said:
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Hamilton
Click to expand...

That doesn't rhyme.
 
Junebug said:
I personally don't buy it. As I said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. On this issue, at least, I'd rather have an outside chance of getting an originalist rather than knowing I won't. Plus, even if Trump doesn't appoint a Thomas-like originalist, the person he appoints is likely to have more respect for original meaning than someone Hillary appoints. To reject him on the ground in the article makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but remember the article was written to counter the argument that "Trump is awful in every way, but at least he'll appoint good SCOTUS justices". There's actually very little proof that he would do so, and every reason to believe that he would engage in bullying tactics toward the Court and turn the Republican party even more toward authoritarianism (goodbye, Scalia-like judges who respect the 4th Amendment). Thus, the analysis in the article weakens the remaining, already weak arguments for conservatives or libertarian types to cast a vote for Trump.
 
Junebug said:
My fear isn't that Trump would have a philosophy that is antithetical to originalism. It's that he wouldn't have a philosophy at all.

That said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. On this issue, at least, I'd rather pick the candidate who may stumble into picking an originalist than one who wouldn't pick an originalist if her life depended on it.

If this were the only issue, I'd hold my nose and vote for Trump. This, however, is not the only issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think Junebug is voting for Trump, per this post and some others if I recall correctly. But he can set the record straight himself.
 
Creamy and Brangus also voting for Trump IIRC the poll from a couple weeks back. Would imagine Reff is.
 
So when do we expect the announcement about a vote on confirming Garland?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
So when do we expect the announcement about a vote on confirming Garland?
Click to expand...

HRC will be the next POTUS. Question is does McConnell believe an announcement of taking up Garland in the lame duck session will help save the Senate? Would be shocked if McConnell doesn't retire if he's no longer Majority Leader.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Creamy and Brangus also voting for Trump IIRC the poll from a couple weeks back. Would imagine Reff is.
Click to expand...

If someone drives me to my precinct, stands in line and entertains me while I wait, and promises to buy me dinner afterwards, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. Otherwise, I'm going to stay at home and skip this one.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
If someone drives me to my precinct, stands in line and entertains me while I wait, and promises to buy me dinner afterwards, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. Otherwise, I'm going to stay at home and skip this one.
Click to expand...

You are no patriot, sir.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
If someone drives me to my precinct, stands in line and entertains me while I wait, and promises to buy me dinner afterwards, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. Otherwise, I'm going to stay at home and skip this one.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this would qualify as that "voter fraud" that Republicans love to talk about
 
At this point Obama needs to tell the Pub Congress to fuck off. Retract Garland, and then just go through the most liberal judges he can find in the country to make them act on something.

If they want to pull this bullshit move then Obama can do the same thing. Garland is a completely reasonable SCOTUS candidate by nearly any measurement, and the fact that it's not being acted on is just complete and utter political shit by the Pubs.

Once Clinton is President and god willing the Congress goes Democrat, they can put in those LOONY LEFT LIBERALS that the Republicans are so worried about now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top