Something I almost wish would happen

[NJlonghorn]

Obama nominates a moderate to SCOTUS. Senate refuses to hold hearings. Clinton wins the presidency, and nominates Obama to SCOTUS.

The irony of this would be delicious. I would actually wish for it if not for the fact that Obama would be a horrible SCOTUS justice.

 

[Joe Fan]

I dont think you understand Obama very well.
Ask yourself this question --
What does Obama care about more than anything else?
Need a hint?
The answer is found within the question.

Accordingly, Obama cares so much about his legacy and where his name will go down in history that he would never risk nominating a "moderate" Justice. History tells us that liberal presidents never take chances with potentially unpredictable Justices. You are confusing the Ds with the Rs on this point, as the latter are the ones who keep mistakenly nominating "middle of the road" people. You have to go all the way back to Whizzer White to find one of those types of mistakes for the Dems. It is a principle of modern politics that Dems only nominate committed ideologues for the Court. Obama would rather take a chance on the election than risk his legacy to some potential reverse-David-Souter who might damage that which is most precious to him.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I dont think you understand Obama very well.
Ask yourself this question --
What does Obama care about more than anything else?
Need a hint?
The answer is found within the question.

Accordingly, Obama cares so much about his legacy and where his name will go down in history that he would never risk nominating a "moderate" Justice. History tells us that liberal presidents never take chances with potentially unpredictable Justices. You are confusing the Ds with the Rs on this point, as the latter are the ones who keep mistakenly nominating "middle of the road" people. You have to go all the way back to Whizzer White to find one of those types of mistakes for the Dems. It is a principle of modern politics that Dems only nominate committed ideologues for the Court. Obama would rather take a chance on the election than risk his legacy to some potential reverse-David-Souter who might damage that which is most precious to him.

It's all about perspective. This logic works only when you sit at the far right end of the spectrum. From that vantage point, EVERYONE looks liberal and only the right extremists look conservative.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Obama nominates a moderate to SCOTUS. Senate refuses to hold hearings. Clinton wins the presidency, and nominates Obama to SCOTUS.

The irony of this would be delicious. I would actually wish for it if not for the fact that Obama would be a horrible SCOTUS justice.

I guess to liberals, irony is an important factor in jurisprudence.

 

[Joe Fan]

It's all about perspective. This logic works only when you sit at the far right end of the spectrum. From that vantage point, EVERYONE looks liberal and only the right extremists look conservative.

OK, so applying your logic to Obama's choice here, to him, EVERYONE (in terms of potential nominees) looks conservative and only far left extremists look liberal.

And, thus, you've answered the original post.

 

[Joe Fan]

I guess to liberals, irony is an important factor in jurisprudence.

I sort of agree with the original poster, I would love to see the Rs have to backtrack by Obama nominating Edith Jones or Alex Kozinski.

Please make it happen.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Accordingly, Obama cares so much about his legacy and where his name will go down in history that he would never risk nominating a "moderate" Justice.

At this point, the best way for Obama to cement his legacy with the left is to pass the presidency off to a Democrat. If nominating a moderate to the Court helps make that a reality, he just may do it.

It's all about perspective. This logic works only when you sit at the far right end of the spectrum. From that vantage point, EVERYONE looks liberal and only the right extremists look conservative.

No matter what perspective you view them from, Sotomayor and Kagan are liberals. If Obama nominates someone else in that vein, the Republicans would have every reason to vote no.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

EVERYONE looks liberal and only the right extremists look conservative.

How many times have we seen a polarizing issue come down as 5-4? How many so-called liberal justices have voted on the conservative side? And can you say the same thing in the other direction?

Yes, to some degree it's subjective, but at the same time, liberal justice appointees have been pretty dependable to toe the party line. If someone has some significant exceptions to that, I'd be interested to see them. I'm not talking about the no-brainers where it ended up being 7-2 or 9-0 when the Obama administration just brought a stupid argument. I'm talking about where both sides made a compelling case and it really just came down to which one are you going to accept. Did anyone believe that any of the four liberal justices were going to go against the ACA?

Everyone talks about those five conservative justices who just won't bend (except that sometimes they do) and no one talks about those four liberal justices who seem to be in lockstep in more instances than their fellow jurists from the conservative side.

 

[NJlonghorn]

no one talks about those four liberal justices who seem to be in lockstep in more instances than their fellow jurists from the conservative side.

The talk I usually here is that we have 4 liberal justices who never budge and 4 conservative justices who never budge. This leaves one moderate swing judge deciding most close cases.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Here's my problem with the OP. NJ explicitly uses the label "moderate." Moderate/conservative/liberal are political terms. They are not legal terms.

The qualification should not be is this nominee "moderate," or, "conservative," or, "liberal." The qualification is as a justice on the Supreme Court, will this person uphold the Constitution and the Law?

Am I taking crazy pills or something?

 

[huisache]

edith jones is a moderate on what planet? The republicans would jump at a chance to approve her. She is a not as smart version of Thomas or Scalia

No chance she gets nominated: she did not go to Harvard

 

[Seattle Husker]

OK, so applying your logic to Obama's choice here, to him, EVERYONE (in terms of potential nominees) looks conservative and only far left extremists look liberal.

And, thus, you've answered the original post.

That's based on a sample size of 2 that were nominated under very different scenarios. You've inferred (or stated) that you feel Obama is a socialist many times. That is most certainly coloring your opinion that Obama could nominate a moderate. I'm not ready to make that leap yet.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Here's my problem with the OP. NJ explicitly uses the label "moderate." Moderate/conservative/liberal are political terms. They are not legal terms.

The qualification should not be is this nominee "moderate," or, "conservative," or, "liberal." The qualification is as a justice on the Supreme Court, will this person uphold the Constitution and the Law?

Am I taking crazy pills or something?

That is a loaded question. "Uphold the Constitution and the Law" sounds like a great ideal, but it presupposes that the Constitution and the Law have unambiguous meanings. They don't.

For example, the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Read literally, this would mean Congress can't ever prevent anyone from saying anything. To my knowledge, nobody has ever interpreted the document this way. Not the founders, not Scalia, not Thomas -- nobody. Everyone has brought to the document their own ideas of how broadly the phrase "freedom of speech" should be read. Inevitably, this involves a degree of political influence. There have been literally millions of pages of text written about this short phrase, and yet there are still cases that come up that nobody ever thought or wrote about before. Each of those cases is resolved by a judge, or a panel of judges, who has a personal philosophy.

IMHO, some SCOTUS opinions have adopted an unreasonably liberal reading of the Constitution, and some SCOTUS opinions have adopted an unreasonably conservative reading of the Constitution. Most SCOTUS opinions fall somewhere in the middle, and can be defended even if I don't agree with them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The qualification should not be is this nominee "moderate," or, "conservative," or, "liberal." The qualification is as a justice on the Supreme Court, will this person uphold the Constitution and the Law?

Isn't that subjective? My problem with that statement is the inference that a SCOTUS interpretation of case law is black/white, supported by the Constitution and existing Law. If that were the case, there'd be no need for the SCOTUS. In most cases, they are interpreting the impact of new law that needs to be interpreted.

Conservatives seem to feel they are the keepers of what is and should be the Constitutional interpretation. When a different interpretation emerges, even from a conservative like Chief Justice Roberts, it's suddenly "activism" rather than an alternate and viable interpretation. In reality, the court has simply updated their interpretation which is ultimately the reason the SCOTUS was created by our forefathers.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That is a loaded question. "Uphold the Constitution and the Law" sounds like a great ideal, but it presupposes that the Constitution and the Law have unambiguous meanings. They don't.

For example, the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Read literally, this would mean Congress can't ever prevent anyone from saying anything. To my knowledge, nobody has ever interpreted the document this way. Not the founders, not Scalia, not Thomas -- nobody. Everyone has brought to the document their own ideas of how broadly the phrase "freedom of speech" should be read. Inevitably, this involves a degree of political influence. There have been literally millions of pages of text written about this short phrase, and yet there are still cases that come up that nobody ever thought or wrote about before. Each of those cases is resolved by a judge, or a panel of judges, who has a personal philosophy.

IMHO, some SCOTUS opinions have adopted an unreasonably liberal reading of the Constitution, and some SCOTUS opinions have adopted an unreasonably conservative reading of the Constitution. Most SCOTUS opinions fall somewhere in the middle, and can be defended even if I don't agree with them.

You've stated it better than me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There was next to nothing of interest on this board all day today, but now that it's 11:45 p.m., and I have to go to bed, you guys decide to talk about something interesting. At the same time, I have problems with what all three of you are saying, so I'm dying to jump in on this. However, I'll be running around all day tomorrow and won't be able to post much. I might be able to make a smart *** comment or two about how dumb Trump supporters are, but I won't be able to do anything that requires brains until Thursday. Ugh.

 

[texas_ex2000]

That is a loaded question. "Uphold the Constitution and the Law" sounds like a great ideal, but it presupposes that the Constitution and the Law have unambiguous meanings. They don't.

You're stretching my comment. I don't pretend that the Constitution and Law aren't nuanced, ambigous, etc.

But our laws are based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And whatever spin someone may want to apply...a "court" from a traffic court to The Supreme Court is an institution dedicated to the integrity of the Law. Those decisions, whether they favor conservative politics or liberals, must be based on an interpretation of the Constitution, not on political sentiment or the self-serving "being on the right side of history."

So, if we're talking about loaded questions, what exactly did you infer by the term "moderate?"

 

[Joe Fan]

edith jones is a moderate on what planet?...

I was trying to think of some fed appellate judges who the O could nominate who would cause the Rs to reverse field. Those were the first two names that came to mind.

 

[Joe Fan]

The talk I usually here is that we have 4 liberal justices who never budge and 4 conservative justices who never budge. This leaves one moderate swing judge deciding most close cases.

That's incorrect. Or, only half right. There were only 3 consistent, reliable conservative justices. Now less. Gulp.
See (Roberts) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf
See (Kennedy) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html

The liberal block, however, is a monolith. We could save the federal government some money by eliminating the positions altogether. What is the point? We already know how they will vote on 98% of all cases. They are redundant and unnecessary. Liberals do not allow dissent. There is ZERO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT among the libs -- there is no there, there.

If nothing less, at least Roberts and Kennedy establish beyond a reasonable doubt, who is more open-minded, open to different ideas and capable of independent thought. And who are the mindless robots.

 

[Joe Fan]

At this point, the best way for Obama to cement his legacy with the left is to pass the presidency off to a Democrat. If nominating a moderate to the Court helps make that a reality, he just may do it.....

First, I dont think he likes Hillary enough for that. Remember, her campaign was behind alot of the negative aspects of candidate Obama that are today associated with the Rs (she started the birther movement, he is a Muslim and so on). Those scars may have never healed.

Second, while I agree with you it would be interesting if he did, he wont as it would simply be too contrary to his general philosophy and mission to fundamental change America (his words, not mine).

 

[texas_ex2000]

NJ,

This scenario also presupposes that Clinton gets off with her mishandling of classified information. Fat chance of that happening.

From Monday's HuffPost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/the-fbis-investigation-of-clintons-emails-_b_9346140.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...l_legal_choices_for_doj_wh.html#disqus_thread

 

[theiioftx]

If Clinton gets prosecuted, the choice will be between Trump and Sanders. I see a third party candidate jumping in and winning the election. Hopefully it is not Bloomberg.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What I'm doing instead of arguing with you guys.

 

[Clean]

NJ,

This scenario also presupposes that Clinton gets off with her mishandling of classified information. Fat chance of that happening.

The odds are better that I'll win the Democratic nomination for President than Hillary will be prosecuted by Obama's Justice Dept. They'll mess around, delay, and let the short-sighted American Public forget about it. Years into her Presidency they'll announce that while she might have broken a few laws, there is no evidence of intent on her part or some such bs as that, and they'll drop the case with a reprimand and a warning to others not to do it going forward. Guaranteed.

 

[Phil Elliott]

If Clinton gets prosecuted, the choice will be between Trump and Sanders. I see a third party candidate jumping in and winning the election. Hopefully it is not Bloomberg.

I'd say the more likely scenario is they "draft" Uncle Joe, and he says, oh, well, shucks, I guess I will have to sacrifice for the good of the country, if I must. I am all about sacrifice for the greater good, doncha know.

This will only happen if Hillary is indicted, and that will only happen if the Dems are convinced she cannot win the WH and so she needs to be disposed of, again.

 

[theiioftx]

I would love for Biden to jump in. Not that I would vote for him, but his appearances and speeches would be hilarious.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Is there a reason why there hasn't been a special prosecutor assigned to this case?

 

[Clean]

Is there a reason why there hasn't been a special prosecutor assigned to this case?

Yes, Hillary told BO to tell his AG not to appoint a special prosecutor. This is no different than the IRS scandal or the Benghazi scandal. Nothing is going to come of it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would love for Biden to jump in. Not that I would vote for him, but his appearances and speeches would be hilarious.

I also think he's a better person than Hillary Clinton is. I won't vote for him, but he doesn't disgust me like she does.

 

[chango]

Accordingly, Obama cares so much about his legacy and where his name will go down in history that he would never risk nominating a "moderate" Justice. History tells us that liberal presidents never take chances with potentially unpredictable Justices. You are confusing the Ds with the Rs on this point, as the latter are the ones who keep mistakenly nominating "middle of the road" people. You have to go all the way back to Whizzer White to find one of those types of mistakes for the Dems. It is a principle of modern politics that Dems only nominate committed ideologues for the Court. Obama would rather take a chance on the election than risk his legacy to some potential reverse-David-Souter who might damage that which is most precious to him.

If he nominates Jane Kelly, like it is widely being reported today, will you admit that you were 100% wrong about this? Or just move on to the next attack?