Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Senator John McCain wrote:
The American voter was very well aware of what kind of judge the president of the United States was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him.


Oh, wait, my bad. That was true when the President was a Republican. Now McCain thinks we should wait until the people elect the next President.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:

I believe we should wait for American ppl to elect next President before filling SCOTUS vacancy
John McCain
(2016)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Indeed. They're both bullshit claims, but at least Obama's sounded nice, rather than "let the American people decide on this appointee that isn't elected."

I swear as soon as I hear someone say "the American people" I want to sigh every time.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....


Do you think he'll have to appoint someone different given an opposition controlled Senate? Because I do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....


Do you think he'll have to appoint someone different given an opposition controlled Senate? Because I do.


I don't.
Surely Obama has seen what a pack of push overs the republicans are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
"he started it" always worked so well in elementary school
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


Sure. I have no problem with the GOP saying, "We're not going to confirm a liberal Justice," whether the reason was balance or just "We're not going to confirm any nominee we don't think is awesome." I think that's a Constitutionally legitimate stance and then it's up to the electorate to decide whether it's politically sustainable or not.

By the same token, I have no problem with Obama saying that he would oppose a nominee based on his record, philosophy, etc. It's not how I would vote (or at least not how I like to think I would), as I prefer the old-school approach of, "President decides who he or she wants, senate evaluates competence" with a very high bar for voting against a qualified candidate, but I think that's well within the realm of Constitutional behavior.

And, in case you wanted to know, I think Chuck Schumer is a political hack with no integrity when it comes to "principled" statements that just happen to benefit his party's agenda.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
And, in case you wanted to know, I think Chuck Schumer is a political hack with no integrity when it comes to "principled" statements that just happen to benefit his party's agenda.


To be fair, this can pretty much apply to any elected official at the national level - so I expect nothing less from McConnel, Schumer, et all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
casey r lowe
United States
butte
Montana
flag msg tools
mb
bjlillo wrote:
Interesting then that you decided to start a thread taking a shot at a Republican and not expanding it to cover Schumer, Obama, Leahy, McConnell, or any of the other deserving targets on either side of the aisle showing how bipartisan this dipshittery is. Why just mention McCain instead of giving a well-reasoned account of the situation?

i guess chad wanted in on your buddy drews silly gotcha game of politics
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
And, in case you wanted to know, I think Chuck Schumer is a political hack with no integrity when it comes to "principled" statements that just happen to benefit his party's agenda.


Interesting then that you decided to start a thread taking a shot at a Republican and not expanding it to cover Schumer, Obama, Leahy, McConnell, or any of the other deserving targets on either side of the aisle showing how bipartisan this dipshittery is. Why just mention McCain instead of giving a well-reasoned account of the situation?


Because we talked about Schumer, Obama, Leahy and McConnell in another thread. This is just the newest (for me, at least) example of what we were already talking about.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew,

Would it surprise you to hear that I agree with you on this?

And I'm not just saying that because of the Cretan joke.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And just to clear things up...here's how I wish things worked regardless of which parties are in power.

POTUS nominates. The Senate holds timely hearings that are sufficient to establish whether the candidate has the experience, integrity and temperament for the role. If yes, then the Senate confirms.

Judicial nominees should be blocked if and only if they lack one or more of the above traits (or there is some other reason that makes them unfit) and not because Senators disagree with their politics or approach to the law. Elections have consequences.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leland Pike
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
And just to clear things up...here's how I wish things worked regardless of which parties are in power.

POTUS nominates. The Senate holds timely hearings that are sufficient to establish whether the candidate has the experience, integrity and temperament for the role. If yes, then the Senate confirms.

Judicial nominees should be blocked if and only if they lack one or more of the above traits (or there is some other reason that makes them unfit) and not because Senators disagree with their politics or approach to the law. Elections have consequences.

When did we stop electing the Senate?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Drew1365 wrote:
With the tables turned, President Obama now regrets his filibuster of Alito.

But not really. It's kind of like a non-apology apology.
Quote:

[He 'regrets'] that Senate Democrats didn't focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections," Earnest said. "Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that's an approach that the president regrets."


So you see, he "regrets" the actions of unnamed others. He, of course, had nothing to do with them.

According to the White House,

Quote:
"There is a difference between the president's symbolic vote against President Bush's Supreme Court nominee and Republicans' reflexive opposition to the idea of President Obama even nominating anybody to the Supreme Court," Earnest said. "What Republicans are advocating is wrong and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution, primarily because the wording of the Constitution is unambiguous and does not provide an exception for election years."


See, the president's vote was 'symbolic'! That's like having your fingers crossed behind your back or something. That's like voting 'present.'

The Republicans are the bad guys! Never forget that! Pay no attention to the seeming hypocrisy. Look! A squirrel! A Republican squirrel! Time for the Two-Minutes' Hate!

Needless to say, the President's non-regretful regrets are not what someone might call a "principled stand."

Then That Senator Obama's vote against Elito Alito was and still is symbolic because of the fact that Obama already knew that he would be confirmed. The result of almost all votes in Congress is determined before they start voting because both sides have learned how to count votes.

That you would ignore that fact to score cheap political points shows that you are a political hack.

Edit -- sorry about the 2 typos.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
TheDashi wrote:
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....


Are you saying Justices Kagan and Sotomayor and all of Obama's lower court nominees are the same kind of person?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....


And they've confirmed them. Your point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I recall reading that Scalia himself was strongly supportive of Kagan. Bit hard to simultaneously lecture everyone else on respecting his memory while ignoring his preferences.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Judicial nominees should be blocked if and only if they lack one or more of the above traits (or there is some other reason that makes them unfit) and not because Senators disagree with their politics or approach to the law.


It is interesting that what you are describing is now a verb in the American lexicon.

It's called "getting Borked".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
rinelk wrote:
bjlillo wrote:


And then he filibustered Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts.


So, he examined the judge's philosophy, ideology, and record, and decided Alito was a terrible choice. Note the difference between this and the claim that the Senate ought not consider any qualities of a nominee.


Yeah, its not like the republicans havent seen the kind of person that Obama would nominate.
OH wait, they have.....


And they've confirmed them. Your point?


Didn't I say they would cave and do it anyways? Because they are a bunch of pushovers?
Whats your point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.