How do you think this will go?
President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.
My advice? He might want to bring this up:
One aide to a vulnerable Senate Republican, who requested anonymity, jokingly suggested that there might be another, very different source of pressure as early as Tuesday night. “I’m not sure we want to be in the business of telling voters that we’d rather risk having Donald Trump nominate the next Supreme Court justice,” he said.
Will every Republican senator promise not to vote for a Klansman (or Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III) should President Trump nominate one for the Supreme Court?
It would be irresponsible not to get people on the record on this, would it not?
Or Incitatus?
They’ll go with door three. They’re too invested in not working with Obama to stop now. Working with a Clinton, usually out of the sight of the public, is easier for them.
He could nominate Omarosa.
and thought you were going to discuss Trump’s qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.
For that he’ll have to get in line for when Thomas’ seat becomes vacant.
Astonishingly, Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry is a senior (read retired) judge on the Third Circuit Appeals Court, appointed by Bill Clinton as a compromise with the Republican Senate at the time. She’s 79, but I’d still expect Trump to pick her.
Her nomination wouldn’t scare the Republicans in the Senate although the anti-abortionists would go bonkers. However, politically it will be awkward for the Republicans in the campaign to be supporting a nepotistic appointment to the Supreme Court.
Why would her nomination scare Republicans? They previously didn’t object to her appointment.
“…Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry is a senior (read retired) judge on the Third Circuit Appeals Court, appointed by Bill Clinton as a compromise with the Republican Senate …”
Tell me again why I should care whether Clinton or Trump is elected.
Actually, I wish there was more compromise on the nomination of judges. Really, we should be able to come up with a system which would be reasonable. Going to the mattresses for every single judge is just unreasonable.
For SC, of course, all bets are off.
Eh? In the way back machine, I actually knew Judge Berry. She wasn’t so bad of an appointment actually.
Frankly, if the USA had a, you know, functional government, the POTUS should be able to nominate judges who are somewhat of a compromise.
The problem is that the GOP has made it their bounden goal to appoint mostly rightwing activist judges (they project THAT onto the D party, but they’re much more guilty of judicial activism), which means being obstructionist about every single appointment made by a D POTUS, no matter what.
In theory, judges are supposed to be objective and NOT compromised themselves by ideology. And many judges do actually strive towards a goal of objectivity.
But these days, not so much. Especially in terms of judges nominated by R POTUSes. I’ve worked in the legal system (not an attorney), including the federal court and a couple of state court systems. I’ve seen a lot personally. That’s my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
But Judge Barry was a decent judge and not a bad choice.
Instead of “compromise,” how about simply “well and best qualified?” The rightwing has loaded the courts up with winger-judges that weren’t well qualified.
I couldn’t object to John Roberts or even the odious Scalia on the basis of being qualified. Unfortunately the ABA also gave Alito a “well qualified” rating. It’s then up to the POTUS and Senate to evaluate a candidate as to temperament, biases/prejudices, and stare decisis. IMO Alito lied during his confirmation hearing and if Roberts didn’t lie, he was damn close to it. A shame that there is no mechanism to track and hold SC justices responsible to explain why their lie wasn’t a lie. Guess the founding fathers didn’t consider that necessary as justices weren’t expected to spend decades on the court.
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas should have all been unacceptable. Roberts and Kennedy are fine, even if I think they’re wrong more often than they’re not (when there is a disagreement, as I realize that most of the decisions are unanimous 9-0). Justices can also, of course, be impeached. Speaking of, hey GOP: if Roberts is such a sell-out, why haven’t you impeached him yet?
Unqualified were Haynesworth and Carswell, but that was long before your time. Harriet Myers as well but the GOP pulled that one.
Recall that Scalia replaced Rehnquist as a justice. The larger change at that time was Rehnquist replacing Burger, but it was only a couple of steps to the right. (Burger replacing Warren was a more significant rightward lurch.) The most outrageous was replacing Thurgood Marshall with Thomas. From his grave, which he would have been happy to approve, Marshall would have been a better Justice than Thomas. DEM Senators knew that Thomas was unacceptable, but they didn’t know how to reject him; so many simply voted against him and comforted themselves that at least he wasn’t as pompous and outspoken as Bork would have been.
Alito was another shift to the right as O’Connor’s replacement. Not on most matters but definitely on women’s autonomy. Consenting to his appointment put a lie to “it’s the Supreme Court,” with the implication that it was about Roe, that Democrats have been rolling out in every presidential election since 1980. DEM Senators failed women and if they hadn’t gotten lucky in 1990 with Souter, it would have been obvious long before then.
Do you want Ginsberg or Maryanne Trump Barry?
SUNY Albany students who claimed racial attack will be charged for assault and false reporting
This is exactly why I don’t jump on allegations and rush to judge alleged perpetrators before there is enough solid and verifiable information in evidence. As usual all those that accepted the allegations and rallied in support of the liars get the “I was duped pass” when there are in fact many steps in between being duped and behaving like vigilantes.
It’s always a tough call, though. To influence public opinion, you have to have the rallies while the headline is still fresh. If you wait for confirmation often the public has moved on an nobody will care.
Not a tough call at all. If a crime was committed, the authorities should be permitted a reasonable amount of time to investigate the crime. Mobilization in support of victims should only happen when authorities are derelict in their responsibilities and duties. Allowing that reasonable amount of time from the alleged incident until mobilization also gives the supporters time to figure out what, if any, evidence of the crime exists and not rely wholly on the word of a person that few have even met.
“If a crime was committed” – gee Marie, I am so pleased to see you coming down on the side of enforcement.
So, let’s discuss immigration law enforcement…
Oh, yeah, forgot – that’s the place we cannot go.
Inconvenient laws don’t count. Like Republicans paying their grazing fees, it’s an unnatural law that should be ignored.
Way to go — twist my O/T comment about a state based criminal offense into another time you can toss out your favorite bugaboo. But you knew you were doing that, didn’t you?
Boo? Why do you keep speaking as if the R’s in the Senate are Americans?
They aren’t. They are Republicans. They have proven time and again that they (and yes I mean ALL OF THEM) are totally uncaring about this country. They don’t even bother to posture anymore. Anything that opposes the black guy in the White House is what they are for.
They could care less who makes the next SCOTUS appointment … as long as its not Obama.
Of course they’re Americans. But as many people have noted, the Congressional GOP over the last two decades has morphed into a parliamentary type of political party with a rigid ideological agenda that all must follow. The Congressional Democrats have most definitely not gone this route…yet.
OT:
Hey, the head of the Democratic Party, Debby Wasserman Schulz, is always looking out for new and better ways to help the working person.
Apparently, the best way to help the working person is enable payday loan companies to gouge, rape, pillage, and otherwise prey upon low income workers.
“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is co-sponsoring legislation to delay and permanently muffle pending Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules to rein in small-dollar lenders that are currently able to levy triple-digit annual interest rates on the nation’s poorest, the Huffington Post reports.”
Your Democratic Party at work, folks. And people wonder why Trump is doing well. Possibly it is because the Party of the Working Person is now the Party of the Payday Lender.
Thanks for the update. Color me utterly unshocked.
DWS is a blight and a huge _____.
This is where, though, I am often sternly lectured about not expecting sparkle ponies who poop rainbows because I have to stop be so effen r*t*rded, take a drug test, grow up and face the reality that THIS, my friends, is ALL that the D-tribe can do for you. This is it. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Oh, and btw, how DARE you suggest that there’s no difference between the D Tribe and the R Tribe??
Seriously. Ugh.
In SD, that land of fairly moderate redness, we have a citizen initiative on the fall ballot which will cap the APR at 36%. This was done by petition, and we got a lot of signatures. Now to have a federal initiative which would help the payday lenders (admittedly at a very different level of help) does not help the D party case at all.
Specifically WHAT is the case that the D Party is the “party of the working person”? Thin at best now.
Trump is beginning to have H-1B victims at his rallies. Of course, Hillary cannot do that, because her paymasters in Bangalore and Singapore will not allow that. She is fully invested in more visas to get rid of more American IT workers. Trump is using this issue to gain voters.
I’m a little confused when you say that Trump is starting to have “H1b ‘victims'” at his rallies.
Do you mean people who lost/cannot get jobs due all the H1b visas issued?
Because my understanding is that Trump, himself, has used H1b visas to hire, basically, indentured servants from Eastern Europe to work at some/all of his business properties. They, too, could be seen as H1b ‘victims’ bc my understanding is that they’re underpaid but cannot get a higher paying job due to being indentured to Trump. And then cannot leave until they pay back whatever fee they owe Trump.
Frankly, both Trump and Clinton favor the H1b visa system… not only for the 1% paymasters, but, at least in Trump’s case, for his personal gain and benefit.
The fact is, Trump allegedly appeals to under educated white males, who’ve lost out in our crumbling economy. That such white males have been screwed over is undeniable. But what they don’t get is: despite whatever bs the Donald is bellowing out, HE is famous for hiring undocumented workers and H1b visa people from other countries. There is no bigger liar and hypocrite on the campaign trail than Trump, imo, and he’s got huge competition.
So, just seeking clarification.
The Disney workers who had to train their replacements last year – these are the H-1B victims.
Of course, the wider H-1B victims is the entire American tech worker sector. The entire sector is being decimated by the H-1B visa.
I agree that Trump has questions to answer. But he is addressing the issue – possibly it is posturing, who knows?
It will be a cold day in hell before Hillary does ANYTHING like bringing in H-1B victims.
She also supports the J-1 visa. Her last paid speech was to a convention of owners of summer camps. When I was growing up, American kids got jobs in these camps. No American kids do now, or the number is hugely reduced. Rather, they bring in scabs from Ukraine or Poland to work, at a REDUCED WAGE, and the hours are jiggered to cheat them.
Hillary supports that system too.
She doesn’t give a flying fuck for American workers. Only foreign workers.
oh I agree that Hillary won’t talk about H1b visas taking away jobs from US citizens. No way, no how.
Just saying, though, that Trump personally uses H1b visas to hire workers for his business empire, which cheats US workers out of a job. So: double hypocrite.
Yes, I work in the tech industry, and I’ve seen the H1b visa system at work going back to ye olde dot.com “boom” days in the ’90s. Even back then, it was not all that easy to get good paying tech jobs due to H1b visas. Back then, the big tech firms were on a hiring binge bringing in workers from India and paying them pennies on the dollar. Much cheaper than hiring someone like me… but of course, I allegedly “didn’t have the skills and experience” needed. Yeah, right.
I also know about the J1 visa. An Australian friend’s son got a summer camp job here last year. She was told “USA kids don’t want these jobs, so we ‘have to’ hire overseas kids.”
I told her: “No offense to you or your son, but that’s not true. They’re underpaying your son, while taking away a job from a US kid.” She was a bit shocked to learn this tidbit. It’s been going on for years.
No, you won’t hear Clinton talk about that, either.
I guess it’s “good” if Trump’s talking about it, but talk is CHEAP. No way is Trump going to rain on that parade. Trump’s right in the middle of it, using H1b visas to his own personal gain and advantage.
She, of course, was one of the House dems who voted for fast tracking TTP.
Oh yes, that’s true, too. DWS loves her some fast track TPP. I’m sure she got a LOT of payola for that vote. Scum.
Are you saying Trump offered Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III a SUPREME COURT SEAT? Along with attorney generalship for Christie? Holy mother of god.
I think those nominations would be filed under the category of “justice denied”.
Given that Trump will not win the Presidency, we can take comfort.
I’d file that under “wild-ass speculation”, really.
Feel the satire, dataguy.
It’s my specialitee.
Sounds like Senator Reid had fun at the expense of McConnell and the Senate Republicans after today’s meeting:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/reid-leahy-white-house-stake-out
“They were adamant. They said no, we are not going to do this at all. We are going to do what has never been done before,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters at a stakeout after Tuesday’s meeting, according to the White House pool report. “All we want them to do is fulfill their constitutional duty and do their job. At this phase they have decided not to do that.”
…
The Republicans in attendance at the meeting did not participate in the stakeout and signaled they would comment later when they were back on Capitol Hill, according to reporters at the White House.
…
“They think they are going to wait and see what President Trump will do I guess as far as the nomination is concerned,” Reid said at the stakeout.
It’s easy to imagine Reid having a sly smirk on his face as he said that.
I just wonder what Trump would answer if he was asked about a possible Supreme Court Nominee…
“It’s gonna be a great person, you will get tired of great judicial decisions, it’s gonna be fantastic…” without ever mentioning a name