Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
How many DJT Supreme Court Confirmations Are We Looking At?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How many SCOTUS confirmations for DJT?
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.

Author Message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: 아이다호, 美國

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:38 am    Post subject: How many DJT Supreme Court Confirmations Are We Looking At? Reply with quote

I'm sure everyone's heard about Justice Kennedy retiring effective the end of July.

So how many Supreme Court confirmations is The Donald going to get by the time he's gone? I'm leaving the poll open for 90 days.
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: Alien Gear ShapeShift IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17298

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

McConnell has said the vote won't happen until fall, which sounds an awful lot like waiting until after the election. Frankly, I think he's caucusing with the Democrats.

As for the number, that depends. There could have been retirements early in either of the previous administration's terms, yet they chose not to retire.

Breyer (79, Carter appointee) seems like the only possible voluntary departure.
Ginsburg (85, Carter) chose not to retire 4+ years ago, suggesting she's waiting to finish dying on the bench.

Thomas (70) doesn't seem likely to retire anytime soon.

The rest are too new, barring anything unexpected, they're not likely to go anywhere.


Side note regarding the thread, the subject of the court warrants its own thread, so we'll see where it goes.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: 아이다호, 美國

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am actually grateful to McConnell for holding out on Scalia's replacement for so long.
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: Alien Gear ShapeShift IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
I am actually grateful to McConnell for holding out on Scalia's replacement for so long.

Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
I am actually grateful to McConnell for holding out on Scalia's replacement for so long.

Why?
Why, I think that would be obvious. To possibly keep a radical leftist off the court. Just as Obama promised Putin more latitude as a lame duck, Obama was sure to appoint a nutcase leftist to the court, if given the chance.

As for the poll question, I'm gonna go out on a limb and go with my hope. 3 Justices. And I hope one replaces that old hag, Bader-Ginsberg.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

It just keeps getting better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.


90 days!

How many brewskis did you drink before hiding the poll results for 3 flippin' months!
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

It just keeps getting better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: 아이다호, 美國

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Quote:
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.


90 days!

How many brewskis did you drink before hiding the poll results for 3 flippin' months!

12
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: Alien Gear ShapeShift IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

It just keeps getting better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: 아이다호, 美國

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

* plop *
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: Alien Gear ShapeShift IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 131
Location: India

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All of them.
_________________
"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17298

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
I am actually grateful to McConnell for holding out on Scalia's replacement for so long.
And if he delays Kennedy's replacement? Delaying a second term lame-duck pick due to unanticipated death has merit. Delaying a first-term pick until after mid-term elections when the power dynamic in Congress could change screams establishment corruption.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 686
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3

Already have one, Kennedy retires at the end of July, and Ginsberg is just hovering around death's door with her cancer.
_________________
People Of Love

Kindness Evokes Kindness

Peace Emits Positive Energy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
I am actually grateful to McConnell for holding out on Scalia's replacement for so long.
And if he delays Kennedy's replacement? Delaying a second term lame-duck pick due to unanticipated death has merit. Delaying a first-term pick until after mid-term elections when the power dynamic in Congress could change screams establishment corruption.

There is a nearly* zero percent chance that McConnell will delay the nomination, but why is one delay meritious, and the other corruption?

*Nearly zero instead of actually because I can see an argument that delaying the vote would give Republicans a reason to come out and vote, thus increasing their chances of holding onto congress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17298

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
why is one delay meritious, and the other corruption?
With the "second term lame-duck" situation, it is certain that the sitting president will be gone. In the case of an unexpected vacancy such as death, or a late voluntary departure, it seems reasonable to delay. Keep in mind that HRC was thought by most to be the presumptive nominee, and that sentiment seemed to solidify well into election day.

Why might the other scenario involve corruption? I would have thought that more obvious, but Trump isn't a Republican and is trying to disrupt the establishment, of which McConnell is a member. Risking losing the nomination is not in the party's interests, nor their constituents. With Gorsuch, Trump demonstrated what kind of nominee he'd be seeking, so delaying until after the election is a huge risk, especially considering McCain. Delaying would appear to be motivation to protect the establishment, even if that meant effectively losing the nomination.


richk449 wrote:
*Nearly zero instead of actually because I can see an argument that delaying the vote would give Republicans a reason to come out and vote, thus increasing their chances of holding onto congress.
I'm just going on what he was reported to have communicated. And yes, I recognize that he's a politician and probably lying. Given how pivotal the nominee's vote will be, it is an astronomical risk. Will it get people to vote? Absolutely. On both sides. And since mid-terms often see the president's party lose seats, a delay would seem to only be in the interest of the establishment, which I firmly believe is detrimental to everyone.

One more related point. It is traditional for retiring judges to do so when the party which appointed them is in office. So a delay in the case of Kennedy doesn't pass any tests for credibility. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.

I'm also taking into account modern obstructionist politics and the apoplectic insanity from the left since the election. This genuinely seems like a mental health issue, perhaps related to PTSD or something. I thought they were bad with W, but it at least still had the flavor of partisanship.

Twp presidents back if we were in the same situation with regards to judges, and Ginsburg also decided to retire, then I wouldn't have put up too much protest about delaying her replacement while still going forward with Kennedy's. But since the last president and the current behavior from the left, I would no longer consider that an acceptable courtesy.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
why is one delay meritious, and the other corruption?
With the "second term lame-duck" situation, it is certain that the sitting president will be gone. In the case of an unexpected vacancy such as death, or a late voluntary departure, it seems reasonable to delay.

I'm sorry, I really don't follow the logic. It is certain that all presidents will be gone. While they are president, the constitution gives them the power to appoint supreme court justices.

Quote:
Why might the other scenario involve corruption? I would have thought that more obvious, but Trump isn't a Republican ...

That is factually incorrect. Trump is a republican (currently), who won the republican nomination for president, ran as the republican candidate, and governs as a republican. He picked the current head of the RNC.

Quote:
... and is trying to disrupt the establishment, of which McConnell is a member. Risking losing the nomination is not in the party's interests, nor their constituents. With Gorsuch, Trump demonstrated what kind of nominee he'd be seeking,...

Gorsuch is a perfect establishment republican jurist. McConnell loves Gorsuch. Trump's list of SC candidates are all establishment choices.

Quote:
... so delaying until after the election is a huge risk, especially considering McCain. Delaying would appear to be motivation to protect the establishment, even if that meant effectively losing the nomination.

Protecting them from what? Getting what they want?


Quote:
And since mid-terms often see the president's party lose seats, a delay would seem to only be in the interest of the establishment, which I firmly believe is detrimental to everyone.

Now I'm really confused. What is "the establishment" that you are speaking of? The republicans control both houses of congress, the presidency, most state legislatures. Aren't they part of the establishment?

Quote:
Twp presidents back if we were in the same situation with regards to judges, and Ginsburg also decided to retire, then I wouldn't have put up too much protest about delaying her replacement while still going forward with Kennedy's. But since the last president and the current behavior from the left, I would no longer consider that an acceptable courtesy.

I don't follow this logic at all. We live in a constitutional republic, where we follow the laws. You don't get to decide whether or not you want to follow the laws, based on your personal feeling about some amorphous group of other people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?

Sometimes the SC picks the president.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17298

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't follow the logic. It is certain that all presidents will be gone.
The difference between first and second terms is the key factor there.

richk449 wrote:
While they are president, the constitution gives them the power to appoint supreme court justices.
Nominate.

richk449 wrote:
That is factually incorrect.
And you are pedantically correct. Except for the governing part. He is governing like no modern Republican.

richk449 wrote:
Gorsuch is a perfect establishment republican jurist. McConnell loves Gorsuch. Trump's list of SC candidates are all establishment choices.
Which would mean there is less reason to delay.

richk449 wrote:
Now I'm really confused. What is "the establishment" that you are speaking of? The republicans control both houses of congress, the presidency, most state legislatures. Aren't they part of the establishment?
Trump and others aren't part of the establishment. You think he is, so I understand your confusion.

richk449 wrote:
I don't follow this logic at all. We live in a constitutional republic, where we follow the laws. You don't get to decide whether or not you want to follow the laws, based on your personal feeling about some amorphous group of other people.
Sure. I have no idea what your going on about, but what laws are not being followed?
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17298

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?
No. Didn't you ask that during Bush's presidency?

Guess what. All humans are political. President nominates, Congress approves (or not), Judicial branch is independent from the other two branches.
_________________
The whole system has to go. The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. --Sapolsky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?

Sometimes the SC picks the president.
I'm not sure I agree with that - unless there was a problem with the voting process itself
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?
No. Didn't you ask that during Bush's presidency?

Guess what. All humans are political. President nominates, Congress approves (or not), Judicial branch is independent from the other two branches.
But the person who represents a party shouldn't be allowed to (re)place people in non-political roles. That's cronyism and corruption of the highest order.
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?

Sometimes the SC picks the president.
I'm not sure I agree with that - unless there was a problem with the voting process itself

Your disagreement with historical fact is noted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?

Sometimes the SC picks the president.
I'm not sure I agree with that - unless there was a problem with the voting process itself

Your disagreement with historical fact is noted.
No, I meant that I am not sure I agree with that as a process
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
richk449 wrote:
cokey wrote:
I wondered why you cared about the Supreme Court appointments, then I remembered that they are political. Doesn't that go against the separation of powers?

Sometimes the SC picks the president.
I'm not sure I agree with that - unless there was a problem with the voting process itself

Your disagreement with historical fact is noted.
No, I meant that I am not sure I agree with that as a process

I see. It's not supposed to be the process, and it is definitely not constitutional, but they are the final say, so if they decide to pick the president, there is really no way to stop them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't follow the logic. It is certain that all presidents will be gone.
The difference between first and second terms is the key factor there.

Why is it a key factor? If it is a key factor, shouldn't the founding fathers have mentioned it when they wrote the constitution?

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
While they are president, the constitution gives them the power to appoint supreme court justices.
Nominate.

Let's check:
US Constitution wrote:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
That is factually incorrect.
And you are pedantically correct. Except for the governing part. He is governing like no modern Republican.

Tax cuts - check.
Increasing the deficit - check.
Making a big deal about immigration - check.
Increasing military spending - check.
Appointing traditional conservative judges - check.
Acting like a complete jackass - okay, I will give you this one - it isn't classic Republican behavior.

Seriously - how is he governing differently than a traditional republican?

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Gorsuch is a perfect establishment republican jurist. McConnell loves Gorsuch. Trump's list of SC candidates are all establishment choices.
Which would mean there is less reason to delay.

Right. Which is what I said at the start of this conversation.

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Now I'm really confused. What is "the establishment" that you are speaking of? The republicans control both houses of congress, the presidency, most state legislatures. Aren't they part of the establishment?
Trump and others aren't part of the establishment. You think he is, so I understand your confusion.

Please define "the establishment".

pjp wrote:
richk449 wrote:
I don't follow this logic at all. We live in a constitutional republic, where we follow the laws. You don't get to decide whether or not you want to follow the laws, based on your personal feeling about some amorphous group of other people.
Sure. I have no idea what your going on about, but what laws are not being followed?

That was in response to you writing "But since the last president and the current behavior from the left, I would no longer consider that an acceptable courtesy." As if following the law was a courtesy that you provided if you liked the things some other poorly defined group of people were saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum