Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Supreme Court Nomination
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Supreme Court Nomination
Tweet Topic Started: Mar 16 2016, 09:48 AM (83 Views)
sirbrianwilson Mar 16 2016, 09:48 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Well, it's time to see if the Senate will do their job or begin making up rules...

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Mar 16 2016, 10:35 AM Post #2
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Pretty strategic choice by Obama, I must say. Has garnered bipartisan support. Strong and positive comments have been made about him from republican leaders. Prosecuted the largest domestic terror case in the last 3 decades.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Mar 16 2016, 04:54 PM Post #3
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Moderate choice.

We'll have to see if the Grand Old Shutdown party feels like actually working.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Mar 17 2016, 09:46 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-once-took-the-gops-position-on-supreme-court-vacancy/
In 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden said something that won't look good for his boss today.

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed," said Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on June 25, 1992.

In fact, he said that if President Bush put forward a nominee, the Judiciary Committee - his committee - should "seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Mar 17 2016, 11:24 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Mar 17 2016, 09:46 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-once-took-the-gops-position-on-supreme-court-vacancy/
In 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden said something that won't look good for his boss today.

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed," said Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on June 25, 1992.

In fact, he said that if President Bush put forward a nominee, the Judiciary Committee - his committee - should "seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
And if Bush had nominated a moderate, they would have been assholes to not hold hearings.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Mar 18 2016, 07:41 AM Post #6
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
He also said immediately after that:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time. "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635
Edited by dreachon, Mar 18 2016, 07:41 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Mar 18 2016, 09:39 AM Post #7
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Senators have a duty to do what they can to get the right judges on the SCOTUS. The Democrats used the "reconciliation" process to pass ObamaCare after Kennedy died, and Harry Reid exercised the "nuclear option" in the Senate. Note that R's haven't retaliated for those two transgressions since winning the reigns of power in '14.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Mar 18 2016, 04:19 PM Post #8
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:39 AM
Senators have a duty to do what they can to get the right judges on the SCOTUS.
That's 'right judges'....not Right (R) judges.

Or are the republicans in congress who have stated their approval of the current nominee's ability 'changed their mind'?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Mar 18 2016, 06:09 PM Post #9
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Nate silver wrote an interesting blog entry on this that its the best bet for the republicans to confirm this pick based on future election odds.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Mar 18 2016, 06:44 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Mar 18 2016, 06:09 PM
Nate silver wrote an interesting blog entry on this that its the best bet for the republicans to confirm this pick based on future election odds.
IMO, it is. Trump is the likely nominee and he trails Clinton in national polls. For all her warts, she is the odds on favorite to win the presidency against Trump.

So the Republicans have two options:
1. take the moderate choice
2. delay the nomination and take an underdog shot of being able to get a conservative judge in place.

Considering that the judge being replaced was the most conservative judge on the bench, refusal to accept the nomination ends with a pretty good chance of taking a liberal judge in his place......and even if Trump were elected, the chances of him giving a nominee that the establishment likes isn't good.

It reminds me of the 'take the draw' scene from Searching for Bobby Fischer. Take the draw, GOP.......

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pFp6iRVM0[/utube]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Mar 18 2016, 09:27 PM Post #11
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Mar 18 2016, 04:19 PM
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:39 AM
Senators have a duty to do what they can to get the right judges on the SCOTUS.
That's 'right judges'....not Right (R) judges.

Or are the republicans in congress who have stated their approval of the current nominee's ability 'changed their mind'?
I understand why you didn't quote the reconciliation or nuclear option part. For some reason Dems think they are the only ones who are allowed to play hard-ball politics. Seems a bit hypocritical to me (and probably Brian too)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Mar 19 2016, 12:22 AM Post #12
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:27 PM
brumdog44
Mar 18 2016, 04:19 PM
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:39 AM
Senators have a duty to do what they can to get the right judges on the SCOTUS.
That's 'right judges'....not Right (R) judges.

Or are the republicans in congress who have stated their approval of the current nominee's ability 'changed their mind'?
I understand why you didn't quote the reconciliation or nuclear option part. For some reason Dems think they are the only ones who are allowed to play hard-ball politics. Seems a bit hypocritical to me (and probably Brian too)
You claim that Obama isn't capable of compromise. He offers a moderate nominee, one that has been praised by republicans in the past.

What was it you were saying about being hypocritical?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Mar 19 2016, 12:37 AM Post #13
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
I agree with Lars that both parties are guilty of strong-arm dealings in the past. Although, I see this nomination as the ultimate compromise. If the R's hold out on this one and Hillary is elected, expect much worse. Given the risk involved with ignoring your job and denying a vote, it would be pretty politically dumb to walk down that road.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Mar 19 2016, 09:24 AM Post #14
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Mar 19 2016, 12:37 AM
I agree with Lars that both parties are guilty of strong-arm dealings in the past. Although, I see this nomination as the ultimate compromise. If the R's hold out on this one and Hillary is elected, expect much worse. Given the risk involved with ignoring your job and denying a vote, it would be pretty politically dumb to walk down that road.
Yup, agreed.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Mar 19 2016, 09:25 AM Post #15
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Mar 19 2016, 12:22 AM
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:27 PM
brumdog44
Mar 18 2016, 04:19 PM
HoosierLars
Mar 18 2016, 09:39 AM
Senators have a duty to do what they can to get the right judges on the SCOTUS.
That's 'right judges'....not Right (R) judges.

Or are the republicans in congress who have stated their approval of the current nominee's ability 'changed their mind'?
I understand why you didn't quote the reconciliation or nuclear option part. For some reason Dems think they are the only ones who are allowed to play hard-ball politics. Seems a bit hypocritical to me (and probably Brian too)
You claim that Obama isn't capable of compromise. He offers a moderate nominee, one that has been praised by republicans in the past.

What was it you were saying about being hypocritical?
I don't think anyone here has ever accused Lenin or Mao of being stupid when it comes to playing politics.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy