|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 17:28:55 GMT
Which party was it again that nominated and confirmed the first African American Supreme Court Justice? Wasn't Thurgood Marshall the first AA justice? Nominated by LBJ, a Democrat? You're absolutely correct. I guess Republicans only have first female and only current African American justice.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 17:34:13 GMT
I guess the same way Democrats have defended Obama's "I've got a phone and I've got a pen" as a means of circumventing Congress. Sucks when the same attitude bites your side in the ass, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 17:35:43 GMT
Wasn't Thurgood Marshall the first AA justice? Nominated by LBJ, a Democrat? You're absolutely correct. I guess Republicans only have first female and only current African American justice. And all three current female justices, including the court's only Hispanic, were nominated by Democrats. What's your point?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 17:38:09 GMT
Wasn't Thurgood Marshall the first AA justice? Nominated by LBJ, a Democrat? You're absolutely correct. I guess Republicans only have first female and only current African American justice. And in the current turmoil of the Republican Party that is likely to be the last that they nominate. I mean look at "W"'s choices. And that was before the party became BSC.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 17:38:57 GMT
You're absolutely correct. I guess Republicans only have first female and only current African American justice. And all three current female justices, including the court's only Hispanic, were nominated by Democrats. What's your point? I didn't bring up the old white man party - it's a claim that is inaccurate - and particular silly when you look at the presidential lineups there was way more diversity in the slate of republicans vying for the nominee versus democrats
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 17:39:04 GMT
This is such a ridiculous statement.
Look at the Republican candidates and the diversity therein: black, Hispanic, women Now look at the Democrats: a rich white guy and a rich white woman.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Feb 15, 2016 17:50:35 GMT
Can't stand the man and am glad that Obama can appoint his replacement. That remains to be seen. DH and I think that Congress will do what it can to prevent an appointment from going through until after the November election. I am just in shock. I thought that Ginsberg would be next to go one way or another. You mean the same sort of stuff they have been doing for the past 7 years? Of course they will and perhaps while they are at it they can vote to repeal the ACA another dozen or two times.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Feb 15, 2016 17:51:36 GMT
That remains to be seen. DH and I think that Congress will do what it can to prevent an appointment from going through until after the November election. I am just in shock. I thought that Ginsberg would be next to go one way or another. I agree I thought Justice Ginsberg would be the next judge to be replaced. I certainly hope the Senate doesn't play games. With an even number of justices and the over whelming number of 5-4 decisions nothing will get done for about a year. You can't hold up the business of the Supreme Court for a year for political gain. Oh but they will try.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 17:54:18 GMT
I guess the same way Democrats have defended Obama's "I've got a phone and I've got a pen" as a means of circumventing Congress. Sucks when the same attitude bites your side in the ass, doesn't it? The power of executive order is granted to the president by the constitution. The current president's use of this power is in line with other modern era presidents, and significantly less than the number used by any president from Carter back to Taft. There is nothing inherently wrong with a president using this power. It's unfortunate that it has had to be used so often in the modern era to overcome an obstructionist congress that refuses to recognize the powers granted to the executive branch. The president is also given the power to nominate federal court justices. Congress, on the other hand, is given the power to vet and confirm the president's appointments for fitness for office, not to summarily block any nominee with whose politics they don't agree. That is essentially giving the power of judicial appointment to Congress, and it's a power the constitution does not grant them. The president is given the power to veto. Obama has used his power of veto to "check" the actions of congressional opponents only 9 times during his two terms, compared to 12 (Bush 43), 37 (Clinton), 44 (Bush 41), 78 (Reagan) and on back. Current Senate Republicans have attempted to repeal all or part of the ACA literally DOZENS of times, even though it was passed with (marginally) bipartisan support. Which branch do you think is more inclined to use its power of checks and balances to completely steamroll the other branch (and control the third)? The numbers are not on the Republicans' side here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 18:07:10 GMT
For what it's worth, here is a FB post from Robert Reich. This is exactly who I mentioned on page 2 of this thread........he was confirmed unanimously three years ago......so was Jane Kelly from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals who has also been mentioned. Can you imagine?.....the Senate confirms a very well respected man as an appellate court Judge in what some consider the most prestigious and influential circuit court but will hold up his confirmation this time? I can't wait to watch THAT.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 18:14:27 GMT
This is such a ridiculous statement. Look at the Republican candidates and the diversity therein: black, Hispanic, women Now look at the Democrats: a rich white guy and a rich white woman. Anyone can one for President with or without the blessing of the party. It is true the Republican gang running for office is pretty diverse. But look who is leading the pack.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 19:46:12 GMT
Hmmm, Trump, Cruz and Rubio are "leading the pack". Rubio is Hispanic. I believe Cruz also has an Hispanic heritage. So what does that do to your theory about Republicans and white men?
ETA...I just researched it and Ted Cruz *is* Hispanic. So Krazy, two of the top three leaders in the Republican race are members of an ethnic minority. Those sound like a pretty diverse group and certainly doesn't support your claim that old, rich, white guys run the show and that Republicans only vote for old, rich white guys.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 19:57:46 GMT
We're going to have to agree to disagree, Mergeleft. What you see as an "obstructionist" Congress, I see as a Congress doing what the people who put them in office elected them to do. What you see as a President using his rightful powers, I see as a wanna-be-king doing whatever he can to get his own way.
Personally, I favor the legislative and judicial branches over the power of one man.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 20:01:02 GMT
The GOP hatred of this President will ultimately be the downfall of that party.....well, their hatred and that horribly embarassing display of what I guess you call a debate Saturday night. Shameful. This 1,000 over!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 15, 2016 20:04:12 GMT
I guess the same way Democrats have defended Obama's "I've got a phone and I've got a pen" as a means of circumventing Congress. Sucks when the same attitude bites your side in the ass, doesn't it? The power of executive order is granted to the president by the constitution. The current president's use of this power is in line with other modern era presidents, and significantly less than the number used by any president from Carter back to Taft. There is nothing inherently wrong with a president using this power. It's unfortunate that it has had to be used so often in the modern era to overcome an obstructionist congress that refuses to recognize the powers granted to the executive branch. The president is also given the power to nominate federal court justices. Congress, on the other hand, is given the power to vet and confirm the president's appointments for fitness for office, not to summarily block any nominee with whose politics they don't agree. That is essentially giving the power of judicial appointment to Congress, and it's a power the constitution does not grant them. The president is given the power to veto. Obama has used his power of veto to "check" the actions of congressional opponents only 9 times during his two terms, compared to 12 (Bush 43), 37 (Clinton), 44 (Bush 41), 78 (Reagan) and on back. Current Senate Republicans have attempted to repeal all or part of the ACA literally DOZENS of times, even though it was passed with (marginally) bipartisan support. Which branch do you think is more inclined to use its power of checks and balances to completely steamroll the other branch (and control the third)? The numbers are not on the Republicans' side here. You know, I am developing quite the girl crush on you lately.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 20:19:51 GMT
Hmmm, Trump, Cruz and Rubio are "leading the pack". Rubio is Hispanic. I believe Cruz also has an Hispanic heritage. So what does that do to your theory about Republicans and white men? ETA...I just researched it and Ted Cruz *is* Hispanic. So Krazy, two of the top three leaders in the Republican race are members of an ethnic minority. Those sound like a pretty diverse group and certainly doesn't support your claim that old, rich, white guys run the show and that Republicans only vote for old, rich white guys. Last time I checked Trump is leading the pack by double digits on average. Time and time again when one thought Trump has shot himself in the foot he just keeps chugging along. Yes I'm aware Cruz has a Cuban father which makes him Hispanic.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 20:22:55 GMT
We're going to have to agree to disagree, Mergeleft. What you see as an "obstructionist" Congress, I see as a Congress doing what the people who put them in office elected them to do. What you see as a President using his rightful powers, I see as a wanna-be-king doing whatever he can to get his own way. Personally, I favor the legislative and judicial branches over the power of one man. You don't have to agree with me. It's all laid out in our constitution - the one our elected representatives have sworn to uphold. And frankly, if ignoring the separation of powers between branches of government as written in our constitution is what the American people elected congress to do, that's too dang bad.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 20:39:40 GMT
Yes, our Congress has an obligation to confirm a presidential appointment. However, the Constitution places no time deadlines for doing so nor is there any articulation of the grounds on which they may refuse to confirm an appointment. As the Constitution does not prohibit them from refusing to confirm an appointment, they are within their Constitutional rights to do so. Thus, your claims of the Constitution really don't support your argument that the Congress must act on and confirm appointees nominated by this president prior to his leaving office.
And if you don't like the fact that Congress (the elected body) chooses to do it's Constitutional duties in its own time, that's, to quote you "too dang bad".
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 15, 2016 20:47:05 GMT
Hmmm, Trump, Cruz and Rubio are "leading the pack". Rubio is Hispanic. I believe Cruz also has an Hispanic heritage. So what does that do to your theory about Republicans and white men? ETA...I just researched it and Ted Cruz *is* Hispanic. So Krazy, two of the top three leaders in the Republican race are members of an ethnic minority. Those sound like a pretty diverse group and certainly doesn't support your claim that old, rich, white guys run the show and that Republicans only vote for old, rich white guys. That's all very nice, isn't it? Too bad your party's frontrunner is a racist, sexist buffoon. And an old white man.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 20:49:30 GMT
~Lauren~ I would argue that failure to do something in a reasonable timeframe is tantamount to not doing it at all - and thus equivalent to denying the President his constitutional rights. The Republicans have stated that they intend to block any Democratic nomination indefinitely. That's the same as invalidating the president's right to appoint, and that is not constitutional.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 20:54:14 GMT
As I said, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on Feb 15, 2016 20:57:46 GMT
~Lauren~ I would argue that failure to do something in a reasonable timeframe is tantamount to not doing it at all - and thus equivalent to denying the President his constitutional rights. The Republicans have stated that they intend to block any Democratic nomination indefinitely. That's the same as invalidating the president's right to appoint, and that is not constitutional. Waiting and watching to see what happens if Bernie is elected. Bet they will wish they had confirmed one of Obama's choices when they had the chance.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 21:24:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 21:25:30 GMT
~Lauren~ I would argue that failure to do something in a reasonable timeframe is tantamount to not doing it at all - and thus equivalent to denying the President his constitutional rights. The Republicans have stated that they intend to block any Democratic nomination indefinitely. That's the same as invalidating the president's right to appoint, and that is not constitutional. Waiting and watching to see what happens if Bernie is elected. Bet they will wish they had confirmed one of Obama's choices when they had the chance. Presumably they would just continue to block any democratic nominees as long as they could.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 21:42:43 GMT
Talk about pompous and condescending. Of course, that's just my opinion and just as your opinion that your are alway right is your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 21:58:45 GMT
Talk about pompous and condescending. Of course, that's just my opinion and just as your opinion that your are alway right is your opinion. Would you say an opinion unsupported by fact or precedent should carry a lot of weight with an informed voter? I don't think it's pompous or condescending to note that your arguments don't seem to be based on the constitution, but on your personal preferences.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 22:03:03 GMT
I think your claim that the Constitution bolsters or supports your argument is simply that; a claim. I've already stated my reason for my belief that it is not unconstitutional for the Congress to act this way based on the language of the Constitution itself. You don't agree with my assessment and have your own. We have a difference of opinion about what the Constitution requires in this matter.
I do think it's pompous and condescending because you assume that intelligent minds cannot disagree on this issue and of course, YOURS if the right way. 200 years of court cases about the interpretation of the Constitution shows that is common for intelligent minds to disagree about it's interpretation. Your refusal to acknowledge that is what makes your comments pompous and condescending. I have twice now tried to agree to disagree with you and both times your response has been, to paraphrase "I'm right and you're wrong". So be it. Apparently we cannot have a discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 17:05:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 22:09:05 GMT
Talk about pompous and condescending. Of course, that's just my opinion and just as your opinion that your are alway right is your opinion. The reality is both sides take great delight in blocking appointments. I'm not happy about it but what do you expect from a bunch of children. However if McConnell and company should follow through with this threat then not only have they hit a new low they have set a new precedent that does not bode well for this country.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 15, 2016 22:12:17 GMT
Something we agree on,
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 22:19:03 GMT
I think your claim that the Constitution bolsters or supports your argument is simply that; a claim. I've already stated my reason for my belief that it is not unconstitutional for the Congress to act this way based on the language of the Constitution itself. You don't agree with my assessment and have your own. We have a difference of opinion about what the Constitution requires in this matter. I do think it's pompous and condescending because you assume that intelligent minds cannot disagree on this issue and of course, YOURS if the right way. 200 years of court cases about the interpretation of the Constitution shows that is common for intelligent minds to disagree about it's interpretation. Your refusal to acknowledge that is what makes your comments pompous and condescending. I have twice now tried to agree to disagree with you and both times your response has been, to paraphrase "I'm right and you're wrong". So be it. Apparently we cannot have a discussion. No, apparently we cannot. I think you're smarter than "I like these two branches more than this one" as an argument. If you feel my statements are erroneous, say why and support it. But to me, "let's agree to disagree" just says that you don't have any rational basis for your opinion other than your dislike of the current president, and worse, that you don't care. And again, I think you're smarter than that.
|
|