Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Supreme Court nomination
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #21
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Schumer's thoughts on the matter

To be fair, Schumer did have ideological reasons for this:

Quote:Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.

Sounds like he picked a really bad way to say he didn't think any Justice should be confirmed if they held extreme ideologies. But based on that quote, it's different than Mr. Turtle's decision to obstruct for no good reason.

Who defines "mainstream"? I think Schumer and I are mainly in two different streams. Often "mainstream" is just code for "agrees with me".
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 03:01 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-01-2017 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #22
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 02:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Schumer's thoughts on the matter

To be fair, Schumer did have ideological reasons for this:

Quote:Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.

Sounds like he picked a really bad way to say he didn't think any Justice should be confirmed if they held extreme ideologies. But based on that quote, it's different than Mr. Turtle's decision to obstruct for no good reason.

Who defines "mainstream"? I think Schumer and I are mainly in two different streams. Often "mainstream" is just code for "agrees with me".

Two things:

1) If Turtle Man had at least put a whiff of ideological justification into his decision to not have a vote on Garland, this comparison would be appropriate.
2) Schumer and fellow Dems never had a chance to test out this statement, so the point is kind of moot anyways, as Bush only had vacancies to fill in 2005 and 2006.
02-01-2017 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ausowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,406
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 6
I Root For: New Orleans
Location: Austin/New Orleans

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Supreme Court nomination
I wonder if Trump will regret the choice of a judge who by all accounts is both extremely well qualified and committed to the rule of law?

Judge Gorsuch might begin to reign in the almighty executive now alarming D's as much as R's were disturbed under Obama.
02-01-2017 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #24
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  2) Schumer and fellow Dems never had a chance to test out this statement, so the point is kind of moot anyways, as Bush only had vacancies to fill in 2005 and 2006.

kind of like saying that planning a robbery that got called off due to car trouble is a testament to one's character
02-01-2017 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #25
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 05:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  2) Schumer and fellow Dems never had a chance to test out this statement, so the point is kind of moot anyways, as Bush only had vacancies to fill in 2005 and 2006.

kind of like saying that planning a robbery that got called off due to car trouble is a testament to one's character

Not really. In politics there is always a lot of grandstanding by both sides before things happen, and words do not always equate to action when push comes to shove. Just look at some of the nominees who have gotten yes votes from Dems or Reps who were initially very vocal in their criticisms.
02-01-2017 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Supreme Court nomination
I'll repost my comment from the other thread:

----
The Republicans reset the timeline of SC nominations with the entirely unprecedented blocking of Garland; Scalia died 11.5 months before Obama's term ended; it's obvious that Obama should have gotten to pick his predecessor.

Since the Republicans changed the precedent, it's now incumbent on the Democrats to make that the new normal, in case say, Ginsburg dies in a couple of years. So the Dems need to drag this out as long as they possibly can.

Sure, Dems will have to walk back many of the complaints they made, but oh well. You complain about the other guy cheating as it's happening, but once the rules change you're best served by playing by them.

I don't love this outcome, but mainly because it's one more divisive story to live constantly in the news. The SC is fine with only 8 members.
---

And add one more thought:

I do think this will lead to the Republicans invoking the nuclear option, which of course will define the process going forward. Ultimately, we'll end up with a system whereby the President's party will rubber stamp the pick and the opposition party will never even bring it to hearing. In other words, if a party controls both WH and Senate (even by barest majority) then they can put in whoever they want; if a party has the Presidency but not the Senate then they're SOL -- that seat stays open until the next time one party controls both.

It'll be a change from what we've done historically, but I can live with it.
02-01-2017 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 03:25 PM)ausowl Wrote:  I wonder if Trump will regret the choice of a judge who by all accounts is both extremely well qualified and committed to the rule of law?
Judge Gorsuch might begin to reign in the almighty executive now alarming D's as much as R's were disturbed under Obama.

That would be a good thing.
02-01-2017 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ausowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,406
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 6
I Root For: New Orleans
Location: Austin/New Orleans

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-01-2017 09:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 03:25 PM)ausowl Wrote:  I wonder if Trump will regret the choice of a judge who by all accounts is both extremely well qualified and committed to the rule of law?
Judge Gorsuch might begin to reign in the almighty executive now alarming D's as much as R's were disturbed under Obama.

That would be a good thing.

R. Lowery on the S. Ct. nomination: the anti-trump
02-03-2017 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NolaOwl Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 2,702
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 37
I Root For: RU, StL & NOL
Location: New Orleans

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #29
RE: Supreme Court nomination
All of this handwringing over Senator McConnell's tactics in 2016 strikes me as nothing more than the rants of sore losers. If Democrats had gotten out of their chairs and voted in the off year elections in 2010 and 2014 in the same numbers that they appeared in Obama's victories, none of these events would have happened. More significantly, if Hillary had campaigned better in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump never would have had the opportunity to nominate Gorsuch. As has often been said, "elections have consequences." Nothing was "stolen" as all of these events took place in full view of the entire electorate which passed judgment.
.
We are drowning in a sea of hypocrisy here. When W was president, the Dems held up some of his nominees. The Republicans took it to a higher artform. With respect to Judge Garland, would anyone be happier if he had been granted a hearing and then denied confirmation on strict partyline votes? It was unrealistic to expect Republicans to roll over and play dead by allowing a lame-duck liberal president replace a judge as revered as Justice Scalia.

Similarly, it is understandable that the Democrats will feel the need to play to their base by opposing Judge Goresuch's confirmation. In no way canhe be expected to vote with the Court's liberal wing. He is definitely not in the "mainstream" as defined by Senator Schumer.

The more significant battle will take place if President Trump has the opportunity to appoint a replacement for Justices Kennedy Breyer or Ginsberg. I suggest Democrats would have more credibility in that fight if a few of them crossed party lines in the next few weeks so as to avoid the destruction of what is left of the filibuster and judicial confirmations.
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2017 10:57 PM by NolaOwl.)
02-03-2017 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
RE: Supreme Court nomination
Right. McConnell taught us elections have consequence -- particularly ones that haven't happened yet. Hell, even ones where we don't even know the candidates yet.

He and the Repiblicans changed the grond rules by refusing to even put Garland up for consideration; it was a gross abuse of the Senates's duties, but l expect it's our new normal.

Your suggestion that the the Democrats will be better off by rolling over on Gorsuch is laughable. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with us that you're being disingenuous.

The only -- and I mean _only_ -- chance the Democrats have of getting a palatable Ginsburg/Kennedy/Breyer replacement if one dies while Trump is in office is if they've already taken back the Senate by the time he/she dies. Might as well force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster so that a) it's clear who owns that change, and b) the stakes are crstal clear for the Democratic base in 2018. It's not going to make much difference either way, but there sure as hell is no good reason to let the Republicans reap the fruits of their obstruction tactic without a fight.
02-04-2017 03:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #31
RE: Supreme Court nomination
No doubt this will be used by the Democrats if they get a chance in this tit for tat world we have now. The bullies are getting bullied and will retaliate by more bullying.

Reid opened the door on this. If the nuclear option had not been invoked, perhaps the Repubs would have felt secure in their ability to block.

We are rapidly evolving into the Eloi and the Morlocks, the only question being who is the Morlocks.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2017 02:46 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-04-2017 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 03:16 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Might as well force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster so that a) it's clear who owns that change

You mean "who owns that final small step" as opposed to "who body slammed the door open", right?
02-04-2017 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
RE: Supreme Court nomination
Suppose Trump says he will name Garland as the nominee-in-waiting to replace the first liberal justice who leaves the court--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer steps down, or something happens to Sotomayor or Kagan--in exchange for democrats not obstructing Gorsuch. After Garland took a seat under that scenario, court composition would be essentially the same as if Garland had been confirmed. And throughout the interim, the court would be ideologically the same as before Scalia's death.

Would that be adult enough to get a few democrats acting to allow some things to get moving?

Somebody needs to be the adult in the room, and somebody needs to do it first.
02-04-2017 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #34
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Suppose Trump says he will name Garland as the nominee-in-waiting to replace the first liberal justice who leaves the court--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer steps down, or something happens to Sotomayor or Kagan--in exchange for democrats not obstructing Gorsuch. After Garland took a seat under that scenario, court composition would be essentially the same as if Garland had been confirmed. And throughout the interim, the court would be ideologically the same as before Scalia's death.

Would that be adult enough to get a few democrats acting to allow some things to get moving?

Somebody needs to be the adult in the room, and somebody needs to do it first.

It is adult enough, IMO, to get Dems on board. But as your last comment alludes to, is it too adult for the Reps to suggest it?

And by the way, I'd say the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot - right now everything is too partisan. There are some Dems who are not confirming department heads simply because they were nominated by Trump and not because they believe they aren't qualified for the job. It's awful.
02-04-2017 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,394
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Suppose Trump says he will name Garland as the nominee-in-waiting to replace the first liberal justice who leaves the court--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer steps down, or something happens to Sotomayor or Kagan--in exchange for democrats not obstructing Gorsuch. After Garland took a seat under that scenario, court composition would be essentially the same as if Garland had been confirmed. And throughout the interim, the court would be ideologically the same as before Scalia's death.

Would that be adult enough to get a few democrats acting to allow some things to get moving?

Somebody needs to be the adult in the room, and somebody needs to do it first.

Supposing Trump made such an offer: maybe. But there is no guarantee that there will be another vacancy for Trump to fill, and no guarantee that Senate Rs would not torpedo a future Garland nomination a la Miers. For Ds, that’s fair amount of risk for the promise of a nominee who is well to the right of whoever he’d be replacing.

But it’s a moot point. Trump has already stated support for eliminating the filibuster. That’s a much more convenient solution for him.
02-04-2017 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 01:30 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  
(02-04-2017 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Suppose Trump says he will name Garland as the nominee-in-waiting to replace the first liberal justice who leaves the court--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer steps down, or something happens to Sotomayor or Kagan--in exchange for democrats not obstructing Gorsuch. After Garland took a seat under that scenario, court composition would be essentially the same as if Garland had been confirmed. And throughout the interim, the court would be ideologically the same as before Scalia's death.
Would that be adult enough to get a few democrats acting to allow some things to get moving?
Somebody needs to be the adult in the room, and somebody needs to do it first.
Supposing Trump made such an offer: maybe. But there is no guarantee that there will be another vacancy for Trump to fill, and no guarantee that Senate Rs would not torpedo a future Garland nomination a la Miers. For Ds, that’s fair amount of risk for the promise of a nominee who is well to the right of whoever he’d be replacing.
But it’s a moot point. Trump has already stated support for eliminating the filibuster. That’s a much more convenient solution for him.

I'm trying to find ways to defuse some of the extreme rhetoric on both sides. Based upon pre-Bork standards, there is no legitimate reason to oppose either Gorsuch or Garland (barring something really damning coming out of the hearings, which I find difficult to believe will happen at this point). So get the leadership together and get this agreed. No matter what, you'd have enough in both parties go along to get both of them confirmed.

I'm trying to figure out ways that we could get both sides acting like adults again.
02-04-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,394
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm trying to find ways to defuse some of the extreme rhetoric on both sides. Based upon pre-Bork standards, there is no legitimate reason to oppose either Gorsuch or Garland (barring something really damning coming out of the hearings, which I find difficult to believe will happen at this point). So get the leadership together and get this agreed. No matter what, you'd have enough in both parties go along to get both of them confirmed.

I'm trying to figure out ways that we could get both sides acting like adults again.

Well, it’s an interesting idea. It would only need 8 Ds, and I think it would get that. You mention Bork, but a few years later Clarence Thomas got 20% of D votes despite sexual harassment allegations, replacing Thurgood Marshall on the bench, and with no promise of a moderate in the future. The D Senate also confirmed Souter (who later turned liberal but was expected to be conservative at the time), and D minorities chose not to contest Roberts or Alito.

If it were me, I might go along with if the commitment was not just from Trump but also from a wide swath of Senate Rs. I remember that they rejected Miers (as GWB's replacement for the moderate O’Connor) and already rejected Garland, so I wouldn't just assume they would accept him in the future.

But I think your premise is flawed, not just in that I think Trump would rather pressure McConnell to eliminate the filibuster, but “acting like adults” is not Trump’s style and is apparently not what the electorate wants.
02-04-2017 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 04:30 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  But I think your premise is flawed, not just in that I think Trump would rather pressure McConnell to eliminate the filibuster, but “acting like adults” is not Trump’s style and is apparently not what the electorate wants.

"Acting like adults" would appear to be a foreign concept to both sides right now. I certainly have never thought of Schemer as acting like an adult. Funny that both he and Trump are New Yorkers, and New Yorkers have the reputation of being a-holes, and that would certainly seem to apply here. If they could sit down with McConnell (who is pretty much clueless) and work together, they could pretty much run the country, kind of like Ike/LBJ/Mr. Sam back in the day.
02-04-2017 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 04:30 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  
(02-04-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm trying to find ways to defuse some of the extreme rhetoric on both sides. Based upon pre-Bork standards, there is no legitimate reason to oppose either Gorsuch or Garland (barring something really damning coming out of the hearings, which I find difficult to believe will happen at this point). So get the leadership together and get this agreed. No matter what, you'd have enough in both parties go along to get both of them confirmed.

I'm trying to figure out ways that we could get both sides acting like adults again.

Well, it’s an interesting idea. It would only need 8 Ds, and I think it would get that. You mention Bork, but a few years later Clarence Thomas got 20% of D votes despite sexual harassment allegations, replacing Thurgood Marshall on the bench, and with no promise of a moderate in the future. The D Senate also confirmed Souter (who later turned liberal but was expected to be conservative at the time), and D minorities chose not to contest Roberts or Alito.

If it were me, I might go along with if the commitment was not just from Trump but also from a wide swath of Senate Rs. I remember that they rejected Miers (as GWB's replacement for the moderate O’Connor) and already rejected Garland, so I wouldn't just assume they would accept him in the future.

But I think your premise is flawed, not just in that I think Trump would rather pressure McConnell to eliminate the filibuster, but “acting like adults” is not Trump’s style and is apparently not what the electorate wants.

The voting post-Bork tends to break down as Democrats mobilized against Republican nominees far earlier than vice versa.

BUSH SR
Bork, well, got "Borked" D Senate
Kennedy -- unopposed (0 nays) D Senate
Souter -- unopposed (9 nays) D Senate
Thomas --- skin of his teeth (48 Nays) D Senate

CLINTON
Ginsburg -- unopposed (3 Nays) D Senate
Breyer -- unopposed (9 Nays) D Senate

BUSH JR
Roberts -- small opposition (22 Nays) R Senate
Miers -- withdrawn under stiff opposition R Senate
Alito -- strong fight (42 Nays) R Senate

OBAMA
Sotamayor -- medium opposition (31 Nays) D Senate
Kagan -- medium-strong opposition (37 Nays) D Senate
Garland -- lapsed R Senate

Bork changed all the rules -- most of the time the Senate abided by the "he won, even if I dont agree with the politics of the pick I will vote to confirm" comity until the baby Bush administration, in which the Ds mounted significant opposition (relative to that previous) to all of GWB's SC nominations.

Republicans finally learned the game rules, and started to mount opposition to all of Obama's picks.

I think we are in a time where getting 30 or less Nay votes for any SC pick will be rare, which is sad considering Scalia did not get a single Nay.... In previous times Alito would have garnered 90+ votes as would have Kagan and Sotamayor (even with the histories of the two being absolutely at odds with conservative/libertarian philosophy typical of the Republican party)
02-04-2017 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-04-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out ways that we could get both sides acting like adults again.

Huh, funny that you never felt this concern during the 10 months Garland was waiting for a hearing.

But in any case, there's no reason for Democrats to believe Trump would follow through with the deal you're proposing, so they'd be foolish to accept it.

Now if something were to happen like Ginsburg dying while Gorsuch's nomination is still pending, then perhaps the Dems would agree to it. But frankly, the only way the Dems should go forward with it is if Garland gets nominated and confirmed first, then Gorsuch gets confirmed second.
02-04-2017 11:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.