Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I could see him going that way. Probably less resistance to Sri, but not much. If he goes anything other than moderate, he won't get the nomination past the Senate.
SCOTUS... a good idea
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bush nominated Souter... in my opinion he was more a moderate prior to joining Scotus... but still
that said... AGAIN, this is more a lesson for discussion. As the author stated, he doesn't expect Obama to do it nor would he expect any other President to do so.
But he is correct in stating it would be a good way to try and bring the two parties back towards the middle.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
It's a typical SF debating tactic.
As soon as the overall weakness of his position becomes apparent, he immediately falls back on the same tired taunts and derision.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
To promote the Constitution.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Ike nominated Warren, Ford nominated Stevens, and Bush Sr nominated Souter.
Delicious irony.
I'm not a Republican, but I'm also not a Democrat. I'm an Independent, and I don't vote on party lines.
I have to say that I find the idea of President Obama appointing someone he would otherwise not appoint in order to appease the Republicans who have fought him tooth-and-nail on every possible issue either through direct confrontation or inaction is a laughable one at best.
President Obama is often painted as a "polarizer," but is he alone? The answer, if you look at everything that has taken place over his two terms to date is rather simple: No.
Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for the political polarization of the nation, and it's not like this hasn't been going on, building to its inexorable climax, since long before the United States of America became a country.
It's simply never been this bad before.
Republicans refuse to come to the table. In this instance, they refused to come to the table before there even WAS a table, McConnell's comments coming less than 24 hours after Justice Scalia was discovered dead.
Republican intransigence was locked and loaded, as it has been for the entirety of this Administration, before there was even a reason to pull the gun out of the holster.
So no, President Obama is not the only "polarizer."
And we deserve an appointment to be put to the Senate and the Senate to do its Constitutional duty to advise and confirm or deny (and yes, it IS a duty, because it's part of their job), because despite what Mitch McConnell has said, the people did indeed speak about who should nominate a Supreme Court Justice and that answer was, until he is no longer President, President Obama.
The real unfortunate side of this is that we will not, as I've mentioned elsewhere, get a new Justice that we are supposed to get - one who will rule objectively and impartially, with only the Constitution in mind - no matter who nominates them.
Why should the Republicans treat the Democrats any better than the Democrats treated the Republicans
Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.
Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283
Did that one take 19 months?
Who gives a fuck.
Sure as long as it is the Dems doing the compromising rigjt Supertool?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The "merit"? He's suggesting that Obama shouldn't name the justice who he sees as the best fit, and instead should pick a conservative, or a placeholder until a conservative might assume the Presidency.
And I'm the apologist. Simply amazing.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Another moron that can't read the article... shocking that it is another liberal that can't comprehend it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes you fucking moron... the merit... the fact that he would fill the position temporarily and yet leave the permanent choice to the next President rather than trying to fill it with another left wing idiot that creates a massive fight in an election year... THAT would have merit. But you are too much of an apologist to realize that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
when is the last time a liberal justice died in the last year of a conservatives tenure?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Such an intellectual response.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Well, the proof is bolded. You're only seeing this from a purely partisan conservative perspective.
You wouldn't make the same argument if the current President was a conservative, and you wouldn't say the article has "merit." Because it makes no sense. The only "crisis" in this that Obama could help avert is 100% a creation by poor conservatives who are panicking because of a court vacancy. We have normal, constitutional procedures in place for such vacancies. The idea that they should be abandoned because it's an 'election year' is silly, and not something mentioned once by the founders of this country.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Goldberg is absolutely insane. Why on god's green earth would a moderately liberal president appoint a conservative justice? Obama has no obligation to pander to the far right. It's not enough that cons are already bashing him and he hasn't done anything. I'd like to know why they think they're entitled to get another con justice after 30 years of Scalia.