What might the Republicans be risking with their SCOTUS strategy?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Pack the Court" ... lol, that's funny.

The SCOTUS has been acknowledged for most of the last two decades to be on a 5/4 split with the Conservatives in control.

SO it's okay to "pack the court" as long as that trend continues? LOL.

Uh, it has never been 5-4 conservative. It's been (at best) 4-4 with Kennedy representing a very libertarian wild card vote most of the time. If the US had an entire SCOTUS of Anthony Kennedies, we'd have a much more Constitutional court.

It can get weird. Roberts was nominated by Bush, and Roberts was the swing vote in favor of Obamacare. That's what makes a SCOTUS nomination kind of a wild card no matter who does the nominating.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

There are actually (at least) two schools of thought here: originalism (original intent) and living constitutionalists. Originalists support a reading they believe is in line with the framers original intent, and living constitutionalists support a reading that reflects the actual society we live in today, versus an interpretation of historical figures which may or may not be accurate.

Neither has a 100% airtight argument. Both readings have advantages and disadvantages. Most issues fall somewhere between these two extremes, but choosing a solution other than "Door Number 1" or "Door Number 2" is denigrated in the US as "capitulation," or "compromise," and considered "cowardly."

a reply to: schuyler

I still wholeheartedly believe that Roberts is compromised. Obama's NSA digging found something on the man and caused him to change his position on Obamacare at the last hour.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Teikiatsu

There are actually (at least) two schools of thought here: originalism (original intent) and living constitutionalists. Originalists support a reading they believe is in line with the framers original intent, and living constitutionalists support a reading that reflects the actual society we live in today, versus an interpretation of historical figures which may or may not be accurate.

Neither has a 100% airtight argument. Both readings have advantages and disadvantages. Most issues fall somewhere between these two extremes, but choosing a solution other than "Door Number 1" or "Door Number 2" is denigrated in the US as "capitulation," or "compromise," and considered "cowardly."

Treating the Constitution as a living document is antithesis to the Constitution. We have a procedure that allows modernization of the Constitution by the People and the States; it's called the Amendment Process. 'Living Constitutionalists' are just Progressives who can't be bothered to wait on the 'great unwashed peons' to see things their way.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Teikiatsu

There are actually (at least) two schools of thought here: originalism (original intent) and living constitutionalists. Originalists support a reading they believe is in line with the framers original intent, and living constitutionalists support a reading that reflects the actual society we live in today, versus an interpretation of historical figures which may or may not be accurate.

Neither has a 100% airtight argument. Both readings have advantages and disadvantages. Most issues fall somewhere between these two extremes, but choosing a solution other than "Door Number 1" or "Door Number 2" is denigrated in the US as "capitulation," or "compromise," and considered "cowardly."

Treating the Constitution as a living document is antithesis to the Constitution. We have a procedure that allows modernization of the Constitution by the People and the States; it's called the Amendment Process. 'Living Constitutionalists' are just Progressives who can't be bothered to wait on the 'great unwashed peons' to see things their way.

Scalia echos your thoughts almost exactly:

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."

a reply to: Willtell

I agree and maybe a little tougher on the gun issues part?

a reply to: schuyler

I did do the "leg work" ... Democrats controlled the Senate about 60% of the time in the period you mentioned.

I provided an easy link in case you wanted to "check my work."

What you pointed out is a factual basic tally, but seems to ignore any background circumstances aside from "Democratic Senate" as in what was the frequency of appointments, what years were the parties in control of the Senate, etc.

Your solution ignores the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter, in my opinion.

Why can't we just let the Constitution work, Obama nominates, the Senate consents (or doesn't)?

Why must we play games to thwart the intent of the Constitution?

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Teikiatsu, you said,
“Denying a far left loon justice would be one of the things they were
elected to do. It'd be a nice change from whining that they need the
Senate, then they need more elected GOP, then they need the Presidency...“

Obama hasn’t nominated any ‘far left loons’ for any other posts yet. I doubt he would start now. That would only work against him, and he’s much smarter than that. The “Denying” excuse you use as justification for Republican obstruction and the “Do Nothing Congress” has gotten old and just doesn’t fly anymore.

Also, the only whining I hear comes from the right side of the nuthouse.

And lastly, I know why Trump and Sanders are popular; I realize much of DC is dysfunctional. But I also realize who rightly deserves most of the credit for it and why Congress was given the name ”The Do Nothing Congress”. And it’s not just a perceived problem with the legislative branch; it’s very well documented that the Republican led Congress has been the least legislatively productive in modern times. Here’s a Pew Research Center article about it. This and the previous Republican Congress has been the least productive since the 1940’s. And that’s why Trump is so popular.

I think the GOP is in need of an attitude adjustment...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If he picks (and he won't) some far-left nut-job ...

Kagan. Sotomayor. He already has. Twice.

To paraphrase something someone said earlier ... far-left in your eyes, perhaps, moderate or left-leaning in the eyes of "most."

Neither are "far left" and neither are "nut jobs."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Jefferson, no doubt, foresaw the need to further add to the Constitution's list of THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM DOING. That's where the real heartburn arises... I have zero faith in the current federal government. Their recent history proves, beyond any doubt, that they view the Constitution as a list of demands against the American people alongside a clean writ of approval for whatever actions they decide to take. That's wrong. If I thought for an instant that they would use the Constitution for it's original purpose: a set of steel handcuffs to be secured around the government's wrists, preventing them from stepping out of line lest a steel chain also be tightened around their throats, then I'd be a lot more likely to accept this idea that the Constitution requires frequent growth and additions.

What might the Republicans be risking with their SCOTUS strategy?

Absolutely NOTHING.

Some people didn't like the GOP, before and they sure won't like the GOP after wards.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: schuyler

I still wholeheartedly believe that Roberts is compromised. Obama's NSA digging found something on the man and caused him to change his position on Obamacare at the last hour.

Your not the only one.

Roberts is how we are forced to buy a corporate product (healthcare) and if we didn't we are TAXED.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Jefferson, no doubt, foresaw the need to further add to the Constitution's list of THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM DOING. That's where the real heartburn arises... I have zero faith in the current federal government. Their recent history proves, beyond any doubt, that they view the Constitution as a list of demands against the American people alongside a clean writ of approval for whatever actions they decide to take. That's wrong. If I thought for an instant that they would use the Constitution for it's original purpose: a set of steel handcuffs to be secured around the government's wrists, preventing them from stepping out of line lest a steel chain also be tightened around their throats, then I'd be a lot more likely to accept this idea that the Constitution requires frequent growth and additions.

Jefferson's take on things changed a bit after becoming President if you notice. Although I won't disagree with your comment about prohibitions on Government.

I deleted my quote above because it's out of place here. The debate over the interpretation of the Constituiton is ongoing... and has been mostly the same over time. The rights of the individual versus the needs of the population with the governments (Federal, State, Local) balanced in between.)

The intent of the Constitution, however, was not merely to LIMIT government. That is so simplistic as to be meaningless. The Constitution ESTABLISHED the Federal Government for goodness sakes.

But, I digress.

The American people are too stupid to punish these insufferable hypocrites in the Republican Party.

If they haven’t seen through these depraved anti-human hypocritical fools by now they never will.

What happen to all the “constitutional” republicans?

Now that the constitution is against their political interests they want to abandon it and tell a sitting president he can’t do what the constitution orders him to do. Such as that Cruz moron.

They want to create some self serving new rule about “ a president can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice in his last year.”

There’s nothing in the constitution that commands any such thing.

The Republican Party should have been destroyed after the Bush fiasco.

Every GOP president practically destroyed the country

And if by some chance they get elected in 2016 I predict the end of maybe the world as we know it certainly the country.

Time

WillTell

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, you're cute.

The court is only acknowledged to have a 5-4 split if you lean left. If you lean right, it goes the other way with Kennedy, and sometimes Roberts, breaking to the left.

The very fact that no one writes papers seriously pondering how ANY of the liberal justices will vote on any given case should tell you how ideological they are. You can find plenty of speculation on how Kennedy will swing. He's practically the most powerful man in the country when it comes to law.

a reply to: ketsuko

/blush Awwww.

No, the Court is acknowledged to have a 5/4 conservative split because of the nature of the decisions it has handed down.

The occasional outlier does not make the rule.

As to your word salad in the third paragraph ... a few selections demonstrating the common referece ...

From that bastion of the left, New York Daily News

Thursday's decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign spending more than 60 years old was the third time in nine days that the court divided 5-4, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other.

The Atlantic - The Incredible Polarization of the Supreme Court

The Roberts Court has decided more cases by a 5-to-4 ruling (about 21.5 percent) than any Court before it, though only by a narrow margin.

Supreme Court Polarization - Why it's as bad as ever - New Republic

Yet in total, about two-thirds of the Roberts Court’s 5-to-4 rulings have sorted along predictable ideological camps, according to data collected by SCOTUSblog. Under Roberts, one-vote conservative majorities have struck down the core of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, upheld an individual’s right to gun ownership, limited an employee’s ability to file a pay discrimination case, allowed unlimited corporate and union campaign spending, and limited class-action suits.

Etc.

No the Court does not always split 5/4 but it is not uncommon, and when it does, it is universally acknowledged that the split is Conservatives (5) against Liberals (4).

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Fact vs opinion.

Here's One Republican Who Thinks Obama Should Nominate Scalia's Replacement

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Senate Republicans didn't skip a beat when they urged President Barack Obama not to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying as much hours after Scalia's death on Saturday.But there's at least one prominent Republican who doesn't agree with McConnell -- Alberto Gonzales, who was the Attorney General under George W. Bush.

"I know there’s a big debate going on right now about whether or not Obama should nominate someone,” Gonzales told CNN on Monday. “From my perspective having worked at the White House and the Department of Justice, there’s just no question in my mind that as president of the United States, you have an obligation to fill a vacancy.”

He pointed out the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans pushing against a nomination.
"If the shoe were on the other foot, and there was a Republican in the White House and democratically controlled Congress, I would expect the Republican president to make a nomination when ready," he told the BBC

Even other republicans with a modicum of honesty see the hypocritical actions of the GOP for what they are.

One day these people will be totally exposed for what they are and the world will be a better place

a reply to: Willtell

LOL ... what is it someone always says here ... "controlled opposition"?

I have to admit, I was shocked when I saw that Gonzales came out with this today.

What do you make of it ... do you expect other moderately honest Republicans/conservatives to follow?