Yes, sorry, my apologies, I misinterpreted the data I was looking at. And before that it was Robert Jackson in 1954. It’s rare, though:
No, of course not. But her ties to Wall Street and Corporate America will absolutely factor into any nominee she might consider. We’ll never get a true Liberal or Progressive on the Court with her.
Oh c’mon we all know that both parties are exactly the same. I see little difference between Antonin Scalia and Earl Warren. A true progressive would nominate Zaatu from the Gamma Quadrant. That would be real change.
True progressives also ignore the Senate confirmation process. Only sellouts take political realities seriously.
One thing about a court split 4-4 on numerous issues is that it would leave circuit court decisions in place on those questions, though they would only apply to that circuit.
The stay that the Supreme Court recently issued on Obama’s environmental regs, for instance - if the DC Circuit rules in favor of the Administration, the conservatives on the Supreme Court wouldn’t have 5 votes to reverse the DC Circuit, so the regs would be implemented.
And as has already been said, everything before this Court right now will only be voted on by the 8 surviving Justices.
And that’s likely true. Do you expect a true Liberal or Progressive to be appointed by any of the Republican candidates?
LMAO! Best. Comment. Evar.
Took me a minute to place this one!
They were all in love with dyin’, they were doin’ it in Texas
I wish this was hyperbole, but they’ve filibustered nominees for months that they eventually confirmed all but unanimously. And it wasn’t like they were holding further hearings or done anything else that would have given them new reason to drop their opposition.
I have no idea why people here keep repeating this; it’s simply not true.
Poll (NBC/WSJ; Sep. 20-24) after poll (CNN/ORC; Oct. 14-17) after poll (Quinnipiac; Dec. 2) after poll (Quinnipiac; Feb. 5) are telling the exact opposite story: Bernie is more electable than Clinton — he beats all of the Republican candidates by wider margins than she does. And against Rubio, Bernie ties or wins and she loses.
No. What’s your point? Kindly make one already.
You are conflating what people believe about electability with actual electability. They aren’t the same.
(You’re also wrong to rely on national polling at this stage, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Oh, good grief. You’re arguing that the possibility of Clinton appointing a Supreme Court justice is horrific, even more horrific than the possibility of Trump or Cruz doing so. I think I’ll do what I did in 2008, and put you on ignore until the election is over.
Could Obama nominate himself? Just wondering.
Not really gridlock, because if the SC Justices tie 4-4, the lower court ruling is upheld.
It just doesn’t become binding precedent in the whole country. But it remains binding precedent for that judicial circuit. As such, it tends to have some moral or persuasive influence on the other circuits in the country. So you might see some appeals rushed to the SC, so that if they are tied, the favorable lower court ruling is upheld. And you would certainly see lawyers for cases in-process in lower courts adjusting their arguments to align with the opinions expressed by SC Justices.
Yes but isn’t it traditional said that when the turnout is large, democrats win? Wouldn’t the GOP be aware of that?
I don’t think so. You can’t serve in more than one branch of gov’t simultaneously, so he couldn’t be confirmed while still Prez. And I believe the end of a Presidential term ends any nomination put forward, so he couldn’t nominate and then resign and then have the Senate confirm.
You’re posting in a thread talking about the insane lengths to which the Republicans will likely go to prove to their base that they are totally obstructing any attempt by the sitting President of the United States to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What do you think the Republicans might say or do if an avowed socialist is the Democratic candidate? How do you think a public that not merely enables these Republicans but votes them into control of the House and Senate and most governorships and legislatures might respond? The world is crazy but not so crazy that anyone can make a case for Sanders’ winning.
There are no constraints on the nomination. You could be nominated. Vladimir Putin could be nominated. I see no reason why Obama couldn’t nominate himself. The Founders never even considered the possibility that an unqualified person could be nominated so they set no boundaries.
The Constitution limits the ability of a member of Congress to be appointed to another office, but they can always resign their seat first. Nothing is said about the President being constrained. Again, they never dreamed it would happen.
The Constitution is a framework, not an all-encompassing logic system. It doesn’t try to predict whatever notion anyone in the future might have. As anyone reading this Board regularly should know, there are a zillion scenarios that the Constitution is silent about and that no court has ever ruled on.
Do not announce the names of posters on your gnore list.
[ /Moderating ]
No I’m not. If people didn’t think he was electable, they wouldn’t respond that they’d vote for him. That’s just basic logic.
Who said “rely”? They show you are incorrect about what people think. They don’t think that way, as their responses to the polls through current indicate.
Oh, good grief, I did nothing of the sort. Man this place has gone to shit. I expect to be debated on my actual points, not ones you make the hell up.
Bye, Felicia.
You’re wrong. I couldn’t care less what “the Republicans” would have to say about it because their say is irrelevant to getting Bernie elected. They won’t vote for Bernie or Hillary, even if Hillary admitted once and for all that she’s actually one of them, so they’re a non-issue. And once Bernie’s elected, he’ll make the nominations. Simple as that.
No, it isn’t. Lots of people think Hillary is more electable but vote for Bernie in the primary. Do I really need to cite the exit polls for you on this?
Not everyone who votes in an election is Democrat or Republican. And turnout among those who are party loyalists is utterly critical. These factors are totally relevant to the outcome of an election.
However, I’m discontinuing this hijack here. I’ll look for an appropriate thread to discuss it.