Scalia

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

For once, I agree completely with the NYT Editorial Board. The Senate should refuse to confirm the President's pick:

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Did you think this was clever?

Why, whatever do you mean?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

[ChiComCat]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice if the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it. I don't think the GOP sees it, either. Which is why even if they've got less than a 50% chance of winning both the WH and Senate in 2016, they just don't seem to have much to lose. Conversely, the gain is that this will galvanize GOP turnout for the 2016 election (more, I think, than it will for the Dems).

[ednksu]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.

The gamble itself is unconstitutional.  The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point."  The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*. 

[MakeItRain]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

He shouldn't have to and frankly he better not choose a moderate appointee. No other current supreme court justice was the byproduct of a political compromise, why would we start now? We heard that stay about Scalia being confirmed 98-0, that said just as much, if not more about the political climate than it did Scalia. Congress is like a petulant child, you don't give them their way when they misbehave. Force them to behave and if they don't they can deal with any potential consequences.

[ednksu]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

He shouldn't have to and frankly he better not choose a moderate appointee. No other current supreme court justice was the byproduct of a political compromise, why would we start now? We heard that stay about Scalia being confirmed 98-0, that said just as much, if not more about the political climate than it did Scalia. Congress is like a petulant child, you don't give them their way when they misbehave. Force them to behave and if they don't they can deal with any potential consequences.

Arguably Kennedy

[michigancat]

 Anthony Kennedy was a compromise from Bork

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.

The gamble itself is unconstitutional.  The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point."  The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.

Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.

By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.

[Kat Kid]

This is basically prisoner's dilemma.

[catastrophe]

Just to clarify for the uninitiated: the president has no constitutional obligation to nominate a new SCOTUS judge and the senate has no constitutional obligation to confirm.

The constitution calls for a Supreme Court. There is no requirement that 9 justices sit on the court, nor has the court always been comprised of 9 justices.

[_33]

If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now.   

Politics.   

[Cire]

I think Obama should nominate and there should be a compromise candidate


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ChiComCat]

If the Republicans don't like the candidate, just vote against confirmation.  The posturing that they don't want Obama to nominate and then they would stall is annoying.  Just do your damn job and if you don't like the candidate, vote against him/her.

[Yard Dog]

https://twitter.com/lindarutter/status/699947031658422272

http://www.youngcons.com/list-of-democrat-senators-who-filibustered-gwbs-final-pick-for-scotus/

[star seed 7]

If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now.   

Politics.   

Not everyone 

[sys]

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

it's even worse than that.  i can't think of any reason why the crats wouldn't fillibuster the crap out of a pub nominee if they lose the presidency.  so even if the pubs hold the senate (if they get a president, they'll almost certainly keep the senate), there's not likely to be any quick resolution that would allow a conservative judge appointment.

[ednksu]

https://twitter.com/lindarutter/status/699947031658422272

http://www.youngcons.com/list-of-democrat-senators-who-filibustered-gwbs-final-pick-for-scotus/

I don't think that author understands who hypocrisy works.  "Any" != one dude, especially when GWB got an appointment.

[ednksu]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.

The gamble itself is unconstitutional.  The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point."  The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.

Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.

By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.

I'll be sure to jerk off a bunch of posts when you want technical instead of colloquial in the future.  By the way, you still didn't deal with any substantive issues in my posts.  I'll take this as your typical bitch made tap out.

[_33]

If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now.   

Politics.   

Not everyone 

ALMOST THOUGH PROBABLY

[slobber]

If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now.   

Politics.   

Not everyone 

ALMOST THOUGH PROBABLY

Moderate dobber would not change his opinion either.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.

Agreed.

if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended.  it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).

Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.

Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.

If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.

Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.

The gamble itself is unconstitutional.  The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point."  The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.

Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.

By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.

I'll be sure to jerk off a bunch of posts when you want technical instead of colloquial in the future.  By the way, you still didn't deal with any substantive issues in my posts.  I'll take this as your typical bitch made tap out.

Everybody got that?

[sonofdaxjones]

Pretty dumb of the 'pubs, they should have just waited to see who Obama trotted out of the judicial stable. 

[MakeItRain]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

[michigancat]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

YES!

Please put one in the White House someday, too.