B-Man Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Dear Democrats, Please Stop Insulting Our Intelligence on Judicial Nominations by David French Does any sentient human being believe that if the Democrats had the Senate majority in the final year of a conservative president’s second term — and Justice Ginsburg’s seat came open — they would approve any nominee from that president ? ? Further, does any sentient human being believe that the Democrats’ behavior in 1987–88 — when they engaged in shameful character assassination against Robert Bork before finally confirming Anthony Kennedy — represented Democratic cooperation with President Reagan ? ? Despite the fact that Democrats would undoubtedly stand firm against a conservative president — and despite the fact that the confirmation of Kennedy rather than Bork represented one of the most consequential triumphs of Senate obstructionism in our lifetimes — expect Democrats and their activist allies to keep hammering home the notion that the Democrats would be totally fair and reasonable if the tables were turned. The public is largely indifferent to political history, and the Democrats know the media won’t call them out on their own record. Plus, if past performance is any predictor of future results, there’s always a chance that Republicans in the Senate will panic. The GOP has collapsed on the fainting couch before. It may fall there again.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=1 Your Rules, Democrats FTA: Scalia’s Ideology, consisted of a belief that the law saws what it says and nothing more. Scalia often is described as a “conservative,” but he was a “conservative” who sided with flag-burners, because that’s what the law demands, and with various and sundry unattractive criminal defendants, because the law was on their side, too. He treated the First Amendment the way he treated the Second: as a series of words with a particular meaning. The Kagans, Sotomayors, and Ginsburgs of the world operate under no such restraints. Kagan lied about her views on gay marriage in order to enact them from the Supreme Court. Ginsburg will find left-wing results on any question regardless of what the law says. Sotomayor is still doing her “wise Latina” routine. The belief that the Constitution says whatever it is that Democrats want it to say at any given moment is illegitimate as a legal philosophy for Supreme Court justices. Democrats long ago established that ideological disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for blocking a Supreme Court appointee. Senator Schumer spelled out the political case for preventing a lame-duck president from filling a vacancy. Senator Obama demonstrated the technique. Your rules, gentlemen. Your rules.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=2 Scalia’s Greatness FTA: We live in a leveling era, a time when admiration for excellence is out of favor. Instead, we’re encouraged to resent and begrudge those who are superior. That’s a shame, because admiration has its pleasures. We ought to feel grateful to have lived in a time that produced an American figure of such genius and consequence. The point has been made that in his 29-year career as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia more often wrote in dissent than in the majority. It’s true that Scalia could not marshal large majorities for his careful, learned, and historically grounded view of constitutional (and, for that matter, legislative) interpretation. In the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in our democracy, Scalia was arrayed against the majority of lawyers, law professors, journalists, politicians, intellectuals, and often, at least five of his fellow justices. They had the numbers. All he had on his side was his mind and unique spirit. It was no contest. Scalia is an example of how important the individual can be in history. Though he was often outvoted, the mark he has left on American jurisprudence is profound. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It is an odd choice not to do an autopsy -- if for no other reason than to dispel any sort of speculation by the conspiracy minded. Except it never would. The conspiracy-minded would simply insist the autopsy was faked, the autopsy report was doctored, etc. Anything done in response a conspiracy theory is a waste of time, as it simply becomes incorporated into the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Except it never would. The conspiracy-minded would simply insist the autopsy was faked, the autopsy report was doctored, etc. Anything done in response a conspiracy theory is a waste of time, as it simply becomes incorporated into the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Except it never would. The conspiracy-minded would simply insist the autopsy was faked, the autopsy report was doctored, etc. Anything done in response a conspiracy theory is a waste of time, as it simply becomes incorporated into the theory. True, there will always be crazy. At least for me, if I were his family, I'd want one done to keep at least the rational people from needlessly speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 True, there will always be crazy. At least for me, if I were his family, I'd want one done to keep at least the rational people from needlessly speculating. Nah. You do an autopsy, and you're obfuscating with detail, and the next thing you know people question whether he's even dead or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Rob, mahfukka, I see you in the gallery chillin. I'm sure you have **** to say to my post #123. What are your thoughts broham? Where do you stand on this shiznit? I think you summed it up pretty well. I didn't care for the sociological arguments that came into the decision but I think you can get to the same conclusion without them. A pretty reasonable argument can be made that state sanctioned segregation does not provide equal protection ..., but it does take some mental flexibility to come to the ultimate finding. It's a tough question and one I don't really have a great answer for. My biggest concern going forward is whether we keep any kind of meaningful adherence to constitutional restraints and rule of law generally. I think we've been moving consistently away from that for the last century, but I'm concerned it's just a matter of time now before the constitution is effectively an outline of contemporary liberal philosophy. We'll see though. Sometimes things shift in unpredictable directions so I'm more curious to see how it will unfolds than I am resolute in any predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What's the big deal? Just fill the vacancy. Why can't this President get his nominee a hearing? I mean how long will it take for the Dems to say, perhaps correctly. that its because he is black. Does the country really need that? Kind of scary how the GOP marched in lock step to say Obama shouldnt even consider it. WTF? Dear Democrats, Please Stop Insulting Our Intelligence on Judicial Nominations by David French Does any sentient human being believe that if the Democrats had the Senate majority in the final year of a conservative president’s second term — and Justice Ginsburg’s seat came open — they would approve any nominee from that president ? ? Further, does any sentient human being believe that the Democrats’ behavior in 1987–88 — when they engaged in shameful character assassination against Robert Bork before finally confirming Anthony Kennedy — represented Democratic cooperation with President Reagan ? ? Despite the fact that Democrats would undoubtedly stand firm against a conservative president — and despite the fact that the confirmation of Kennedy rather than Bork represented one of the most consequential triumphs of Senate obstructionism in our lifetimes — expect Democrats and their activist allies to keep hammering home the notion that the Democrats would be totally fair and reasonable if the tables were turned. The public is largely indifferent to political history, and the Democrats know the media won’t call them out on their own record. Plus, if past performance is any predictor of future results, there’s always a chance that Republicans in the Senate will panic. The GOP has collapsed on the fainting couch before. It may fall there again.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=1 Your Rules, Democrats FTA: Scalia’s Ideology, consisted of a belief that the law saws what it says and nothing more. Scalia often is described as a “conservative,” but he was a “conservative” who sided with flag-burners, because that’s what the law demands, and with various and sundry unattractive criminal defendants, because the law was on their side, too. He treated the First Amendment the way he treated the Second: as a series of words with a particular meaning. The Kagans, Sotomayors, and Ginsburgs of the world operate under no such restraints. Kagan lied about her views on gay marriage in order to enact them from the Supreme Court. Ginsburg will find left-wing results on any question regardless of what the law says. Sotomayor is still doing her “wise Latina” routine. The belief that the Constitution says whatever it is that Democrats want it to say at any given moment is illegitimate as a legal philosophy for Supreme Court justices. Democrats long ago established that ideological disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for blocking a Supreme Court appointee. Senator Schumer spelled out the political case for preventing a lame-duck president from filling a vacancy. Senator Obama demonstrated the technique. Your rules, gentlemen. Your rules.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner?page=2 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner They gave that Bork a hearing didn't they? That Bork was rejected because of who he was, not on the idea a President didn't even deserve a choice. His role in Watergate really tainted him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What's the big deal? Just fill the vacancy. Why can't this President get his nominee a hearing? I mean how long will it take for the Dems to say, perhaps correctly. that its because he is black. Does the country really need that? Kind of scary how the GOP marched in lock step to say Obama shouldnt even consider it. WTF? They gave that Bork a hearing didn't they? That Bork was rejected because of who he was, not on the idea a President didn't even deserve a choice. His role in Watergate really tainted him Is this a parody of the Manning/Newton thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What's the big deal? Just fill the vacancy. Why can't this President get his nominee a hearing? I mean how long will it take for the Dems to say, perhaps correctly. that its because he is black. Does the country really need that? Kind of scary how the GOP marched in lock step to say Obama shouldnt even consider it. WTF? They're marching in lock-step because they're reading from the Democrats' playbook. Next time the Republicans have the White House, the Democrats are going to turn the tables and do the exact same thing. Ultimately, both parties have the complete lack of maturity as...well, as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Is this a parody of the Manning/Newton thread? He can't help it. Leftists are the ones who see color, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 He can't help it. Leftists are the ones who see color, not people. Not color. Labels. Leftists don't see Condi Rice as a black woman, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 “We need to make sure that the next president & not the current president appoints the next Supreme Court Justice.” -- Senator Timothy Scott I Agree with Senator Obama by Charles C.W. Cooke Senator Obama explains his attitude toward Supreme Court nominations in 2006: (http://obamaspeeches.com/046-Confirmation-of-Judge-Samuel-Alito-Jr-Obama-Speech.htm) As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I’m deeply troubled. I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He’s an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there’s no indication he’s not a man of great character. But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights. Now, Obama did seem to believe that once that process had started, he did not buy into the idea that the Senate has any obligation to confirm the president’s choice simply because that choice is “qualified.” It will be interesting to see if he still holds this view if/once a couple of his nominees have been rejected.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431351/barack-obama-believed-nominees-could-be-rejected-basis-ideology So.......................was Senator Obama correct Lefties ? ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 A take from a ex military intelligence guy. But what would he know. A pillow over his head? Yeah a maid did that. Everything just seems to work out nicely for Obama trying to force his agenda. Just a coincidence I suppose. http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/02/judge-scalia-sleeps-with-the-fishes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What's the big deal? Just fill the vacancy. Why can't this President get his nominee a hearing? I mean how long will it take for the Dems to say, perhaps correctly. that its because he is black. Does the country really need that? Kind of scary how the GOP marched in lock step to say Obama shouldnt even consider it. WTF? They gave that Bork a hearing didn't they? That Bork was rejected because of who he was, not on the idea a President didn't even deserve a choice. His role in Watergate really tainted him Shut up you regressive hack. Don't bring up race and insinuate we are all racist because Obama is an awful president for the country and he gets called out for it. We love his black half very much, it's his white half and awful policies we hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 They're marching in lock-step because they're reading from the Democrats' playbook. Next time the Republicans have the White House, the Democrats are going to turn the tables and do the exact same thing. Ultimately, both parties have the complete lack of maturity as...well, as you. Democrats play book? When have Dems ever done this? You are right though, if this absolute farce continues the Dems will have to decide if they will do the same stupid thing. And how can't that? The GOP will argue that only they can appoint judges if they win this. “We need to make sure that the next president & not the current president appoints the next Supreme Court Justice.” . Again, the Dems gave the guy a hearing and he was approved. This is totally different. There has not even been a pick yet and the REps are saying THIS president should be allowed to do what all the other ones have done Outrageous Shut up you regressive hack. Don't bring up race and insinuate we are all racist because Obama is an awful president for the country and he gets called out for it. We love his black half very much, it's his white half and awful policies we hate. We the people elected him twice. We love him. He is our president and will do his constitutional duty as should the senate, regardless of party, faction, race or anything. We are heading towards constitutional crisis because the GOP won't do it's duty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Democrats play book? When have Dems ever done this? You are right though, if this absolute farce continues the Dems will have to decide if they will do the same stupid thing. And how can't that? The GOP will argue that only they can appoint judges if they win this. Again, the Dems gave the guy a hearing and he was approved. This is totally different. There has not even been a pick yet and the REps are saying THIS president should be allowed to do what all the other ones have done Outrageous We the people elected him twice. We love him. He is our president and will do his constitutional duty as should the senate, regardless of party, faction, race or anything. We are heading towards constitutional crisis because the GOP won't do it's duty The Senate's duty is to decide to consent or not. They are well within their rights to deny any candidate. Deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The Senate's duty is to decide to consent or not. They are well within their rights to deny any candidate. Deal.They are saying they just are not going to do their duty, period. They are using a broad interpretation of the constitution to accomplish purely partisan aims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 They're doing their duty. If they don't like the candidate, they don't have to confirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 They are saying they just are not going to do their duty, period. They are using a broad interpretation of the constitution to accomplish purely partisan aims. What is their duty, gator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What is their duty, gator? Obviously to do whatever Barry wants. Wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts