2018 is a long way off and a lot can change. Anyway y'all are probably right that there is no interest in compromise on an appointment from the current GOP Senate. For a large segment of the Grand Old Party there doesn't seem much interest in actually governing or even winning elections now. Ideological purity seems more important.
This is the first I'm hearing of this: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...racy-theories-surround-justice-scalias-death/
^^ The breitbart comments are absurdly comical. These are grown adults, I presume. They speak their irrational minds like it is fact. The liberals whacked Scalia. I'm not saying, I'm just saying people are saying
Hussein is gonna get "Bork-ed"...payback's a b____! Anyways...the 2016 year is going to be a great year in politics...
The nominee that replaced Bork got a 93-0 favorable. Bork earned his opposition with the Saturday Night Massacre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/ The author here is predicting a Loretta Lynch nomination. As I stated before, I do not want the next SC Justice to have to recuse him/herself due to having represented the government in the lower courts. So I don't like the idea of nominating Lynch at this time. Perhaps later, when most of the cases that she's tried have already completed their appeals.
As the confirmation hearing has come down in history, Judge Bork’s comment that serving on the Supreme Court would be an “intellectual feast” is what many people remember; it sounded so arrogant when it was, I think, rather refreshingly honest. A less famous but more telling moment took place earlier, during a colloquy with Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. It was Senator Hatch’s daunting task to show that the nominee was not the extremist his opponents had described, but rather a person of comfortably mainstream views. To that end, the senator read a series of quotations from liberal-to-moderate law professors who, like Judge Bork, had criticized Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision. The names of the critics read like a legal establishment hall of fame. Finally, Senator Hatch served up what sounded like a concluding, softball question: “In your lengthy constitutional studies, is there any Supreme Court decision that has stirred more controversy or criticism amongst scholars and citizens than that particular case?” Then came the unexpected answer: “I suppose the only candidate for that, Senator, would be Brown v. Board of Education.” Scrambling to reclaim lost ground, Senator Hatch quickly offered: “Or possibly the Dred Scott case.” “Yes, that’s right,” Judge Bork said. The moment passed quickly, but it’s worth unpacking that deeply revealing exchange. As Senator Hatch immediately grasped, the nominee had violated a cardinal rule of modern judicial confirmation hearings, which is that Brown v. Board of Education is beyond debate. The 1954 school desegregation ruling was in fact the subject of substantial criticism within the legal academy in the 1950s and well into the 1960s; some eminent professors, while endorsing the outcome, took strong issue with the court’s analytical method. Awareness of the rich critical literature from that period had faded away by 1987, effaced by the decision’s celebrated unanimity and moral weight. So while Judge Bork’s answer to Senator Hatch was historically accurate, it was an obtuse accuracy. More to the point was how the moral dimension seemed to elude him as he tossed Brown into the same box with the abortion decision of which he had been so scathingly dismissive. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/robert-borks-tragedy/
Crackpot theories are great. Apparently someone is on conservative media today saying that Obama will appoint Joe Biden.
Have to love comparing the reaction to Bork, an actual human being with a record to discuss, with the reaction to empty space, the current non-nominee for the SCOTUS.
It's freaking comical but very sad. You'd think the Republicans would be savvy enough to stay quiet about their strategy instead of just basically telling the President "Bring it on". You think they would have learned a thing or two about that. The party lacks any sense of tact or strategy.
You know? I had the same reaction to Scalia's death that I had to George Wallace's. Maybe my reaction would have been better if I'd gone to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school. Instead of going to the University of Texas, I should have attended a lesser school where I would not feel that I was being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for me (and people who look like me).
Republican Senators: "We are going to oppose any nominee put forth by President Obama" Conservative BBS Poster: "OBAMA CAN'T WORK ACROSS THE AISLE HE NEEDS TO LEARN 2 COMPROMISE!!!11elevenderp"
