SCOTUS after Scalia
#121
Posted 2016-February-25, 10:52
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#122
Posted 2016-February-25, 11:50
kenberg, on 2016-February-25, 10:29, said:
Watching all this from the outside is incredibly depressing. Do your politicians not care at all about how much disrepute they bring their profession into? Are they really naïve enough to believe it will all stick to the other side rather than the whole political process? Or is this just an example of the "we are right so we can justify doing anything" attitude that the US sometimes appears to display towards the rest of the world?
#123
Posted 2016-February-25, 11:59
WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:
Both are reasons.
Please keep in mind even in your own country of the UK there are discussions, very serious discussions of destroying the UK as we know it today and replacing it with something else or several something elses. These sorts of things happen all the time in history even in 2016.
#124
Posted 2016-February-25, 12:32
WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:
We've had congressional gridlock for at least the past two administrations, so obviously they don't care.
I've heard some opinions that the GOP is bluffing, and will back down when Obama actually presents him. It's easy to be boisterous now, but it would be political suicide to actually go through with it. It's like when they hold the budget hostage and threaten government shutdowns.
#125
Posted 2016-February-25, 13:01
WellSpyder, on 2016-February-25, 11:50, said:
Incredibly depressing from here as well.
People often bemoan the lack of compromise. True enough, but I want to make a distinction.
If people treat others with respect, often they can come up with something that is better than what either or any would have come up with on their own. This is more than a compromise where each side gives in some, it becomes a solution that all parties can agree is better all around than what anyone had suggested at the beginning.
This simply cannot happen in the current climate and we are all worse off for it.
Very depressing.
#126
Posted 2016-February-25, 16:07
barmar, on 2016-February-25, 12:32, said:
My guess is, they will go ahead and hold a hearing and even a vote. Of course, controlling the senate, they know that the vote will not pass. But this way they can claim how noble and responsible they were, setting aside the extremism endemic in their party to do their constitutional duty. Or so they want us to think. But actually confirming anyone is not in the cards.
As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.
-gwnn
#127
Posted 2016-February-25, 16:22
Personally, I hope the GOP gets gutted, as I hate to think I could live in a country that would actually elect any of the current crop of GOP candidates.
#128
Posted 2016-February-25, 16:47
billw55, on 2016-February-25, 16:07, said:
As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.
I bet if they do hold a full vote, the person will be confirmed. I think if they hold full hearings they will have a vote on the floor of the senate. Assuming the guy or gal is not a mass murderer or card carrying socialist, they get in if they hold hearings.
THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in.
#129
Posted 2016-February-25, 17:51
mike777, on 2016-February-25, 16:47, said:
THat means the real battle will be between doing nothing or give in.
So a short list of disqualifcations:
Mass murderer
Card carrying Socialist
Anything else? Multiple personality disorder? Once smoked marijuana?
I am joking of course. Or am I? Time will tell.
#130
Posted 2016-February-26, 11:52
billw55, on 2016-February-25, 16:07, said:
As an alternate theory, perhaps their great fear is that an actual vote would result in a confirmation - exposing the lack of unity if their party. It would not take very many rebellious R senators for this to happen. Hence they must obstruct in order both to prevent a confirmation, and hide their growing weakness.
That's why many are saying that Obama needs to nominate a centrist -- someone the GOP would have a hard time objecting to. So if they do vote him down, it will be obvious that it was done to be obstructionist, just like threatening not to have a vote at all.
#131
Posted 2016-March-03, 19:36
#132
Posted 2016-March-03, 22:11
Quote
And we can watch the spreading panic in a corporate world no longer certain that business has five reliable friends at the court. Last Friday, Dow Chemical agreed to settle a class-action price-fixing case for $835 million rather than take its chances in a Scalia-less court. The company’s appeal of a $1.06 billion jury verdict in a long-running antitrust case, brought by purchasers of urethane, had been pending at the court since last March. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death means an “increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in class action suits,” Dow said in a statement announcing the decision to settle.
There will be more such turnabouts — appeals withdrawn, appeals not filed — as players for whom the Supreme Court status quo almost always brought good news recalculate their risks and cut their losses. I picture the Beltway now as a giant poker game, a fitting memorial to the poker-loving justice.
Because no one knows what happens next. Hearing what the new court sounds like is a far cry from knowing what it will look like six months, nine months, a year or more from now. We don’t know, and neither do the eight justices. It’s a rare moment that finds the court and the public stumbling around behind the same veil of ignorance. Just as advocates and their clients have to make strategic calculations, so do the justices. The stakes couldn’t be higher on either side of the bench.
#133
Posted 2016-March-17, 14:39
But now we must get back to reality. Too bad.
#134
Posted 2016-March-18, 11:27
#135
Posted 2016-March-18, 15:56
barmar, on 2016-March-18, 11:27, said:
If the Dems take control of the Senate, and do confirm, that, to me, is a "let the people speak" scenario.
#136
Posted 2016-March-18, 17:59
Just fantasizing of course. Good God, I hope so anyway. I think a necessary personal trait for success in politics is to be incapable of feeling embarrassment, no matter your actions.
#138
Posted 2016-March-29, 14:12
#139
Posted 2016-April-06, 10:02
#140
Posted 2016-April-06, 11:22
Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-06, 10:02, said:
This is great!
My mother once explained the care with which they chose my name. It was her opinion that the political chances of Robert A Taft were hampered by his initials.
In the laugh or cry department, this is from today's WaPo
I quote:
Quote
“I began to chase Merrick down, narrowing the lead to about five yards with about 70 yards to go,” Fred Eisenhammer, who went to day camp with Garland, wrote recently in the Chicago Tribune. “Merrick cut to the left in front of me before veering back on course. I staggered to avoid crashing into him” and never caught up.
The accuser acknowledged that the “adult leader” did not disqualify Garland’s relay team. But still: “Did Merrick Garland get away with something during that relay race?” Eisenhammer asked. “Was it intentional?”
It may be time to empanel a select committee.
I can see how this disqualifies the Chicago Tribune from being taken seriously, and I would hope that Mr. Eisenhammer receives all of the publicity that this piece entitles him to, but good grief.
As I get it, Merrick Garland's only failing is that he is not an ideologue. Apparently this is a serious shortcoming today.