Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess being Jewish and having gone to Harvard is what it takes to get ahead these days.
This may be good news for Trump - just one more indication to his expanding base that Obama/Clinton are completely aligned with the Boston-Washington power elite.
his daughter is jewish and went to wharton.
his son-in-law is jewish and went to harvard.
not sure what you are getting at here.
It just reiterates the continued exclusion of Protestants and those who haven't gone to elite law schools from the Supreme Court. You'd have four Jews and five Catholics on the court, all products of Harvard, Yale or Columbia Law School. Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama, and strongly believe things would be no different with Hillary.
Anonymous wrote:The GOP has yet to make these government shutdowns work. In the end this will fire up the millennials to show up in droves. The result is that Hillary will win, and maybe McConnell will lose the Senate since he has so many seats to defend this cycle.
My guess is that they back down by October.
Anonymous wrote:The blocking of nominations like this is going to be bad news. You all know politicians and there is no reason to believe that any sort of restraint will be shown if they are not thoroughly chastised for this. Public humiliation is a good thing. Without partisan exception.
If Mitch et al gets away with this, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from doing this to all appointees. All of them. If you think gridlock is bad now, you've seen nothing yet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To respond to your question, if Trump or Cruz were elected and wanted to replace a Ginsberg with a hardline conservative, I'd hope that the Democrats would use every available means to prevent the nomination going through. But I'd want them to confirm a more middle of the road candidate even if the individual were less liberal than Ginsberg.
If Hillary were elected, I'd expect the Republicans to also try and prevent a very liberal judge but would expect them to be receptive to a middle of the road candidate.
The reality is that the Senate has an "advise and consent" role and how that term is interpreted is in the eye of the beholder - which means that politics does come into play.
In many ways, I wish appointments to the Supreme court were not as polarized to a point where one has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc. It would be great if those on the court were judges whose vote would not be taken for granted based on their judicial philosophy. More justices similar to Kennedy who vote on both sides of issues - especially on social issues would be more preferable than what we have today.
I posed the hypothetical. I agree with your wish that both R and D would work together to fill the Court with moderate judges, and not ideologues. But unfortunately that's not where we are, and it's not where we've been for a long, long time. Republicans are refusing to consider anyone at all in Obama's third year. My question for anyone who thinks that's acceptable is: "Where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable for the Senate to refuse all nominees for a President's entire four-year term?"
Anonymous wrote:Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama
You clearly don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor. You really should fix that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama
You clearly don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor. You really should fix that.
Princeton followed by Yale Law and then elite law firms and the federal bench. J-Lo grew up in the Bronx, too, but it's been a while since either had to deal with ordinary Americans.
Anonymous wrote:Obama's timing is brilliant. The day after Hillary effectively locks up the democratic nomination, he makes sure the Republican establishment will be fighting battles on three fronts: against Trump, against Hillary, and against a Supreme Court nominee. [/quote}
+1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama
You clearly don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor. You really should fix that.
Princeton followed by Yale Law and then elite law firms and the federal bench. J-Lo grew up in the Bronx, too, but it's been a while since either had to deal with ordinary Americans.
Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.
I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.
It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To respond to your question, if Trump or Cruz were elected and wanted to replace a Ginsberg with a hardline conservative, I'd hope that the Democrats would use every available means to prevent the nomination going through. But I'd want them to confirm a more middle of the road candidate even if the individual were less liberal than Ginsberg.
If Hillary were elected, I'd expect the Republicans to also try and prevent a very liberal judge but would expect them to be receptive to a middle of the road candidate.
The reality is that the Senate has an "advise and consent" role and how that term is interpreted is in the eye of the beholder - which means that politics does come into play.
In many ways, I wish appointments to the Supreme court were not as polarized to a point where one has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc. It would be great if those on the court were judges whose vote would not be taken for granted based on their judicial philosophy. More justices similar to Kennedy who vote on both sides of issues - especially on social issues would be more preferable than what we have today.
I posed the hypothetical. I agree with your wish that both R and D would work together to fill the Court with moderate judges, and not ideologues. But unfortunately that's not where we are, and it's not where we've been for a long, long time. Republicans are refusing to consider anyone at all in Obama's third year. My question for anyone who thinks that's acceptable is: "Where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable for the Senate to refuse all nominees for a President's entire four-year term?"
Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.