It’s not obvious at all. I give you the benefit of the doubt because I don’t think of you as a hopeless partisan, but you have to overlook an raft of absolute statements like (from Mitch McConnell) “the decision the Senate made weeks ago [to ignore the nomination] remains about a principle, not a person.”
How do statements like this contradict what I wrote? I’m aware that this is the official Republican line. I’m just saying that this supposed principle was concocted for the purpose of opposing Garland.
Be *very *careful when invoking the founders before reading history. You might be surprised to see that your assumptions do not hold true.
In November of 1828 Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams in the presidential election. In December 1828 a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose and Adams submitted a nomination. The Senate voted to defer consideration, and never took ti up again. The vacancy was then filled by a Jackson nominee in March of the following year.
The Senators at the time include early American notables such as John C Calhoun, Daniel Webster, as well as future presidents Martin Van Buren and John Tyler and William Henry Harrison, and future Vice President William King.
If I get the right Supreme Court justices, I don’t have to persuade you - your post says whatever I want it to.
We’ve done this one to death.
The common law established the definition of marriage as “the union of one man and one woman”. That definition was even cited in the decision in Loving. The Lovings were denied the equal protection of that law.
The recent gay marriage decision is a good example of judges making up law instead of applying it. The justices “interpreted” a definition of “the union of one man and one woman” as “the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women”. That’s not an interpretation - it is making things up. “One man and one woman” doesn’t mean “two men” or “two women”, and saying it does is no more reasonable than for me to say that your post supports the rejection of Garland and an endorsement of the Trump presidency.
It’s obviously true that there are gray areas in interpretation. It is not obviously true that therefore any interpretation is as good as any other.
Regards,
Shodan
But you’re not going to break even. You’re going to lose. And in losing, you’re going to destroy one of the last shreds of power the minority party has in the Senate. It’s inaccurate to pretend that the position the Senate Republicans found themselves in this year is the same as the one the Senate Democrats will be in next year. They’re not the same. The Republicans were the Senate majority party and the Democrats will be the Senate minority party. That’s a critical difference, perhaps the critical difference.
When the Dems have a majority in the Senate (probably not until 2020 at the earliest) they can hold McCain or Cruz or any other Senator accountable for whatever statement they like. Anyways, like I said earlier, I think it was unlikely that the Republicans were never going to appoint a hypothetical President Clinton’s nominee. There was enough division in the caucus that someone she nominated probably would have gotten a hearing, and a vote, and won that vote. It probably would’ve happened over Cruz’ strenuous objections, but, as I noted, we don’t have a Senate majority of 52 Senator Cruz’.
I agree with you – and that was an interpretation of the Constitution. Every reading is an interpretation of some sort, since “literal” meaning can differ depending on who’s reading it, and what definitions they use, and what inferences to things like common law they use, and the like.
This is one interpretation, but it’s not the only one. You probably don’t agree, but you’re not going to convince me that there’s only one possible interpretation of the Constitution with regards to gay marriage.
Even your reading of the majority decision is an interpretation, since they also discussed the rights to “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs”, and “the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy” and various other inferences and interpretations of the Constitution. I interpret their majority decision as being a real interpretation of the Constitution, even if it’s not an interpretation that you or Scalia agrees with. I disagree with your interpretation of their decision that it’s not an interpretation of the Constitution at all.
I agree – and there are gray areas in determining which interpretation is better than others, and even in determining whether a court’s decision is making stuff up or an actual interpretation of the Constitution.
Do you think it was decided correctly and if so what text from the Constitution was used?
There is not.
And the reason is obvious: once you say, “Well, OK, the Senate can reject someone like Bork, because his views are too strict, but not someone like Sotomayor, whose ‘Wise Latina’ ability to inject life experiences into judging is perfectly acceptable!” then you create an ever-tightening ratchet: judges create precedents that normalize the evolving view of the law; lower courts apply them; students learn this and rise to become the next generation of Wise Cultural Group Members with their own plans to shape the law… all without the text of the law ever changing.
Go ahead: insist that this is fine.
I insist it’s fine too, but now my guys are going to do it.
That’s always the mark of a fair deal: if you’re on the receiving end instead of the giving end, how do you like it?
I think it was, and I think the text they used was correct.
Sure. But honestly, now, if Obama had nominated Neil Gorsuch or William Pryor, you must know that the Senate would (after pinching themselves to ensure this was not a dream) quickly confirmed them. You cannot possibly be trying to convince me that McConnell, with a Clinton presidency looming, would have literally stuck to the rhetoric he offered up.
What text was that, specifically?
You don’t know? 
When I was watching TV and heard that Scalia had died, they followed that with a statement from McConnell expressive sympathy and saying that no nomination should be made until then next president was elected.
The Garland was never considered by the senate. The “let the people decide” is laughable because three years before the people had decided that Obama would be president until Jan 2017. They cited out of context posturing statements by Biden as the “Biden Rule” as if it were something real. Maybe they thought a black president only gets 7/8 of his time.
There is nothing that indicates it was based on merit. If they wanted revenge for Bork, there were plenty of chances with other nominations so throw out that red herring.
Bork got more than hearings. He got a vote. He was voted down on a bipartisan basis 58-42.
However it has been noted that “[t]he Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics… The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust–the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one.”
Democrats threw the first Stone but the Republicans started taking hostages.
I’m not Shodan but they lost the 2014 election when they failed to garner a majority in the senate.
I think that’s already happened. See *Shelby County v. Holder *
Then the next time, the Democrats put in 20, then 30 then 50. Then every supreme court case becomes a referendum because we will all become supreme court justices upon reaching majority or naturalization.
Have you not heard that revenge is a dish best served cold?
So the senate cannot reject a nominee because they are too radical. Robert Bork was pretty radical and controversial
See Saturday night massacre
see civil rights act
see voting rights act
see roe v wade
Then so was Garland.
See non-textualist.
:rolleyes: