Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 09:06am PT
|
From Tom's link:
Analysis:
The President has more than a year left in his term of office. He cannot stop being President and abandon his duties just because that would be convenient for the Republican agenda right now.
Additionally one of the three branches of the American government cannot be paralyzed by a 4-4 for more than a year because it suits conservative interests. The President has a responsibility to the American people to nominate a replacement as soon as possible.
Obama should use whatever tactic it takes to fulfill his responsibility as POTUS, including a recess appointment. It's stunning to me that he might even consider not doing so, given the Republican's 7 year history of obstructionism at all costs (unless it serves their own selfish agenda).
Get that damn Justice in there, Obama.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:03am PT
|
Some conservatives are also urging senators to resist Obama's nefarious attempts to "pack the court." Well, if Obama is a court packer by appointing three justices, including one in his final year, then so was Reagan.
Reagan appointed four. So did Nixon. The Republicans have overwhelmingly appointed more justices in the past 50 years, and the Court has reflected that right-leaning bias.
Since 1968 and Nixon, Republican Presidents have appointed 13 justices.
In that same era, Democratic Presidents have appointed only 4 justices.
Now that the pendulum is about to swing back (so the the appointments ratio is only 2.5 to 1, instead of 3 to 1), the Republicans cry foul. They're closing ranks, and mustering all their resources. They want to command the President to relinquish the nomination control over to them.
The most hilarious, for me, is that the GOP leadership has exhumed the long-dead corpse of Strom Thurmond, and are attempting to jolt it back to life, like a Capitol Hill Frankenstein monster, to use as muscle against Obama.
The attitude of the Republicans is just disgusting, on so many levels. I know that many Democrats are just as bad, but when I read about rampant malfeasance, 90-plus% of the time the offenders identify as Republican.
The great Republican myth about deregulation being an economic panacea is about to see a new day of reckoning. The social experiment that began with Nixon, and accelerated with Reagan has been a dismal failure. Even the GOP's own ranks see that it's been a failure - the Trump Show is a perfect indicator of that.
Deregulation is the same as lawlessness. People invented civilization so that they could live in a world of laws, not in a world of lawlessness.
With a rational, balanced High Court, we at least have a chance to claw back some of the excessive gains made by the international elite classes.
Go Kamala Harris!
A CEO, a union delegate and a blue-collar worker are sitting around a table. There is a plate with a dozen cookies in the middle.
The CEO grabs 11 of the cookies, eats a few, and stuffs the rest in his pockets, breaking them all into crumbs that his laundry servant will throw away later.
The CEO then turns to the worker, points to the last cookie on the plate, and says, "Watch our for that union guy. He's trying to take your cookie!"
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:30am PT
|
Justice Thomas always followed Scalia. We can only hope he continues to do so. he he
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:47am PT
|
Both Obama and the Senate are acting as provided in the Constitution. I find it amusing, though, how both sides forget how quickly they were making the opposite arguments. It simply shows how much expediency, rather than principle, determines contemporary politics.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:51am PT
|
my understanding from doing a little reading is that if there is any advantage to
the court remaining with only 8 justices, that advantage favors the political left
because, lower appellant courts decisions will stand on the SCOTUS 4-4 ties
and there are a few important cases coming up that are not likely to be overturned
it now takes a 5-3 vote to overturn and also for new rulings, seems more of a fair,
or more of a majority figure to me.....?
if so, the GOP may ending up not liking what they think they want
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/13/how_scalia_s_death_effects_the_term_s_biggest_cases.html
John, would be interested in your thoughts on this?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 16, 2016 - 10:56am PT
|
Especially the both sides would be doing it argument that John makes.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:01am PT
|
Both Obama and the Senate are acting as provided in the Constitution. I find it amusing, though, how both sides forget how quickly they were making the opposite arguments. It simply shows how much expediency, rather than principle, determines contemporary politics.
John
Exactly.
My thoughts are that the Repubs in the Senate should let appointments be proposed. Shoot down the ones that don't past muster. That will probably be everyone Obama proposes, but it would be perfectly Constitutional and within the legal/ethical domain of the Senate.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 16, 2016 - 11:07am PT
|
My thoughts too, bluering.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:09am PT
|
also, IF the GOP does not allow a court appointment through regular Constitutional channels, then they run the huge risk that President Obama appoints whoever he want during the 17 days of next January "option"
this seems like the Shut Down the Government Republican threat, they HAVE to fold
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:14am PT
|
So, none of you Dem's have been asked via email to sign a petition to " tell Republicans to stop playing politics with the Supreme Court"? I wonder if this kind of stuff ever influences much of anything or is just perceived as more noise?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:18am PT
|
Well, my wife is a Dem and not gotten any such emails
and I am a registered Republicsn and also no emails
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:21am PT
|
Why aren't you keen on a recess appointment, dirt?
Too much political blowback, or setting the stage for Repubs to reciprocate?
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:21am PT
|
I'm registered Republican and I get them. Makes for a really messy email box, all the stuff I get from the far right and left...
fyi; That email was from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:21am PT
|
John, would be interested in your thoughts on this?
I agree, Norton, that the 4-4 tie favors the left currently, because every case the SCOTUS is hearing this term is not before the court as a matter of right. Rather, they are before the court because a majority of the court agreed to hear the case (i.e. granted a writ of certiorari), or agreed to issue a stay of the challenged rule.
In the cases most important to the left this term, the granting of the writ usually implied a reversal of a circuit court decision in the left position's favor. I'm thinking particularly of the California case requiring teachers to pay union dues, even if they don't belong to the union and oppose its politics; and, possibly, the cases involving the EPA power plant rules and case challenging the general amnesty for illegal aliens as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. A 4-4 tie leaves in place the decision from which the appeal was taken.
I'm not so sure what a 17-day appointment could accomplish, other than in a case where a need for a stay arises.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 16, 2016 - 11:26am PT
|
Apogee, I don't think that I've opined on recess appointments.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 11:37am PT
|
So....thoughts?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 16, 2016 - 11:47am PT
|
I guess I'm against it. I can see the argument justifying such an appointment as necessary, given that congress has completely shirked one of its most important duties, i.e., to consider court appointments. But I think for something as big as a court appointment the process should be followed. The court already has a trust problem, and the last thing it needs is to be viewed even more as a political instrument. I also think the administration should provide a clear contrast to the shenanigans that the senate is pulling.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!