Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:To get back on topic, President Obama does need to appoint a new justice.  Like it or not, that's his duty regardless if this is an election year.  That being said, he does need to appoint a better qualified candidate than his last two appointments (Kagan and Sotomayor).  Although both of them have impressive qualifications, they both were obviously and clearly partisan candidates.  Another appointment such as Kennedy is the right choice to make.  It needs to be someone as close to the center on the political spectrum as possible.  Anything other than that and the congressional republicans should actually block the nomination.

If he appoints Loretta Lynch, I'll drive to the Capitol and filibuster her myself.

Quote:The constitution doesnt demand the senate confirm his nominee.

 

 

Quote:Nor does it establish a timeline or process for doing so.

 

I'm fully aware.  The problem I have, and I'm not the only one, is that Senator McConnell is already obstructing the process without having any idea who the president will nominate.

 

That's just plain partisan politics from an obstructionist who claims not to be obstructionist.  If he just said he was going to ignore his constitutional obligation to at least consider confirming a candidate because he wants to keep the court conservative, I'd have more respect for him.

 

Just so we're all on the same page, Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution:

 

<i>He[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.</i>

Quote:I am sure that will stop the bad guys from getting their hands on whatever they want. They wouldn't steal or anything.

Of course not. That's why this whole "gun control" issue is stupid. There is no talk of how to take/keep them away from criminals, only tightening the screws on regular folks trying to purchase. Criminals will steal so they will have access where law abiding citizens would not.

Are u struggling with the "by and with the advice and consent" part?

Quote:Are u struggling with the "by and with the advice and consent" part?

There's a line between saying, "This person is a partisan hack and we will not confirm them," and, "We will not confirm anyone you nominate because we recognize that the GOP is a bunch of dinosaurs cannibalizing itself from within, and we don't want to lose control of the last piece of government we have any chance of keeping out of liberal, far right or centrist hands."

Quote:There's a line between saying, "This person is a partisan hack and we will not confirm them," and, "We will not confirm anyone you nominate because we recognize that the GOP is a bunch of dinosaurs cannibalizing itself from within, and we don't want to lose control of the last piece of government we have any chance of keeping out of liberal, far right or centrist hands."

Actually there's nothing there like that at all. The Senate doesn't need any reason to Bork a nominee and now it seems the Dems are gonna get their own medicine.

Quote:Actually there's nothing there like that at all. The Senate doesn't need any reason to Bork a nominee and now it seems the Dems are gonna get their own medicine.

Ironically, Bork wasn't confirmed because he admitted smoking pot at Harvard, not because he was a conservative firebrand.

 

Edit: dumb grammar.

That was douglas ginsburg

Quote:Ironically, Bork wasn't confirmed because he admitted smoking pot at Harvard, not because he was a conservative firebrand.

 

Edit: dumb grammar.

 

 

Quote:That was douglas ginsburg

You are correct.  That summer, the Senate got to reject 2 nominees!

 

New York times article

 

The third choice, Justice Kennedy, seemed to have done a fine job in place of the Watergate figure Bork.

Meaning that the senate kept rejecting people until thet got someone who lined up with their ideology? Must have been a bunch of rascawy republicans.

Quote:Meaning that the senate kept rejecting people until thet got someone who lined up with their ideology? Must have been a bunch of rascawy republicans.

 

Sort of.  Bork, as noted, was a Watergate figure.  Ginsburg smoked weed, which made his own party nervous. 

 

The eventual nominee became the court's swing vote the last few years.  In any event, at least the nominees got their vote.  McConnell is trying to deny the process, and that's where I think he's not doing his Constitutional duty.

Justice powell retired, that meant he wanted reagan to choose his succesor. That was in june of 87. Reagan also had twicd the political capital left as obama. Not to mention he work with dems on more progressive tax reform and amnestt for 3 million illegals. Thats a far cry from The current president using his pen and his phone as an end run around congress. Thats why he got his pick and his hearings.


And there was no sort of. Bork fired someone at the request of the president. He didnt break the law or plan anything. He was qualified to serve on the court. That is the TRADITIONAL standard the senate uses in defference to exevutive discretio. In choosing a justice. He was pro life and the demicrats controlled the senate. Its just that simple.


And the party for free pot for everyone was really that shook up about drug use 4 years before clinton ran for president? You know better.


Swing vote... Exactly. Swing towards roe v. Wade and author of gay marriage. Functional case law is to the left of the public.

Quote:Functional case law is to the left of the public.

Is it though? The splintering of the GOP and the expanding liberal voter base suggests that maybe the Court isn't left of center, but that it's slightly ahead of its time.

 

I do agree that another Anthony Kennedy or Ben Cardozo is needed. An emphasis on a great legal mind instead of Loretta Lynch being shoehorned in there to ensure that Obama's policies are carried on well into the 2020's. I'm extremely biased, but I think Rand Paul would make a great replacement for Scalia, even if he's not a lawyer. He's a Constitutional scholar of the highest degree, and holds as many far left views as he does far right. In short, he'd be a swing vote and moderate justice, not owned by either side, for years to come.

Quote:Is it though? The splintering of the GOP and the expanding liberal voter base suggests that maybe the Court isn't left of center, but that it's slightly ahead of its time.

 

I do agree that another Anthony Kennedy or Ben Cardozo is needed. An emphasis on a great legal mind instead of Loretta Lynch being shoehorned in there to ensure that Obama's policies are carried on well into the 2020's. I'm extremely biased, but I think Rand Paul would make a great replacement for Scalia, even if he's not a lawyer. He's a Constitutional scholar of the highest degree, and holds as many far left views as he does far right. In short, he'd be a swing vote and moderate justice, not owned by either side, for years to come.

 

If the vote is so splintered and liberals are gaining so much, then why is it that Gay Marriage only passed in two states?  The biggest reason i say that the courts positions are so far left of the people is the on two key issues, Abortion and Gay Marriage, the court didn't just affirm that an individual state had the right to make this law or that.  They held that there is a universal right to privacy under the 4th amendment to commit murder until such time as the state has a compelling interest in the life of the child (castration of the 4th amendment) and that the 14th amendment provided a universal right for one man to marry one man or one woman to marry one woman, so basically taking the bedsheet of the 14th amendment tying it around justice kennedy's neck and prancing around the living room like romantic superheroes.  Neither of those positions ever actually won at the ballot box and in our CURRENT configuration would be a minority position in the majority of states.  

 

There was a time in the nations history where it was understood that kind of change required a constitutional amendment....  I guess that time has passed.  

Quote:Oh really? Then what are your thoughts on Obama regarding this? He tried to filibuster George W. Bush's nominee in 2007. His rational? "a bad addition to the supreme court". Oh, and Bush still had 19 months in office.

So, your point is he was right to do this, or wrong?


Or, is it simply, "he tried to do it, so he should have it done to him"?


Let's forget no one has been put out there yet.

Quote:Functional case law is to the left of the public.

I haven't thought of this in awhile, but I think this is an overly broad generalization that I'd disagree with.


I think that if the masses knew what some of the "functional caselaw" they'd be shocked.


Just a few things come to mind, the fact that if an officer says they smell weed, search of vehicle is good, regardless of whether it is found....."good faith" exception, (warrant) alimony laws in most states, just a few caselaw created things that comes to mind.


That, and the incredibly rare instance, to the nth degree, that people "get off on a legal technicality"


If people knew some of the things created to keep the little guy out of court, for PI cases and such, they'd be outraged at the lengths reached to protect corporations, although to be fair that is as much a matter of statute as anything else.

Obama should've been there to show respect for the SC Justice as the President of the US,  yet another disgraceful thing that this jerk has done.  

He should be impeached, and if the Republicans cave and allow him to nominate a SC Justice they are fools & don't deserve to remain in office... then i would say third party time...

a party that actually stands up to the Democrats!

Quote:He should be impeached

McConnell doubles down on his obstructionist dynasty and vows to make the SCOTUS replacement a "next president" issue. Way to wipe your butt with the Constitution. Tell me again how this is acceptable behavior or remotely patriotic in any way?

Turtleface just wants Hill-dawg to make the choice.