BS: Replacing Justice Stevens (US Supreme Court)

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:39 AM

I agree 100% with Genie in her observation that the Dams caved on Roberts and Alito... The entire Senate confirmation process is nuthin' but smoke and mirrors side show that does not permit the Senate, or the American people, from having a clue as to whom they are about to get on the Court...

One thing encouraging is that those sentiments are the sentiments of Kagan herself who has written purdy much those exact words...

I would like for nominees to expound more on their general judical philosopies and stay the heck away from the standard, "I won't be an activist judge"... I mean, that seems to be the standard and then the folks get in and they become, ahhhhh, "activist" judges...

Kagan, at best, is a crapshoot at this point in time... I'd still have gone with Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known quantity...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:08 PM

"Ah, but everyone already knows you're the Antichrist, Alex.   (Just ask Rig.) *g*"


             Yes, of course, I just thought it was understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:58 PM

Mouser: "The Dems have no spine. The Pugs have no compunction."

And neither have integrity, nor represent their constituents!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:37 PM

At least that's true of most Democrats in Congress today and nearly all the Republicans (who seem to vote in lockstep with their party's leadership even when it seemingly violates their own principles and policies).

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:38 PM

I really think the Senate should change their rules to bar filibustering a court nominee unless the filibuster is done the original way (complete with the cot, the curtain, and the porta-potty).

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:08 PM

I agree, Genie, the old filibusters had a lot more class.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Genie: "I really think the Senate should change their rules to bar filibustering a court nominee unless the filibuster is done the original way (complete with the cot, the curtain, and the porta-potty)."

Well, You wouldn't say that if it was a Republican President, who nominated..mmm..let's say, Sarah Palin, would you???

The parties lackeys never think too far ahead. Imagine the Democrat outcry if Bush pushed that stupid 'health care' bill. In like manner, the Dems, bitched, pissed and moaned about Bush's policies, through executive orders, heaping unprecedented powers upon the Executive Branch,....but the Dems didn't repeal them, or get rid of them, once they had their guy in....now did they?..Shit, you never hear a word about it...except, just now!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:44 PM

Actually, I doubt if Sarah Palin would be any worse than Clarence Thomas... And alot easier on the eyes, too...

BTW, is there any law prohibitin' a Supreme Court Justice from posin' nude fir Playboy???

Jus' curious...

But seriously, the Constitution calls for the Senate to "advise and consent"... Somehow that has gotten away from us... Been so long that that occured that I don't think anyone who is now alive can remember the last time that occured...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:36 PM

GfS, yes, I would still favor curtailing the use of the filibuster, even if the Republicans were the majority in Congress and had the White House.   It's been abused so much by the Republican minority in the current Senate that it's no longer reserved for fighting really extreme or outrageous nominations or bills by propsed by the majority party, but - with the complicity of the inept, lazy, or partisan "mainstream media" - coming to be seen as S O P for everything that doesn't have strong bipartisan support.

I don't know what the best way would be to curtail its use, but one way would be to actually make people "keep the debate going" by continuing to talk and not yielding the floor. That's supposed to be the purpose of the filibuster: to continue debating an issue as long as there's still more to debate, before calling for a vote.   Democrats could - and should - do an actual filibuster if a Republican Senate proposed really awful legislation or if the President appointed someone they really thought would take the courts in a very bad direction.

Besides, if the Republicans retake the Senate and the Democrats try to filibuster anything major, the Republicans will do away with the filibuster in a heartbeat. They threatened that when Roberts and Alito were nominated for SCOTUS.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:02 PM

Yeah, me thinks that the Repubs are very concerned about pushing the fillibusters too close to the Noevember elections... I think they will want to be seen as the party who doesn't do that stuff anymore because they will want to portray the Dems as obstructionists the very first time the Dems threaten one... A fillibuster on a somewhat Melba milktoast nominee would set the stage for exactly that by the Dems if the Dems lose the Senate...

I really don't see the Repubs goin' "nuclear" tho because it would take 66 votes to trump an Obama veto... Well, let me put it another way... If you thing that the voters are pissed off now just think how pissed off they would be if the Repubs decided to go "nuclear"... I think it would be a death blow to their party for decades to come... People have had enough of this crap and Obama would easilly paint the Repubs as un-American, un-democratic and un-carin'... Don't see it happenin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:43 PM

Yeah, but this isn't a law, it's confirmation, so they lady would either be confirmed or not. Still, I don't see anything that would stir up the Republicans too much about this nominee.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:07 AM

Bobert, the filibuster rule(s) are set within the Senate itself and can be changed without consultation of the President or any other branch of government.   The Senate's procedural rules for how and when they can change their own procedural rules are fairly complicated, but generally they change them, if at all, only at the beginning of a new Congress being seated (i.e., every two years). The "nuclear option" referred to changing those rules in the middle of a Congressional term.

As for the Republicans being seen as obstructionist (or not wanting to be seen as such), as long as our media -- who tend to be either asleep at the wheel or really ignorant or in bed with the fat cat corporatists -- don't frame things like the filibuster as that, the public probably won't see it that way. Heck, I've even heard a lot of Democratic spokespeople on the TV machine parroting phrases like "It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed."   Or (speaking of a filibustered bill), "The Democrats' jobs bill failed to pass in the Senate."   So the public, instead of realizing that bills and nominations are not being allowed to be voted on, are left thinking that the vote was held but didn't pass.    That makes the Democrats seem weak or inept instead of making the filibusterers look like the obstructionists that they have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 10 - 09:13 AM

On the other hand, after the Massachusetts Senate election, polls showed that the majority reason given for voting for Scott Brown was because the people didn't want one party rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:25 PM

Reserving the filibuster for the most serious, important issues and bills doesn't mean there's "one-party rule."    If the minority party is going to filibuster every bill or nomination that they would not have put forward had they been the majority, that is, in effect, one-party rule - by the minority party.   The minority party still gets to vote on all bills and nominations, and when the filibuster requires some serious effort and maybe some sacrifice, the minority party still has that weapon in their arsenal.

As it has been with the push-button filibuster and this current Congress, the Democrats might as well have had only a 1-vote majority in the Senate, because the Republicans have "filibustered" just about anything of any importance (and lots of less important, less controversial things), so even when a sizeable majority of the Senators would have voted yes on a bill, they haven't been able to vote on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:34 PM

Pat Buchanon is quoted as saying there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court now...

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Genie
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:01 AM

Let's see: A Roman Catholic is complaining that with 6 of 9 SCOTUS justices being Roman Catholics 3 Jews is too many? Oy!

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 10 - 10:02 AM

Yeah, Genie... It's all up to the Dems to spend some of that massive war chest of $$$ to frame the Repubs as obstructionists... I've seen the graphs on the number of fillibusters that have occured over the years and some Ross Perot style ads would get the job done quite nicely and put the Repubs on the defensive...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 10 - 11:07 AM

The fact remains, confirmation for a Supreme Court justice is not the same as passing legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacing Stevens (US Supreme Court)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 10 - 12:47 PM

Bobert, I finally got what you were saying. Disregard last message. What you are saying might actually work.