hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 16, 2016 14:08:21 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 16, 2016 14:14:27 GMT -5
The appointment seems reasonable. The man should be afforded a hearing and a vote. Anyone who wants to keep him off the Court should have to stand and be counted on the record.
However, Democrats are whelping like scalded dogs on this one despite their own position in 2007 and Obama's own aborted filibuster of Alito.
The only thing in long supply in DC is rank partisan hypocrisy on both sides.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 16, 2016 14:17:44 GMT -5
The appointment seems reasonable. The man should be afforded a hearing and a vote. Anyone who wants to keep him off the Court should have to stand and be counted on the record. However, Democrats are whelping like scalded dogs on this one despite their own position in 2007 and Obama's own aborted filibuster of Alito. The only thing in long supply in DC is rank partisan hypocrisy on both sides. Interestingly, I've already seen a few references to some Democrats being disappointed with the choice.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 16, 2016 14:23:42 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I like Obama's strategy here. The Senate is going to refuse to listen simply to make this an election issue. Nominating an older moderate makes takes away the GOP's ability to scaremonger and fundraise off a hypothetical 30-year-old super liberal that will sit on the bench in a Che Guevara beret for decades. You can stay home, you don't have to go out and vote for Trump.
And let's get this out of the way - Obama's not a Republican. He's not going to pull the nomination a day after the election.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 16, 2016 14:26:37 GMT -5
Um, the White House twitter feed needs a reboot:
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 16, 2016 14:55:16 GMT -5
Good to see he's nominating the same judge a centrist Republican might... And of course the Republicans will fight him anyway.
Pretty much sums up 2009-2016.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 16, 2016 15:56:22 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I like Obama's strategy here. The Senate is going to refuse to listen simply to make this an election issue. Nominating an older moderate makes takes away the GOP's ability to scaremonger and fundraise off a hypothetical 30-year-old super liberal that will sit on the bench in a Che Guevara beret for decades. You can stay home, you don't have to go out and vote for Trump. And let's get this out of the way - Obama's not a Republican. He's not going to pull the nomination a day after the election. Obama picked, from what I can tell, a distinguished white male moderate who many Republicans have said deserves bipartisan support. Puts Republicans on the spot. We'll see how that goes.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 16, 2016 16:05:14 GMT -5
Good to see he's nominating the same judge a centrist Republican might... And of course the Republicans will fight him anyway. Pretty much sums up 2009-2016. Funny how all of the canards about maintaining the ideological balance of the Court have ceased to exist. NB: I think the man is qualified and barring something as yet unknown should have a hearing and be confirmed. But Democrat hypocrisy on this one is as profound as Republican obstructionism.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 17, 2016 11:23:04 GMT -5
Good to see he's nominating the same judge a centrist Republican might... And of course the Republicans will fight him anyway. Pretty much sums up 2009-2016. Funny how all of the canards about maintaining the ideological balance of the Court have ceased to exist. NB: I think the man is qualified and barring something as yet unknown should have a hearing and be confirmed. But Democrat hypocrisy on this one is as profound as Republican obstructionism. Who claims that we should be maintaining ideological balance on the court? I think the hypocrisy is pretending that judges are some objective technocrats instead of biased individuals, and that's certainly a lie both parties are guilty of.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 17, 2016 12:15:21 GMT -5
Funny how all of the canards about maintaining the ideological balance of the Court have ceased to exist. NB: I think the man is qualified and barring something as yet unknown should have a hearing and be confirmed. But Democrat hypocrisy on this one is as profound as Republican obstructionism. Who claims that we should be maintaining ideological balance on the court? FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 17, 2016 12:22:16 GMT -5
Fill-in-the-blank said this about a hypothetical so it justifies our actual behavior. Great argument.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 17, 2016 12:36:18 GMT -5
Fill-in-the-blank said this about a hypothetical so it justifies our actual behavior. Great argument. I'm not justifying anything (others might be). I'm just pointing out (as is Elvado, I think), that both parties do the exact same thing depending on who is in/out of power. Personally, I think the Senate should have their hearings and vote on the guy (and reject him).
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Mar 17, 2016 12:40:23 GMT -5
Fill-in-the-blank said this about a hypothetical so it justifies our actual behavior. Great argument. I think the post was in response to the question "who claims that we should be maintaining ideological balance on the court?" In other words, the answer is that some Democrats claimed that.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 17, 2016 13:07:41 GMT -5
Is Schumer really claiming a responsibility to balance the court there? In my reading he's just claiming that he doesn't like a rightward lean.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 17, 2016 13:42:52 GMT -5
Fill-in-the-blank said this about a hypothetical so it justifies our actual behavior. Great argument. I'm not justifying anything (others might be). I'm just pointing out (as is Elvado, I think), that both parties do the exact same thing depending on who is in/out of power. Personally, I think the Senate should have their hearings and vote on the guy (and reject him). Reject him because he's not qualified? Reject him for the same reason that they're refusing to hold hearings now, i.e., wait until after the election? Or reject him for some other reason?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 17, 2016 14:01:07 GMT -5
I'm not justifying anything (others might be). I'm just pointing out (as is Elvado, I think), that both parties do the exact same thing depending on who is in/out of power. Personally, I think the Senate should have their hearings and vote on the guy (and reject him). Reject him because he's not qualified? Reject him for the same reason that they're refusing to hold hearings now, i.e., wait until after the election? Or reject him for some other reason? I say confirm him because he is qualified and there is no valid reason to deny him his spot as the selection of a duly elected President. Ideology is never an appropriate reason to torpedo a nominee. Just ask VP Biden, who gave birth to the baby of Bloodsport nominating procedures in the Bork matter.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 17, 2016 14:56:39 GMT -5
Reject him because he's not qualified? Reject him for the same reason that they're refusing to hold hearings now, i.e., wait until after the election? Or reject him for some other reason? I say confirm him because he is qualified and there is no valid reason to deny him his spot as the selection of a duly elected President.
Ideology is never an appropriate reason to torpedo a nominee. Just ask VP Biden, who gave birth to the baby of Bloodsport nominating procedures in the Bork matter. That's my view of the matter as well.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 17, 2016 22:46:53 GMT -5
Honestly, I think Garland's chances are going to mirror Trump's. If Trump appears to be floundering against Clinton (especially if Clinton weathers the debates), the GOP may look to confirm Garland simply to hedge their risk. With Garland confirmed, he essentially slots into O'Conner's old spot as the tiebreaker. If the GOP holds strong against him and Clinton wins, then Hillary will most likely nominate a justice that will be a more liberal tiebreaker, or so liberal that Breyer would be the new tiebreaker. It'll be an interesting game of chicken the next few months...
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 18, 2016 18:56:32 GMT -5
While the White House pointed to Garland’s credentials, which include running the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombings, a clerkship with Justice William Brennan and more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history, his nomination also seemed designed to put maximum pressure on Republicans.
If Garland ran the federal response to the Ok City bombing, Georgetown alumnus and President of the Yard my senior year, Frank Keating, ran the state response, as he was the Oklahoma governor at the time of the bombing.
|
|