Justice Scalia Found Dead

huisache said:
I was trained as an historian and make my living for nearly forty years as a lawyer and my opinion is that the court has always been a political institution since the day it was first appointed. If you have any doubts at all about this, study the way it did its U-turn during the New Deal. As one historian said in describing why the court reversed itself after the 1936 elections that wiped out the GOP, the court read the election returns.

The court in the 1950s and 60s under Earl Warren took to expanding civil rights and providing some teeth to the criminal law's due process requirements. That has largely been undone by the appointees of the Nixon and Reagan administrations but that was political too.

Quit acting like political factors influencing appointments is something new because of Obama. Nixon did not appoint "that idiot Renchburg" as he described him because he thought he was fair minded.

And Bush I did not appoint Clarence Thomas because he thought he was a moderate.

I hope Obama appoints somebody middle of the road so the appointment has a chance but would not be surprised if he appoints somebody who the GOP would embarrass itself by opposing. Somebody who is Mexican American for example.
Click to expand...

The Court has been political since Day 1. That is true. Marbury v. Madison is hailed as the first historically important Supreme Court decision, and it was extremely political and didn't necessarily reach the correct result. Nobody's going to overturn it any time soon, because it would completely upend the very nature of judicial power in the United States. However, its result is pretty debatable.

You're also correct that there's nothing new to Obama making political appointments to the bench. He didn't start that, just as he didn't start the idea of the government wasting a lot of money, as Tea Partiers often think. However, there's no question that the nature of Supreme Court nominations has changed over time (especially in the last 50 years for Democrats and last 30 years for Republicans), and that change has been in the direction of political polarization.
 
UTChE96 said:
I'm not so sure its as effective as used to be except among the black community. I am sensing a general feeling of eye rolling among most non-liberals now anytime a gratuitous accusation of racism is thrown about.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, one thing I've read about a lot lately is that millennial women voting in the Democratic primary aren't anywhere near as receptive to the gender card as older feminists are. That's why many of them are backing Bernie Sanders over HRC.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I agree. In fact, one thing I've read about a lot lately is that millennial women voting in the Democratic primary aren't anywhere near as receptive to the gender card as older feminists are. That's why many of them are backing Bernie Sanders over HRC.

(and) quoted from UTCH: I am sensing a general feeling of eye rolling among most non-liberals now anytime a gratuitous accusation of racism is thrown about.
Click to expand...


This eye-rolling was taught pretty quickly at The University. Every subset of demographic whining about being disenfranchised by something this week ... something different the next ... all because of race.

I'm not suggesting racism is relegated to the past ... but this "eye-rolling" is a first response because it's been so blatantly over abused.

I was saddened, too, hearing the loss of Scalia. I'd heard/read of what a great man he was, not just a great 'jurist.'

I was reminded in another thread which started the "you mean ol GOPers better do your duty" ... Kennedy replaced Powell only after Reagan nominated Bork and Ginsburg, both rejected by the Senate (actually Ginsburg withdrew before the vote, but it was clear he was being passed-over too.) So ... to fill the vacancy of almost 2 years, Reagan selected Kennedy ... clearly a "moderate" ... which is diplomatic for PROGRESSIVE.


So ... yes ... unfortunately a political institution ... but given the fact Ginsburg, Ruth B has testified to being close personal friends with Scalia, that tells me he wasn't the nasty dirty GOP filth as many on the left have characterized him. He was a man who had considered and honest opinion about the Constitution and the proper role of the Fed; which is FAST becoming the minority in this country.

ED: I failed at cool quoting. I have Deez AND UTCHe96 above. Sorry.
 
I'm not so sure its as effective as used to be except among the black community. I am sensing a general feeling of eye rolling among most non-liberals now anytime a gratuitous accusation of racism is thrown about.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent but the GOPe is still deathly afraid of such charges.
 
Given I don't believe for a second Trump WANTS to be POTUS, but own it ...

I can't help but wonder if Obama will use this nomination to affect the election ... and he's gonna have to decide pretty quickly to affect the party nomination.

Does Obama nominate a justice NOW, who appears to be a moderate with higher quals than the last two (there's prob a night court guy available on short notice?) ... so the cries of "mean ol partisan GOPers" can get cranked-up in earnest ...

OR ... does he wait to see if the GOP nominates a conservative?

OR ... does he think HisSilentinBengHazi or FeeltheBerningTuitionBill will win in November and defer to them for a "real" progressive nomination in Feb '17???

Lotta strings to consider ... It's like an episode of "House of Cards!!!" :p
 
All right. Let's cut the bull crap. This isn't about Presidential or Senate Constitutional responsibilities. This isn't about having 9 Justices...the SCOTUS will work just fine with 8, and when they do split (less frequent than people make out - 5-4 splits ~20% and often times in those cases not split based on political "leaning" plus in 2014 2/3rds of the cases were unanimous decisions) the lower courts decisions in these cases will equally benefit liberals and conservatives. There has been precedent for a vacancy longer than a year. They can also put these cases on the back burner until after the election.

This is politics plain and simple. If the roles were reversed, you bet the universe that the Democrats would do the same thing. Hell, Obama filibustered Alito and voted against Roberts even though he said he was "imminently qualified." So he needs to take a hypocracy pill.

It's politics, and that's okay because this is not "petty" politics. This is important politics over a decision that will affect our society for an entire generation. This is specifically why the Constitution has separation of powers.

Obama should nominate whoever he wants...good for him for executing his duties. The Senate will execute their duties as mandated to them by their constituents.

So let's spare each other the false indignation.
 
Last edited:
Why is the default GOP motive always racism?
Click to expand...

FWIW, the only Facebook friends I have insensitive enough to post and repost cartoons of Obama looking like a chimpanzee are Republicans. The whole Birther movement never had a dime's worth of intellectual underpinnings or solid evidence, but Republican friends didn't quit forwarding me emails about it until Ted Cruz became a presidential contender.

I know it's not the mainstream, but there is an ugly undercurrent of racism in the GOP. Unfairly enough, in some eyes fair-minded Republicans are grouped with the bigots.
 
ShAArk92 said:
Does Obama nominate a justice NOW, who appears to be a moderate with higher quals than the last two
Click to expand...

You are certainly right that Kagan and Sotomayor are not moderates. And whether they are good or bad justices is an issue on which reasonable minds can vary. But suggesting that they had anything less than impeccable qualifications is unfair.

Sotomayor had a very traditional SCOTUS resume: Yale Law, 4 years as DA, 9 years in private practice + various political jobs, 6 years as USDC judge and 11 years as USCA judge. A strong case can be made for her as the most qualified of the current 8 justices. The other 3 worthy of consideration -- Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito -- each served for a decade or more on the USCA, but none had USDC experience as well.

Kagan had no prior judicial experience, but she had an incredible resume nonetheless: Harvard Law, USCA and SCOTUS clerkships, 4 years as a law professor, 4 years in the White House, 4 more years as a law professor, 6 years as Harvard Law School dean, and 1.5 years as solicitor general. Some argue that her lack of judicial experience made her under-qualified, but prior judicial experience has never been a prerequisite for SCOTUS. Scanning down the list of justices who never wore a lower-court robe (roughly 1/3 of all justices), the following names catch my eye -- Rehnquist, Powell, Warren, Douglas, Frankfurter, Brandeis, Chase, Taney, Story, Marshall, Jay.
 
FWIW, the only Facebook friends I have insensitive enough to post and repost cartoons of Obama looking like a chimpanzee are Republicans.
Click to expand...

That's because Dems have absolutely no sense of humor about anything.
 
I have never seen or be sent a cartoon drawing of BO as a chimp. Croc You always seem to get the right wing extremist stuff sent to you. maybe you need to weed out some ' friends"
but I have ,as we all have, seen many cartoons published in media of Bush as a chimp.
I guess it was ok then.:rolleyes1:
 
Amusing cartoon Crockett. But clicking on it and seeing the comments really was the eye opener for me. As I smiled at the cartoon my thoughts were how easily could be said the same type of hypocrisy on the Democrat side, some with the same headlines but the comments following the cartoon were quite revealing as to just how animous(sp) are the feelings this political season. sure makes it obvious things are not changing soon.
 
nashhorn said:
. As I smiled at the cartoon my thoughts were how easily could be said the same type of hypocrisy on the Democrat side,
Click to expand...
Good observation. I like that you saw the comments. Seattle Husker, NJHorn and I may represent the left of center on Hornfans. But among left wing true believers, we don't really fit in very well.
 
Mesohorny said:
So you guys never saw any of these or similar at teaparty rallies or guns-for-all demonstrations?

Sure......
Click to expand...
Tea Party rallies and guns for all demonstrations? I've heard about these on TV a few times.

I've also read about Satanists seeking official religious organization status - but I've never met one in real life. I've seen those Code Pink idiots on CSPAN, but I've never came across one in the six years I've lived in DC. What's your point?

As a NRA member, I've never seen anything like this in the events that I've been to.

And like clockwork, the Liberals have devolved this thread by Deez about the Supreme Court into moronic race baiting.
 
Last edited:
Mesohorny said:
So you guys never saw any of these or similar at teaparty rallies or guns-for-all demonstrations?

Sure......
Click to expand...

It is rare but not unheard of. I saw the poster below at a conservative function back in 2009. I thought it was over the line of decency. Of course, I've been to hundreds of other conservative functions over the years and never saw anything remotely like that.

Obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg
 
Obama is skipping Scalia's funeral.
But he has time to visit the Castros.
He also said he is mystified why he has been unable to tame partisanship during his tenure.
 
Joe Fan said:
Obama is skipping Scalia's funeral.
Click to expand...
And if he was going to the funeral -- outrage over the side show that it would be, taking away from the family and honoring Justice Scalia..
At least admit it when you're a partisan hack.
 
Seattle Husker said:
And you would have supported Bush not nominating a justice out of a made up tradition, right? I don't think so. Biden and Schumer's comments were self serving political statements when they made them just as all the comments from both sides are now.
Click to expand...
Husker, we all know this is politics. And Bush never nominated anyone in 1992.

I'm just pointing out that certain people in this decision making process are more than just politicians, but pretty big hypocrites. Biden, the President of the Senate, and Obama, the POTUS who as a senator filibustered Alito and voted against Roberts despite calling him "eminently qualified."

It's one thing for a senator to say, "the Constitution created separation of powers for a reason and we have to do our job and do what we think is right for this country and our laws," which is what McConnel is saying, and the White House to throw out words like "obstructionist."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top