motocat12 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) How is it not a conflict of interest when Obama has his own Unconstitutional laws being decided in the supreme court he's going to appoint a nominee to? My suggestion is Ginsburg retires and they can pass one D and one R So Obama avoids this years R president elect appointting an R to replace her when she goes after also blocking his Scalia replacement Edited February 17, 2016 by motocat12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Did you suggest the same thing when Bush replaced Stevens, a moderate liberal? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Because it isn't? That is how the system works. The only person with a conflict of interest is Senator that nobody likes Cruz. Edited February 17, 2016 by MichaelS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie14 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Neither party really likes to follow the constitution, unless it is politically convenient. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 45 minutes ago, MichaelS said: The only person with a conflict of interest is Senator that nobody likes Cruz. And did you say the same thing when Schumer tried to block Bush's last nomination to the Court? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) I used to believe that the Supreme Court was above D.C. douchebaggery, or maybe I just wanted to believe. Edited February 17, 2016 by Tpoppa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Tonik said: And did you say the same thing when Schumer tried to block Bush's last nomination to the Court? I don't see how that is the same at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 They're not replacing a "republican" justice - Justices are not officially affiliated with either party. They don't run for election, therefore there is no party to support them. It's fairly obvious that Scalia had Republican leanings, but that's his decision. This whole debate is stupid though. The President has an obligation to nominate a successor, and the Senate has an obligation to confirm any qualified candidate, regardless of what they think about his or her political leanings. Likewise, Justices have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and not let their personal beliefs cloud or sway their judgment. That is what was always so infuriatingly brilliant about Justice Scalia. I could agree with his opinion, but completely disagree with his rationalization. At the same time, he was an excellent writer, and had the ability to make his own rationalization sound less absurd than many who supported his beliefs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmutt Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, MichaelS said: I don't see how that is the same at all. I'm not surprised. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, redkow97 said: Likewise, Justices have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and not let their personal beliefs cloud or sway their judgment.. LOL. Good one! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, Tonik said: I'm not surprised. I think you are not understanding why I am saying and not the only one saying that Cruz has a conflict of interest. Chuck was not going to potentially have the SCOTUS determine if he could be president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, MichaelS said: I think you are not understanding why I am saying and not the only one saying that Cruz has a conflict of interest. Chuck was not going to potentially have the SCOTUS determine if he could be president. I am not debating if it is wrong for Cruz to block this. It is wrong. Your reasons dont even come into play. Blocking any judge by any party nominated by any President except in extreme circumstances.....like the nominee is a murderer....is wrong. When we elect a President that is part of the duties we elect him to do. I am also saying that if you make excuses why its ok for your party to do it or fail to condemn them for doing it while condeming the other party.....then you are a hypocritical asshat. Unfortunately, your failure to condemn Schumer leads me to belive that is a hat you are wearing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, motocat12 said: How is it not a conflict of interest when Obama has his own Unconstitutional laws being decided in the supreme court he's going to appoint a nominee to? the Justices have no "interests," therefore there is no conflict. A quick appointment would actually erode any kind of argument that a particular candidate was 'campaigning' to be nominated. If we drag out the process for 10+ months, that will only bring forth activists who want the job. A reluctant acceptance is a much more desirable scenario. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life explicitly so that they can do what's legally right, and not be concerned with re-election, or political repercussions from the President (or party) who appointed them. Edited February 17, 2016 by redkow97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, redkow97 said: the Justices have no "interests," therefore there is no conflict. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life explicitly so that they can do what's legally right, On paper I agree with you. In practice I cannot agree. If justices strictly made decisions based on factual interpretation of the law, and excluded personal bias and political leanings...you would never see a 5-4 and probably not even a 6-3. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelS Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 19 minutes ago, Tonik said: I am not debating if it is wrong for Cruz to block this. It is wrong. Your reasons dont even come into play. Blocking any judge by any party nominated by any President except in extreme circumstances.....like the nominee is a murderer....is wrong. When we elect a President that is part of the duties we elect him to do. I am also saying that if you make excuses why its ok for your party to do it or fail to condemn them for doing it while condeming the other party.....then you are a hypocritical asshat. Unfortunately, your failure to condemn Schumer leads me to belive that is a hat you are wearing. Where praytell did I say anything of the sort? I didn't so the asshattery is on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahoo Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Earl Warren was a perfect example of a perceived conservative nominee who, as chief justice, was about as liberal as they come.... Former republican governor of California, appointed as Chief Justice by Eisenhower as a conservative who could appeal to the moderate liberals. After taking the bench, he became the champion of every liberal cause which came before the court. So much for party "tags" or labels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 47 minutes ago, MichaelS said: Where praytell did I say anything of the sort? I didn't so the asshattery is on you. It's more a matter of your tone and apparent avoiding a direct answer. Did you condemn Schumer when he tried to block Bush's last nominee? Yes or No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whaler Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 8 hours ago, Tonik said: I am not debating if it is wrong for Cruz to block this. It is wrong. Your reasons dont even come into play. Blocking any judge by any party nominated by any President except in extreme circumstances.....like the nominee is a murderer....is wrong. When we elect a President that is part of the duties we elect him to do. I am also saying that if you make excuses why its ok for your party to do it or fail to condemn them for doing it while condeming the other party.....then you are a hypocritical asshat. Unfortunately, your failure to condemn Schumer leads me to belive that is a hat you are wearing. Disagree... It is absolutely the right of congress to dismiss or confirm appointees. The president only gets the right to nominate, congress gets the decision. the whole idea of quid pro quo is distructive to our political process. If this was the case, who is stopping a setting president from knocking off all of his opposition and appointing judges to forward his agenda because there is no congressional opposition? the fact that so many Supreme Court justices get little to know opposition is disturbing to me. The appointment is for life and has more power over our laws then any president or setting congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 hour ago, whaler said: Disagree... It is absolutely the right of congress to dismiss or confirm appointees. The president only gets the right to nominate, congress gets the decision. the whole idea of quid pro quo is distructive to our political process. If this was the case, who is stopping a setting president from knocking off all of his opposition and appointing judges to forward his agenda because there is no congressional opposition? the fact that so many Supreme Court justices get little to know opposition is disturbing to me. The appointment is for life and has more power over our laws then any president or setting congress. It's not a matter of agreement. Your position is supported by both a layman's read and a pro's analysis of Articles II and III. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo72 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I saw an article this morning that said that Obama joined a filibuster to block the appointment of Samuel Alito in 2006. Hypocrite much? Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 13 minutes ago, Wojo72 said: Hypocrite much? Find me any politician that IS NOT a hypocrite and I will detail your bike 4x a year for life 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo72 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Find me any politician that IS NOT a hypocrite and I will detail your bike 4x a year for life I'm not taking that bet. I It just annoys me because the victim card has been played in the media. Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, Bad324 said: Find me any politician that IS NOT a hypocrite and I will detail your bike 4x a year for life Dennis Kucinich. He was bat shit insane, but never a hypocrite. He told you what he believed and he did everything he could to make it happen. You know where I live, let me know when you will be over to start detailing my bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Tonik said: Dennis Kucinich. He was bat shit insane, but never a hypocrite. He told you what he believed and he did everything he could to make it happen. You know where I live, let me know when you will be over to start detailing my bike. DONE. It looks beautiful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.