The Supreme Court Vacancy

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I can't wait for the fireworks when President Clinton nominates former President Obama for the SCOTUS seat formerly held by Justice Scalia.

 

That would be funny, though I think you guys are being a bit presumptuous about November's election.  I don't think Clinton can win, even against Trump. 

 

That said, I heard an interesting conspiracy the other day that actually made a ton of sense.  My friend posed the idea that Obama would sick the justice department on Hillary about these emails right before the convention, forcing her out of the picture and a 'reluctant' Joe Biden stepping up and winning a brokered DNC convention... thought that was kind of funny.  Not sure Obama has the guts to do something like that, but I think Biden is probably the Dem's best shot at 2016. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Make sure you get the whole quote before going there. Biden's comments have been taken very strongly out of context for Republican talking points.

 

Fair enough, though if memory serves me right, he was regardless quite the proponent of not making that nomination in the election year. 

[biggentleben]

 

Fair enough, though if memory serves me right, he was regardless quite the proponent of not making that nomination in the election year. 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

 

That's the entire speech, much of which has been ignored, especially the fact that he would have no problem working with a "compromise" candidate, but just would not support a forced partisan candidate.

 

Regardless, those comments were made when there was not a single opening on the court. It's akin to me saying that I would like to marry a supermodel in a year ending in 6. I'm currently married, so that's not an option legally in my state, but I would like to marry a supermodel. Now, if my wife would use that comment twenty years from now to state that I did not any longer want to be married to her in 2036, then we're on par with what the Republicans are doing with this statement. Biden could make that statement all he wanted when it wasn't even an issue at the time, but using it as reason when there is actually an opening on the court is disingenuous at best and flat-out scum at worst.

[stringer bell]

 

Joe Biden begs to differ... just saying.  I'm not a fan of the Reps, but there's some pretty serious hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. 

Here's a fairly evenhanded look at the "Biden Rule":    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_Rule

[stringer bell]

I've said that if Obama solicited and accepted Ginsburg's retirement and nominated a 40-year old liberal, then public opinion would be different. Scalia died with almost a full year left in Obama's term, so it isn't like making appointments with only a grain or two in the hourglass.

 

Obama nominated a moderate--in fact some liberals think that Garland is too friendly to law enforcement--who by all reports is bright and well respected. He's also older, so he wouldn't likely be around for near as long as Justice Scalia.

 

If Republicans have a problem with the ideology of the nominee, that is one thing. They have the problem with the president who has offered basically a compromise candidate and it's still not good enough for them. IMHO, it will serve them right to get a liberal firebrand to take Scalia's seat.

[Badsmerf]

I'm going to send senator Grassley an email about this issue. I like Grassley and have supported a good majority of the things he has done in the Senate. However, if he aligns himself with this new obstructionist ideology i will help vote him out.

 

This issue, combined with a trump candidacy, is going to crush this party in November. Iowa is a mostly conservative state, but things are going to get weird this year. If democrats flood the polls to stop trump, Grassley could very well lose his seat for this. Especially when the heat gets turned up on him particularly.

[Badsmerf]

Morning Sen. Grassley,

I am writing you great disappointment today. I have supported you and felt you've had the best intentions for our state/nation. I've voted for you, and influenced others to do so as well. However, your obstinate position toward a nominee for the Supreme Court is shameful. The Republican party is falling apart, as seen by Mr. Trump's unprecedented support from the base. The party must adapt to the changing political landscape, and needs leaders.

You've been a major proponent of alternative energy and worked across party lines to get things accomplished. The current politicians unwilling to compromise and find solutions are going to begin to be held accountable. Please do not succumb to an outdated and crumbling ideology. Your voters are intelligent enough to see the hypocrisy in your current position about the nominee. Party affiliation is not going to help you.

Again, I urge you to reconsider and begin doing your job. I didn't vote for you to take an obstructionist approach. I didn't vote for you to hypocritically lead the Judiciary Committee. I thought I voted for you because you would stand up to this none-sense. I wont vote for you if you don't begin to lead rather than follow the people which have caused much of the anger within our country.

Sincerely,

Jestin Hulegaard  

Manson, IA

[PseudoSABR]

 

Morning Sen. Grassley,

I am writing you great disappointment today. I have supported you and felt you've had the best intentions for our state/nation. I've voted for you, and influenced others to do so as well. However, your obstinate position toward a nominee for the Supreme Court is shameful. The Republican party is falling apart, as seen by Mr. Trump's unprecedented support from the base. The party must adapt to the changing political landscape, and needs leaders.

You've been a major proponent of alternative energy and worked across party lines to get things accomplished. The current politicians unwilling to compromise and find solutions are going to begin to be held accountable. Please do not succumb to an outdated and crumbling ideology. Your voters are intelligent enough to see the hypocrisy in your current position about the nominee. Party affiliation is not going to help you.

Again, I urge you to reconsider and begin doing your job. I didn't vote for you to take an obstructionist approach. I didn't vote for you to hypocritically lead the Judiciary Committee. I thought I voted for you because you would stand up to this none-sense. I wont vote for you if you don't begin to lead rather than follow the people which have caused much of the anger within our country.

Sincerely,

Jestin Hulegaard  

Manson, IA

Thanks for sharing.  Thoughtful and persuasive.  I especially like your point about the willingness to compromise.

[Badsmerf]

I'm a little upset about the grammatical error... The space they gave is about 2 inches... on a pretty big monitor. So I didn't catch it. I heard on the radio in Wisconsin this week that Senators have been hearing at 3:1 or even 6:1 to hold hearings. I would hate to vote against Grassley because I like him, but I will. 

[Squirrel]

Mark Kirk, Republican U.S. Senator from IL, has been on record from the beginning that the Senate should hold hearings and vote on a justice, before a nomination was even made. However, he's known for a long time that his re-election is going to be very, very difficult and can't afford to follow along with McConnell on this. His outspokenness on this has been one of self-preservation.

[Squirrel]

 

 

I'm a little upset about the grammatical error... The space they gave is about 2 inches... on a pretty big monitor. So I didn't catch it. I heard on the radio in Wisconsin this week that Senators have been hearing at 3:1 or even 6:1 to hold hearings. I would hate to vote against Grassley because I like him, but I will. 

That aside ... it was a very good letter.

[Badsmerf]

 

Mark Kirk, Republican U.S. Senator from IL, has been on record from the beginning that the Senate should hold hearings and vote on a justice, before a nomination was even made. However, he's known for a long time that his re-election is going to be very, very difficult and can't afford to follow along with McConnell on this. His outspokenness on this has been one of self-preservation.

Also on my drive they commented about him. The particular comment was that he is a known homosexual, and doesn't represent the Republican party. It was difficult to listen to, but I wanted to broaden my horizons from just NPR. 

[nicksaviking]

 

Also on my drive they commented about him. The particular comment was that he is a known homosexual, and doesn't represent the Republican party. It was difficult to listen to, but I wanted to broaden my horizons from just NPR. 

 

God forbid. I hope they put warning posters up in the men's room so everyone can pee safely.

[Craig Arko]

Here is an interesting viewpoint. Has the Senate basically waived its right to conduct hearings by doing nothing?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

[ashbury]

Here is an interesting viewpoint. Has the Senate basically waived its right to conduct hearings by doing nothing?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

I would support this point of view, regardless of the political party controlling the Senate, for a variety of reasons elaborated in the article.

 

However, from a political point of view I doubt Obama wants to provoke a constitutional crisis in an election year; he seems to be trying to position the Democratic Party as the voice of sweet reason in the face of perpetual obstruction.

 

On the other hand an article like this in the WaPo might not occur in a vacuum, and could represent a trial balloon being floated by the Administration.

[nicksaviking]

Here is an interesting viewpoint. Has the Senate basically waived its right to conduct hearings by doing nothing?https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

I wonder if tgat precedent could be used other times when the Senate refuses to do their jobs, which seems often.

[gunnarthor]

 

I would support this point of view, regardless of the political party controlling the Senate, for a variety of reasons elaborated in the article.

 

However, from a political point of view I doubt Obama wants to provoke a constitutional crisis in an election year; he seems to be trying to position the Democratic Party as the voice of sweet reason in the face of perpetual obstruction.

 

On the other hand an article like this in the WaPo might not occur in a vacuum, and could represent a trial balloon being floated by the Administration.

I actually like that idea a lot. 

[ashbury]

I would support this point of view, regardless of the political party controlling the Senate, for a variety of reasons elaborated in the article.

A nice followup/rebuttal is summarized here. What is painful is this observation: "The author of the piece... crafts a fairly persuasive argument. At least, to the eyes of a non-lawyer." I plead guilty, Your Honor. Oh well, it was a fun idea.