TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: They are qualified for the position based on their prior behavior as Judges, or they are not. We're going back on forth on this between here and Facebook, so I'm going to consolidate my comments by saying that I don't think candidates for any office should be evaluated so simplistically. If judging were that easy, we could just let a computer do it. If I were a US senator, I'd want to see more than a resume; I want to understand how the nominee thinks, and that, IMO, is perfectly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: We're going back on forth on this between here and Facebook, so I'm going to consolidate my comments by saying that I don't think candidates for any office should be evaluated so simplistically. If judging were that easy, we could just let a computer do it. If I were a US senator, I'd want to see more than a resume; I want to understand how the nominee thinks, and that, IMO, is perfectly reasonable. Which ends up where we are with Senators refusing to even consider the appointment of a well qualified candiate for the SCOTUS because they are not of the same party as the person nominating Judge Garland. I'm trying to come up with a way to get the political bullshit out of this process. As soon as it comes in a crack it acts like freezing water opening up the crack wider and wider until we end with a completely politicized Federal Judiciary. I'm not okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Florida and North Carolina are also making me feel a lot better. Nevada, Iowa and Ohio have all had very mixed polling, but NC and Florida are consistently showing Clinton ahead by ~3 points (aside from one outlier poll in each state, which you'd expect with that kind of lead). A win in either one more or less seals it for Clinton. And early voting is already happening in both, with nearly 1/3rd of the 2012 total votes in each state already submitted. Florida and North Carolina are definitely Clinton's big safety net. This is my map right now. Clinton 340 - Trump 198 Florida and North Carolina both look good. Nevada looks really good, with the machine back in force after inexplicably taking 2014 off (also, its a state where the polling is always pretty bad; I basically just listen to whatever Jon Ralston says). I honestly think Clinton is going to take Arizona. Iowa's a tough call, and hardly been polled in a month (Q-polls did show a tie yesterday) but my gut says Clinton wins. On the other hand, Ohio really does look lost, and Georgia and Texas may be a lot closer than normal but I haven't seen enough yet to think Clinton is actually going to win them. Utah is a complete wildcard, but I need to just default to the Republican nominee until I actually see someone else win it. Everything else looks to go as its been expected to go all year. Maybe Clinton wins NE-2 or Alaska, but I wouldn't count on it; and maybe Trump wins ME-2, but I also wouldn't count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrl6199 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, Fez said: This is my map right now. Clinton 340 - Trump 198 Florida and North Carolina both look good. Nevada looks really good, with the machine back in force after inexplicably taking 2014 off (also, its a state where the polling is always pretty bad; I basically just listen to whatever Jon Ralston says). I honestly think Clinton is going to take Arizona. Iowa's a tough call, and hardly been polled in a month (Q-polls did show a tie yesterday) but my gut says Clinton wins. On the other hand, Ohio really does look lost, and Georgia and Texas may be a lot closer than normal but I haven't seen enough yet to think Clinton is actually going to win them. Utah is a complete wildcard, but I need to just default to the Republican nominee until I actually see someone else win it. Everything else looks to go as its been expected to go all year. Maybe Clinton wins NE-2 or Alaska, but I wouldn't count on it; and maybe Trump wins ME-2, but I also wouldn't count on it. You said this is your map right now? So your saying that you made this map of whose gonna win. Thais interesting. Theirs another cool website called swing the election where you can just alter features to see who will win. In fact i found it on this forum. But onto what your gut said about Clinton winning do you think that has anything to do with how your anti trump? I mean i'm against trump too but i heard a trump supporter say his gut said trump would win so most of its based on bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Which ends up where we are with Senators refusing to even consider the appointment of a well qualified candiate for the SCOTUS because they are not of the same party as the person nominating Judge Garland. I'm trying to come up with a way to get the political bullshit out of this process. As soon as it comes in a crack it acts like freezing water opening up the crack wider and wider until we end with a completely politicized Federal Judiciary. I'm not okay with that. No, it doesn't necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to expect a senator to vote simply on the basis of a resume. This is a lifetime appointment of significant import, so something more is called for. That's not the same thing as blind partisanship, wouldn't you agree. As to your second point, I don't know how the hell one gets politics out of a political appointment--or why you'd want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrl6199 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Just now, TrackerNeil said: No, it doesn't necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to expect a senator to vote simply on the basis of a resume. This is a lifetime appointment of significant import, so something more is called for. That's not the same thing as blind partisanship, wouldn't you agree. As to your second point, I don't know how the hell one gets politics out of a political appointment--or why you'd want to. I think that senators should vote on what their gut feeling is. But most just vote based on their party so we dint see their true views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Which ends up where we are with Senators refusing to even consider the appointment of a well qualified candiate for the SCOTUS because they are not of the same party as the person nominating Judge Garland. I'm trying to come up with a way to get the political bullshit out of this process. As soon as it comes in a crack it acts like freezing water opening up the crack wider and wider until we end with a completely politicized Federal Judiciary. I'm not okay with that. You can't lock up the darkness politics. It'll seep in. Ideally the people have to hold their reps accountable but, if the nature of the nation shifts so far that they are apparently unwilling or unable to do this inventing a bright line where no politics will be let in doesn't seem like it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 GOD DAMNIT. Doesn't matter if nothing new pops up; this did not need to show up again http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html?adkey=bn Quote FBI Director James Comey said Friday the bureau is reviewing new emails related to Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, according to a letter sent to eight congressional committee chairmen, a surprise development with 11 days until the election. After recommending this year that the Department of Justice not press charges against the Secretary of State, Comey said in the letter that "recent developments" urged him to take another look. "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation This is gonna be the lead news story for at least the next four days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Wrl6199 said: I think that senators should vote on what their gut feeling is. But most just vote based on their party so we dint see their true views. I'm not a big fan of "gut feelings", but as you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: No, it doesn't necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to expect a senator to vote simply on the basis of a resume. This is a lifetime appointment of significant import, so something more is called for. That's not the same thing as blind partisanship, wouldn't you agree. As to your second point, I don't know how the hell one gets politics out of a political appointment--or why you'd want to. The Judiciary isn't a political branch. Lifetime appointments exist to give Judges freedom to be above politics. If we want create a third political branch then Judges ought to be elected. At least then we know what we've created. I really wonder how the Senate would react if every Judicial nominee answered all questions posed with "I direct you to my existing record speculation as to how I might decide a future case is a violation of Judicial Canons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 25 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Florida and North Carolina are definitely Clinton's big safety net. As someone who was living in North Carolina (as an undergraduate at Duke) when the infamous Jesse Helms was first elected to the U. S. Senate, it blows my mind that North Carolina is a "safety net" for a Democratic woman running for President. It is so true that change is the only constant in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, Fez said: GOD DAMNIT. Doesn't matter if nothing new pops up; this did not need to show up again http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html?adkey=bn This is gonna be the lead news story for at least the next four days. OMFG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The Judiciary isn't a political branch. Lifetime appointments exist to give Judges freedom to be above politics. If we want create a third political branch then Judges ought to be elected. At least then we know what we've created. I don't think anyone in government is "above politics", and that's probably a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I don't think anyone in government is "above politics", and that's probably a good thing. Then Judges ought to be elected as political power in our system derives from the people. It is exactly why Senators moved from election by State legislatures to direct election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Then Judges ought to be elected. I think you are engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Judicial nominations can be influenced by political concerns without being equivalent to popular elections, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said: I think you are engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Judicial nominations can be influenced by political concerns without being equivalent to popular elections, methinks. Okay, Then Senators should not be directly elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Okay, Then Senators should not be directly elected. Wait...what? How did we get on to the election of US senators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 So we'll see how it plays out the next few days, but for now I am officially panicking about the election for the first time. And Comey should be impeached for interfering with the election; though he won't be of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I don't think anyone in government is "above politics", and that's probably a good thing. Insofar as jurisprudence is a sub-branch of political philosophy, there is potentially some overlap, but political philosophy is really about how power should be apportioned and politics is also very concerned about what to do with that power. So, Judges are concerned about whether a federal goverment, state government, public or private association, or individual properly has the power to do something, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Judges are concerned with what, if that power is established, the entity in question should do with it. But to the extent that politics concerns itself with the apportionment of power, sure, there is some overlap. But the approach to dealing with that question is still different. Politicians might gerrymander districts, and the Court might tell them they do or do not have the power to do that, but the Court won't tell Congress how to draw districts instead, though I guarantee you they each have private and personal opinions on that subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I think you are engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Judicial nominations can be influenced by political concerns without being equivalent to popular elections, methinks. And no Judges shouldn't be influenced by politics why else are they appointed for life? Judges are not and have never been "representatives" of the people. They are above and apart from the rest of us. That is why Judges surrender free speech rights and are not allowed to engage in political speech. They have power the rest of us lack. Therefore, Politics has no business in the selection of Judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.