Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Jun '09 16:15 / 1 edit
    From:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/beyond_bork_dont_count_on_it_96826.html



    One thing that may make it harder to forget the partisan and ideological battles of the past is that President Obama found reasons to oppose both the Bush nominees, Roberts and Alito, in the only Supreme Court confirmation tests during his four years of Senate service.

    The chief justice has told friends that he was disappointed by Obama's vote against him, because he thought they had had a meeting of minds. Indeed, in his floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005, Obama said, "I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

    "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

    "It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law ... that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts."

    The problem, Obama said, comes in the last 5 percent -- the cases where "precedent and rules of construction" are not enough and where justice "can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values." The rights of women, minorities, the disabled are dependent on those cases where "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

    Obama said Roberts' record on women's rights and racial issues was not good enough to answer the doubts about his "deepest values."




    For everyone, but No1 especially, do you think Obama's thought process is consistent with the Constitutional intent of the legislature's role in confirming judges?

    If so, is there any reason a conservative Republican should vote for Sotomayor?
  2. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jun '09 17:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    From:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/beyond_bork_dont_count_on_it_96826.html



    [/i]One thing that may make it harder to forget the partisan and ideological battles of the past is that President Obama found reasons to oppose both the Bush nominees, Roberts and Alito, in the only Supreme Court confirmation tests during his four years so, is there any reason a conservative Republican should vote for Sotomayor?
    The Constitution has no "intent" on what "thought processes" the Senate should use in exercising their power to "advise and consent", so your question is nonsensical.

    You're the one saying that most conservative Republicans will vote for Sotomayor, not me.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Jun '09 17:53
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    your question is nonsensical.
    Phew!

    You had gone so many days without insulting me that I thought you were losing your edge!

    Welcome back, No1.
  4. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jun '09 17:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    Phew!

    You had gone so many days without insulting me that I thought you were losing your edge!

    Welcome back, No1.
    I guess actually meaningfully responding to my point is too much work.
  5. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    04 Jun '09 18:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    From:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/beyond_bork_dont_count_on_it_96826.html



    [i]One thing that may make it harder to forget the partisan and ideological battles of the past is that President Obama found reasons to oppose both the Bush nominees, Roberts and Alito, in the only Supreme Court confirmation tests during his four years so, is there any reason a conservative Republican should vote for Sotomayor?
    [/i]conservative republicans are fruitcakes, nut jobs, and at this point in history no sane person expects anything but partisan cant and far right wing lunacy from them, so no, they should vote against Sotomayor.

    I want to see the Latino vote next time around after they do. Of course, the ones to watch are the southern guys who are most concerned about Florida.

    by now, this whole thing is just a partisan ritual.

    fine.

    Obama's views are uniformly, at least in public, the correct ones to stay in accord with the middle of his political team. He just likes to adopt a very
    conciliatory tone.

    So the OP mistakes style for substance.

    What matters is the fact that you can count on Roberts to be a knee-jerk front man for the Scalia gang -- a bunch of real rightist spicy meatballs and no friend of civil rights or anyone other than the very very rich and well connected.

    So Obama's vote against him was just business, nothing personal ...

    it is just the same old same old

    Just as Lucky Rockefeller said the other day, Republicans are making themselves into an endangered species with their ever smaller tent.

    good news.

    but just because I exult in their failures does not mean I support or exalt the other team, the dems.

    I say a plague on both their houses.
  6. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jun '09 18:05
    Once Franken is seated, I'd like to see the Dems add say, 10 more justices to the Supreme Court for Obama to appoint. Time to play hardball!
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Jun '09 19:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Once Franken is seated, I'd like to see the Dems add say, 10 more justices to the Supreme Court for Obama to appoint. Time to play hardball!
    You've just described probably the only thing that Obama could do that would absolutely positively destroy him with the American people.

    Court packing, while Constitutionally permissible, would be unpopular with at least 80% of the public; probably more.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Jun '09 19:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I guess actually meaningfully responding to my point is too much work.
    My new policy is to not meaningfully respond to any post that is insulting or condescending. That's why I didn't respond meaningfully. I have no interest in getting into fights on this forum. I want to discuss and debate things like calm, rational, people; something that you are only intermittently capable of doing.
  9. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jun '09 19:26
    Originally posted by sh76
    My new policy is to not meaningfully respond to any post that is insulting or condescending. That's why I didn't respond meaningfully. I have no interest in getting into fights on this forum. I want to discuss and debate things like calm, rational, people; something that you are only intermittently capable of doing.
    Because I said a nonsensical claim was nonsensical?
  10. Subscriber no1marauderonline
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jun '09 19:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    You've just described probably the only thing that Obama could do that would absolutely positively destroy him with the American people.

    Court packing, while Constitutionally permissible, would be unpopular with at least 80% of the public; probably more.
    Sure; do you have any empirical basis for such a claim?

    Thought not.
  11. 05 Jun '09 07:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    From:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/04/beyond_bork_dont_count_on_it_96826.html



    [i]One thing that may make it harder to forget the partisan and ideological battles of the past is that President Obama found reasons to oppose both the Bush nominees, Roberts and Alito, in the only Supreme Court confirmation tests during his four years ...[text shortened]... so, is there any reason a conservative Republican should vote for Sotomayor?
    although hispanic representation is way past due, there is also the fact that she's qualified and doesn't fail to represent the interests of americans through sound decision-making.

    obama should've voted for roberts.
    coservative republicans should vote for sotomayor.

    nevertheless, as we all know, it will come down to politics. obama's vote was the same story, he needed the support of certain pro-choice groups for his run for President.

    do republicans give a flying flip about the growing hispanic vote (population trends are only one part, let's not forget the growing citizenship rates, the change in voting rates, and the swing to heavily democratic tendency)...?

    It is now starting to seem that they do, given Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's toned down rhetoric.

    Some radio hosts that rely on anti-immigrant and closet-racist viewership such as john and ken in LA are trying to scare up new anti-hispanic sentiment by associating hispanic immigrants with swine flue and terrorism. You all should have heard one of them going all crazy about the hispanic vote mattering to republicans, he went back to saying how in california's 1994 vote that prop 187 passed by such large margins... LOL, some ardent racists are still living in the past. Most politicians are not so emotionally and financially caught up in support achieved through xenophobia and are able to make smarter long-term plans.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Jun '09 10:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    My new policy is to not meaningfully respond to any post that is insulting or condescending. That's why I didn't respond meaningfully.
    Not to worry. whodey will step up and take your place. Like you, as you yourself just admitted (somewhat disarmingly), he doesn't "respond meaningfully" either.
  13. 05 Jun '09 11:19
    Originally posted by eljefejesus


    It is now starting to seem that they do, given Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's toned down rhetoric.

    What's hilarious is Limbaugh went on record saying "she's still a racist" but he now supports her because he thinks she might be willing to reverse Roe v. Wade.

    Really, Rush? You would support someone you truly believe to be a racist to sit on the highest court in the land? Oh, and if him calling someone a racist isn't the pot and the kettle.....

    Why anyone takes that guy seriously is beyond me.
  14. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    05 Jun '09 13:25
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Why anyone takes that guy seriously is beyond me.
    Rush is a rather good IQ test

    Ditto heads, per se, are overdrawn at the brain bank
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    05 Jun '09 13:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sure; do you have any empirical basis for such a claim?

    Thought not.
    No; I have no empirical basis. They don't poll this sort of thing because, besides for you, no one (that I know of) has suggested it.

    I am making that assertion as an educated guess based on the reception it received when Roosevelt proposed it and my perception of what the American people will and will not stand for when to comes to encroaching on separation of powers.

    Do you honestly think it's a good idea for the legislative and executive branches to render the judiciary obsolete by adding justices whenever they want results of Supreme Court cases changed? Before you know it, there will be 100 Supreme Court justices.