Jump to content

US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

84/14 is actually more conservative than I would have expected for Unitarian Universalist.  I grew up in that church and I have only met one republican UU in my life (not to mention being explicitly pro gay marriage and anti-war).

I agree.  Aside from my college campus, UU congregations are the most liberal groups I've ever encountered.  The one in Atlanta is pretty amazing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for anyone wondering why the Seventh Day Adventists skew way more toward the Democrats than other "evangelical" denominations, it's because they are the most racially diverse larger religious group in the USA, being over 30% African-American:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Given that the constitution literally says advise AND consent, isn't it the job of the Senate to actually consent?

Ace,

Are you saying the Senate can't decline a Supreme Court nomination?  If so, Justice Bork should probably be notified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ace,

Are you saying the Senate can't decline a Supreme Court nomination?  If so, Justice Bork should probably be notified.

Not at all.  I'm saying advisement to the president that they will never consent is not constitutional.  

It is also arbitrary, since who's to say this couldn't be pulled for two year.... or an entire second term.... or as long as one has the ability to filibuster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Given that the constitution literally says advise AND consent, isn't it the job of the Senate to actually consent?

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 Roberts whose nomination to the DC Circuit was withdrawn after 9 months of Democratic obstructionism.  Ironically enough, Democrats routinely blocked these judges from receiving a hearing under the pretense of it being an election year:

 

Quote

 

Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing. And that does not count an additional 20 nominations for the federal bench where Biden did not hold hearings that year, which CRS excluded from its count because they reached the Senate “within approximately [four] months before it adjourned.”

...

That's not all. In 1988, then-Chairman Biden also killed the nominations of nine candidates for the federal bench appointed by President Ronald Reagan without so much as a hearing. The New York Times reported at the time that “Democrats were determined to bury” some of the nominations because, as one liberal lobbyist told the paper, “the appellate seats were too precious to for us to give up” in a presidential election year.

Biden's Defenders claim that he made his 1992 remarks about killing a Supreme Court nominee in June of an election year, not February. But some of the nominees Biden killed that election year had been nominated as early as January 1991 — 17 months before the presidential election. And some of the nominees he killed in 1998 had been nominated as early as February 1987 — 16 months before voters went to the polls to choose a new president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-biden-killed-john-robertss-nomination-in-92/2016/02/25/c17841be-dbdf-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ormond said:

Here's very recent data from PEW on the political preferences of Americans by religious denomination.

I think it's a bit misleading that PEW calls Anglicans "mainline" as in the USA "Anglicans" are the small group who broke away from the Episcopal church when they started ordaining women as priests. It is completely expected for them to skew more toward the Republicans than the other groups PEW calls "mainline".

My biggest personal surprises on this were that the Methodists still skew a bit Republican (which may have something to do with their being the "mainline" denomination that has the highest percentage of rural members), and that the Unitarians skew just as much toward the Democrats as the historically Black denominations and more so than the atheists.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ft_16-02-22_religionpoliticalaffiliation_640px-2/

Catholics: freakishly average

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tempra said:

By now, we all know that the Biden Precedent makes democrats look like raging hypocrites,

I do enjoy how you believe a hypothetical that never happened is the same thing as reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alguien,

Tempra gave several examples of federal judgeships being held up using Biden's proposal.  Now, I always prefer an up and down vote.  But we will see what happens.  Neither major party is particularly unstained when it comes to seeking to influence Federal courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

while both parties have obstructed one another with lower appointments, all the reading I've done seems to indicate that this particular obstruction is pretty unprecedented. Yes, both parties have threatened to do so before, but this is the first time it's actually happened. And acting as though hypotheticals are the same as an actual event seems disingenuous to me. 

Frankly, knowing what I've seen from Democrats, out two parties, if Biden/Schumer's doomsday scenario (which I don't concede is the same since they weren't head of the Senate) had come to pass, I wonder if the Dems would have pulled the trigger. Frankly, I think they'd be the more likely to threaten to do so, then do a deal to get a middle of the road replacement for the hypothetical loss of their liberal judge. 

At first, I thought this was the tactic McConnell was going for, but more and more, I don't think it's a negotiating tactic and instead is just obstructionism, a hail mary for a GOP presidency to save the nom. 

Still, if it looks like the Dems will likely win the presidency, McConnell might change tack and try this move. As you say, we shall see what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, alguien said:

Scott,

while both parties have obstructed one another with lower appointments, all the reading I've done seems to indicate that this particular obstruction is pretty unprecedented. Yes, both parties have threatened to do so before, but this is the first time it's actually happened. And acting as though hypotheticals are the same as an actual event seems disingenuous to me. 

Frankly, knowing what I've seen from Democrats, out two parties, if Biden/Schumer's doomsday scenario (which I don't concede is the same since they weren't head of the Senate) had come to pass, I wonder if the Dems would have pulled the trigger. Frankly, I think they'd be the more likely to threaten to do so, then do a deal to get a middle of the road replacement for the hypothetical loss of their liberal judge. 

At first, I thought this was the tactic McConnell was going for, but more and more, I don't think it's a negotiating tactic and instead is just obstructionism, a hail mary for a GOP presidency to save the nom. 

Still, if it looks like the Dems will likely win the presidency, McConnell might change tack and try this move. As you say, we shall see what happens. 

Ease off the melodrama.  Obama hasn't even nominated anyone whom the Republicans can obstruct.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I know I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Justices themselves (other than their voting on cases), but I can't even imagine him not asking a single question for 10 years.  That is just insane.

And this is such a hot button issue for me. His questions truly piss me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lany Freelove Strangeways said:

I know I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Justices themselves (other than their voting on cases), but I can't even imagine him not asking a single question for 10 years.  That is just insane.

And this is such a hot button issue for me. His questions truly piss me off.

Could you perhaps explain why his questions "truly piss [you] off"?

Since, based on the article, they seem pretty straight forward and not particularly inflammatory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tempra said:

Ease off the melodrama.  Obama hasn't even nominated anyone whom the Republicans can obstruct.  

But they have refused to meet with Obama to discuss (ie advise and consent) who they would like nominated.  Which IS unprecedented AND a dereliction of their Constitutional duties,

3 hours ago, Lany Freelove Strangeways said:

I know I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Justices themselves (other than their voting on cases), but I can't even imagine him not asking a single question for 10 years.  That is just insane.

And this is such a hot button issue for me. His questions truly piss me off.

He kinda has to speak up.  Without Scalia there, he has to now form his own opinion.

EDIT: Thats not exactly fair.  People better informed than I say that often times, the justices use oral arguments not to solidify their own opinion, but to make points to other justices to bring them over to their side.  And Scalia used to do that, and Thomas just woke up long enough to say "Ditto Scalia".  Now that Scalia is gone, he has to make his case to the other justices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Could you perhaps explain why his questions "truly piss [you] off"?

Since, based on the article, they seem pretty straight forward and not particularly inflammatory. 

Dude, he is obviously trying to get the other judges to accept that a misdemeanor domestic assault charge should not stop their right to own guns.  You have to be particularly obtuse if you can not figure out why that line of reasoning might piss someone off.  Or are a domestic assaults escalating to murder just speed bumps on freedom road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...