Changing the liberal/moderate/conservative composition is a much, much bigger deal than replacing a conservative with a conservative. It's fairly clear that Obama wants to change the composition. If the shoe was on the other foot...you would have liberals doing the exact same thing just as they've done in the past.I never get worked up over SCOTUS appointees as over the year those who were moderate and expected to lean liberal tended to be conservative in there voting and vice versa.
Changing the liberal/moderate/conservative composition is a much, much bigger deal than replacing a conservative with a conservative. It's fairly clear that Obama wants to change the composition. If the shoe was on the other foot...you would have liberals doing the exact same thing just as they've done in the past.
Changing the liberal/moderate/conservative composition is a much, much bigger deal than replacing a conservative with a conservative. It's fairly clear that Obama wants to change the composition. If the shoe was on the other foot...you would have liberals doing the exact same thing just as they've done in the past.
Bridges have been burned long ago and this is personal now...I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to see the Senate vote 'no' even if Obama nominated Ted Cruz!There is already a healthy pool of candidates who have been vetted previously and approved without issue. I think you will see Obama picking someone from this pool which will make it hard for the GOP to suddenly say they are unacceptable.
More importantly is will he pick someone who would make a good judge, but wouldn't necessarily be the ideal candidate to throw to the wolves. Depending on how this goes you don't want to see a truly great pick wasted by a Senate fight.
Is there a liberal on the court who is not authoritarian or a conservative on the court who is not libertarian in some sense of these words?I care less about liberal vs conservative and more about authoritarian vs libertarian.
Of course they would, no argument here. Liberals and conservatives do the same things and paint each other as "hippocrits" and bad or wrong. But humans feel like whatever they are doing is justified to get what they believe is right. Its going to be a fight and thats how politics work. Im not angry that republicans want to block Obama's pic, its expected. And I would expect democrats to try to block a conservative pick.
@BonzaiDuck
Watch the newest episode of "Last week tonight with John Oliver" you will like it.
Yeah i agree that democrats usurp the will of the people far less than republicans and are more interested in fairness than they are, and that a great majority of republican voters are kinda...not..smart and vote with anger and hatred and no logic at all, and their leaders manipulate them into voting against their own interests for financial gain, but...I feel like we are gonna win this whole "situation" anyway so I was trying to be nice lol.
So it's OK for Obama to weigh political ideology when making a SCOTUS nomination, but people are considered "chuckleheads" who happen to object to his nominee on the basis of political ideology? This just reeks of cognitive dissonance.Yet, every chucklehead eager to discourage a successful Obama nomination has nothing but political ideology operating in their logic.
What he wants to do and who gets nod from congress will be far different.
If you're going to fabricate strawmen...you've got to disguise them better and make them much more convincing. Otherwise, it backfires and makes you look like the really stupid one.Yeh, being a sekrit mooslim & all he probably wants a believer in strict Sharia law, right?
This strikes me as a rather ridiculous argument on your part frankly. (At least the specific way you're phrasing it beyond the point about the chuckleheads phrase.)So it's OK for Obama to weigh political ideology when making a SCOTUS nomination, but people are considered "chuckleheads" who happen to object to his nominee on the basis of political ideology? This just reeks of cognitive dissonance.
If you're going to fabricate strawmen...you've got to disguise them better and make them much more convincing. Otherwise, it backfires and makes you look like the really stupid one.
Yes on both counts.Is there a liberal on the court who is not authoritarian or a conservative on the court who is not libertarian in some sense of these words?
You're fucking hilarious! But don't give up your day job.It's a joke, son, a rather pointed one.
The more I think about it, the more I agree. Thanks.Yes on both counts.
Thomas for example is generally considered to be the most conservative sitting supreme court judge. Yet he is highly authoritarian in some rulings. Take the gay marriage case for example, he dissented which is basically saying that the government had the right to say who you can and can not marry. You can't get much more authoritarian than that.
For libertarian examples of liberals on the court, see the same case.
Now the question is whether a judicial candidate having fairly extreme judicial views is in any way a reflection on their abilities as a judge or its simply a reflection of their political ideology.
Yes on both counts.
Thomas for example is generally considered to be the most conservative sitting supreme court judge. Yet he is highly authoritarian in some rulings. Take the gay marriage case for example, he dissented which is basically saying that the government had the right to say who you can and can not marry. You can't get much more authoritarian than that.
For libertarian examples of liberals on the court, see the same case.
McConnell already saying we should wait until after election, lol. Is there any precedent for that?
You're fucking hilarious! But don't give up your day job.
They should ask Ted Cruz what he thinks should happen. He has such a boner for the constitution.
Of course there is. It's politics, son. The dems would do it if the situation was reversed.