The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court

[Tom Horn]

How is filling a vacancy and allowing it to function "stacking"?

What do we call forcing the court to run short handed until you get to call the shots?

I'd call it pretty much a jump ball. No reason in hell to let that muslim asshole get his healthcare nightmare and executive actions become settled law in the coming year.

 

[Tom Horn]

And?

And what? He's a leftist and young enough to last for years.....no sale.

I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

I'm withdrawing my capitulation on this guy....he IS an Hussein appeals court appointee and also worked PRO BONO for the charlatan algore....facts you somehow omitted from your wiki profile....tsk tsk.

 

[Disir]

I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

Can you prove he isn't?

The quick and dirty:
After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan started working as a law clerk for two Republican-appointed judges. The first was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. Although Wilkinson was considered Republican, he expressed bipartisanship in his personal views, most notably in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. After that, Srinivasan worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Many viewed O'Connor as a moderate Conservative, but in her latter years she often had the swing vote, which made her more bipartisan. That means Srinivasan's early exposure to a legal career was largely nonpartisan, despite working with two judges who had fairly conservative beliefs.

For five years, Srinivasan worked under the George W. Bush Justice Department. Bush stayed true to conservatism throughout his eight-year term, which proved to be a partisan experience for Srinivasan during his time under his Justice Department. However, many of the connections Srinivasan made while working for Bush helped get him appointed to the D.C. Circuit. According to the New York Times, Paul D. Clement and Theodore B. Olson, both solicitors general under Bush, sent a letter of support when Srinivasan was nominated for the D.C. Circuit.

When Srinivasan worked for O'Melveny & Myers LLP, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit they faced for human rights violations abroad. During this private-sector work, Srinivasan argued that Exxon Mobil shouldn't be held accountable for these violations when they took place outside of the U.S. However, Liberals were not happy with Srinivasan's decision because of the severity of this lawsuit; an Indonesian village accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people. Similarly, Srinivasan successfully represented a newspaper publisher that fired its employees for unionizing against the publisher's biased interference in its reporting. He also defended Enron President Jeffrey Skilling, who was later convicted in a significant financial fraud. After these defense cases, Liberals weren't sure if Srinivasan shared their views, especially with regards to human rights.
Bustle

Your turn.

Will all due respect to Dubya, the Bush family has SUCKED picking Supremes....from Sutter to Roberts, anybody connected to them is suspicious. Truthfully, I had no idea who this guy was until you mentioned him....I figured he was a Hussein appointee so you win on a technicality.

His confirmation was unanimous.

Look, I have found myself many times defending Scalia---not because I agree with him but because I have seen his arguments taken out of context. Not here--because I haven't encountered it on this forum. Be that as it may, these conversations need to take place and "suspicious" is not a viable argument.

I am open to listening to what it is that you are precisely looking for and WHY. If you have someone worthy of attention then by all means lets have a looksee.

 

[Disir]

And?

And what? He's a leftist and young enough to last for years.....no sale.

I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

I'm withdrawing my capitulation on this guy....he IS an Hussein appeals court appointee and also worked PRO BONO for the charlatan algore....facts you somehow omitted from your wiki profile....tsk tsk.

Did you read the article or just what I posted? I cannot post the entire article. You still have not presented a viable argument.

 

[Tom Horn]

His confirmation was unanimous.

Look, I have found myself many times defending Scalia---not because I agree with him but because I have seen his arguments taken out of context. Not here--because I haven't encountered it on this forum. Be that as it may, these conversations need to take place and "suspicious" is not a viable argument.

I am open to listening to what it is that you are precisely looking for and WHY. If you have someone worthy of attention then by all means lets have a looksee.

I don't have an candidates in mind because I've got enough on my plate without having to suggest a Scalia replacement. I'm sure there are several qualified and several fake-out artists like Souter angling for a shot at the USSC. What we need is somebody with a clean record and high regard for the "originalist" concepts that Scalia used in his decisions.

 

[Agit8r]

filling a vacancy on his watch is considered "stacking"? My but you are a Rightard. Put down the kool aid kiddo.

 

[Disir]

His confirmation was unanimous.

Look, I have found myself many times defending Scalia---not because I agree with him but because I have seen his arguments taken out of context. Not here--because I haven't encountered it on this forum. Be that as it may, these conversations need to take place and "suspicious" is not a viable argument.

I am open to listening to what it is that you are precisely looking for and WHY. If you have someone worthy of attention then by all means lets have a looksee.

I don't have an candidates in mind because I've got enough on my plate without having to suggest a Scalia replacement. I'm sure there are several qualified and several fake-out artists like Souter angling for a shot at the USSC. What we need is somebody with a clean record and high regard for the "originalist" concepts that Scalia used in his decisions.

I see.

 

[rightwinger]

How is filling a vacancy and allowing it to function "stacking"?

What do we call forcing the court to run short handed until you get to call the shots?

I'd call it pretty much a jump ball. No reason in hell to let that muslim asshole get his healthcare nightmare and executive actions become settled law in the coming year.

There is a reason......We the People elected him

 

[Tom Horn]

There is a reason......We the People elected him

"we" including illegals, dead people, cartoon characters, and the brain-dead your public schools have produced voting for the charlatan you call a president. Sorry, his words meant nothing...his actions are LOUD and CLEAR...he's tried to ruin this country and will not be given the chance to codify his illegal actions into permanent law.

 

[Dragonlady]

His confirmation was unanimous.

Look, I have found myself many times defending Scalia---not because I agree with him but because I have seen his arguments taken out of context. Not here--because I haven't encountered it on this forum. Be that as it may, these conversations need to take place and "suspicious" is not a viable argument.

I am open to listening to what it is that you are precisely looking for and WHY. If you have someone worthy of attention then by all means lets have a looksee.

I don't have an candidates in mind because I've got enough on my plate without having to suggest a Scalia replacement. I'm sure there are several qualified and several fake-out artists like Souter angling for a shot at the USSC. What we need is somebody with a clean record and high regard for the "originalist" concepts that Scalia used in his decisions.

The concept of framing one's decisions within the context of your interpretation of the Founders original intent is open to much criticism. The Founders created a framework for the governance of 13 Colonies with a total population of 2.5 million people. To suggest that the document is infallible, or not subject to interpretation within the contexts of a population in excess of 300 million, is ridiculous.

Even the Founders acknowledged that the Constitution would need to be amended with the times. Sadly, little has been done to update the rights of individuals since women received the right to vote. Most of the work done in supporting and enhancing the rights of individuals in accordance with changing times, has been done by the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the general principles set out in the Constitution.

It should also be pointed out that the Founders were very much opposed to the country becoming involved in world politics, and participating in the endless wars going on in Europe and Asia. Until World War II, the US maintained a strictly isolationist policy and avoided becoming enmeshed in the endless wars which engaged much of the world. This allowed US money to remain at home and be used to build the infrastructure to support businesses, and to provide a free education to every American who wanted one, at least up to the end of high school, which built the country and made it great.

It can reasonably be argued that since the US became a superpower, and started outspending the rest of the world militarily, that the country at home has gone into decline. The Founders were certainly profoundly opposed to such actions. The whole point of creating the US as an independent country, was to allow the citizens to chart their own course, free of responsibilities for any other country, and to put Americans first. And yet Republicans completely ignore this aspect of Founding Fathers intent when considering today's foreign policy options.

It seems like Republicans are only interested in the Founding Fathers intentions when they think their words can be twisted to support false notions like an unfettered right of gun ownership.

 

[Tom Horn]

The concept of framing one's decisions within the context of your interpretation of the Founders original intent is open to much criticism. The Founders created a framework for the governance of 13 Colonies with a total population of 2.5 million people. To suggest that the document is infallible, or not subject to interpretation within the contexts of a population in excess of 300 million, is ridiculous.

Even the Founders acknowledged that the Constitution would need to be amended with the times. Sadly, little has been done to update the rights of individuals since women received the right to vote. Most of the work done in supporting and enhancing the rights of individuals in accordance with changing times, has been done by the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the general principles set out in the Constitution.

It should also be pointed out that the Founders were very much opposed to the country becoming involved in world politics, and participating in the endless wars going on in Europe and Asia. Until World War II, the US maintained a strictly isolationist policy and avoided becoming enmeshed in the endless wars which engaged much of the world. This allowed US money to remain at home and be used to build the infrastructure to support businesses, and to provide a free education to every American who wanted one, at least up to the end of high school, which built the country and made it great.

It can reasonably be argued that since the US became a superpower, and started outspending the rest of the world militarily, that the country at home has gone into decline. The Founders were certainly profoundly opposed to such actions. The whole point of creating the US as an independent country, was to allow the citizens to chart their own course, free of responsibilities for any other country, and to put Americans first. And yet Republicans completely ignore this aspect of Founding Fathers intent when considering today's foreign policy options.

It seems like Republicans are only interested in the Founding Fathers intentions when they think their words can be twisted to support false notions like an unfettered right of gun ownership.

First off you've apparently forgotten we fought WW1 in France to eject the Kaiser's forces. WW2 was the result of idiotic way WW1 was ended.

As to your view of the Constitution, it is a DEAD document as Scalia called it. It is and must be interpreted through the eyes of those who wrote and ratified it. It is what is and was always intended to be. It is our cornerstone and not subject to the whims of the times. You leftists don't believe in it when it crosses paths with your views; ie the Second Amendment. As to "foreign entanglements", the Founders knew we couldn't operate as an entity onto ourselves without trade with the rest of the world. That trade was based on our merchant ships having protection from our naval forces. That is where our projection of power began outside the continental United States.

As to Amendments, they are and always were intended to show and set boundaries as to the limits and constraints our government had and could exercise over us citizens. It's now gotten to the point where there can never be another Amendment because to convene a Constitutional Convention would be suicidal....it would never adjourn. Every lunatic and crackpot organization would make it an endless referendum on everything imaginable.

And finally, it's the conservatives, not the despicable leftists, who preach independence and individuality instead of the rote-speech of political correctness and preaching of "diversity" on our college campuses. UNIVERSITY is the enemy of diversity and America is and always will be the melting pot of the world's cultures....with the caveat that the people speak American and abide by our legal system. Your messiah tried to change all that and has done great harm to us...he'll not get the chance to stack the Court to ensure his ugly legacy will be codified into law we can't rid ourselves of.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a reason......We the People elected him

"we" including illegals, dead people, cartoon characters, and the brain-dead your public schools have produced voting for the charlatan you call a president. Sorry, his words meant nothing...his actions are LOUD and CLEAR...he's tried to ruin this country and will not be given the chance to codify his illegal actions into permanent law.

Nonsense

 

[IcebergSlim]

Pace yourself, son.......You're in for a long year.....

Roger that, Slim....a real long year especially after Hilly is indicted for espionage.

When that fails to transpire will you occupy a bird sanctuary in protest?

 

[IcebergSlim]

And?

And what? He's a leftist and young enough to last for years.....no sale.

I'm looking for a viable argument. Can you prove he is a leftist?

I'm withdrawing my capitulation on this guy....he IS an Hussein appeals court appointee and also worked PRO BONO for the charlatan algore....facts you somehow omitted from your wiki profile....tsk tsk.

What was the vote count on his confirmation to the appeals court?

 

[IcebergSlim]

There is a reason......We the People elected him

"we" including illegals, dead people, cartoon characters, and the brain-dead your public schools have produced voting for the charlatan you call a president. Sorry, his words meant nothing...his actions are LOUD and CLEAR...he's tried to ruin this country and will not be given the chance to codify his illegal actions into permanent law.

Would you name the last POTUS for whom you voted?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Can you present a viable argument against Srinivasan?

Another solicitor general like Kegan who was born in INDIA? please....

Scalia figured that as senior adviser to the new president, I might have some influence on the decision -- or at least enough to pass along a message. "I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."

A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again. "Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

David Axelrod: A surprise request from Justice Scalia - CNN.com

 

[Care4all]

"The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong – the president is not 'stacking' the Court.

Indeed, if Senate republicans were smart they'd quickly confirm Obama's nominee, as the long-term ideological makeup of the Court will not be determined by such an appointment, that will be determined by the next president, who will make at least four appointments to the Court during his or her time in office.

Why on earth would we give that lame-duck fool another pick? We'll still be able to replace retiring or dead Justices in the coming years without doing that.

you are not using ''lame duck'' correctly Tom, nor are the republican candidates mouthing off... they are intentionally deceiving you...

A Lame-Duck President, is a President in his final days in office AFTER A NEW PRESIDENT has been elected in the November elections. So from November through the January inauguration.

This President isn't even close to his "lame-duck" period of the Presidency.

the ONLY reason the Republican candidates are making up all of these LIES and calling Obama a Lame Duck President nearly a year ahead of time, is because they believe it will help one of the Republican establishment candidates win the nomination over Trump....if this appointment has to be made by the new President.

It's all political shenanigans by the Republican candidates.... to hell with the country, to hell with the constitution...

THIS IS CLEAR AS DAY. Wake up!

 

[dilloduck]

"The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong – the president is not 'stacking' the Court.

Indeed, if Senate republicans were smart they'd quickly confirm Obama's nominee, as the long-term ideological makeup of the Court will not be determined by such an appointment, that will be determined by the next president, who will make at least four appointments to the Court during his or her time in office.

Why on earth would we give that lame-duck fool another pick? We'll still be able to replace retiring or dead Justices in the coming years without doing that.

you are not using ''lame duck'' correctly Tom, nor are the republican candidates mouthing off... they are intentionally deceiving you...

A Lame-Duck President, is a President in his final days in office AFTER A NEW PRESIDENT has been elected in the November elections. So from November through the January inauguration.

This President isn't even close to his "lame-duck" period of the Presidency.

the ONLY reason the Republican candidates are making up all of these LIES and calling Obama a Lame Duck President nearly a year ahead of time, is because they believe it will help one of the Republican establishment candidates win the nomination over Trump....if this appointment has to be made by the new President.

It's all political shenanigans by the Republican candidates.... to hell with the country, to hell with the constitution...

THIS IS CLEAR AS DAY. Wake up!

no it's not----there are different definitions of the term Lame duck
here's another ...

an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor.

We are currently in the election process which will choose a successor

 

[Care4all]

"The GOP "Establishment" Will Keep Obama From Stacking The Court"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong – the president is not 'stacking' the Court.

Indeed, if Senate republicans were smart they'd quickly confirm Obama's nominee, as the long-term ideological makeup of the Court will not be determined by such an appointment, that will be determined by the next president, who will make at least four appointments to the Court during his or her time in office.

Why on earth would we give that lame-duck fool another pick? We'll still be able to replace retiring or dead Justices in the coming years without doing that.

you are not using ''lame duck'' correctly Tom, nor are the republican candidates mouthing off... they are intentionally deceiving you...

A Lame-Duck President, is a President in his final days in office AFTER A NEW PRESIDENT has been elected in the November elections. So from November through the January inauguration.

This President isn't even close to his "lame-duck" period of the Presidency.

the ONLY reason the Republican candidates are making up all of these LIES and calling Obama a Lame Duck President nearly a year ahead of time, is because they believe it will help one of the Republican establishment candidates win the nomination over Trump....if this appointment has to be made by the new President.

It's all political shenanigans by the Republican candidates.... to hell with the country, to hell with the constitution...

THIS IS CLEAR AS DAY. Wake up!

no it's not----there are different definitions of the term Lame duck
here's another ...

an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor.

We are currently in the election process which will choose a successor

NO, Dillo.... your definition posted is the same meaning and same thing I posted....

It specifically states the lame-duck period is the election of a new President or new Congress, (in November) and the inauguration of the new President or new congress. (in January)....

It does not and never has, meant the election process or primary process....

You are making that crud up...

 

[Tom Horn]

The classic definition of "lame duck" is when a president is no longer feared/capable of retribution on his political opponents. It has no time-frame in particular, usually meaning toward the end (last months) of his term and leaving office.