quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The rules from 1932 went out the window with bork.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regardless he didnt deserve the endless slurs.

In other news, the unforced political errors continue. The Republicans shouldn't have said anything about Obama's nominees and Obama shouldn't have snubbed his funeral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Do you remember "I would rather he didn't nominate an African American because we are going to oppose whoever he nominates"?

No.

I didn't think you would.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

<snip>

Obama shouldn't have snubbed [Scalia's] funeral.

quote:

More historical perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Do you remember "I would rather he didn't nominate an African American because we are going to oppose whoever he nominates"?

No.

I didn't think you would.

Between chemo and aging, my memory is not the precision instrument it once was.

I tried Googling the sentence, but struck out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

In other news, the unforced political errors continue. The Republicans shouldn't have said anything about Obama's nominees and Obama shouldn't have snubbed his funeral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

<snip>

Obama shouldn't have snubbed [Scalia's] funeral.

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans
to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well,
as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less
-- a slower-track school where they do well."

Justice Scalia, Oral Argument for Fisher v. Texas, 2015

If I were a person of color, I wouldn't feel the slightest need/desire to attend the funeral of someone who'd said that from the bench of the highest court in the land.

quote:

forgetting for a moment that its clear from the quote that scalia was talking about SOMEONE else---"there are those who contend"---which means he himself is not expressing that belief...(he was referring to a brief the court was considering in the argument)

quote:

this is an almost perfect example of how so many of us (unfortunately usually the liberals in my experience), think. we don't like, or don't agree with the process so we automatically ascribe sinister motivations to the person holding the beliefs. to put it more clearly, Scalia's a racist because he opposes race as a factor in college admissions. he hates blacks.

quote:

the thought, that he also wants blacks to succeed, and that all too often they DONT under affirmative action policies, is lost in the all too easy liberal branding of raaaaaaaaaacist.

yeah, lets admit under-qualified students into college, where they usually fail, and do that under the guise of "helping them."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, he was instrumental in the Saturday Night Massacre. Hardly an outstanding jurist, law and right be damned. A nutsucker goon is all he was.

I don't think having read (and heard) the entire story, that the Sat. night massacre could have been handled much differently or in fact...much better. Bork had just been put in a very tight spot and thought if he resigned it would have just made things worse and I agree.

Plus, Cox's replacement Jaworski did as well or better than anyone could have hoped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

<snip>

Obama shouldn't have snubbed [Scalia's] funeral.

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans
to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well,
as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less
-- a slower-track school where they do well."

Justice Scalia, Oral Argument for Fisher v. Texas, 2015

If I were a person of color, I wouldn't feel the slightest need/desire to attend the funeral of someone who'd said that from the bench of the highest court in the land.

forgetting for a moment that its clear from the quote that scalia was talking about SOMEONE else---"there are those who contend"---which means he himself is not expressing that belief...(he was referring to a brief the court was considering in the argument)

this is an almost perfect example of how so many of us (unfortunately usually the liberals in my experience), think. we don't like, or don't agree with the process so we automatically ascribe sinister motivations to the person holding the beliefs. to put it more clearly, Scalia's a racist because he opposes race as a factor in college admissions. he hates blacks.

the thought, that he also wants blacks to succeed, and that all too often they DONT under affirmative action policies, is lost in the all too easy liberal branding of raaaaaaaaaacist.

yeah, lets admit under-qualified students into college, where they usually fail, and do that under the guise of "helping them."

as to Obama---we often hear about respecting the office of the president regardless of who holds the office. this cuts both ways--it seems to me to be consistent with the office to attend the funeral of a supreme court justice's death, regardless of his personal feelings about the man, or his position.

quote:

You show generosity going, spite snubbing it

quote:

Scalia s quote shows no racism, he is addressing a specific legal argument raised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

In other news, the unforced political errors continue. The Republicans shouldn't have said anything about Obama's nominees and Obama shouldn't have snubbed his funeral.

the funeral was a topic of conversation last night between megyn Kelly and dana perino, who said [paraphrase] "imagine the uproar if one of the liberal justices died and president bush didn't go to the funeral."

she also pointed out that when Obama was a senator, he filibustered the alito appointment. now Obama's on record saying he regrets having done that. id like to believe him, but its tough to...especially given the funeral situation, which I think is a major low class move.

lastly, Hillary was complaining about the republicans' position while on the campaign trail---blaming their nomination position on, you guessed it, hatred and racism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Article II of the Constitution declares that the president SHALL appoint a new Justice. Obama briefly remarked in his Scalia speech that the president must fulfill his constitutional duty.

The argument Republicans will likely make to do that is less about a somewhat-arcane parliamentary tradition and more about whether it's fair to consider a life-time judicial nominee by a lame-duck president before such a pivotal presidential election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared to say just that in a statement Saturday night. "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," his statement read. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

More than a conundrum but a political war appears on the horizon. Both sides are committed. And then there are the primaries and election ramifications to consider.

I believe Obama has to nominate. Some people on TV have suggested the nominee should be acceptable to a consensus of both sides. Dream on. I doubt that is possible.

On the other hand, the time is ripe for Obama to make a bold move. In my opinion he should appoint someone with huge standing among the American people and make it difficult for the Senate to sit on its ass until November. One possibility would be Bill Clinton, a choice, however, filled with pitfalls.

Another bold move would be to nominate someone to reward his black constituency. Best, a highly qualified and highly popular black woman. (The appointee need not even be a lawyer, I believe) This would be a remarkable and extremely bold move to cement his heritage. Who might qualify?

Michelle Obama, maybe?

Your thoughts and challenges are welcome.

I have a better idea. Someone whom most of the American public like (thus making it tough on conservatives in the senate particularly during a general election year):

President Obama steps down from the Oval Office. Which places Joe Biden as President. Joe Biden nominates former US President Barrack Obama as a US Supreme Court Justice during an ACTUAL Senate recess (one in which the GOP can not fuck-around-with-the-rules).

The high court gains a Constitutional Scholar with high grades from Harvard University whom has served in two other branches of the federal system. He would be a defender of the common people (unlike all those Republican appointments). An make sure no cases fuck around with the ACA; just as Scalia made sure nothing fucked around with the pro-NRA version of the 2nd amendment (i.e. the corruption of the 2nd).

An yes, Obama or Biden could make the appointment. If it was 'OK' for Ronald Reagan (a Republican) to appoint someone in his last year of office; then it is equally 'OK' for Obama/Biden to do the same.