The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005. The reasons for the rejections vary, and include incompetence, inexperience, and impropriety. Most of the rejections, however, reflect in part, or even primarily, a difference between the President and the Senate over whether the nominated justice represents the right ideological choice.........
To that end, IMHO, I feel that the Senate must strive to adhere to Judge Scalia's values when he is replaced, & not merely rubber stamp a presidential nomination because he is the President's choice.
And anyway considering he was a President Reagan man I groan.
That clearly was a "the king[maker] is dead" event. You can spot a succession event by how the usual long-winded eulogies about the deceased's love of children and dogs are largely foregone for the more urgent matter of succession. I liked Hillary Clinton's impromptu trolling of nominating Obama for Supreme Court Justice. It would probably be among the last candidates a President Clinton would pick, but for Candidate Clinton to "endorse" it was very House of Cards (the US version).
I am in a matter of principle a wee bit concerned that there is a very long tradition of appointing "conservative" or "liberal" people to high positions in a legal system as per this thread. It seems an uneasy way of an important matter such as law and order, etc, rather than just experience.
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."
Well I was starting to get fed up with repeated news here about him on our different news programmes. indeed I double-checked to ensure that we were not another new star on the Stars and Stripes. US influence is getting ridiculous! And anyway considering he was a President Reagan man I groan.
Regarding the SCOTUS business, I'd wager that Obama will nominate that Indian-American judge by next Wednesday.
Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2016-02-14, 19:04:25To that end, IMHO, I feel that the Senate must strive to adhere to Judge Scalia's values when he is replaced, & not merely rubber stamp a presidential nomination because he is the President's choice. Let me guess that you're a Republican.
(though as Bush 43 learned, when they get on the Court, they'll do as they please)
Sorry, for the mis-attribution...I suspect President Obama will be disappointed, this time: The "precedent" for waiting until after the election are pretty well established.
If I was advising the Pres., I would advise him to nominate Cruz, because I think that a Trump/Rubio vs. Hillary is a contest the Democrats can win (not that Cruz is such [a] scary opponent, it's just that this way the GOP is locked into nominating Trump.) By taking Cruz out of the running, I would sacrifice one Supreme Court seat but I would gain another four (maybe 8 years) in the Oval Office, which will mean appointing more Supreme Court Justices.
Take a look at what ideological Senate Republicans may be guarding against, and you might see possibilities Democrats ought to consider. One question is, why announce the shut-down of the confirmation process, instead of letting it go forward and rejecting the nominee? A possibility Republicans may fear is that if they vet a nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy, Breyer and Ginsburg might choose to resign immediately, creating two more vacancies for Obama to fill. How might that play out politically? Suppose Obama nominated 3 centrists, all to the right of Kagan and Sotomayor. But he chose them for judicial temperament, and freedom from ideological attachments--nominees with no discernible connection to either Democratic Party ideology, or to movement conservatism. And suppose those nominees were all young, 50 years old, give or take. Maybe an Hispanic, an Asian-American, and a white protestant. If the pendency of those nominees became a huge focus in the upcoming political campaign--and why would it not--how could movement conservatives respond? By mumbling, and trying to run out the clock? While Democratic presidential candidates and senate candidates trumpeted in support of Obama's moderation, and praised his statesmanlike attempt to put partisanship aside? Democrats could campaign to heal the polarization in Washington--making claims which would reap credibility in proportion to the outsized political gesture such appointments would signal. In political terms, that would create an existential threat for movement conservatism. It could deprive the right wing, not just for now, but for decades, of the Supreme Court oxygen it has been angling for, and needs to survive. If Obama and the Democrats could pull it off, they might succeed in recasting Washington politics in a less contentious mold. A moment of that sort may be hovering near. Seems like it might be worth pondering how to make it happen. Some alliance among less-ideological Ds and Rs, maybe?
I read that Obama can nominate himself.... Or even better, to trade his future nomination for his support to the next president, meaning the Hillary woman to nominate him when she's president.It seems that both options would be not seen for the first time.What a circus.
Page created in 0.037 seconds with 27 queries.