Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Supreme Court pick conundrum

  • 26-04-2010 03:23PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭


    It’s no secret the far Left in this country have been showing discontent with Barack Obama’s slow progressive advancement. With the recent appointment of Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, president Obama just might throw the Left a bone with a somewhat radical nominee (by Republican standards) to the US Supreme Court to replace Justice Stevens.

    If a darling of the Left is in fact nominated to the US Supreme Court by the president, several questions are raised based on the point that Republicans probably do not have enough votes to stop any candidate on a simple up or down vote. So, should Democrats, who have filibustered and rejected Republican judicial nominees merely on philosophical grounds, complain if Republicans use the same tactics? And should Republicans, who have repeatedly argued against the filibuster in the past, and demanded an up or down vote on their candidates in order to allow elected officials make the final decision on a president’s nominee, filibuster a far Left nomination?

    Personally, in this political environment, I think the Republicans should use the filibuster for any nominee considered by them to be on the far left of their core values. Since the Democrats were the ones who championed the filibuster, they should be the first to throw down the proverbial olive branch on the process. If one side uses the filibuster and the other side doesn't, you end up skewing the courts in one direction - because the tactic works (google Bork). With this president’s nominee process, I feel the filibuster precedent was already set because a once Senator Obama had voted to filibuster a candidate he admitted was qualified, simply because he disagreed with their philosophy.

    Back in 2006 during the senate confirmation vote of Samuel Alito, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein had no qualms about rejecting him simply because she did not agree with Alito ("If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure, one can't vote for Judge Alito"). Senator Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and even Senator Barack Obama supported the use of the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote on qualified nominees. So president Obama can't really object to Republicans using his standard or he will be labeled a hypocrite. But Republicans will also be labeled hypocrites if they employ the filibuster tactic they have often labeled unacceptable.

    I do hope president Obama follows his own words and avoids another tough fight we just don’t need at this time. His words I’m referring to come from his book "The Audacity of Hope," which he used as an argument of Senate Democrats' use of the filibuster against President George W. Bush's judicial nominees - “Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president -- and benefits our democracy -- to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

    It might be an interesting summer if we have to battle this, along with a renewed illegal immigration reform initiative push by Obama because of Arizona, and a climate change bill. I am torn, because I think more of these types of battles will insure a change of Congress back to Republican majority by a center right country come November. But on the other side of the coin, it might just be better if our government focused it’s efforts mainly on the economy and jobs, and took some time off from nasty political battles.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Health Care. Republicans Block. Lose Battle

    Financial Reform. Republicans block. Lose battle.

    Supreme Court appointment. No matter who is picked, the republicans will block and lose the battle.

    They are starting to resemble spoiled children in the public mind. November won't bring the sweeping changes that the Republicans are hoping for.

    Obama is getting stuff done. The republicans know it and the public know it whether you agree with it politically or not.

    The republican's are shooting themselves in the foot by freezing themselves out.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Health Care. Republicans Block. Lose Battle

    Financial Reform. Republicans block. Lose battle.

    In fairness, the only reason that they passed healthcare was that the vote in the Senate took place before Scott Brown took his seat. The House Democrats were then given the choice of a Senate bill they weren't incredibly keen on (And which took a fair bit of bribing to accept) or nothing at all. Similarly, the only reason Financial Reform is moving forward is that two Republican senators decided to allow it to do so yesterday.

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    In fairness, the only reason that they passed healthcare was that the vote in the Senate took place before Scott Brown took his seat. The House Democrats were then given the choice of a Senate bill they weren't incredibly keen on (And which took a fair bit of bribing to accept) or nothing at all. Similarly, the only reason Financial Reform is moving forward is that two Republican senators decided to allow it to do so yesterday.

    NTM

    I disagree.

    The filibuster proof majority was much loved by Republicans as they could simply vote No on everything, yet the problems that needed addressing would still get done, just not with their support. Perfect for a party of lazy half wits more interested in talking rubbish on radio then crafting legislation and addressing long standing issues.

    If the Democratic super majority hadn't existed for Health Care there would have been no real filibuster, just like has now happened with Financial Reform. Republicans getting the 41st seat actually ensures a few Republicans will break and vote for bills. Impotent opposition is easy and good politically, actual obstruction is hard and carries a political cost.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.

    Time and time again American conservatism positions itself at the wrong end of history. Block it all you want, you bigots will only ever be able to ruin so much, whatever good that is left in America after your thirty year propaganda campaign aimed at the idiotic majority will still prevail.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.

    Time and time again American conservatism positions itself at the wrong end of history. Block it all you want, you bigots will only ever be able to ruin so much, whatever good that is left in America after your thirty year propaganda campaign aimed at the idiotic majority will still prevail.

    Actually, if you look at real history rather than the hate based propaganda spewed by some Liberals, Democrats and biased news agencies, you will discover that Republicans have a better civil rights record than do Democrats. I do hope you take the time to discover the truth.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    Actually, if you look at real history rather than the hate based propaganda spewed by some Liberals, Democrats and biased news agencies, you will discover that Republicans have a better civil rights record than do Democrats. I do hope you take the time to discover the truth.

    Well generally people don't 'look' at history, they read it. And furthermore, I'm aware of the pre 1964 political establishment, when the Democrats were the party of southern white extremists, and Republicans the party of northern abolitionists and liberals.

    But Barry Goldwater's 'valiant' defence of states rights in 1964 ensured that inglorious mantle would pass to the Republicans, and the Democrats would become the party of civil rights and Liberal reform.

    P.S- I referred to American conservatism in the historical sense. And, while of course this is an arrogant statement, I'd drink you under the table in any discussion of American history.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    I'd drink you under the table in any discussion of American history.

    That may very well be true, so you should have no problem answering these questions.

    1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history up untill then and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected antilynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not
    denied the right to vote?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party


    The answer to all questions is "B"
    http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter.pdf


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    You really are an amazing individual. Not only did you rob a list of broadly known facts from some website with a weird agenda to muddle, you then seem to lack even the most basic understanding of my post. I'm talking about American conservatism, and if you had actually read my post, rather than resort to some pathetic copy paste job, you'd understand I'm fully aware of what you're talking about.

    P.S- You're confirming the prevailing view on this website that you, like most Americans on the far right, speak in catchphrases and petty slogans, not reasoned argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    You really are an amazing individual. Not only did you rob a list of broadly known facts from some website with a weird agenda to muddle, you then seem to lack even the most basic understanding of my post. I'm talking about American conservatism, and if you had actually read my post, rather than resort to some pathetic copy paste job, you'd understand I'm fully aware of what you're talking about.

    My apologies then, silly me thought you wrote the following:
    Republican party activists love screaming out catchphrases and recycled rubbish propogated by their radio demagogues, but the reality is that if they actually got the gun loving, gay bashing, poor hating thugs in the Supreme court all of the time, blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites and the beloved 'states rights' mantra, the ultimate unthinking response by a contradictory fundamentalist bigot, would allow Jim Crow to survive in all of its injustice.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    You seem to be highly confused. I'm saying if you got the kind of bigots on the bench that you actually want, the ones who take a fundamentalist line on 'states rights' and certain sections of the constitution, then such things as the overturning of the prohibition of racial intermarriage would never had occured.

    You seem to believe that the Republican party pre 1964 and the post 1964 Republican party are the same thing. I find that hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    You seem to be highly confused. I'm saying if you got the kind of bigots on the bench that you actually want, the ones who take a fundamentalist line on 'states rights' and certain sections of the constitution, then such things as the overturning of the prohibition of racial intermarriage would never had occured.

    Where do you come up with this stuff? The kind of bigots who wants? And I thought in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was the landmark civil rights intermarriage case, was decided on by a 9-0 decision. I think their might have been one or two republican justices on the US Supreme court at the time. ;)

    So if I read you correctly, what you meant to say was “what I meant to say”


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    Where do you come up with this stuff? The kind of bigots who wants? And I thought in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which was the landmark civil rights intermarriage case, was decided on by a 9-0 decision. I think their might have been one or two republican justices on the US Supreme court at the time. ;)

    So if I read you correctly, what you meant to say was “what I meant to say”

    You have an acutely obtuse analytical style. You deny that US conservatives defended and fostered the Jim Crow laws? (Usually under the guise of 'states rights') Or was it those darn liberals?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    You have an acutely obtuse analytical style. You deny that US conservatives defended and fostered the Jim Crow laws? (Usually under the guise of 'states rights') Or was it those darn liberals?

    I just might be wrong here, but wasn’t it the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that essentially ended Jim Crow?

    And again correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this how that vote went down:
    The original House version:
    * Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    * Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
    Cloture in the Senate:
    * Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
    * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version:
    * Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
    * Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version, voted on by the House:
    * Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
    * Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Oh My god. Oh my sweet ****ing God. This is a ****ing joke. Do you want me to give you a basic American history lesson or are you trying to do your very best to be as obtuse as possible!!!!??

    Note where I said that the DEMOCRATS were the party of the southern racists, and how 1964 CHANGED THAT.

    You are the most infuriating man I have ever enconutered on this site.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Of course you make the easy mistake (Easy that is if you are completely ignorant of US history) of associating Liberalism with the Democrats and Conservatism with the Republicans, as if it were constant and unchanged throughout history. I cannot convey in words that won't get me banned, how much I want to knock your head off a brick wall until it stands even the slightest chance of understanding how ridiculous you look.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Amerika wrote: »
    That may very well be true, so you should have no problem answering these questions.

    1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history up untill then and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
    [ ] a. Democratic Party
    [ ] b. Republican Party

    10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected antilynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    13. What was the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president and the FBI investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not
    denied the right to vote?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party

    17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
    [ ] a. Republican Party
    [ ] b. Democratic Party


    The answer to all questions is "B"
    http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter.pdf

    This is quite possibly the stupidest post I have ever read on Boards. Seriously.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    As long as these appointed judges can, in a sense, leave their emotions on
    issues 'at the door'.

    Never a guarantee though!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I thought the Left was the party of nuance. I must have misunderstood. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    As long as these appointed judges can, in a sense, leave their emotions on
    issues 'at the door'.
    Agreed! And hopefully, as one justice wisely stated: “And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    I thought the Left was the party of nuance. I must have misunderstood. :D

    Is this your way of admitting that you're embarassed by your behaviour on this thread, and that you just want it all to go away?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Denerick is off course correct, Amerika is off course wrong.

    The Republican Party used to be the Liberal wing in American politics, at times they were even considered radical. The Democrats historically were the Conservative, xenophobic, racist, pro-slavery and segregationist party. The two pretty much did a switch in 1964 when Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act.

    It is amazing the way Conservatives laud the history of the Republican Party, what they are admiring is the historically Liberal wing of American Politics. What is ridicules is they they seem to have no idea that this is the case - but it does tell you something about these people and where they get their world view from - utter ignorance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

    Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.
    Kagan and Obama both taught at the University of Chicago Law School in the early 1990s.
    Cronism!
    At 50 years old, Kagan would be the youngest justice on the court, which would give her the opportunity to extend Obama's legacy for a generation.
    Liberal Agenda!
    Yet Kagan would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years.
    Inexperience!

    There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Amerika wrote: »
    Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

    Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.


    Cronism!


    Liberal Agenda!

    Inexperience!

    There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

    So to translate that into reality, Obama has nominated a well qualified former Law School Dean and current Solicitor General to the Supreme Court.

    Obama's choice of Supreme Court nominations can be compared to Bush's in that they are both found of elevating women. One significant difference though is that unlike Bush, none of the women President Obama has nominated have been his secretary.




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Amerika wrote: »
    Inexperience!

    There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach."
    It's unfortunate that some people resort to such broadsweeping and cliche' generalisations when failing to make a substantive argument. Such statements as this detract from, rather than support their position.

    If Republicans or conservatives were smart when attempting to oppose this nomination, they would ignore trying to label Kagan a liberal, and rather focus on if she is qualified to be a judge for the highest court in the land, regardless of her political philosophy.

    "Kagan has never served in the judiciary." She may have pleaded before the bench, but she has no experience on the bench, therefore her qualifications are suspect?

    Of course, this is not the first time a president has nominated someone without judiciary experience. Republican president GW Bush nominated his lawyer, but failed in confirmation hearings. Republican president Nixon succeeded:

    "The last time a non-judge was appointed was in 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon nominated William H. Rehnquist and Lewis Powell in the same year."

    In any case, it would seem that a Supreme Court Justice should have lower court judge experience as a part of their qualifications, and that Obama, GW Bush, and Nixon were in error by nominating such people.

    Sources:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051001116.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616/ns/politics-supreme_court/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Amerika wrote: »
    Well, right now looks like the pick will be Elena Kagan. We should know soon enough.

    Doesn’t surprise me though. Looking at the article about her, several things jumped out at me that represents a microcosm of the Obama regime.


    Cronism!

    Gasp! They both worship Cron?!?!

    Liberal Agenda!

    Inexperience!

    There is an old saying here: "Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't, Teach." There might be a footnote to the axiom under the Obama Administration: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Run The Country.” And if the GOP takes back Congress in 2010, maybe we can stop it from becoming: “Those Who Are Inexperienced, Ruin The Country.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

    Inexperience? So what? There have been 40 USSC justices, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, with no prior judicial experience.

    Sorry the facts dismantle your 'point'.

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Exile 1798 wrote: »
    So to translate that into reality, Obama has nominated a well qualified former Law School Dean and current Solicitor General to the Supreme Court.

    Obama's choice of Supreme Court nominations can be compared to Bush's in that they are both found of elevating women. One significant difference though is that unlike Bush, none of the women President Obama has nominated have been his secretary.

    Agreed that nominating Miers was not one of GW Bush’s shining moments. But I’m confused about your post. How exactly does someone with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, only a year as Solicitor General of the United States, and experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualify her for a seat on the Nation’s high court?

    And don't you think its ironic that the "most transparent administration ever" would pick a nominee without much of a paper trail?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Amerika wrote: »
    Agreed that nominating Miers was not one of GW Bush’s shining moments. But I’m confused about your post. How exactly does someone with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, only a year as Solicitor General of the United States, and experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualify her for a seat on the Nation’s high court?

    And don't you think its ironic that the "most transparent administration ever" would pick a nominee without much of a paper trail?

    It wasn't one of his shining moments, but it also wasn't a one off. He had quite a record of appointing incompetent members of the Bush clann to high office. Alberto "Bozo" Gonzales to Attorney General, Donald Rumsfield to Defense Secretary, his former College roommate Michael Brown to head FEMA.

    As for your "concerns" about the experience of Kagan, I sense that your simply playing with words. So she has no "judicial experience".... does that make her unqualified?

    Just like the President who had no "executive experience", in contrast to Sarah Palin who had a lot of "executive experience" Clearly, Sarah Palin was more qualified and ready to be President the Barack Obama, right?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Inexperience? So what? There have been 40 USSC justices, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, with no prior judicial experience

    Although this is true, Rehnquist did have some 13 years of private practise before moving to the attorney general's office and then the bench. Cliches aside, there is something to be said for real-world experience outside of the academia.

    However, she does seem to be more 'middle-of-the-road' than most. I think she'll be less controversial than Sotomeyer.

    NTM


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Amerika wrote: »
    If a darling of the Left is in fact nominated to the US Supreme Court by the president...

    "In her confirmation hearing last year, she stated that she did not believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that she was not morally opposed to capital punishment, and that she does not think the decision to support the Second Amendment right for private gun ownership was faulty."

    This is Left? If so, left of what?

    Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-things-you-should-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    "In her confirmation hearing last year, she stated that she did not believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that she was not morally opposed to capital punishment, and that she does not think the decision to support the Second Amendment right for private gun ownership was faulty."

    This is Left? If so, left of what?

    Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-things-you-should-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

    Who can tell (I know Barack Obama has a liberal agenda though)? She has such a slim resume on her viewpoints, I think that other than Barack Obama, nobody in the process can really get a handle on her judicial philosophy. Her decision to ban the military from campus because of her perception of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is troubling.

    So, since she is an unknown commodity, would it be fair for her to get Bork’d? (And I know it is different, I'm more speaking about party posturing led by Ted Kennedy, which was the case then)


Advertisement