191–200 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point of Inquiry, Is there a parliamentarian in the house? There may be one or more ways to force McConnell's hand.
The president can use a recess appointment. It would probably end up looking worse than blocking a nomination for 11 months so it seems unlikely, if technically possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dang, could explain the difference between what generic_user and vonnik is doing that prompts the different response? Is it the difference between saying someone is in hell, versus wishing someone were in hell? Or is it the difference between attacking another user vs a third party? Or is it because you think Scalia is a legitimate target of hatred?
The difference is small. vonnik got the flamewar rolling. But I'd say generic_user made it worse in two ways, by upping the rage ante and by making it purely ideological, i.e. completely unmoored from anything factual in the story. Once things get to that point, people are just taking turns bashing each other tribally and trying to outdo the other in venom, and that's always bad for discussion here. My issue has noth…
Am I correct in saying a commenter is only encouraged to praise a person, and if that can't be done, to only describe without opinion?
edit: and to be clear, this is comment is unrelated to the flamewar above
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama. Two words: recess appointment. They've got a recess coming up later this year.
You know they have a trick for that too. Just just put someone there to gavel in each day and they are technically in session. Ironically the court itself ruled that is perfectly okay to do. Senate is the ultimate politics slimebowl of tricks, they are master level.
A dumb hypothetical because this will never happen, but: could Obama nominate himself to replace Scalia? And if the Senate somehow approved him, would he have to resign the presidency to take his spot on the bench? I don't see anything in the eligibility requirements to be President or a judge of the Supreme Court that would suggest an incompatibility. Is there relevant case law?
There's nothing I can think of in the Constitution that prevents serving under the executive and judicial branches simultaneously. In fact, John Marshall did exactly that (Chief Justice & Sec. of State, iirc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a…
> The Commission's hearings spotlighted and this report highlights the harsh reality that despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement and not the dead-heat contest that was the extraordinary feature of the Florida election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"? Is there anyone you would call a terrible person? "No" is an OK answer here. Are any of them people you did not know? Again, "no" is an OK answer here. I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I'm sympathetic to the…
Yes, there are people I think are terrible. Yes, some of them are people I don't know. Would I say it on the day their death was announced? Tougher question. Candidly: if I felt like most of the people calling Scalia a "terrible person" were well acquainted with his work, beyond sound bites like "opposed marriage equality" or "thought we should shoot condemned convicts first and then hear their appeals", I wouldn't c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of histor…
I won't comment as to Scalia's version of history, but I will provide more context for the "sow's ear" comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0 This comment referred specifically to getting a clerkship, and he also admits one of his favorite clerks went to Ohio State. In general it seems, he had a lot of bark, but no real malice, otherwise why would he be good friends with other justices, includi…
Watch his many interviews re torture. The guy was no humanitarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really what that quote says. It sounds more like he is expressing an opinion about what should happen.
He's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. The fact that he said it right away , after two GOP Senators who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty strong indication of what's going to happen.
But the idea that the "American People" wouldn't have a say with an Obama appointment is absurd. He was elected with a clear majority and Presidents are elected for four years, not four years minus whenever the next presidential race gets going.
I know you've expressed elsewhere (edit: in this thread) that Republicans have already made it clear that they won't do an appointment this presidency (and you're probably right that they're trying to set themselves firm in this as quickly as possible), but I can't imagine a scenario where Obama doesn't put forth a nomination post-haste. I also cannot imagine 11 months of blocking a SCOTUS nomination and leaving the court with 8 members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. The fact that he said it right away , after two GOP Senators who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty strong indication of what's going to happen.
Point of Inquiry, Is there a parliamentarian in the house? There may be one or more ways to force McConnell's hand.
In any event any parliamentary ruling is appealable to the floor where it is subject to a majority vote. The is the basis of the so-called nuclear option.
McConnell's hand can be forced if there is a majority willing to do what it takes to force it. If he has the procedural support of his caucus (even if they disagree on the ultimate question) he can prevent a vote from coming to the floor.
Edit: I misread the first sentence. Mea culpa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be interpreted as Republicans shutting down the government... again. Moderates and Independents, and Centrists on both sides tend to strongly dislike that, and it could swing the election to a Democrat victory.
I think it's far easier to sell the argument that the voters should decide on who gets to nominate a replacement for Scalia, than that we should shut down national parks or whatever. These aren't remotely the same type of "shutdown".