2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on September 26, 2018, 12:59:50 PM
-
So like all the other topics I've posted about, I'm relatively new to politics. As in didn't care until I became a gun owner.
1) So did Obama nominate any SCOTUS judges and did the RNC pull this type of BS? I know the RNC doesn't control the media, so I can't imagine the fake news covered much, even if there was a scandal.
2) Were conservatives protesting like how liberals do by coming to DC in their pink hats to protest Kav and knocking on senators office doors, screaming at the sky, etc...
3) I don't recall any celebrities speaking out against any POTUS, but then again, maybe I wasn't paying attention. The only thing I vaguely remember was Clinton and Monica. But no one was really bashing Bill, even after his "I did not have sexual relations" statement. He was more being used as a joke to comedians.
-
Google Merrick Garland
-
Conservatives, by definition, are not "in your face" zealots. You wouldn't expect members of a church to act like Westboro Baptist, protesting military funerals, but it happens now and then. You don't expect people who oppose abortion, calling it murder, to murder abortion doctors, but it has happened.
Do conservatives behave like Democrat protestors? Not in such large numbers. Only the occasional right-wing zealot acts on his emotions -- like Timothy McVeigh, the OKC Bomber.
As for Obama, he nominated 3 judges to the US Court of Appeals which Republicans opposed. In order to bypass that opposition, Harry Reid and the Democrats voted to suspend the 60 vote rule and only required a simple majority to call a vote for confirmation. Do some research on "cloture". It's related to filibusters. Before a confirmation vote can be taken, they vote on cloture, which is an agreement to suspend debate and call a vote. Filibusters have been used to prevent a cloture vote. Passing a cloture motion required a super majority of 60 Senators voting Yes. Changing the rules now allows cloture to be passed with 51 affirmative votes.
Lots of discussions on doing away with cloture rules completely. Allow a vote for confirmation without the need to take a separate vote just to vote.
We haven't even gotten to that phase with Kavanaugh. He's still stuck in committee. Until the committee votes to give the nomination to the full Senate, it is delayed until they do.
Luckily, the Republicans can vote for cloture and confirm Kavanaugh by also voting to change the rules to only require a simple majority, thereby shutting down more Democrat hijinks via fillibustering.
-
Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) were confirmed by the Senate. There were no protests of any note of any kind. A few conservatives might have poked their own eyes out, but nothing public. None of the screamers/Hollywood "celebrities" were on high alert because their "right to choose" was safe. No demands for her notes from junior high.
Garland was nominated by Obama but not given a hearing by the Senate because they (Republicans in the majority) used the "wait for election result in a presidential election year" kinda sorta "rule".
-
President Barack Obama made two successful appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first was Judge Sonia Sotomayor[1] to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice David H. Souter.[2]
Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31.
The second appointment was that of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retired John Paul Stevens.
Kagan was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 5, 2010, by a vote of 63–37.
Notice the vote totals. Both of Obama's successful Supreme Court Nominees were confirmed in a BIPARTISAN VOTE of over 60 Senators. There are 100 voting Senators, in case you weren't quite sure ... 2 per state.
So, it's obvious, even with accusations of "Republican obstruction of Obama", the Supreme Court nominations were in a separate category. That was before the balance of the court no longer favored Social Justice Warriors where activist Liberal Judges could "legislate from the bench" -- making decisions that interpret the law differently than how they were written and not in strict compliance with the Constitution.
-
IMO, it's the lower courts where Obama and Clinton appear to have been particularly prolific with appointments. Especially in the 9th Circuit. It wasn't until not that long ago when I started researching the en banc stuff and looking up the make up of the circuit courts where I noticed that Clinton and Obama did a LOT of placing judges in those key spots. Yes, SCOTUS is very important, but seems like is the lower courts where things can get molded sort of behind the scenes. You also don't hear much about protesting of appointments to the lower courts.
-
Kagan (63-37) and Sotomayor (68-31) were confirmed by the Senate. There were no protests of any note of any kind. A few conservatives might have poked their own eyes out, but nothing public. None of the screamers/Hollywood "celebrities" were on high alert because their "right to choose" was safe. No demands for her notes from junior high.
Garland was nominated by Obama but not given a hearing by the Senate because they (Republicans in the majority) used the "wait for election result in a presidential election year" kinda sorta "rule".
It's not a rule as much as custom or tradition. A lame duck president isn't the best person to nominate a supreme court justice. Naming a partisan activist to the court could be a "parting shot" by a president who doesn't need to worry about reelection -- basically a gift to his party.
Up until 1967, the Senate deferred to the President in terms of SC nominations. Unless there was actual evidence of criminal or inappropriate character (known alcoholic, etc), the Senate trusted the president to fulfill his constitutional duty of appointing justices. The general feeling was, since we need a super majority to confirm, blocking opposing party nominations just turns into problems for both sides when the oval office switches parties.
Ever since then, the nomination process has become a sideshow for political purposes. Whichever party controls the court has the power to protect one party and damage the others. The key is to avoid allowing either party to control the court. That's one reason justices serve for life -- to prevent justices from being replaced each time a new president is elected.
-
IMO, it's the lower courts where Obama and Clinton appear to have been particularly prolific with appointments. Especially in the 9th Circuit. It wasn't until not that long ago when I started researching the en banc stuff and looking up the make up of the circuit courts where I noticed that Clinton and Obama did a LOT of placing judges in those key spots. Yes, SCOTUS is very important, but seems like is the lower courts where things can get molded sort of behind the scenes. You also don't hear much about protesting of appointments to the lower courts.
That's mainly because the SCOTUS only rules on federal cases. The appeals courts can rule on state/lower court decisions. Since many of the protected rights of individuals are in the Constitution, it's a big deal if SCOTUS leans left or right. Roe v. Wade should have never been decided as a federal protection under "privacy", but a Liberal court shoehorned the decision under the premise it's a constitutionally protect right.
Before then, individual states had their own laws on when, for whom and whether abortions were lawful. The fear Democrats are spreading that Kavanaugh will outlaw abortions for everyone is so stupid, but people believe this crap.
-
Didn't Trump nominate a good amount of other judges to the lower courts? And there's zero media coverage about it. As in they're only concerned with the SCOTUS I guess.
Who are our 2 voters? Hirono and Tulsi?
-
Didn't Trump nominate a good amount of other judges to the lower courts? And there's zero media coverage about it. As in they're only concerned with the SCOTUS I guess.
Who are our 2 voters? Hirono and Tulsi?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29917.msg285094#msg285094
https://ijr.com/2018/08/1119500-trump-courts-appointments/
Senators are Hirono and Schatz.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/09/breaking-news/schatz-hirono-blast-trumps-choice-for-supreme-court/
Hawaii’s two Democrats in the U.S. Senate immediately denounced President Donald Trump’s
choice as the next Supreme Court justice, federal appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Both Sens. Mazie K. Hirono and Brian Schatz issued statements within minutes of Trump’s
announcement Monday, criticizing Kavanaugh as someone who will restrict women’s reproductive
rights.
“As a federal appellate court Judge, Brett Kavanaugh’s record is replete with decisions favoring
the privileged and powerful. His writings and rulings show a determination to restrict women’s
reproductive freedom and strip federal agencies of their power to protect our water, air, and safety,”
Hirono said.
Lions and tigers and bears -- oh, my!
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29917.msg285094#msg285094
Thanks, thought I saw that somewhere.
-
That's mainly because the SCOTUS only rules on federal cases. The appeals courts can rule on state/lower court decisions. Since many of the protected rights of individuals are in the Constitution, it's a big deal if SCOTUS leans left or right. Roe v. Wade should have never been decided as a federal protection under "privacy", but a Liberal court shoehorned the decision under the premise it's a constitutionally protect right.
Before then, individual states had their own laws on when, for whom and whether abortions were lawful. The fear Democrats are spreading that Kavanaugh will outlaw abortions for everyone is so stupid, but people believe this crap.
I meant (or thought) that the circuit courts sort of filter issues. Yes, at state/lower levels, which I get is the intent. For states to guide, rule, whatever per the tenth amendment. By also filter in that the makeup can ensure that certain issues are “ended” before they really see the national spotlight. At least my thinking/opinion. Not fact.
And yes, the abortion issue does appear to set Kav aside from say what was seen with Gorsuch. The whole “settled law until SCOTUS unsettles it.
-
So like all the other topics I've posted about, I'm relatively new to politics. As in didn't care until I became a gun owner.
1) So did Obama nominate any SCOTUS judges and did the RNC pull this type of BS? I know the RNC doesn't control the media, so I can't imagine the fake news covered much, even if there was a scandal.
Yes, the RNC blocked Obama's final nominee by refusing to hold the hearing for the nominee. Merrick Garland was nominated but republicans stalled until Trump got elected and could pick new nominee. There wasn't even a good reason to stall, it was pretty much just blatant stalling.
3) I don't recall any celebrities speaking out against any POTUS, but then again, maybe I wasn't paying attention. The only thing I vaguely remember was Clinton and Monica. But no one was really bashing Bill, even after his "I did not have sexual relations" statement. He was more being used as a joke to comedians.
Some celebrities did but they are less common.
-
Yes, the RNC blocked Obama's final nominee by refusing to hold the hearing for the nominee. Merrick Garland was nominated but republicans stalled until Trump got elected and could pick new nominee. There wasn't even a good reason to stall, it was pretty much just blatant stalling.
Some celebrities did but they are less common.
That is such bullcrap. The reason is the same one every other Congress has adhered to according to custom when there is a lame duck president and a vacant Supreme Court seat: Allowing a lame duck president to pick the nominee deprives the nation of an apolitical confirmation process. In the middle of a PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION (not a midterm) is the wrong environment to be going through a justice confirmation. The nominee becomes nothing more than a political pawn for both sides and will be used as a campaign issue. Waiting until after the election puts the partisan battles aside. The confirmation is given more consideration than how it'll play in campaign ads, which is how we ought to pick our judges.
-
That is such bullcrap. The reason is the same one every other Congress has adhered to according to custom when there is a lame duck president and a vacant Supreme Court seat: Allowing a lame duck president to pick the nominee deprives the nation of an apolitical confirmation process. In the middle of a PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION (not a midterm) is the wrong environment to be going through a justice confirmation. The nominee becomes nothing more than a political pawn for both sides and will be used as a campaign issue. Waiting until after the election puts the partisan battles aside. The confirmation is given more consideration than how it'll play in campaign ads, which is how we ought to pick our judges.
Oh please, the excuse for stalling was as empty as can be. Claiming there was no precedence for doing it at that time therefore it shouldn't be done? That was such a crock of crap. "Oh, no one has tried that before, therefore we shouldn't try it either" is not a valid excuse for something and it isn't a logic leaders should subscribe to. The whole thing was a non sequitur.
There is no law or rule against it, not even an ethical or moral justification. Republicans had control and they stalled because they could, just admit it. The president gets to pick SCOTUS nominees, doesn't matter if they are at the end of their term or when elections are, they get to pick nominees. This was just some BS excuse to get what they wanted, a republican nominee.
-
Oh please, the excuse for stalling was as empty as can be. Claiming there was no precedence for doing it at that time therefore it shouldn't be done? That was such a crock of crap. "Oh, no one has tried that before, therefore we shouldn't try it either" is not a valid excuse for something and it isn't a logic leaders should subscribe to. The whole thing was a non sequitur.
There is no law or rule against it, not even an ethical or moral justification. Republicans had control and they stalled because they could, just admit it. The president gets to pick SCOTUS nominees, doesn't matter if they are at the end of their term or when elections are, they get to pick nominees. This was just some BS excuse to get what they wanted, a republican nominee.
Just because you're looking to bash Trump for everything that's ever happened in history doesn't mean you can excuse it with opinion and crybaby comments like "crock of crap".
Remember -- all the Republicans did was not call a vote on the nomination for Garland.
Democrats are destroying a good man, his family & his career while using a mentally ill woman to do nothing more than cause the nomination to be delayed for political purposes -- Resistance.
If you can't see the difference, then you are the Liberal left-wing dumbass we all think you are.
(she admits to having depression and anxiety disorders, so she qualifies as having mental illnesses).
-
Oh please, the excuse for stalling was as empty as can be. Claiming there was no precedence for doing it at that time therefore it shouldn't be done? That was such a crock of crap. "Oh, no one has tried that before, therefore we shouldn't try it either" is not a valid excuse for something and it isn't a logic leaders should subscribe to. The whole thing was a non sequitur.
There is no law or rule against it, not even an ethical or moral justification. Republicans had control and they stalled because they could, just admit it. The president gets to pick SCOTUS nominees, doesn't matter if they are at the end of their term or when elections are, they get to pick nominees. This was just some BS excuse to get what they wanted, a republican nominee.
So Biden was right to call for the very same thing in 1992?
But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html)
Yes, it appears that this was a hypothetical situation, but still.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/)
Non sequitur you say, eh? Do as I say, not as I do? No hypocrisy there. . .
-
So Biden was right to call for the very same thing in 1992?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html)
Yes, it appears that this was a hypothetical situation, but still.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/)
Non sequitur you say, eh? Do as I say, not as I do? No hypocrisy there. . .
I would expound on Uncle Joe's comments. Because the nomination occurs in a politically charged presidential election year, it's harmful to the nominee in that his/her nomination will predictably be used as a political football. That nominee, regardless of party, deserves a fair and non-political confirmation process.
-
Haven't you learned yet, when it comes to the DNC, it doesn't matter what they said in previous speeches. It only matters what they say now.
Seen many vids of Barry saying "we need sticker borders" and so did Bill. No one called them racist.
Bill "I didn't inhale". He was known as the cool president and no one bashed him. Made jokes yes. Kav drinks beer so he must be an alcoholic who blacks out.
-
Not SCOTUS related, but regarding the following of "norms", or unwritten rules that shall be followed, out of tradition.
This article is dated 31 Oct 2017 and from a liberal perspective.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/republicans-in-congress-youve-got-another-chance/544466/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/republicans-in-congress-youve-got-another-chance/544466/)
The boring name for these unwritten rules is “norms.” Boring or not, they’re at the center of the potential crisis over Donald Trump’s performance in office. By the letter of the Constitution, and by the unwritten norms of American separation-of-powers governance, the main restraint on an overreaching, dishonest, or incompetent executive is a resolute legislative branch.
So norms are no important or irrelevant? My impression of Congress was that it is full of non-sensensical traditions that waste time, but are followed as part of "unwritten" rules. So yeah, while I would say that in my view, stuff like that drives me nuts as I want them to get their work done, which is for the PEOPLE of the US, not for selfish gains, to throw that away when it doesn't meet your narrative is hypocritical.
-
Just because you're looking to bash Trump for everything that's ever happened in history doesn't mean you can excuse it with opinion and crybaby comments like "crock of crap".
Remember -- all the Republicans did was not call a vote on the nomination for Garland.
Democrats are destroying a good man, his family & his career while using a mentally ill woman to do nothing more than cause the nomination to be delayed for political purposes -- Resistance.
If you can't see the difference, then you are the Liberal left-wing dumbass we all think you are.
(she admits to having depression and anxiety disorders, so she qualifies as having mental illnesses).
Nonsense. My dislike of Trump is irrelevant. He wasn't president when Garland was nominated, he had nothing to do with the stalling.
By not calling for a vote they were not doing their job. They were stalling because they could, not because there was some justifiable reason to not hold a hearing.
What does Ford being depressed or having anxiety have to do with anything? You are changing subjects there.
-
So Biden was right to call for the very same thing in 1992?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html)
Yes, it appears that this was a hypothetical situation, but still.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/)
Non sequitur you say, eh? Do as I say, not as I do? No hypocrisy there. . .
I would say Biden was just as wrong as the republicans were.
It was a non sequitur when Biden did it and when the republicans did it.