PDA

View Full Version : S.C. Nominee? (Gayle, warning you as promised...)



sack316
04-12-2010, 04:29 AM
But I actually think Hillary would be a good choice for the admin to make (see, Gayle told ya I'd warn you before hand from now on when I say things like that /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ).

Seriously, though, she's one of their own... so would satisfy the base for obvious reasons.

She's been vetted, and gone through about all the negativity anyone can... and made it through unscathed and (by most accounts) is at the very least highly respected by even those on the opposite ideological side. So I don't think republicans could much afford to do much political posturing in her appointment process.

And most importantly, I honestly think she would do a good job. I believe she would put her duties ahead of any personal beliefs/agendas and do the job she is assigned to do, as described.

JMHO. Thoughts?

Sack

pooltchr
04-12-2010, 06:43 AM
He could do a lot worse than HC. I don't personally agree with her political idology, but she is intelligent, and couldn't be any more liberal than the one she would be replacing. And, as you said, she would virtually sail through the confirmation process.

Steve

LWW
04-12-2010, 07:22 AM
Obama will nominate a radical.

The republichickens will threaten to block it.

The moonbats in the media will cry (Insert ism here.)

The RINO's such as McCain will fold.

The left wing of the SCOTUS will have been reloaded for a generation.

The opportunity to bring true change to the SCOTUS will have been squandered.

The republichickens will continued to be accused of (Insert ism here.)

The RINO's will learn nothing.

LWW

Deeman3
04-12-2010, 07:46 AM
Sack,

I might agree she would be a good choice but she would never ass the ethics investigations. Also, the SC members are not in the limelight enough for her, I think.

Overall, she would be a good left-moderate selection in comparison with the ones I expect he will nominate.

Gayle in MD
04-12-2010, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I actually think Hillary would be a good choice for the admin to make (see, Gayle told ya I'd warn you before hand from now on when I say things like that /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ).

Seriously, though, she's one of their own... so would satisfy the base for obvious reasons.

She's been vetted, and gone through about all the negativity anyone can... and made it through unscathed and (by most accounts) is at the very least highly respected by even those on the opposite ideological side. So I don't think republicans could much afford to do much political posturing in her appointment process.

And most importantly, I honestly think she would do a good job. I believe she would put her duties ahead of any personal beliefs/agendas and do the job she is assigned to do, as described.

JMHO. Thoughts?

Sack </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

<span style="color: #000066">Thanks for the heads up, lol.

While I agree with your premise completely, I don't think that Hillary would be interested, for one thing, and for another, I think she is too valuable to the administration in her current position to be considered for any reassingnment.

It seems clear to me that Hillary and Gates have the utmost respect for one another, and work extremely well together. She's also highly respected by the Joint Chiefs, and many foreign leaders. I think her value as Secretary Of State is too great to lose.

As for the nominee, there is no question in my mind that just as the Republicans and their RW pundits declared immediately after the presidential election, that they wanted the president, (and included in that would be the country as well, given the state it was in at that time) to FAIL, they will proceed with their game plan for gaining what political advantages they "THINK" they can gain by being the sore loser, partisan obstructionists they have proven themselves to be throughout this critical time for our country.

I have no doubt, that the Republican obstructionists will filibuster, regardless of which person is chosen by the President, and the nominated individual will be slandered as par typical Republican slimey tactics....

Here is another opinion....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">April 11, 2010
GOP POINTS TO 'TINY' CHANCE OF FILIBUSTER.... Speculation about how the Senate may respond to a Supreme Court nominee that hasn't even been chosen yet is, by definition, premature. But Republicans nevertheless are weighing the larger context while crafting a strategy.

The NYT reports today that Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement "presents a test" for Republicans. On the one hand, they want to keep the right-wing base fully motivated. On the other, some Republican leaders "said they were reluctant to give Democrats further ammunition to portray them as knee-jerk obstructionists." And picking a fight over ideological/cultural issues shortly before the elections doesn't strike many GOP leaders as a wise approach.

So, what's the plan? At this point, apparently, it's to downplay the possibility of a filibuster. Here's ABC's Jake Tapper's report from today's edition of "This Week."

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl told me that his party will never take the filibuster option off the table when considering a Supreme Court nominee, but that it would only be used in "extraordinary circumstances". During my "This Week" interview with Senator Kyl and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both Judiciary Committee members indicated that a filibuster would be unlikely. Schumer added that every indication was that the President's choice would be in the mainstream, making the chance of a filibuster "tiny".


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>For Kyl, then, who said filibusters of judicial nominees were unconscionable and unconstitutional during the Bush/Cheney era, the tactic is on the table, but unlikely to be used.</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>How gracious of him. Given that he would probably need all 41 Republican senators to refuse to allow a floor vote in order for such a gambit to succeed, Kyl isn't really in a position to saber rattle effectively anyway.</span>
For what it's worth, Tapper also brought up the names of the four most talked about potential nominees -- Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano -- and sought Kyl's reaction. All four, the senator said, are "nominally qualified," adding, "It is unlikely that here will be a filibuster unless it's an extraordinary circumstance."

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink </div></div>


The problem with this is that Republicans continue to think that they are main stream, when actually, they are not mainstream at all in this current society. "Extraordinary circimstance" in Rebonics, means anything other than a radically religious, anti human rights, Rightwing activist judge.

Many of the so called, "Family values" issues which they pretend to be symbols of their party, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, anti-separation of church and state, anti-extra marital affairs, and their support of a rightwing activist Supreme Court, which represents a skewed view and assurance of uneven political power, in favor of corporate special interests, and against the interests of the average individual American worker in our country, Republican ideologies are really not mainstream at all, nor are their behavior patterns idicative of their supposed family values, many of them closeted gays themselves, many having been involved in extra curricular activities outside of their marriages, and even to the point of hiding the reality behind their so called "Church" on C.St., and refusing to reveal publically just whom it is behind the church facade, paying their rent.

To suggest that any ideological nominee will be filibustered, as they have promised, IMO is nothing but a demand that this liberal democratci president nominate a rightwing religious radical or else. This of course, is absurd, and smacks of nothing more than their continued refusal to accept the fact that they lost the election, and that they still refuse to accept the realities involved when a comfortable majority of American citizens have voted against Republican ideology, performance and policies, as happened in the last election.

Our more educated young people have long ago advanced beyond the Republican divisive ideologies which represent Republican policy. They accept a woman's right to choose, gay rights, the separation of church and state, for example, by wide margins.

I don't expect to see anything coming from Republicans other than their standard poor loser determination to continue to be part of the problem in Washington, rather than part of the solutions, regardless if the serious subject matter concerned is a step forward in much needed treaties of Nuclear Non Proliferation, or a liberal president, appointing a liberal judge to even out the uneven face of the current Supreme Court, which is totally and decisively off base in most of their recent 5 to 4 decisions.... ever since they appointed Bush in 2000, removing the standing constitutional decision of a State Supreme court in the process, something that was grossly activist, unprecedented, and unconstitutional, hence the ademdum in the form of a promise that the decision not be used in the future as precedent.

Just my 2 C.

G.</span>

pooltchr
04-12-2010, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think that Hillary would be interested, for one thing, and for another, I think she is too valuable to the administration in her current position to be considered for any reassingnment.

</div></div>

On the other hand, administrations come and go....SC justices are for life!

Steve