• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Metaphoreus said:
And they elected their senators for 6. The president isn't guaranteed his nominees, and the Senate has an obligation to use their independent judgment in confirming, or not, a nominee. Their confirmation power isn't a rubber stamp.
Click to expand...

How are they using their judgment if some members are already saying they'll block Obama's nominee without even hearing who it is?
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Hey, at least we just confirmed Metaphoreus is, in fact, not Scalia.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Coriolanus said:
Ah. i think i see the narrative angle the turtle will go for.

Yes, democrats voted for bams in 2012, so that the man could appoint a judge.

But voters also gave republicans a senate majority in 2014, so that they could counter his perceived excesses.

tbh it's a good point. I mean, it's fuckery of the highest order and i do agree that he should settle for a moderate, but i can't say that he doesn't have a good counter to the 2012 bit available to him.
Click to expand...

While this is true, they still can't justify blocking the process until after the election. They have to know it's political suicide for their party and would kill whoever is the nominee.

At best they'll have to settle for a moderate.

Suikoguy said:
Hey, at least we just confirmed Metaphoreus is, in fact, not Scalia.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have laughed as hard as I did at this.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I also don't think anyone here expects a smooth sail through Congress to whomever Obama nominates. Or that the person will even get confirmed. What is so insulting is the fact that the majority leader, without even seeing who the President will nominate, has decided for completely partisan reasons that he wants to wait until the next president is elected. For reasons.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
How are they using their judgment if some members are already saying they'll block Obama's nominee without even hearing who it is?
Click to expand...

It's just a direct emotional reaction to the death of a Great Man and a personal friend. They'll calm down and get around to looking at the nominees before rejecting every single one of them.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Brawndo Addict said:
Assuming it did make it to the election, I'm not sure whether that favors Dems or Repubs more honestly. I could see it quickly devolving into a referendum on abortion in terms of the political discourse, and I think that favors Dems in the swing states.
Click to expand...

It won't come down to abortion. The Court lost a conservative, not a liberal. So conservatives are defending a pre-existing majority, not hoping to expand it. Demagoguing on Citizens United or Heller is the surest way for the Democrats to turn out their voters on SCOTUS nominations.

On mobile, so I'll respond to any replies to this and my last comment later tonight when I'm at my PC.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
ivysaur12 said:
I also don't think anyone here expects a smooth sail through Congress to whomever Obama nominates. Or that the person will even get confirmed. What is so insulting is the fact that the majority leader, without even seeing who the President will nominate, has decided for completely partisan reasons that he wants to wait until the next president is elected. For reasons.
Click to expand...

If they really do refuse to pick this up until after the election then they've just handed the Dems the election. There's no way the country would stand for fuckery of that level.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Coriolanus said:
Ah. i think i see the narrative angle the turtle will go for.

Yes, democrats voted for bams in 2012, so that the man could appoint a judge.

But voters also gave republicans a senate majority in 2014, so that they could counter his perceived excesses.

tbh it's a good point. I mean, it's fuckery of the highest order and i do agree that he should settle for a moderate, but i can't say that he doesn't have a good counter to the 2012 bit available to him.

Obv flat-out saying that they'll reject everybody, as mitch implied, is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Which is where democrats go to the public with a hopefully likable judge and ask them what they think about that judge, and point out that republicans won't even consider that judge. It doesn't have to be a constitutional question of balance of power.
 
S

sangreal

Member
sc0la said:
I mean it would have been "ok" before. It's largely irrelevant, but I guess they have to frame it somehow.
Click to expand...

Sorry, to give more context -- the reason I say "okay" is because Graham was part of the gang of 14 which argued that the President has a right to a vote on his (appellate court) nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances". The GOP went back on the extraordinary circumstances part, and Reid eliminated the filibuster on those nominees, so now Graham says that he is fine w/ denying the President a vote on a scotus nominee
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
It won't come down to abortion. The Court lost a conservative, not a liberal. So conservatives are defending a pre-existing majority, not hoping to expand it. Demagoguing on Citizens United or Heller is the surest way for the Democrats to turn out their voters on SCOTUS nominations.
Click to expand...

I feel like it's more tied with respect to Kennedy but sure, I agree that the flipped scenario would have been much more engaging for Republicans. But that doesn't mean they can't make the argument that if they don't win this election Roe will never be overturned. And it's hard to imagine a debate about the supreme court in which abortion does not play a central role with the public.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Bless this beautiful man's heart on MSNBC. "His time has come." Thank fuck you're beautiful babe, cause I don't think you're a speaker.

GURL. Stop banging on your keyboard.
 
Q

QuiteWhittle

Member
Man, imagine if the next GOP president not only continues the conservative majority but strengthens it when RGB and Kennedy inevitably retires.
 
D

Diablos

Member
What if Roberts calls out the GOP? I could see him doing it. Can they force a vote? They sit on the highest court in the land.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
thefro said:
shit...

I just realized Obama or a Dem filling that side would likely flip Citizens United too.

Definitely the most interesting thing politically in my lifetime, I think.
Click to expand...
Citizens United is done though. They can't really just bring stuff up because they want to.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
sangreal said:
Sorry, to give more context -- the reason I say "okay" is because Graham was part of the gang of 14 which argued that the President has a right to a vote on his (appellate court) nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances". The GOP went back on the extraordinary circumstances part, and Reid eliminated the filibuster on those nominees, so now Graham says that he is fine w/ denying the President a vote on a scotus nominee
Click to expand...
Ah gotcha. That makes more sense in context.
 
T

teiresias

Member
Metaphoreus said:
And they elected their senators for 6. The president isn't guaranteed his nominees, and the Senate has an obligation to use their independent judgment in confirming, or not, a nominee. Their confirmation power isn't a rubber stamp.
Click to expand...

Except they've already broadcast their opposition to ANY nominee coming from the current sitting President. That's not using judgment, that's being partisan obstructionists.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Larry Sabato ‏@LarrySabato 22m22 minutes ago
My guess: Obama will nominate a well-credentialed liberal and demand Senate action, which won't come. Clinton/Sanders will seize the issue.

Sean T at RCP ‏@SeanTrende 1h1 hour ago
I believe this will be the first time a Republican Senate heard a Democratic SCOTUS appointee since Rufus Peckham in 1895.
Click to expand...

.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Alright, fucking lord.

I'm in for $25 monthly contributions to Russ Feingold, Katie McGinty, Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan, Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth.

Democratic President and Senate in 2016.
 
T

Team Alucard

Banned
For people who are more knowledgeable than me on these matters: What impact will Scalia's death have in regards to Friedrichs vs. California? Is it likely to be a split 4-4 decision now?
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Aaron Strife said:
Alright, fucking lord.

I'm in for $25 monthly contributions to Russ Feingold, Katie McGinty, Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan, Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth.

Democratic President and Senate in 2016.
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried about Feingold honestly, although I probably should donate to him. He's still remembered incredibly fondly in Wisconsin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
8K
Mr Hyde replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
78K
zephiross replied
Top Bottom