Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yes, that's part of the reason members of Congress were elected. Re-reading this, it appears you don't understand how (and why) the elections for POTUS and Congress are different. |
Anonymous
I just had this one thrown at me as "evidence" yesterday #1 It was a hypothetical #2 if you look, this is in late June, which is much later than Feb/March in the grand scheme of the election Look, I am a Biden fan, but I disagree with this statement. And the one Schumer gave in 2007, I think? I understand not wanting someone who leans too far one way on the court, but when government is divided, a moderate should be able to be agreed upon by everyone. I disagree with having people who are political on the supreme court in general. I think Obama (or any President, for that matter) picking the most moderate person possible is best in the long run anyway, rather than someone who fits some political mold. I guarantee if RBG had died, though, we wouldn't be having this insanity. It's all because it was Scalia. |
Anonymous
Exactly. How can they advise and consent by refusing to meet with the nominee or hold hearings? If I refused to do my job because I didn't agree with my boss' political views, I'd be fired. |
Anonymous
right, congress is at a local level - which is why I don't believe for one second that there was some decision by the collective to elect a bunch of r's JUST to block a potential nominee (which isn't a guarantee during any presidential term) And if you elected someone for this reason alone, you're a moron. |
Anonymous
I am the PP who posted the video and am a liberal. I am also a Biden fan and wish he were the nominee instead of Clinton. My point in posting the video and other posts about the hypocrisy of Democrats on this issue, is that IMO, the Democrats would do the exact same thing if we were dealing with a liberal vacancy and a Republican president who wanted to nominate a moderate/conservative in the final year of his/her office. What is more, I'd support them if they did so because I would not want the balance within the Supreme court adversely (from my standpoint) affected with a conservative appointment. Supreme court appointments are political inasmuch the incumbent president looks to nominate a candidate who embraces his/her philosophy. When you have two equally competent individuals on the Court who view the same issue differently based on an interpretation of the Constitution it means that liberal vs conservative philosophy comes into play. Biden and Schumer may have made their statements in the context of hypothetical situations but I believe they were sincerely held views. The answer to an obstructionist senate is for the American people to vote them out of office if they believe they are not doing their job. If they are not voted out, it means the electorate either agrees with their actions or is indifferent to their obstructionism. You are right that if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia this would not have been an issue. No surprise there because filling Scalia's vacancy with someone who is liberal or a moderate with liberal leanings changes the complexion of the court for potentially several decades. There was relatively little resistance from the Republicans when it came to confirming Sotomayor and Kagan because they were replacing liberal justices. |
Anonymous
|
Jews - 2% of the population, potentially 44% of SCOTUS.
It's good to be jewish. |
Anonymous
| What's with all the posts brushing on anti-semitic? They have tone the same poster, right? |
Anonymous
If he's as good as they are saying, he should have been nominated years ago. |
Anonymous
wait what? How is it anti-Semitic to point out facts? |
Anonymous
12:52 - I think we're just coming at this from different angles. That's fine 
I would be ok with the senate dems voting against (not blocking entirely) someone who leaned too far right. But in the reverse situation, I'd hope an R president would nominate a moderate to the court in order to bridge the divide. It annoys me that judges have a philosophy. In my view, they are all supposed to be moderate and fair and not part of some team. I do get that there is a "balance" now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Especially as deeply divided as the public and government are, I think we should be aiming for as many moderate justices as we can get. |
Anonymous
NP. I think you are wrong. The RS are acting without integrity by not holding hearings and refusing to meet with Garland. Their behavior is rude and disrespectful, of the Supreme Court, the President, and of their own offices. I would say the same if DS did the same thing. |
Anonymous
You won't be black by any chance, correct? |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
As a Jew, I tend to be sensitive about anti-semitism, but I don't think it is anti-semitic to marvel about the number of Jews on the Court. The fact that there is not one Protestant among the justices, all of whom were appointed by Protestant presidents, is surely worthy of discussion. I don't think it betokens self-hatred on the part of the presidents, but it is statistically unlikely enough that I would like to know whether anyone has an explanation other than that unlikely is different from impossible. |
Anonymous
I think the pp meant that in a positive way. It's impressive. |
Anonymous
I wouldn't look at the '18 or '20 maps if you're adverse to seeing the color blue... |
