Justice Scalia
- Thread starter Err.
- Start date
My memory of this had a lot of Republicans scratching their heads with this pick as well.
Don't have time to dredge up a link for you so you can use your mad computer skills to find your own info. Anthony Kennedy nominated by Reagan in 1987 confirmed 97-0. Of course, by your standards he's kind of a liberal so you probably forgot about him.
Nothing would be funnier than watching the Republicans delay the nomination for 9 months, pissing off Americans and igniting the left to see the Senate flip back to the Democrats and to watch Bernie win the Presidency. You think Obama is going to nominate somebody from the far left wing (he won't)? Wait until Bernie gets a crack at it, and with the chance to have a Democratic Senate to boot.
Speedway is just your average dumbshit. Well, maybe he's an extraordinary dumbshit now that I think about it.
I agree with you but did you really think this thread would go anywhere else.
God bless him. He keeps coming back out for the next round leading with his chin.
Haha! My guess is IMCC's title is Dipshit Extraordinaire.
The thing about Scalia was he was a great friend to Ginsburg and her late husband. They traveled together often while hardly ever voting the same. He took Kagan hunting when she first joined the court.
Scalia used strict interpretation of his own wrinkled brain. Hard to imagine what kind of thoughts passed through those deformed cells.
I am not here to be confrontational but did he teach law or did he teach race classes? And do he ever publish? I only ask because I saw in the net that he only taught that and didn't publish. It could be BS so that is why I ask you. I have no knowledge on what he did at UIC.
Oh Huey, I certainly do...The SC nomination will be used by R's against D's at the Senate level as well.......The R's never miss an opportunity. Especially when they don't have any ideas on how to govern...which they don't.,
It was u of c, not uic. Big difference.
He taught two classes, con law and some race and the law course. His con law class was very popular, the race class not so much. But that's not surprising considering the type of student there. I have no idea if he was published or not. Honestly I wouldn't know that about any of my professors.
Don't count out Jane Kelly from Cedar Rapids. Grassley loves her and Senate vote was 96-0 on her appointment.
Trump has joined the chorus calling for the Senate to shirk its job and not consider any Obama nominee.
The shame is that Obama will probably go out of his way to nominate someone so middle of the road that they really should be acceptable and that person will not get a fair hearing.
I wonder who Obama can get who will even be willing to go through the ordeal in this climate. He (or she) will basically be sacrificing himself.
So . . . is there a way that Obama can turn this to his advantage? What demographic can he select to get them pissed off at the GOP? Hispanic? Asian? Gay?
Kathleen Sullivan could be an interesting choice, if she is willing to run the gauntlet. Former Dean of Stanford Law, 1st amendment expert, lesbian.
The shame is that Obama will probably go out of his way to nominate someone so middle of the road that they really should be acceptable and that person will not get a fair hearing.
I wonder who Obama can get who will even be willing to go through the ordeal in this climate. He (or she) will basically be sacrificing himself.
So . . . is there a way that Obama can turn this to his advantage? What demographic can he select to get them pissed off at the GOP? Hispanic? Asian? Gay?
Kathleen Sullivan could be an interesting choice, if she is willing to run the gauntlet. Former Dean of Stanford Law, 1st amendment expert, lesbian.
Kennedy was nominated in 1986 after the hatchet job done by Ted Kennedy and others on Reagan's first choice, Robert Bork. By your standards, you forgot about the actual facts of the matter on which you commented.
By any standards, Kennedy is not so much a liberal as he is a weather vane, his opinions driven by popular commentary at the time of said decision.
I just gave you the answer in a previous post. An Iowan will be nominated. I'd give her a 20-25% chance. Grassley loves her. Senate approved her appointment 96-0.
According to this link, that was 1988. Who am I to argue?
Take it up with Bloomberg if you disagree.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ntial-debate-starts-in-shadow-of-scalia-death
At that same Bloomberg link we have this:
Cruz said: "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year."
My bet is that the truth is that we have 80 years when there was no nominee waiting for confirmation and Cruz is trying to sell it as 80 years when the Senate refused to confirm nominations that were pending because it was an election year.
How can anyone consider voting for such a dishonest person? He practically makes Hillary look trustworthy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ntial-debate-starts-in-shadow-of-scalia-death
Cruz said: "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year."
My bet is that the truth is that we have 80 years when there was no nominee waiting for confirmation and Cruz is trying to sell it as 80 years when the Senate refused to confirm nominations that were pending because it was an election year.
How can anyone consider voting for such a dishonest person? He practically makes Hillary look trustworthy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ntial-debate-starts-in-shadow-of-scalia-death
Here is some more on her background.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/04/circuit-judge-gets-quick-confirmation-.html
Apparently ALL the GOP candidates are urging the Republican-controlled Senate not to do its job.
No worries. They've forgotten how.
Ya gotta love Cruz. Even when corrected and given the correct dates, he still insists he's right.
Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), who will get to vote on whoever Obama nominates, both argued that it's been more than 80 years since a lame duck president picked a Supreme Court justice, so it shouldn't be any different this time. That's not true, though. The Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, during President Ronald Reagan's final year in office. Every single Republican voted to confirm him, too.
Cruz stumbled when pressed on that point.
"But Kennedy was confirmed in '88," said debate moderator John Dickerson.
"No, Kennedy was confirmed in '87," Cruz replied, as Dickerson pointed out Kennedy was appointed in 1987 but confirmed in 1988. He asked Cruz if he was basing his statistic on when Kennedy was appointed or confirmed.
"In this case, it's both," Cruz finally said to more cheers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...0c3c55051b41e?ir=Politics§ion=us_politics
No worries. They've forgotten how.
Ya gotta love Cruz. Even when corrected and given the correct dates, he still insists he's right.
Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), who will get to vote on whoever Obama nominates, both argued that it's been more than 80 years since a lame duck president picked a Supreme Court justice, so it shouldn't be any different this time. That's not true, though. The Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, during President Ronald Reagan's final year in office. Every single Republican voted to confirm him, too.
Cruz stumbled when pressed on that point.
"But Kennedy was confirmed in '88," said debate moderator John Dickerson.
"No, Kennedy was confirmed in '87," Cruz replied, as Dickerson pointed out Kennedy was appointed in 1987 but confirmed in 1988. He asked Cruz if he was basing his statistic on when Kennedy was appointed or confirmed.
"In this case, it's both," Cruz finally said to more cheers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...0c3c55051b41e?ir=Politics§ion=us_politics
Washington Post has had some things on her. Long time public defender gives her unique perspective. Those who know her say she is brilliant. Duke undergrad. Harvard Law. Same class as BHO but they were not cronies.
I know very little about her political positions. But I do know that she is an outstanding person. I also know the Washington Post had her on their shortlist of five.
Uh........I guess it depends upon your definition of a lame duck. Kennedy filled a spot that was vacated by the retirement of Lewis Powell in the spring of 1987, more than 18 months before Reagan was to leave office. And the Democrats scuttled the first two people Reagan appointed to replace Powell -- Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsberg.
So would you be cool with it if the Republicans engaged in character assassination to defeat the first two attempts Obama makes to replace Scalia, forcing him to put forward a more moderate nominee? Somehow I doubt it.
You're on a negative roll lately, Tar. Please re-read the exchange to which you are attempting to reply
I was going to type those exact words last night.
I don't think that 60% percent of the Democrats care anything about anything. After all they elected Obama twice. They are uninformed and looking for handouts. So the SCOTUS means nothing to them. Stupid people are flooding the nation.
