The CardBoard
OT: Supreme Court vacancy - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: Supreme Court vacancy (/thread-11594.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - 81alum - 02-19-2016

Stanford alum Sandra Day O'Connor:

Quote:Sandra Day O'Connor says President Barack Obama should name Antonin Scalia's replacement.  "I don't agree (with Republicans)," O'Connor said in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate KSAZ. "We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it." 

She said Obama should name a replacement for Scalia, an influential conservative member of the nation's high court who was found dead Saturday at age 79.

"Well you just have to pick the best person you can under these circumstances, as the appointing authority must do. And it's an important position and one we care about as a nation, as a people," O'Connor said. "And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line -- it's hard."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/

I wonder if Obama could even find a retired pragmatist Repbulican governor--someone who Democrats would think would be more moderate and mainstream than Scalia, but someone who Republicans would respect and had the credentials to in no way be considered a left wing ideologue.  I was thinking someone like John Huntsman, but I don't think he has a law degree.  I don't think it is going to be enough to only nominate someone who has gotten Republican votes before--if Obama wants a confirmation he will have to go further than that.  Of course, he can gamble that the next President will be a Dem and get a chance to nominate someone who sharply shifts the court.  Otherwise  I don't expect there will be a vote on the floor until after November when both sides know the outcome of the election.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - oldalum - 02-19-2016

(02-19-2016, 01:11 AM)deepred link Wrote:Based on the numbers, one would be justified in calling both Obama and Bush divisive relative to everyone else. Obama seems to be edging Bush in this category based on trend, but that could just be a function of recency, as the distance between the two parties grows.

As your last comment suggests, these data say nothing about cause.  Bush and Obama's actions and manner could in fact have been less divisive than other presidents, but interpreted as unbelievably outrageous by a highly polarized public. As the title of the chart says, these are public opinion ratings, not job/actions ratings.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - stupac2 - 02-19-2016

(02-18-2016, 08:35 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156800#msg156800 date=1455851266]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156799#msg156799 date=1455850010]I will tell you that I personally feel that he's been a divider, not a uniter

Why? What has he done, outside of being a Democrat, that's more divisive than what W did?
[/quote]

Not to butt in, but I couldn't seem to find where CornFed compared Obama's divisiveness to that of W.
[/quote]

Right but I think a statement like that only makes sense as a comparison. I mean, "politicians opponents don't like him" is hardly news, so calling someone "divisive" without a frame of comparison is utterly meaningless, unless you're bringing up specific actions that he's doing. For instance, if Obama were doing news conferences saying "McConnell is a big smelly doo-doo head who looks like a turtle and the voters in Kentucky who elected him are a bunch of inbred hicks", then sure, he's being divisive, but he's not doing anything like that. At least that I'm aware of.

Anyway I tend to think that if you're going to make a claim like that you should back it up, because what I think CornFed really means is "I don't like Obama". Which is fine, but if that's the case then trying to paper over that with statements about "divisiveness" (or whatever) is disingenuous. If you really think that Obama is actually unnecessarily divisive, you can't just assert it, you need to have some evidence.

Also, I think that polling evidence is meaningless here, because all that tells you is that our politics are becoming more polarized. It doesn't actually mean that there's anything about the presidents themselves causing this, just that ~50% of the population is going to hate anyone with a D next to their name and ~50% is going to hate anyone with an R next to theirs. And, really, that sort of reflexive hatred is stupid. I think that, on balance, W's presidency was disastrous, but that's mostly because of the Iraq war. He did a lot of good things, like his focus on fighting AIDS in Africa, that are wildly under-appreciated. There aren't many people in politics who are actually monsters and treating them like they are is dumb.


Switching gears, I'm fully aware that the US isn't going to suddenly switch to a parliamentary system. We're probably never going to do simple tweaks like ranked choice voting that could help moderate the system. I'm saying that I wish we had a system like that because I think that gridlock is bad. At any given time a country is going to face problems, and politicians are supposed to propose and implement solutions to those problems. But we're in a place where that's just not happening. Part of it is (as someone in here mentioned, I think) that voters don't know who to blame. In England you know that, if the Tories are in charge and making a hash of it, you vote them out. But who's to blame right now for the fact that we can't get anything done? Is it intransigent Republicans? Over-demanding Democrats? It's basically a Rorschach test, so you're just testing your priors. And it's even worse for low-information voters, who are really the only swing bloc left.

