|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
Only one-third of Americans believe the Senate should not consider any nominee until a new president is in the White House
| Quote: |
| More than six-in-10 of the registered voters surveyed nationwide — 62 percent — said the Senate should consider the nomination of Garland, the current chief judge of the D.C. Circuit court. On the other hand, just one-in-three, or 33 percent, responded that the Senate should not consider any nominee until a new president is in the White House. President Barack Obama tapped Garland on March 16 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — leaving ample time, the president's allies argue, for senators to fully consider his record. |
Sometimes you have to consider voting the party line up on to the top of the ticket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surely it's time to nominate a protestant to the Supreme Court, in the interest of 'diversity.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Surely it's time to nominate a protestant to the Supreme Court, in the interest of 'diversity.' |
It's very British (or perhaps simply Old World) to see a meaningful distinction between Catholics and Protestants; the difference between the two is like the difference between Harvard and Yale, and the larger problem with the Court is that it is composed completely of Harvard and Yale alumni.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) admits Democrats could force a vote
| Quote: |
“There’s nothing we can do about it. Under the rules of the United States Senate, that resolution can be offered anytime,” Grassley told reporters after a Tuesday town hall here, referring to a procedural maneuver called a motion to discharge. “A Republican could offer it.”
. . .
“Whenever they take this vote — whether it would be based on confirming the nomination or whether it’s based on a discharge — it’s still going to be a tough vote,” Grassley added.
|
He realizes the Republicans are losing the public and wants the Democrats to force the issue to save face. Perhaps Grassley even believes Merrick Garland is preferable to whoever Hillary Clinton would nominate given the slow train-wreck that is the Republican Presidential nomination process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Merrick Garland Dilemma
| Quote: |
Let's say that for Senate Republicans, Garland is maybe a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10: no ideal, but conservative [on some issues]. He's the best they could hope for from a Democrat. By contrast, let's say a Trump nominee would be an 8, and Clinton would pick a 2 (someone younger and somewhat to Garland's left).
If you place even odds on Republicans taking back the White House, then blocking Garland means they'll get, on average, a 5 (50 percent times 2 plus 50 percent times 8.). That's better than 4, so they should embrace that strategy and block Garland.
But the calculus changes if Republican odds of victory in the presidential race drop. Suppose there's a 75 percent chance Clinton wins. Then the expected value of blocking Garland drops to 3.5 — worse than confirming him.
Of course, these are just illustrative numbers. But the underlying point stands: Trump is unlikely to win the presidential election, which makes Republicans' choice increasingly look like it's between Garland and a younger, more liberal Clinton nominee. And in that comparison, Garland is clearly better. |
This analysis may be flawed in a couple of ways. First, as long as Republicans hold the Senate, and they almost certainly will, they can filibuster Clinton's nominee for the Supreme Court. So there is no disadvantage to Mitch McConnell's filibuster, at least in that sense. Second, it assumes that Clinton will likely win. She is the present moment favorite, but nobody should feel confident about the outcome six months away.
Here is what is important: when both candidates are flawed, everyone should be thinking about down-ticket races. Hate Hillary and Trump? It is statistically likely you dislike both, because their unfavorability ratings are both higher than their favorability ratings. So pick your down-race allegiances, particularly your Senate vote, on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2016 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GOP rallies around Supreme Court blockade
| Chuck Grassley wrote: |
| [T]he political rules of Supreme Court confirmations “ought to be something on paper." |
Grassley should learn to read:
| Quote: |
US Constitution Article II, Section. 2.
The President . . . 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. |
Advise and consent (or register opposition to consent), but the Senate must move to an up-or-down vote on the President's timely appointment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-trump-court/483429/
| Quote: |
The presumptive Republican nominee released the names of 11 judges he would consider appointing to the high court on Wednesday, an unprecedented move in American presidential politics aimed at quelling conservative fears about his potential imprint on the federal judiciary.
Among the names are six federal appeals judges: Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit, Raymond Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit, Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit, Steven Colloton and Raymond Gruender of the Eighth Circuit, and William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit.
Trump also named five state supreme-court judges: Allison Eid of Colorado, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, David Stras of Minnesota, and Don Willett of Texas. Nominating a state judge would break with a recent bipartisan preference for the federal bench. All of the current Supreme Court justices except Elena Kagan served on a federal appeals court before joining the Court.
. . .
None of Trump’s nominees hail from the Northeast; five of the current justices grew up in either New York or New Jersey. None of them obtained their law degrees from Ivy League schools; all of the current justices received theirs from Harvard or Yale. |
Trump is considering State Supreme Court judges. This is almost as important as Trump's break from the Harvard-Yale consensus. Federal Justices are there because they went to law school with some Senator, and they are usually allies of the Deep State. State Supreme Court judges also allow Trump to escape the taint of "George W. Bush appointee."
All in all, Trump is showing that despite his downsides (many), he really was the best candidate the Republicans had to offer the entire time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
