Politics And Current Events

Postby **slappybrown** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:21 pm

Also, if this were any other Justice but Scalia I don't think there would have been word one about deferring the nomination. Republicans are in the unfortunate position of having lost their biggest ideological ally on the Court on the other team's watch.
This is undoubtedly true. If Ginsberg had kicked the bucket you'd had a new justice already on the bench.

But let's not act like McConnell is under some "constitutional" requirement to hold hearings and the like.

The President is free to nominate anyone he wants.

We went through a similar (lower court) thing with Miguel Estrada in 2001. Dem Senate refused to hold hearings and then filibustered him for two years.

McConnell is telling him not to even send a name. If Obama sends him the left version of Estrada and the R's vote him down, no one really gets their dander up outside of Dems.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:24 pm

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.
The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.
They are going to lose in November regardless, so I am not sure what the "catastrophe" could be.
So if you think this, why do you think refusing to hold hearings is the way to go? The Dems are projected to take back the Senate, and you're forecasting a Hillary presidency. She can get anyone onto SCOTUS as a result. Wouldn't you prefer what is likely to be a relatively moderate choice by Obama?

Well even a moderate choice by Obama is going to tip the court 5-4 the other way. So if its Obama or Hillary the only hope the GOP has to not lose the court for a generation is to stonewall and hail mary.

If Anthony Kennedy is the "moderate" right now, he'll actually make it 6-3 until he dies/retires.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:25 pm

Also, if this were any other Justice but Scalia I don't think there would have been word one about deferring the nomination. Republicans are in the unfortunate position of having lost their biggest ideological ally on the Court on the other team's watch.
This is undoubtedly true. If Ginsberg had kicked the bucket you'd had a new justice already on the bench.

But let's not act like McConnell is under some "constitutional" requirement to hold hearings and the like.

The President is free to nominate anyone he wants.

We went through a similar (lower court) thing with Miguel Estrada in 2001. Dem Senate refused to hold hearings and then filibustered him for two years.
McConnell is telling him not to even send a name. If Obama sends him the left version of Estrada and the R's vote him down, no one really gets their dander up outside of Dems.

McConnell has no power to stop Obama from sending a name, only the President can stop himself from doing it.

Why would he back down?

I mean right now Obama is in the process of closing Gitmo without anyone else's approval, so why would he let McConnell stop him?

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:28 pm

If Anthony Kennedy is the "moderate" right now, he'll actually make it 6-3 until he dies/retires.

I'd be shocked it Kennedy was anything less than a reliable R vote from here on out. And 5-4 is a helluva lot better than 6-3.

Postby **slappybrown** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:29 pm

Also, if this were any other Justice but Scalia I don't think there would have been word one about deferring the nomination. Republicans are in the unfortunate position of having lost their biggest ideological ally on the Court on the other team's watch.
This is undoubtedly true. If Ginsberg had kicked the bucket you'd had a new justice already on the bench.

But let's not act like McConnell is under some "constitutional" requirement to hold hearings and the like.

The President is free to nominate anyone he wants.

We went through a similar (lower court) thing with Miguel Estrada in 2001. Dem Senate refused to hold hearings and then filibustered him for two years.
McConnell is telling him not to even send a name. If Obama sends him the left version of Estrada and the R's vote him down, no one really gets their dander up outside of Dems.
McConnell has no power to stop Obama from sending a name, only the President can stop himself from doing it.

Why would he back down?

I mean right now Obama is in the process of closing Gitmo without anyone else's approval, so why would he let McConnell stop him?

Of course Obama alone has that ability, and I am sure he will send a nominee.

He should "back down" from playing obstructionist.

I assumed you'd be in favor of Gitmo closing down.

Postby **shmenguin** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:30 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:31 pm

But let's not act like McConnell is under some "constitutional" requirement to hold hearings and the like.

He's not under any obligation to have hearings; before 1968 there had never been a public hearing on a SCOTUS nominee.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:34 pm

I mean right now Obama is in the process of closing Gitmo without anyone else's approval, so why would he let McConnell stop him?

He can't do that, it would be illegal for him to unilaterally close the facility. That's why the plan was sent to Congress.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:35 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.

It will be interesting to watch the GOP go suicide nuclear on Trump when he mathematically eliminates everyone else.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:36 pm

If they keep this up, I will actually vote for Clinton in November (and I don't want to do that).
I'm generally ambivalent when it comes to politics outside of drug reform, but the GOP's stance on this is so patently ludicrous and transparent that I'm in the same boat.

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.

This is more or less where I am with this.

In evaluating a president, the only things I tend to focus on are foreign policy and judicial philosophy. They are the biggest areas a president can exert a lasting influence beyond their term. If Rs want to play this game, I want that Court looking like FDRs wet dream. (Which is not a sentence I thought I'd be typing today.)

Postby **slappybrown** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:41 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.
It will be interesting to watch the GOP go suicide nuclear on Trump when he mathematically eliminates everyone else.

I assumed he would then get the support of the party, albeit reluctantly to put it mildly.

What do you think will happen?

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:43 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.
It will be interesting to watch the GOP go suicide nuclear on Trump when he mathematically eliminates everyone else.
I assumed he would then get the support of the party, albeit reluctantly to put it mildly.

What do you think will happen?

I honest to goodness think there will be a serious attempt (I don't know the rules) at the convention to stop him.

Postby **Tico Rick** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:13 pm

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.
The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.
They are going to lose in November regardless, so I am not sure what the "catastrophe" could be.
So if you think this, why do you think refusing to hold hearings is the way to go? The Dems are projected to take back the Senate, and you're forecasting a Hillary presidency. She can get anyone onto SCOTUS as a result. Wouldn't you prefer what is likely to be a relatively moderate choice by Obama?

This is why McConnell's strategy is not well thought out - by holding off, the odds are that we'll get a more liberal judge than we would under Obama. Also, by flatly rejecting the idea of holding hearings, it puts the Republicans on the defensive at election time. He could've said they'd hold hearings, and then later vote down Obama's nominee, which would keep the Republicans free of the charges of being obstructionist and only following the Constitution on non-election years. Bad move by McConnell, IMO.

Postby **Willie Kool** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:21 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.
It will be interesting to watch the GOP go suicide nuclear on Trump when he mathematically eliminates everyone else.
I assumed he would then get the support of the party, albeit reluctantly to put it mildly.

What do you think will happen?
I honest to goodness think there will be a serious attempt (I don't know the rules) at the convention to stop him.

I'm pretty sure that R delegates are NOT bound to the candidate they were elected to support at the convention, and are free to vote as they wish.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:21 pm

Between this and the primary mess, the republican sh!tshow is going to make HRC look like a perfectly adequate option for many people who wouldn't have otherwise thought so.
It will be interesting to watch the GOP go suicide nuclear on Trump when he mathematically eliminates everyone else.
I assumed he would then get the support of the party, albeit reluctantly to put it mildly.

What do you think will happen?
I honest to goodness think there will be a serious attempt (I don't know the rules) at the convention to stop him.
I'm pretty sure that R delegates are NOT bound to the candidate they were elected to support at the convention, and are free to vote as they wish.

Romney 2016

Postby **AuthorTony** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:38 pm

Romney 2016

I'd rather see Palin vs Clinton

Postby **Willie Kool** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:51 pm

I'd rather see Palin vs Clinton

I'm sure you're not the only one.

Postby **columbia** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:54 pm

First Seka reference I've seen in sevaral decades.

Postby **tifosi77** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:07 pm

Mental image, can't unsee.

Postby **shafnutz05** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:07 pm

It would be one thing for the Republicans to at least wait until the nominee was announced. McConnell is a buffoon.

Makes you wonder if the Senate leadership is thinking that a Hillary victory would be better than a victory for Trump for the entrenched Republican establishment.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:08 pm

Not touching that spoiler

Postby **Shyster** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:10 pm

Also, by flatly rejecting the idea of holding hearings, it puts the Republicans on the defensive at election time.

Maybe. How it plays to independents will be the deciding factor. The Republican base is well aware of the fact that the balance of the Supreme Court is in play, and I believe they're going to be every bit as energized as the Democrats would be by any obstruction.

Postby **columbia** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:10 pm

I recall being in HS and seeing a sign for a SICA picnic in South Park. We had a lot of laughs over that....and I'm still sort smiling.

Postby **columbia** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:14 pm

Also, by flatly rejecting the idea of holding hearings, it puts the Republicans on the defensive at election time.
Maybe. How it plays to independents will be the deciding factor. The Republican base is well aware of the fact that the balance of the Supreme Court is in play, and I believe they're going to be every bit as energized as the Democrats would be by any obstruction.

The Relublican base can't even seem to figure our how to our maneuver Trump in the primary. And many of them are complicit in nominating him. I wouldn't count on their mental clarity in 2016.

Postby **Shyster** » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:17 pm

Also, by flatly rejecting the idea of holding hearings, it puts the Republicans on the defensive at election time.
Maybe. How it plays to independents will be the deciding factor. The Republican base is well aware of the fact that the balance of the Supreme Court is in play, and I believe they're going to be every bit as energized as the Democrats would be by any obstruction.
The Relublican base can't even seem to figure our how to our maneuver Trump in the primary. And many of them are complicit in nominating him. I wouldn't count on their mental clarity in 2016.

Do you think they would really sit home and miss a chance to vote against Hillary Clinton?