Pop quiz: Do you know what that is? I actually hope you do not because that might explain why you think the cartoon's anything but eye-poppingly stupid.
Do you think that the cartoon is suggesting Scalia wrote the US constitution?
Pop quiz: Do you know what that is? I actually hope you do not because that might explain why you think the cartoon's anything but eye-poppingly stupid.
Pop quiz: Do you know what that is? I actually hope you do not because that might explain why you think the cartoon's anything but eye-poppingly stupid.
Pop quiz: Do you know what that is? I actually hope you do not because that might explain why you think the cartoon's anything but eye-poppingly stupid.
I'm surprised Trump hasn't been mentioned as a possible Justice.I know he'd have a lot of support here,but I think you have to be a member of Congress to vote to appoint him,so everyone will just have to be content with voting for him in the election.
When he makes himself Fuhrer it won't matter one bit.
I'm surprised Trump hasn't been mentioned as a possible Justice.I know he'd have a lot of support here,but I think you have to be a member of Congress to vote to appoint him,so everyone will just have to be content with voting for him in the election.
The political season never ends. Using this definition we will never have another nominee.
I guess I could see a limit somewhere pretty much at the election. Even then I'd say on November 1, the President is the president and he gets the nomination. The Senate can reject the nomination when the hearings roll around the following year and the new sitting pres would get to name a nominee at that point. Or, the senate could confirm if the nominee is worthy (which I'd say is a 99% probability), and then the letter of the constitution has still been followed.
Biden/Shumer/Cruz/Rubio/EVERYONE who has said the president should not make a nomination are wrong. They are simply playing politics and hoping for an emotional call that goes their way. This is bad form from both sides when they do it.
The Senate can conduct the hearings on a schedule of its choosing. The hearings can straddle the election if need be. There is absolutely no reason to wait, but if there were they could drag their feet all they like, filibuster the approval hearings, or reject the nominee outright with all the usual grandstanding and character assassination,
This is all partisan rah-rah dressed up as solemn patriotism. Can't see how anybody involved thought we wouldn't see thru it.
There is a lot mental gymnastics and impressive verbage going on here when these 2 responses would have sufficed quite nicely......interesting and perhaps a microcosm of why we are getting nowhere with our present governmental and electoral process. I too echo what a couple here have said about our political landscape and governing style more closely resembling the contentious nature of a sports contest as opposed to elected representatives attempting to do what they believe is right for all. In other words, its all bullshit.
Ya really don't get it. I'm just analyzing what Biden said, not taking sides with it or against it.
I get it just fine. You are just like the politicians you abhor, you pick and choose the bits and pieces of any situation to fit the narrative you are pushing at the moment. Good on you for picking up a new skill, unfortunately, it is something that you claim to hate (when it suits you). kurtster wrote:
Here is my definitive take on the matter 4 days ago replying to a steeler reply to sird. I'll save the backscrolling for ya ...
So Schumer, or Obama, or Biden? With your twisting and turning it's hard to figure out what you think is definitive. I'm pretty sure you think Obama and the Dems are always wrong, except when they make a point you are on for the day, but in a gotcha kind of way. I'm fairly sure you would have been solidly against this idea 8 years ago.
I think my offer is better (and more constitutionally sound) than Biden's. But hey, if you want to team up with uncle Joe, be my guest.
Ya really don't get it. I'm just analyzing what Biden said, not taking sides with it or against it.
Here is my definitive take on the matter 4 days ago replying to a steeler reply to sird. I'll save the backscrolling for ya ...
kurtster wrote:
steeler wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
Close enough to warrant an official regret from the White House:
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," White House spokesman John Earnest said about President Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "Looking back on it, the president believes he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits." Josh Earnest White House spokesman
It was Chuck Schumer who had the exact same position that that Bush should not be allowed to nominate until next election, Obama decided to go this way.
That's not how Obama explained his willingness to filibuster the nomination of Alito (and vote against cloture) in the clip that you linked. I am not at all saying that there have not been politics played on both sides of the aisle during the past few decades. As you point out, the Obama administration has acknowledged that (although, obviously, it is in their interest now to do so). I have commented in the past that past giants of the Supreme Court, such as Thurgood Marshall, and Scalia himself, would have no chance of getting on the Supreme Court today. We need to think hard about that because we, the public, are the ones demanding that a conservative/liberal litmus test be applied. What is clear is that the Constitution aimed at insulating the Justices from exactly this kind of fray. So, it is espeically ironic — to me, at least — that those who regularly bray about following the letter of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers wojuld be unabashedly making the argument that the public should be allowed to indirectly vote on the nomination to replace Scalia because of his importance to conservative legal principles and the balance of the court. Where is anything like that in the Constitution? Maybe I should be asking Senator Cruz. :)
(to steeler) I saw your earlier similar remark and agree with you.
I can only offer extenuating circumstances to justify waiting.
I see an elevated conflict of interest with Obama nominating someone who will be weighing in on so many of Obama's own actions, executive orders, and regulations that have caused Constitutional Crisis among other things. We heard that Kagan would be recusing herself on some cases. It didn't happen.
I say the political season begins when a thread on RP is first constructed with a candidates name and potential election year in the title. Therefore I could go start a topic titled "Adam Levine - 2032" and practically guarantee that the supreme court would be down to five and that Hillary wouldn't be able to nominate any future justices.
Which is about as constitutionally valid as your "first vote makes a season/campaign" dogma.
Just playin the hand that Biden dealt with his own words.
Bomb away if it makes you feel better. I guess you missed my post where I declared myself a pragnostic, but not in the religious sense ...
No he was asking that the process be left up to a lame duck Senate session to confirm, after the elections are over, which is bad at any level.
Two phrases are key. "political season" and "election campaign". In a highly considered prepared and "pragmatic" response, I take those two key terms to be very definitive and finite assuming they zero in and define the same thing ... the period in between the first and last votes cast during a prezidential election year. That would mean to me, at least, the time between the Iowa caucuses and the final vote in November. No sliding scale as you insist.
What say you ?
I say the political season begins when a thread on RP is first constructed with a candidates name and potential election year in the title. Therefore I could go start a topic titled "Adam Levine - 2032" and practically guarantee that the supreme court would be down to five and that Hillary wouldn't be able to nominate any future justices.
Which is about as constitutionally valid as your "first vote makes a season/campaign" dogma.
I got a couple F-bombs ready to go, but first, look up the word "pragmatic" and tell me you understand it. You can't. Your brain is squirmin' like a toad. I'll type slower so you can maybe keep up: Biden is saying a nomination in the 3rd quarter of an election year would be a circus: A distraction from the important business of choosing the president. So his pragmatic conclusion (sorry for that big word again)(you looked it up, right?) is that the appointment should happen after the election. But certainly before the president leaves office. He was not in any way suggesting the appointment be left for the next president to make.
Bomb away if it makes you feel better. I guess you missed my post where I declared myself a pragnostic, but not in the religious sense ...
No he was asking that the process be left up to a lame duck Senate session to confirm, after the elections are over, which is bad at any level.
Two phrases are key. "political season" and "election campaign". In a highly considered prepared and "pragmatic" response, I take those two key terms to be very definitive and finite assuming they zero in and define the same thing ... the period in between the first and last votes cast during a prezidential election year. That would mean to me, at least, the time between the Iowa caucuses and the final vote in November. No sliding scale as you insist.
Details, details.
