Originally Posted By Mr X I get your point Tigg. I just think it'd be weird for a former prez to be a "junior" anything, but anything's possible, I suppose. My thought is, IF a vacancy in the Chief Justice position ever opens up, Obama would fit like a glove, BUT it'd have to be a fairly heavily Democratic Senate or the whole thing'd be a non-starter in this day & age. ***Now, imagine him as a Justice*** Can't. ***The IQ in the Chamber would easily drop by 1/10*** Well, by a full 1/9th anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X I wish him well in his newfound artwork hobby. That's the nicest I can say about that guy.
Originally Posted By oc_dean okay savvy LPers who understand government better than me .... It's up to who ever is the current sitting president to pick a replacement justice .. right? Or should I say "left"? LOL As we have a Democrat currently as president ... he can pick a justice who is also a Democrat, or moderate? NO WAY in hell .. would a Democrat hire a Republican? Or, even, vice versa?
Originally Posted By Mr X "The President shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court" So the President, constitutionally shall nominate and appoint such judges, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. So yeah, the President can pick whoever he wants (hell, he COULD go conservative if he really wanted to), but the Senate has to approve it. With a mixed bag such as we have, it gets ugly. And with this being an untimely situation, and a lame duck President with the clock ticking, it gets ugly as hell. The Senate does seem to have it within their power to sit on this until Obama is out of office. Unusual, and probably semi-unconstitutional, but not unprecedented.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I thought a president could have over-riding power to sign who he/she wants. If it takes the senate ... then I see this dragging on. And if we get a Republican president ... they are going to want a Republican justice. Which I hope doesn't happen. At the very least ... Someone who's moderate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The President nominates someone to the Court and the Senate has to approve the nomination before the new justice takes the seat. Like any position that is selected the President, there is a ready list of nominees. Two top candidates who were Obama nominees for the Court of Appeal and were approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate, both within the last three years, were Sri Srinivasan and Jane Kelly. It would be incredibly hypocritical and dishonest for the Senate to reject either one, but Srinivasan in particular would be hard for them because not only did he work for this Administration as a deputy Solicitor General before the Court he clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor AND worked in Bush II's Administration as an assistant to the Solicitor General. There is nothing wrong with him that either side can point to as a potential Justice, other than he's not a drooling anti-abortionist who wants to condemn all gays to hell. But heaven forbid, he did work on overturning DOMA. THAT can be muted by the fact ALL GOP senators, including Cruz and Rubio, voted for him anyway. As for Kelly, GOP senator Chuck Grassley helped push her through 96-0 in 2013. What's at play here is an unprecedented power play by a group of politicians who purport to swear by the Constitution yet ignore it completely whenever they want. Senator Chuck Schumer challenged Cruz to state where in the Constitution it said Obama can't name a nominee and of course Cruz has no answer. To be fair, Schumer same essentially the same thing back in 2007 when Bush was still in office. However, Schumer was wrong then just as the GOP is wrong now. It never came to pass so it all just amounted to rhetoric in Scumer's part. Moreover, the GOP took the same stance the Democrats are now taking, that this is blind obstructionism and Bush could nominate whoever he wanted. The GOP was correct then just as they are dead wrong now. As for the wholly disingenuous reasoning that it's "owed" to Scalia to let the next President make the choice or that the voters should have a say through voting for the next President first, what utter horsesh!t. The voters DID make that call when Obama was re-elected back in 2012. You re-elect someone for a second term KNOWING that's it for him, and all manner of political decisions could or would have to be made up until the moment the next one is sworn in. Nowhere does it say "except for certain decisions" regarding a two term President. On the contrary, he got a second term because the country as a whole APPROVED of his decisons. What's hilarious here is the underlying assumption that the GOP has a rat's chance of winning in November. Most of their own damn party doesn't like the top three candidates and hopes they all falter. Cruz is truly, genuinely disliked by just about every other GOP senator, Rubio is not respected either and then there's the Human Enema that is Trump. Unless something catastrophic happens, Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President. It won't be easy, but she's going to win. So no, if ever given the chance, she should NOT nominate Obama. Just like he wasn't experienced to win in 2008 (and it showed for his first couple of years) he's just not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court bench. Hell, I'VE practiced law longer than Obama ever did and no one is going to be nominating me, for good reason. He might have taught Constitutional Law once and graduated from Harvard, but those two things does not make a Justice, not even being President. Even if his background was used to shoehorn or bootstrap him in there, his nomination would be too controversial. Plus, I doubt he'd want it. I think his family wants the hell out of the public eye. So, I'd like to see him nominate Srinivasan or Kelly, preferably Srinivasan and then watch the GOP lie like hell.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And if we get a Republican president ... they are going to want a Republican justice*** Assuming they manage to stall that long, it could become even more complicated, as there's a distinct possibility we could have a Republican President, but a Senate that turns Democratic at the same time. Then you've got the same situation all over again, in reverse. Interesting times...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm quite certain that if Mitt Romney were president right now, the GOP members would be saying that we should wait until after the upcoming election for a nomination. hahahahahahaaaaaa. Riiiiight.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I also blame Democrat voters for the current state of politics. If Democrats could bother to vote in EVERY election, not just every 4 years, the outcome would be quite different.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Assuming they manage to stall that long, it could become even more complicated, as there's a distinct possibility we could have a Republican President, but a Senate that turns Democratic at the same time.>> This is the 17 day window "nuclear option" being discussed by pundits right now, regarding how Obama could place an even more progressive Justice on the bench next January than the nominees on his short list. The new Senate takes office on January 3. The new President takes office on January 21. Obama would have 17 days to push through a new Justice if Senator Schumer, the new Dem leader in 2017, goes thermonuclear option. And given the 8 years of unprecedented filibuster crap Dems had to suffer under McConnell, I can easily see this happening. Completely toast the filibuster and make the Republicans go sit in the corner for the next two years. If McConnell had any brains, he wouldn't let it get to this point. Obstructing Obama's nominee is going to solidify four shaky Senate races that are currently tipping in the Dems' favor: Toomey in PA, Johnson in WI, Ayotte in NH, and Portman in OH. Other GOP Senators are also at risk of losing their seats come November, and some Dems. But far more Republicans are up for re-election than Dems, and these four are trailing Dem challengers in current polls, which isn't likely to reverse with the BS obstruction being pulled by the GOP leadership. I know the Republicans are desperate to reverse the New Deal and Voting Rights and Roe v Wade. And the only way they can do it, is if they pack the Supreme Court. But anyone in the bottom 99% of this country who isn't a millionaire nor a straight white Christian male should worry about this country rolling back 100 years of civil rights. Anyone who isn't a very rich straight white Christian male is at risk. The GOP has been chipping away at civil rights for decades, to tip the balance of power in favor of rich old white guys. Like Trump. And anyone with half a brain should realize that the GOP doesn't give a ratatouille's arse about anyone other than those rich old white guys. They hate democracy with a passion, and will do ANYTHING to con uninformed voters into casting ballots for their puppets. The unvarnished truth of the GOP's actions is stunning. Why anyone in the bottom 99% who isn't in the same socio-economic class as Trump would vote for them, is beyond me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Please stop the "Christian White Male" bullshit. I don't support that bullshit any more than you do. But when you pull out that "CWM" BS your argument goes in the shitter. Sorry you feel so God Damned inferior that you constantly have to insult us. Your constant whining gets very tiring.
Originally Posted By Mr X I didn't get that she was *complaining* about white Christian males in that post, RT, just that they would be the only ones to benefit from the right-wing master plan. I get that there's no love lost and all, but I think you might have gone off a bit half-cocked on this one. Signed, A White Christian Male
Originally Posted By Mr X ***just that they would be the only ones to benefit from the right-wing master plan*** Which, by the way, I think it pretty much true. Except only the well-off ones, really, even out of that group.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Sorry X. I really respect your comments, but I have seen that phrase so often in her posts that it makes me want to puke. I think she is a bigger troll than Beau, but that is just me.
Originally Posted By iamsally >>>> If Democrats could bother to vote in EVERY election, not just every 4 years, the outcome would be quite different.<<<< I wish that were not so true. But, alas, it is. (I remember my father saying something similar to that when I was just a girl.)
Originally Posted By skinnerbox With all due respect, RT... blow it out your you-know-what. There is a war on minorities and women and gays and Muslims and poor folk and the disabled and seniors and just about everyone who isn't a straight white Christian male. YEAH THE TRUTH EFFN SUCKS! But whining to me about being a troll doesn't change the fact that McConnell and his other puppets in Congress and state legislatures across the country are doing their best to destroy the New Deal and the Voting Rights Act and Roe v Wade and privatize Social Security and Medicare and sell off the public commons and make life as difficult as possible for everyone except their billionaire masters who are -- guess what -- mostly straight white Christian males! This is the reality of 21st century America. Too bad you're too busy taking shots at me for calling it like it is instead of accepting the truth that only the 1% SWCM matter to the GOP lawmakers. Something that has been painfully obvious long before McConnell went after Obama.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***poor folk and the disabled and seniors and just about everyone who isn't a straight white Christian male*** Poor folk, the disabled, and seniors all include straight white Christian males among their ranks. I would argue that your beef is with the establishment (granted, consisting almost exclusively OF SWCM's) waging war against the commoners. ALL the commoners, including the ones you rail against here. Divide and conquer, right? You drink the cool-aid as much as anyone based on your comments. I agree with RT in that you should adjust the rhetoric accordingly if you don't want to come off as a hysteric.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes. If they take away medicare or social security it will impact SWCM's just as much as anyone else. I actually support many of Skinner's positions. It is her constantly blaming everything on SWCM's that drives me crazy. She does come off as being rather bat-shit crazy (technical term) because of her obsession.
