Tempra

Members
  • Content count

    7,537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Tempra

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

6,090 profile views
  1. US Politics: 50 shades of Scalia

    Certainly,he is eminently qualified for SCOTUS. It will be ashameif his nomination gets held up because of political partisanship. Of course, Obama should have nominated him a vacancy or two ago...
  2. NFL 2016 Offseaon: free agency freakout

    About half the ninerfans,including most of those on this board, have been dumping on him since he threw his first incomplete pass after being named starter in 2012. The 49ers have a crappy FO and set offans. Can anyone blame him for wanting to jump ship? Indeed, as it stands now, he is the only reason the niners weren't completely embarrassed by Joe Flacco and the Ravens in that super bowl.
  3. Apple vs the FBI

    Government's reply brief: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29622193/apple-v-fbi-government-calls-iphone-makers-arguments
  4. U.S. Elections: 3rd Party Masturbatory Fantasies

    What? She constantly interrupted himand he, finally, stuck up for himself and said "excuse me. I'm talking." HRC is not a delicate flower.
  5. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    How many Clarence Thomas opinions have you read? Which ones? Do you understand that the phrase "original judicial insight" is pretty much an oxymoron given foundational role of stare decisis in our legal system? Justice Thomas's silence is by no means unique. Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan as well as Chief Justice Burger rarely asked questions during oral argument. Do you believe those Justices lacked any "shred of original judicial insight" as well? The rhetoric--or code words--portraying Justice Thomas as a slow, incompetent (black) man whose only purpose on the Court was to vote however MasterScalia ordained is quite disturbing. One has to wonder whether those sentiments can simply be chalked up to ideological opposition or if something a bit more sinister is afoot. (I don't think such rhetoric directed towards Justice Sotomayor would go unchallenged in these threads, though similar arguments could be raised about the quality of her opinions and tendancy to votein lockstep with Justice Kagan.) Alas, anyone who views Thomas as a dimwit is either ignorant or worse. While liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin thinks Thomas' silence is "disgraceful," he does not fall into the same trap believing Thomas is stupid: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/08/29/partners-jeffrey-toobin
  6. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Ease off the melodrama. Obama hasn't even nominated anyone whom the Republicans can obstruct.
  7. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Well, the constitution doesn't say the Senate shall advise and consent, it says the president shall nominate judges with the advice and consent of the senate. What exactly advice and consent means is an open question as are the questions of "when?"and "if?"it must be given. By now, we all know that the Biden Precedent makes democrats look like raging hypocrites, but the extent of Biden Precedent is huge. In addition to the threats of blocking a SCOTUS nominee, democrats actively blocked dozens of nominees by refusing to have a confirmation hearing. One such nominee was John Robertswhose nomination to the DC Circuit was withdrawn after 9 months of Democratic obstructionism. Ironically enough, Democratsroutinely blocked these judges from receiving a hearing under the pretense of it being an election year: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-biden-killed-john-robertss-nomination-in-92/2016/02/25/c17841be-dbdf-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
  8. US elections: The Trumpening

    Looks like someone is trying to defend his (future) vote for Rape Culture.
  9. US elections: The Trumpening

    It's a bit much listening to Hillary invoke the namesof Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown after her role in perpetuating fear ofblack males--the so called "super predators."
  10. Agreed. I think minimum and maximum ages are a better method of limiting tenure on SCOTUS, though I am sure there are some unforeseen consequences that alteration as well.
  11. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Uhh, while that is irrelevant in a discussion on general obstructionism, it's also BS. Schumer, Leahy, Kennedy and others were demanding hearings on the necessity of filling the vacancy on the DC circuit (among others). Sound familiar? That's was the argument republicans made when they blocked Obama's nominees to the DC Circuit. (Republicans did this to Clinton as well. No party'shands are clean) http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/senators/?issue=&nominee=136760831 Also, the"strikes" against Keiser were that he was founder of the Federalist Society, clerked for Bork, and was in charge of the Civil Division of DOJ during Bush's administration. Democrats had no problem putting the architect of the Torture Memos,Jay Bybee, on the 9th Circuit. Keisler was tasked with overseeing the Government's defense of Gitmo prisoner's habeas petitions, which was far less controversial, not to mention a TINY fraction of his overall job responsibilities. Thus, the last reason is really BS.As to the first two reasons, do you think it's acceptable then for Republicans to block Democratic nominees who 1) are members of the American Constitution Society (liberal equivalent of the Federalist Society) or 2) clerked for a very liberal judge? I don't think either of those criteria should disqualify a nominee or even have any impact at all.
  12. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2013/12/30-staffing-federal-judiciary-2013-no-breakthrough-year I've posted this link before comparing Clinton vs Bush vs Obama on how each fared during their first 5 years. I missed earlier how you selectively focus on the wait time for "noncontroversial" nominees. Uhh, why not compare all nominees? Is that because Bush's court of appeals nominees faced a 403 day wait from nomination to confirmation compared to 253 for Obama'snominees? Bush'snominees fared better at the district court level 161 vs. 223. I have no idea where you get your 7 vs 82 blocked nominee numbers. Per wikipedia, there were 10 filibusters during the 108th congress alone. I'm not sure how you figure democrats got "nothing" out of the gang of 14. They got the status quo regarding filibuster rule, which prevented Bush from ramming through nominees in the 109th Congress like Obama did after the change of filibuster rules in the 113th Congress. Thus, people like William Myers, Terrence Boyle, William Haynes and Michael Wallace did not get confirmed. Additionally, Democrats blocked plenty of Bush nominees after the gang of 14, notwithstanding your attempts to limit it to nominees blocked by "filibuster rules."Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad, Steve Matthews, and Robert Conrad were all blocked in committee. Finally, Bush's DC nominations didn't go through "fine." Estrada was filibustered. Janice Brown was stalled for 2 years and only confirmed as part of the Gang of 14. Thomas Griffith ditto. Brett Kavanaugh stalled for 3 years before confirmation. Peter Keisler blocked. That's not "fine", that's horrific. Edit: Bush didn't even bother nominating a judge toRandolph's seat in 2008 on the DC circuit given the futility of nominating a judge to that circuit, especially as an outgoing president in a presidentialelection year.
  13. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    It's not just Estrada. It's Peter Keisler, Robert Conrad, Glen Conrad, etc. Democratic obstructionism has helped shift thebalance of power in many of thr Courts of Appeals. Heck, John Roberts' formetseat on the DC circuit went vacant from 2005 until 2013 because of Democratic (then Republican) obstructionism. Democrats have zero credibility whining about obstructionism on judicial appointments, especially a few day delay on a lifetime appointment.
  14. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Democrats reap what they sow.
  15. US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

    Democrats are raging hypocrites on judicial nominations (as are Republicans). Only the board's uber partisan hacks are surprised by this... Nice opinion piece by Miguel Estrada on the lack of rules on SCOTUS nominations:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-no-longer-are-any-rules-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-process/2016/02/19/2a56198a-d740-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=a_inl Some of you might recognize the name Miguel Estrada. He was the "dangerous"Latino that Democrats filibustered over a nearly 3 year period. BTW, it took 4 years to fill that vacancy due to Democratic obstructionism. Now, Democrats are whining about a potential 11 months vacancy...