Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-13-2016, 8:05 PM Reply   
Didn't agree with his social decisions but no doubt a mental giant.

Mitch McConnell has already come out and said that justices should not be put forward in election years, but maybe he's forgetting that he and every other repub in the senate votes in Kennedy in Reagan's final year in office...

Ante upped! Going to get uglier over the next few months...
Old    mojo1127            02-14-2016, 5:55 AM Reply   
The senate is not beholden to the president. They do not have to approve someone just because he might throw a hissy fit. And this is not something to just say,"sure. Whatever you say." This person will have the ability to make huge decisions. I don't think all the liberals celebrating Scalia death would have the same opinion on fast tracking obamas nominee if he were to surprise everyone with Jeff sessions as his nominee. And Kennedy was nominated outside of an election year not in one.

Last edited by mojo1127; 02-14-2016 at 5:57 AM.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-14-2016, 7:35 AM Reply   
All true. And yet Scalia would likely be the first to point out that Obama should nominate someone in accordance with the constitution.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-14-2016, 7:42 AM Reply   
I think Obama knows he needs a moderate candidate.

Sri Srinivasan
D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan is perhaps the most attractive potential Supreme Court nominee for Obama if the goal is to put pressure on McConnell to allow a Senate confirmation vote. Nominated by Obama in June 2012, Srinivasan was confirmed in May 2013 by a unanimous, 97-0 vote.
Democrats believe that unambiguous verdict on Srinivasan could make it awkward for McConnell to block a vote on his nomination.
A nomination of Srinivasan, 48, to the high court would make history: he was born in India and would be the first Indian-American Supreme Court justice.
Srinivasan is widely viewed as a moderate. He clerked for Republican-appointed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In a speech last October, Srinivasan seemed to relish maintaining stability in the law. He suggested that fears he and three other Obama appointees would dramatically change the balance in the D.C. Circuit were overwrought.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz409p40yIE
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-14-2016, 8:11 AM Reply   
For you strict constructionists out there, not sure how you can get around the President nominating a new justice. Article II, Section 2 says he "shall nominate... Judges of the Supreme Court." It is correct to say that appointment cannot occur without the advice and consent of the Senate, but it's the President's constitutional duty to nominate.

It's up to the Senate whether to be obstructionist a-holes. And lest you guys deride me as a partisan hack, the dems' torpedoing of Harriet Miers' nomination (mostly, as far as I can tell because she did not come through the Ivy/DoJ/Fed Bench supreme conveyor belt, and instead had a career of practical experience in the "real world") utterly repugnant.

The senate's role is to vet the qualifications of the nominee not refuse to act. The President IS still the President for another 11 months.
Old    mojo1127            02-14-2016, 8:19 AM Reply   
i'll agree he absolutely can and maybe should nominate someone, but dependent upon who he chooses that person may or may not be allowed to be put on the court. you say obstructionist a-holes, referring to the republicans I guess. Could you please tell me how many votes harry reid did not allow to be brought up for vote(many authored by his own party), and why regular order was thrown out the window under his leadership? and you know, old turkey necked mitch and I tried to grow a beard ryan have passed and/or allowed many democratic/Obama agenda line items. lets all be perfectly honest. EVERY member of every elected or appointed office from local to federal who has served more than two terms; perhaps three, excluding the supreme,court should be gone. for instance one of my senators, Richard Shelby, has been in Washington for 36 years. his record is bad, but even if it were the most amazing in the history of the world he should have been gone a long time ago(which is why we are finally trying to get rid of him).
Old    mojo1127            02-14-2016, 9:42 AM Reply   
some info I just came across: in 2006, senator Obama joined 24 others, led by john Kerry, to filibuster the nomination of now justice Samuel alito. quote,"be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch(like getting permission to kill 2 American citizens not convicted of anything with drones), and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly." end quote.

Last edited by mojo1127; 02-14-2016 at 9:45 AM.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-16-2016, 7:55 AM Reply   
p.s. - Mojo I guess it depends on how one define sthe "election year" Kennedy was nominated by Reagan less than one year from the 1988 election... so the difference comes down to about 40 days or so...
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       02-16-2016, 1:10 PM Reply   
Yeah, I agree that Obama can and should nominate someone, but I'm pretty sure the democrats are going to get an ass-load of karma on this one. Not only would they be holding up the nomination process if the shoe was on the other foot, but when you pull shady crap like bribing congresspeople to vote for Obamacare and changing filibuster rules to favor your side, it would be dumb of them to not expect a little turnabout.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-16-2016, 1:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Yeah, I agree that Obama can and should nominate someone, but I'm pretty sure the democrats are going to get an ass-load of karma on this one. Not only would they be holding up the nomination process if the shoe was on the other foot, but when you pull shady crap like bribing congresspeople to vote for Obamacare and changing filibuster rules to favor your side, it would be dumb of them to not expect a little turnabout.
... we complain about how corrupt and ineffective congress is... but then urge our senators to engage in partisan hackery.

The problem isn't them, it's us.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       02-16-2016, 2:53 PM Reply   
Two words...term limits!
Old     (DocPhil)      Join Date: Aug 2015       02-16-2016, 5:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
... we complain about how corrupt and ineffective congress is... but then urge our senators to engage in partisan hackery.

The problem isn't them, it's us.
SD, educate me here.

Can congress actually stop the president from sending someone through? How does the process work? Can they actually just sit there and refuse to act?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-17-2016, 5:48 AM Reply   
Only the senate participates, not the house.

President nominates, senate holds confirmation hearings (this is where the world met Anita Hill), senate judiciary committee puts nomination to a committee vote (generally expected to be indicative of how senate as a whole would vote), and then if that's unfavorable the candidate would withdraw, if favorable the nominee will be put to a vote of the whole Senate (but see Robert Bork who was rejected by the committee and nonetheless went to a vote on the senate floor, where he was also rejected).
Old     (DocPhil)      Join Date: Aug 2015       02-17-2016, 5:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Only the senate participates, not the house.

President nominates, senate holds confirmation hearings (this is where the world met Anita Hill), senate judiciary committee puts nomination to a committee vote (generally expected to be indicative of how senate as a whole would vote), and then if that's unfavorable the candidate would withdraw, if favorable the nominee will be put to a vote of the whole Senate (but see Robert Bork who was rejected by the committee and nonetheless went to a vote on the senate floor, where he was also rejected).
So where does the delay come in? Can the senate refuse to hold hearings or does the judiciary committee refuse to vote?
Old     (Coolaintcheap)      Join Date: Jan 2016       02-17-2016, 5:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
p.s. - Mojo I guess it depends on how one define sthe "election year" Kennedy was nominated by Reagan less than one year from the 1988 election... so the difference comes down to about 40 days or so...
Not really the same. Kennedy retired in June of 87'. Nominated nov. 11th of 87'. Confirmed in feb of 88'. If my math is correct that puts Kennedy retiring 6 months before the start of Reagan's last year while Scalia is a month and a half into obama's last year. Yes Kennedy was nominated less then a year from the 88' election... 362 days prior
Old     (Coolaintcheap)      Join Date: Jan 2016       02-17-2016, 6:26 AM Reply   
Sorry. I meant Powell retired... Not Kennedy
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       02-17-2016, 9:04 AM Reply   
Also note that Kennedy was the third choice for Reagan. The first, Robert Bork, was nominated on July 1 (and rejected by the Senate even though the Senate approved him for the U.S. Appeals Court five years earlier) and the second, Douglas Ginsberg, withdrew on November 7.

That being said, coming up with this "tradition" of not nominating in a president's last year is just kind of lame partisanship. We all know if the shoe was on the other foot everybody would be spouting the opposition party's views. He's the president. He needs to make a nomination. It's in the freakin' job description!

As much as I would love to see the Democrats get a taste of their own medicine after all the stalling (Harry Reid not bringing bills to the floor), dirty tricks (bribing congresspeople to vote for their crappy Obamacare) and pure dishonest tactics (changing filibuster rules to their favor) they have employed over Obama's time in office, I think I'd much prefer the Republicans take this opportunity to at least attempt to lift Congress out of the mud as much as possible.

McConnell is such a dip____ to come out and say he's going to gum up the works so that a nomination can't happen. I guess he didn't learn from sticking his foot in his mouth when he proclaimed that his first course of business when Obama took office was to get Obama out of office. If you intend to stall the nomination, just stall it using the hundreds of tools at your disposal while giving lip service to how hard you're trying to "go through the process." Don't make dopey statements that make you look like an obstructionist idiot. How that guy became the head of the Senate I'll never know.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-17-2016, 9:56 AM Reply   
^^^ very well said, David. If We the People want Congress to start behaving more appropriately, we need to encourage our Senators and Representatives to act like we wish they would, not the way the other guys acted last time. Otherwise it's just a race to the bottom.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-17-2016, 10:06 AM Reply   
And lest we forget why Ginsberg withdrew...

Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-17-2016, 10:30 AM Reply   
Fascinating, given how unhappy conservatives have been with Kennedy... Maybe Reagan should have waited and let Bush appoint someone lol...
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-17-2016, 10:34 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Fascinating, given how unhappy conservatives have been with Kennedy... Maybe Reagan should have waited and let Bush appoint someone lol...
Right? Cowboy Reagan gave us Kennedy and milquetoast Bush gave us Thomas for goodness sake.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       02-17-2016, 11:07 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
And lest we forget why Ginsberg withdrew...

Who wouldn't vote for Alex P. Keaton's dad?? Weird.
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       02-17-2016, 12:26 PM Reply   
Oh man. He really DOES look like Michael Gross.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-24-2016, 3:15 PM Reply   
Sandoval?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...court-vacancy/
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       02-24-2016, 11:53 PM Reply   
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cru...urt-precedent/

Interesting article. Actually congress doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on, at least not the way they've been trying to frame the history.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-01-2016, 7:09 AM Reply   
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oking-backward

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:54 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us