DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 579
6 members and 573 guests
GRN96WS6, nootherids, Sal_the_man, Slider, tonetone, TonUp
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Justice Scalia Passes, SCOTUS Judges Now 4:4 Progressive -vs- Conservative
Unread
  (#1)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Justice Scalia Passes, SCOTUS Judges Now 4:4 Progressive -vs- Conservative - February 14, 2016, 01:24 PM

Well, this is a particular interesting happenstance. I thought Kennedy or Ginsburg would have passed next, or maybe Breyer. Scalia was certainly not on the top of my list.


But in an already contentious election cycle, this has ramped things up yet another notch.

I'd love to see the creative justifications the Senate Republicans manage to gin up to condone derailing the Justice System and Supreme Court for over a year. Thus far they have publicly stated that they will outright refuse to schedule any nomination confirmation hearings on the Senate for floor until a new President is elected and any attempt to bring it up through a bill or motion will be filibustered to death.

However this stance could also backfire in their face. 24 Republican Senate seats are up for re-election compared to just 10 for the Democrats. This particular position could be repaid in punishment at the polls.

As if the Republicans don't already face a climate where many feel they tamper with the Justice system and there are in fact two class based Justice systems, something which has been the foundational point of many of the latest civil protest and unrest.

Could they [McConnell et al] possibly demonstrate that they are any more tone-deaf. It's like rolling back to the clock to 2012/13 when Boehner and Cantor held the government hostage.



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,984
Join Date: October 1, 2002
February 14, 2016, 09:52 PM

80 years or precedent counts for nothing then?

Awful lot of revisionist history in this post when it comes to the government shut down. Everything was funded except fot the ACA in the passed House bill. The Senate, democratically controlled, chose not to vote on the authorization.

"Give me a clean" bill as the edict issued by Reid. Since when is it considered unclean to not give the President and Reid everything they want? This was not the first example of legislating by appropriation and for an administration that has bypassed congress and the constitution on the regular to take issue with it is the defining of irony.

Nothing like downgrading the credit of the US based on lies to get your way.

Secret Docs: Obama Misled Congress On Debt Crisis | The Daily Caller
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,984
Join Date: October 1, 2002
February 14, 2016, 10:52 PM

Oops...

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months - Breitbart

President Obama on filibustering. Must have been okay then. I mean the guys a constitutional scholar (well...not really).

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...-dont-think-so


Back in 2006, while in the Senate, Barack Obama joined 24 other Democrats to try to filibuster the nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito. It was a case of pure partisanship, posturing and brinksmanship, ABC News is reporting.
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
GP Champ
 
windblown's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,953
Join Date: June 17, 2006
Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA
February 15, 2016, 01:54 AM

So the republicans are "tone deaf" because they would prefer to see a conservative judge appointed? Do you think the democrats would accept a conservative judge from a lame duck president in his last year of office with open arms or would they be just as "tone deaf"?

Blackhatch,

Nice post. Most folks don't bother to look past the previous days headlines to get their view of the world and both sides of the isle prefer it that way as it allows them to re-write history over and over again to suit the argument of the moment. The hell with what they said last month if it shoots down what they are trying to slide by the public today!

The Government shutdown was all theatrics with both sides jostling to make the other side look bad for it. The democrats largely won that round and successfully passed the blame for their part in it over to the other side of the isle. I'll give Obama and crew points for doing a better job of shoveling BS than the republicans on that one. Obama in particular made it a much bigger deal than it had to be and punished every citizen in the US in the most public way possible... and successfully blamed that punishment on the republicans.

I guarantee there were some laughs and handshakes going around in the White House for how well the whole thing got played.


There's bold riders and old riders, but damn few bold old riders.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
February 15, 2016, 03:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch View Post
Oops... [URL="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social"]Chuck Schumer in 2007: executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

Black,
I get it, it's good to be read in on the Conservative blogs and websites but they also present a bit of a false narrative.

Schumer, who believe me I'm no fan of, was never the Speaker of the House. He doesn't set the hearing schedule or agenda for Senate, so to compare and cast his calls for a filibuster with McConnell who holds actual legitimate power to do so as one and the same is long stretch.

