Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 08:28am PT
|
Great post, Tom.
Too bad it won't be understood...or worse, completely ignored...by the FauxNews RepubDroids.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 08:46am PT
|
Go thru the list of last year of term nominees and you will see there were no lame duck presidential supreme court nominations, since presidential term limits didn't happen till after FDR.
Obama's nomination will be a first in this regard.
Frank Murphy - - - Jan 4, 1940 - - - Jan 16, 1940
Benjamin Cardozo - - - Feb 15, 1932 - - - Feb 24, 1932
John Clarke - - - Jul 14, 1916 - - - Jul 24, 1916
Mahlon Pitney - - - Feb 19, 1912 - - - Mar 13, 1912
George Shiras, Jr. - - - Jul 19, 1892 - - - Jul 26, 1892
Melville Fuller - - - Apr 30, 1888 - - - Jul 20, 1888
William Woods - - - Dec 15, 1880 - - - Dec 21, 1880
Ward Hunt - - - Dec 3, 1872 - - - Dec 11, 1872
Salmon Chase - - - Dec 6, 1864 - - - Dec 6, 1864
The three after the election were filled by the same party of the current and next term.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 08:59am PT
|
My condolences to the squashed social justice. RIP? I hope he rolls on a spit in hell for the rest of eternity. Well, maybe not that long, but you get my point.
Scalia? Good riddance. He was one of the worst jurists ever with the exception of Thomas who is without a doubt one among the ranks of the worst of the worst to ever sit on that lofty bench.
Although the fact that Ginsberg and Scalia were close friends does lend some credibility to his intellect. I have a lot of respect for Ruth.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 09:21am PT
|
Right Ken. If Obama nominates Srinivasan as part of a political strategy to demonstrate republican obstructionism and the Senate that previously confirmed him to a judgeship then rejects him, can Bernie or Hillary renominate him when the new President/Senate is seated?
Our political reaction to the politicians playing politics is to be outraged at the politicians for playing politics. Us though, we're good.
|
|
HermitMaster
Social climber
my abode
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 09:22am PT
|
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 10:31am PT
|
Never speak ill of the dead. He had a good run, lived a long life, Supreme Court Justice, etc. That's a resume.
Sure throws a monkey wrench into that plan to kill the teacher's unions, though.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 10:54am PT
|
I mostly disagreed with Scalia's decisions. I wish he had retired a decade ago, or before.
Oh, well. Better late than never.
Scalia, and his foul ilk can be directly blamed for our new economic paradigm, which involves plundering society, however possible, to enrich the already too-rich.
The people, and even the lower courts said that unlimited campaign spending by corporations would be a disaster. But, Scalia, et al, ruled that:
Money talks.
Talk is speech.
Speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Therefore, it is unconstitutional to prohibit or limit political bribery.
Citizens United v. FEC, guaranteeing corporate free-speech rights (a euphamism for unlimited lobbying, bribing and campaign spending) is going to wind up being the death of America.
Right now, there is virtually no way to track where super PAC is coming from. The law was intentionally structured to permit clever donors to conceal themselves behind LLCs and other legal artifices.
Instead of ISIS and Al Qaeda, Homeland Security should be investigating how much foreign money is pouring into those super PACS.
Right now, I can only think of one decision Scalia made that I agree with.
KELO V. THE CITY OF NEW LONDON
Lowe courts upheld that government-enforced seizure of one private party's property (land), and tranfer of ownership to a second private party was within the scope of the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment.
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer voted to uphold the lower court's ruling.
Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Conner and Thomas voted to overturn the decision.
The court ruled, 5-4, that it was lawful for the corporation to force private homeowners to sell, at a price determined by the corporation, so that the corporation could use the property for a private commercial development project.
I thought the Wikipedia page had been vandalized when I first saw that the liberal left-wingers voted to allow the eminent domain seizure, and that it was the neo-con right-wingers who opposed it.
That, to me, seemed totally opposite the typical neo-con vision for America, which is to favor the corporations and fat-cats over everyone else.
Ostensibly, the argument was that if the property tax base increased, and the "blight" of the rustic beach cottages was eliminated, society as a whole would benefit; ergo, the property would be seized for a "public purpose".
Kelo, et al, were forced to sell their homes, which were razed. The hotel project was abandoned before any construction took place. The property remains an empty, vacant plot to his day. So far, the previous owners haven't regained ownership, despite the corporation abandoning the project. More likely, the previous owners were not paid enough, back then, to allow them to buy back their own raw land.
The corporation probably paid them sixty cents on the dollar, and now will only sell the property back to them for a full dollar on the dollar.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 11:08am PT
|
Get back on that ladder and mind your own business...rj
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 11:16am PT
|
"and you will see there were no lame duck presidential supreme court nominations, since presidential term limits didn't happen till after FDR.
Obama's nomination will be a first in this regard."
Jan 1 is an arbitrary cutoff.
As I pointed out earlier, Reagan was a lame duck within 1 year of the next election when he nominated Anthony Kennedy on November 11, 1987, who was then confirmed by the DEMOCRAT led Senate to fill the vacancy on February 3, 1988, which is 9 months before the 1988 election.
|
|
bergbryce
climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 11:21am PT
|
Regarding the Citizens United ruling and the current presidential election, the super PACs have bet on the shittiest horses in the race. The Koch bros put their money on Scott Walker who didn't even make it to 2016. Bush and Clinton are the other biggest candidates still recieving big PAC money (that I know of, Rubio might be getting some too, not sure.) But Trump and Sanders have actually made the Citizens United ruling almost a moot point this election. I think this is more a sign of a frustrated electorate than anything. But I find it heartening and comical that all the cash in the world can't get the preferred politicians to the top of the tickets right now.
I always wondered too what that cash is used for anyways. What do they do buy radio and tv ads? Those things are worthless. Have they ever swayed a single voter?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 12:00pm PT
|
Tom, your nasty statements say a lot more about you, than Scalia.
Right Ken. If Obama nominates Srinivasan as part of a political strategy to demonstrate republican obstructionism and the Senate that previously confirmed him to a judgeship then rejects him, can Bernie or Hillary renominate him when the new President/Senate is seated?
Of course they could.
However, your description of an Obama nomination as a political strategy seems odd to me. The Constitution clearly calls for him to do it as part of his job. The only obvious reason not to, is if there is not a reasonable amount of time for the Senate to perform ITS Constitutionally mandated job of "consent". Clearly there is.
I suppose that you could say that any action mandated by the Constitution is a political action....after all, it is a political document!
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
|
All the Republicans can do, at this point, is try to intimidate President Obama with various, non-existent "rules" and "traditions". They can put forward tenuous, illogical arguments about why Obama should be the first President, in over 150 years, to not nominate a successor to a vacant Supreme Court seat in an election year.
For example, the Republicans are saying that Obama is a "lame duck" President, in his last year of office, and is (What? Incompetent? Nefarious? Irresponsible?). McConnell, Grassley and Co. say that Obama will never have to face the voters again, so he shouldn't do his job.
Why only the last year in office? Why not the last 18 months? Why not the last two years? Or the last three years? Why not the entire second term? Obama hasn't had to face the voters since early November, 2012. Why not start the lame duck paralysis right then?
The lame duck "Thurmond Rule" argument is arbitrary and ridiculous. If Scalia had died last Halloween, the situation would be about the same as when Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate.
The absurdity of the Republicans' official position, as put forward themselves, is readily apparent, as shown here:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley says,
“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year.
This is the same thing that Ted Cruz said on Meet the Press on 2-14-2016. Grassley's so-called standard practice (Cruz called it a long tradition) is sometimes known as the Thurmond Rule. It is not a law or a rule, at all; the name is simply a vanity-homage to a successful political maneuver in 1968.
According to the Senate website page for Supreme Court Nominations, and other reliable sources:
In the last 100 years, there have been THREE instances of Supreme Court vacancies during a Presidential election year. In the last 50 years, there have been NO vacancies during an election year. NONE.
The last time there was a vacancy in the Supreme Court during a Presidential election year was 1940, 76 years ago.
So, the Grassley-Cruz Interpretation/Justification for the Thurmond Rule goes like this:
For the past 80 (76) years, no President has nominated an appointee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court during a Presidential election year.
This indicates that there is a long-standing tradition that the President can't nominate an appointee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in an Presidential election year. Both parties have adhered to this tradition, since the Rule has never been broken in 80 (76) years.
Therefore, President Obama MUST refrain from nominating an appointee to fill the present vacancy on the Supreme Court. Otherwise, he will be in violation of the standard practice, the long tradition, the Thurmond Rule.
Even the ancient Greeks would have been able to see right through this bit of fallacious reasoning. It is both amusing and distressing that the ostensibly intelligent and educated people in the Senate (many of them attorneys, whose intellectual specialty is logic) would believe this Thurmond Rule argument to be worthy of dissemination to the public at large, let alone consider it a mandate that constrains the President.
The Thurmond Rule is fallacious, null and void for the following, simple reason:
THERE HAS BEEN NO OPPORTUNITY, IN THE PAST 76 YEARS, FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR WAS 1940, WHICH WAS 76 YEARS AGO.
The reason no President has "broken" the "Thurmond Rule" is because there hasn't been any opportunity to break it.
There is no "long tradition". There is no "standard practice". And there is no "Thurmond Rule". Like a great deal of what the GOP is offering this campaign season, it's a bunch of inane nonsense. All the GOP offers is a very poorly constructed piece of fallacious "logic" that has no place except in a general-education course at the local high school.
McConnell, Grassley, Cruz and Rubio might as well be talking about a "standard procedure" in which Presidents are forbidden from having a tumor removed from inside their mouth. Grover Cleveland had this done, in 1893. Since then?
For the past 123 years, The long tradition of the "Cleveland Rule" has prohibited all U.S. Presidents from boarding a ship, surreptitiously, and having a surgeon remove a cancerous tumor, several teeth and part of the upper jaw from the mouth.
Similarly, Ted Cruz might go on Meet the Press next week, and pontificate on the necessity that Obama not violate a Republican-mandated "Yalta Rule". The rule forbids any U.S. President from traveling to Yalta for a purpose of conferring with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. The rationale for the Yalta Rule is self-evident to people like McConnel, Grassley and Cruz: there is a long tradition (80 years, according to Ted Cruz) of U.S. Presidents ignoring voices that tell them to go to Yalta to meet with Stalin and Churchill.
Cruz might just be crazy enough to say, on national television, Obama can go to Yalta and see Stalin and Churchill after the election is over and he is out of office. But, not now.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:00pm PT
|
I've heard, from multiple sources, that Cruz is a liar.
I don't get it. The huge numbers, attending the events of outsiders, would indicate, the electorate is sick of these silly games. Don't these moron Republicans see that? Easy for McConnell to say, he has 4 more years, IIRC.
I may have to revise my prediction.
|
|
guido
Trad climber
Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:15pm PT
|
DD
Ditto Donini
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:18pm PT
|
Never speak ill of the dead.
So true, so true.
But, is he really dead when his voting record and opinions will live with us forever?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:39pm PT
|
As long as someone remembers us, we are not dead.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:41pm PT
|
Ok thanks Ken.
The headline on Huffingtonpost is:
White house calculus: which nominee imposes greatest cost on intransigent senators?
On the republican side, the first thought is to obstruct the nomination. On the democratic side, the first thought is which nominee imposes the greatest cost on obstructionist republicans. While we prefer not to sell it to ourselves that way, my experience is that my sh#t stinks too, even if it's not politically advantageous for me to admit it.
But if we want to live in an environment where the politicians admit that their sh#t stinks, maybe we need to expect the same from ourselves.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:50pm PT
|
Interstingly, on Obama's side, I think his main interest is in appointing a GREAT justice.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:54pm PT
|
I'd imagine Obama will nominate a moderate, most likely a woman or minority. And if the Senate refuses to move forward, not only will that be used in the Presidential election, but it will be used in all the Senate elections (and there's a bunch in states that went for Obama).
So the GOP is taking a risk if they filibuster a moderate. They could end up with a President Clinton or Sanders and Democratic Senate. Which would mean a strong possibility of a liberal instead of a moderate.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2016 - 03:55pm PT
|
Not one of the brilliant legal minds here, or on any news that I've seen have pointed out a key word in the Constitution on this matter.
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court
It doesn't say he has this power which can be exercised if he so chooses, there is no choice, he must nominate and appoint, whether or not he even wants to. In my industry, failure to follow CFR regulations containing the word "shall" are grounds for prosecution.
What would delight me most is for the President to nominate a centrist, then with the election approaching and polls showing a huge swing to the left, begin rumors of a more radical choice and watch the Senate scramble to nominate the first.
TE
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!