# The Senate Is Unmoved



## longknife (Apr 8, 2016)

Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.

Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland


----------



## Arianrhod (Apr 8, 2016)

And every taxpayer in America is paying them to do absolutely...nothing...

God bless America.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 8, 2016)

longknife said:


> Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> 
> Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland



This should surprise no one. For one it's an election year. Second, if the roles were reversed the Dems would be doing the same thing. What other faux outrage are we going to drum up next?


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> ...


We have actual history to prove you wrong. When the Dems positioned themselves in this way before, they ended up holding hearings and allowing Republicans to participate in doing the people's business

Your opinion is countered by facts


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on the Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen. If, for example, Reagan chose someone to the right of Kennedy, Dems would have never brought it to a vote. If Obama nominated someone who was the distance to the right as Kennedy is to the left then I think Republicans would bring it to a vote. He didn't. So all history tells us is that a Republican president was able to nominate a liberal moderate to the Court to break the democrat sanctioned blockade. Obama, on the other hand, has nominated someone who is to the left of even Kennedy. No surprise. If he pulled a Reagan I think he could get the vote he desires. Obama won't do that.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen.


Your opinion that Justice Kennedy "_was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts._" is amusing.
I wonder what you would call Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor?


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen.
> ...



I'm happy you're amused. I wouldn't have picked Sandra Day O'Connor where I he. But then again I have the benefit of hindsight. I'm not certain of the circumstances surrounding her appointment.


----------



## OldLady (Apr 9, 2016)

longknife said:


> Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> 
> Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland


Not to change your thread, but they (the Republicans) refused to fund a comprehensive bill to battle the heroin epidemic, too, though it was passed 94-1.
I'm proud of my senator (Susan Collins), but part of me would love a chance to vote against some of these do-nothings in a coming election.
I hope these Republican senators get the boot.  Serves 'em right.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> I'm happy you're amused. I wouldn't have picked Sandra Day O'Connor where I he. But then again I have the benefit of hindsight. I'm not certain of the circumstances surrounding her appointment.


You are not 'certain' of the 'circumstances surrounding' the nomination and appointment of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? That is even more amusing, considering you also say you 'wouldn't have picked' her. It isn't hindsight your stuck using.

No one can be 100% sure ahead of time, on how any nominee will eventually vote on any case that would come before the Court. Without knowing what the exact arguments would be, it would be ludicrous to suggest knowing how a _future_ justice would rule. We might have an idea how they feel about issues, but on a case that has yet to be argued? 

Reagan's Nomination of O'Connor this link will maybe help you to see how partisan nonsense can make some people look foolish and blind.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy you're amused. I wouldn't have picked Sandra Day O'Connor where I he. But then again I have the benefit of hindsight. I'm not certain of the circumstances surrounding her appointment.
> ...



No, it is quite easy to see how a Supreme Court nominee will vote. All you need to do is see if the Supreme Court pick has taken into account consequence and purpose when interpreting legal texts. Someone who only takes into account text, history, tradition, and precedent are far more likely to be a conservative justice. Those who add "purpose" and "consequence" are far more likely to be liberal. Of course, "purpose" and "consequence" allows for subjective judgement in legal texts. Keagan and Sotomayor were nominated because Obama knew exactly how they would rule.

Telling you that I didn't know the circumstances around O'Connor's nomination is much different than not understanding how she has used her time on the bench. I've never been a big fan of her adopting foreign considerations into U.S. Law. Of course, this is the benefit of hindsight.

Of course, I would not consider gender if I were to pick a justice. I would in fact look at how they interpret text. And they've written plenty to give me an idea of how they look at legal texts. Unless, of course, your Elena Kegan and you've never sat on a bench before. Then all I need to do is see how you've operated at Harvard law. And she left nothing up for interpretation as to how she would judge as a Supreme Court Justice. Neither did Sotomayor who's emotion and self identity supersedes her ability to reason legally.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> *No, it is quite easy to see how a Supreme Court nominee will vote. *All you need to do is see if the Supreme Court pick has taken into account consequence and purpose when interpreting legal texts. Someone who only takes into account text, history, tradition, and precedent are far more likely to be a conservative justice. Those who add "purpose" and "consequence" are far more likely to be liberal. Of course, "purpose" and "consequence" allows for subjective judgement in legal texts. Keagan and Sotomayor were nominated because Obama knew exactly how they would rule.
> 
> Telling you that I didn't know the circumstances around O'Connor's nomination is much different than not understanding how she has used her time on the bench. I've never been a big fan of her adopting foreign considerations into U.S. Law. Of course, this is the benefit of hindsight.


No it is not that easy. Depending on how the case is argued, Justices often confuse the great mass of the ignorati. You appear to be confusing ideological interpretations with political motivations. And then there is the case of a poorly argued case that if voted in the affirmative, can have consequences that would undercut a case judged on a more solid argument.

You insist on saying hindsight is an appropriate view. Back when Reagan nominated O'Connor, given the political atmosphere and more, I doubt very much you would take the stance you do today. Because -- you and I are all shaped by what has transpired since then. Your arguments appear to be not very well thought out. They may be framed well, but they sorely lack deep thought


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on the Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen. *If, for example, Reagan chose someone to the right of Kennedy, Dems would have never brought it to a vote.* If Obama nominated someone who was the distance to the right as Kennedy is to the left then I think Republicans would bring it to a vote. He didn't. So all history tells us is that a Republican president was able to nominate a liberal moderate to the Court to break the democrat sanctioned blockade. Obama, on the other hand, has nominated someone who is to the left of even Kennedy. No surprise. If he pulled a Reagan I think he could get the vote he desires. Obama won't do that.




Reagan did nominate someone to the right of Kennedy, his name was Bork and he got a floor vote.


>>>>


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *No, it is quite easy to see how a Supreme Court nominee will vote. *All you need to do is see if the Supreme Court pick has taken into account consequence and purpose when interpreting legal texts. Someone who only takes into account text, history, tradition, and precedent are far more likely to be a conservative justice. Those who add "purpose" and "consequence" are far more likely to be liberal. Of course, "purpose" and "consequence" allows for subjective judgement in legal texts. Keagan and Sotomayor were nominated because Obama knew exactly how they would rule.
> ...



No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.

I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

WorldWatcher said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Only after they got Kennedy as a compromise. Kennedy was and is far more left than right when it comes to the interpretation of Constitutional and legal texts. If Obama were to do the equivalent it would be as if he nominated Roberts. Fat chance. The Kennedy example reflects on the Republicans ability to compromise on a Supreme Court nominee more so than it does the Democrats who vowed to black the possible Supreme Court pick until a leftist was chosen. *If, for example, Reagan chose someone to the right of Kennedy, Dems would have never brought it to a vote.* If Obama nominated someone who was the distance to the right as Kennedy is to the left then I think Republicans would bring it to a vote. He didn't. So all history tells us is that a Republican president was able to nominate a liberal moderate to the Court to break the democrat sanctioned blockade. Obama, on the other hand, has nominated someone who is to the left of even Kennedy. No surprise. If he pulled a Reagan I think he could get the vote he desires. Obama won't do that.
> ...



Indeed he was "Borked." It was immediately after Bork when Democrats tried to block any further nominees until Reagan gave them Kennedy. Once again this goes to show how a Republican president found compromise more so than it shows Republican obstructionism. This doesn't exactly make your point. Democrats were trying to run out the Reagan clock after they borked Bork. In my opinion, that's even worse. If I'm not mistaken, the dems were going to sit on it for far longer than the republicans are sitting on the nominee today.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 9, 2016)

The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god. 

Unfortunately demographics in the nation are about to render them irrelevant in national elections. So we endure this last round of childish tantrums from them and then off to the woodshed. Then off to military boarding school where no one will hear form them again.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.
> 
> Unfortunately demographics in the nation are about to render them irrelevant in national elections. So we endure this last round of childish tantrums from them and then off to the woodshed. Then off to military boarding school where no one will hear form them again.



Lets hear it for multiculturalism huh? I believe both liberals and conservatives will rue the day the minority becomes the majority. Then we'll all be one big Detroit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 9, 2016)

If the feds are doing nothing then we're probably better off


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.
> 
> I never said that hindsight was an appropriate view. I simply commented that I have the benefit of hind sight which biases my decision. But no, I would no appoint a woman justice for the sake of simply appointing a woman justice.


 Many well respected people insist on how things SHOULD be. Of course, they mostly disagree with each other

Scalia himself, insisted that he himself was a texualist instead of a strict constructionist. Scalia wrote _"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be...A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently: it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it failey means."_ - GOVT by Sidlow, Henschen​
strict constructionist = Justice Thomas?

It has been the feeling of many throughout the history of the USA, that the Court should reflect the polity.

Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare:  "Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome _or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law._" yet conservatives rage about Roberts' conservatism. Even the conservative Justices raged about that conservative view. I suspect, your claim is false. I believe most Justices go with where the law takes them. They just disagree on how to get there. As did the founding generation.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees. The only thing can make it confusing is to what extent a justice relies on stare decisis. That can mask how a justice interprets the law. When I speak of liberal vs. conservative justices I'm speaking about textual interpretation, not politics. Liberal justices are typically the ones who take into account consequence and purpose when making a decision on a law. Conservative justices do not generally care if a poorly written law has a negative outcome or if the purpose of the law is hindered by the text of the law.
> ...



I've said nothing to the contrary of the above statement. But consequence and purpose as a means of legal interpretation is a relatively new invention and affords a wide latitude of bias and subjectivity when interpreting the law.

I would recommend this video where Scalia slaughters Breyer on methods of legal interpretation starting at 15:45


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2016)

In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson defeated then-president John Adams.

A month before Jefferson was to take office, a Supreme Court vacancy opened up.

Adams nominated someone, and his nominee was quickly voted on.

So, the actions of the Founders make it very clear what they believed was supposed to happen in cases such as we face now.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.
> ...


Why do people confuse and conflate  multi-ethnic/multi-racial with multiculturalism? The demographic groups the parties chase are not from some alien and separate cultures. The phrase '_culture wars_' may help feed the confusion, but we all share an American culture, but with differencing social values.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.
> ...



America itself already is the melting pot. Comparing a nation to a city is a fallacy. The economy of a city is far less diverse than the economy of a country.

But cons love their one off fallacies that 'appear' to be reasonable. Con-talk-radio is built on the lie that if you can find one fallacious example that 'appears' to debunk someone else's argument, then you have debunked it.

In reality, not by a million miles.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> consequence and purpose as a means of legal interpretation is a relatively new invention and affords a wide latitude of bias and subjectivity when interpreting the law.


thanx for the video link. I may have seen it before, but it looks like a new look at it would be fun

I see no reason why a fresh new look at the law would be troubling. Here is one side of an argument on an interesting subject, specific to patent law

_Yet despite these routine pronouncements by courts that they are rigidly adhering to claim text, it still seems that claim scope is wildly unpredictable. If one looks to the Federal Circuit, that court can apparently read the same text to reach almost any outcome. The court has held that the word “a” means “one or more,”31 and it has also held that it means “only one.”32 It has held the word “plurality” to mean “more than one,”33 and it has also held the word to mean “one.”34 It has held that using the word “normal” limits a claim to technology in common use at the time of patent filing,35while using the word “regular” does not.36 The list of inconsistencies and contradictions goes on. - The Interpretation-Construction Distinction in Patent Law_​


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



A melting pot? Perhaps, but the melting pot is the exception for certain cultures, not the rule for all. Culture matters and there are many cultures in the U.S., some which have been here for hundreds of years that are distinctly different than the majority culture and act in a distinctly different way. For example, black culture has gotten further away from the culture of the dominant group to the point of simply making up a culture of their own. One can argue that the more their culture becomes popularized the more we are all dragged down as a result. Melting in this direction would be a disaster indeed. And speaking of economies, blacks and Hispanics/Latinos are net takers of tax revenue, while whites and Asians are net payers. This is a fact. So Detroit, here we come.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 9, 2016)

The Senate is in Election Year mode – do nothing, hope voters don’t notice.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson defeated then-president John Adams.
> 
> A month before Jefferson was to take office, a Supreme Court vacancy opened up.
> 
> ...


Did anyone voice a protest? I am sure I heard somebody did, but so what? It was accepted as a _fait accompli _

The current Senate is playing a dangerous game that could damage the institution.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > consequence and purpose as a means of legal interpretation is a relatively new invention and affords a wide latitude of bias and subjectivity when interpreting the law.
> ...





Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > consequence and purpose as a means of legal interpretation is a relatively new invention and affords a wide latitude of bias and subjectivity when interpreting the law.
> ...



A fresh look at a law is never troubling. But one can argue that the more we interpret texts in a manner that invites the greatest degree of subjectivity the more inclined we are to get the mess you listed above. Of course, in instances such as the one you've listed Congress is perfectly within their authority to establish definitions.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> No, I'm looking for indicators, not guarantees.



as is everybody else


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> ...


No they wouldn't

Dems have never refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and have suported numerous ultra conservative judges like Scalia, Thomas and Alito


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Indeed he was "Borked." It was immediately after Bork...


 Many people including Senator Kennedy did not forget that Bork did what others refused to do -- fire Archibald Cox. Of course, later on people would say Cox was going to resign after firing Cox. How convenient. 

Wikipedia: *Elliot Lee Richardson* (July 20, 1920 – December 31, 1999) was an American lawyer and politician who was a member of the cabinet of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. As U.S. Attorney General, he was a prominent figure in the Watergate Scandal, and resigned rather than obey President Nixon's order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
​In October 1973, after Richardson had served just five months as Attorney General, President Nixon ordered him to fire the top lawyer investigating the Watergate scandal, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson had promised Congress he would not interfere with the Special Prosecutor, and, rather than disobey the President or break his promise, he resigned. President Nixon subsequently asked Richardson's second-in-command, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, to carry out the order. He too had promised to not interfere, and also tendered his resignation. The third in command, Solicitor GeneralRobert Bork, planned to resign after firing Cox, but Richardson persuaded him not to in order to ensure proper leadership at the Department of Justice during the crisis.[12] Bork carried out the President's order, thus completing the events generally referred to as the Saturday Night Massacre.​


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans are a slightly built man trying to hold up a bus. And how it is weighing down on them. Everything is coalescing into a perfect storm against them. They've shown their hand, they will no longer follow the Constitution as their political party is now their god.
> ...


again, you are misusing the term, _multiculturalism
_
and it is extremely disappointing to see you mention Detroit. The dog whistle of racism? Sad.
good bye


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



Already addressed in this thread.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Oh, what the hey, I'm game. How am I misusing the term "multiculturalism?"


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



You married a false meme. Enjoy the honeymoon.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Actually it hasn't been

Dems have voted down nominees, but they got a vote

Refusing to even consider a candidate is charting new territory


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Race has nothing to do with the way people act, though it can often be an indicator of culture.  I'll go along with ethnicity. There are different ethnicities and cultures in the United States. Not all of them are equal. Some of them are among the most inferior for the types of behavior they reward and encourage.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed he was "Borked." It was immediately after Bork...
> ...



I'm sure he didn't, but as 1:53:30 in this video shows, Kennedy had alot more on his mind.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



I'll take the action indicated in the above sentence at face value. A refusal to argue your position. Why? I wont purport to know.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson defeated then-president John Adams.
> 
> A month before Jefferson was to take office, a Supreme Court vacancy opened up.
> 
> ...



LOL, indeed it was a Federalist controlled Congress and Federalist controlled White House! 6th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You're surprised? Who was it by the way? You aren't talking about Marbury are you?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2016)

John Marshall. John Jay was asked first, and turned it down, as Jay thought the SC was kind of a joke.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Already addressed.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> John Marshall. John Jay was asked first, and turned it down, as Jay thought the SC was kind of a joke.



What the hell are you talking about!!?? Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was on the court well before Marshall. And Marshall was confirmed by a Federalist Senate having been nominated by a Federalist President. No surprise he was confirmed before Jefferson took office.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 9, 2016)

Yes, and Jay retired in 1795, and Adams renominated him in 1800. And Jay declined, having thought the the SC had gone downhill.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Yes, and Jay retired in 1795, and Adams renominated him in 1800. And Jay declined, having thought the the SC had gone downhill.



I learned something today. So how is it surprising that Federalist Adams nominated Marshall and Marshall was quickly confirmed by his Federalist peers in a Federalist Congress? If I recall correctly, Adams last act as President of the United States was to stuff down as many Federalists into government positions as he could before Jefferson took office. In fact, he packed the various offices so deep that he did not have time to deliver the commissions before Jefferson took office.



> "On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a prosperous financier in Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.[3] He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars."[4]
> 
> On the following day, the appointments were approved _en masse_ by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request." Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Well if our founders are any indication, dirty politics were the word of the day. You hope to make political hay out of Republicans playing their games as well?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Far from it

Republicans are setting a new paradigm where filling the Supreme Court takes second fiddle to partisan politics

They will live to regret it


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



LOL, See Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. When it comes to partisan Supreme Court hackery, no one is more partisan than they. Yeah, the "Oh but this time is different" excuse doesn't exactly support your case. Dems were prepped to block Reagans nominees until he nominated a left of center judge. Then all was happy in the land of the Senate. You think Obama would nominate a right of center nominee for compromise as Reagan did left of center? Not a chance. The only difference is that the President in one instance compromised to an opposition congress.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


They asked tough questions didn't they?

It is part of the confirmation process.....a process Republicans won't even consider. They will live to regret it


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 9, 2016)

Obama knew what was coming but, in his arrogance, he choose to play games instead of buckling down to some _serious_ golf.  I mean, where His time would be far more beneficial to all the world's children.

On the other hand, I'm not happy that The Senate is not respecting its duty to BORK the living shit outta.......


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They grandstanded and made political statements, often cutting off nominees in mid explanation of their decisions and directly calling them racist sexist bigots.

The only reason Democrats went ahead with hearings was because Reagan, knowing that the Democrats aimed to block his appointee, nominated a left of center justice. The difference between then and now was that Reagan compromised with a Democrat congress. Obama would have never pulled such a move.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

longknife said:


> Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> 
> Especially to pay attention to Obama's choice of someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Read full story @ The Senate Will Not Confirm Merrick Garland



hey... they're your do-nothing congress.

congrats


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Nobody said confirmation is easy

Republicans say you can't even get a hearing. If they have tough questions for Garland, let's hear them


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Ya gotta love this headline. Senate is back from Spring Break (you mean they were doing anything before that) and all set to not do a single thing about a huge number of things.
> ...





rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Perhaps you might .... In November. Perhaps not.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Obama knew what was coming but, in his arrogance, he choose to play games instead of buckling down to some _serious_ golf.  I mean, where His time would be far more beneficial to all the world's children.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm not happy that The Senate is not respecting its duty to BORK the living shit outta.......



you're a moron.

the arrogance is you rightwingnut pond scum thinking the president shouldn't nominate a justice.

now quiet, you uneducated twit


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



they don't.... they'd rather sit there like the radical, rabid dolts they are and pretend the black guy isn't president.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



good luck ever getting a nominee if you don't win it all...

and you won't... so you're pretty well screwed.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



I see a President exercising his power and a congress exercising theirs. No harm no foul.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...


November?

I thought they were waiting for the new President. Are you admitting Republicans are slimy enough to confirm Obama 's appointment if Hillary is elected?


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I dunno, Chris Wallace asked the President (To air on Fox News Sunday) if he will retract his nomination if a Democrat gets elected. Obama said no. So, if this is the case, Republicans have nothing to lose by delaying confirmation.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I wouldn't put it passed them. Would you? Do you think that Democrats would be slimy enough to block the vote?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They are too buzy doing nuffin...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Obama is tossing them a softball

Hillary will not be so kind


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 9, 2016)

Republicans have decided their political party is now the only god they bow and pray to. The Constitution has no meaning for them now. They have a year to interview and grill and whatever else to whomever is nominated and then vote, but for their politics alone they said they are suspending the Constitution. 

This is a dead party. Once you cross that line and say 'we are going to cheat everywhere all the time because living within the Constitution means we lose' then your party is dead. Stop pretending to be Americans, you aren't. You've given up on this democracy. That is what it boils down to and all the gnashing of teeth and searching the internet for this or that speech or quote and acting as if you have now elevated a speech or something some person said to the supreme law of the land because it suits your purpose, isn't going to change anything. 

The Republicans are using their politics to ignore the Constitution. Conservatism has become the anti-Constitution worldview. That document does not work for conservatives so, just as in 1860, they've decided it's time to ignore it. 

All because this group of people cannot accept the society has changed around them and they will also have to change in some small to moderate way. It is the selfishness of a child writ large. 'If I can't have my way then nobody gets to play'. 

How these people can look their own children in the eye is one of those moments of lying to one's self to the point of schizophrenia. You cannot act in this lowlife way and also say you love and want what's best for your own children. You are burning the Constitution; nothing else you could do is worse.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Republicans have decided their political party is now the only god they bow and pray to. The Constitution has no meaning for them now. They have a year to interview and grill and whatever else to whomever is nominated and then vote, but for their politics alone they said they are suspending the Constitution.
> 
> This is a dead party. Once you cross that line and say 'we are going to cheat everywhere all the time because living within the Constitution means we lose' then your party is dead. Stop pretending to be Americans, you aren't. You've given up on this democracy. That is what it boils down to and all the gnashing of teeth and searching the internet for this or that speech or quote and acting as if you have now elevated a speech or something some person said to the supreme law of the land because it suits your purpose, isn't going to change anything.
> 
> ...



From the guy who supported the nuclear option for Obama care comes the I wanna justice that adapts the U.S. Constitution to the opinions of "society," whatever that is, without so much as the Constitutional Amendment process.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



If they try a fast track, lame duck appointment, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls the nomination 

Hillary will not nominate someone as old or moderate as Garland


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So your official position is politics for me but not for thee? Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Republicans have decided their political party is now the only god they bow and pray to. The Constitution has no meaning for them now. They have a year to interview and grill and whatever else to whomever is nominated and then vote, but for their politics alone they said they are suspending the Constitution.
> 
> This is a dead party. Once you cross that line and say 'we are going to cheat everywhere all the time because living within the Constitution means we lose' then your party is dead. Stop pretending to be Americans, you aren't. You've given up on this democracy. That is what it boils down to and all the gnashing of teeth and searching the internet for this or that speech or quote and acting as if you have now elevated a speech or something some person said to the supreme law of the land because it suits your purpose, isn't going to change anything.
> 
> ...



It's all the Republicans have left

Full time filibuster, gerrymander and blocking judicial appointments

They have moved past blocking judges to leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


It's more consequences for your actions

Wanna wait for a new President?  Pay the consequences


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have decided their political party is now the only god they bow and pray to. The Constitution has no meaning for them now. They have a year to interview and grill and whatever else to whomever is nominated and then vote, but for their politics alone they said they are suspending the Constitution.
> ...



And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh, so your position is that "democrats are holier than thou except when they aren't." Well, we will see. Obama has already told Chris Wallace that he will not retract his nominee if a democrat is elected in Nov. We will see.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...



Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


We shall see how it plays out

Regardless, Republicans will hold the losing hand

They will beg for Garland


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years. That and the idea a legal text can change without so much as an amendment is also a liberal phenomenon. Liberals have rendered useless the amendment process and today the U.S. Constitution, in their eyes, can mean everything and anything they want it to.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You'll want to see this Chris Wallace talks his interview with President Obama . Of course I don't believe a word of it.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



they're so pathetic.

and then they'll whine that they're being mistreated.

wackos.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

and you forgot the whole part where the rightwing judges simply make up things like that corporations are people or after 200 plus years, suddenly there is a private right of gun ownership..


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Why go as low as Dead Ted Kennedy ?

The slimewad.

Obama should nominate and the GOP should allow the process to run.

Republicans only have themselves to blame.

Better get your guns before it's to late !!!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



B.. b..bu...bu...but...but....

Al Gore said the Constitution was a "living document".

How'd that work out for him.

Not that I agree, at all, with Citizens United.

It's just funny to see you left wing asswipes bit by your own snakes.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.


----------



## jillian (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Publius1787 ....

Dude, challenge her to the bull ring.  You pick the topic and three judges.....then it is just you and her.  The judges decide who wins.

jillian (a.k.a. jillihag), won't go near that kind of challenge.

She's got a big mouth and no brain.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



translation: you don't have the guts or the ammo to stay up.

Admit it ....your mouth would better serve your boyfriend.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Sounds like a cheap excuse to back down to me. But that's just my interpretation. To each his own I guess. Let the record show that the challenge was offered and the self proclaimed constitutional expert, the one who proclaimed that I was not equipped to understand the Constitution, backed down.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Conservatives never controlled the SCOTUS......are you really that stupid ?

Demoncrats did the same thing...admit it....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But your lack of understanding does make you a hack.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Oh, I think you are right on....

Go to the bullring challenge zone and issue the challenge.  

Then we'll broadcast how Jillihag, once again, failed to put up....but still won't shut up.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I'd be happy too. I would even give her the benefit of choosing the legal topic and the judges.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Go for it......

Don't let her choose the judges....she'll choose hacks.

Choose people who think for themselves.

Notice she vacated the thread.

It's her style.

Hides under her mothers skirt and calls you names.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


Liberals founded our Republic


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Indeed, Classical Liberals, from liber, meaning liberty, meaning of and pertaining to freedom. Not the folks who called themselves "progressives" until they became unpopular so they started to call themselves "liberals" instead. Classical liberals were negative liberty types, not positive liberty types. John Locke types in fact. In short, they're more aligned to modern day conservatives. Hence  "to conserve." To conserve what? The past, traditions, to prevent rapid change & etc.


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



16:00 in this video I am validated. A Liberal Justice vs a Conservative Justice on statutory interpretation. Of course, Breyer gets his ass kicked.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



No such thing as a classical liberal. They were the most liberal minds of their era
Liberals evolve to meet new challenges. Conservatives do what they can to ensure they don't succeed


----------



## Publius1787 (Apr 9, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well I'll be damned. Classical Liberalism has it's own wiki page. Go figure.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 9, 2016)

Publius1787 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...


I can make a wiki page

Classical Liberalism was invented by Conservatism to try to give themselves some legitimacy in American history

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal...and it ain't a conservative


----------