Point of order, in the second post, this wasn't a wholesale indiscriminate filibuster which is what Mitch wants. It was discreet and targeted only at Alito for reasons that are quite obvious; first, if you recall Bush had nominated Harriet Miers who was wholly inadequate and refused to answer certain questions during the hearings.

Next he ran Altio up the flagpole but he came with his own set of ethical ills after hearing cases for banks and investment firms which he had accounts with and ought to have recused himself. (any surprise the rulings were favorable).

I believe one could see why there would be a call for a filibuster on that particular nominee's hearing.

But the fact remains BOTH of Bush's nominees were given hearings. What the Speaker has articulated is something radically different. He's saying -" I don't care who you nominate, I will not schedule a hearing for another 13 months."



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
February 15, 2016, 03:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by windblown View Post
So the republicans are "tone deaf" because they would prefer to see a conservative judge appointed? Do you think the democrats would accept a conservative judge from a lame duck president in his last year of office with open arms or would they be just as "tone deaf"? .
With 11 months remaining in a Presidency, it's little premature to start up the lame duck talk.

If this would have been August or September, I probably would have agreed with you, but we're not even out of Q1 and the SC has a full docket of cases.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court. I can't find a clause that says "except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Be that as it may, see my aforementioned post regarding Altio and Miers. Dems may not have opened their arms lovingly, but they opened the door and allowed the nominees to be heard as is protocol and process.

Reps on the other hand are talking about double chaining the doors shut, turning off the lights unplugging the phones, and not taking calls from anyone.

Does that read like doing [your] job? Or following the Constitution? Or not tampering with or hindering the legal process?

Which in conclusion is why I said it comes across as tone deaf - even to their own message; It would prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is empty talk.



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,984
Join Date: October 1, 2002
February 15, 2016, 07:12 AM

Whether it is right or wrong, there is precedent here. In the last 80+ years, a sitting President hasn't put forth a Justice for confirmation in an election year.

I agree with you that I think this could backfire against the Republicans because they suck at getting the right messaging out....always, but the precedent is there.

McConnell did not say anything about the scheduling or filibuster or the like. He said that the people of America should have a say.

To a the extent that Constitution also says....Advice and Consent of the Senate on Justices. Folks tend to leave out that part when talking about this.

The examples of both Schumer and Obama above only serve to point about the dramatic hypocrisy of those in politics and is this case, on the left. All of a sudden...our President (the bullsh*t Constitutional scholar) is now wanting to follow the Constitution.

The man has crapped on nearly every section of it between prosecuting the press, executing Americans abroad, and executive fiat...but now he is a strict Constructionist....? Sorry...sell that false bill of good somewhere else.

This President will go down in history as one of the most lawless and least transparent in history when the annals of history are review.

No Turk...that is Annal....not anal.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,984
Join Date: October 1, 2002
February 22, 2016, 10:15 PM

Oops.

  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
February 22, 2016, 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch View Post
Bruhhhhh.... that's a reach.
Did you see the date stamp on that speech? I know you did. June 25th.

That's about 2 weeks before all of Congress and Senate break for Summer Recess from which they don't return until September, and then the new President is elected in November.

Which only leaves October to coordinate a review and schedule confirmation hearings with both Houses? 1-month to hold reviews, private meetings with all the Senators & Congressmen, and a confirmation hearing for a SCOTUS judge and no time for a 2nd candidate to be fielded if rejected (if necessary)?

It would be a total ramrod...and that's why there was the call to hold over until after the election.


C'mon Hatch even you can honest enough to see that 8 months is more than enough time to review and hold hearings for at least 2 and maybe even 3 judge nominations, but Mcconnell's refusal to scheduling ANYTHING related to SCOTUS is above and beyond the normal puffery and bullshit that goes on over on Constitution Ave. No, this is that pure, high-grade, bullshit partisanship.



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527


Last edited by Heist; February 22, 2016 at 11:07 PM..
  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
GP Champ
 
windblown's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,953
Join Date: June 17, 2006
Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA
February 22, 2016, 11:22 PM

^ lol.

I loved his response when asked about the this speech while GW Bush was in his last year in office.

Biden says that people misunderstood his position on the subject.... Hahahahahaha.