Now, are parliaments ideal? Of course not, short of finding Plato's philosopher king every form of government sucks, in its own special way. I recently read an article arguing that populist parties in Europe are undermining accountability by siphoning off enough votes so you can only make "grand coalitions", which reduce choice because now the two main parties really are the same. But I tend to think that the problems they have aren't as bad as ours, though that might just be familiarity.

And who knows, maybe our system will muddle through for a while and then get back to a state like the one we were in for most of the 20th century where there can actually be some cooperation so things get done. I'm not optimistic and don't really see the path forward, but predictions are hard.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - FarmDad.01 - 02-19-2016

The Senate being in official recess, Obama has until dawn Monday, Eastern Time, to make a recess appointment that lasts until 3 January 2017, when the next Congress is sworn in. Although Republicans will surely squawk, Eisenhower made three recess appointments (Earl Warren, William Brennan, Potter Stewart).

Following up on an above suggestion, Obama could name Jon Huntsman, a Republican who is his former ambassador to China. Various articles speculating on other Republicans who might draw little GOP fire, yet be acceptable to the Democratic base, have mentioned Nevada Governor, Brian Sandoval. To reiterate, a recess appointment expires on 3 January 2017...

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - FarmDad.01 - 02-19-2016

P.S.: Since a recess appointment expires with the seating of the next Congress, POTUS 45 will be able to nominate his or her candidate -- thus answering the GOP's plea to give the American people a voice in the choice.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - terry - 02-19-2016

(02-19-2016, 01:46 AM)81alum link Wrote:Well, his contorted reasoning in Heller is more reason for me to doubt the utility of his originalism, which he seems to assert when convenient and to drop when inconvenient. . . .

Scalia says only that "we do not interpret constitutional rights that way."  Of course we don't.  And that is exactly why originalism doesn't work.

81Alum -- To clarify my point, I'm not advocating a Scalia-like originalism.

Rather, my main point is that judicial review was not a judge-created doctrine that was invented by the Court in Marbury v. Madison, but was a widely understood and accepted feature of the Constitution when it was adopted and ratified. I think there is abundant, even overwhelming, evidence of this, as I've outlined earlier. I think there's a persuasive case that the Framers and ratifiers understood and intended that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. I'm suggesting that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy even an originalist that the accepted public meaning of "judicial power" in Article III included judicial review. I don't view originalism as the primary tool for reaching the conclusion that the Constitution includes judicial review; rather, I'm saying that the evidence regarding judicial review is sufficient even from an originalist point of view.

I'm not endorsing Scalia's Heller opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment. Rather, I'm referencing Heller only as an example of the method of analysis used by originalists. I'm suggesting that if an originalist were to apply that same method of analysis to the issue of judicial review, it would lead to the conclusion that the Constitution as written includes the power of judicial review.

Krauthammer says GOP should hold form... - FrankO - 02-19-2016

I'm not engaging in the fine points of originalism, judicial review or 14th amendment discussion... just the Nomination and Advise and Consent topic... of Course Obama has the right and duty to Nominate... and he will... fine

but the Senate is the Second Key in this process... and it has the power of either Consenting with Obama's choice... or not Consenting

and on that score,n IMHO Krauthammer nails it...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/republicans-win-nino-article-1.2536350

it's naiive in the extreme to not believe its all about POWER...

the Dems were all for using theirs against the GOP.. now it's the GOP's turn...

all this 'principle' stuff coming out of the Dems is just so much political rhetoric... when the shoe was on the other foot, their rhetoric was quite different... Schumer, Reid... and the now suddenly 'principled' Obama...



Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - 81alum - 02-19-2016

(02-19-2016, 12:19 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=14611.msg156814#msg156814 date=1455871612]
Well, his contorted reasoning in Heller is more reason for me to doubt the utility of his originalism, which he seems to assert when convenient and to drop when inconvenient. . . .

