Jump to content

Scalia Corte Suprema


motocat12

Recommended Posts

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 by motocat12
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by redkow97
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...