Justice Scalia Found Dead

[56 Bells]

You do know the Constitution doesn't require Congress to pass any component of the President's agenda, right? They don't have to pass his budget. They don't have to confirm a single judge or even hold a single hearing. They don't have to confirm a single cabinet official. That's not treasonous. It may be poor judgment and at times poor politics, but to call it treasonous is moronic.

In addition, the public has had two opportunities to elect a Congress that would be more deferential to Obama, and it has declined to do so. In fact, in 2014, it resoundingly endorsed what Congress is doing and not doing. By their votes, the public clearly wants both branches of government to check the other, and that's what's happening. The system is working exactly as designed.

In addition, the public has had two opportunities to elect a President that would be more deferential to Congress, and it has declined to do so. In fact, in 2014, it resoundingly endorsed what the President is doing and not doing. By their votes, the public clearly wants the policies of the President.
You do know the Constitution doesn't require Congress to do a damn thing. They don't have to pass a budget. They don't have to confirm a single judge or any appointee of the President. They can, quite simply, let our government fail through default and refusal to act in the interests of the country. It is poor judgment. It is poor politics. and it is treasonous to refuse to let our government function. Not only is our form of government at stake, the lives of our citizens are at stake, as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In addition, the public has had two opportunities to elect a President that would be more deferential to Congress, and it has declined to do so. In fact, in 2014, it resoundingly endorsed what the President is doing and not doing. By their votes, the public clearly wants the policies of the President.

No, they don't want the policies of the President. If they did, they'd elect Democrats who promise to enact his policies. They don't want Congress's policies either. As you point out, if they did, Mitt Romney would be President.

What they want is for the two branches to check each other. They want some components of each side's agenda and want other parts (probably most parts) stopped.

You do know the Constitution doesn't require Congress to do a damn thing. They don't have to pass a budget. They don't have to confirm a single judge or any appointee of the President. They can, quite simply, let our government fail through default and refusal to act in the interests of the country. It is poor judgment. It is poor politics. and it is treasonous to refuse to let our government function. Not only is our form of government at stake, the lives of our citizens are at stake, as well.

The Right often used this kind of fact-ignoring apocalyptic fear mongering, and they sound like damn fools, and so do you. When has the government failed through default? It hasn't. People on public assistance are getting their money. Doctors are getting their Medicare reimbursements. The. FBI is still catching bad guys. The federal courts are still presiding over civil and criminal disputes. The military is still getting funded and doing its job. State governments are still getting their grants for Medicaid, public education, etc. In short, the government is functioning just fine, albeit very expensively by design.

If you want to bellyache that the government isn't getting much bigger, then that's a fair criticism. Congress isn't going to pass a single payer system. It's not going to pass a corporate welfare spending package for green energy companies. It's not going to dole out free college tuition.

However, not doing all that junk doesn't mean "our form of government is at stake." Keep in mind that we've functioned for 240 years without it.

If you want modern liberalism's Christmas tree to become a reality, then convince your party to nominate Bernie Sanders, and convince your fellow citizens to elect a Democratic Congress. The best way to do this is to convince people that the government can do a respectable job in the areas it already controls. Furthermore, convince them that Democrats care about how well and how efficiently the government operates, rather than only caring about how big they can make it.

 

[mb227]

Well, they've, purposefully, refused to let our President govern...although he was elected and re-elected.....they refuse to let the Congress work....and now they're refusing to let the Supreme Court function....3 branches...all 3 broken by the right-wing extremists.

Those that you call extremists were ALSO elected, and in many cases, re-elected. Seems they are fulfilling the desires of those that voted THEM into office.

And it is disingenuous to claim they are refusing to let the SCotUS function given that there is no nominee at this juncture. Accordingly, one could argue that the POSPotUS is the one that has failed since, until he nominates someone, all the posturing about what Congress may or may not do is simply conjecture.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Let the record show that mb227 just slapped it down.

Make that twice - within just a few minutes.

 

[mb227]

But, the Republicans took control of the House the next year...and the breaking down of our democracy began.

Took control...as in they prevailed as the electorate showed their discontent for the policies and legislation that had been passed by those previously in office. That is how elections work and, in this instance, how democracy works.

 

[Joe Fan]

Prediction --

"The Constitution requires the Senate to hold hearings and vote on a Supreme Court nominee"

will become the new

"Planned Parenthood performs mammograms"

The memo's, faxes, tweets, emails, texts, snapchat's have gone out

 

[Horns11]

It's Merrick Garland (or at least he's the first to be nominated, potentially leading to the 2017 President nominating someone else).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

He's called "moderately liberal" by most jurist publications, particularly in environmental and labor stuff. He sides with prosecutory decisions whenever something arises with criminal law, which the GOP usually digs. He was the Justice department's lead investigator of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Overall, he seems like a good guy. He's kind of blah, but it won't matter in the end. Obama was going to nominate a "blah" guy all along just to point fingers when the Republican Senate refuses to confirm him. "But he's so blah! Why can't you confirm someone so uncontroversial?" It'll be cute if Hillary decides to allow the nomination to stand once she's sworn in.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It'll be cute if Hillary decides to allow the nomination to stand once she's sworn in.

I don't think she will. She's going to want someone she owes a political favor to. In addition, not only does Trump's nomination almost guarantee her election, it greatly increases the likelihood that we'll have a Democratic Senate. (These moronic Trump supporters really don't know how big of a gift they're handing to the Democrats.) If that happens, the pressure to appoint a more outspoken liberal will be high.

 

[Horns11]

I don't think the GOP will lose control of the Senate, but I'm about 99 percent sure that Rubio loses his seat.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think the GOP will lose control of the Senate, but I'm about 99 percent sure that Rubio loses his seat.

It'll be close. There are two almost definite Democratic pick-ups in Illinois and Wisconsin. Even though the GOP has made inroads in both states in the last few years, with a dumpster fire at the top of the ticket in a presidential election year and with tough opponents of their own, I don't think Kirk or Johnson are going to keep their seats.

I think Democrats have strong opportunities in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and have a shot at Arizona. They won't take all of them, but they only need to win two of them.

What's sad is that if the GOP nominated Kasich instead of Trump, not only would they win the Presidency, I think they'd have a good chance to gain Senate seats. I think they'd still lose Kirk, but it would be close. Johnson's seat would be a real toss-up. However, I think they'd comfortably hold the New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arizona seats. In addition, they'd have a real shot at picking up Nevada and possibly Colorado. With Trump on the ticket (and therefore very high anti-GOP Hispanic turnout), picking up seats in Nevada and Colorado is out of the question.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It'll be close. There are two almost definite Democratic pick-ups in Illinois and Wisconsin. Even though the GOP has made inroads in both states in the last few years, with a dumpster fire at the top of the ticket in a presidential election year and with tough opponents of their own, I don't think Kirk or Johnson are going to keep their seats.

I think Democrats have strong opportunities in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and have a shot at Arizona. They won't take all of them, but they only need to win two of them.

What's sad is that if the GOP nominated Kasich instead of Trump, not only would they win the Presidency, I think they'd have a good chance to gain Senate seats. I think they'd still lose Kirk, but it would be close. Johnson's seat would be a real toss-up. However, I think they'd comfortably hold the New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arizona seats. In addition, they'd have a real shot at picking up Nevada and possibly Colorado. With Trump on the ticket (and therefore very high anti-GOP Hispanic turnout), picking up seats in Nevada and Colorado is out of the question.

I haven't looked at the map but read that the Reps have 24 seats up for reelection while the Dems have 10. In an environment where both parties nomination processes have shown an anger towards the "establishment" in D.C., that can't be good for any reelection candidates.

 

[huisache]

where are the diversity warriors? If Obama's pick goes on the court we will have five catholics and four jews and no protestants. And all of them are Ivy Leaguers.

I demand that somebody from a historically black university law school be appointed and an episcopalian or Lutheran.

The Supreme Court does not look anything like the nation. This is an outrage!!!!!!!

 

[Htown77]

episcopalian or Lutheran

As the offspring of an episcopalian and a lutheran, I wholly support an "Episcopalian or Lutheran for the Supreme Court" movement as there can be no doubt such demoninations would produce the best judges.

As for the law school point, I actually think they should try and appoint someone that did not go to Harvard or Yale. This "all justices have to go to Harvard or Yale" trend is relatively new and I do not think it is for the best. First, I am not convinced all the best legal minds went to Harvard or Yale. Warren Burger, for example, went to some small law school in St. Paul, Minnesota. UT, Stanford, Michigan, and Northwestern are all top law schools that have produced justices. I think limiting selection to Harvard or Yale misses a lot of legal talent. Secondly, I do not think it is good to limit the presprectives on what appears to be the "final say" on our constitution to people only legally trained at two places in the same section of our country. Ultimately, the best person should get the job (and it will be the best person with the same political views as the sitting president), but at this moment in time, law school attended might not be a bad "holistic factor" for this president and the next to consider.

 

[huisache]

Ivy Leaguers network like crazy; recall that Ted Cruz did not want anyone in his Harvard study group who was from any of the lesser Ivies. I guess that means Dartmouth and Penn.

I've worked with them and they are more clannish than Aggies.

And they are wrecking the country: Bush, Clintons, Cruz, Trump, all the supreme court, the Kennedys (except Teddy, who got expelled for cheating), Bush's draft deferred WarLords, the Best and the Brightest of Viet Nam infamy.
I would rather have somebody from UH or LSU or Montana's law school than these preening narcissists.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I've worked with them and they are more clannish than Aggies.

And they are wrecking the country: Bush, Clintons, Cruz, Trump, all the supreme court, the Kennedys (except Teddy, who got expelled for cheating), Bush's draft deferred WarLords, the Best and the Brightest of Viet Nam infamy.
I would rather have somebody from UH or LSU or Montana's law school than these preening narcissists.

I feel like Huisache goes on these anti-Ivy League diatribes once a month.

The vast majority of kids that go to these schools study subjects like comparative British Literature and work in either in tech, media (specifically journalism), and non-profits/NGOs. Some, but not as many as before, go into finance and law. They see college as an intellectual experience, not a piece of paper that will get them a paycheck - which paradoxically is the reason why they're in high-demand for good jobs.

They're typically center left and care about making a difference in the world, but not stupid liberal because, unlike a lot of their peers in their age group, they work and study really hard and see that success in life is about the effort you put into it. You can find kids like that at all schools of course, but the exhaustive declarative "I rather have a UH kid working for me," or "LSU Law is just as good as Yale," reads of a prejudicial jealousy.

 

[huisache]

...........but then I never said I would rather have a kid from UH work for me or that LSU law is just as good as Yale, did I? I said I would rather have some people from there on the Supreme Court rather than an all Ivy cast. There are scores of good law schools in this country and even the second and third tier ones have some excellent talent.

Neither Earl Warren nor Warren Burger attended the Ivies and they were perfectly good Chief Justices.

Justice Scalia said that it might be a good idea to get some justices from non Ivy schools.

I was motivated not by jealousy but by an anecdote from Sam Rayburn, also not an Ivy.
LBJ was bragging to the Speaker about what a brilliant cabinet JFK was putting together, with all the best and the brightest, etc. Rayburn replied that he would feel more comfortable if one of them had run for sheriff somewhere. The point he was trying to make, and which I adhere to, is that practical experience in the real world is of great worth. And you don't get it in the Ivies. Law in the major law schools is taught as a form of theology and the result is a stunted view of reality and the critters on the SC all suffer from it.

I spent a couple of years in grad school in American history before going to law school and I recall being called on once in Con Law and asked about why the SC reversed itself in 1937 and started ruling the the New Deal legislation was constitutional rather than overturning it as they did the first four years. The prof wanted a discussion of the legalistic mumbo jumbo that the court pretzeled itself into to uphold the legislation. Having studied the subject in grad school, I replied that the court had read the 1936 election returns. I caught an hours worth of grief for my impertinence. But my answer was the correct one-----the court does decide what it wants to do and then comes up with the mumbo jumbo to rationalize its opinions. If you doubt this, read Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the ACA case.

The most effective president of my lifetime was either Eisenhower or LBJ, depending on your point of view. Neither went to an Ivy and Ike did not finish near the top of his class and LBJ went to a teacher's college.

An elite university education can be a thing of great value but an elite training in legal theology is no better preparation for being on the Supreme Court than being a District Attorney or congressman for a few years.

 

[Htown77]

^ Completely agree with the above. Great post huisache!

 

[texas_ex2000]

...but then I never said I would rather have a kid from UH work for me or that LSU law is just as good as Yale, did I?

Anti-Ivy Leauge has been a recurring theme in your posts for a while Counselor. You are prejudicial.

Type in "ivy league" posted by huisache in the search box in the top right of the page. There are at least 50 posts specifically with the words "ivy league" almost all followed by an expletive - impressive ones at that if I may say so as an old sailor. That's not even searching for posts that contain Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Anti-Ivy Leauge has been a recurring theme in your posts for a while Counselor. You are prejudicial.

Type in "ivy league" posted by huisache in the search box in the top right of the page. There are at least 50 posts specifically with the words "ivy league" almost all followed by an expletive - impressive ones at that if I may say so as an old sailor. That's not even searching for posts that contain Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.

I think you're making a bigger issue of this than is necessary. True, I think one could reasonable conclude that he generally isn't a fan of Ivy Leaguers, because they're often pretentious and have delusions of grandeur.

Nevertheless, his point isn't that Ivy Leaguers don't belong on the Court. His point (which you ignore) is that the current qualifications that constitute the model Supreme Court Justice are flawed because they almost exclusively lead to the appointment of justices who have little understanding of the real world or what happens in real courtrooms. One of those qualifications is that the appointee be Ivy League educated. He thinks (rightly in my view) that we'd be better off if some of the justices had been educated at more practice-oriented schools and had more experience in the day-to-day practice of law.

It might surprise you to know this, but Ivy Leaguers don't make the best lawyers. Plenty of them practice in Texas, and at least in my experience (which admittedly is anecdotal) most of them aren't anywhere near as good or as smart as they think they are. The reason why is that what makes one a good lawyer or even a smart lawyer isn't what he learned in the classroom. In fact a lot of that is of little relevance to actual law practice.

 

[huisache]

......and I am not prejudicial, I am prejudiced.

 

[texas_ex2000]

......and I am not prejudicial, I am prejudiced.

It was a pun.

Anyways. I don't disagree with the "you can find a state school law grad just as good or even better than a Yale Law grad." And I don't disagree that there are a lot of smug Harvard kids running around. I think it would be great for Texas to have another SCOTUS justice. Maybe an underrepresented evangelical one at that.

The point I'm making is that the constant irrational Ivy Leauge bashing distracts from your arguments in this thread about Supreme Court nominees and other issues (your post, by the way, was making a broader point beyond the SCOTUS and mentioned men, e.g. Bush, Kennedy, McNamara, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Trump, who didn't get law degrees in the Ivy League). It sounds like aggy.

 

[Joe Fan]

Finally found a nominee for Obama to propose who would make me eat me words