The Senate Is Unmoved

Discussion in 'Congress' started by longknife, Apr 8, 2016.

  1. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    31,120
    Thanks Received:
    10,104
    Trophy Points:
    1,400
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +18,018
    Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

    Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

    Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Arianrhod
    Offline

    Arianrhod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    11,060
    Thanks Received:
    1,072
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,687
    And every taxpayer in America is paying them to do absolutely...nothing...

    God bless America.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,402
    This should surprise no one. For one it's an election year. Second, if the roles were reversed the Dems would be doing the same thing. What other faux outrage are we going to drum up next?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Martin Eden Mercury
    Offline

    Martin Eden Mercury VIP Member Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    897
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    United States of America
    Ratings:
    +426
    We have actual history to prove you wrong. When the Dems positioned themselves in this way before, they ended up holding hearings and allowing Republicans to participate in doing the people's business

    Your opinion is countered by facts
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,402
    Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on the Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen. If, for example, Reagan chose someone to the right of Kennedy, Dems would have never brought it to a vote. If Obama nominated someone who was the distance to the right as Kennedy is to the left then I think Republicans would bring it to a vote. He didn't. So all history tells us is that a Republican president was able to nominate a liberal moderate to the Court to break the democrat sanctioned blockade. Obama, on the other hand, has nominated someone who is to the left of even Kennedy. No surprise. If he pulled a Reagan I think he could get the vote he desires. Obama won't do that.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2016
  6. Martin Eden Mercury
    Offline

    Martin Eden Mercury VIP Member Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    897
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    United States of America
    Ratings:
    +426
    Your opinion that Justice Kennedy "was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts." is amusing.
    I wonder what you would call Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,402
    I'm happy you're amused. I wouldn't have picked Sandra Day O'Connor where I he. But then again I have the benefit of hindsight. I'm not certain of the circumstances surrounding her appointment.
     
  8. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    22,718
    Thanks Received:
    4,263
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,626
    Not to change your thread, but they (the Republicans) refused to fund a comprehensive bill to battle the heroin epidemic, too, though it was passed 94-1.
    I'm proud of my senator (Susan Collins), but part of me would love a chance to vote against some of these do-nothings in a coming election.
    I hope these Republican senators get the boot. Serves 'em right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Martin Eden Mercury
    Offline

    Martin Eden Mercury VIP Member Op-ed Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2015
    Messages:
    897
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    United States of America
    Ratings:
    +426
    You are not 'certain' of the 'circumstances surrounding' the nomination and appointment of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? That is even more amusing, considering you also say you 'wouldn't have picked' her. It isn't hindsight your stuck using.

    No one can be 100% sure ahead of time, on how any nominee will eventually vote on any case that would come before the Court. Without knowing what the exact arguments would be, it would be ludicrous to suggest knowing how a future justice would rule. We might have an idea how they feel about issues, but on a case that has yet to be argued?

    Reagan's Nomination of O'Connor this link will maybe help you to see how partisan nonsense can make some people look foolish and blind.
     
  10. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,402
    No, it is quite easy to see how a Supreme Court nominee will vote. All you need to do is see if the Supreme Court pick has taken into account consequence and purpose when interpreting legal texts. Someone who only takes into account text, history, tradition, and precedent are far more likely to be a conservative justice. Those who add "purpose" and "consequence" are far more likely to be liberal. Of course, "purpose" and "consequence" allows for subjective judgement in legal texts. Keagan and Sotomayor were nominated because Obama knew exactly how they would rule.

    Telling you that I didn't know the circumstances around O'Connor's nomination is much different than not understanding how she has used her time on the bench. I've never been a big fan of her adopting foreign considerations into U.S. Law. Of course, this is the benefit of hindsight.

    Of course, I would not consider gender if I were to pick a justice. I would in fact look at how they interpret text. And they've written plenty to give me an idea of how they look at legal texts. Unless, of course, your Elena Kegan and you've never sat on a bench before. Then all I need to do is see how you've operated at Harvard law. And she left nothing up for interpretation as to how she would judge as a Supreme Court Justice. Neither did Sotomayor who's emotion and self identity supersedes her ability to reason legally.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2016

Share This Page