Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 8:13 am
GGPViper wrote:
Here is what Obama has revealed about his upcoming nominee (from SCOTUSBLOG):
Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-res ... seriously/
Intentionally vague, of course (he himself refers to it as "spoiler-free"), but the reference to an impeccable/sterling record goes well with my previous suggestion of Sri Srinivasan, who was unanimously approved by the Senate for his current position as DC Circuit judge.
Furthermore, Obama appears to have the public on his side when it comes to the question of nomination:
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/ ... t-nominee/
The key issue here is that a majority of Independent voters want the Senate to act on the Supreme Court nominee. As such, McConnell's decision to block the appointment may end up being a costly strategy for the GOP in the 2016 Presidential and Senate elections.
Barack Obama wrote:
First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.
Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-res ... seriously/
Intentionally vague, of course (he himself refers to it as "spoiler-free"), but the reference to an impeccable/sterling record goes well with my previous suggestion of Sri Srinivasan, who was unanimously approved by the Senate for his current position as DC Circuit judge.
Furthermore, Obama appears to have the public on his side when it comes to the question of nomination:
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/ ... t-nominee/
The key issue here is that a majority of Independent voters want the Senate to act on the Supreme Court nominee. As such, McConnell's decision to block the appointment may end up being a costly strategy for the GOP in the 2016 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think it is mostly wishful thinking, good luck trying to run in swing states with the looming SC nomination because people aren't stupid and know the implications. When it is framed as Obama trying to take our rights away, it will easy. This will energize conservative voters even more who are turning out in record numbers at the polls and dominate in terms of voter enthusiasm. This won't lose the GOP a single election, it might cost some swing state Dems theirs.
25 Feb 2016, 9:59 am
25 Feb 2016, 10:02 am
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 10:14 am
25 Feb 2016, 1:15 pm
25 Feb 2016, 1:22 pm
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 3:16 pm
25 Feb 2016, 3:22 pm
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 4:14 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Feb 2016, 4:28 pm
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 4:38 pm
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
It's checks and balances, the Supreme Court which appoints judges for life is the jurisdiction of the congress which sets the number of judges with the Senate having final say on who gets approved. The president being able to just unilaterally name people to the court would be a fast track to tyranny. The GOP if they wanted could pass a law(Obama wouldn't sign it of course) saying not to fill the next 3 vacancies on the court whenever those judges retires which is what happened after the Civil War. Obama really is powerless, the only thing he can do here is just offer up names that the senate might be tempted to think twice about denying like they are currently doing with The Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval.
The Democratic Party isn't powerless either, they could take the Senate and block any Republican nomination. Let's see how they like it when the other side acts like a petulant child.
they can try, that's why we have elections luckily we have one this November lets have nice clean honest fight and then the winner goes the spoils Obama can have his nominee considered the day after the Democrats win November if that happens sit tight
what if the senate holds GOP while a dem gets elected, how long will the senate sit on its hands? forever? what will it do for them if they continue refusing to work with the democrats?
Brian Sandoval can fly thru confirmations then cementing Obama's legacy for decades
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Feb 2016, 4:43 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Brian Sandoval can fly thru confirmations then cementing Obama's legacy for decades
what happens if the GOPers continue to cut off their noses to spite their faces? [IOW reject one of their own for consideration]
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 4:47 pm
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Brian Sandoval can fly thru confirmations then cementing Obama's legacy for decades
what happens if the GOPers continue to cut off their noses to spite their faces? [IOW reject one of their own for consideration]
then it was a gamble that they lost, it's one they can win too
the American people will decide
I think the Democrats should think long and hard about having Hillary as the nominee because I see a Reagan-esqe landslide on the horizon.
25 Feb 2016, 4:51 pm
Jacoby wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Brian Sandoval can fly thru confirmations then cementing Obama's legacy for decades
what happens if the GOPers continue to cut off their noses to spite their faces? [IOW reject one of their own for consideration]
then it was a gamble that they lost, it's one they can win too
the American people will decide
I think the Democrats should think long and hard about having Hillary as the nominee because I see a Reagan-esqe landslide on the horizon.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Feb 2016, 4:55 pm
Jacoby wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Brian Sandoval can fly thru confirmations then cementing Obama's legacy for decades
what happens if the GOPers continue to cut off their noses to spite their faces? [IOW reject one of their own for consideration]
then it was a gamble that they lost, it's one they can win too the American people will decide I think the Democrats should think long and hard about having Hillary as the nominee because I see a Reagan-esqe landslide on the horizon.
unfortunately, you are probably right about hillary. I see a humiliating 20+ point landslide reminiscent of McGovern in '72. it will set back the cause of female presidents for a generation or more. damn. and it is all because of dems who refuse to get their collective @$$es off the GD couch, put down the beer and VOTE. why can't they be motivated to vote like GOPers?
don't they know if they don't choose the lesser of two evils, that the greater of two evils will happen? why can't they understand that? when they cancel healthcare for the working class with prejudice, I might as well just take a long walk off a short pier.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
25 Feb 2016, 5:06 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Alabama Supreme Court - Embryo is a child |
01 Mar 2024, 1:51 am |
| Which court card best describes YOU? |
16 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
| Israel and the International Criminal Court |
13 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm |
| US Court Sides With Transgender Athlete Against WV Ban |
19 Apr 2024, 4:57 pm |
