Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Admit It: Blocking a Justice is Just Politics

Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Immediately after the death of Justice Scalia, the GOP began a narrative that an appointment in this presidential term would be an unprecedented, drastic deviation from political propriety. Both Rubio and Cruz pushed the point during the GOP debate, and McConnell has declared that the Senate will not approve a nominee, stating that it should be left to "the American people"- essentially arguing the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by proxy referendum through the presidential election.

Can we just collectively recognize that this has nothing to do with propriety or justice, that this is just about a politicized court?

The claims by Rubio and Cruz are at best mischaracterizations of history. Justice Kennedy was approved in a contentious election year, at the end of Reagan's second term.

http://www.politifact.com...

Refusing to confirm a nomination for just shy of a year, based solely on opposition to the President, without any information about a nominee, is a first in history. If the Senate refuses to confirm, it would likely make this the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history.

The issue we are facing is a historical anomaly, there aren't good historical arguments to be made about what ought to be done. The history of election year Supreme Court appointments is multifaceted and offers no clear direction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:42:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Refusing to confirm a nomination for just shy of a year, based solely on opposition to the President, without any information about a nominee, is a first in history. If the Senate refuses to confirm, it would likely make this the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history.

I believe the longest period without the 9th Justice would go from 125 days to 341.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:26:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

The bolded is the most likely, and it's what I hope happens. The Senate Republicans are basically flexing their muscles and saying that they're going to have some input as to who fills Scalia's seat. If they decline moderates, then they're a bunch of morons. If Obama uses it to grandstand for the election by proposing hardline liberals/Obama loyalists instead of compromising in order to paint the Republicans as historically unprecedented obstructionists, then he is just as much of an @ss as people make him out to be.

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I hate the idea. The last thing that we need is MORE democracy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:59:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Of course it's politicized. The Dems would do the same thing if for decades there were 5 Liberal justices and 4 conservative justices then one day a liberal justice died and President Trump wanted to replace him/her with someone less Liberal. Frankly, a party in such a position would have to be led by an idiot to not resist such an appointment, especially whenever they will have a chance to replace him with someone of their beliefs if they just hold off for 1 year.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:01:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The Conservatives will suffer a loss by the appointment of even a moderate justice, seeing as how that spot was once filled by a blatant conservative. So they have absolutely every incentive to hold off.
Though I know he couldn't help it, I really wish Scalia could've waited one year before dying.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:08:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:01:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The Conservatives will suffer a loss by the appointment of even a moderate justice, seeing as how that spot was once filled by a blatant conservative. So they have absolutely every incentive to hold off.

Tough titties. This stuff happens; they need to fight for a compromise and then stand down before they end up injuring the Republican presidential candidate. If they can still win the General, then they can balance it our with a conservative replacement of Ginsburg.

Though I know he couldn't help it, I really wish Scalia could've waited one year before dying.

Yeah, me too. Then liberals would be doing the same thing for Ginsburg.

The thing is, I admired Ginsburg and Scalia more than anyone who will be nominated to replace them. So I see it as a loss anyway the chips fall.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:34:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:26:49 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I hate the idea. The last thing that we need is MORE democracy.

lol!

I don't see it happening though, didn't Reagan have to go through 3 appointments to get to Kennedy even when his approval numbers were higher than the big O? O is pretty unpopular right now.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:10:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Immediately after the death of Justice Scalia, the GOP began a narrative that an appointment in this presidential term would be an unprecedented, drastic deviation from political propriety. Both Rubio and Cruz pushed the point during the GOP debate, and McConnell has declared that the Senate will not approve a nominee, stating that it should be left to "the American people"- essentially arguing the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by proxy referendum through the presidential election.

Can we just collectively recognize that this has nothing to do with propriety or justice, that this is just about a politicized court?

The claims by Rubio and Cruz are at best mischaracterizations of history. Justice Kennedy was approved in a contentious election year, at the end of Reagan's second term.

http://www.politifact.com...

Refusing to confirm a nomination for just shy of a year, based solely on opposition to the President, without any information about a nominee, is a first in history. If the Senate refuses to confirm, it would likely make this the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history.

The issue we are facing is a historical anomaly, there aren't good historical arguments to be made about what ought to be done. The history of election year Supreme Court appointments is multifaceted and offers no clear direction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.

US has never gone a whole year without a supreme court justice before. Also, if the president cannot nominate a justice on an election year then 1 out of 4 year is off limits and could become years without a justice if one dies. With only 8 justices if there is a tie then the lower courts have legal superiority and this messes up the judicial system to leave the supreme court missing a member for a whole year. Refusing to appoint a justice will set a precedent that can be damaging to our judiciary process.

Also, Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy as justice in his final year 1988. Justices have been appointed on election year in the past many times. The founding fathers meant for the Senate and the President to work together and compromise to appoint a justice, not for the Senate to refuse to appoint anybody.

However from the GOP perspective, the constitution never tells congress it has to appoint a justice in a year. And getting congress's consent on the next justice is part of the balance of power between Congress and the president. So what the president should do is appoint a moderate. The president has made little effort to work with congress in the past and has stretched his power will all these executive orders, so congress stretching its power to not appointing a justice in a year is not any worse.

Also a new liberal justice will shift the Supreme Court to the left for years to come which could be disaster for traditional free market values. Conservatives have already seen the Supreme Court uphold Obamacare and gay marriage. Why would they let more disasters happen when they can easily delay a nomination for a year?

Technicalities aside, the democrats would have blocked Bush's nominations in 2008 if a liberal justice had died that year. This could have resulted in a disastrous overturn of Roe vs. Wade and many other conservative victories. If Obama was going to be president in 2009, the democrats in the Senate would have been wise to block any Bush nomination until Obama became president. Conservatives would be making the same appeals the liberals are making now appealing to tradition and citing how it is the president's right to appoint a justice and we have never been without a justice more than 100 days.

So politically it makes sense for conservatives to not let Obama push through any justices unless it looks like they are going to lose in 2016 and Obama decides to appoint a moderate. Obama should suggest someone who is left leaning but too much so, and is very popular. He can then use this as an attack against Republicans for not nominating someone so qualified and likable. If it looks like the Republicans are going to win in 2016 he can try to suggest a moderate.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 12:27:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:26:49 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

The bolded is the most likely, and it's what I hope happens. The Senate Republicans are basically flexing their muscles and saying that they're going to have some input as to who fills Scalia's seat. If they decline moderates, then they're a bunch of morons. If Obama uses it to grandstand for the election by proposing hardline liberals/Obama loyalists instead of compromising in order to paint the Republicans as historically unprecedented obstructionists, then he is just as much of an @ss as people make him out to be.

It is a very interesting delema. Is there a possibility Obama sees a PR opportunity. If he can get a Moderate who is just beyond acceptability to the Repubs, but OK by the American people, they would be in position to paint the Repubs as obstructionist and turn independents against them. You know that those are the types of discussions going on behind closed doors.

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I hate the idea. The last thing that we need is MORE democracy.

Democracy ends the day the elected official takes office. The last year of office on 2 term president is called "lame duck" because everyone knows that opposition will do nothing for the president. We ought to just tell the administration and Congress to go home and stop paying them for a year if they are going to keep the lame duck concept.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:01:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Immediately after the death of Justice Scalia, the GOP began a narrative that an appointment in this presidential term would be an unprecedented, drastic deviation from political propriety. Both Rubio and Cruz pushed the point during the GOP debate, and McConnell has declared that the Senate will not approve a nominee, stating that it should be left to "the American people"- essentially arguing the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by proxy referendum through the presidential election.

Can we just collectively recognize that this has nothing to do with propriety or justice, that this is just about a politicized court?

The claims by Rubio and Cruz are at best mischaracterizations of history. Justice Kennedy was approved in a contentious election year, at the end of Reagan's second term.

http://www.politifact.com...

Refusing to confirm a nomination for just shy of a year, based solely on opposition to the President, without any information about a nominee, is a first in history. If the Senate refuses to confirm, it would likely make this the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history.

The issue we are facing is a historical anomaly, there aren't good historical arguments to be made about what ought to be done. The history of election year Supreme Court appointments is multifaceted and offers no clear direction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.

Its blatant politics. We elected Obama for a full second term, not three years, then to coast like he has senioritis.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:28:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:01:15 AM, TBR wrote:

Its blatant politics. We elected Obama for a full second term, not three years, then to coast like he has senioritis.

http://www.gallup.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:32:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:28:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/17/2016 3:01:15 AM, TBR wrote:

Its blatant politics. We elected Obama for a full second term, not three years, then to coast like he has senioritis.

http://www.gallup.com...

1) that has nothing to do with what I said. 2) that has nothing to do with law, the constitution or anything meaningful.

Just because YOU don't like him does not mean he is not our actual f##king president, with all the powers that entails.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:35:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
It may be that the GOP is posturing to pressure Obama into making an incontroversial moderate nomination, or it may be that the GOP is gambling on a presidential victory in hopes of a firmly right-leaning court. Either way, the narrative being spun is fantasy. There is no merit to arguments that an election year nomination is somehow an abuse of presidential power or defiance of our political system.

Posturing seems most likely to me. If the GOP actually follows through, the folks most harmed would be conservatives. Most of the circuit court decisions that will be left undecided will go in favor of democrats (simply because there's so many more democrats on the circuit courts), and we're most likely going to get a democrat president anyway to nominate a liberal. Change is inevitable. Their best hope is to get a moderate out of Obama, which might help overturn a couple lower court opinions in their favor. Mostly, though, the GOP is fvcked, and they must know it at this point, unless they're utterly stupid.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:35:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:32:59 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/17/2016 3:28:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/17/2016 3:01:15 AM, TBR wrote:

Its blatant politics. We elected Obama for a full second term, not three years, then to coast like he has senioritis.

http://www.gallup.com...

1) that has nothing to do with what I said. 2) that has nothing to do with law, the constitution or anything meaningful.

Just because YOU don't like him does not mean he is not our actual f##king president, with all the powers that entails.

You are missing the point. The Congress doesn't care how I feel.

If the majority of the people disapprove of Obama, then blocking him is the path to the white house.

If the Majority approves of Obama, then they will have to at least pretend to do his bidding to have a chance at the white house.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 3:37:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:08:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing is, I admired Ginsburg and Scalia more than anyone who will be nominated to replace them. So I see it as a loss anyway the chips fall.

I don't know why you'd say this, especially since you don't know who will be replacing either of them. I can think of at least 4 or 5 circuit court judges that I respect as much as Scalia/Ginsburg, even if they're not as well-known. Some of the smartest, best judges around aren't on the Supreme Court, including folks from both sides.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 4:09:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:08:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing is, I admired Ginsburg and Scalia more than anyone who will be nominated to replace them. So I see it as a loss anyway the chips fall.

I don't know why you'd say this, especially since you don't know who will be replacing either of them. I can think of at least 4 or 5 circuit court judges that I respect as much as Scalia/Ginsburg, even if they're not as well-known. Some of the smartest, best judges around aren't on the Supreme Court, including folks from both sides.

I can think of like 20 circuit judges I respect; at least five of whom I know personally... about half of whom I disagree with ideologically.

And I want to confirm what FT just said about the smartest judges NOT being on the Supreme Court.

Judges who get appointed to the Supreme Court now, and who are likely to continue to be appointed, are very young (like, in their 40s) legal professionals without a lot of experience on the bench, and whom lack records that people (and corporations who make donations to the Democratic and Republican parties) can take issue with.

Richard Posner, case and point. Posner, though really REALLY conservative, is probably one of the single most brilliant legal minds I have ever encountered. (The reality is that his personality is too bombastic to ever get nominated; read any Posner opinion ever if you disagree.)

I'll tell you this, though... if Posner were nominated, I'd totally confirm him.

Although it's my personal view that Elena Kagan is the single best nominee to the bench since Scalia. She is so smart, and she is such a good person. I mean, Elena Kagan is the kind of lawyer we all should aspire to be. She is who Sandra Day O'Conner should have been.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 4:17:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:08:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The thing is, I admired Ginsburg and Scalia more than anyone who will be nominated to replace them. So I see it as a loss anyway the chips fall.

I don't know why you'd say this, especially since you don't know who will be replacing either of them. I can think of at least 4 or 5 circuit court judges that I respect as much as Scalia/Ginsburg, even if they're not as well-known. Some of the smartest, best judges around aren't on the Supreme Court, including folks from both sides.

Yeah, and looking at Obama's 'short list', I don't think that any of them will be nominated by him. The whole process is going to be extremely politically charged. Scalia and Ginsburg are people with strong, principled views and the capacity to eloquently defend them. When the senate subjects the nominees to withering scrutiny, it will be the universally inoffensive ones who pass, not the principled ones with a lot interesting views. Look at what happened to Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, and what almost happened to Clarence Thomas, when you had a heated confirmation battle. Hell, Ginsburg's nomination was killed because he admitted to smoking pot in college. That's how absurd these things become.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:45:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 4:09:12 AM, YYW wrote:
Judges who get appointed to the Supreme Court now, and who are likely to continue to be appointed, are very young (like, in their 40s) legal professionals without a lot of experience on the bench, and whom lack records that people (and corporations who make donations to the Democratic and Republican parties) can take issue with.

Though true, I want to emphasize that being in your 40s doesn't inherently mean you're less qualified than someone in their 50s or 60s. There are a lot of judges who were great when they were in their 40s, and they're great now in their 50s and 60s.

Richard Posner, case and point. Posner, though really REALLY conservative, is probably one of the single most brilliant legal minds I have ever encountered. (The reality is that his personality is too bombastic to ever get nominated; read any Posner opinion ever if you disagree.)

Posner would be an example of someone who I'm sure would have been a fine judge in his 40s. The 7th Circuit generally has a lot of great judges. I know this isn't going to happen, but Diane Wood would be awesome on the Supreme Court.

I'll tell you this, though... if Posner were nominated, I'd totally confirm him.

I would, too.

Although it's my personal view that Elena Kagan is the single best nominee to the bench since Scalia. She is so smart, and she is such a good person. I mean, Elena Kagan is the kind of lawyer we all should aspire to be. She is who Sandra Day O'Conner should have been.

Kagan is awesome.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:51:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 4:17:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Yeah, and looking at Obama's 'short list', I don't think that any of them will be nominated by him.

Who is his shortlist? Have you read their opinions, articles, briefs, whatever?

The whole process is going to be extremely politically charged. Scalia and Ginsburg are people with strong, principled views and the capacity to eloquently defend them. When the senate subjects the nominees to withering scrutiny, it will be the universally inoffensive ones who pass, not the principled ones with a lot interesting views. Look at what happened to Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, and what almost happened to Clarence Thomas, when you had a heated confirmation battle. Hell, Ginsburg's nomination was killed because he admitted to smoking pot in college. That's how absurd these things become.

I don't know why having an "offensive" person is somehow better than an "inoffensive" person. What matters to me is that they're smart, and ideally a pragmatist. I'm glad Bork wasn't put on the Court.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is already politicized, so for Republicans to approve Obama's nomination on principle would be to concede political power for the sake of an ideal which, as you admit, does not exist. Why should they pretend that Obama's nomination would be anything but an encroachment on their political ideals - an encroachment which they could perhaps prevent through entirely legal means. Obama is obviously not overstepping his bounds in nominating a justice to replace Scalia (the limits to his power are, as they ought to be, codified in our laws, which make very clear that it's within his power to nominate a replacement). But our laws also give the senate veto power over Obama's nomination. If Obama is not abusing is power in nominating a justice, the senate is not abusing their power in blocking it. Both sides are simply using their power to further their political agenda, which is entirely predictable. If you don't like it, then work to change the laws which make it possible. However, remember that in doing so, you may come to regret it when the situation is reversed, and you're forced to watch as a justice with whom you disagree on virtually everything joins the Supreme Court unobstructed.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 7:33:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is already politicized, so for Republicans to approve Obama's nomination on principle would be to concede political power for the sake of an ideal which, as you admit, does not exist. Why should they pretend that Obama's nomination would be anything but an encroachment on their political ideals - an encroachment which they could perhaps prevent through entirely legal means. Obama is obviously not overstepping his bounds in nominating a justice to replace Scalia (the limits to his power are, as they ought to be, codified in our laws, which make very clear that it's within his power to nominate a replacement). But our laws also give the senate veto power over Obama's nomination. If Obama is not abusing is power in nominating a justice, the senate is not abusing their power in blocking it. Both sides are simply using their power to further their political agenda, which is entirely predictable. If you don't like it, then work to change the laws which make it possible. However, remember that in doing so, you may come to regret it when the situation is reversed, and you're forced to watch as a justice with whom you disagree on virtually everything joins the Supreme Court unobstructed.

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:48:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM, Double_R wrote:

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.

How is the Senate obstructing the nomination process?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:00:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:48:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM, Double_R wrote:

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.

How is the Senate obstructing the nomination process?

The process is how we get a new Justice appointed to the court. Republicans have decided at the outset that this will not be allowed. If that's not obstruction then please define the term as you are using it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:01:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:00:07 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:48:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM, Double_R wrote:

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.

How is the Senate obstructing the nomination process?

The process is how we get a new Justice appointed to the court. Republicans have decided at the outset that this will not be allowed. If that's not obstruction then please define the term as you are using it.

The president can nominate. The Senate isn't blocking his ability to nominate.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:08:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:01:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:00:07 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:48:24 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM, Double_R wrote:

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.

How is the Senate obstructing the nomination process?

The process is how we get a new Justice appointed to the court. Republicans have decided at the outset that this will not be allowed. If that's not obstruction then please define the term as you are using it.

The president can nominate. The Senate isn't blocking his ability to nominate.

First of all that is a silly game of semantics which still fails because I didn't even use that terminology.

If you would like to have a serious discussion about this then please present a serious objection.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:08:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:11:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 7:33:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:59:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
Worse, the suggestion that the American people should decide the nomination by proxy referendum is an invitation to further politicize the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is already politicized, so for Republicans to approve Obama's nomination on principle would be to concede political power for the sake of an ideal which, as you admit, does not exist. Why should they pretend that Obama's nomination would be anything but an encroachment on their political ideals - an encroachment which they could perhaps prevent through entirely legal means. Obama is obviously not overstepping his bounds in nominating a justice to replace Scalia (the limits to his power are, as they ought to be, codified in our laws, which make very clear that it's within his power to nominate a replacement). But our laws also give the senate veto power over Obama's nomination. If Obama is not abusing is power in nominating a justice, the senate is not abusing their power in blocking it. Both sides are simply using their power to further their political agenda, which is entirely predictable. If you don't like it, then work to change the laws which make it possible. However, remember that in doing so, you may come to regret it when the situation is reversed, and you're forced to watch as a justice with whom you disagree on virtually everything joins the Supreme Court unobstructed.

As a liberal, I will be perfectly fine with that scenario. And yes, the laws do give the Senate the power to block a nomination. This is where the phrase "protect and defend the constitution" come into play. The constitution. You know, that thing republicans are always talking about as if their party has a monopoly on claiming to be all for it... yea, that thing. There is no debate as to why the Senate is tasked with confirming a nominee... As a check and balance to ensure the nominee is qualified for the job. Not so that the senate can decide whether the President can have the privilege of doing his job.

The Senate does not "Block nominations"

The senate cannot prevent the president from nominating Rosie O'donnell if he so chooses to.

The Senate can choose to not confirm the presidential nomination, not block the nomination from ever getting a confirmation vote.