The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Free Vulcan on November 20, 2016, 06:32:45 pm
-
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Sunday that Democrats would filibuster Donald Trump's Supreme Court candidates if they are not "mainstream."
"If he doesn't nominate a mainstream candidate, we're going to go at him with everything we've got ... Because this is so, so important," Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had suggested doing away with the filibuster, Schumer said Republicans "don't come with clean hands, having delayed Merrick Garland for a whole year."
President Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, but the Republican Senate blocked the nomination in hopes that a Republican would win the White House...
Read more at: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306940-schumer-threatens-filibuster-if-trump-doesnt-pick-mainstream-scotus
-
And because Chucky and Donny are good friends...Trump will do what Schumer wants.
-
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Sunday that Democrats would filibuster Donald Trump's Supreme Court candidates if they are not "mainstream."
Obama's picks weren't "mainstream". Where was Schumer then?
-
Obama's picks weren't "mainstream". Where was Schumer then?
I'd be willing to bet that our definitions of "mainstream" differ from Schumer's.
-
Chuck can stuff it. He's playing for the losing team and he knows it.
-
Chuck can stuff it. He's playing for the losing team and he knows it.
Chuckie isn't stupid, but he's certainly going to look like it if he overplays his hand. Push it too far, and not even McConnell will be able to resist getting rid of the filibuster.
-
Some thoughts:
1) How does the loser of the elections get to define what "mainstream" is?
2) Just out of curiosity, I'd like Schmuckie to give a list of names he himself would consider "mainstream".
-
Schumer threatens filibuster if Trump doesn't pick 'mainstream' court candidate
By Jessie Hellmann - 11/20/16 10:59 AM EST
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Sunday that Democrats would filibuster Donald Trump's Supreme Court candidates if they are not "mainstream."
"If he doesn't nominate a mainstream candidate, we're going to go at him with everything we've got ... Because this is so, so important," Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had suggested doing away with the filibuster, Schumer said Republicans "don't come with clean hands, having delayed Merrick Garland for a whole year."
President Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, but the Republican Senate blocked the nomination in hopes that a Republican would win the White House.
more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306940-schumer-threatens-filibuster-if-trump-doesnt-pick-mainstream-scotus
-
Some thoughts:
1) How does the loser of the elections get to define what "mainstream" is?
2) Just out of curiosity, I'd like Schmuckie to give a list of names he himself would consider "mainstream".
"Mainstream" is code for "won't rule against abortion." That's still the only issue that matters to the Democrats.
-
Chuckie, elections have consequences.
-
All Trump has to do is to remind him of Obozo's quote; "I won."
-
And because Chucky and Donny are good friends...Trump will do what Schumer wants.
That is called making the 'best deals', 'awesome deals', 'yuuuuge deals for the American people'.
That is what I expect. Those kinds of deals.
-
Years ago Chuckie ticked off several of the local Dairy farmers in Upstate New York.
He was supporting a bill for subsidies for the Local milk cooperative and was touring a number of the local farms.
He arrived at a friend of mine's farm as the cows were coming in for milking and made the mistake of asking "How many times a week do you have to mild them?"
My friend looked at him and said "You claim to support the milk cooperative and ask a stupid question like that. I have never voted fora Republican in my life but from now on I will vote for anyone that is running against you. Now get off my farm!"
Chuckie left with his tail between his legs and has not carried Medina since.
-
Schumer: Trump Should Name a 'Mainstream' Supreme Court Nominee, Or Dems Will Fight 'Tooth and Nail'
(CNSNews.com) - Come January, Republicans will control all three branches of government, but with only 52 Republicans in the Senate, they don't have enough votes -- 60 are needed -- to break a Democrat filibuster.
Appearing on various Sunday talk shows, Schumer was asked if Senate Democrats will filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee, whoever it may be.
"I would hope first and foremost that President Trump nominates a mainstream nominee capable of getting bipartisan support," Schumer told "Fox News Sunday."
Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-trump-should-name-mainstream-supreme-court-nominee-or-dems-will
-
"Mainstream" is code for "won't rule against abortion." That's still the only issue that matters to the Democrats.
How about an originalist conservative who nevertheless respects stare decisis? I'd be all for such a jurist, and he/she could even be "mainstream" enough for Schumer because a respect for stare decisis means rescinding Roe v. Wade by means of the peoples' elected representatives and the process (an amendment to the Constitution) provided for in the Constitution.
And that's exactly as it should be. Unelected judges should not be in the position of taking folks' long-held rights away. And the choice right has been the law of the land for over forty years.
-
How about an originalist conservative who nevertheless respects stare decisis?
The problem with that is that it creates a ratchet effect -- a one-way erosion of the law in which progressive justices create new "rights" whenever they have a majority, but conservatives are supposed to hold to stare decisis when they have the majority.
a respect for stare decisis means rescinding Roe v. Wade by means of the peoples' elected representatives and the process (an amendment to the Constitution) provided for in the Constitution.
Roe v. Wade itself was not held to the high standard of passing a new Amendment when creating that right in the first place -- why should the hurdle be so much higher in the opposite direction?
All reversing Roe v. Wade would do is to put the issue back in the hands of the elected representatives in each state where it belonged in the first place. It seems odd that you'd advance the "act through our elected representatives" argument in support of Roe v. Wade, which actually took the issue away from our elected representatives in the first place.
-
Years ago Chuckie ticked off several of the local Dairy farmers in Upstate New York.
He was supporting a bill for subsidies for the Local milk cooperative and was touring a number of the local farms.
He arrived at a friend of mine's farm as the cows were coming in for milking and made the mistake of asking "How many times a week do you have to mild them?"
My friend looked at him and said "You claim to support the milk cooperative and ask a stupid question like that. I have never voted fora Republican in my life but from now on I will vote for anyone that is running against you. Now get off my farm!"
Chuckie left with his tail between his legs and has not carried Medina since.
Good for the dairy farmer. They have to get up early and it makes them cranky.
-
What does Chunky Schumer know about "mainstream" anything?
-
All Trump has to do is to remind him of Obozo's quote; "I won."
Trump should use the same kind of snark that Obama used after he won. The part about "you can ride along but you Republicans have to sit in the back". I would love to watch their leftie heads explode if he ever said it.
-
I understand that Schumer wants to motivate his base, but this is just dumb. It just makes it more likely that McConnell will be willing to use the nuke option.
-
Roe v. Wade itself was not held to the high standard of passing a new Amendment when creating that right in the first place -- why should the hurdle be so much higher in the opposite direction?
Yes, that's true, and unfortunate. BUT - the right has been relied on by four generations of American women. Indeed, as I've said before, there is no woman of child bearing age who hasn't had the right for her entire adult life.
That alone should create the conditions for a responsible conservative jurist to respect stare decisis. Don't underestimate the importance of the choice right to a young woman. To her, it the basic right of her own self-determination. Is abortion morally wrong? Sure it is - but the better road is persuasion and support for women in crisis who do the right thing. After forty years, women are entitled to an expectation that their liberty will not be taken away by unelected judges, but only through the political process (that is, by Constitutional amendment).
Sgt. Bill, we obviously disagree on this, and that's fine. But to me, the key element of a conservative jurist is his/her respect for stare decisis. That's because such respect really means respect for the proper role of the courts - to interpret the law and not make it. Yes, the liberals have no such hesitation to encourage judges to create rights out of whole cloth. To that I say two wrongs don't make a right. Conservative jurists can and should be constrained by a healthy respect for the BOUNDARIES of their authority. Because otherwise the sovereignty of the people and their elected representatives is infringed.
-
Yes, that's true, and unfortunate. BUT - the right has been relied on by four generations of American women. Indeed, as I've said before, there is no woman of child bearing age who hasn't had the right for her entire adult life.
Which is fine, if you're talking about something that doesn't directly affect somebody else's life.
But consider:
"Yes, that's true, and unfortunate. BUT - the right to own slaves has been relied on by 10 generations of Americans. Indeed, there is no American who hasn't had the right to own slaves for her entire life."
As an argument it's only valid if you discount the humanity of the other person involved in the transaction.
-
If I thought - according to democrats - that Congress has an obligation to promptly vote on a judicial nominee?
-
I'd be willing to bet that our definitions of "mainstream" differ from Schumer's.
Someone needs to let the right greasy senator from New York know that his premise is wrong. The SCOTUS isn't about 'mainstream'. its about reading new laws in light of the Constitution to determined their legality.
To accept his premise is to agree that courts are supposed to reflect popular opinion, a VERY dangerous concept.
-
Yes, that's true, and unfortunate. BUT - the right has been relied on by four generations of American women. Indeed, as I've said before, there is no woman of child bearing age who hasn't had the right for her entire adult life. That alone should create the conditions for a responsible conservative jurist to respect stare decisis.
There is a absolutely zero reliance interest on Roe in a stare decisis sense, unless you were to attempt to apply an abortion restriction to women protected by Roe when they became pregnant. Since there would be a long warning period of Roe being repealed, and state's enacting anti-abortion laws, that's not a reasonable concern. And the Court could always limit even that by delaying implementation of the decision for 9 months.
Stare decisis reliance would apply if, for example, the Court were to considering the Administrative Procedures Act to be unconstitutional, thereby invalidating overnight hundreds of thousands of regulations overnight, and leaving a lot of companies (and Congress) out there hanging.
Don't underestimate the importance of the choice right to a young woman. To her, it the basic right of her own self-determination. Is abortion morally wrong? Sure it is - but the better road is persuasion and support for women in crisis who do the right thing. After forty years, women are entitled to an expectation that their liberty will not be taken away by unelected judges,
That's a fine argument as a matter of public policy, but one that should be made to elected representatives. Again, all reversing Roe would do is take away the federal guarantee of a right to an abortion. The right itself would have to be taken away by elected representatives.
Sgt. Bill, we obviously disagree on this, and that's fine. But to me, the key element of a conservative jurist is his/her respect for stare decisis.
Well, if that's your "key element", then that's not really conservative jurisprudence at all, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. And of course by your logic, Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided because Plessy v. Ferguson was even older than Roe is now at the time of Brown.
To that I say two wrongs don't make a right. Conservative jurists can and should be constrained by a healthy respect for the BOUNDARIES of their authority. Because otherwise the sovereignty of the people and their elected representatives is infringed.
I don't think what you're advocating has anything to do with sovereignty of the people, or respect for rights. A court that reverses prior judicial excesses is what protects the sovereignty of the people. The Amendment process is an incredibly high hurdle, and you are advocating a process that will inevitably result in a legal bias towards progressivism.
Further, assigning pre-eminence to stare decises is no more likely to protect rights than it is to deprive people of them. Suppose Heller had gone the wrong way, depriving citizens of the right to keep and bear arms. Your judicial philosophy would protect that decision, and prevent a future court from reconsidering and restoring that right.
No thanks.
-
So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist - there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives. No thanks.
The role of the courts with respect to laws enacted by the peoples' representatives is to address bad legislation that denies individuals the protections of the Constitution. Such role would encompass, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Heller, as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling respecting marriage equality. Stare decisis should never be an excuse to validate a majority's action to deny rights to a minority or (as in the case of Heller) to permit the state to subvert a Constitutional right. That's exactly the context where "judicial activism" may be appropriate. But overturning Roe v. Wade? No, that needs to be done by the Constitutional amendment process. For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination. Only the political process can take away long-held rights.
-
For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination. Only the political process can take away long-held rights.
Funny...I don't remember in any of the times I've read the Constitution...that there was a "right" to abortion.
Can you show me where that's at?
Kinda interesting that @Jazzhead you want to rail against " an unelected court" when they are taking away something they created out of whole cloth...but you have no problem with that same group of unelected jurists granting rights that were never in the Constitution to begin with.
-
So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist - there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives. No thanks.
So.... Dred Scott decision: right or wrong?
-
So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist - there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives. No thanks.
The role of the courts with respect to laws enacted by the peoples' representatives is to address bad legislation that denies individuals the protections of the Constitution. Such role would encompass, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Heller, as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling respecting marriage equality. Stare decisis should never be an excuse to validate a majority's action to deny rights to a minority or (as in the case of Heller) to permit the state to subvert a Constitutional right. That's exactly the context where "judicial activism" may be appropriate. But overturning Roe v. Wade? No, that needs to be done by the Constitutional amendment process. For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination. Only the political process can take away long-held rights.
So, what about an unelected court taking away the right of people to be born? Seems that would trump "controlling reproductive destiny" whatever that means.
-
Kinda interesting that @Jazzhead you want to rail against " an unelected court" when they are taking away something they created out of whole cloth...but you have no problem with that same group of unelected jurists granting rights that were never in the Constitution to begin with.
The issue is one of reliance. I don't disagree that Roe v. Wade found a right in the Constitution that wasn't there before. But forty years later, pro-life conservatives are still hoping for a deus ex machina - for the Court to do the dirty work of depriving millions of women of rights that have come to rely on.
Forty years is a long time. The choice right is too firmly embedded to be taken away by unelected judges. It must be addressed through the political process.
-
Here comes the nuclear option.
-
So, what about an unelected court taking away the right of people to be born? Seems that would trump "controlling reproductive destiny" whatever that means.
There is no Constitutional right to be born. A fetus has no rights under the Constitution vis a vis a born citizen.
I understand that you feel that a fetus should have such rights. Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution. It is simply wrong for unelected judges to deprive millions of Americans of rights they have come to rely on. It must be done by means of the political process.
-
So.... Dred Scott decision: right or wrong?
We fought a war over the issue in this case. Is a slave the property of his master, or does he have rights of his own like any other citizen? While that's an extreme example of the "political process", it was ultimately an issue decided by the people.
-
There is no Constitutional right to be born. A fetus has no rights under the Constitution vis a vis a born citizen.
I understand that you feel that a fetus should have such rights. Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution. It is simply wrong for unelected judges to deprive millions of Americans of rights they have come to rely on. It must be done by means of the political process.
I'm not arguing for or against abortion, but the lack of logic called out for a response.
Yes, the Constitution is based on the assumption that people have a right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as stated in the Declaration.
And, as for reproductive destiny, one has a large number of choices to do so without bringing abortion into the mix.
-
Jazzhead,
There is absolutely NOTHING that is Constitutional about Roe. It is pure fiat through and through.
It relieves the federal legislature from its Constitutionally given right to regulate abortion.
It prohibits states from regulating abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy.
It arrogantly grants states the right to regulate abortion - a right already granted under the Bill of Rights - after the 24th week.
And it violates equal protection by denying men abortion rights.
-
Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution.
What good will amending the Constitution do when the current Constitution is already being ignored?
-
Jazzhead,
There is absolutely NOTHING that is Constitutional about Roe. It is pure fiat through and through.
It relieves the federal legislature from its Constitutionally given right to regulate abortion.
It prohibits states from regulating abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy.
It arrogantly grants states the right to regulate abortion - a right already granted under the Bill of Rights - after the 24th week.
And it violates equal protection by denying men abortion rights.
Those are all excellent arguments - but are being made 40 years too late. What's at stake here is forty years' of reliance by millions of women. You want to stuff a genie back into a bottle. Don't expect a court to do it - it will require the VERY heavy lifting of the Constitutional amendment process.
-
I'm not arguing for or against abortion, but the lack of logic called out for a response.
Yes, the Constitution is based on the assumption that people have a right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as stated in the Declaration.
And, as for reproductive destiny, one has a large number of choices to do so without bringing abortion into the mix.
I understand the Declaration's statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I ask you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Founders were speaking of fetuses. "Life" in the context of the Declaration likely means the right of a (born) citizen to self-determination/self-actualization. And the Constitution itself, although informed by the Declaration, actually only guarantees that a citizen can only be deprived of life and liberty through the due process of law.
I strongly oppose abortion on moral grounds, and urge that abortion be made as rare as possible by means of persuasion and support for women who do the right thing (and, last by not least, by support for family planning.)
-
I understand the Declaration's statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I ask you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Founders were speaking of fetuses. "Life" in the context of the Declaration likely means the right of a (born) citizen to self-determination/self-actualization. And the Constitution itself, although informed by the Declaration, actually only guarantees that a citizen can only be deprived of life and liberty through the due process of law.
I strongly oppose abortion on moral grounds, and urge that abortion be made as rare as possible by means of persuasion and support for women who do the right thing (and, last by not least, by support for family planning.)
I would assume that they were including unborn children. Why would you think otherwise?
-
Chuck can stuff it. He's playing for the losing team and he knows it.
:thumbsup2:
-
Chuckie isn't stupid, but he's certainly going to look like it if he overplays his hand. Push it too far, and not even McConnell will be able to resist getting rid of the filibuster.
I'm not so sure; we still have a Senate filled with RINO's.
-
We fought a war over the issue in this case. Is a slave the property of his master, or does he have rights of his own like any other citizen? While that's an extreme example of the "political process", it was ultimately an issue decided by the people.
You're dodging the question. By your standard, Dred Scott was "right," regardless of the fact that it treated certain people as property, to be used according to their owners' discretion.
Of course it was wrong on moral grounds.
-
Those are all excellent arguments - but are being made 40 years too late. What's at stake here is forty years' of reliance by millions of women. You want to stuff a genie back into a bottle.
You sound like Jefferson arguing for doing nothing about slavery.