Garland wasn’t confirmed because of the GOP AND because the Dems were willing to wait for president Hilary.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Donuthole View PostWell go ahead and continue to not remember where you heard that, because that idea is ridiculously stupid."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostWhat could the dems have done about it? The way the Senate works, there wasn't much, was there? They were the minority.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Art Vandelay View PostGood point. Perhaps it more public perception (mine included) that it was a mere formality, Hilary was going to get someone through, who likely was even more liberal leaning
Comment
-
Originally posted by Non Sequitur View PostMany people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.I'm like LeBron James.
-mpfunk
Comment
-
The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostMore stupid than what we have currently? Do tell.
This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss
There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock
Comment
-
Originally posted by Donuthole View PostIf you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.
This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.
If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Politics are the absolute worst. People are attacking Flake on an elevator because of his vote."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI'm not just talking about the nomination process, but about the perception of what a life nomination does to the court in general. Diehards on both sides elevate picking a SC judge as the main reason to vote for immoral people for president, above all else. Making a SC justice decision less important takes some of the hysteria out of it. A single nomination shouldn't be perceived as being able to alter the course of the court for decades. A young judge will influence the court's decisions long past the political influence that brought him/her there. If there is a limited term, the influence on the court of 1 judge is limited.
If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick.PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Donuthole View PostIf you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.
This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostYour proposal would not only increase, rather than diminish, the politicization of the process, but it would likely play havoc with the processes of the Court and the stability of our jurisprudence.
I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostI’m not sure if it’s evident yet, but I’m arguing out of my element here. Still, I don’t see how nominating a term limited judge would be more political than nominating a lifetime appointment. By definition, the influence a term limited judge has on the court is less than what they have currently. If you decrease the potential influence a single judge pick has on the court, the politics surrounding that pick decrease.
I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that.
Comment
Comment