Politicians tell outright lies in every possible sense of the word, except a legal one. Scum, every last one of them that slap on a straight face and tell bald faced lies to the people they claim to represent.


There's bold riders and old riders, but damn few bold old riders.

Last edited by windblown; February 22, 2016 at 11:26 PM..
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,984
Join Date: October 1, 2002
February 22, 2016, 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heist View Post
Bruhhhhh.... that's a reach.
Did you see the date stamp on that speech? I know you did. June 25th.

That's about 2 weeks before all of Congress and Senate break for Summer Recess from which they don't return until September, and then the new President is elected in November.

Which only leaves October to coordinate a review and schedule confirmation hearings with both Houses? 1-month to hold reviews, private meetings with all the Senators & Congressmen, and a confirmation hearing for a SCOTUS judge and no time for a 2nd candidate to be fielded if rejected (if necessary)?

It would be a total ramrod...and that's why there was the call to hold over until after the election.


C'mon Hatch even you can honest enough to see that 8 months is more than enough time to review and hold hearings for at least 2 and maybe even 3 judge nominations, but Mcconnell's refusal to scheduling ANYTHING related to SCOTUS is above and beyond the normal puffery and bullshit that goes on over on Constitution Ave. No, this is that pure, high-grade, bullshit partisanship.
Questions:
  1. Are we in an election year?
  2. Was the beef he had about a June nomination or....an election year nomination (I will give you a hint).
  3. So, if you were attempting to defer a Supreme Court hearing after the political season is underway (see minute mark 1:50)...that is okay.
Come on Heist.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
SRWJTS SGT-At-Arms
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,473
Join Date: October 1, 2002
Location: King George, VA
February 23, 2016, 03:36 AM

"Consent of the senate"

They don't HAVE to confirm shit. im in favor of their obstructionism solely because it'll piss that statist little bitch off


-Fitz

2016 Harley Softail Slim S
2012 Harley Ultra Limited in Ultra Annoying Orange Sold!
2012 V-Strom 1000 Sold!
2009 Buell 1125R Sold!
2005 Superhawk Sold!
2001 Superhawk Abandoned!
1981 CB650C Destroyed!

Brace Yourselves... the cries of "It's too cold to ride" are coming...
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
GP Champ
 
windblown's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,953
Join Date: June 17, 2006
Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA
February 23, 2016, 05:38 AM

As an aside: I have no problem with Obama and other democrats wanting to see a new justice appointed under his watch, it's a natural position for them to take, just as it would be natural for Republicans to want to appoint a justice during the last term of a Republican President.

Obama is correct, the constitution does not say he should not appoint a new Justice during his last year in office. I find it a bit disingenuous that he suddenly leans so heavily on constitutional law when he has spent so much of his time in office pushing against the the boundaries of that same document.

My biggest issue in general and I see it occur on both sides of the isle is when a politician lies about a previous position they held when that position becomes uncomfortable or embarrassing at a future date. I have much more respect for those who when asked will instead tell the truth, if their position changed all they need to do is explain why and allow others decide the merits of their change of heart.

Come on folks, don't you want the people you've elected to control this country to show a bit more integrity regardless of what side of the isle they are on? A friend once told me: Anyone that will lie for you, will lie to you." There is a lot of wisdom in that statement.


There's bold riders and old riders, but damn few bold old riders.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
February 23, 2016, 09:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch View Post
Questions:
  1. Are we in an election year?
  2. Was the beef he had about a June nomination or....an election year nomination (I will give you a hint).
  3. So, if you were attempting to defer a Supreme Court hearing after the political season is underway (see minute mark 1:50)...that is okay.
Come on Heist.
So your agreement with the objection is on the basis of calendar term? Now how much time there is between now and January 22nd, which for all intents and purposes is a working year.


Let's hypothesis that Scalia passed away just after Thanksgiving. Would it then be OK to name a candidate in December because the President isn't in their last calendar year?



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#15)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,592
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
February 23, 2016, 09:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
"Consent of the senate"

They don't HAVE to confirm shit. im in favor of their obstructionism solely because it'll piss that statist little bitch off
I appreciate you being honest about it. I'd respect the turkey necked twerp (McConnell) if just said that rather than try to weasel around by saying it's a term issue.



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.