Was that a reply to me? It doesn't really look like one.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 23/02/2016 08:08:28 PM
View original postThe Constitution doesn't say the Senate has to vote on appointments. That's your first error. The sum and substance of what Article II, Section 2, says about appointments to high offices is as follows:
When did I even mention the Constitution? I had no idea, nor claimed to, what the Constitution said on the matter. You raise an interesting point in suggesting the Senate could in fact propose a candidate itself, but in recent history the basic concept of presidents nominating candidates who are then confirmed or rejected by the Senate seems fairly well-established.
View original postObama didn't stop there, though. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to filibuster Alito's appointment, even though there were nearly 3 years left before Bush left the White House. I am aware that on or about February 16, 2016, he expressed "regret" for this. If you're like me, you're going to treat Obama's ex post facto "regret" over this statement like the self-serving political statement it is - he had ten years and 21 days to clear up the record but only seemed to feel a pressing need to do so after Justice Scalia was dead and his statements could come back to haunt him.
I'm well aware Obama has rarely shown any inclination towards real bipartisanship or productive cooperation with Republicans, either before or after his election, despite his rhetoric during that campaign. No argument from me there.
View original postI think we are all well aware that if Obama were to choose a conservative justice who believes in legal principles similar to those espoused by Scalia, or even, honestly someone closer to the center but on the right, the Senate would take the time to review the candidate properly and hold a vote. However, we know that Obama won't do that. I am not even sure Obama will pick the most qualified person for the job. I think he will pick a moderately qualified person who is also (X), where X=some targeted ethnic or religious group that Obama wants to see represented on the court, because the phrase "identity politics" is a fair summation of the Obama Presidency's approach to race relations. Incidentally, I think it's a large part of why race relations seem to have deteriorated in America.
That first sentence - not if you go by McConnell's initial stance. Whether you agree or not, it was a political blunder, confirming the Obama message of Republicans being instinctively and automatically opposed to literally everything he does, regardless of its merits. If nothing else, it gives Obama a free pass on nominating anyone he likes without the Republicans being able to criticize him for his choice.
I don't know if Obama will pick the most qualified person, either. Whoever he picks is unlikely to be able to fill Scalia's shoes either in the quality of writing or the quality of judgements - as a European used to civil law, when it comes to judicial philosophy, I identify more easily with the supposedly conservative view on the Constitution which refuses to read things into it that it patently doesn't say. Gay marriage is a good thing, but the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is nonsense. As a bonus, having more people with such views on the Court would also reduce the partisan aspect of SC nominations as personal opinions of judges would simply not matter as much.
View original postThe Republicans are certainly not going too far. Politics is first and foremost about power, and secondarily about ideology. Ceding Scalia's seat would upset the entire power balance in American politics, and Republicans will (and should) take any steps that are not unambiguously illegal in order to stop Obama on this issue. Democrats can come up with 500 wonderful arguments (though I note they have yet to come up with one even remotely compelling one) purely and logically set forth, with all the rhetorical eloquence that they can muster, and it will not change A DAMN THING. We will fight them on the land, we will fight them on the sea, we will fight them in the Congress, we will fight them in the courts, we will fight them in the counties, we will fight them in the cities, in the fields and streets and we will never surrender.
I agree with you that an Obama nominee would certainly shift the Court to the left, and that Republicans would be fools to let that happen when they have decent odds of being able to avoid it by winning in November. But they should've waited for his pick before starting the fight - or in any case, announce their opposition to only liberal candidates in advance, rather than their opposition to any candidate at all.
republicans ironically ask Obama to ignore Constitution
- 18/02/2016 07:29:28 PM
588 Views
Uh...
- 18/02/2016 08:32:02 PM
429 Views
Re: Uh...
- 18/02/2016 10:59:27 PM
508 Views
Get out the echo chamber. Only far left think republicans will be punished for not filling the seat *NM*
- 19/02/2016 02:07:08 PM
204 Views
Once again, are you insane, stupid or a liar?
- 23/02/2016 01:18:34 AM
455 Views
I believe part of this whole debate was...
- 23/02/2016 07:43:53 AM
377 Views
If you want to ignore precedents, maybe your argument starts to make a bit of sense...well, no.
- 23/02/2016 02:50:47 PM
463 Views
Was that a reply to me? It doesn't really look like one.
- 23/02/2016 08:08:28 PM
531 Views
There is so much wrong with one of your statement
- 22/02/2016 07:32:16 PM
674 Views
You didn't cite examples of the last year of Eisenhower's presidency, which is the point
- 23/02/2016 12:56:36 AM
366 Views
Actually I did, maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit *NM*
- 23/02/2016 01:59:36 AM
180 Views
I know numbers real good. Not one of the Eisenhower citations was in 1960, his last year in office. *NM*
- 24/02/2016 02:02:07 AM
183 Views
Democrats after years of being accused of ignoring the Constitution still have not read it
- 19/02/2016 02:05:07 PM
380 Views
Well, he's ignored it this long so he might as well keep ignoring it.
- 19/02/2016 06:54:02 PM
402 Views