Democratic Socialist. You know, the American system of government. Rubio has all the gravitas of high school student council candidate. The kids from the "I Have A Dream" competition would blow him off the stage.
LOL, do you honestly believe without Alito filibuster the Republicans would not do the exact same thing?
I was talking to someone who is a Republican party activist and former Congressional District chair and he said, off the record of course, that he things McConnell will cave and Obama will get his nominee approved in June before the RNC. His feeling is that the GOP hand is too weak and it's too much of a gamble to wait until the next Presidency and Senate. I'm kind of surprised by that and I don't think this person has any inside info to McConnell but just pointing out that there are Republicans who are aware of how much of a gamble it is for the GOP Senate to block Obama's nomination.
Huh? So you mean they willl filibuster and then confirm the nominee? OK, sounds good. It's pretty funny that this is the excuse du jour - I thought it was Robert Bork getting a vote 29 years ago - back when Obama was 1L at Harvard. Take that, Obama! What will it be tomorrow? Being mean to Clarence Thomas? Also - how much payback do you really need? there are about a dozen circuit nominees sitting there - what imaginary ex post harm are these ones avenging? Or is it the very harm of Obama having been elected twice and having the gall to exercise the power a majority of hte voters freely gave him, more than we can say for the cluster**** structure of the legislature in terms of representation.
Filibustering Supreme Court Justice Alito? The false equivalences that republicans toss out there are hilarious. Then Senator Obama, executing his constitutional responsibility of advise and consent in consideration of Alito (btw, he later was approved), who was nominated by the President (who was fullfilling his constitutional responsibility) versus, Senate Leader McConnell, along with a number of republican senators, announce they will oppose all/any nominees by the President? And even if you want to criticize Obama for opposing Alito, the only reasonable comparison would be if the President nominated an extreme liberal judge... which of course, hasn't happened.
I think Obama gives them a moderate now, with the promise that if they block them, he and/or Hillary (or Bernie, you know, after "THE REVOLUTION"...") send them somebody even more liberal next time, with the unspoken assumption that you can rightfully say goodbye to Citizens United and Heller once that happens. Lawrence Lessig would be a good one.
That is still speculative as we don't know who Obama is going to nominate. I will agree that most likely it is going to be someone who is at least as left as his previous nominees. The bigger issue is that McConnell and other Republican senators have said they are going to oppose any Obama nominee with Cruz already saying he is going to filibuster. You keep on putting the onus on Obama without considering any responsibility the Republican Senate has. There are already some hot button cases before the court that are likely to liberals fired up: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/five-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-2016/ [rquoter]Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Affirmative Action) Status: Argued on Dec. 9, 2015 In December. the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a landmark challenge to affirmative action at Texas’ flagship public university. The University of Texas is required to admit all high school seniors who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. Candidates for any remaining spots undergo a “holistic” evaluation process in which race is among the considered factors. The Court has heard this case before. In 2013, the Court indeed issued a decision, but it sent the case back to the lower courts to be reviewed under a tougher constitutional standard. Former University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher contends that the school’s discriminatory admission policies led to her rejection, even though her qualifications surpassed those of many admitted minority students. The university maintains a program by which the top 10 percent of students in each public graduating class are granted automatic admission; Fisher argues that this is enough to ensure diversity. (She narrowly missed the cut at Stephen F. Austin High School, finishing 82nd out of 674.) Fisher argues the 14th Amendment’s the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the school from considering race in any manner as part of the admissions process. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Public Union Dues) Status: Arguments on Jan. 11, 2016 Friedrichs is a challenge to the practices of public unions. The Court will determine whether requiring public school teachers to pay mandatory dues for union activities violates the First Amendment. California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, supported by the Center for Individual Rights, argues that she should have no obligation to pay any union dues whatsoever, since any payment is still a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. A defeat for the Teachers Association could affect public-employee unions in about half the states that have “fair share” requirements. Whole Women’s Health v. Cole (Abortion) Status: Arguments on March 2, 2016 The petitioners in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole claim a Texas law enacted in 2013 would force about 75 percent of the state’s abortion services to close. Two provisions in the law require that doctors at clinics have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinics, and that clinics have facilities equal to those of an outpatient surgical center. Texas officials believe the laws protect the health of the women seeking abortions by guaranteeing better care. The Supreme Court will decide two issues. First, it will look at if the appeals court properly handled a question about if the new restrictions would actually work to protect the health of women. The appeals court said it needed to defer to the Texas state legislature on that issue. The second question is a broader one. The Court must decide it the law imposes an undue burden on women who seek abortions. The Court last ruled on this question in a 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Zubik vs. Burwell (Obamacare) Status: Granted on Nov. 6, 2015, arguments to be scheduled The United States Supreme Court in November consolidated seven cases challenging Obamacare’s birth-control mandate into one: Zubik v. Burwell. The current legal challenge, the fourth to be accepted by the Court since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, involves religious-sponsored non-profit corporations. These institutions object on moral grounds to an Obamacare provision that allows their employees to obtain contraceptive coverage through their health insurance, even if those contraceptive products are provided by insurance companies and the government, instead of the institutions. The groups argue that even indirect participation in such a plan is offensive, and they want to be included in a broader Obamacare exception extended to churches, synagogues and worship-based employers. The federal government believes that religiously oriented non-profit institutions such as hospitals and universities have numerous employees who don’t share the beliefs of religious groups that sponsor the non-profits, and these workers would be harmed by the exclusions.[/rquoter] In the Cole case the Appeals court has sided with the TX legislature and allowed the rules into effect leading to closing clinics. If there are only 8 justices and the vote is tied the Appeals decision remains in effect until it can be reheard again. That will mean that until a later court term clinics providing abortions will have been closed partly by a court decision. Also regarding getting conservatives angry keep in mind while this court won't do away with abortion totally neither will it do away with the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision will still remain as precedent and is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon. This is probably better for the Republican Candidates thread but I've become less impressed with Rubio and think he missed his chanced. When he gave the 2012 RNC keynote speech I was very impressed with him and early on thought he had a very good chance. Since coming in third in IA his debate performances have gotten poorer and has made some unforced errors. He has the right look, a compelling story, and can deliver a charismatic stump speech but other than that comes off as an empty suit who can't really articulate his views and lacks both the sharpness of intellect of Cruz or the ruthless entertainment of Trump. Also still lurking out there are some big questions about his financial history. It's possible he catches fire and seizes the GOP nomination but I think his failure to really solidify his support after IA means he's missed his chance.
so are you completely unable to understand what i said? it's not working as intended. yes it would probably happen the same exact way if the roles were reversed between the two parties. that is the point.
by the way has everyone seen this quote?? President Ronald Reagan, who pressed for a vote on his Supreme Court nominee Anthony M. Kennedy, who was confirmed in 1988: “Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body.”
Why is any person's death in a "Debate & Discussion"? This is silly. Discuss issues and opinions here, not someone's passing. Pay respects to the man.
SwoLy, do you not understand the purpose of D&D? Discussing who the President will pick to replace Scalia on a now evenly divided Supreme Court is exactly the sort of topic that belongs here. Picking SC nominees for a lifetime appointment is quite possibly the most important act a president can make during his time of office short of dealing with the outbreak of war and an economic catastrophe. Those appointments interpret the nation's laws for decades after a president leaves. Your comment belongs in Hangout if it belongs anywhere. As for sympathy, as pirc said, have you read the thread? Numerous expressions of sympathy for Scalia's family have been expressed, including from yours truly, before getting into debate and discussion about the ramifications of Scalia's death. In case you aren't aware (perhaps you've been busy?), the ramifications are huge.
The GOP hand is weak almost to the point of stupidity here. They are already in serious danger of losing the senate. If that happens, regardless of what happens with the presidential election, the Democrats can invoke the nuclear option during his lame duck period and get his nominee in regardless of who it is. And this is only going to give the Dems election ammo. Really quite stupid when you think about it.
They have no choice. If a Republican votes for an Obama nominee, there is a 100% chance that senator will get destroyed in a primary. People forget that one of the biggest reasons why Richard Lugar lost the primary in 2012 was that he voted for Obama's Supreme Court nominees out of respect for the traditional bipartisan process around Supreme Court nominees. Sadly the Republicans boxed themselves in a corner with these insane litmus tests. Voting for a liberal Supreme Court nominee is political suicide in the Republican primary.
Adding to your point, if Obama were to nominate a moderate justice the reaction would be the same. Honestly, it doesn't matter who the President nominates. McConnell has already stated that any nomination by Obama won't be allowed to come up for a vote. A bizarre and incredibly stupid statement by the GOP leader of the Senate.
There is no such thing as a moderate justice anymore. Roberts is seen as a traitor by the right and an activist judge who should impeached. Essentially if you are anyone but a Scalia clone who is clearly anti-abortion, you are a raging activist liberal and any Republican who votes for one will be in major trouble. The GOP has created a climate of fear around liberals destroying the country that has made anyone in the middle or even center-right a vulnerable target.
