2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Manach

Well, I remember reading another Justice appointment that was held up for political reasons by Senator Kennedy so as to block the candidate. I believe the term entered the lexicon: "Bork". Thus the Republicans might feel it is time to repay this, especially given the importance Justice Scalia had on conservative jurisprudence and it being the seat that gave a slight edge to more traditional interpretation of the law. Thus it was unsurprising, apart from the general celebration by some progressive elements, that the Democrats were immediately seeking a recess appointment.

20Cent

Afaik the new nominee hasn't even been named or decided yet republicans already talking about blocking whoever it is!

The Randy Riverbeast

20Cent wrote: »

Afaik the new nominee hasn't even been named or decided yet republicans already talking about blocking whoever it is!

Obama should nominate the most conservative judge possible and watch as the republicans have a chance of getting what they want, but they have to agree with Obama.

Or even better, introducing Justice Obama.

Manach

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Or even better, introducing Justice Obama.

Well, that was an idea mentioned by Clinton only a few weeks back and there is precedent for an ex-President to be nominated - AFAIR from reading A very short guide to US Supreme court.

InTheTrees

Manach wrote: »

Well, I remember reading another Justice appointment that was held up for political reasons by Senator Kennedy so as to block the candidate. I believe the term entered the lexicon: "Bork". Thus the Republicans might feel it is time to repay this,

Republicans really need to move on. The difficulty in getting Sonia Sotomayor nominated was supposedly in retaliation for the bork vote. Bork was a Reagan appointee and when he failed to get the seat, Reagans second choice another conservative, Justice Stevens got the position.

Manach

InTheTrees wrote: »

Republicans really need to move on. The difficulty in getting Sonia Sotomayor nominated was supposedly in retaliation for the bork vote. Bork was a Reagan appointee and when he failed to get the seat, Reagans second choice another conservative, Justice Stevens got the position.

Relying on something more substantive than wiki articles, it should be clear that the introduction of politicise purity tests that derailed Bork, an excellent writer BTW, was an opening of a pandora's box that would make the confirmation of Sotomayor a walk in the park given Scalia's position in the pantheon of legal decision makers.

Black Swan

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Perhaps but Senator Mark Sanford of SC last night was saying that while it should be for the next president to decide, it would be hard to keep a block going for a year.

Obama is the president of the US, and one of his responsibilities is to nominate to the US Senate replacement justices for the US Supreme Court. Obama is responsible to do this until late January 2017, and Republicans cannot make up the rules as they go along just because it does not serve their political agenda. Certainly, Republicans will try to block Obama's nominee, which should occur sometime in March 2016, but to say that Obama should not appoint a justice during his last year is utter partisan political-biased nonsense, lacking merit in law. If Obama is smart, he will nominate a justice that is highly and obviously qualified for the post, and when the Republicans stall the process for months and months, it will become obvious what they are doing, which may affect some of the independent voters going into November 2016 presidential elections.

MightyMandarin

It's a pity the GOP never had these problems when Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the SC by Reagan in his last year, which Mitch McConnell voted in favour of by the way. But no, it's definitely got nothing to do with being fearful of a shift in power in the SC...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kur4mA

lol, it would be genuinely hilarious... apart from Hilary being the POTUS which would be a shame.

Overheal

Oliver is back and tackling Voter ID:

SCDMV in one election year claimed 953 votes were fraudulent and filed by the deceased - SLED investigated and could only account for 5 votes which could have been potentially fraudulent. The total votes btw were over 1.3 million, nothing to swing an election. (see 7:30)

In one city in Wisconsin, the Voter ID office is only open on the 5th Wednesday of the month - which only happens 4 times this year - only 3 of which are before the election. (4:50)

But the most shocking case of real voter fraud? See 10:48 where Texas lawmakers are seen on camera voting for their absent colleagues - and where those in attendance compete for control of those absent votes. Some even carry "voting sticks" to reach their colleague's voting controls more efficiently.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, I had not heard this Permabear. What a craic if the GOP controlled Senate blocked Obama's nominee for months only to have their worst nightmare appointed to the US Supreme Court should Clinton be elected. Lots of ifs, but amusing just the same.

JPNelsforearm

"Voters must show some sign of ID at the polls"



Eh, how is that a problem, John Oliver is such a sanctimonious prig at the best of times, this is just moronic.

Manach

Well this does show the Lucuna in both parties. Each insisting of registration/id for legal rights (guns/votes) whilst decrying the other party for doing so.

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Voters must show some sign of ID at the polls"



Eh, how is that a problem, John Oliver is such a sanctimonious prig at the best of times, this is just moronic.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I get asked for ID when voting.... no wait, I do... Ireland.

JPNelsforearm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I get asked for ID when voting.... no wait, I do... Ireland.

Id wager its the same in practically every other first world country

AbusesToilets

The real issue with requiring IDs is the difficulty in proving them for people. Everything else is the two parties trying to game the system to their advantage.

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Voters must show some sign of ID at the polls"

Eh, how is that a problem, John Oliver is such a sanctimonious prig at the best of times, this is just moronic.

Thats oversimplifying the argument as he goes into the explanation of why that is a problem, when a significant portion of voters don't have those accepted forms of ID.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

Thats oversimplifying the argument as he goes into the explanation of why that is a problem, when a significant portion of voters don't have those accepted forms of ID.

Exactly. The problem with voter ID laws is not that you have to produce ID to vote but that getting the ID in the first place is made unnecessarily difficult.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

InTheTrees wrote: »

Exactly. The problem with voter ID laws is not that you have to produce ID to vote but that getting the ID in the first place is made unnecessarily difficult.

More broadly, the problem is that voter ID laws - while ostensibly being introduced to prevent fraud - are actually designed to disenfranchise groups that are more likely to vote Democrat. It's the same cynical, dishonest politics that yields ridiculous gerrymandering.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The real issue with requiring IDs is the difficulty in proving them for people.

You mean like a drivers license?

I've seen that first hand in Ireland & the USA.... it's much easier to get a drivers license in the US.
(or at least in Wisconsin, where I enjoyed the DMVs hospitality).

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You mean like a drivers license?

I've seen that first hand in Ireland & the USA.... it's much easier to get a drivers license in the US.
(or at least in Wisconsin, where I enjoyed the DMVs hospitality).

Not if (say) you've lost your licence because of a DUI conviction. Or, for that matter, if you're blind.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not if (say) you've lost your licence because of a DUI conviction. Or, for that matter, if you're blind.

get a passport

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/apply.html

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

get a passport

...at a cost of $125, and you need photo ID to get one:

Photo Identification
When you submit your application, you must present one of the following primary photo identification documents, and submit a photocopy of that document:

Valid Driver's License (plus a second ID if issued in a different state than where you apply)
Undamaged U.S. Passport (if issued less than 15 years ago)
Certificate of Naturalization
Valid government ID (city, state, or federal)
Valid Military ID

You also have to apply in person at an acceptance facility.

Which is my point. This is substantially more of a burden for some demographics than for others; and it's not a coincidence that those on whom the burden falls hardest tend not to vote for the parties who are tripping over themselves to make it more difficult for said demographics to vote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"This isn't a problem for me therefore it isn't a problem."

If you choose to believe that voter ID laws are being introduced to combat non-existent fraud, and not to disenfranchise specific groups of voters, there's probably nothing that can convince you otherwise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Hand on heart, Permabear: do you honestly believe that the motivation behind voter ID laws is to prevent fraud, despite there being pretty much no evidence of personation happening at all, never mind on a scale that warrants passing legislation to do something about it; and do you equally honestly believe that the - overwhelmingly GOP - legislatures who are introducing these laws are not at all motivated by a desire to disenfranchise the - overwhelmingly DNC - demographics who are most likely to be affected by them?

InTheTrees

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

get a passport

Most poor minority citizens in the US have barely left the state they live in let alone seen a "passport"!

I would say most havent even spoken to a foreigner either, let alone contemplated leaving the country to go on holiday!