PDA

View Full Version : Scalia dead


Pages : [1] 2

Terez
02-13-2016, 03:56 PM
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

Davian93
02-13-2016, 04:17 PM
Sad...I didn't like him or agree with most of his ideas but it's always sad.

The fight to fill his seat will be epic. I'd bet that the GOP will refuse to do so despite it being Obamas right to fill the Seat with his own person.

Terez
02-13-2016, 04:19 PM
Sad...I didn't like him or agree with most of his ideas but it's always sad.

The fight to fill his seat will be epic. I'd bet that the GOP will refuse to do so despite it being Obamas right to fill the Seat with his own person.
Really, is that some kind of Constitutional thing I don't know about? Like, if they don't approve who he wants, could he just coast from the Presidency to the SCOTUS and flip them off while he's at it?

Davian93
02-13-2016, 04:26 PM
No...he'll need Senate approval of whoever he wants to appoint but they'll be very leery to approve any liberal Justices so they'll almost certainly fight, filibuster, etc hoping for a GOP victory in November. It's never happened before but they'll not gonna go down easily given how this will shift the balance of power on the Court AND they're so close (in their minds) to a chance to get the WH back.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 04:35 PM
I am sick.. and utterly shocked. As someone who agreed with most of what Scalia ruled on, I am devastated. Of course, I would be sad if any of the justices passed away, even Ginsburg, this is devastating. I was a few weeks away from meeting him :(

Davian93
02-13-2016, 04:38 PM
I am sick.. and utterly shocked. As someone who agreed with most of what Scalia ruled on, I am devastated. Of course, I would be sad if any of the justices passed away, even Ginsburg, this is devastating. I was a few weeks away from meeting him :(

It is always sad when someone you respect dies.

My only hope is that he is replaced quickly by a qualified jurist and that the GOP doesn't act like a bunch of 5 year olds when Obama doesn't pick a far right judge to replace him.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 04:40 PM
Sad...I didn't like him or agree with most of his ideas but it's always sad.

The fight to fill his seat will be epic. I'd bet that the GOP will refuse to do so despite it being Obamas right to fill the Seat with his own person.

I certainly won't pretend grief. I can think of no American since the demise of Joseph McCarthy more deserving of damnatio memoriae.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 04:53 PM
I certainly won't pretend grief. I can think of no American since the demise of Joseph McCarthy more deserving of damnatio memoriae.

Yes, if you think the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench and play politics, then Scalia would most certainly be an enemy to you. If you think that the Supreme Court should rule, not based on the law, but on nine justices personal opinions, then you would oppose Scalia. If you believe that the Supreme Court should fulfill its role that was given to it by the Constitution and to actually apply the law on it's original meaning, then you respected him as a judge.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 04:55 PM
It is always sad when someone you respect dies.

My only hope is that he is replaced quickly by a qualified jurist and that the GOP doesn't act like a bunch of 5 year olds when Obama doesn't pick a far right judge to replace him.

I agree with that. I don't want a far right justice, but a justice that will follow the text of the law and the Constitution to make the correct decisions. If it comes out in a way that favors the Democrats, then fine. For example, Scalia was big on Fourth Amendment protections, which would go against law enforcement. The right didn't like that at times. I, however, agreed with what Scalia ruled because the law is the law. If you don't like it, elect different representatives to Congress.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 05:04 PM
Yes, if you think the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench and play politics, then Scalia would most certainly be an enemy to you. If you think that the Supreme Court should rule, not based on the law, but on nine justices personal opinions, then you would oppose Scalia. If you believe that the Supreme Court should fulfill its role that was given to it by the Constitution and to actually apply the law on it's original meaning, then you respected him as a judge.

His tenure was exactly indicative of what you just argued a justice should not do. He used his post to steer the state on the basis of his politics, not upon the basis of legal precedence. Heller, Citizens United, Bollinger, scores of rulings chipping away at Roe, Bush v Gore, et alia. Heck, just this week he was integral in overturning the president's attempt to combat global warming.

Davian93
02-13-2016, 05:07 PM
Cruz has already stated he will block any Obama nominee and he feels we owe it to the American people to wait till the next President to replace Scalia.

What a shock.

Mind you, such a block has literally never happened in history for a SCOTUS nominee.

Terez
02-13-2016, 05:11 PM
Not since John Tyler anyway.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 05:11 PM
His tenure was exactly indicative of what you just argued a justice should not do. He used his post to steer the state on the basis of his politics, not upon the basis of legal precedence. Heller, Citizens United, Bollinger, scores of rulings chipping away at Roe, Bush v Gore, et alia. Heck, just this week he was integral in overturning the president's attempt to combat global warming.


Heller- Easy easy decision. Right to bear arms as an individual rights was assumed from the founding of this country. We have documents showing that.

Bush v. Gore- Scalia wasn't the only one to see it was an easy decision.

Citizens United- Free speech case, really isn't that tough, though I understand the anger.

The EPA has too much power, so that wasn't a surprise.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 05:13 PM
Cruz has already stated he will block any Obama nominee and he feels we owe it to the American people to wait till the next President to replace Scalia.

What a shock.

Mind you, such a block has literally never happened in history for a SCOTUS nominee.

A blockade could backfire on them. Could you imagine the spike in voter turnout on the left (and right) if the republicans attempt to obstruct the process until after the election?

Davian93
02-13-2016, 05:16 PM
Heller- Easy easy decision. Right to bear arms as an individual rights was assumed from the founding of this country. We have documents showing that.

Bush v. Gore- Scalia wasn't the only one to see it was an easy decision.

Citizens United- Free speech case, really isn't that tough, though I understand the anger.

The EPA has too much power, so that wasn't a surprise.

Right to bear arms is qualified as being part of a well-regulated militia. Do all the handgun owners in DC belong to such an organization? Is it well-regulated?

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 05:18 PM
His tenure was exactly indicative of what you just argued a justice should not do. He used his post to steer the state on the basis of his politics, not upon the basis of legal precedence. Heller, Citizens United, Bollinger, scores of rulings chipping away at Roe, Bush v Gore, et alia. Heck, just this week he was integral in overturning the president's attempt to combat global warming.

Also, stare decisis isn't required. Much of the precedence he voted to overthrow was because it was so clearly wrong. The sooner Roe and Casey get overruled, the better. Roe is one of the worst decisions in the history of the U.S., following Dred Scott and Bell, and I'm not just talking about the decision, but how it was reasoned (even those who support abortion agree it was awful).

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 05:19 PM
Right to bear arms is qualified as being part of a well-regulated militia. Do all the handgun owners in DC belong to such an organization? Is it well-regulated?

Those are two separate things. You can check the history and you can check the linguistics, as has been analyzed many many times. It's much more useful to try and argue against Citizens United, because even though it's slight, you can at least make somewhat of an argument against it, which cannot be done against individual right to bear arms. Even my extremely liberal law professor agreed with the decision.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 05:31 PM
Cruz has already stated he will block any Obama nominee and he feels we owe it to the American people to wait till the next President to replace Scalia.

What a shock.

Mind you, such a block has literally never happened in history for a SCOTUS nominee.

The nomination and confirmation processes take awhile, so even without blockage it would prob go past election.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 05:39 PM
Also, stare decisis isn't required. Much of the precedence he voted to overthrow was because it was so clearly wrong. The sooner Roe and Casey get overruled, the better. Roe is one of the worst decisions in the history of the U.S., following Dred Scott and Bell, and I'm not just talking about the decision, but how it was reasoned (even those who support abortion agree it was awful).

And this is exactly why presidential elections are so important. Beyond that unfortunately debating this issue with you is pointless until you finally admit that what you accuse the progressive justices of is exactly what we accuse the conservative justices. They are all picked based on politics, and their opinions and rulings are symptoms of their politics, not of some ephemeral originalism. Heller overturned centuries of precedence and redefined what the 2nd Amendment was. Heller and Citizens United have redrawn the political landscape just as much as Roe, and how all were decided had less to do with the Constitution than upon the personal philosophies of the individuals sitting on the court at the time of their ruling. Certainly Roe would have had a very different ruling, a 5-4 one, if it had come before the court on Monday. And that is due to the men and women on the court, not upon the merits of the case. Let's not pretend that the contention in the confirmation process is over their qualifications, it's over their politics.

Davian93
02-13-2016, 05:45 PM
The nomination and confirmation processes take awhile, so even without blockage it would prob go past election.

That's total bullshit and you know it. McConnell has already come out saying he's going to block any attempt as will Cruz. It's pure politics, not a slow nomination process. When's the last time the court waited 11 months to attempt to fill a nomination? Never

The Unreasoner
02-13-2016, 05:52 PM
At least the Right blocking a nominee will bring to focus exactly what's at stake in November. Do the Democratic voters trust Sanders to win? I don't.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 05:55 PM
That's total bullshit and you know it. McConnell has already come out saying he's going to block any attempt as will Cruz. It's pure politics, not a slow nomination process. When's the last time the court waited 11 months to attempt to fill a nomination? Never

Souter announced his retirement on April 30th, 2009. Sotomayor was nominated on May 26th and confirmed on August 6th.

John Paul Stevens announced his retirement on April 9th, 2010. Kagan was nominated on May 10th and confirmed on August 5th.

Terez
02-13-2016, 06:01 PM
At least the Right blocking a nominee will bring to focus exactly what's at stake in November. Do the Democratic voters trust Sanders to win? I don't.
I trust him a lot more than I trust Hillary to win. She's under three separate investigations and she doesn't inspire liberals. If Trump is the nominee (which seems likely at this point), Bernie will be immune to Trump's advantages, that he doesn't take big campaign contributions, populist sentiment, etc.

The Unreasoner
02-13-2016, 06:06 PM
Bernie will be immune to Trump's advantages, that he doesn't take big campaign contributions, populist sentiment, etc.
You're forgetting a rather big one...

Kimon
02-13-2016, 06:18 PM
Anyone else thinking that Obama should just send the ultimate f*ck you to the Republicans and nominate himself?

Davian93
02-13-2016, 06:24 PM
Nominate Biden.

Terez
02-13-2016, 06:29 PM
You're forgetting a rather big one...
I doubt it.

Kimon
02-13-2016, 06:30 PM
Nominate Biden.

Obama has an impeccable resume for the court. Magna cum laude Harvard Law School. Harvard Law Review President. Professor of Constitutional Law at the Univ. of Chicago. Senator from Illinois. President of the United States. How could they possibly not confirm?

Hell, just let Biden be President for a few months after Obama is confirmed in the summer. Maybe South Carolina and the rest of Dixie will secede again and this time we can just celebrate and watch them collapse into a 3rd World sh*thole.

fionwe1987
02-13-2016, 06:37 PM
Anyone else thinking that Obama should just send the ultimate f*ck you to the Republicans and nominate himself?
Legally speaking, can he? I'm not sure if such a law exists, but I would thing something would prevent a person from holding two such offices.

What WOULD be fun is if the Republicans succeed in blocking his nominee now, and are then presented with Obama as the nominee by the next president.

I won't pretend to any real sorrow over his death beyond the fact that any death is sad. But I DO think it is ridiculous that politicians didn't even bother to wait for a day before fighting about whether he should be immediately replaced. All out of "respect for his legacy" of course. :rolleyes:

Obama should have every right to appoint a successor. The Dems and the Republicans don't even have nominees yet. 11 months is a good long time in a Presidency, and it makes no sense to argue that just because he won't be reelected at that point, Obama should loll about doing nothing till then.

The Unreasoner
02-13-2016, 06:52 PM
I doubt it.
The one thing Trump supporters seem to care about most, according to most polls and surveys? Something Hillary is actually respected for by reasonable individuals?

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 06:58 PM
No, it's politics. Get over it. It would be horrible for the Senate to give in and rush in a nominee just because Obama sheep want them to. If roles were reversed, liberals would never give in. And no, nomination process and confirmation DOES take awhile.

http://www.cato.org/blog/antonin-scalia-revolutionary

Good article

Terez
02-13-2016, 06:58 PM
The one thing Trump supporters seem to care about most, according to most polls and surveys? Something Hillary is actually respected for by reasonable individuals?
I'm tired; spell it out.

Southpaw2012
02-13-2016, 07:02 PM
The 2016 election has become a fight for nominating the next Supreme Court justice. Will we get a justice who will fight for the written Constitution? Or a justice, like the liberals on the court now (including Kennedy) who will fight for the tempting, idealistic policy of the day?

Kimon
02-13-2016, 07:08 PM
The 2016 election has become a fight for nominating the next Supreme Court justice. Will we get a justice who will fight for the written Constitution? Or a justice, like the liberals on the court now (including Kennedy) who will fight for the tempting, idealistic policy of the day?

How dare these women think they should have the right to vote, or have their health care pay for birth control, or get an abortion. How dare these black people think they should have the right to be free, let alone vote. How dare these gay people think they should have the right to marry, or buy a cake.

The Unreasoner
02-13-2016, 07:12 PM
I'm tired; spell it out.
Defense. I'm not saying Trump would be good at it (I think the reality is quite the reverse) or that Sanders would be bad. What I am saying is that Trump has the image of someone who can defend the country (obtained saying he'd restart torture programs and ban Muslims, but whatever). Hillary helped (how much she did, I don't know. But she has a credible claim) get Bin Laden, and enjoys a similar reputation. At least among those not consumed by the Benghazi nonsense.

Bernie may be perfectly capable. He may even be the best of the bunch. But he doesn't cultivate the image of an effective Commander-in-Chief, and that will come back to bite him in November.

He's not even a great crusader. Warren would have been a much better choice to lead this 'movement'.

Terez
02-13-2016, 07:17 PM
Defense. I'm not saying Trump would be good at it (I think the reality is quite the reverse) or that Sanders would be bad. What I am saying is that Trump has the image of someone who can defend the country (obtained saying he'd restart torture programs and ban Muslims, but whatever). Hillary helped (how much she did, I don't know. But she has a credible claim) get Bin Laden, and enjoys a similar reputation. At least among those not consumed by the Benghazi nonsense.

Bernie may be perfectly capable. He may even be the best of the bunch. But he doesn't cultivate the image of an effective Commander-in-Chief, and that will come back to bite him in November.

He's not even a great crusader. Warren would have been a much better choice to lead this 'movement'.
Bernie's positions on foreign policy are actually in line with the majority of the country, and he has repeatedly shown better judgment. Even Chris Matthews said "I'm with Bernie on foreign policy" during the last debate. Trump's blatherings on this subject are appealing to the base of his voters, but not all of them.

The Unreasoner
02-13-2016, 07:33 PM
Bernie's positions on foreign policy are actually in line with the majority of the country, and he has repeatedly shown better judgment. Even Chris Matthews said "I'm with Bernie on foreign policy" during the last debate. Trump's blatherings on this subject are appealing to the base of his voters, but not all of them.
Bernie's just anti-interventionist, which is one of Matthews's two big concerns. Trump can actually make a good claim that he is too, considering he opposed the war in Iraq.

Nazbaque
02-13-2016, 07:40 PM
Sad...I didn't like him or agree with most of his ideas but it's always sad.

I won't pretend to any real sorrow over his death beyond the fact that any death is sad.

I'm going to go on a tangent here and point out that death is not sad by default. In fact any sadness related to death is always about the living. They have lost someone they had a bond with and that is sad. Death is the force that keeps the cycle of life going. All living things feed on something that was once alive. Every part of us was once a part of something else and part of another being before that. Death is a necessary part of this cycle. It is only sad to those who had a connection to the person and the sadness is not in the person's death but the void they left behind in those people's hearts.

fionwe1987
02-13-2016, 07:43 PM
The 2016 election has become a fight for nominating the next Supreme Court justice. Will we get a justice who will fight for the written Constitution? Or a justice, like the liberals on the court now (including Kennedy) who will fight for the tempting, idealistic policy of the day?
You know I think it is a particularly American lunacy to give a near holy halo to a two century old document. The original was not a gospel, and its writers were not omniscient. They seemed to have been perfectly aware that what they were working on was a start. One that would have to be reworked constantly to keep it relevant to the times.

Somehow, that seems to have been lost. Exaclty why should the intentions of men who died nearly 250 years ago matter to the United States as it is today?

Kimon
02-13-2016, 07:52 PM
You know I think it is a particularly American lunacy to give a near holy halo to a two century old document. The original was not a gospel, and its writers were not omniscient. They seemed to have been perfectly aware that what they were working on was a start. One that would have to be reworked constantly to keep it relevant to the times.

Somehow, that seems to have been lost. Exaclty why should the intentions of men who died nearly 250 years ago matter to the United States as it is today?

It shouldn't, and this "originalist" nonsense was mostly Scalia's magnum opus. Hopefully Hades is getting creative with the bastard down in Tartarus.

fionwe1987
02-13-2016, 07:56 PM
It shouldn't, and this "originalist" nonsense was mostly Scalia's magnum opus. Hopefully Hades is getting creative with the bastard down in Tartarus.

Precisely. Scalia was the rabid prophet of an insane religion. About time such nonsense was weeded out from the Court, and that is only going to be achieved by putting in place someone who doesn't give a damn about what the original document intended.

Nazbaque
02-13-2016, 09:35 PM
Well the problem there is like with all religions that believing is so much easier than thinking.

Davian93
02-14-2016, 01:28 AM
17 Justices have been confirmed during an election year including Anthony Kennedy...so please please please make yourselves look stupid, GOP.

The Unreasoner
02-14-2016, 01:48 AM
17 Justices have been confirmed during an election year including Anthony Kennedy...so please please please make yourselves look stupid, GOP.
I'm worried Ted Cruz won't care how it looks. McConnell might even publicly distance himself, while privately approving.

A filibuster may even be a sort of imposed penance, to remove the Establishment opposition to a Cruz nomination.

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2016, 03:31 AM
Right to bear arms is qualified as being part of a well-regulated militia. Do all the handgun owners in DC belong to such an organization? Is it well-regulated?
Those are two separate things.
In that case, the prohibition on inmates having firearms while imprisoned is unconstitutional, and you should oppose that. The 2nd very explicitly says "shall not be infringed", and thus does not allow any lesser laws to infringe on this right by, for instance, prohibiting convicted felons from carrying arms while in custody.

If you don't accept that argument, then your only ways out are either to accept that the militia bit is actually relevant (in which case Davian was right) or to declare the US Constitution a dead letter that can be ignored whenever an activist judge wants.
Or, alternatively, you could show a subsequent Amendment limiting firearm rights for felons and such, of course.

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2016, 11:02 AM
I have just come up with an amusing semi-hypothetical:
The Republicans have already announced they'll not accept any SCOTUS nomination made by Obama. Suppose that continues, and eventually the last Supreme Judge dies unreplaced. Then what? How long could the USA last without having a Supreme Court at all?

Kimon
02-14-2016, 11:54 AM
I have just come up with an amusing semi-hypothetical:
The Republicans have already announced they'll not accept any SCOTUS nomination made by Obama. Suppose that continues, and eventually the last Supreme Judge dies unreplaced. Then what? How long could the USA last without having a Supreme Court at all?

The bottom line is that the Republicans control the Senate. So they could either refuse to even allow a vote, or could allow it, and simply vote down any candidate, regardless of qualification or philosophy. And from a political standpoint, it would nearly impossible for any Republican, regardless of whether they are up for re-election, to vote in favor of any nominee, considering just how vitriolic this country, and their party in particular, has become. The consequences of either would however be dire. It would guarantee that every confirmation process moving forward would be a battle, and that it would be nigh impossible for any president to get a nomination through the senate if his party didn't control it.

If they really want this process to become so transparently and irreparably politicized, which it certainly has, the situation would be better resolved by switching to direct election of these justices, and for a defined rather than permanent duration.

GonzoTheGreat
02-14-2016, 12:07 PM
Technically, the president can appoint a judge whenever Congress is on recess. Then the judge serves until the next elections, whereupon the position becomes vacant again. So, if the president decides to simply ignore Congress entirely, that is possible. My hypothetical assumes this won't be done; that whoever is president now or in the future will expect the Senate to do its job.

As an aside: Congress is on recess right now. So if he really wanted to, then Obama could push whoever he chose onto the Supreme Court without even having to bother asking any Republican.

Caveat: this is based on what I've read is the law, not on what I have read in those laws, let alone on what actual lawyers read in those laws.

Kimon
02-14-2016, 12:13 PM
Technically, the president can appoint a judge whenever Congress is on recess. Then the judge serves until the next elections, whereupon the position becomes vacant again. So, if the president decides to simply ignore Congress entirely, that is possible. My hypothetical assumes this won't be done; that whoever is president now or in the future will expect the Senate to do its job.

As an aside: Congress is on recess right now. So if he really wanted to, then Obama could push whoever he chose onto the Supreme Court without even having to bother asking any Republican.

Caveat: this is based on what I've read is the law, not on what I have read in those laws, let alone on what actual lawyers read in those laws.

Better optics to force the Republicans to reject nominees at least first. If they then have made clear that they are blockading his constitutional right, especially if they are not even allowing a vote, then perhaps you resort to that. Doing that in the beginning would only let them off the hook, and make himself look bad. I suspect that he'll try to find a moderate with which there is no clear and reasonable grounds for rejection. And then force them to make a rejection that none could argue is based upon anything but partisan warfare.

Davian93
02-14-2016, 12:37 PM
He should keep nominating completely legitimate people and force them to keep rejecting them. He should go with Sri Srinivasan first. Nominated to the DC circuit and confirmed 97-0 by pretty much the current Senate. Let them explain why he's suddenly unqualified.

And go from there.

Southpaw2012
02-14-2016, 12:55 PM
I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.

Kimon
02-14-2016, 01:11 PM
I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.

Bork, like Clarence Thomas (due to Anita Hill), had legitimate ethics questions. Bork's role in Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, after Cox requested that Nixon hand over the Oval Office tapes was such an obvious ethics problem that Nixon's own Attorney General, Richardson, resigned rather than go along with Nixon and Bork's demand. If Obama's choice has a similarly obvious ethics question, then they will have legitimate grounds for voting against the nominee. Keep in mind, that when Reagan nominated Kennedy instead, the vote was 97-0. They confirmed another Reagan nominee, Sandra Day O'Connor, by a similar margin, 99-0.

Southpaw, Bork was so controversial that even 6 Republican Senators voted against him.

Davian93
02-14-2016, 01:58 PM
I think you all forgot about the trouble Dems gave Repubs with the nomination of Robert Bork.

And you apparently forget how grossly incompetent and unqualified Bork was. I say forget but you likely weren't even alive when that happened or you'd know that they allowed Thomas afterward with no filibuster. Either way, they voted on both and allowed a far right wing idiot in the end.

Southpaw2012
02-14-2016, 05:10 PM
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/what-the-constitution-tells-us-about-how-senators-should-consider-obamas-judicial-nominees/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Kimon
02-14-2016, 06:17 PM
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.


So all the presidents before Reagan were tyrants? Likewise all the supreme court justices before Scalia? Washington a tyrant for the Whiskey Rebellion? Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase? Obviously Lincoln and the Roosevelts, right? All the Amendments, evil? Earl Warren for basically everything he did? The seven justices who made their decision upon an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, privacy and due process in particular, in the Roe decision? Tyrants? All the gun laws that existed before Heller?

This is about interpretation, Southpaw. Not tyranny.

Terez
02-14-2016, 08:18 PM
The bottom line is that the Republicans control the Senate. So they could either refuse to even allow a vote, or could allow it, and simply vote down any candidate, regardless of qualification or philosophy.
McConnell won't allow a vote. Too many GOP Senators defending their seats in blue states.

Nazbaque
02-14-2016, 08:26 PM
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/what-the-constitution-tells-us-about-how-senators-should-consider-obamas-judicial-nominees/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Southpaw this rant of yours proves you are treating that document as religious gospel.

Moreover you do not understand what it means to be free. Otherwise you'd know to ask the question: "free to do what?"

Davian93
02-14-2016, 10:59 PM
McConnell won't allow a vote. Too many GOP Senators defending their seats in blue states.

All this will do is hurt those Senators even more though...he has to know that.

Stupid is as stupid does though I guess.

Davian93
02-14-2016, 11:00 PM
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.

As for the nomination process:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/06/what-the-constitution-tells-us-about-how-senators-should-consider-obamas-judicial-nominees/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Ironically, I find your complete ignorance of reality sickening...and a bit sad. I wonder how your life will be if you ever get out of your tiny little world and actually think for yourself.

Terez
02-14-2016, 11:13 PM
All this will do is hurt those Senators even more though...he has to know that.

Stupid is as stupid does though I guess.
I kinda wish Obama would just do a recess appointment. Surely the senate leader refusing to consider any nomination without even knowing who the nominees would be is reason enough.

Frenzy
02-15-2016, 12:27 AM
I kinda wish Obama would just do a recess appointment. Surely the senate leader refusing to consider any nomination without even knowing who the nominees would be is reason enough.

All that would do is fuel the "King Obama" rhetoric on the right and give idiots like Cruz political fodder. The president should do what's his responsibility is to do: follow the normal process, and let the Republicans hang themselves out to dry.

GonzoTheGreat
02-15-2016, 03:12 AM
All that would do is fuel the "King Obama" rhetoric on the right and give idiots like Cruz political fodder. The president should do what's his responsibility is to do: follow the normal process, and let the Republicans hang themselves out to dry.
Or, alternatively, let them break their word and have them confirm an appointment anyway. Obama basically can't lose here by following the rules, and the Republicans can't win by doing so.

Terez
02-15-2016, 08:21 AM
All that would do is fuel the "King Obama" rhetoric on the right and give idiots like Cruz political fodder.
Hence the "kinda".

Davian93
02-15-2016, 02:26 PM
I loved the complete lack of response from Southpaw on any of the Bork criticisms...since he once again can't respond on any of stupid talking points that he just repeats without grasping there might be another side to it.

Kimon
02-15-2016, 03:25 PM
I loved the complete lack of response from Southpaw on any of the Bork criticisms...since he once again can't respond on any of stupid talking points that he just repeats without grasping there might be another side to it.

There was also the irony of accusing those of us who think that the constitution should be malleable enough to grow and adapt (and if it should not be capable of such what exactly is the point of the founders immediately allowing for and creating amendments) of being tyrants who spit on the sanctity of law, while at the same time supporting the Republican calls for stealing Obama's right to nominate Scalia's successor simply because they don't like him. Can you imagine the vitriol on the right if this was reversed? If it was a Republican president in his last year, Ginsburg dead, and a dem controlled Senate blockading the Republican's right to nominate? They would be livid, and screaming tyranny.

Davian93
02-15-2016, 05:21 PM
Bork was probably the worst nomination to the Court in the last 100 years. He was as corrupt as corrupt could be. He was neck deep with Nixon and had previously attempted to buy his way into a SCOTUS seat with his actions under him. The thought of letting him near the Supreme Court is disgusting. It'd be up there with putting Aaron Burr in charge of anything after his machinations. It simply couldn't happen. Reagan should have been ashamed to even consider nominating him. One of the greatest things Ted Kennedy ever did was stop that nomination. The man had a lot of flaws but he hit 1.000 that day at least.

Southpaw should know all that, of course but his Breitbart talking point of "but, but, but Bork!?!" was just too easy for him to post.

A lot of the "pundits" have Loretta Lynch as a favorite for the Court...Personally, not a huge fan of that idea.

One wacky note that is not to be taken seriously...under the Constitution, Obama could nominate himself and serve concurrently on both the Court and as President. There's nothing to stop it actually as its not spelled out as forbidden anywhere. Obviously, no Senate on earth would ever go for it, nor should they but how "funny" would that be. Of course, the entire notion is very Banana Republic-esque and should never be considered.

Kimon
02-15-2016, 05:56 PM
A lot of the "pundits" have Loretta Lynch as a favorite for the Court...Personally, not a huge fan of that idea.


He should suggest someone that would be nigh impossible for them to deny with any plausible cover. You mentioned the name earlier - Sri Srinivasan. His confirmation vote to the DC Court of Appeals was 97-0. And he's only 48. And, let's be honest. There is no way in hell the Republicans will accept any black candidate, so Loretta Lynch is even less of an option than picking himself. Lynch was already a fight just for Attorney General. She would be an automatic rejection. With Srinivasan, they all must have known when they voted to confirm him unanimously to the Appeals Court in 2013 that he was becoming an an obvious candidate for down the road to the SC. They'd thus be forced to rationalize not just changing their vote, but to do so without any reasonable justification.

Force them to be seen in all eyes, even their own, to be schmucks. Force them to face and understand that they must either finally act like adults and do their job ethically, or else recognize that they have murdered the last hope of ever reconciling the two increasingly disparate flocks. If they continue on this path, divorce seems inevitable.

Davian93
02-15-2016, 05:59 PM
The pundits seem to think that Lynch would definitely be shot down but that Obama would do it to make them look bad for shooting down a well-qualified black woman.

I'd rather he just go with Sri as a very well qualified candidate who they couldn't attack. But its gonna be ugly no matter what.

fionwe1987
02-15-2016, 06:31 PM
Frankly, I think Obama shouldn't play politics on this. Yes, there are potential Latino and African American judges who would be politically beneficial to the Democratic Party. But picking those to harm Republicans in the election is basically accepting that the SC nomination is a political football.

Instead, he should nominate someone who he thinks will be a good person for the job, who is moderate and well respected with an impeccable record. Then when the GOP does its usual bullshit, it will be easier to point to the public that such obstructionism is why neither the Senate nor the White House belongs in GOP hands.

Kimon
02-15-2016, 08:32 PM
I'm actually surprised it took this long for them to start floating the idea that Obama assassinated him...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/conspiracy-theories-surround-justice-scalias-death/

Terez
02-15-2016, 11:19 PM
I thought it was going to be Hillary, since they've already accused her of murder.

Frenzy
02-16-2016, 12:46 AM
I loved the complete lack of response from Southpaw on any of the Bork criticisms...since he once again can't respond on any of stupid talking points that he just repeats without grasping there might be another side to it.

Dude, i'm still waiting on him to respond to me asking him last June (http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=230315#post230315) why he thought the law should make every woman in this nation have fewer rights than corpses. Obviously i'm not holding my breath.

The Unreasoner
02-16-2016, 12:57 AM
I used to get really annoyed by this bullshit of his, but I eventually realized that he really can't think for himself. For him to respond, we would need to wait for our questions and rebuttals to penetrate the Right's censors and actually be heard by enough of the base that a talking head feels the need to respond to them. Only then could Southpaw parrot his response.

Southpaw is a parrot.
Once you accept that, in your heart, you will know peace.

Nazbaque
02-16-2016, 03:58 AM
I used to get really annoyed by this bullshit of his, but I eventually realized that he really can't think for himself. For him to respond, we would need to wait for our questions and rebuttals to penetrate the Right's censors and actually be heard by enough of the base that a talking head feels the need to respond to them. Only then could Southpaw parrot his response.

Southpaw is a parrot.
Once you accept that, in your heart, you will know peace.

Someday. Someday he will parrot what I say and vengeance will be mine!

yks 6nnetu hing
02-16-2016, 05:10 AM
seriously, you guys should simply scrap the current precedent-based and therefore ridiculously contradiction-riddled system and switch to the Napoleonic model.

Davian93
02-16-2016, 06:57 AM
seriously, you guys should simply scrap the current precedent-based and therefore ridiculously contradiction-riddled system and switch to the Napoleonic model.

Yeah but we have like 1000 years of legal precedent at this point if you include English Common Law...so it'd be kinda impossible for us to do that.

Besides Napeoleon was one of those French people and all foreigners are evil but the ones that have weird scary accents are even more so.

Davian93
02-16-2016, 06:58 AM
I used to get really annoyed by this bullshit of his, but I eventually realized that he really can't think for himself. For him to respond, we would need to wait for our questions and rebuttals to penetrate the Right's censors and actually be heard by enough of the base that a talking head feels the need to respond to them. Only then could Southpaw parrot his response.

Southpaw is a parrot.
Once you accept that, in your heart, you will know peace.

I just think its funny that he literally lifts every single one of his talking points from either The Blaze or Breitbart...and its usually word for word. That's when he's not just outright hyperlinking to either site.

Terez
02-16-2016, 12:46 PM
Looks like we might be getting a name from Obama this afternoon. I'm sure he already had a shortlist prepared; all he had to do was figure out which candidate would be better for this particular political climate.

Davian93
02-16-2016, 01:01 PM
Looks like we might be getting a name from Obama this afternoon. I'm sure he already had a shortlist prepared; all he had to do was figure out which candidate would be better for this particular political climate.

Loretta Lynch is my guess.

Terez
02-16-2016, 01:10 PM
I don't really have a guess. I think Lynch would be a good pick politically, but I suspect Obama wants to keep her at Justice.

fdsaf3
02-16-2016, 01:19 PM
No, the Constitution is not a 200 year old gospel. It's the greatest document ever created for government, alongside the Declaration of Independence, that set up a system designed to prevent tyranny. What you democrat progressives desire is to have a government of men who ignore the framework established in order to have an overreaching federal government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. That desire is beyond dangerous, and anyone with half a brain should be fighting hand and foot against it. Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it. It's truly sickening to hear people deride it, and really just ignorant.


I get that everyone here pretty much piles on the "Southpaw is a blathering idiot" bandwagon, but as a pretty neutral bystander here I think this point got a bit overlooked in the rush to be critical and/or outright dismissive. There's a viewpoint of the Constitution which makes it first and foremost a way to limit the government's power as a mechanism to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. There's merit to that position, even if you personally don't agree with it.

Agree or disagree with Southpaw as much as you want, but I think this particular post of his makes some sense.

Terez
02-16-2016, 03:46 PM
Obama is late for his press conference.

Terez
02-16-2016, 04:02 PM
Doesn't look like he will name anyone; he's just taking questions on the process.

Kimon
02-16-2016, 04:15 PM
I get that everyone here pretty much piles on the "Southpaw is a blathering idiot" bandwagon, but as a pretty neutral bystander here I think this point got a bit overlooked in the rush to be critical and/or outright dismissive. There's a viewpoint of the Constitution which makes it first and foremost a way to limit the government's power as a mechanism to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. There's merit to that position, even if you personally don't agree with it.

Agree or disagree with Southpaw as much as you want, but I think this particular post of his makes some sense.

No it doesn't.

Originalism isn't perfect, but it prevents this idea that the government has free reign. It keeps our system balanced and doesn't change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it.

Scalia overturned centuries of precedent on gun rights, and upon the basis not of some objective original intent, but upon the basis of his subjective interpretation of an intent that ran contrary to a mountain of precedent. Nor was he an example of balance or of the check on the power of any one man. On the contrary, he was an exemplar of the influence that one man could wield in shaping and steering the ship of state. And he clearly steered us into the tempest.

His actions have created significant damage to the body politic, and not just with Heller. Not just with Citizens United. Not just with Bush v Gore. Not just with his overturning of the Voting Rights Act, and hence allowance for the deluge of restrictive voting laws throughout the south. Not just his votes to allow for the nearly complete lack of access to abortion clinics in many states. Not just with his recent undermining of attempts by the president to combat climate change.

How exactly was he not an example of precisely of what Southpaw asserted that this originalism was attempting to prevent? He wasn't conserving a status quo, he was overturning it and forcing a shift to an origin that in some cases, like Heller and Citizens United, never existed, and in others, like voting rights and civil rights, he was shifting back to a position that restricted rather than expanded natural rights. You, like Southpaw, simply liked the changes that he brought.

Davian93
02-16-2016, 07:38 PM
Obama is late for his press conference.

Where does he get off....sitting there eating crackers like he owns the place.

Davian93
02-16-2016, 07:39 PM
No it doesn't.



Scalia overturned centuries of precedent on gun rights, and upon the basis not of some objective original intent, but upon the basis of his subjective interpretation of an intent that ran contrary to a mountain of precedent. Nor was he an example of balance or of the check on the power of any one man. On the contrary, he was an exemplar of the influence that one man could wield in shaping and steering the ship of state. And he clearly steered us into the tempest.

His actions have created significant damage to the body politic, and not just with Heller. Not just with Citizens United. Not just with Bush v Gore. Not just with his overturning of the Voting Rights Act, and hence allowance for the deluge of restrictive voting laws throughout the south. Not just his votes to allow for the nearly complete lack of access to abortion clinics in many states. Not just with his recent undermining of attempts by the president to combat climate change.

How exactly was he not an example of precisely of what Southpaw asserted that this originalism was attempting to prevent? He wasn't conserving a status quo, he was overturning it and forcing a shift to an origin that in some cases, like Heller and Citizens United, never existed, and in others, like voting rights and civil rights, he was shifting back to a position that restricted rather than expanded natural rights. You, like Southpaw, simply liked the changes that he brought.

Stevens dissent in Heller is pretty insanely epic...and it tears Scalia's "reasoning" to shreds on his supposed "originalism".

GonzoTheGreat
02-17-2016, 05:31 AM
I get that everyone here pretty much piles on the "Southpaw is a blathering idiot" bandwagon, but as a pretty neutral bystander here I think this point got a bit overlooked in the rush to be critical and/or outright dismissive. There's a viewpoint of the Constitution which makes it first and foremost a way to limit the government's power as a mechanism to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. There's merit to that position, even if you personally don't agree with it.

Agree or disagree with Southpaw as much as you want, but I think this particular post of his makes some sense.
If and only if language never changes. Since that's a rather wrong assumption, the whole basis falls out of this particular argument.
Look, for instance, on how the whole "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd is considered a dead and irrelevant letter nowadays, while, presumably, it did have meaning for the ones who put it in there.

fdsaf3
02-17-2016, 11:29 AM
Kimon's response here.

First, I just want to say without any doubt that you don't know me and you certainly know fuck all about my personal politics. For you to make an inference about what I enjoy or appreciate about any particular legal issue is laughably off base.

Now that we're clear on that, let me also say that your response was predictable in that it follows the Theoryland formula pretty clearly: shift focus to something that's tangentially related to the point I was making while totally missing the message. This is something I've noticed happens frequently in any online forum but is especially common here.

All I can say here is that my point was simple and that you seem to have missed it. I'm not weighing in on any particular decision or opinion that Scalia had, so I appreciate that within the broader context of the conversation my comments might have been out of place. That minor issue aside, I don't see much room to fault my assertion that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution has some merit as a political ideology. That was the point Southpaw was making (in a broad sense), and that's what I was pointing out. Feel free to argue specifics - it wouldn't be Theoryland without it. But I frankly don't see any room for reasonable disagreement with such an innocuous and generalized blanket statement.

One final thought: note that I'm not personally advocating for an originalist interpretation. Quite frankly, I'm not informed enough to have an opinion one way or the other to form a heuristic on how the Constitution should be interpreted. I won't weigh in on that particular argument.

Nazbaque
02-17-2016, 12:00 PM
First, I just want to say without any doubt that you don't know me and you certainly know fuck all about my personal politics. For you to make an inference about what I enjoy or appreciate about any particular legal issue is laughably off base.

Now that we're clear on that, let me also say that your response was predictable in that it follows the Theoryland formula pretty clearly: shift focus to something that's tangentially related to the point I was making while totally missing the message. This is something I've noticed happens frequently in any online forum but is especially common here.

All I can say here is that my point was simple and that you seem to have missed it. I'm not weighing in on any particular decision or opinion that Scalia had, so I appreciate that within the broader context of the conversation my comments might have been out of place. That minor issue aside, I don't see much room to fault my assertion that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution has some merit as a political ideology. That was the point Southpaw was making (in a broad sense), and that's what I was pointing out. Feel free to argue specifics - it wouldn't be Theoryland without it. But I frankly don't see any room for reasonable disagreement with such an innocuous and generalized blanket statement.

One final thought: note that I'm not personally advocating for an originalist interpretation. Quite frankly, I'm not informed enough to have an opinion one way or the other to form a heuristic on how the Constitution should be interpreted. I won't weigh in on that particular argument.

Well the point is that you have two options: the objective approach is to take the constitution literally and try to adapt it for the times through amendments. Or take the subjective approach and interpret the spirit of the document. The problem with the former is that the thing is way behind times and the amendment process is too slow and the problem with the latter is that there is no practical limitation to interpretation as there are about twice as many opinions on what the spirit of the document is as there are people in the USA.

GonzoTheGreat
02-17-2016, 12:05 PM
What, specifically, is the original meaning of "natural born citizen"?
1. A citizen who was born naturally, ie. not through a caesarian section or something like that.
2. A citizen who was born on US soil.
3. Someone who was born of US parents and therefore automatically has US citizenship.
4. Something else.

Based on what I know of it, the accepted answer is number 4, which isn't really all that clear, is it?

Nazbaque
02-17-2016, 12:11 PM
What, specifically, is the original meaning of "natural born citizen"?
1. A citizen who was born naturally, ie. not through a caesarian section or something like that.
2. A citizen who was born on US soil.
3. Someone who was born of US parents and therefore automatically has US citizenship.
4. Something else.

Based on what I know of it, the accepted answer is number 4, which isn't really all that clear, is it?

It means that clones and testtube kids aren't the same as people who came about because their parents fucked around.

GonzoTheGreat
02-17-2016, 12:25 PM
It means that clones and testtube kids aren't the same as people who came about because their parents fucked around.
That interpretation would be a bit more convincing than it now is, if the ones who had written the clause had known about cloning and such.

fionwe1987
02-17-2016, 12:37 PM
I get that everyone here pretty much piles on the "Southpaw is a blathering idiot" bandwagon, but as a pretty neutral bystander here I think this point got a bit overlooked in the rush to be critical and/or outright dismissive. There's a viewpoint of the Constitution which makes it first and foremost a way to limit the government's power as a mechanism to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. There's merit to that position, even if you personally don't agree with it.
This is only true in so far as the original Constitution guaranteed individual liberty. What about new liberties as the times change? The right of African Americans to be considered whole and not 3/5ths of a person. The right for women to vote and not have decisions made for their body. The right for a person to not have their internet history stored and readily accessed by secret government organizations...

None of these rights are enshrined in the original Constitution, nor are they going to easily be passed as amendments by the Legislature. The reality of today's legislative process is that law-making will remain behind the times.

The Constitution clearly provides for the Supreme Court to hear any case where there are people who have standing for the case to be heard. "Let the legislature decide" is a strategy that violates the spirit of this. Many people who have standing in a Court of Law will have no ability at all to direct the political process in their favor.

Doesn't Originalism, then, consign the minority to a life of subjugation to the beliefs and views of the majority? And doesn't that simply defeat the purpose of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy like the United States?

What protects the country from "change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it" is the concept of precedents and the fact that the legislature can in fact act as a check to unrestrained activism in the Courts.

It is why, in the history of this country (or any other democracy I know of) there has never been an issue where the court's activism has shifted the country dramatically to a conservative or liberal side on too many issues. There are enough checks and balances in place, outside of an Originalist reading of the Constitution, for the Court to be held back from simply doing what it wants.

Weird Harold
02-17-2016, 01:14 PM
What, specifically, is the original meaning of "natural born citizen"?
1. A citizen who was born naturally, ie. not through a caesarian section or something like that.
2. A citizen who was born on US soil.
3. Someone who was born of US parents and therefore automatically has US citizenship.
4. Something else.

Based on what I know of it, the accepted answer is number 4, which isn't really all that clear, is it?

both 2 and 3. More precisely someone who was a citizen at birth.

Southpaw2012
02-17-2016, 01:41 PM
If and only if language never changes. Since that's a rather wrong assumption, the whole basis falls out of this particular argument.
Look, for instance, on how the whole "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd is considered a dead and irrelevant letter nowadays, while, presumably, it did have meaning for the ones who put it in there.

The problem is that Democrats (and many Republicans) take the words and twist them to what they don't actually say. Implied power to the utmost degree. Hate on Scalia all you want, but his philosophy was that of the founding fathers, and how they and those who came before interpreted texts. Go read William Blackstone sometime. Call me an idiot all you want, but it's the only method of interpretation that makes sense to where the Court remains in check and doesn't became a part of the legislative branch. Sure, you like to hate on Scalia, but you support a big government that can regulate everything it possibly can, and take money from the earners and give to the freeloaders. You're free to have that opinion, but it's wrong. Thank you to fdsaf3 for having some sense. Trust me, I'm in law school and am surrounded by socialists all over the place. Now, it's not as bad student-wise, but professors are as far left wing as one could get (not all, but most). If my ideas were so horrible, I wouldn't have the positions that I do in many of the organizations here (primary editor of the Law Review and President of Federalist Society, among others) because people would shut me down. However, they respect it because it makes sense, and honestly it's the only philosophy that makes sense without sounding like sheep. A big supporter of mine is as far left-wing as one could possibly imagine, but he's smart enough to realize that the other side has very strong arguments. So you can continue the attacks behind a keyboard, but they fail.

Good article to emphasis everything
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/socialism-making-comeback

Southpaw2012
02-17-2016, 01:52 PM
This is only true in so far as the original Constitution guaranteed individual liberty. What about new liberties as the times change? The right of African Americans to be considered whole and not 3/5ths of a person. The right for women to vote and not have decisions made for their body. The right for a person to not have their internet history stored and readily accessed by secret government organizations...

None of these rights are enshrined in the original Constitution, nor are they going to easily be passed as amendments by the Legislature. The reality of today's legislative process is that law-making will remain behind the times.

The Constitution clearly provides for the Supreme Court to hear any case where there are people who have standing for the case to be heard. "Let the legislature decide" is a strategy that violates the spirit of this. Many people who have standing in a Court of Law will have no ability at all to direct the political process in their favor.

Doesn't Originalism, then, consign the minority to a life of subjugation to the beliefs and views of the majority? And doesn't that simply defeat the purpose of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy like the United States?

What protects the country from "change just because a group of men and women in charge want to change it" is the concept of precedents and the fact that the legislature can in fact act as a check to unrestrained activism in the Courts.

It is why, in the history of this country (or any other democracy I know of) there has never been an issue where the court's activism has shifted the country dramatically to a conservative or liberal side on too many issues. There are enough checks and balances in place, outside of an Originalist reading of the Constitution, for the Court to be held back from simply doing what it wants.


You make a common mistake in your attacks on originalism. The original constitution does NOT allow for blacks to have rights or women to vote, but there were amendments passed that granted that. The framers gave us the amendment process so that we COULD get rid of those awful policies. Contrary to popular belief, many of the framers were against slavery, and did what they could to eliminate it. Fortunately it eventually was, and they gave us the tools to do that. As for your internet storage, originalism provides for that. The Fourth Amendment doesn't need to change, but it includes the internet age by the words alone. You don't have to go beyond the words to find that. What was the original public meaning? That the federal government couldn't come in and take your stuff without a warrant. That doesn't exclude today's age, and that goes for First Amendment as well. The idea that the legislature will fix the problems is accurate because it comes from the people. If you don't like the gridlock, or the bills being passed, get out to the voting booths. It's NOT supposed to be easy, because if it was easy then there would be so much change that we couldn't keep up. If people have standing, they have a right to their day in court. How does that violate the legislature? Standing is for those specific parties in that specific case.

Your internet comment got me thinking... What does everyone think about the government asking Apple to hack the Cali terrorist's phone?

Kimon
02-17-2016, 04:37 PM
First, I just want to say without any doubt that you don't know me and you certainly know fuck all about my personal politics. For you to make an inference about what I enjoy or appreciate about any particular legal issue is laughably off base.


On the contrary, we have had numerous conversations on political topics, and they tend to follow a sequence very much like what you've written above.

All I can say here is that my point was simple and that you seem to have missed it. I'm not weighing in on any particular decision or opinion that Scalia had, so I appreciate that within the broader context of the conversation my comments might have been out of place. That minor issue aside, I don't see much room to fault my assertion that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution has some merit as a political ideology. That was the point Southpaw was making (in a broad sense), and that's what I was pointing out. Feel free to argue specifics - it wouldn't be Theoryland without it. But I frankly don't see any room for reasonable disagreement with such an innocuous and generalized blanket statement.

One final thought: note that I'm not personally advocating for an originalist interpretation. Quite frankly, I'm not informed enough to have an opinion one way or the other to form a heuristic on how the Constitution should be interpreted. I won't weigh in on that particular argument.

The originalist stance owes its rise almost entirely to Bork and Scalia, and due to Bork's fall from grace, unsurprisingly tends to be associated especially with Scalia. As such, it is necessary to look at how it was used, and the consequences. Which is why I pointed to those specific examples and their consequences. He broke precedence. He didn't reassert and return to a status quo ante - except with his overturning of the voting rights act, where the protections he obliterated immediately led to the expected shenanigans throughout the south. He was every bit as much a philosophical activist for the conservatives as was Warren for those who favor progress. Except that in itself is the misnomer. For while Warren was creating progress, Scalia wasn't defending and conserving an origin that ever existed, but an imagined what that he felt should have existed. As such, what he did was in no way innocuous. His originalism has been iconoclastic. That it is the subject of debate and controversy is quite reasonable.

fionwe1987
02-17-2016, 04:52 PM
You make a common mistake in your attacks on originalism. The original constitution does NOT allow for blacks to have rights or women to vote, but there were amendments passed that granted that. The framers gave us the amendment process so that we COULD get rid of those awful policies. Contrary to popular belief, many of the framers were against slavery, and did what they could to eliminate it. Fortunately it eventually was, and they gave us the tools to do that. As for your internet storage, originalism provides for that. The Fourth Amendment doesn't need to change, but it includes the internet age by the words alone. You don't have to go beyond the words to find that. What was the original public meaning? That the federal government couldn't come in and take your stuff without a warrant. That doesn't exclude today's age, and that goes for First Amendment as well. The idea that the legislature will fix the problems is accurate because it comes from the people. If you don't like the gridlock, or the bills being passed, get out to the voting booths. It's NOT supposed to be easy, because if it was easy then there would be so much change that we couldn't keep up. If people have standing, they have a right to their day in court. How does that violate the legislature? Standing is for those specific parties in that specific case.

Sorry, but no one said that there should be only one way to bring about social progress. Amendments exist for it, sure, but while those amendments are being worked on, real people can and do suffer. The idea of the judiciary isn't just to enforce existing laws but also to look for flaws or contradictions.

From time to time, that means extending the original understanding of the law to cover new ground. And this has hardly been reserved for liberal decisions. Citizens United is as much a case of this as is Obergefell.

You can quibble with the conclusions the justices reached in those and other cases. But it is absurd to claim their were doing something unconstitutional or dangerous there.

You claim the Fourth Amendment automatically implies protection from internet search and seizure. But the problem is, the Legislature and the Executive have flagrantly violated that understanding of the Fourth Amendment. And they have ways out, because they can claim that information about you that is stored in far away servers is not yours.

So do we wait for an amendment that states that your digital property and footprint, though diffusely spread geographically, is still yours? How is such ownership to be enforced? If it is mine, can I demand its deletion, leading to the ultimate nightmare that Europe's Right to be Forgotten presages?

I'd much rather trust the court to (hopefully) interpret the Fourth Amendment in a way that allows for privacy protections on the internet, than trust to the legislature, which has a vested interest in violating the same privacy, to work to protect it.

Your internet comment got me thinking... What does everyone think about the government asking Apple to hack the Cali terrorist's phone?
It is a dangerous, stupid, outrageous move. I'm immensely pleased and Apple's stance on this. This is one slippery slope I really don't want the government going down on.

Kimon
02-17-2016, 04:52 PM
Your internet comment got me thinking... What does everyone think about the government asking Apple to hack the Cali terrorist's phone?

Depends on what exactly they want. Is it just this phone, or do they want Apple to allow them to break encryption for all phones. If the latter, that seems to hold a massive danger of unintended consequences, as we'd be trading perhaps a negligible increase in safety due to better surveillance for weaker personal security against cyber breaches and identity theft.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

Apple chief Tim Cook says circumventing security software on the iPhone risks the security of all its customers.
In a statement, he said the court order was "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers" that "has implications far beyond the legal case at hand".
The court had ordered the technology company to alter Farook's iPhone so that the FBI could make unlimited attempts at the passcode without the risk of erasing the data - Apple has provided default encryption on its devices since 2014, allowing only users with knowledge of the passcode to access its contents.
'One device'
It also wants Apple to develop a way to help speed up investigators trying different passcode combinations to gain access.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the FBI request for access did not mean they were asking for a "back door" - or unauthorised access - into the company's device or for it to be redesigned.
"They are simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device," he told reporters on Wednesday.

Terez
02-17-2016, 04:58 PM
Via Snowden on Twitter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html

China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say that the Chinese government does take cues from the United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in the United States.

Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms provide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. Nonetheless, a Chinese antiterrorism law passed in December required foreign firms to hand over technical information and to aid with decryption when the police demand it in terrorism-related cases.

While it is still not clear how the law might be carried out, it is possible a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same. China would also most likely push to acquire any technology that would allow it to unlock iPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher encryption standards in 2014, Apple users in China were targeted by an attack that sought to obtain login information from iCloud users.

The Unreasoner
02-17-2016, 05:09 PM
The government is basically asking Apple to give them a iOS update, with the proper signature, that would allow the government to brute force a (presumably) simple pin. Aside from the issue of precedent, the worry is that even if this 'update' was only installed on one phone, the government could make or recover enough information to apply a similar update on other phones in the future. What the government probably should have done is force Apple to do it themselves. That way, they can get the data, without getting access to a signed backdoor installer.

Davian93
02-17-2016, 08:07 PM
both 2 and 3. More precisely someone who was a citizen at birth.

Technically, the american citizen parent has to have resided a certain period of time in the US:

The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.

So, in Cruz's case, he'd have to prove his mother was in the US for that period...or just produce his Citizen Born Abroad certificate from State Dept (which his mother should have gotten right after his birth). I would prefer the "long-form" version though.

BTW: I do not question Cruz's citizenship status or anything close. As far as I'm concerned, he was born to a US Parent and is therefore a natural-born US citizen. I think his citizenship, however, is far more open to question than Obama's ever was since at least Obama was born to a US parent ON US SOIL...but yeah. I would love to see Trump challenge it in court like he's threatening to...now that he has standing to do so since he's a fellow candidate. Just of the LULZ

Davian93
02-17-2016, 08:10 PM
Depends on what exactly they want. Is it just this phone, or do they want Apple to allow them to break encryption for all phones. If the latter, that seems to hold a massive danger of unintended consequences, as we'd be trading perhaps a negligible increase in safety due to better surveillance for weaker personal security against cyber breaches and identity theft.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

Once they do it for one, the method exists to do it for all of them...thus, its a really, really really bad idea all in the name of National Security.

So, to answer Southpaw's question...I'm highly against it. I suspect Scalia would have been against it too given his stance on privacy rights (his one redeeming stance IMHO).

Good for Tim Cook tell them to shove it. It'll get ugly from here on out though.

GonzoTheGreat
02-18-2016, 03:44 AM
The government is basically asking Apple to give them a iOS update, with the proper signature, that would allow the government to brute force a (presumably) simple pin. Aside from the issue of precedent, the worry is that even if this 'update' was only installed on one phone, the government could make or recover enough information to apply a similar update on other phones in the future. What the government probably should have done is force Apple to do it themselves. That way, they can get the data, without getting access to a signed backdoor installer.But Apple very deliberately designed the operating system in such a way that they can't hack it themselves. Maybe, if they spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars programmers and testing and such, they might be able to work around this. Who would pay for that, though?

And, as already indicated, then what?
The result would be that the Apple safety features were known to be faulty, which would reduce the value of Apple phones, leading to a further loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. Is the US justice department going to reimburse them for this loss?

I do not question Cruz's citizenship status or anything close. As far as I'm concerned, he was born to a US Parent and is therefore a natural-born US citizen.
I could be wrong, but I think that you are overlooking the actual problem in his case.

Cruz is a US citizen; no doubt of that to my knowledge. But is he a "natural born citizen" too? That is a more stringent condition, and one that is not explicitly defined by the law which you cite, as far as I know.
The "natural born" clause excludes those who were naturalised; but whether or not it includes all other US citizens is not clear*.

* Actually, it doesn't. Someone like George Washington, who was a US citizen eligible for the presidency, was neither a natural born citizen, nor was he naturalised. However, another clause was added to the list to grandfather in the Founding Fathers, and this exception isn't relevant to Cruz.

Nazbaque
02-18-2016, 03:51 AM
The problem is that Democrats (and many Republicans) take the words and twist them to what they don't actually say. Implied power to the utmost degree. Hate on Scalia all you want, but his philosophy was that of the founding fathers, and how they and those who came before interpreted texts. Go read William Blackstone sometime. Call me an idiot all you want, but it's the only method of interpretation that makes sense to where the Court remains in check and doesn't became a part of the legislative branch. Sure, you like to hate on Scalia, but you support a big government that can regulate everything it possibly can, and take money from the earners and give to the freeloaders. You're free to have that opinion, but it's wrong. Thank you to fdsaf3 for having some sense. Trust me, I'm in law school and am surrounded by socialists all over the place. Now, it's not as bad student-wise, but professors are as far left wing as one could get (not all, but most). If my ideas were so horrible, I wouldn't have the positions that I do in many of the organizations here (primary editor of the Law Review and President of Federalist Society, among others) because people would shut me down. However, they respect it because it makes sense, and honestly it's the only philosophy that makes sense without sounding like sheep. A big supporter of mine is as far left-wing as one could possibly imagine, but he's smart enough to realize that the other side has very strong arguments. So you can continue the attacks behind a keyboard, but they fail.

Good article to emphasis everything
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/socialism-making-comeback

Ah so your political stance is just your rebellious stage. I mean a while back you linked an article that whined about how government has no right to impose rules on people who have proven themselves adults by moving out of their parents' house and now you complain about your professors.

Grow up.

And those American law school professors are barely center-left at most. Actually they are probably center-right, but I'm giving them the benefit of doubt.

yks 6nnetu hing
02-18-2016, 05:05 AM
I find myself wondering... what would Sini say about all this?

He used to be an Angry White Young Male a decade or so ago...

Nazbaque
02-18-2016, 06:55 AM
I find myself wondering... what would Sini say about all this?

He used to be an Angry White Young Male a decade or so ago...

He was more a case of vindictive paranoia than sheltered ignorance.

Davian93
02-18-2016, 07:01 AM
Ah so your political stance is just your rebellious stage. I mean a while back you linked an article that whined about how government has no right to impose rules on people who have proven themselves adults by moving out of their parents' house and now you complain about your professors.

Grow up.

And those American law school professors are barely center-left at most. Actually they are probably center-right, but I'm giving them the benefit of doubt.

When you arrive at college with a preconceived notion that "all professors are far left-wing", you'll typically end up "proving" that notion to yourself repeatedly.

If you went in with an open mind...well, then you might actually learn something and learning is scary.

Weird Harold
02-18-2016, 07:21 AM
Technically, the american citizen parent has to have resided a certain period of time in the US:

'Taint all that complicated.

Whatever the rules/laws were at the time of a person's birth, if they were a citizen at birth, then they are a "natural born citizen."

If a person's parent(s) don't qualify for a child to be a citizen at birth, then they are NOT a "natural born citizen"

It's only complicated if you can't find some other reason to object to someone from being President. :rolleyes:

Weird Harold
02-18-2016, 07:29 AM
* Actually, it doesn't. Someone like George Washington, who was a US citizen eligible for the presidency, was neither a natural born citizen, nor was he naturalised. However, another clause was added to the list to grandfather in the Founding Fathers, and this exception isn't relevant to Cruz.

If you paid any attention to the timing, there was no one alive at the time the natural-born clause was written who could meet the age requirement as well as the natural-born requirement. Therefore, an arbitrary effective date was assigned to allow time for natural-born citizens to age beyond the minimum requirement and gain some political experience.

Like I said earlier, it's only complicated if you need a reason to object and can't come up with something rational.

Davian93
02-18-2016, 07:33 AM
'Taint all that complicated.

Whatever the rules/laws were at the time of a person's birth, if they were a citizen at birth, then they are a "natural born citizen."

If a person's parent(s) don't qualify for a child to be a citizen at birth, then they are NOT a "natural born citizen"

It's only complicated if you can't find some other reason to object to someone from being President. :rolleyes:

Back in 2008, it was a bit of a faux pas to say "But, but, but he's black!!!" as an objection.

GonzoTheGreat
02-18-2016, 11:46 AM
If you paid any attention to the timing, there was no one alive at the time the natural-born clause was written who could meet the age requirement as well as the natural-born requirement. Therefore, an arbitrary effective date was assigned to allow time for natural-born citizens to age beyond the minimum requirement and gain some political experience.

Like I said earlier, it's only complicated if you need a reason to object and can't come up with something rational.
Actually, no. What they did was write a law to prevent British royals from using their still existing popularity and gaining the throne through elections. None of the possible heirs to the British throne had been in what became the USA at the time of the declaration of independence, and none of them was born there, so they were not eligible. That's what was behind this particular law.

But now the law has been ignored for centuries, because it was no longer particularly relevant to anything. Which leaves the precise meaning of "natural born citizen" in contrast to "born citizen" an issue in these elections. At least in part because in the two previous elections, the right wing has made it into a huge issue.

The Unreasoner
02-18-2016, 12:10 PM
But Apple very deliberately designed the operating system in such a way that they can't hack it themselves. Maybe, if they spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars programmers and testing and such, they might be able to work around this. Who would pay for that, though?
It's not like the FBI has any special technology Apple does not. Hundreds of thousands of dollars? That doesn't seem likely. All that's needed is to install an update that removes the delay after failures and the wipe after too many failures. The FBI (or, more likely, the NSA) could write such an update themselves, if they had Apple's RSA key.
And, as already indicated, then what?
The result would be that the Apple safety features were known to be faulty, which would reduce the value of Apple phones, leading to a further loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. Is the US justice department going to reimburse them for this loss?

Apple phones are shit, and anyone stupid enough to buy one deserves everything that happens to them. Hundreds of millions? They could make that back by stamping that stupid logo on a brick and selling that.

And iPhone users have not demonstrated that they care about the quality of the product, so I doubt Apple would lose anything close to that much.

I am obviously worried about the precedent, and I personally doubt there is any useful information on this particular phone, but for Apple to claim that this is impossible (or even difficult) in a technical sense is bullshit. Of course, the FBI claiming that their specific demands are reasonable isn't any less ridiculous. I don't really care what happens in this case. If people want privacy, let them learn about how to guarantee it for themselves, not go on trusting Apple blindly.

Of course, maybe this is all a charade to generate publicity, in order to make iPhones the phone of choice for terrorists and child pornographers everywhere. Prism 2.0

The Unreasoner
02-18-2016, 12:18 PM
President of Federalist Society
Somehow I doubt there was much competition to lead what is essentially a local chapter of a glorified conservative think tank at a bottom tier law school dominated by socialists. And I think you're missing an article.

The Unreasoner
02-18-2016, 12:39 PM
Apparently Apple has done this dozens of times in the last few years. Which means two things:

1. Apple is full of fucking hypocrites,

and

2. There is a way to do it that doesn't compromise security for every phone simultaneously.

I can only conclude that this is just a bullshit publicity stunt to score the coveted child pornographer market, because Apple sure as hell isn't standing on principle. Or Prism 2.0

Or the FBI framed the demand this time differently (so that the RSA key would be compromised). Or the meth dealer in NY has texts showing some of his clients were Apple executives.

Davian93
02-18-2016, 01:22 PM
I would hope Apple execs would be classy enough to do cocaine, not meth. Meth is a poor person drug.

Nazbaque
02-18-2016, 01:38 PM
I would hope Apple execs would be classy enough to do cocaine, not meth. Meth is a poor person drug.

If you were a cocaine dealer, would you sell to Apple execs?

Davian93
02-18-2016, 01:42 PM
If you were a cocaine dealer, would you sell to Apple execs?

I would but the deal would have to be proprietary and they wouldn't be able to snort my cocaine unless they bought my associated Davian Brand mirror and razor blades.

And the rolled up dollar bill/straw would cost $50.00

Nazbaque
02-18-2016, 02:29 PM
I would but the deal would have to be proprietary and they wouldn't be able to snort my cocaine unless they bought my associated Davian Brand mirror and razor blades.

And the rolled up dollar bill/straw would cost $50.00

Exactly. And most drug pushers feel the same whatever their product, but meth dealers are the cheap sluts of the drug world and thus the only ones the Apple execs can turn to.

Terez
02-18-2016, 07:19 PM
Via Snowden on Twitter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html

China is watching the dispute closely. Analysts say that the Chinese government does take cues from the United States when it comes to encryption regulations, and that it would most likely demand that multinational companies provide accommodations similar to those in the United States.

Last year, Beijing backed off several proposals that would have mandated that foreign firms provide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from foreign trade groups. Nonetheless, a Chinese antiterrorism law passed in December required foreign firms to hand over technical information and to aid with decryption when the police demand it in terrorism-related cases.

While it is still not clear how the law might be carried out, it is possible a push from American law enforcement agencies to unlock iPhones would embolden Beijing to demand the same. China would also most likely push to acquire any technology that would allow it to unlock iPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher encryption standards in 2014, Apple users in China were targeted by an attack that sought to obtain login information from iCloud users.
Following Snowden again, he notes that the NYT has now, quite oddly, removed this entire bit about China from their article.

GonzoTheGreat
02-19-2016, 02:51 AM
Maybe the NYT has figured out that they had unfairly maligned China; that the Chinese government would not be unethical enough to do this kind of thing.

Terez
02-19-2016, 03:13 AM
Tweet from Chris Hayes earlier Thursday: "I wrote a book [in 2012] about how corrupt America's elites are, but I really didn't know the half."

GonzoTheGreat
02-19-2016, 07:16 AM
Is Scalia still dead, or has he gotten over it?
And if he does get over it, would he get his place in SCOTUS back, or did someone have the foresight to write a law against that?

The Unreasoner
02-19-2016, 05:20 PM
Tweet from Chris Hayes earlier Thursday: "I wrote a book [in 2012] about how corrupt America's elites are, but I really didn't know the half."
Bernie is certainly included in that group. Shamelessly exploiting poor white's anti-immigrant sympathies for political gain? And people claim he has the moral high ground. Opportunistic pos.

Terez
02-19-2016, 10:34 PM
Bernie is certainly included in that group. Shamelessly exploiting poor white's anti-immigrant sympathies for political gain? And people claim he has the moral high ground. Opportunistic pos.
Eh?

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2016, 03:55 AM
Bernie is certainly included in that group. Shamelessly exploiting poor white's anti-immigrant sympathies for political gain? And people claim he has the moral high ground. Opportunistic pos.
Eh?
Irony, meet Internet. Internet, meet irony.

Nazbaque
02-20-2016, 05:23 AM
Irony, meet Internet. Internet, meet irony.

Okay which one is irony and which is the internet?

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2016, 06:32 AM
Okay which one is irony and which is the internet?
I thought of answering that with some kind of pot and kettle thing, but then immediately realised this wouldn't be politically correct. After all, Black Appliances Matter, don't they?

Nazbaque
02-20-2016, 06:35 AM
I thought of answering that with some kind of pot and kettle thing, but then immediately realised this wouldn't be politically correct. After all, Black Appliances Matter, don't they?

What are you talking about Gonzo? I just wanted to know which of them is good for porn.

GonzoTheGreat
02-20-2016, 09:30 AM
What are you talking about Gonzo? I just wanted to know which of them is good for porn.
Oh, that would be the Internet, wouldn't it? :p

Nazbaque
02-20-2016, 09:45 AM
Oh, that would be the Internet, wouldn't it? :p

So who is it? Terez or The Unreasoner?

The Unreasoner
02-20-2016, 12:25 PM
Eh?
Whoops. Meant that for the other thread. It's a bit of a long post I've been working on.

A more appropriate response here would be: the NYT isn't the paper it once was. And the Chinese have already been waging a cyberwar on them. Maybe they threatened retaliation, maybe NYT's counsel advised losing the bit about China, maybe China sent a message through some of the Times's advertisers. IDK. But it's clear they're slipping.

Kimon
02-22-2016, 09:50 PM
This is a somewhat interesting development, albeit would only potentially bring the vote up to 48...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/22/illinois_sen_kirk_and_maine_sen_collins_break_with _gop_on_obama_supreme.html

In a move that amounts to an uncommon sense of decorum at the moment, Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk broke with his party’s leadership and announced he supported President Obama carrying out his constitutional responsibility to nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia on the court. Kirk, considered a moderate by current Republican standards, weighed in on the Mitch McConnell-inspired obstructionism of the nomination process in an opinion piece in the Chicago Sun-Times Monday:

… I recognize the right of the president, be it Republican or Democrat, to place before the Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court and I fully expect and look forward to President Barack Obama advancing a nominee for the Senate to consider. I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information.
Of course, there also appear to be political factors at play in Kirk’s announcement. “Kirk, perhaps the most politically vulnerable of incumbent Republicans nationally this fall, had come under pressure from Democratic rivals vying for their party's nomination to say if he agreed with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and others who have said Obama should not forward the name of a nominee for Senate approval in an election year,” the Chicago Tribune notes. “Illinois has trended significantly Democratic in presidential election years, meaning Kirk could face strong headwinds in November.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) struck a similar tone on Monday in an interview with CNN. "For my part, it's clear that the president can send up a nominee—regardless of where he is before he leaves office," Collins told CNN. "It is the duty of the Senate, under the Constitution, to give our advice and give our consent or withhold our consent. I believe we should follow the regular order and give careful consideration to any nominee that the president may send to the Senate."

Kirk's is obviously born purely out of desperation, which is still a mistake on his part. I'd be very surprised if he is re-elected in November. No dem is going to vote for him regardless of what he does here, and this will just antagonize his own supporters. If anything this will only increase the chances of his defeat. Susan Collins on the other hand may well simply be acting out of ethical integrity. She is, after all, very out of the mainstream in her party. There is of course also the chance that this is aimed tactically at her possibly running for governor of Maine in 2018. She is, however, not up for re-election this year.

Regardless still too few votes for confirmation, and far too few to protect against a filibuster.

Terez
02-22-2016, 10:11 PM
I for one will be voting for Tammy Duckworth.

The Unreasoner
02-23-2016, 10:05 PM
I told you Apple users don't actually care. (http://gizmodo.com/apple-fans-dont-actually-care-about-the-whole-fbi-iphon-1760934264)

yks 6nnetu hing
02-24-2016, 02:18 AM
Somewhat on topic, the EU vice president with focus on the digital market said this:

Unlike some U.S. politicians, Ansip is opposed to forcing tech companies to open “back doors,” giving governments access to encrypted services. “If we have those back doors, then sooner or later somebody will misuse those back doors anyway,” he said. “I’ve stated it many, many times: Trust is a must. If our people cannot trust those Internet based e-services, they will not start to use them.”

if you're interested, here's (http://recode.net/2016/02/11/meet-the-politician-trying-to-shove-europe-into-the-digital-future/) the full article. This time no names are named but... the biggest nay-sayers to digital unification are Italy and Spain. France, to a lesser extent.

Davian93
02-24-2016, 07:57 AM
I told you Apple users don't actually care. (http://gizmodo.com/apple-fans-dont-actually-care-about-the-whole-fbi-iphon-1760934264)

Shockingly...the FBI is now asking Apple to open up 7 other phones. It isn't just a one time request. Its almost as if Tim Cook is 100% right with his statements about it being a slippery slope.

Davian93
02-24-2016, 12:19 PM
Obama reportedly vetting Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R) for the Supreme Court.

A very interesting choice that would make it very difficult for the GOP to explain their opposition without anything other than "FU Obama"...

Former judge, highly respected. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Popular governor, Moderate on most issues.

A disappointing pick to me given he's so moderate but it'd be funny to watch them freak out trying to defend their opposition.

Kimon
02-24-2016, 03:52 PM
Obama reportedly vetting Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R) for the Supreme Court.

A very interesting choice that would make it very difficult for the GOP to explain their opposition without anything other than "FU Obama"...

Former judge, highly respected. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Popular governor, Moderate on most issues.

A disappointing pick to me given he's so moderate but it'd be funny to watch them freak out trying to defend their opposition.

The circumstance, i.e. the inevitable stonewalling by the Republicans, might well force him to pick a nominee that, while qualified, would not mind facing a circus (if it even comes to that), and who would not mind wasting his/her likely only chance at the position on what amounts to a mere drama, where the only hoped for catharsis is the self-immolation of the Republicans. Hence, perhaps Loretta Lynch. Sandoval would, however, be even more interesting. Could the Republicans deny one of their own?

But is it worth it for us? I am completely unfamiliar with him. Could we really stomach the guy if the Republicans confirmed him? He may well be better than who the Republicans would nominate, but is he even pro-choice? Pro-environment? Anti-Citizens United? What are his positions on gun control? Would he even take the offer? It would seem crazy not to. I mean, the Supreme Court is a massive step up politically from every other position in government, arguably even than the presidency in terms of long-term benefit or damage that you can do. It certainly is a massive step up from Governor of Nevada. So under normal circumstances, it would seem an obvious choice. But would he fear that his own party would deny him simply because he was nominated by Obama, and that alongside that, this might ruin him in Republican circles?

I'd still rather turn this into a raison d'etre for the election. Force their hand by nominating someone that you know that they will deny. And then use it to destroy them. Except, can we win this election? Can we beat Trump? I'm honestly not sure.

Ozymandias
02-25-2016, 11:07 AM
The answer is yes. Trump isn't winning anything. Certainly he has a worse chance than, say, a Marco Rubio. With the added benefit that his presence at the head of the ticket will almost certainly have more negative consequences in the Senate races than putting Rubio or Bush or even Cruz would.

Read an interesting article yesterday that was saying that conservative attempts to appeal to "the base" are misguided, because the Republican base already turns out in extremely high numbers compared to liberals or the population as a whole. As small as the moderate swing voter group may be these days, its almost impossible to see them voting for Trump.

Terez
02-26-2016, 12:21 AM
Obama reportedly vetting Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R) for the Supreme Court.

A very interesting choice that would make it very difficult for the GOP to explain their opposition without anything other than "FU Obama"...

Former judge, highly respected. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Popular governor, Moderate on most issues.

A disappointing pick to me given he's so moderate but it'd be funny to watch them freak out trying to defend their opposition.
For the record, Sandoval asked that his name be removed from consideration.

GonzoTheGreat
02-26-2016, 03:21 AM
For the record, Sandoval asked that his name be removed from consideration.
Obama could pass that request on to the Senate, and they could then refuse to oblige. Wouldn't that be fun?

If the Senate confirms Sandoval against his wishes, what would the legal consequences of that be?

Terez
02-26-2016, 03:55 AM
I'm not sure. Usually when someone asks that their name be removed from consideration, their name is removed from consideration. I seem to remember reading something about someone being confirmed against their wishes, though.

GonzoTheGreat
02-26-2016, 04:46 AM
That's happened to a bunch of bishops (and I think even Popes) in the past. One bishop-to-be was even gagged to prevent him from disturbing the holy ceremony by explicitly objecting to the proceedings. Not in the last couple of centuries, though, as far as I know. Apparently, the RCC has gotten better at picking candidates, or something.

Kimon
02-26-2016, 06:58 AM
That's happened to a bunch of bishops (and I think even Popes) in the past. One bishop-to-be was even gagged to prevent him from disturbing the holy ceremony by explicitly objecting to the proceedings. Not in the last couple of centuries, though, as far as I know. Apparently, the RCC has gotten better at picking candidates, or something.

I'm not aware of any other examples, but this most famously happened with Ambrose, elected, against his wishes, bishop of Milan in 374. He had been a high ranking Roman public official, and had been governor of Liguria and Emilia when he was selected to replace Auxentius. He hadn't even been baptized at the time, and fled the scene, only agreeing after the emperor, Gratian (a horrifically incompetent emperor), forced him to accept the post. As it happened he became one of the most famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) bishops, and was sainted. He is responsible for the bishops eclipsing the power of the emperors in the west, and essentially began the path to the popes being the real power in that sphere. He was also very influential in terms of the fate of Arrianism, and hence the schism with Syria and Egypt that led to both those provinces later falling to the Caliphate without a fight. His career was quite similar to another later, and equally controversial official turned bishop, and traitor to the secular authority - Thomas Becket. Although no one had the sense/audacity to shank Ambrose.

Davian93
02-26-2016, 07:18 AM
That's happened to a bunch of bishops (and I think even Popes) in the past. One bishop-to-be was even gagged to prevent him from disturbing the holy ceremony by explicitly objecting to the proceedings. Not in the last couple of centuries, though, as far as I know. Apparently, the RCC has gotten better at picking candidates, or something.

They've just gotten better at grooming their candidates. They have a lot of experience in the grooming department.

Kimon
03-09-2016, 07:05 PM
To anyone else wondering what's taking Obama so long to actually nominate someone...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/loretta-lynch-supreme-court-nomination/

So, that's both Sandoval and Lynch taking themselves out of the consideration. The Republican stonewalling is, unfortunately, a fait accompli.

Frenzy
03-12-2016, 06:20 PM
i know nothing of her qualifications, but Lynch would've been a poor political choice.

i'm hoping Obama nominates someone the Senate would be stupid not to consider. Let those assholes hang themselves.

Davian93
03-12-2016, 08:22 PM
i know nothing of her qualifications, but Lynch would've been a poor political choice.

i'm hoping Obama nominates someone the Senate would be stupid not to consider. Let those assholes hang themselves.

Apparently his 3 finalists are Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford. All 3 are eminently qualified and were all previously confirmed by the Senate for their current judgeships. Therefore, they will all be ripped to shreds by the GOP as somehow unqualified.

Kimon
03-12-2016, 09:51 PM
Apparently his 3 finalists are Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford. All 3 are eminently qualified and were all previously confirmed by the Senate for their current judgeships. Therefore, they will all be ripped to shreds by the GOP as somehow unqualified.

This is an extremely awkward circumstance for any potential nominees. Would you really want your name put forward? The Republicans have made so clear that they won't consider anyone, that at best you're looking at a circus where you're little more than scenery, a prop amidst the political theatre. Would you really wish to endure that, knowing that not only would you not be given even the illusion of a fair hearing, but that this also might then preclude you from the chance at consideration down the road? Loretta Lynch's name was put forward for just that reason. She wasn't apt to ever be up for consideration under normal circumstances, but she is obviously qualified, and having endured the circus once, might, it was hoped, have been willing to be used as a symbol. Will anyone else be willing to serve as a martyr in defense of justice, ethics, and democracy against the tyranny of the Republican Party?

Southpaw2012
03-12-2016, 10:27 PM
As an originalist, the Senate cannot indefinitely delay a vote. They must fulfill their role of advise and consent. But in no way does that mean they have to confirm the nominee just because there's a spot open. It would be stupid if they did so before November.

Kimon
03-12-2016, 10:32 PM
As an originalist, the Senate cannot indefinitely delay a vote. They must fulfill their role of advise and consent. But in no way does that mean they have to confirm the nominee just because there's a spot open. It would be stupid if they did so before November.

Just keep in mind the precedent that is being set...

GonzoTheGreat
03-13-2016, 04:11 AM
As an originalist, the Senate cannot indefinitely delay a vote.
Why not?
Suppose that Sanders wins, but the Senate remains in Republican hands. What specific law of nature would force the Senate to then vote on any candidate proposed by Sanders?

As far as I know, there isn't even an actual legal law which requires the Senate to vote on it. So the Republican stance of "we'll commit obstruction of justice" is perfectly legal.

Kimon
03-13-2016, 11:14 AM
Why not?
Suppose that Sanders wins, but the Senate remains in Republican hands. What specific law of nature would force the Senate to then vote on any candidate proposed by Sanders?

As far as I know, there isn't even an actual legal law which requires the Senate to vote on it. So the Republican stance of "we'll commit obstruction of justice" is perfectly legal.

Their justification for the politicization is seemingly based on Bork and Thomas. These were the only two Republican nominees that met with significant unwillingness by Dem-controlled Senates. Bork because he had been linked to Watergate, hence ethics, and a mix of concerns about racist stances, disguised under his claimed "originalism". Clarence Thomas was widely thought to have sexually harassed one, perhaps many, of his female clerks - specifically Anita Hill. He eventually just barely was approved, Bork was not. Those were both about 30 years ago. Keep in mind howerver, the dems still controlled the Senate and approved all of The Younger Bush's nominees (except Harriet Myers, whom the Senate requested that he not nominate due to viewing her as unqualified), even Alito, who was widely recognized as being openly hostile to the Roe decision.

That is the crux, and the typical modus operandi hitherto for the dems, that their "advice and consent" role (from Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution) means, traditionally, that barring questions about criminality (Bork and Thomas) or qualification (Myers), that the president's choice should be granted consent. The Republicans clearly have come to the conclusion that a third criterion should also now be in play - sufficient votes. That in their opinion, unless the President's party controls the Senate, that he (or she) doesn't have the right to nominate a candidate at all. Because that last is the long and the short of their stance, not the bs that they are shilling as justification for their obstruction. If that is what they really believe, then they should instead be petitioning and fighting for the direct election of justices and drop this ridiculous pretense of precedence.

Southpaw2012
03-13-2016, 11:55 AM
Why not?
Suppose that Sanders wins, but the Senate remains in Republican hands. What specific law of nature would force the Senate to then vote on any candidate proposed by Sanders?

As far as I know, there isn't even an actual legal law which requires the Senate to vote on it. So the Republican stance of "we'll commit obstruction of justice" is perfectly legal.

You're right. Technically they wouldn't have to, but the backlash would be strong enough to destroy the career of the Senators who object. They would eventually cave to a moderate nominee. It'd be a stupid political move to decide before November though, and I would say the same if it was a Republican president and a Democratic Senate.

Frenzy
03-13-2016, 05:06 PM
It won't come to that. The Senate won't stay in session between now and January. A SCOTUS seat is too important to leave vacant that long. The President would use his authority & put in a recess appointment.

Of course, that justice would be a dead person walking. Obama could put in a Koch brother or Lincoln's ghost, and the Senate wouldn't approve him.

Isn't it fun watching the Ajahs play?

Nazbaque
03-13-2016, 06:11 PM
It won't come to that. The Senate won't stay in session between now and January. A SCOTUS seat is too important to leave vacant that long. The President would use his authority & put in a recess appointment.

Of course, that justice would be a dead person walking. Obama could put in a Koch brother or Lincoln's ghost, and the Senate wouldn't approve him.

Isn't it fun watching the Ajahs play?

Red vs. everybody else (but mainly blue)? Which candidates do you think are secretly black?

Davian93
03-13-2016, 06:22 PM
As an originalist, the Senate cannot indefinitely delay a vote. They must fulfill their role of advise and consent. But in no way does that mean they have to confirm the nominee just because there's a spot open. It would be stupid if they did so before November.

Somehow, I bet your opinion would be different if it were flipped and it was an outgoing conservative Republican trying to get someone nominated with a Democratic Senate...

And yes, they can indefinitely delay if they want to...there really isn't any spelled out remedy other than a recess appointment. Technically, impeachment is a check on a single or even small group of Congress members acting illegally but its not as if they'd use that against their own Majority. Its kinda like President Jackson with SCOTUS...suppose the Legislative Branch simply ignores its Constitutional duty like Jackson did when he was ordered by SCOTUS to halt the Cherokee removal? There is not other avenue to fix it. Congress could have impeached him but his Party held the Majority.

I suppose Obama might be able to sue Congress and SCOTUS could make a ruling...no way that would ever happen before November of course. There is no requirement to have 9 Justices so they can act like 5 year olds all they want.

Of course, it'll haunt them once a Republican is in the WH again and that Republican has a Democratic majority in Congress.

Davian93
03-13-2016, 06:24 PM
It won't come to that. The Senate won't stay in session between now and January. A SCOTUS seat is too important to leave vacant that long. The President would use his authority & put in a recess appointment.

Of course, that justice would be a dead person walking. Obama could put in a Koch brother or Lincoln's ghost, and the Senate wouldn't approve him.

Isn't it fun watching the Ajahs play?

If the Dems win a majority in the Senate this fall and Hillary or Bernie wins, I'd imagine their first vote will be to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments and then ram through whoever they want into the seat while filling all the other empty vacancies in the judicial system (hundreds of empty judge seats because of Republican intransigence).

Davian93
03-16-2016, 08:25 AM
SCOTUS nomination announcement this morning at 11...should be interesting.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 09:28 AM
It's Judge Garland from the DC Circuit. That's great, an anti-Second Amendment guy... He's going to get destroyed if the Senate takes a vote.

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2016, 09:55 AM
If the Senate does take a vote, then the Republicans will have lied about not taking a vote. Yet if they don't bother to vote on the nomination, then they will be clearly hostile towards democracy and thus enemies of the USA. Which unpalatable option are they going to pick?
I predict the first one; they will probably bet (undoubtedly correctly) that most of the voters will have forgotten their pledge not to take a vote by the time the elections roll around.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 10:06 AM
If the Senate does take a vote, then the Republicans will have lied about not taking a vote. Yet if they don't bother to vote on the nomination, then they will be clearly hostile towards democracy and thus enemies of the USA. Which unpalatable option are they going to pick?
I predict the first one; they will probably bet (undoubtedly correctly) that most of the voters will have forgotten their pledge not to take a vote by the time the elections roll around.


Hostile towards democracy? Their reason for not taking a vote is to let the people decide in November, so are you not considering that as part of democracy? If a Democrat wins in November, the Senate will give in, same for Republican.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 10:08 AM
I'm not surprised it's Garland. He was a finalist when Kagan was picked and is moderate compared to many candidates. Smart choice by Obama, but I don't think best for the future of the Court.

Kimon
03-16-2016, 11:38 AM
It's Judge Garland from the DC Circuit. That's great, an anti-Second Amendment guy... He's going to get destroyed if the Senate takes a vote.

Believing in gun control does not mean that one is anti-2nd Amendment, it merely means that one does not share the same exspansive opinion on the 2nd Amendment that Scalia did, but then no one nominated by a democrat would. Regardless, where exactly are you drawing the basis for this stance? He was the prosecutor in both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombings. Are you suggesting support for Timothy McVeigh? If not, what exactly are you pointing to? He almost certainly won't get a fair hearing by the Republicans, but not due to lack of qualifications, nor for any questionable decisions. He has been by all accounts a moderate, and a centrist on the court. And he's old. 63. He's the epitome of an extended olive branch. His confirmation to the DC Circuit under Bill Clinton is also quite similar to present circumstances. Nominated in '95, the Republicans refused to give him a hearing, arguing that it was too close to the election, and that there was no need to fill the seat ever. Bill won re-election and then put forward his name again, and finally the Republicans caved - after 19 months of stonewalling.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 11:44 AM
It's Judge Garland from the DC Circuit. That's great, an anti-Second Amendment guy... He's going to get destroyed if the Senate takes a vote.

You get that he's a very highly respected moderate Judge, right?

I mean, he's nearly spotless.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 11:45 AM
Hostile towards democracy? Their reason for not taking a vote is to let the people decide in November, so are you not considering that as part of democracy? If a Democrat wins in November, the Senate will give in, same for Republican.

Hey dumbass...the people did decide in November. It was November 2012 where Obama won a strong reelection. That's what democracy means you fucking idiot. Just like Reagan got to put Kennedy on the bench in 1988 (his FINAL year in office).

Davian93
03-16-2016, 11:46 AM
I'm not surprised it's Garland. He was a finalist when Kagan was picked and is moderate compared to many candidates. Smart choice by Obama, but I don't think best for the future of the Court.

Of course you dont...since you're a reactionary conservative.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 11:49 AM
Believing in gun control does not mean that one is anti-2nd Amendment, it merely means that one does not share the same exspansive opinion on the 2nd Amendment that Scalia did, but then no one nominated by a democrat would. Regardless, where exactly are you drawing the basis for this stance? He was the prosecutor in both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombings. Are you suggesting support for Timothy McVeigh? If not, what exactly are you pointing to? He almost certainly won't get a fair hearing by the Republicans, but not due to lack of qualifications, nor for any questionable decisions. He has been by all accounts a moderate, and a centrist on the court. And he's old. 63. He's the epitome of an extended olive branch. His confirmation to the DC Circuit under Bill Clinton is also quite similar to present circumstances. Nominated in '95, the Republicans refused to give him a hearing, arguing that it was too close to the election, and that there was no need to fill the seat ever. Bill won re-election and then put forward his name again, and finally the Republicans caved - after 19 months of stonewalling.

Clearly Clinton shouldn't have nominated him. Im not sure about the anti gun thing either. He wasnt involved in DC v. Heller even at the Circuit level. It went through his court but he wasnt on the 3 judge panel at the time. So I'm sure Southpaw has a deeply reasoned belief on it.

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2016, 12:10 PM
Hostile towards democracy? Their reason for not taking a vote is to let the people decide in November, so are you not considering that as part of democracy? If a Democrat wins in November, the Senate will give in, same for Republican.
Why not let the Senate wait until 2048, then, or at least until all the other Justices are dead too?
If there's no hurry, then suddenly rushing in an appointment hearing merely because there've been yet more elections (as Dav pointed out, there have been elections before in the USA, even though not everyone may have known that) isn't necessary. And it isn't as if this particular bunch of Senators were all appointed by Obama, is it?

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 01:11 PM
You get that he's a very highly respected moderate Judge, right?

I mean, he's nearly spotless.

Yes, he's one of the most distinguished judges in the country. I'm not completely opposed to him. I just hope the Senate treats him well and doesn't perform a "Borking."

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2016, 01:14 PM
Yes, he's one of the most distinguished judges in the country. I'm not completely opposed to him. I just hope the Senate treats him well and doesn't perform a "Borking."
Don't worry about that; it seems unlikely that this Senate will be anywhere near that decent.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 01:15 PM
Clearly Clinton shouldn't have nominated him. Im not sure about the anti gun thing either. He wasnt involved in DC v. Heller even at the Circuit level. It went through his court but he wasnt on the 3 judge panel at the time. So I'm sure Southpaw has a deeply reasoned belief on it.

He voted to rehear the case leading up to Heller, implying he disagreed with the decision not to ban handguns. That's one of many.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 01:17 PM
Why not let the Senate wait until 2048, then, or at least until all the other Justices are dead too?
If there's no hurry, then suddenly rushing in an appointment hearing merely because there've been yet more elections (as Dav pointed out, there have been elections before in the USA, even though not everyone may have known that) isn't necessary. And it isn't as if this particular bunch of Senators were all appointed by Obama, is it?

Or wait 7.5 months until election? This isn't unusual at all. Like I've said before, Democrsts have pulled this move before, but are mad they're in the other position now.

Southpaw2012
03-16-2016, 01:26 PM
Believing in gun control does not mean that one is anti-2nd Amendment, it merely means that one does not share the same exspansive opinion on the 2nd Amendment that Scalia did, but then no one nominated by a democrat would. Regardless, where exactly are you drawing the basis for this stance? He was the prosecutor in both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombings. Are you suggesting support for Timothy McVeigh? If not, what exactly are you pointing to? He almost certainly won't get a fair hearing by the Republicans, but not due to lack of qualifications, nor for any questionable decisions. He has been by all accounts a moderate, and a centrist on the court. And he's old. 63. He's the epitome of an extended olive branch. His confirmation to the DC Circuit under Bill Clinton is also quite similar to present circumstances. Nominated in '95, the Republicans refused to give him a hearing, arguing that it was too close to the election, and that there was no need to fill the seat ever. Bill won re-election and then put forward his name again, and finally the Republicans caved - after 19 months of stonewalling.

Expansive view as in what the text says and what history supports? And like I've said, Garland voted to rehear the precursor to Heller (Parker, I believe? Or Park?) that held the ban on handguns unconstitutional. It's implied he wanted a different result. To reverse Heller and McDonald is to rewrite the Second Amendment, which is what liberals tend to do quite often.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 02:11 PM
Yes, he's one of the most distinguished judges in the country. I'm not completely opposed to him. I just hope the Senate treats him well and doesn't perform a "Borking."

He's actually qualified unlike Bork so that's unlikely to be an issue.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 02:12 PM
Expansive view as in what the text says and what history supports? And like I've said, Garland voted to rehear the precursor to Heller (Parker, I believe? Or Park?) that held the ban on handguns unconstitutional. It's implied he wanted a different result. To reverse Heller and McDonald is to rewrite the Second Amendment, which is what liberals tend to do quite often.

Many would argue that it's not given that there were a good 150 years of judicial precedent that the gov't had a compelling interest to have reasonable controls on gun ownership...something Scalia ignored in his activist ruling.

Davian93
03-16-2016, 02:15 PM
Or wait 7.5 months until election? This isn't unusual at all. Like I've said before, Democrsts have pulled this move before, but are mad they're in the other position now.

Obama is in office till the end of January 2017...so he had 11 months left when the vacancy occurred. It's ludicrous to leave a seat open at least that long on the highest court in the land.

Kimon
03-16-2016, 04:17 PM
Or wait 7.5 months until election? This isn't unusual at all. Like I've said before, Democrsts have pulled this move before, but are mad they're in the other position now.

The amount of time is immaterial. This is purely the consequence of opportunistic obstructionism. If there was a Republican President, and a Republican Senate, and the same amount of available time, clearly they would fill the seat before the next election.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2016, 04:08 AM
Or wait 7.5 months until election? This isn't unusual at all.Could you provide some relevant precendent?

Like I've said before, Democrsts have pulled this move before, but are mad they're in the other position now.
When?
When did the Democrats refuse to consider any candidate before even hearing who that candidate might be?

The Bork case is clearly and obviously different: he was proposed, they did consider him and then, as is their duty if they decide he's not good enough, they rejected him.

What is being planned now is totally and utterly different: the Republicans have announced that they will not do their duty; that proposing a candidate (as is Obama's duty according to the US Constitution) will be ignored by those who legally have an obligation to then consider the candidate. Can you name any precedent for that?

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 05:15 AM
Aren't they bound by oaths? Isn't breaking those oaths treason? Punishable by death? If not, then why not?

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2016, 05:43 AM
Aren't they bound by oaths? Isn't breaking those oaths treason? Punishable by death? If not, then why not?
Because their predecessors wrote those laws, and those predecessors were not stupid enough to write laws that could be used against themselves.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 06:05 AM
Because their predecessors wrote those laws, and those predecessors were not stupid enough to write laws that could be used against themselves.

Isn't that the very definition of tyranny?

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2016, 06:34 AM
Isn't that the very definition of tyranny?
Not in American English, obviously, since that language is officially approved by Congress too. You might be correct in French, though, especially if they defined tyranny during one of their Napoleonic phases.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 06:51 AM
Not in American English, obviously, since that language is officially approved by Congress too. You might be correct in French, though, especially if they defined tyranny during one of their Napoleonic phases.

How about British English?

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2016, 07:19 AM
How about British English?
Would that be English English, Scottish English, Welsh English, Northern Ireland Republican English, Northern Ireland Loyalist English or some other variety (and if so, which one)?

If you're talking about the Queen's English, then I suspect that the Queen doesn't have an opinion, just as she doesn't have an opinion on the Brexit matter.

Davian93
03-17-2016, 08:14 AM
The Oath of Office for a US Senator is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Now, the Constitution assumes quite wrongly that anyone elected to office wouldn't want to tear down the government so they never envisioned a scenario where a large majority of sitting Senators would simply outright refuse to work. Theoretically, the Constitutional fix for this is impeachment...however, an impeachment trial of even a Senator takes place in the Senate and requires a 2/3 majority to convict. So obviously that avenue is closed regardless of these Senators being in dereliction of their Constitutional duties. The sole remaining avenue for remedy is reelection...but then, we all know that 90% of these jackasses will be reelected. So basically, November's Senate elections are very important and if the Dems win the Senate and Presidency, I'd expect some substantial changes in how judges are appointed. The elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments is the first step I see being taken for one. I'd also expect a SCOTUS appointment who is far younger and far more liberal than Merrick Garland so, um...good luck Mitch, you might just be shooting yourself in the shell with this last stand. He and his party are clearly not "Supporting the Constitution" by refusing to even consider a justice nominee but its a moot point since an election is the only real chance to fix it.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 08:18 AM
Would that be English English, Scottish English, Welsh English, Northern Ireland Republican English, Northern Ireland Loyalist English or some other variety (and if so, which one)?

If you're talking about the Queen's English, then I suspect that the Queen doesn't have an opinion, just as she doesn't have an opinion on the Brexit matter.

Gonzo are you using the term 'british' for scotts, welsh and irish? Are you insane?

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 08:21 AM
The Oath of Office for a US Senator is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Now, the Constitution assumes quite wrongly that anyone elected to office wouldn't want to tear down the government so they never envisioned a scenario where a large majority of sitting Senators would simply outright refuse to work. Theoretically, the Constitutional fix for this is impeachment...however, an impeachment trial of even a Senator takes place in the Senate and requires a 2/3 majority to convict. So obviously that avenue is closed regardless of these Senators being in dereliction of their Constitutional duties. The sole remaining avenue for remedy is reelection...but then, we all know that 90% of these jackasses will be reelected. So basically, November's Senate elections are very important and if the Dems win the Senate and Presidency, I'd expect some substantial changes in how judges are appointed. The elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments is the first step I see being taken for one. I'd also expect a SCOTUS appointment who is far younger and far more liberal than Merrick Garland so, um...good luck Mitch, you might just be shooting yourself in the shell with this last stand. He and his party are clearly not "Supporting the Constitution" by refusing to even consider a justice nominee but its a moot point since an election is the only real chance to fix it.

So it's basically a loophole that this isn't treason?

Davian93
03-17-2016, 08:37 AM
So it's basically a loophole that this isn't treason?

Treason is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution (mainly because it was used so loosely to destroy opponents of British rule during that period)...

From Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

This isn't treason...its simply a dereliction of their Constitutional duties as sitting members of Congress. For US Law, treason is very specifically defined in that first line of the Article.


As far as impeachment goes, only 1 US Senator has ever been impeached and that occurred over 200 years ago with William Blount of Tennessee. He wasn't convicted by the Senate however. He was merely expelled from the body rather than formally tried and convicted. Blount, as a sitting Senator, conspired with Britain to seize Spanish Louisiana (along the same lines of what Aaron Burr would try a few years later that led to his own downfall and the death of Alexander Hamilton) from the French.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 08:42 AM
Treason is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution (mainly because it was used so loosely to destroy opponents of British rule during that period)...

From Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

This isn't treason...its simply a dereliction of their Constitutional duties as sitting members of Congress. For US Law, treason is very specifically defined in that first line of the Article.

Doesn't that leave a lot of ways to betray your country? No wonder your politicians are so flamboyant about screwing you over. What is the point of an oath when breaking it isn't a crime?

Davian93
03-17-2016, 08:49 AM
Doesn't that leave a lot of ways to betray your country? No wonder your politicians are so flamboyant about screwing you over. What is the point of an oath when breaking it isn't a crime?

Its a crime, its just not treason. Making it Treason would make it a capital offense punishable by death. You have to understand and remember the historical context in which the Constitution was drafted. It was a young country that was intimately familiar with both Tudor and Stuart history and the lessons learned from the English Civil War when it came to using "Treason" as the end all, be all for eliminating rivals. Same with outlawing Bills of Attainder for very similar historical rationale. Both were seen as antithetical to Enlightenment principles and the Greek democratic ideals that they were trying to enact. If you're familiar with English history at all, you'll likely recall that Henry VIII was renowned for his use of both methods to control his nobles and basically rule as an absolute monarch with very little checks by his mainly obedient Parliament. Elizabeth had a much harder time of it since she came to the throne in a much weaker fashion and was a woman (that mattered A LOT for Elizabethan men) so she had to negotiate more but she was still able to throw charges of treason around whenever she needed to eliminate the competition. Same with James and Charles (both of each actually)...thus, it makes sense when they had very concrete examples of this misuse of power in what, for them, was the fairly recent past. The Hanover kings werent much better even though Parliament was much stronger during that dynasty due to their lack of domestic support.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 09:08 AM
Ah so it's still a crime. So what would one get for breaking that oath and whose duty is it to enforce it?

Davian93
03-17-2016, 09:09 AM
Ah so it's still a crime. So what would one get for breaking that oath and whose duty is it to enforce it?

Impeachment by the house, conviction by the Senate and then potential criminal charges.

But then, since the enforcement body itself is broken, there's not much that can be done in this particular case outside of a new election. A scenario where one entire political party simply refuses to do its job was never envisioned.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 09:15 AM
Impeachment by the house, conviction by the Senate and then potential criminal charges.

But then, since the enforcement body itself is broken, there's not much that can be done in this particular case outside of a new election. A scenario where one entire political party simply refuses to do its job was never envisioned.

Well wasn't that naive.

Davian93
03-17-2016, 09:19 AM
Well wasn't that naive.

They also thought that the losing candidate in a presidential election should be the VP...because patriotism would trump partisanship. They, at least, quickly rectified that major error with the 12th Amendment in 1804 after Aaron Burr tried to steal the 1800 election he wasn't even technically nominated for and the 1796 election where Jefferson became Adams VP despite them despising each other at the time and being from different factions.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 09:43 AM
They also thought that the losing candidate in a presidential election should be the VP...because patriotism would trump partisanship. They, at least, quickly rectified that major error with the 12th Amendment in 1804 after Aaron Burr tried to steal the 1800 election he wasn't even technically nominated for and the 1796 election where Jefferson became Adams VP despite them despising each other at the time and being from different factions.

Kinda makes you wonder why people have so much faith in those old documents. Not just on the basis of the changing world, but the still the same human nature that they so poorly understood.

Davian93
03-17-2016, 09:58 AM
Kinda makes you wonder why people have so much faith in those old documents. Not just on the basis of the changing world, but the still the same human nature that they so poorly understood.

If the writings of a bunch of rich, slave-owning white guys that have all been dead for 200 years isn't a good basis for government, I don't know what is.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2016, 10:17 AM
If the writings of a bunch of rich, slave-owning white guys that have all been dead for 200 years isn't a good basis for government, I don't know what is.Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?
That's what the British base their government on, after all, and it's worked for over a thousand years with nary a hitch.

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 11:45 AM
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?
That's what the British base their government on, after all, and it's worked for over a thousand years with nary a hitch.

Ah yes the sword previously-known-as-calibur. That and the gay bowmen hiding in a forest are the only two things you need to know about in british history.

Davian93
03-17-2016, 12:50 PM
Ah yes the sword previously-known-as-calibur. That and the gay bowmen hiding in a forest are the only two things you need to know about in british history.

They weren't gay...they were "Merry"

Nazbaque
03-17-2016, 01:20 PM
They weren't gay...they were "Merry"

Merry, gay, happy, joyful, there's little difference between these. Pity Tolkien chose Frodo, Sam and Pippin as the other three.

Davian93
03-17-2016, 02:16 PM
Merry, gay, happy, joyful, there's little difference between these. Pity Tolkien chose Frodo, Sam and Pippin as the other three.

Best line of Clerks 2..."They're not gay, they're hobbits!"

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 12:01 AM
The Oath of Office for a US Senator is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Now, the Constitution assumes quite wrongly that anyone elected to office wouldn't want to tear down the government so they never envisioned a scenario where a large majority of sitting Senators would simply outright refuse to work. Theoretically, the Constitutional fix for this is impeachment...however, an impeachment trial of even a Senator takes place in the Senate and requires a 2/3 majority to convict. So obviously that avenue is closed regardless of these Senators being in dereliction of their Constitutional duties. The sole remaining avenue for remedy is reelection...but then, we all know that 90% of these jackasses will be reelected. So basically, November's Senate elections are very important and if the Dems win the Senate and Presidency, I'd expect some substantial changes in how judges are appointed. The elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments is the first step I see being taken for one. I'd also expect a SCOTUS appointment who is far younger and far more liberal than Merrick Garland so, um...good luck Mitch, you might just be shooting yourself in the shell with this last stand. He and his party are clearly not "Supporting the Constitution" by refusing to even consider a justice nominee but its a moot point since an election is the only real chance to fix it.



Again, the Senate is not going against the Constitution by refusing to vote. Read the plain text, though that's hard for liberals to do most of the time. The Senate shall advise and consent. They are advising that now is not the right time to take up a vote for a Supreme Court candidate. It would be absurd politically, and it is not required. There was nothing wrong with Obama nominating somebody, and it was wise for him to do so. It would be unwise for the Republican Senate to take up a vote. The Democrats agreed until they got to this point.

Frenzy
03-18-2016, 01:16 AM
Still waiting to hear if you would hold the same opinion if the sitting president were Republican, the Senate was controlled by Republicans, and the Lame Duck had 11 months left of their term.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 03:04 AM
Again, the Senate is not going against the Constitution by refusing to vote. Read the plain text, though that's hard for liberals to do most of the time. The Senate shall advise and consent. They are advising that now is not the right time to take up a vote for a Supreme Court candidate. It would be absurd politically, and it is not required. There was nothing wrong with Obama nominating somebody, and it was wise for him to do so. It would be unwise for the Republican Senate to take up a vote. The Democrats agreed until they got to this point.

Why is it unwise? Because they must have their own in every possible position instead of an individual whose experience and opinions might well be good for the country even if they don't follow the Republican way to the letter? Are they so unwilling to compromise that their party motto might as well be: "Republican or an Enemy"? So what is the end result they are aiming for? Replace the two party system with a single party one? Want to start counting the similarities between Republicans and Nazis?

The Unreasoner
03-18-2016, 03:12 AM
Still waiting to hear if you would hold the same opinion if the sitting president were Republican, the Senate was controlled by Republicans, and the Lame Duck had 11 months left of their term.

I don't know why we'd believe his answer, but I'd be more interested in hearing if he'd say the same if it were Ginsberg's seat. And even if the Thurmond rule were a real rule, and it's not, it clearly doesn't apply here since it's sufficiently far from the election. And the Democrats were never this blatantly obstructionist.

The GOP is completely full of shit anyway. They have no ideas, or integrity, or respect. They're just grossly obstructionist, using whatever excuse is most convenient in a given moment. With no consistency in reasoning over time. They're identified entirely by their opposition, and that lack of any cohesive identity is part of the reason they're in crisis now. The other is that they've shamelessly riled up their base with propaganda without regard to consequences or factual accuracy for short term, superficial political gain. And now they are shocked, shocked, that half the base is rabid, bigoted, and completely ignorant. While the other half is made up of classless pseudointellectual parrots like Southpaw who are supporting a sociopathic opportunist who is directly responsible for a series of America's self inflicted wounds.

And he so fucking creepy he's probably a child molester.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2016, 05:04 AM
Again, the Senate is not going against the Constitution by refusing to vote. Read the plain text, though that's hard for liberals to do most of the time. The Senate shall advise and consent.
But they do not actually do that, do they?
A statement by one Senator, even if he has the cloud to get a lot of others behind him, is not official "advice from the Senate". For that, they would have had to have an official vote on this matter, and if the Republicans tried that, then the Democrats could simply filibuster. So it is very obvious that they are not doing what the Constitution calls upon them to do.

They are advising that now is not the right time to take up a vote for a Supreme Court candidate.What, precisely, was the outcome of the official vote on the Senate floor on this matter?
Oh yeah, as I just pointed out, there hasn't been one, so they are not actually advising in the sense the Constitution meant, they are merely blustering in the way Trump does.

There was nothing wrong with Obama nominating somebody, and it was wise for him to do so. It would be unwise for the Republican Senate to take up a vote.
And why would it be unwise for the Republicans to take up a vote now?
Is it perhaps because those Senators do not have a proper mandate anymore, but are merely place holders biding their time until really good Senators (Democrats, presumably) can replace them?

It can't be because there are any Constitutional questions about Obama's status as president. You yourself just now admitted that Obama does have the right (and hence the duty) to propose a candidate. So if there are any doubts about anyone's right to govern, then it is about the Republican Senators only. Which brings up the question: will they also refuse to debate any other matter, or will they merely obstruct the things they don't consider important?

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 08:29 AM
I don't know why we'd believe his answer, but I'd be more interested in hearing if he'd say the same if it were Ginsberg's seat. And even if the Thurmond rule were a real rule, and it's not, it clearly doesn't apply here since it's sufficiently far from the election. And the Democrats were never this blatantly obstructionist.

The GOP is completely full of shit anyway. They have no ideas, or integrity, or respect. They're just grossly obstructionist, using whatever excuse is most convenient in a given moment. With no consistency in reasoning over time. They're identified entirely by their opposition, and that lack of any cohesive identity is part of the reason they're in crisis now. The other is that they've shamelessly riled up their base with propaganda without regard to consequences or factual accuracy for short term, superficial political gain. And now they are shocked, shocked, that half the base is rabid, bigoted, and completely ignorant. While the other half is made up of classless pseudointellectual parrots like Southpaw who are supporting a sociopathic opportunist who is directly responsible for a series of America's self inflicted wounds.

And he so fucking creepy he's probably a child molester.


Yeah, conservatives are full of shit because they want to prevent an out of control government from growing more than it has under the liberal authoritarian regime. Liberals have the worst memory, considering that they did everything they could to obstruct Bush in his second term, though that's okay, right? It's only okay if the Marxist supporting Democrats obstruct, correct? Perhaps you fail to see WHY people like Ted Cruz are standing up to the establishment, which isn't surprising coming from your lack of sense and everything else when it comes to law and policy.

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 08:32 AM
Still waiting to hear if you would hold the same opinion if the sitting president were Republican, the Senate was controlled by Republicans, and the Lame Duck had 11 months left of their term.

Do you meant if the Senate was controlled by Democrats? I would say I wished they would vote and confirm my guy, which I don't blame Democrats for doing, but I would understand it from a political point of view, and would not object on constitutional grounds.

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 08:33 AM
Why is it unwise? Because they must have their own in every possible position instead of an individual whose experience and opinions might well be good for the country even if they don't follow the Republican way to the letter? Are they so unwilling to compromise that their party motto might as well be: "Republican or an Enemy"? So what is the end result they are aiming for? Replace the two party system with a single party one? Want to start counting the similarities between Republicans and Nazis?

Sure, there's not many, unless you count Trump who is a liberal anyways. Many more similarities between liberals and communists, and I'm not the first to make that claim, as many liberals claimed to be communists in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 08:36 AM
Sure, there's not many, unless you count Trump who is a liberal anyways. Many more similarities between liberals and communists, and I'm not the first to make that claim, as many liberals claimed to be communists in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Are you saying communists are worse than nazis?

yks 6nnetu hing
03-18-2016, 08:44 AM
Are you saying communists are worse than nazis?

to be fair, if a commie has a gun to your head then the commie is worse; but if a nazi has a gun to your head then the nazi is worse. Now, if you happen to come from Eastern Europe then you probably know what it means to be shot in the head by both (while they're aiming at each other).

in summary: guns are bad, mkay?

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 08:49 AM
to be fair, if a commie has a gun to your head then the commie is worse; but if a nazi has a gun to your head then the nazi is worse. Now, if you happen to come from Eastern Europe then you probably know what it means to be shot in the head by both (while they're aiming at each other).

in summary: guns are bad, mkay?

Shhhh! I'm leading the conversation to the point where he shows he doesn't actually know what nazis are. Or communists.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2016, 09:04 AM
Shhhh! I'm leading the conversation to the point where he shows he doesn't actually know what nazis are. Or communists.
Hasn't he already shown that?

He is right that Trump is a liberal, but only in the sense that Trump is in favor of economic liberty, apparently because Trump's wealth makes that a very useful thing for Trump.

Southpaw is, of course, very wrong in his implicit claim that every liberal is left wing, and also in his implicit claim that communists are necessary liberals. Things are a lot more complicated than he pretends, but, like a lot of political extremists, he wants to acknowledge only two political options: whatever it is that he believes in and everything (called, by him, liberalism).

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 09:24 AM
Hasn't he already shown that?

He is right that Trump is a liberal, but only in the sense that Trump is in favor of economic liberty, apparently because Trump's wealth makes that a very useful thing for Trump.

Southpaw is, of course, very wrong in his implicit claim that every liberal is left wing, and also in his implicit claim that communists are necessary liberals. Things are a lot more complicated than he pretends, but, like a lot of political extremists, he wants to acknowledge only two political options: whatever it is that he believes in and everything (called, by him, liberalism).

I was kinda waiting for it come in a form I could turn around and cram directly into his skull. It's not enough that you and I see it. We have to go the distance and get it to a size he can manage.

The Unreasoner
03-18-2016, 10:48 AM
I was kinda waiting for it come in a form I could turn around and cram directly into his skull. It's not enough that you and I see it. We have to go the distance and get it to a size he can manage.

Again, he's the dumbest law student in Illinois. There is no distance great enough that you could go to make your point small enough to pass between the atoms in his skull. And the amount of energy it would take to force something not on a quantum scale through his skull would kill him.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 10:54 AM
Again, he's the dumbest law student in Illinois. There is no distance great enough that you could go to make your point small enough to pass between the atoms in his skull. And the amount of energy it would take to force something not on a quantum scale through his skull would kill him.

Well you see I'm a bit bored at the moment.

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 10:55 AM
Last time an opposing-party Senate filled election year vacancy was 1888. Doesn't happen often.

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 11:02 AM
Again, he's the dumbest law student in Illinois. There is no distance great enough that you could go to make your point small enough to pass between the atoms in his skull. And the amount of energy it would take to force something not on a quantum scale through his skull would kill him.

Yes, I do know what communists and fascists are. It is clear most of you don't, nor do you understand history, as is clear from your strong support for the shit that will tear this country apart. It is clear that arguing with a bunch of government sheep is pointless. Keep up the good work supporting the expansion of the welfare state.

And I'm the dumbest law student in Illinois? I believe my peers would disagree quite heartily, especially those who disagree the most with me politically. Though the people who disagree with me are educated, not folks on a fantasy forum who post day in and day out their philosophical musings on the horrible dealings of American capitalism and the hopes for a dependent welfare state.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 11:07 AM
Yes, I do know what communists and fascists are. It is clear most of you don't, nor do you understand history, as is clear from your strong support for the shit that will tear this country apart. It is clear that arguing with a bunch of government sheep is pointless. Keep up the good work supporting the expansion of the welfare state.

And I'm the dumbest law student in Illinois? I believe my peers would disagree quite heartily, especially those who disagree the most with me politically. Though the people who disagree with me are educated, not folks on a fantasy forum who post day in and day out their philosophical musings on the horrible dealings of American capitalism and the hopes for a dependent welfare state.

The post you deleted was better.

Edit now that I've managed to stop laughing:

He literally can't show that he knows what they are. All he can do is follow the usual formula: 1) Make a statement without verification. 2) Ridicule the opposing side in the "I'm not a poophead, you're a poophead" way of a five-year-old.

You've seriously got to wonder why he bothers with the Non WoT section since all those fellow students think so highly of him and no doubt just eat up all the second hand shit he spouts. Or it could of course be that the title of dumbest student is a highly coveted position and so many won't acknowledge his lack of abilities.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2016, 11:13 AM
And I'm the dumbest law student in Illinois? I believe my peers would disagree quite heartily, especially those who disagree the most with me politically.
Maybe they would be correct. If so, that would mean that the standard for law students in Illinois isn't very impressive. Though, to be fair to Illinois, it may be that the topic of study, rather than the state, is the most important factor here.

Davian93
03-18-2016, 01:30 PM
Refusing to hold hearings or even interview the nominee is not "advising". Perhaps you need to go back to 1st year of Pre Law to understand that.

Your startling lack of historical knowledge is scary.

Last time an opposing-party Senate filled election year vacancy was 1888. Doesn't happen often.

I'm sure Anthony Kennedy would be surprised to realize he's been on the bench for 128 years now...being that he was confirmed by a Democratic Majority Senate in 1988. The vote was 97-0 and the Senate balance at the time was 55-45 Democratic.

The Unreasoner
03-18-2016, 02:08 PM
He literally can't show that he knows what they are. All he can do is follow the usual formula: 1) Make a statement without verification. 2) Ridicule the opposing side in the "I'm not a poophead, you're a poophead" way of a five-year-old.

I know. It's bizarre. I mean, he could spend ten seconds googling it and give a more sensible reply. But he reverts to the old 'you all believe x, and are stupid (and destroying America).'

I mean, I still get a laugh remembering how he insulted me for wanting 'free shit' and being a Sanders supporter in the very thread I endorsed Bloomberg. After all, us Sanders supporters are so easy to recognize.

And quite apart from his lack of basic reasoning skills, I worry about his lack of even a facade of professionalism.


And still waiting for fdsaf to show up...

Davian93
03-18-2016, 02:13 PM
I know. It's bizarre. I mean, he could spend ten seconds googling it and give a more sensible reply. But he reverts to the old 'you all believe x, and are stupid (and destroying America).'

I mean, I still get a laugh remembering how he insulted me for wanting 'free shit' and being a Sanders supporter in the very thread I endorsed Bloomberg. After all, us Sanders supporters are so easy to recognize.

And quite apart from his lack of basic reasoning skills, I worry about his lack of even a facade of professionalism.


And still waiting for fdsaf to show up...

Ever notice that everything with that sort of people is a black or white issue? There aren't any shades of gray. I'm a liberal therefore I must be a communist...as are the rest of us on our "fantasy discussion board" simply because we disagree with him. The willful ignorance displayed in such a simplistic view is very troubling. All "libs" are communists.

The equivalent would be us saying all the GOP candidates are out and out fascists...where this is fairly true in the case of Trump, the others aren't nearly at that level.

So, to return the favor Southpaw...if we're communists, you're a fascist pig who is no better than Hitler. There...happy? Does that make you feel righteous and justified in your hatred of all things you fear and disagree with?

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 10:13 PM
Speaking of xenophobic fascists, isn't it around this time of year Sodas resurfaces to start a fight?

Terez
03-18-2016, 10:26 PM
Speaking of xenophobic fascists, isn't it around this time of year Sodas resurfaces to start a fight?
I think he said he was done with us. "Hate is too great a burden to bear." Or something.

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 11:09 PM
Ever notice that everything with that sort of people is a black or white issue? There aren't any shades of gray. I'm a liberal therefore I must be a communist...as are the rest of us on our "fantasy discussion board" simply because we disagree with him. The willful ignorance displayed in such a simplistic view is very troubling. All "libs" are communists.

The equivalent would be us saying all the GOP candidates are out and out fascists...where this is fairly true in the case of Trump, the others aren't nearly at that level.

So, to return the favor Southpaw...if we're communists, you're a fascist pig who is no better than Hitler. There...happy? Does that make you feel righteous and justified in your hatred of all things you fear and disagree with?

I don't fear anything such as what you say. Not all Democrats are communists, but I was stating that many back in the mid-20th century were. It's well documented.

"I'm a liberal, therefore I must be a communist." No, but it is no different than liberals who argue, "you're a conservative, so you must be a bigot/racist/islamophobe/whatever."


As for the Sanders stuff that I attack, here is another insightful article. It's not just Sanders, but much of the Democratic Party and their obsession over discrimination that seems to solely focus on a specific type of minority group that isn't white.

http://www.cato.org/blog/sen-sanders-poverty-racial-pandering?utm_content=buffer32300&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Southpaw2012
03-18-2016, 11:14 PM
Refusing to hold hearings or even interview the nominee is not "advising". Perhaps you need to go back to 1st year of Pre Law to understand that.

Your startling lack of historical knowledge is scary.



I'm sure Anthony Kennedy would be surprised to realize he's been on the bench for 128 years now...being that he was confirmed by a Democratic Majority Senate in 1988. The vote was 97-0 and the Senate balance at the time was 55-45 Democratic.

It's hilarious how you attack me for my lack of law and history when the top scholars in this area agree with what I say, and have been saying the exact same for years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2016/02/14/dont-confirm-scalias-replacement-until-after-the-election/#5cb2c6bf30f9

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/15/the-erroneous-argument-the-senate-has-a-constitutional-duty-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nominee/

http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/03/law-professors-letter-on-supreme-court-appointmentsmichael-ramsey.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431315/supreme-court-appointments-political-exactly-founders-intended

These are just a few out of many. So unless you're a lawyer or a scholar, or are in law school, you don't have room to talk. You bash me because you don't agree, but people who have been studying this stuff for many years strongly disagree with most of you.

By the way, historian, Kennedy was nominated in 1987. Election was in 1988.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 11:19 PM
I think he said he was done with us. "Hate is too great a burden to bear." Or something.

Yeah but he said that two years ago too and came back last year.

Frenzy
03-18-2016, 11:24 PM
Do you meant if the Senate was controlled by Democrats? I would say I wished they would vote and confirm my guy, which I don't blame Democrats for doing, but I would understand it from a political point of view, and would not object on constitutional grounds.

No, i meant what I said: if the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the President was Republican. Let me try rephrasing it for you: Assuming all other variables are the same as they are now, but the President is a lame duck Republican, would you still advocate for the Senate to refuse to confirm the nominee and wait for the next president to make the selection?

And before you slide away by saying that scenario would never happen because why would the Senate Republicans ignore one of their own, step back and look at it from the stance you're advocating: that a president with less than a year left in office should not make an appointment.

Should the Senate refuse to consider a nominee from a lame duck President. That's the question, simple as that.

The political party of the players involved should be irrelevant. If it isn't, then you really need to examine how your belief system interferes with the application of the law.

Nazbaque
03-18-2016, 11:29 PM
"I'm a liberal, therefore I must be a communist." No, but it is no different than liberals who argue, "you're a conservative, so you must be a bigot/racist/islamophobe/whatever."

So you don't know what a fascist is. Still doubt you know what communism is, but you definitely don't know what fascism is.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 09:19 AM
No, i meant what I said: if the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the President was Republican. Let me try rephrasing it for you: Assuming all other variables are the same as they are now, but the President is a lame duck Republican, would you still advocate for the Senate to refuse to confirm the nominee and wait for the next president to make the selection?

And before you slide away by saying that scenario would never happen because why would the Senate Republicans ignore one of their own, step back and look at it from the stance you're advocating: that a president with less than a year left in office should not make an appointment.

Should the Senate refuse to consider a nominee from a lame duck President. That's the question, simple as that.

The political party of the players involved should be irrelevant. If it isn't, then you really need to examine how your belief system interferes with the application of the law.

He's clearly not going to admit it, but we all know, including almost certainly him, that this has nothing to do with it being the last year. That if this was, as you, I, and others have repeatedly posited, a Republican president with a Republican senate, this nomination process would have been prioritized with a sense of necessity. They would have made sure to get this done before the election, so as to ensure that it was done while they still knew that they were in control, and could thus get their choice. This is purely an issue of who controls the Senate, not about the timing. The upcoming election is only serving as a proximate pretense for a longstanding strategy of obstruction, and of refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this president. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan managed to get confirmed for one reason, the dems still controlled the Senate at the time of each's nomination.

Sotomayor was approved by the Judicial Committee along a party-line vote, 13-6, with only one Republican voting in favor. She was then confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 68-31, with only 9 Republicans voting in favor. Had the Republicans been in control, as now, she never would have made it out of Committee. Elena Kagan also was voted 13-6 in Committee, again only one Republican (Lindsey Graham - and note how poorly he did in his run for president, he was punished by his constituents for his integrity) voting in favor, and then was confirmed by the full Senate by another party-line vote of 63-37, with only five Republicans (and you can guess who one of the five was) voting in favor. She too would never have made it out of Committee had the Republicans, as now, controlled the process.

Moroever, in contrast, this is not how the dems operated. Anthony Kennedy, a Republican nominee much mentioned here, went through the dem controlled Judiciary Committee with unanimous support, and then was confirmed by a dem controlled Senate without a single democrat voting against him. Because the dems voted on a simple basis of are you qualified and w/o serious ethics concerns, i.e. questions of criminal behavior (Bork and Thomas). The Republicans however vote on a simple basis - are you a Republican, and nominated by a Republican. If not on both, that you do not deserve a vote.

This is about who controls the Judicial Committee, not about the proximity to the election.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 02:17 PM
The Republicans however vote on a simple basis - are you a Republican, and nominated by a Republican. If not on both, that you do not deserve a vote.

I think you meant 'either' instead of 'both'. It's an understandable mistake, but also quite a distinction in meaning.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 02:30 PM
I think you meant 'either' instead of 'both'. It's an understandable mistake, but also quite a distinction in meaning.

No, I meant both. The first name put forth was Sandoval, the Republican Governor of Nevada, and they made clear that he would not have been considered. So just being a Republican isn't enough for them. You need to meet both criteria, not just one or the other. I suppose you could argue that it was really only then the second criterion that matters.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 02:40 PM
No, I meant both. The first name put forth was Sandoval, the Republican Governor of Nevada, and they made clear that he would not have been considered. So just being a Republican isn't enough for them. You need to meet both criteria, not just one or the other. I suppose you could argue that it was really only then the second criterion that matters.

Which is what I meant. You want to say that the candidate has to be a Republican and nominated by a Republican so a no on either disqualifies a candidate.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 02:46 PM
Which is what I meant. You want to say that the candidate has to be a Republican and nominated by a Republican so a no on either disqualifies a candidate.

No, for this to be an either/or, you would have to "either" be a Republican "or" be nominated by a Republican. Being a Republican clearly isn't enough. You seem to be arguing that the first doesn't matter, but that isn't an either/or. I suppose it would have been clearer if I had said that you have to "not only" be a Republican, "but also" be nominated by a Republican.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 02:52 PM
No, for this to be an either/or, you would have to "either" be a Republican "or" be nominated by a Republican. Being a Republican clearly isn't enough. You seem to be arguing that the first doesn't matter, but that isn't an either/or. I suppose it would have been clearer if I had said that you have to "not only" be a Republican, "but also" be nominated by a Republican.

So if you either are not a Republican or were not nominated by a Republican you are disqualified. You have to be both, so if you are not one or you are not the other, you aren't be both and thus disqualified. The opposite of A AND B is NOT A OR NOT B.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 03:01 PM
So if you either are not a Republican or were not nominated by a Republican you are disqualified. You have to be both, so if you are not one or you are not the other, you aren't be both and thus disqualified. The opposite of A AND B is NOT A OR NOT B.

Exactly, which is why I said both rather than either/or. "Either not/or not" is not the same as "either/or".

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 03:03 PM
Exactly, which is why I said both rather than either/or. "Either not/or not" is not the same as "either/or".

But you yourself wrote it from the no angle. Go on and read the part I quoted. Do it very carefully. Please.

Edit: now that I've made sure I didn't misread it the first time I also notice that you should have put 'then' instead of 'that'.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 03:07 PM
But you yourself wrote it from the no angle. Go on and read the part I quoted. Do it very carefully. Please.

I said "if not on both" meaning "unless both". The problem, if anything, was that I shouldn't have included the "on". Really Naz. This is tedious.

The Unreasoner
03-19-2016, 03:11 PM
If not on both, that you do not deserve a vote

This is oddly phrased, but if I'm reading it as
NOT (A AND B) => NOT C

with A=nominated by a Republican, B=are a Republican, and C=deserves a vote...

Or you could just concede the point. You meant NOT (A OR B). I let it slide because I knew what you meant, but then you decided to respond pedantically.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 03:12 PM
This is oddly phrased, but if I'm reading it as
NOT (A AND B) => NOT C

with A=nominated by a Republican, B=are a Republican, and C=deserves a vote...

Or you could just concede the point. You meant NOT (A OR B). I let it slide because I knew what you meant, but then you decided to respond pedantically.

The problem is that you are both mathematicians rather than linguists.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 03:12 PM
I said "if not on both" meaning "unless both". The problem, if anything, was that I shouldn't have included the "on". Really Naz. This is tedious.

Yeah it completely changed the actual meaning of what you said. And while removing the 'on' would have corrected it so would changing 'both' to 'either'.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 03:13 PM
The problem is that you are both mathematicians rather than linguists.

Actually I am both.

The Unreasoner
03-19-2016, 03:19 PM
I think a proper linguist would construct a better sentence than "If not on both, that you do not deserve a vote."

Baffled that you didn't just concede the point, considering the errors. Asserting the superiority of one school of thought over another (just 'because') is more appropriate for the Cruz voters.

Davian93
03-19-2016, 03:22 PM
No, i meant what I said: if the Senate was controlled by Republicans and the President was Republican. Let me try rephrasing it for you: Assuming all other variables are the same as they are now, but the President is a lame duck Republican, would you still advocate for the Senate to refuse to confirm the nominee and wait for the next president to make the selection?

And before you slide away by saying that scenario would never happen because why would the Senate Republicans ignore one of their own, step back and look at it from the stance you're advocating: that a president with less than a year left in office should not make an appointment.

Should the Senate refuse to consider a nominee from a lame duck President. That's the question, simple as that.

The political party of the players involved should be irrelevant. If it isn't, then you really need to examine how your belief system interferes with the application of the law.

The definition of lame duck is the period after an election where your successor has already been determined...ie, in this case, Obama's lame duck period starts November 5th and runs till January 20th. He's not a lame duck right now just as Reagan wasn't a lame duck at the same point in 1988 or even Bush Jr in 2008.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 03:32 PM
I think a proper linguist would construct a better sentence than "If not on both, that you do not deserve a vote."

Baffled that you didn't just concede the point, considering the errors. Asserting the superiority of one school of thought over another (just 'because') is more appropriate for the Cruz voters.

"If not" and "unless" can create confusion, but that does not alter the fact that the two phrases can be used interchangeably. The same is not true of "either", "only", and "both". Had Naz said "only" instead of "either", I would have immediately conceded the point.

Nazbaque
03-19-2016, 03:41 PM
"If not" and "unless" can create confusion, but that does not alter the fact that the two phrases can be used interchangeably. The same is not true of "either", "only", and "both". Had Naz said "only" instead of "either", I would have immediately conceded the point.

Meaning that I have a greater mastery over your language than you do. I beat you as a linguist and as a mathematician. You are trying to force language into strict rules that are in reality guidelines at best.

Kimon
03-19-2016, 03:44 PM
Meaning that I have a greater mastery over your language than you do. I beat you as a linguist and as a mathematician. You are trying to force language into strict rules that are in reality guidelines at best.

I disagree, but we can let it rest there. Nonetheless, what you are essentially arguing is that "et...et", "aut...aut", and "non modo...sed etiam" are all interchangeable. They aren't.