• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.

ivysaur12

Banned
So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
 
So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
I hope Scalia retires. But the man seems to run on spite.

Kennedy I think is gonna leave soon. And who Obama and Hillary will replace. Giving the court a 5-4 liberal bent. My least favorite justice has to be alito, he seems like he's turned into Scalia lite

How old is Thomas?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I hope Scalia retires. But the man seems to run on spite.

Kennedy I think is gonna leave soon. And who Obama and Hillary will replace. Giving the court a 5-4 liberal bent. My least favorite justice has to be alito, he seems like he's turned into Scalia lite

How old is Thomas?

Thomas isn't going anywhere, he's in power save mode.
 
So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.

Over the next 8 years, there's a good chance all these will retire/expire:

Ginsberg (80)
Scalia (77)
Breyer (74)
Kennedy (76)


That would tip the scales to solid 6-3 liberal if done right.

edit: thomas is 65.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Just flipping Scalia would be a sea change. I would advocate the "Roberts model," the youngest competent jurist we can get :p
 
Just flipping Scalia would be a sea change. I would advocate the "Roberts model," the youngest competent jurist we can get :p

Roberts was 50, a pretty common age rage (50-53) for appointments.

Thomas was 43. HW Bush really fucked us with that one. He's might be on the court for 40 years!
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Roberts was 50, a pretty common age rage (50-53) for appointments.

Thomas was 43. HW Bush really fucked us with that one. He's might be on the court for 40 years!
Didn't know Thomas was that young when he was nominated. Thanks for the info/perspective.
 


Another prophecy from the book of Aaron! It will be as it was written.
564408_4737420112186_348318117_n.jpg


nvr 4get

So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
Ginsburg should retire within the next year imo. It's too much of a gamble to expect a Dem president to be able to replace her or even for Democrats to hold the Senate.

And even if they do, it'd be easier to get a judge nominated with 55 Democrats than with 51 or 52.
 
While we're making fun of the Guardian, here's Chait making fun of Glenn Greenwald.

Chait encapsulates everything that is wrong with liberal Democrats. At least Obama understands the concept and importance of organized pressure from below. Chait just thinks people should shut up and let neoliberals go to work, never comprending that meaningful progress cannot be made without organized pressure.
 

Jooney

Member
Re: Bolling v. Krugmman

Bollings comments about the price of milk are like Stelphen Colberts famous "Truthiness" comments come to life.

"Sure my opponent may have the facts, but how do to feel about the truth when you search your gut?"

Can't believe people lap that shit up.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Re: Bolling v. Krugmman

Bollings comments about the price of milk are like Stelphen Colberts famous "Truthiness" comments come to life.

"Sure my opponent may have the facts, but how do to feel about the truth when you search your gut?"

Can't believe people lap that shit up.

Well there are people who have and still do think Colbert is legit in what he says on his show.
 
Can't say I'm surprised by how much liberal democrats are focusing on Greenwald instead of the actual story. It's "protect the president" at its worse.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Salty beings practically beg Supreme Court to reinstate Prop 8.

Supreme Court petitioned to reimpose California gay marriage ban

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Opponents of gay marriage petitioned the Supreme Court on Saturday to immediately reinstate a 5-year-old ban on same-sex matrimony in California, saying a federal appeals court had acted prematurely in removing the prohibition on gay nuptials.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008, asked the high court to overrule a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order on Friday lifting a stay that had kept same-sex unions outlawed.

Friday's surprise removal of the stay launched a flurry of swiftly arranged weddings by gay and lesbian couples up and down the state following a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday to let stand a 2010 lower-court opinion striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

But opponents said the three-judge panel of the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its injunction before a 25-day "reconsideration" period at the Supreme Court had elapsed.


The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring that it remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."


The alliance asserted that final disposition could not occur before passage of the 25 days the Supreme Court normally gives petitioners to seek a re-hearing, in this case Prop 8 backers who were denied legal standing to appeal the 2010 decision.

But the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the federal court challenge to Prop 8, issued a statement insisting that the 9th Circuit acted under its own "broad discretion" to issue its stay in the first place.

"Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the injunction against Proposition 8 must stand, it was entirely appropriate for the 9th circuit to dissolve its stay of that injunction," the alliance said in a statement.

Foundation attorney Ted Boutrous told reporters on a conference call on Friday that the 9th Circuit's move was hardly unprecedented and that appeals courts have taken similar actions in "much more boring cases than this" without drawing much notice.

Prop 8 supporters, he said, "should hang it up and quit trying to stop people from getting married."


The emergency petition seeking to bring gay marriages to a halt came as dozens of same-sex couples lined up at San Francisco City Hall for a second straight day since the appeals court lifted its stay against the 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker barring further enforcement of Prop 8.

Suffer, haters. Gays will continue to get gay married.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.

I remember members of the Senate talking about it right after the decision. It can't be done immediately, but I expect we'll hear about it soon enough.
 
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.

It will take a long time to do it, regardless. They have to have new hearings, new data collection, etc before even thinking about writing a new formula.

Regarding the emergency petition to reinstate the stay for gay marriage, they have virtually no chance of getting it. It's just a last ditch effort that will fail. The law firm that brought the suit didn't even attach their name to the emergency petition, lol.
 
