The Senate Is Unmoved

[longknife]

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

 

[Arianrhod]

And every taxpayer in America is paying them to do absolutely...nothing...

God bless America.

 

[Publius1787]

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

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?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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

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?

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

 

[Publius1787]

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

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?

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

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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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 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.

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?

 

[Publius1787]

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 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.

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?

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.

 

[OldLady]

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

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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

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.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

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.

No it is not that easy. Depending on how the case is argued, Justices often confuse the great mass of the ignorati. You appear to be confusing ideological interpretations with political motivations. And then there is the case of a poorly argued case that if voted in the affirmative, can have consequences that would undercut a case judged on a more solid argument.

You insist on saying hindsight is an appropriate view. Back when Reagan nominated O'Connor, given the political atmosphere and more, I doubt very much you would take the stance you do today. Because -- you and I are all shaped by what has transpired since then. Your arguments appear to be not very well thought out. They may be framed well, but they sorely lack deep thought

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Reagan did nominate someone to the right of Kennedy, his name was Bork and he got a floor vote.


>>>>

 

[Publius1787]

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.

No it is not that easy. Depending on how the case is argued, Justices often confuse the great mass of the ignorati. You appear to be confusing ideological interpretations with political motivations. And then there is the case of a poorly argued case that if voted in the affirmative, can have consequences that would undercut a case judged on a more solid argument.

You insist on saying hindsight is an appropriate view. Back when Reagan nominated O'Connor, given the political atmosphere and more, I doubt very much you would take the stance you do today. Because -- you and I are all shaped by what has transpired since then. Your arguments appear to be not very well thought out. They may be framed well, but they sorely lack deep thought

No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.

I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Reagan did nominate someone to the right of Kennedy, his name was Bork and he got a floor vote.


>>>>

Indeed he was "Borked." It was immediately after Bork when Democrats tried to block any further nominees until Reagan gave them Kennedy. Once again this goes to show how a Republican president found compromise more so than it shows Republican obstructionism. This doesn't exactly make your point. Democrats were trying to run out the Reagan clock after they borked Bork. In my opinion, that's even worse. If I'm not mistaken, the dems were going to sit on it for far longer than the republicans are sitting on the nominee today.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.

Unfortunately demographics in the nation are about to render them irrelevant in national elections. So we endure this last round of childish tantrums from them and then off to the woodshed. Then off to military boarding school where no one will hear form them again.

 

[Publius1787]

The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.

Unfortunately demographics in the nation are about to render them irrelevant in national elections. So we endure this last round of childish tantrums from them and then off to the woodshed. Then off to military boarding school where no one will hear form them again.

Lets hear it for multiculturalism huh? I believe both liberals and conservatives will rue the day the minority becomes the majority. Then we'll all be one big Detroit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If the feds are doing nothing then we're probably better off

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.

I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.

Many well respected people insist on how things SHOULD be. Of course, they mostly disagree with each other

Scalia himself, insisted that he himself was a texualist instead of a strict constructionist. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be...A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently: it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it failey means." - GOVT by Sidlow, Henschen​

strict constructionist = Justice Thomas?

It has been the feeling of many throughout the history of the USA, that the Court should reflect the polity.

Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare: "Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law." yet conservatives rage about Roberts' conservatism. Even the conservative Justices raged about that conservative view. I suspect, your claim is false. I believe most Justices go with where the law takes them. They just disagree on how to get there. As did the founding generation.

 

[Publius1787]

No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.

I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.

Many well respected people insist on how things SHOULD be. Of course, they mostly disagree with each other

Scalia himself, insisted that he himself was a texualist instead of a strict constructionist. Scalia wrote "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be...A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently: it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it failey means." - GOVT by Sidlow, Henschen​

strict constructionist = Justice Thomas?

It has been the feeling of many throughout the history of the USA, that the Court should reflect the polity.

Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare: "Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law." yet conservatives rage about Roberts' conservatism. Even the conservative Justices raged about that conservative view. I suspect, your claim is false. I believe most Justices go with where the law takes them. They just disagree on how to get there. As did the founding generation.

I've said nothing to the contrary of the above statement. But consequence and purpose as a means of legal interpretation is a relatively new invention and affords a wide latitude of bias and subjectivity when interpreting the law.

I would recommend this video where Scalia slaughters Breyer on methods of legal interpretation starting at 15:45

 

[mamooth]

In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson defeated then-president John Adams.

A month before Jefferson was to take office, a Supreme Court vacancy opened up.

Adams nominated someone, and his nominee was quickly voted on.

So, the actions of the Founders make it very clear what they believed was supposed to happen in cases such as we face now.