Scalia says only that "we do not interpret constitutional rights that way."  Of course we don't.  And that is exactly why originalism doesn't work.

81Alum -- To clarify my point, I'm not advocating a Scalia-like originalism.

Rather, my main point is that judicial review was not a judge-created doctrine that was invented by the Court in Marbury v. Madison, but was a widely understood and accepted feature of the Constitution when it was adopted and ratified. I think there is abundant, even overwhelming, evidence of this, as I've outlined earlier. I think there's a persuasive case that the Framers and ratifiers understood and intended that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. I'm suggesting that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy even an originalist that the accepted public meaning of "judicial power" in Article III included judicial review. I don't view originalism as the primary tool for reaching the conclusion that the Constitution includes judicial review; rather, I'm saying that the evidence regarding judicial review is sufficient even from an originalist point of view.

I'm not endorsing Scalia's Heller opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment. Rather, I'm referencing Heller only as an example of the method of analysis used by originalists. I'm suggesting that if an originalist were to apply that same method of analysis to the issue of judicial review, it would lead to the conclusion that the Constitution as written includes the power of judicial review.
[/quote]
Well, I think we have reached a meeting of the minds :)  At least I understand that position and think it plausible, so far as it goes.  This is such a fun debate that I am tempted to keep going...but I won't. 

Who said you can't have an informative, civil and productive discussion about politics on these boards!  (Well, I did, probably, but like Justice Scalia, I will pick and choose my originalist critiques!)

Re: Krauthammer says GOP should hold form... - stupac2 - 02-19-2016

(02-19-2016, 01:11 PM)FrankO link Wrote:I'm not engaging in the fine points of originalism, judicial review or 14th amendment discussion... just the Nomination and Advise and Consent topic... of Course Obama has the right and duty to Nominate... and he will... fine

but the Senate is the Second Key in this process... and it has the power of either Consenting with Obama's choice... or not Consenting

and on that score,n IMHO Krauthammer nails it...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/republicans-win-nino-article-1.2536350

it's naiive in the extreme to not believe its all about POWER...

the Dems were all for using theirs against the GOP.. now it's the GOP's turn...

all this 'principle' stuff coming out of the Dems is just so much political rhetoric... when the shoe was on the other foot, their rhetoric was quite different... Schumer, Reid... and the now suddenly 'principled' Obama...

I don't think anyone is saying that the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee, rather that the immediate reflexive dismissal of even voting on any nominee is an abdication of their job and an affront to the constitution. From my reading it sounds like they've mostly come to their senses and walked that back, so hopefully the nominee will at least get hearings, and I'd hope a straight vote. If R's decide that anyone left of Bork is unacceptable, well, that's their prerogative, but they should at least hold the damn vote.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - CornFed - 02-19-2016

(02-19-2016, 10:04 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=14611.msg156802#msg156802 date=1455852954]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156800#msg156800 date=1455851266]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156799#msg156799 date=1455850010]I will tell you that I personally feel that he's been a divider, not a uniter

Why? What has he done, outside of being a Democrat, that's more divisive than what W did?
[/quote]

Not to butt in, but I couldn't seem to find where CornFed compared Obama's divisiveness to that of W.
[/quote]

Right but I think a statement like that only makes sense as a comparison. I mean, "politicians opponents don't like him" is hardly news, so calling someone "divisive" without a frame of comparison is utterly meaningless, unless you're bringing up specific actions that he's doing. For instance, if Obama were doing news conferences saying "McConnell is a big smelly doo-doo head who looks like a turtle and the voters in Kentucky who elected him are a bunch of inbred hicks", then sure, he's being divisive, but he's not doing anything like that. At least that I'm aware of.

Anyway I tend to think that if you're going to make a claim like that you should back it up, because what I think CornFed really means is "I don't like Obama". Which is fine, but if that's the case then trying to paper over that with statements about "divisiveness" (or whatever) is disingenuous. If you really think that Obama is actually unnecessarily divisive, you can't just assert it, you need to have some evidence.

Also, I think that polling evidence is meaningless here, because all that tells you is that our politics are becoming more polarized. It doesn't actually mean that there's anything about the presidents themselves causing this, just that ~50% of the population is going to hate anyone with a D next to their name and ~50% is going to hate anyone with an R next to theirs. And, really, that sort of reflexive hatred is stupid. I think that, on balance, W's presidency was disastrous, but that's mostly because of the Iraq war. He did a lot of good things, like his focus on fighting AIDS in Africa, that are wildly under-appreciated. There aren't many people in politics who are actually monsters and treating them like they are is dumb.

[/quote]

In a thread that has already manifested uncharacteristically harsh rebukes, I was and am reluctant to provide specific examples of divisiveness that would set off more of the same tendentious tone.  Stupac is right, though.  My use of the term "divisive" deserves at least some explanation of why I have come to see Obama in that way.

I am interested in policy not personalities.  I understand that it is very difficult to separate the two when it is the individual who promotes certain policies and the personality of that person can sometimes detract (or enhance) one's view of the policy.  I will admit that Obama lost me almost immediately when he declared during his first campaign that he wanted to "fundamentally transform America".  Is that, in itself, a divisive comment?  You don't have to think that America is without blemish to believe that a fundamental transformation would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.  Perhaps that falls into the category of policy disagreement, but I can say that I was/am offended that he felt that the nation had been failing so badly that we needed to start over, essentially.

It is not simply because he is a democrat that I consider him divisive.  I wouldn't consider him divisive due solely to his policies.  I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and for Perot (once I was convinced he couldn't win -  ;) ) and I have voted for a number of Democrats (not a large number) including Diane Feinstein at one point.  I think Stupac is right that it requires specific divisive acts or statements to be perceived as such. 

A counter example that comes to mind would be Bill Clinton.  In the first two years of his first term he pursued a somewhat liberal policy agenda.  Tax increases, a proposal to involve the Federal government much more in the healthcare industry, etc.  Even that modestly left of center agenda received an historic slap down in the 1994 mid-terms.  His reaction was to get out in front of his opposition and lead the parade.  He supported and signed Welfare Reform, which he had previously pilloried, he dropped Hillarycare like a hot rock, he signed and promoted NAFTA and he began "triangulating".  Not only did he listen to the opposition, he adopted many of their policies.

In the meantime, Obama dedicated his first two years to his revamp of the nation's healthcare system, passed the Stimulus Bill, tried to tax carbon emissions which lead to discussion of cap-and-trade, which failed to pass and in general conducted a very liberal policy agenda.  Even in this period he badmouthed republicans as clinging to their guns and gods and unable to get comfortable with "people that don't look like them".  That is a divisive comment.  I have met a lot of conservatives in my lifetime and that is just flat untrue.  Not only that, but many of them don't look like me.

The mid-terms in 2010 were no kinder to Obama than those in 1994 were to Clinton.  As I mentioned above, the truly remarkable election of Scott Brown-Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts was the last in a series of elections that Fall that could not have been a clearer signal of the deep distrust of Obamacare by the electorate.  More than 60% did not like the prospective legislation.  The Democrats in the House and Senate had shut out the Republicans from the entire process in the lead up to that election and yet he frequently described them as obstructionist.  Ultimately he received not a single Republican vote to support Obamacare, and why would he expect otherwise?  And what was Obama's reaction to those disastrous mid-term results?  He conspired with Reid and Pelosi to manipulate the passage of the Affordable Care Act through a parliamentary sleight of hand that excluded Republicans and ignored the electorate.  This whole healthcare transformation was handled very divisively.

[cont'd in next post]



Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - CornFed - 02-19-2016

His comments have always reflected an impulsive inclination to worsen racial tensions when tragic events have occurred like those in Florida, Missouri, Long Island and others.  Unnecessarily stirring racial resentments and castigating conservatives as racist can certainly be described as divisive.  In several of those instances his comments came before the relevant investigation had even been completed.  This was an inappropriate misuse of his power and influence given the awareness of investigators of the outcome desired by the President of the United States.  But importantly as well it was incendiary.  It gave protesters in Ferguson, for instance, the sense that their outrage and violence was endorsed by POTUS.  Even the relatively minor incident of the professor in Boston who got upset when police questioned him for breaking in to his own home.  Ignoring the merits or lack of same of that case, what is the POTUS doing making national comments on a minor case like that about which he knows very little?  The chance that he would have done so if the professor was white is zero. 

I do not think it is all that rare for Obama to personally vilify conservatives and play off of tired and crude caricatures that insult a sizable portion of the populace.  His "apology" tour was offensive, but I suppose that was just an extension of his policy to revamp America to atone for what he sees as our imperialist history.

I know that many of you (most it seems to me) do not see our President the same way I do.  I think part of the reason people like burger call him centrist or moderate is because they, themselves, are much closer to his end of the political spectrum. 

On matters more central to the origin of this board, Stanford sports, you all have been successful in helping me see the light on several occasions.  Most memorable to me was my initial repulsion by Richard Sherman's behavior after the NFC Championship game.  I took the additional input many of you provided and came quickly to see what a remarkable man he is.  There have been other instances.  But before you set out to set me straight, I would only ask that you actually do some serious introspection and general reflection. I'm not a knee-jerk conservative.  Please don't come at me like a knee-jerk liberal.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - Kathy - 02-20-2016

Well said, CornFed.


Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - FarmDad.01 - 02-20-2016

I have so many issues with CornFed's examples of Obama's purported divisiveness that it would take a book.

So let me just ask if any of the remaining GOP candidates to become POTUS XLV wields stump and debate language that is not divisive. Which is to say, public positions that derogate whole religions, entire nations and their peoples, and America's lower economic strata on matters that range from a woman's right to choose to freedom from predation by financial instutions to equal justice, skin color notwithstanding?

Apologies if my knee just jerked.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - CornFed - 02-20-2016

I was encouraged to provide examples.  I did so in as open and honest a manner as possible.  The fact that there are many on this board who believe those examples are trivial/fallacious does not come as a surprise.

I would posit that there is a difference between a candidate and an incumbent President.  The latter should, ideally, try at least to present the pretense of representing all the American people.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - FarmDad.01 - 02-20-2016

Please name one GOP candidate to become president who pays even lip service to "representing all the American people." Thanks much.

btw: "This was an inappropriate misuse of his power and influence given the awareness of investigators of the outcome desired by the President of the United States." If this is true about Obama commenting on Trayvon Martin's slaying, what are we to make of Bush 43's presidential meddling in the pull-the-plug melodrama that was Terry Schiavo?

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - DC - 02-20-2016

Obama does not attend Scalia's funeral to spend time reading binders of information on his possible Supreme Court nominees.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - TreesAndBirds - 02-20-2016

I find that most of the vitriol spewed by (some) Republican candidates is focused on non Americans.....illegal immigrants, the Chinese, Iranian and Mexican governments, and Muslim extremists......and that most of the vitriol spewed by ( some) Democratic candidates is focused on other Americans....the wealthy/successful, big corporations, Wall Street. This is by its nature a generalization, but one that I think is true.

But at the big picture level, I think both parties engage in their share of divisiveness, and my disagreement is with people who think that one party does it far more than the other party. But I am especially disappointed that, to me, President Obama has not helped heal the racial divide in our country, and has likely made it worse. He was uniquely positioned to help address this important problem, and to me it is his biggest failure.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - CornFed - 02-20-2016

(02-20-2016, 01:11 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:Please name one GOP candidate to become president who pays even lip service to "representing all the American people." Thanks much.

btw: "This was an inappropriate misuse of his power and influence given the awareness of investigators of the outcome desired by the President of the United States." If this is true about Obama commenting on Trayvon Martin's slaying, what are we to make of Bush 43's presidential meddling in the pull-the-plug melodrama that was Terry Schiavo?


I thought (and still think) that that was wrong.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - TreesAndBirds - 02-20-2016

(02-20-2016, 01:11 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:Please name one GOP candidate to become president who pays even lip service to "representing all the American people." Thanks much.




Kasich.

Re: OT: Supreme Court vacancy - martyup - 02-20-2016

Another example of Obama'a divisiveness . . . "You didn't build that."