Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's only legislating from the bench when they disagree with your opinion.
Garland is fairly old and moderate that should have made the GOP happy, there will not be another justice like Scalia much as they hope and pray, in the mean time dysfunction.
What justice do they want to see appointed, does that person exist, I would love to hear it.
Honestly, I'd say leave it open until one of the liberal justices retirees or dies and then look for two people who care more about the rule of law than their personal politics. I'd even prefer that over trying to hold out for being able to nominate a conservative. The transformation of the supreme court from a judicial body to a super-legislature has done tremendous damage to our political system. Can't say I know much about Garland, but Kagan has been pretty standard for recent Supremes and Sotomayor is the worst in living memory so I have zero trust in anyone put forward by this administration; even if Clinton is the next president I'd trust her far more than Obama to do this.
Honestly, I'd say leave it open until one of the liberal justices retirees or dies and then look for two people who care more about the rule of law than their personal politics. I'd even prefer that over trying to hold out for being able to nominate a conservative. The transformation of the supreme court from a judicial body to a super-legislature has done tremendous damage to our political system. Can't say I know much about Garland, but Kagan has been pretty standard for recent Supremes and Sotomayor is the worst in living memory so I have zero trust in anyone put forward by this administration; even if Clinton is the next president I'd trust her far more than Obama to do this.
I would love to hear who the GOP would like him to nominate, it's a fair question.
The decisions (or lack of) that have done the most damage are Citizens United and the Patriot Act.
I would love to hear who the GOP would like him to nominate, it's a fair question.
The decisions (or lack of) that have done the most damage are Citizens United and the Patriot Act.
It's totally a fair question. I'm not an expert on circuit judges and so not equipped to answer it, but yeah, it's definitely a fair question.
What I'd like to see in terms of types of people, are 2 judges chosen to replace a liberal and a conservative justice who have a track record of ruling against their personal politics on the basis of their interpretation of the law. That would be the ideal, but failing that I'd want to the Republicans to pull out all the stops against having a 5 liberal court. Failing that too, I'd prefer they at least not let Obama make the call -- Kennedy is legit, and Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Roberts, and Kagan at least pretend to be trying to follow the rule of law (even if coincidentally it always seems to back their own personal preferences, surprise surprise), but Sotomayor doesn't even pretend and given Obama was the first president (in my memory, maybe some of the older posters will know of someone in their lifetime) to appoint someone like that I'm 100% behind pushing the decision to someone without that in their track record, even if it's another Democrat. I could get behind Garland or another Obama appointee being talked about as legitimately non-partisan and legalistic by conservative politicians and legal scholars (who have more knowledge than me and I would trust saying that about a Democratic appointee), but no one has been saying that, just that he's relatively older and doesn't have much of a track record of controversial cases being heard in front of him (Democrats have been spinning this as being a moderate, but I'm not hearing that from the people who I would trust that opinion coming from).
I guess you forgot McConnell proclaiming "My number 1 priority is to make President Obama a 1 term President"
I forgot NOTHING.
Your quote is taken out of context and he did NOT say it "at the outset" as was claimed.
"" Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest."
It was made DURING Obama's SECOND term run.
Being you have access to the quote (it has been posted on here MANY time to refute the false claim), how about the COMPLETE quote and NOT just one sentence?
Or are you afraid of proving that you are wrong?
Last edited by Quick Enough; 04-04-2016 at 12:08 PM..
Conservatives often sight they support the constitution. The constitution says that congress must hold a hearing to determine if the candidate selected by the sitting president is a good fit. The refusal to even hold a hearing is unconstitutional. Thus, anyone who is actually a conservative should want Mitch McConnell thrown out of congress, as well as all the other Republican leaders refusing to even do their jobs.
They can shoot down whomever they please. Even if it's for petty reasons, they are completely able to do this. But to refuse to even sit down and do that is pathetic and childish. I'll just go right ahead and say that I think Mitch McConnell should be removed from office.
"The constitution says that congress must hold a hearing"
Show us WHERE in the Constitution you think is is.
Your quote is taken out of context and he did NOT say it "at the outset" as was claimed.
"" Mitch McConnel stated from the outset that he wanted to do everything he could to make Obama fail, and he's not even the craziest."
It was made DURING Obama's SECOND term run.
Being you have access to the quote (it has been posted on here MANY time to refute the false claim), how about the COMPLETE quote and NOT just one sentence?
It's only legislating from the bench when they disagree with your opinion.
Quite a few ironies revealed along with the interesting statistic:
"...You have to look back to the Supreme Courts of the now-infamous Lochner era (1897 to 1937) to find a group of judicial extremists to rival today’s “felonious five” in their disregard for precedent and their willingness to “legislate from the bench” as they impose highly unpopular – and nationally damaging – laissez-faire economic theories on the country.
Like the Lochner era Courts, which created spurious legal doctrines such as “substantive due process” and “liberty of contract,” and then used those newly-invented legal doctrines to strike down any legislation that burdened corporations or disturbed the existing economic hierarchy, today’s Supreme Court has expanded its own spurious legal doctrines. “Corporate constitutional rights” and “money as speech” have bestowed inalienable Constitutional rights, and legal rights, on corporations and the moneyed elites who profit from them. ..."
Lochner Era
"The time from 1890 to 1937, in which the United States Supreme Court, using a broad interpretation of due process that protected economic rights, tended to strike down economic regulations of working conditions, wages or hours in favor of laissez-faire economic policy. The namesake case is Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905), in which the court held invalid a New York statute forbidding employment in a bakery for more than 60 hours per week and 10 hours per day because that regulation interfered with the right of contract between the employer and employee. The Lochner era ended after President Roosevelt, fed up with the Supreme Court invalidating New Deal policies, threatened to "pack" the court with new appointees."
"...Since Robert Bork, Edwin Meese, Antonin Scalia and their lieutenants founded modern conservative jurisprudence 30 years ago, its core watchword has remained invariant: abhorrence for "activist" judges who "legislate from the bench." To showcase their hostility to activism on the right as well as the left, court-focused conservatives have repeatedly denounced the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lochner v. New York. Lochner launched and has come to symbolize the notoriously anti-regulatory activism of the first third of the 20th century; the case held that maximum-hours regulation violated employers' and employees' "freedom of contract," a "right" that the five-justice majority divined in the Fifth and 14th amendments' ban on deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Bork called the ruling an "abomination." ..."
Garland is fairly old and moderate that should have made the GOP happy, there will not be another justice like Scalia much as they hope and pray, in the mean time dysfunction.
What justice do they want to see appointed, does that person exist, I would love to hear it.
The far left is still whimpering over this, I love it.
Need a tissue, Goodnight? You've been whining/sobbing about this for months.
I guess a dysfunctional supreme court is a positive, I was hoping for some common sense from more moderate republicans but it looks like I was mistaken. We will see how this master plan works out in the congressional elections, sacrifice congress over delaying a supreme court nominee for the next democratic president, sounds like a plan. We will see who needs the tissues.
Looks like we will need to wait some time for republican senate approval of a democratic presidential nominee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