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.

Judiciary I think is gonna have hearings soon. I expect a law to be voted on by summer of next year. They're gonna try to make it an election issue.

Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.

That went fabulous for the last guy who tried that. And they are going to get slammed running an attack on a women for her age while ruining around talking about how awesome Reagan was, sexism much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...residential-election.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

Also, beside rubio who did vote for immigration this is laughable.

And having witnessed Mr. Obama’s dismantling of John McCain and Mr. Romney, they are eager to demonstrate that they represent a new generation. “The reality is, when you look at the Democrats, they’ve got old, tired ideas being produced by old, tired candidates,” Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 42, said in an interview this month, citing “more government and more spending” for the ideas but not referring to any candidates by name.

The radio host Rush Limbaugh, echoing his commentary from her first presidential run, asked his audience in April whether the American people “want to vote for somebody, a woman, and actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
 
Judiciary I think is gonna have hearings soon. I expect a law to be voted on by summer of next year. They're gonna try to make it an election issue.

Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.

That went fabulous for the last guy who tried that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...residential-election.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

Also, beside rubio who did vote for immigration this is laughable.
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCE

2016: Clinton's too old! Our guy brings a NEW FRESH PERSPECTIVE

Hilarious
 
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCE

2016: Clinton's too old! Our guy brings a NEW FRESH PERSPECTIVE

Hilarious

I'd expect them to hid back on this sexism. That stuff will attract women (especially the elderly in droves). The GOP might just help the dems with the elderly vote.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Judiciary I think is gonna have hearings soon. I expect a law to be voted on by summer of next year. They're gonna try to make it an election issue.

Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.

That went fabulous for the last guy who tried that. And they are going to get slammed running an attack on a women for her age while ruining around talking about how awesome Reagan was, sexism much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...residential-election.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

Also, beside rubio who did vote for immigration this is laughable.
My favorite bit:

“The reality is, when you look at the Democrats, they’ve got old, tired ideas being produced by old, tired candidates,” Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 42, said in an interview this month, citing “more government and more spending” for the ideas but not referring to any candidates by name.
Oh ho ho!
 
"Jindal then went on to propose lowering tax rates and broadening the base, solving entitlements, and pushing for new abortion legislation."

-not in the article but should have been.
 

East Lake

Member
Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.
They don't have to do it explicitly. Right wing media can selectively use photos that make Hillary look less flattering, and they can speak like Jindal where they don't pinpoint a single person, but use words that lead the listen think of age. Worn-down, old, withering, weakening, etc... The problem for them is they've been infiltrated by the american taliban who just can't keep their mouths shut and continue to talk about rape and soon to be women.
 
They don't have to do it explicitly. Right wing media can selectively use photos that make Hillary look less flattering, and they can speak like Jindal where they don't pinpoint a single person, but use words that lead the listen think of age. Worn-down, old, withering, weakening, etc... The problem for them is they've been infiltrated by the american taliban who just can't keep they're mouths shut and continue to talk about rape and soon to be women.

Oh, I get that. I wouldn't expect it to be effective though.

But either way as you said they can't keep their mouth shut

And as people on twitter have pointed out people look back fondly at the clinton era.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Let's also not ignore that senior citizens are a big part of the Republicans' base. They'd be pretty stupid to make it an issue.
 
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCE

2016: Clinton's too old! Our guy brings a NEW FRESH PERSPECTIVE

Hilarious

It's going to be fun listening to Rand Paul explain why he has more foreign policy experience than Clinton. At least 08 Obama was able to argue "hey I don't have as much experience, but I haven't been wrong about everything for the last decade."

Also Jindal talks such a good game for someone who hasn't accomplished anything, and is unpopular in one of the reddest states in America. How can you wring your hands about the GOP needing to stop being the "dumb party" while championing a complete elimination of the income tax?
 
Democrats would be wise to start grooming a candidate. They're putting all their hopes in Hillary basket. Without her, they have Cuomo who no one likes and Biden who probably won't run. It's ok for 2016 but in long term it's gonna be a disadvantage.

Republicans have a variety of critters to chose from; Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal (lol), Bob McDonnell.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Democrats would be wise to start grooming a candidate. They're putting all their hopes in Hillary basket. Without her, they have Cuomo who no one likes and Biden who probably won't run. It's ok for 2016 but in long term it's gonna be a disadvantage.

Republicans have a variety of critters to chose from; Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal (lol), Bob McDonnell.

But, provided Hillary works out, "long term" means "2024". They can probably count on more people emerging closer to elections that are seen as competitive. I'm not sure anyone wants to challenge Hillary.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Democrats would be wise to start grooming a candidate. They're putting all their hopes in Hillary basket. Without her, they have Cuomo who no one likes and Biden who probably won't run. It's ok for 2016 but in long term it's gonna be a disadvantage.

Republicans have a variety of critters to chose from; Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal (lol), Bob McDonnell.
Are we really concerned about not having a candidate "groomed" over a decade before the fact?
 

Jooney

Member
Hey EV, the White Horse was a great suggestion. People there were so friendly. On a crawl seeing a few venues so the night aint over yet.

---

On topic: the party that ran McCain and Palin should never talk about age and experience.

Also I might hit up the SB 5 protests on monday while I'm in Austin. Its bound to be a spectacle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom