Scalia Dead.

[dshans]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GxonNvuCFRY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh, ta hell wid it. Fuggit.

Let the Darkness Rain and Reign, no Rein, no Rein, no Rein.

 

[pkt77242]

McConnell came out today and said that the Senate will not confirm any candidate that Obama nominates.

 

[wizards8507]

Grassley Holds Strong, Cites Biden Rules | The Daily Caller

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AI1CtXwIZJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Grassley Holds Strong, Cites Biden Rules | The Daily Caller

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AI1CtXwIZJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Relevant:

Supreme Court Squabbles Hit Peak Absurdity In Claims Of Hypocrisy

Coons noted that Biden helped confirm 11 appeals court judges in 1992, a presidential election year. And he quoted another part of that 24-year-old Biden speech, in which the future vice president said, "If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

 

[Buster Bluth]

Isn't it also hypocritical on both sides at a minimum because just as Democrats were saying "no nomination on election year" the Republicans were saying "nah we want to do just that," am I missing something?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Isn't it also hypocritical on both sides at a minimum because just as Democrats were saying "no nomination on election year" the Republicans were saying "nah we want to do just that," am I missing something?

Sure. But the Biden quote is being held up as a "gotcha" for democrats. But the context was very different. First of all, it was in the middle of June, not February. But second, later in the SAME speech, he said that he would likely support a moderate appointee.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yesterday, McConnell says unequivocally they will not give an Obama appointee hearings. Graham and McCain on board as well.

 

[Irish#1]

Welcome to modern American politics and internet forum discussions of same.

PLEASE NOTE: All of this is just hufflepuff right now because why the R's are suggesting/contemplating these actions they have not DONE anything yet because no one has yet been nominated to be acted on or not.

This is what is so entertaining. While both parties are claiming righteousness and crying foul, there's nothing to argue about for now. It's all posturing.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yesterday, McConnell says unequivocally they will not give an Obama appointee hearings. Graham and McCain on board as well.

This is what is so entertaining. While both parties are claiming righteousness and crying foul, there's nothing to argue about for now. It's all posturing.

No its not posturing. They just AGAIN said, yesterday (as I just literally posted not five minutes ago) the Republicans, including the more moderates of them WILL NOT review an Obama appointee.

Refer back to my rather long post about the Republicans mission to destroy any political legacy of Obama.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Hypocrisy versus Insanity versus Entertainment

Hypocrisy versus Insanity versus Entertainment

Isn't it also hypocritical on both sides at a minimum because just as Democrats were saying "no nomination on election year" the Republicans were saying "nah we want to do just that," am I missing something?

This is what is so entertaining. While both parties are claiming righteousness and crying foul, there's nothing to argue about for now. It's all posturing.

At a very minimum, Buster. Because this is the situation time after time in the modern American political process. And you know what they say, doing the same thing over and over and over again is a functional definition of insanity.

Under that specific application, both parties collectively and individually qualify. As does the American electorate, for putting and keeping these clowns in business!

Irish#1 sees it for what it is, entertainment, albeit expensive entertainment. Neither party is about moving the country forward. All they are doing is providing entertainment to the voters, for payment by being allowed to squander the voters tax dollars.

As the French say, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Which should tell you all you need to know about American political parties, the American electorate, and insanity, for that matter!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Republican Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court.

This is both politically shrewd, and telling as to what the Democrats really care about. They're willing to let Citizen's United stand and sell out the working class, but the sexual revolution must be defended at all costs.

 

[woolybug25]

Republican Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court.

This is both politically shrewd, and telling as to what the Democrats really care about. They're willing to let Citizen's United stand and sell out the working class, but the sexual revolution must be defended at all costs.

I wouldn't say that abortion is the only issue he sways from the Republicans on.

But nominating Sandoval would carry risks for Obama. Sandoval is aligned with Democrats on some key issues, including abortion rights and the environment. As governor, he has moved to implement the Affordable Care Act, and has said he considers same-sex marriage to be a settled issue.

There are four issues just in that quote. Furthermore, to what extent does he agree with abortion? I do not know. I do know that he is very centrist though and considers himself a Republican. I'm not sure what outcome the senate really expects when they refuse to consider anyone. They are the one's forcing the Dem's hand here.

Furthermore, if the issue is that important to the Republicans, they should be trying to negotiate a Pro Life choice. Not simply blocking anyone. They could pull this same card and publicly support the appointment of a pro life centrist.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I wouldn't say that abortion is the only issue he sways from the Republicans on.

There are four issues just in that quote. Furthermore, to what extent does he agree with abortion? I do not know. I do know that he is very centrist though and considers himself a Republican. I'm not sure what outcome the senate really expects when they refuse to consider anyone. They are the one's forcing the Dem's hand here.

Furthermore, if the issue is that important to the Republicans, they should be trying to negotiate a Pro Life choice. Not simply blocking anyone. They could pull this same card and publicly support the appointment of a pro life centrist.

/shrug

I wasn't really making a normative argument. Just find it interesting that when the Democrats have to compromise values (and Obama will have to if his nominee is going to have any chance of getting approved), they'll cave on campaign finance reform and policies that favor the working class, but they're going to the mat to protect the sexual license.

 

[woolybug25]

/shrug

I wasn't really making a normative argument. Just find it interesting that when the Democrats have to compromise values (and Obama will have to if his nominee is going to have any chance of getting approved), they'll cave on campaign finance reform and policies that favor the working class, but they're going to the mat to protect the sexual license.

I hear ya, but i'm not sure what else they can do here. I don't necessarily believe that abortion specifically is what draws them to Sandoval. But rather the fact that he is a centrist Republican, who also happens to be hispanic. He is an obvious person to vett for that alone. His nomination would put the Senate in the precarious position of denying the hearing of a Hispanic Republican, simply because Obama appointed him (at least... that will be the public outcry).

But again... I hear what you're saying. I just think that he would still be an obvious vett for Obama, even if he wasn't more pro choice. Just my opinion, though.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I hear ya, but i'm not sure what else they can do here. I don't necessarily believe that abortion specifically is what draws them to Sandoval. But rather the fact that he is a centrist Republican, who also happens to be hispanic. He is an obvious person to vett for that alone. His nomination would put the Senate in the precarious position of denying the hearing of a Hispanic Republican, simply because Obama appointed him (at least... that will be the public outcry). But again... I hear what you're saying. I just think that he would still be an obvious vett for Obama, even if he wasn't more pro choice. Just my opinion, though.

That's fair. Other candidates are also allegedly being vetted, and who knows? Maybe one of them is labor-friendly and pro-life. We'll see what happens.

 

[ND NYC]

does anyone know where to find a copy of the courts decision on roe v wade? curious what the rationales were at the time

 

[wizards8507]

does anyone know where to find a copy of the courts decision on roe v wade? curious what the rationales were at the time

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

 

[pkt77242]

That's fair. Other candidates are also allegedly being vetted, and who knows? Maybe one of them is labor-friendly and pro-life. We'll see what happens.

Interestingly enough Scalia wasn't "pro-life", he was anti-abortion. Scalia seemed to have no issue with the death penalty (either legally or morally).
Statements on the Death Penalty by Supreme Court Justices | Death Penalty Information Center

Antonin Scalia - God's Justice and Ours

In recent years, that philosophy has been particularly well enshrined in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, our case law dealing with the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Several of our opinions have said that what falls within this prohibition is not static, but changes from generation to generation, to comport with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Applying that principle, the Court came close, in 1972, to abolishing the death penalty entirely. It ultimately did not do so, but it has imposed, under color of the Constitution, procedural and substantive limitations that did not exist when the Eighth Amendment was adopted—and some of which had not even been adopted by a majority of the states at the time they were judicially decreed. For example, the Court has prohibited the death penalty for all crimes except murder, and indeed even for what might be called run–of–the–mill murders, as opposed to those that are somehow characterized by a high degree of brutality or depravity. It has prohibited the mandatory imposition of the death penalty for any crime, insisting that in all cases the jury be permitted to consider all mitigating factors and to impose, if it wishes, a lesser sentence. And it has imposed an age limit at the time of the offense (it is currently seventeen) that is well above what existed at common law.

If I subscribed to the proposition that I am authorized (indeed, I suppose compelled) to intuit and impose our “maturing” society’s “evolving standards of decency,” this essay would be a preview of my next vote in a death penalty case. As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul–wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse–thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court’s approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.

But while my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral.

(Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life at the University of Chicago Divinity School, January 2002)

Antonin Scalia Dead: How His Faith Reshaped Supreme Court

In 2002, Scalia analyzed the morality of the death penalty in an article written for First Things, a journal for religion and public life. Whether the death penalty is morally acceptable is “a matter of great consequence to me,” he wrote. “The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual,” he explained. “I do not find the death penalty immoral. I am happy to have reached that conclusion, because I like my job, and would rather not resign.”

 

[Cackalacky]

Republican Governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court.

This is both politically shrewd, and telling as to what the Democrats really care about. They're willing to let Citizen's United stand and sell out the working class, but the sexual revolution must be defended at all costs.

GOP instantly rejects Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval for Supreme Court: 'It's not about the person'

 

[woolybug25]

GOP instantly rejects Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval for Supreme Court: 'It's not about the person'

I have a feeling that they are going to regret this.

 

[Cackalacky]

I have a feeling that they are going to regret this.

Who? Everyone who keeps saying this is posturing?

 

[woolybug25]

Who? Everyone who keeps saying this is posturing?

Senate, imo.

In short order, we are going to start hearing the President, Democratic leaders, etc start talking about the unfounded obstructionism of this Senate and how Republicans have stood in the way of almost everything over Obama's presidency (paraphrasing, mind).

There's only so long that Senate can use the excuse of "but... but... but... they would do it too!" as a viable reason to obstruct our country moving forward. I've never seen so many people use this as an excuse to do something that is universally considered wrong. It's like no one ever heard their mother tell them, "If they jumped off a bridge, would you?" or my favorite... "two wrongs don't make a right!" [/said in Mom voice why wagging finger]

What I would find comical (and sad) is if they continued a nasty battle until the election without nominating anyone, then lose the Presidential election and control of the Senate.

 

[Cackalacky]

Senate, imo.

In short order, we are going to start hearing the President, Democratic leaders, etc start talking about the unfounded obstructionism of this Senate and how Republicans have stood in the way of almost everything over Obama's presidency (paraphrasing, mind).

There's only so long that Senate can use the excuse of "but... but... but... they would do it too!" as a viable reason to obstruct our country moving forward. I've never seen so many people use this as an excuse to do something that is universally considered wrong. It's like no one ever heard their mother tell them, "If they jumped off a bridge, would you?"

If I was not before I am convinced now... They are fully committed and determined to destroy Obama's legacy.

 

[ND NYC]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

thx wiz.
interesting that t was a 7-2 decision. thought it would have been closer.
ol whizzer white (Michigan man) and Rehnquist the 2 dissenting opinions.

 

[Bishop2b5]

In short order, we are going to start hearing the President, Democratic leaders, etc start talking about the unfounded obstructionism of this Senate and how Republicans have stood in the way of almost everything over Obama's presidency (paraphrasing, mind).

There's only so long that Senate can use the excuse of "but... but... but... they would do it too!" as a viable reason to obstruct our country moving forward.

First, Conservatives view almost everything about Obama's presidency and his policies to be extraordinarily ill-conceived, poorly executed, and very much in contradiction to The Constitution and what's best for our nation. As duly elected representatives of the opposition party, completely in disagreement with his policies and view of the direction he's attempting to take our nation, and as representatives of the approximately 50% of the country that opposes Obama's policies, it's their right and their duty to oppose any and all such policies. It's no different than what liberal Senates and Houses do when they oppose the policies of a conservative president such as Bush or Reagan. It's why our political system is set up the way it is... so that there are some checks & balances to a president, court, or legislature that goes too far to the left or the right.

Second, just calling bad policies "moving forward' or progressive or "good for the country" certainly doesn't make them so, regardless of which party is pushing them. If a president is advocating a policy or vision of the country's future that our Senate, House or Supreme Court finds unconstitutional or bad for the country, it's their right AND their duty to oppose it and use every legal means at their disposal to obstruct the president's attempts to implement it.

 

[kmoose]

First, Conservatives view almost everything about Obama's presidency and his policies to be extraordinarily ill-conceived, poorly executed, and very much in contradiction to The Constitution and what's best for our nation. As duly elected representatives of the opposition party, completely in disagreement with his policies and view of the direction he's attempting to take our nation, and as representatives of the approximately 50% of the country that opposes Obama's policies, it's their right and their duty to oppose any and all such policies.

I disagree. It's their duty to govern; that's why they were elected. Opposing policies and legislation that they believe their constituents don't want is one tool in the box. But so is working with the other side to draft compromise legislation that fixes issues in a manner that both sides can live with.

It's no different than what liberal Senates and Houses do when they oppose the policies of a conservative president such as Bush or Reagan. It's why our political system is set up the way it is... so that there are some checks & balances to a president, court, or legislature that goes too far to the left or the right.

It's very different. There's a reason that the phrase "Reagan Democrat" was coined. MANY Democrats supported Reagan's policies. They didn't obstinately decree their opposition just because a Republican was in office. They did that to W, and I'd have to research it to see how they did with George H.W. Bush; but they most certainly didn't do it with Reagan.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I disagree. It's their duty to govern; that's why they were elected. Opposing policies and legislation that they believe their constituents don't want is one tool in the box. But so is working with the other side to draft compromise legislation that fixes issues in a manner that both sides can live with.




It's very different. There's a reason that the phrase "Reagan Democrat" was coined. MANY Democrats supported Reagan's policies. They didn't obstinately decree their opposition just because a Republican was in office. They did that to W, and I'd have to research it to see how they did with George H.W. Bush; but they most certainly didn't do it with Reagan.

Part of governing, regardless of party, is not just standing by quietly and letting another branch of government run roughshod over Constitution or implement policies that are bad for the country. I have no problem with members of either party opposing bad policies, whether from the other party or their own. That's their job.

Reagan's policies didn't get a lot of opposition from the Left because they were generally recognized by the Left as good for the country and he did a good job of working with Tip to craft compromises that all could live with. Bush's policies were more often poorly conceived, the political climate was MUCH more antagonistic and polarized, and there was less motivation from either side to compromise.

I don't want to see either side obstruct or oppose just because they're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but when a president or legislature attempts to implement bad policies, then the other side absolutely should oppose them to the fullest extent.

 

[woolybug25]

First, Conservatives view almost everything about Obama's presidency and his policies to be extraordinarily ill-conceived, poorly executed, and very much in contradiction to The Constitution and what's best for our nation. As duly elected representatives of the opposition party, completely in disagreement with his policies and view of the direction he's attempting to take our nation, and as representatives of the approximately 50% of the country that opposes Obama's policies, it's their right and their duty to oppose any and all such policies. It's no different than what liberal Senates and Houses do when they oppose the policies of a conservative president such as Bush or Reagan. It's why our political system is set up the way it is... so that there are some checks & balances to a president, court, or legislature that goes too far to the left or the right.

Second, just calling bad policies "moving forward' or progressive or "good for the country" certainly doesn't make them so, regardless of which party is pushing them. If a president is advocating a policy or vision of the country's future that our Senate, House or Supreme Court finds unconstitutional or bad for the country, it's their right AND their duty to oppose it and use every legal means at their disposal to obstruct the president's attempts to implement it.

You pretty much just restated the exact excuses I pointed out. The "they would do it too" argument is a poor one. If something is wrong, the other side willingness to do it, doesn't make it okay to do. We are supposed to learn that as children.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You pretty much just restated the exact excuses I pointed out. The "they would do it too" argument is a poor one. If something is wrong, the other side willingness to do it, doesn't make it okay to do. We are supposed to learn that as children.

My point is absolutely NOT to justify opposition or obstructionism by saying "They did it first" or "They'd do it too." My point is that the opposing parties and different branches of our government are supposed to oppose bad policies or bad decisions from the opposing side or other branches of government. That's the reason our founding fathers set up the checks & balances of our political system.

 

[woolybug25]

My point is absolutely NOT to justify opposition or obstructionism by saying "They did it first" or "They'd do it too." My point is that the opposing parties and different branches of our government are supposed to oppose bad policies or bad decisions from the opposing side or other branches of government. That's the reason our founding fathers set up the checks & balances of our political system.

My apologies, man. I skimmed your post and wrote a hasty response. I reread your post and your post was well articulated. My bad.