Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: New Supreme Court Justice, 2016

  1. #16
    Let them eat cheese flan Nancy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,191
    The rethugs are being awfully short-sighted about this. For one thing, RBG has cancer and might have to stand down soon.

  2. #17
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,194
    One of the things I'm having a hard time with is deciding if things are really as bad as they appear. I thought Reagan was bad, and then Bush was worse, then W the devil incarnate. But somehow new depths of suckitude keep being plumbed. So if I always think they're vile (as a group) and too conservative, am I just having that same reaction now? Or is it truly getting worse? I mean, I was angry when abortion was only for rape, incest, health of mother for some, but now those wingnuts are fairly moderate anti-choice, practically pro-choice. Am I always going to despise the opposition or are they truly drifting so far to the right they can't be saved?

    And as a lifelong northeast liberal, I don't feel that the dems have moved left. Bill Clinton and Obama are more mid-century repubs than democrats. But is it my own bias?

    John McCain is among the senate douches who think obama shouldn't get a new SCJ. Remember when he was a "good" one? I rooted for him all the time pre-2008. I would have even considered voting for him over Bore... I mean Gore. Is he going further to the right personally? Pandering to a base that can't handle the truth? Or just a cranky old man?

    We need the right to keep some of the more ridiculous left policies in check. But not have the inmates run the asylum.

  3. #18
    ANUSTART Lathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [redacted]
    Posts
    3,645
    No Justice for You
    Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have come to a consensus decision to not have hearings or a vote on a Supreme Court nominee in 2016.

    "We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) told reporters Tuesday after a special meeting of the Judiciary Committee.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said members of the panel reached a "consensus" that there should not be hearings or a vote on President Obama's nominee.

    "My decision is that I don't think we should have a hearing. We should let the next president pick the Supreme Court Justice," he said after emerging from a special meeting in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office.
    Anyone want to place their bets as to what excuse they'll shift to once President Sandton is elected? (Or President Clinters?)

    "No hearings until 2020! Or 2024! Because _______"

  4. #19

  5. #20

  6. #21
    And in the evening it's. . . Andrea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Where it's Wild and Wonderful
    Posts
    684
    It's already out. Merrick Garland is the nominee. He's apparently a centrist and "the perfect neutral justice."

  7. #22
    Senior Member Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    5,353
    I have faith in Obama's judgment. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans budge. Based on the fact that their party's in shambles with Trump's ascent, I'd like to think they'll change their minds, but *eye roll*

  8. #23
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea View Post
    It's already out. Merrick Garland is the nominee. He's apparently a centrist and "the perfect neutral justice."
    Not according to this NY Times blog: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...smtyp=cur&_r=0

    His decisions put him to the left of Kagan and slightly right of Ginsburg. I get an "F" for reading comprehension. I don't agree with that chart.

    Judge Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton.
    Appointing president isn't a sure indicator of how he is going to vote, however he would definitely move the court to a more liberal direction.

    If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.
    We'll see what happens. I don't see the GOP budging, even with a Trump nomination. Sadly I really do see the Republican party supporting Trump in the end. I just don't see that many principled people in the party willing to stand up against him.
    Last edited by .chris; 03-16-2016 at 03:52 PM.

  9. #24
    Ugggggghhhhhhh Octopussy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,677
    I'm so sorry for this....

    But.



    Judge Judy Judge Judy Judge Judy

  10. #25
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,194
    It's made Garlands stuck in my head... which isn't terrible. I mean, I'm glad it's not nominee "Fat Slut"...

    I was annoyed at first that he was just another straight, white, conservative man. I wanted Obama to make it a fight, not try to embarrass the GOP while simultaneously giving in to them. But at least he's jewish, so that helps a bit. And his record isn't that bad. I still think he should have swung for the fences but this guy's not bad

  11. #26
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,194
    There hasn’t been a criminal defense lawyer on the Supreme Court in 25 years. That’s a problem.

    There's good reason to be concerned about the jurisprudence of a court that only understands one side of a criminal case from experience — and since the high-water mark of the 1960s, defense lawyers have seen the Supreme Court put serious restrictions on the right against self-incrimination, the right against unreasonable search, and even the right to a lawyer.

    But to many of them, this isn't just a problem with jurisprudence. It's a problem with the Supreme Court in a democracy — and in an increasingly diverse America. They believe the politics of Supreme Court confirmations has limited all but a very narrow, very privileged slice of America to have a shot at a seat on the highest court in the land. And one of the groups who they fear are locked out is the people whose job it is to stand up for the rights of the marginalized — and those who are on the wrong side of well-intentioned laws.

  12. #27
    What, me worry? inexcelsis17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,180
    Obama Just Blasted 8 Years of Republican Obstructionism In Open Letter
    It’s been 202 days since I nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That’s more than five months longer than the average nominee has had to wait over the last 40 years to receive a hearing in Congress – let alone an up or down vote. This delay has nothing to do with Judge Garland’s personality or his qualifications. Senators on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that he is a distinguished legal mind, a dedicated public servant, and a good and decent man.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •