There is not one other possible reason to want to block an Obama nomination.
They've said it doesn't matter who he appoints. Could be a Scalia clone and they'd still block it. Why would they do that? Why would they announce it flat-out that they're going to block anyone he appoints, and not just say "we'll see who he appoints and then decide like responsible adults."
That's not how Obama explained his willingness to filibuster the nomination of Alito (and vote against cloture) in the clip that you linked. I am not at all saying that there have not been politics played on both sides of the aisle during the past few decades. As you point out, the Obama administration has acknowledged that (although, obviously, it is in their interest now to do so). I have commented in the past that past giants of the Supreme Court, such as Thurgood Marshall, and Scalia himself, would have no chance of getting on the Supreme Court today. We need to think hard about that because we, the public, are the ones demanding that a conservative/liberal litmus test be applied. What is clear is that the Constitution aimed at insulating the Justices from exactly this kind of fray. So, it is espeically ironic — to me, at least — that those who regularly bray about following the letter of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers wojuld be unabashedly making the argument that the public should be allowed to indirectly vote on the nomination to replace Scalia because of his importance to conservative legal principles and the balance of the court. Where is anything like that in the Constitution? Maybe I should be asking Senator Cruz. :)
I saw your earlier similar remark and agree with you.
I can only offer extenuating circumstances to justify waiting.
I see an elevated conflict of interest with Obama nominating someone who will be weighing in on so many of Obama's own actions, executive orders, and regulations that have caused Constitutional Crisis among other things. We heard that Kagan would be recusing herself on some cases. It didn't happen.
What is everyone's opinion on the President not attending Scalia's funeral? Seems kind of strange and a bad strategic move in regards to optics regardless of the Presidents personal feelings towards him. I know it is not a prerequisite and there are precedents, just seems kinda disrespectful. Also thought this was an odd back and forth when White House spokesman was pressed about it:
When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that "the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he'll be joined with the first lady when he does that."
When asked whether Obama's Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia's life and service.
I believe that it is disrespectful of the office of SCOTUS justice. I am not surprised that Obama is not going.It is in keeping with his established behavior of contempt for the SCOTUS.
Moving on, I watched a 20 minute discussion on CNN this morning saying that the real reason that repubs are going to block Obama on a nomination is because, wait for it, islander, the repubs are racist. Well great googidy moogidy ... its so obvious isn't it. There is not one other possible reason to want to block an Obama nomination. Not one. Busted, damn racists. Case closed.
No, that validates the question. Ignoring it completely is an okay option.
I have no idea whether they are actually going to hit the links, but do not think that it is out of the question that they will. Also I don't see anything wrong if he does, it is not like business and golf do not mix. I just don't think the question was so beyond the pale is as you do.
Oh I don't know a simple no would have sufficed and been more appropriate and a quick no without thought at that. Anything else is kinda like well yea but I am not going to tell you that.
No, that validates the question. Ignoring it completely is an okay option.
Oh I don't know a simple no would have sufficed and been more appropriate and a quick no without thought at that. Anything else is kinda like well yea but I am not going to tell you that. Seems like a rather innocuous and petty dickish question to get all defensive about especially at this level where there is a lot more contentious and important questions than that as par for the course for his job.
I don't personally care either way about this situation, to be honest. I agree that it may look a little better for Obama to attend, but it's no surprise that he and Scalia didn't see eye-to-eye. I think that the golf question was kind of dickish, though, in my opinion.
Obviously, it was the answer or non answer that I found odd.
the golf question was kind of dickish, though, in my opinion.
Not "kind of." That just illustrates how Obama's screwed either way, so best to not be thought of as grandstanding or upstaging or whatever. They're going to say shitty things no matter what, but it's a man's funeral, not a government function, so anyone who thinks their presence might be a negative distraction should stay home. The official government event is the right choice.
I don't personally care either way about this situation, to be honest. I agree that it may look a little better for Obama to attend, but it's no surprise that he and Scalia didn't see eye-to-eye. I think that the golf question was kind of dickish, though, in my opinion.
Obviously, it was the answer or non answer that I found odd.
Four out of the past seven funerals for a Supreme Court justice have either had the president or vice president in attendance.
Makes sense to me to not turn it into a political stunt.
Some would argue that political stunt is the mission statement for all politicians. I guess I am not seeing how a sitting President attending a Supreme Court Justice's funeral especially one that he disagrees with can be seen as a political stunt, but so be it.
Well sure, him going would not be a stunt in and of itself. But by the end of the day there would be a dozen talking heads shouting about how it's hypocrisy for him to go. He's a pretty smart guy; probably figured he'd detract from the event by going; someone's going to raise a stink either way. And the ceremony at the Supreme Court is actually more important from a gov't standpoint.
What is everyone's opinion on the President not attending Scalia's funeral? Seems kind of strange and a bad strategic move in regards to optics regardless of the Presidents personal feelings towards him. I know it is not a prerequisite and there are precedents, just seems kinda disrespectful. Also thought this was an odd back and forth when White House spokesman was pressed about it:
When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that "the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he'll be joined with the first lady when he does that."
When asked whether Obama's Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia's life and service.
I don't personally care either way about this situation, to be honest. I agree that it may look a little better for Obama to attend, but it's no surprise that he and Scalia didn't see eye-to-eye. I think that the golf question was kind of dickish, though, in my opinion.
Four out of the past seven funerals for a Supreme Court justice have either had the president or vice president in attendance.
Makes sense to me to not turn it into a political stunt.
Some would argue that political stunt is the mission statement for all politicians. I guess I am not seeing how a sitting President attending a Supreme Court Justice's funeral especially one that he disagrees with can be seen as a political stunt, but so be it.
What is everyone's opinion on the President not attending Scalia's funeral? Seems kind of strange and a bad strategic move in regards to optics regardless of the Presidents personal feelings towards him. I know it is not a prerequisite and there are precedents, just seems kinda disrespectful. Also thought this was an odd back and forth when White House spokesman was pressed about it:
When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that "the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he'll be joined with the first lady when he does that."
When asked whether Obama's Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia's life and service.
Four out of the past seven funerals for a Supreme Court justice have either had the president or vice president in attendance.
Makes sense to me to not turn it into a political stunt.
What is everyone's opinion on the President not attending Scalia's funeral? Seems kind of strange and a bad strategic move in regards to optics regardless of the Presidents personal feelings towards him. I know it is not a prerequisite and there are precedents, just seems kinda disrespectful. Also thought this was an odd back and forth when White House spokesman was pressed about it:
When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that "the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he'll be joined with the first lady when he does that."
When asked whether Obama's Saturday plans include golfing, Earnest stressed instead that the president believes it is important to honor Scalia's life and service.
That's not how Obama explained his willingness to filibuster the nomination of Alito (and vote against cloture) in the clip that you linked. I am not at all saying that there have not been politics played on both sides of the aisle during the past few decades. As you point out, the Obama administration has acknowledged that (although, obviously, it is in their interest now to do so). I have commented in the past that past giants of the Supreme Court, such as Thurgood Marshall, and Scalia himself, would have no chance of getting on the Supreme Court today. We need to think hard about that because we, the public, are the ones demanding that a conserviate/liberal litmus test be applied. What is clear is that the Constitution aimed at insulating the Justices from exactly this kind of fray. So, it is espeically ironic — to me, at least — that those who regularly bray about following the letter of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers wojuld be unabashedly making the argument that the public should be allowed to indirectly vote on the nomination to replace Scalia because of his importance to conservative legal principles and the balance of the court. Where is anything like that in the Constitution? Maybe I should be asking Senator Cruz. :)
Absolutely and I don't believe you will find me anywhere trying to explain away the hypocrisy of Republicans, I am just merely pointing out that Obama and the Democrats do indeed need blowers in their bathroom like everyone else and are hardly defenders of the Constitution and all that is right and Holy.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 7:38am
sirdroseph wrote:
Close enough to warrant an official regret from the White House:
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," White House spokesman John Earnest said about President Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "Looking back on it, the president believes he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits." Josh Earnest White House spokesman
It was Chuck Schumer who had the exact same position that that Bush should not be allowed to nominate until next election, Obama decided to go this way.
That's not how Obama explained his willingness to filibuster the nomination of Alito (and vote against cloture) in the clip that you linked. I am not at all saying that there have not been politics played on both sides of the aisle during the past few decades. As you point out, the Obama administration has acknowledged that (although, obviously, it is in their interest now to do so). I have commented in the past that past giants of the Supreme Court, such as Thurgood Marshall, and Scalia himself, would have no chance of getting on the Supreme Court today. We need to think hard about that because we, the public, are the ones demanding that a conservative/liberal litmus test be applied. What is clear is that the Constitution aimed at insulating the Justices from exactly this kind of fray. So, it is espeically ironic — to me, at least — that those who regularly bray about following the letter of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers wojuld be unabashedly making the argument that the public should be allowed to indirectly vote on the nomination to replace Scalia because of his importance to conservative legal principles and the balance of the court. Where is anything like that in the Constitution? Maybe I should be asking Senator Cruz. :)
Not quite the same. Obama was willing to employ the filibuster to avoid a vote on Alito,and thereby defeat the nomination of a nominee that Obama believed not to be qualified for the reasons Obama stated in the linked clip. By contrast, some Republicans in the Senate have stated that whomever the nominee Obama sends over, the confirmation process should not move forward. And the rationale for that has been stated as allowing for the public to weigh in on the nomination to replace Scalia in the November presidential election. That last sentence is especially important, and it is what I emphasized in my original post. The intent of the framers in the Constitution was to insulate, as much as possible, the Justices from the winds of politics. That is why, for example, they have lifetime tenures.
Close enough to warrant an official regret from the White House:
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," White House spokesman John Earnest said about President Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "Looking back on it, the president believes he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits."
It was Chuck Schumer who had the exact same position that Bush should not be allowed to nominate until next election, Obama decided to go this way.
The strategic spirit of intent is the same and the hypocrisy is undeniable. It is the bigger picture that the whole process has been so politicized by both parties which is at issue here, it seems that the passion for the Constitution is as fluid as each parties need for it.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 7:03am
sirdroseph wrote:
BTW, I think they should plainly follow the rules; Obama should nominate someone soon and have the Senate vote on it just as any other supreme court nominee. I just like to point out that there is no high and mighty position the Democrats are holding here, they do the same shit.
Not quite the same. Obama was willing to employ the filibuster to avoid a vote on Alito,and thereby defeat the nomination of a nominee that Obama believed not to be qualified for the reasons Obama stated in the linked clip. By contrast, some Republicans in the Senate have stated that whomever the nominee Obama sends over, the confirmation process should not move forward. And the rationale for that has been stated as allowing for the public to weigh in on the nomination to replace Scalia in the November presidential election. That last sentence is especially important, and it is what I emphasized in my original post. The intent of the framers in the Constitution was to insulate, as much as possible, the Justices from the winds of politics. That is why, for example, they have lifetime tenures.
BTW, I think they should plainly follow the rules; Obama should nominate someone soon and have the Senate vote on it just as any other supreme court nominee. I just like to point out that there is no high and mighty position the Democrats are holding here, they do the same shit.
that political stunt is the mission statement for all politicians. I guess I am not seeing how a sitting President attending a Supreme Court Justice's funeral especially one that he disagrees with can be seen as a political stunt, but so be it.
