US Elections 2016

[Raithe]

[Hurlshort]

So, like, what if Obama nominates a conservative justice? It isnt exactly unprecedented. There also isnt a super long list of serious candidates, so yeah.

[Wrath of Dagon]

McConnell has already screwed this up. Although the Democrats have been hell bent against election year appointments in the past (let's face it politicians are all hypocrites; for it when it suits, against it when it suits). Obama does have a duty to nominate a justice if he wants to. And of course he wants to. Whomever he picks will be an absolute disaster for liberty and Constitutional protections against the whims of the government. You cannot stop him from doing it. But the Senate can stop any nomination he makes from ever being confirmed. And they should and will but for God's sweet sake shut the f--k about it. If you are going to torpedo the nomination DO IT. But for do it quietly. It can die in committee and never see a full vote. McConnell goes out there and makes a big f-----g deal about it and now it's a media firestorm. If he kept his idiot mouth shut the media would be distracted by the election and this could have been tied this thing up with minimal attention. He can prevent a recess appointment by just not going into recess. The SCOTUS already slapped Obama down once over that.

 

McConnell is like a poker player shouting out "I got a Flush" before the river card is played.

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

So, like, what if Obama nominates a conservative justice? It isnt exactly unprecedented. There also isnt a super long list of serious candidates, so yeah.

Now I know you're living in an alternate reality.

 

If they really don't have hearings, I know it's a little dubious constitutionally but nominations are held up all the time, there's a long precedent, but I really like the idea that for once the election will be a referendum on the balance of the court and it will be decided democratically.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this.

 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles

DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated.

BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization.

Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress

Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property.

Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing)

Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections

 

All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

 

 

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this.

 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles

DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated.

BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization.

Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress

Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property.

Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing)

Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections

 

All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now.

 

And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it).

 

 

Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this.

 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles

DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated.

BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization.

Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress

Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property.

Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing)

Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections

 

All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now.

 

And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it).

 

 

Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars?

 

First off, I'm not talking about Scalia, I'm talking about constructionists vs revisionists. Scalia wasn't even on the court for some of those. 2nd companies are made up of people. the are owned by people, managed by people and employ people. If a company lobbies the government or pays for advertising for pet causes it is no different than the when the ACLU does it. Either all of them can or none of them can. That is what FEC v. CU was all about.

 

The US Constitution says what it says. These are the rules by which our country operates. The whole idea here is this: The constitution remands to the democratic process everything it does not specifically prohibit from the democratic process. That is the beauty of it. Everything is up to the determination of the people except the few things that are specifically protected. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly redress of the government, arms, property, the self governance of the states, etc. are so important that they cannot subjected to the whims of the day. That is the essence of originalisim. The liberals would have you believe EVERYTHING is fodder for the democratic process and nothing is held so inviolate that it can't be taken away. Bear in mind, the democratic process is not talking about the people it's talking about the legislature.

 

And yes, the whole world could easily crumble if a liberal court awards the government more power. Take Kelo v. New London. the liberals decided it would be perfectly ok for the government to take your home away from you and sell it to a 3rd party if they 3rd party will pay them more in taxes than you are.

 

And finally that last line you wrote is both condescending and insulting.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this.

 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles

DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated.

BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization.

Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress

Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property.

Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing)

Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections

 

All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now.

 

And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it).

 

 

Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars?

 

 

I can't say about general leanings of judges in SC, but those court decision list above (except one about international treaties) seem to all favor liberalism (individual freedoms). Where conservatism is all about supporting traditional social institutions (of course liberalism and conservatism can drive towards same things when we speak about country that is founded on liberal ideologies). 

 

EDIT: Although Hobby Lobby decision is presented bit oddly as it seems to be more about certain companies right to have religious principalities than compelling individuals to break their religious principalities. Which I personally find odd decisions by supreme court as it says fictional entity in certain circumstances can have religious principalities that are more important can laws governing said fictional entities. But what do I know 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Elerond

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

It's pretty unfair to put someone through the entire nomination process when you have no intention to vote for him in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this.

 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles

DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated.

BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization.

Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress

Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property.

Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing)

Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections

 

All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now.

 

And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it).

 

 

Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars?

 

 

I can't say about general leanings of judges in SC, but those court decision list above (except one about international treaties) seem to all favor liberalism (individual freedoms). Where conservatism is all about supporting traditional social institutions (of course liberalism and conservatism can drive towards same things when we speak about country that is founded on liberal ideologies). 

 

Ironically it's the other way around. In the US the liberals favor the power of the state over the rights of the individual or the Federal Government over the state governments. We're doing it backwards for some reason.

[Hurlshort]

So what do you folks think of Srinivasan? He isnt exactly a liberal choice. He would seem to be the best of the moderate candidates available. I am not convinced Obama will throw out a liberal choice just to be rejected. It would seem to be a waste of time for him.

[Barothmuk]

Get rid of both the liberals and conservatives. Perfect compromise.

[Meshugger]

Tip from a guy on the internet: Don't focus so much on the conservative and liberal labels of any possible future justice. Rather, focus on character and traits.

 

Do you want that cool, dreamy young kid that just wants to get along and everyone to live in peace? or that grumpy, angry old guy who thinks that most of us are intellectual baffoons and wants most of it all, to just to be left alone. I would select the old guy since he would be less likely to support laws that punish you for not getting along enough with your peers, compared to the dreamy guy who would support such out of his good conscience.

[ShadySands]

1. Obama nominates Trump

2. ?

3. World peace

 

There's no requirements for SCOTUS, right?

[Barothmuk]

Tip from a guy on the internet: Don't focus so much on the conservative and liberal labels of any possible future justice. Rather, focus on character and traits.

Better to focus on actual their politics and past actions.

 

I think Obama's a charming guy but that's not a good reason to vote for him.

[Bartimaeus]

So what do you folks think of Srinivasan? He isnt exactly a liberal choice. He would seem to be the best of the moderate candidates available. I am not convinced Obama will throw out a liberal choice just to be rejected. It would seem to be a waste of time for him.

I'm kinda talking out of my butt here, but if I were Obama, I wouldn't bother going moderate (assuming Obama actually does ideally want a more liberal candidate). The GOP looks on the verge of self-destruction (e: in regards to the election), and I am honestly having trouble believing that they have even a moderate chance of winning the White House. Why negotiate when you don't really have to - when you know that the most likely occurrence is that Clinton will win, and the next most likely scenario is probably Sanders winning? Unless he doesn't want either of those to appoint anybody, in which case, O.K., sure. I would probably start off *extremely* liberal, and then work down to only moderately liberal, particularly if it looks like Democrats will win the White House as we get closer and closer to election day. I would personally prefer a moderate, myself, but...that just doesn't seem all that likely to me.

 

Again, talking completely out of my butt here - the race between Republicans and Democrats could actually be a lot closer than it seems to me, particularly given the weirdness of the current political landscape...but that's just me.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

So what do you folks think of Srinivasan? He isnt exactly a liberal choice. He would seem to be the best of the moderate candidates available. I am not convinced Obama will throw out a liberal choice just to be rejected. It would seem to be a waste of time for him.

This guy is a virtual unknown. I know Obama's legal team objected to him being nominated for the DC Circuit because most of his litigation has been in defense of corporate interests. But I think it's asinine to challenge a jurist on the work they did as a lawyer, or the clients they worked for. A lawyer does not always get to choose their clients and will not even always agree with arguments made on their behalf. He has some qualities that look pretty good. He filed a brief opposing government surveillance in US v. Jones and went after the State of Indiana over voter ID laws. So he's all over the map philosophically. It gives me pause when I hear his judicial bent favors Marshall or Brennan though. Since being seated on the DC Circuit he has not had the opportunity to make any decisions of earth shattering significance that would indicate his philosophy on applying the law. It would take a through vetting by the Senate to sniff that out.

 

In short he might be either a constructionist or a revisionist, or both depending on the situation. That is the reason Obama won't pick him. Obama is going to want another Kagan or Ginsburg. Someone who will rubber stamp anything the government wants to do. Maybe Srinivasan is that, maybe he's not. That's why it won't be him.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Great article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/antonin-scalia-champion-of-the-little-guy/article/2583404

[Leferd]

Bernie got game.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Xojil-P6o

 

Now if his platform also includes the explicit legalizing of online poker, he may have a vote.

[ShadySands]

Trump Surges To 2-1 Lead Among Republicans Nationwid; Clinton, Sanders Locked In A Tie Among Democrats

 

Also, The Death of the Republican Party

Edited February 17, 2016 by ShadySands

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

[Leferd]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/

 

Nate Silver mapping out the big board for the Democratic nomination.

[Meshugger]

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

 

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.[34][35]

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.[36] In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.[31] The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.[37]

 

On 8 September 2009, the District Court convicted Halla-aho of disturbing religious worship, and ordered him to pay a fine of 330 euros.[31] The charge of ethnic agitation was dismissed. In October 2010 the Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court's conviction.[38] Both the prosecutor and Halla-aho appealed the case to the Supreme Court.[39] The Supreme Court granted a leave to appeal in May 2011.[40] In a sentence given on the 8 of June 2012, the Supreme Court found Halla-aho guilty of both disturbing religious worship and of ethnic agitation and increased his fines accordingly to 400 euros.[31][41][42]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho

 

As for my opinion about it, my stance is clear:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

[Gromnir]

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

let's not go all argumentum ad absurdum, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

If you live in a country where expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid, ill informed, or downright mean spirited lands you in criminal trouble then it's already too late. You ARE in an Orwellian dystopia.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is.

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

 

If you live in a country where expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid, ill informed, or downright mean spirited lands you in criminal trouble then it's already too late. You ARE in an Orwellian dystopia.

 

 

 

 

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias?

 

let's not go all argumentum ad absurdum, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

lol

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will:

 

 

In December 2008, Halla-aho was put under investigation for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (under Finnish law referred to as "ethnic agitation") for remarks published on his blog.[34][35]

On 27 March 2009, the Helsinki District Court ordered Halla-aho to stand for trial on charges of ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion. The charges were raised on the basis of remarks related to the sentencing of Seppo Lehto on Halla-aho's blog in 2008. Here, he wrote that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile, making reference to Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, and that Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia.[36] In another text, he asked if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living on taxpayers' expense are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.[31] The text was originally intended as a response to a Finnish columnist of the newspaperKaleva, who had written that drinking excessively and killing when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns.[37]

 

 

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how?