Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Fartsniffage]

Actually, no. No one gave McCain the same shit and he was actually born outside the United States.

Do you know where McCain was born? Do you know who his father is? There is no comparison.

Was he born in one of the 50 US states? No? Then his claim to citizenship is already a hell of a lot weaker than a man who was, regardless of who the father is. Yet the Republicans didn't seem to go after him. Why is that?

If Obama were just a white boy, the Republicans wouldn't be doing it. Because as we know republicans are just racist. So yes my answer is .. i am a repunlicsn, i think obama is a disaster, i am mot a racist, and a general. Fuck off for calling me one, and ascribing racism as my sole motivation

Please note: the fuck off is not directed at a particular poster, but at the attitude that opposing Obama is racism.

I didn't see this bit. Going to reply to it now.

Well that all well and good but what does it have to do with Senate Republicans deciding that Obama doesn't get to be President any more? Can you point me towards that part of the constitution that says if Republicans think a president hasn't been very good then they get to take away his powers during his final year? The bit that says the public vote no longer applies but your opinion of the man does Ethel?

Because if you can't then you should get down from your high-horse and admit it's simple partisanship.

[Ethel mermania]

Do you know where McCain was born?

Panama.

Do you know who his father is?

Also John McCain. Whose own father was also John McCain.

Very good, if we go one step farther to help educate ... FS, The Panama canal zone in a US Military hospital, where his father. Admiral John McCain was stationed.

Which is why McCain and obama's birth are not comparative in the conversation.



Anyway. This is a thread jack, and it's starting to be an issue that is really bothering me. And surprisingly NationStates is not the primary source of the Republican = racist conversation in my life.

So I am going drop out of this conversation for a bit.

[AiliailiA]

Hillary shouldn't have answered that question. One of her rare public speaking slipups imo.

It's too early to predict the balance of the next Senate, but it will probably be close to 50-50 and certainly won't be 60 Republicans. Scalia's seat won't be filled by a radical of either persuasion.

If the President is a Democrat, it doesn't matter how many Republican Senators there are - only the President can name someone to the SCOTUS, and only the Senate can say "Yes" or "No".

Honestly, the Republicans are just nuts enough now that they might filibuster a replacement all the way through the next Presidency if they don't win, unless the Democrats somehow manage a filibuster-proof majority.

That, sadly, is no surprise.

I'm aware of the process. Perhaps you're not? A filibuster-proof majority is 60 ...

[AiliailiA]

At most a "short list" mention (or leak, since the White House hasn't confirmed even considering Sandoval).

Sandoval has three more years to be Governor, and he declined to run for the Senate seat vacated by Harry Reid for this year's election, citing work still to be done as Governor. He stands to gain nothing and stands to lose if he is publicly shortlisted by Obama but then isn't Obama's nominee. And whatever ambitions he may have beyond the Governorship would be scuttled by being the actual nominee, then being rejected by the Republican Senate. To Republicans, he'd be that guy who compromised with Obama.

So the White House isn't publicly announcing that Sandoval is being considered, because Sandoval would publicly decline. He'd only accept if there was a better than 50/50 chance of actually being appointed this year, which there's not.

Part of why he turned it down. Also putting him on the court would remove a GOP Governor from an otherwise blue state.

It's easy to be wise in retrospect. I'd like to point out that my post saying Sandoval WOULD decline was made many hours before Sandoval DID decline.

You're wrong anyway. Removing Sandoval to the SC would promote the lieutenant governor Mark Hutchison (also a Republican) through 2018, when Sandoval would have ended his second term and be ineligible to stand again anyway.

[Geilinor]

Sandoval is the most popular Republican in Nevada, it would still hurt the party if he left.

[AiliailiA]

Sandoval is the most popular Republican in Nevada, it would still hurt the party if he left.

That's true. Republicans won the state Assembly and Senate in 2014 (with Sandoval's re-election) and this year is the midterm election of his second term.

Next year the SC would be a more attractive offer to Sandoval I think. But it probably won't be on the table.

[Tahar Joblis]

You think if his dad was a white kenyan muslim, he would not have received the same shit?

Actually, no. No one gave McCain the same shit and he was actually born outside the United States.

I remember it coming up. That's why so many of us know already that McCain was born in Panama (and that George Romney was born in Mexico.) If my memory isn't fooling me, I think it even came up during primary seasons on the campaign trail. It's certainly been in the news often enough re: McCain's presidential ambitions.

It stopped being relevant as soon as he lost.

Racism does fuel some criticism of Barack Obama, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near a sole cause. Pretty much every president has gotten a lot of flak from the political opposition.

[Tmutarakhan]

Irrelevant to the fact the the senate Republicans seem to think that he doesn't get to be president during his last year in office.

Or do you not get that is what is being mocked with all these 3/5 comments?

The race card is being played. I get it very well.

If Obama were just a white boy, the Republicans wouldn't be doing it. Because as we know republicans are just racist. So yes my answer is .. i am a repunlicsn, i think obama is a disaster, i am mot a racist, and a general. Fuck off for calling me one, and ascribing racism as my sole motivation

Please note: the fuck off is not directed at a particular poster, but at the attitude that opposing Obama is racism.

You would be more convincing if you actually *gave* any other reason.

[Gauthier]

Actually, no. No one gave McCain the same shit and he was actually born outside the United States.

I remember it coming up. That's why so many of us know already that McCain was born in Panama (and that George Romney was born in Mexico.) If my memory isn't fooling me, I think it even came up during primary seasons on the campaign trail. It's certainly been in the news often enough re: McCain's presidential ambitions.

It stopped being relevant as soon as he lost.

Racism does fuel some criticism of Barack Obama, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near a sole cause. Pretty much every president has gotten a lot of flak from the political opposition.

Name a President within the last 2 centuries who was outright denied confirmation hearings for their prospective nominees. Also, conspiracy theories that Obama was really an illegitimate foreigner continued to be floated even after he was twice elected, unlike other Presidents.

[Tahar Joblis]

I remember it coming up. That's why so many of us know already that McCain was born in Panama (and that George Romney was born in Mexico.) If my memory isn't fooling me, I think it even came up during primary seasons on the campaign trail. It's certainly been in the news often enough re: McCain's presidential ambitions.

It stopped being relevant as soon as he lost.

Racism does fuel some criticism of Barack Obama, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near a sole cause. Pretty much every president has gotten a lot of flak from the political opposition.

Name a President within the last 2 centuries who was outright denied confirmation hearings for their prospective nominees. Also, conspiracy theories that Obama was really an illegitimate foreigner continued to be floated even after he was twice elected, unlike other Presidents.

Name a President within the last 2 centuries who was impeached as a consequence of a very vigorous and blatantly politically motivated investigation into an extramarital affair.

The Republican decision to very overtly block the nomination process is unprecedented. Is it because Obama is black? That's a very bold claim to make. I think it actually would be something that the Republicans did if they were in the final year of a Hillary Clinton presidency with Scalia kicking the bucket, with Clinton having appointed Kagan and Sotomayor.

They really want to reverse a number of key decisions.

The government shutdown in Bill Clinton's first term was unprecedented. It wasn't because Bill Clinton was an exceptionally liberal president whose policies were radical; it was because congressional Republicans were radicals willing to cause great damage in order to advance their ideological agenda.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Republicans in Congress would have obstructed any Democratic president. And that has been getting worse over time as politics become more polarized.

(To be as fair as possible to your hypothesis, a lot of people actually referred to Bill Clinton as the first black president, but that's a stretch.)

[Neutraligon]

Name a President within the last 2 centuries who was outright denied confirmation hearings for their prospective nominees. Also, conspiracy theories that Obama was really an illegitimate foreigner continued to be floated even after he was twice elected, unlike other Presidents.

Name a President within the last 2 centuries who was impeached as a consequence of a very vigorous and blatantly politically motivated investigation into an extramarital affair.

The Republican decision to very overtly block the nomination process is unprecedented. Is it because Obama is black? That's a very bold claim to make. I think it actually would be something that the Republicans did if they were in the final year of a Hillary Clinton presidency with Scalia kicking the bucket, with Clinton having appointed Kagan and Sotomayor.

They really want to reverse a number of key decisions.

The government shutdown in Bill Clinton's first term was unprecedented. It wasn't because Bill Clinton was an exceptionally liberal president whose policies were radical; it was because congressional Republicans were radicals willing to cause great damage in order to advance their ideological agenda.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Republicans in Congress would have obstructed any Democratic president. And that has been getting worse over time as politics become more polarized.

(To be as fair as possible to your hypothesis, a lot of people actually referred to Bill Clinton as the first black president, but that's a stretch.)

I think it is mostly that they think that Democrats should never be president, but for some there (though not all) might be an aspect of racism there.

[The Archregimancy]

Reviving the thread intentionally since most relevant debate is already here.

We appear to have a nominee.

Merrick Garland.


Edit:

Also now confirmed by the BBC

And the Washington Post

[Alvecia]

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

[Ifreann]

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

A tourist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Reviving the thread intentionally since most relevant debate is already here.

We appear to have a nominee.

Merrick Garland.

He'll get blocked by the Senate for having a dubious 2A record. Hell, they'd probably block him no matter what.

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

Center-right probably.

[Alvecia]

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

A tourist.

Walked straight into that one.

[Ashmoria]

so this guy seems like a solid choice.

im wondering if the president has nominated him because he is his top choice, because he is the top choice who the president thinks can get through the senate, or the top choice for someone who wont be terribly inconvenienced by never getting onto the court because of obstructionism and the president doesn't want to "waste" his top choice on a doomed nomination.

[Ifreann]

A tourist.

Walked straight into that one.

*golf swing*

[Arumdaum]

I feel bad saying this, but he's already so old...

Also, too conservative for me, haha.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

It depends on the centrist. But he's certainly not a centrist in European standards. It ranges somewhere from centre-right to right-wing. I've heard him being called a 'moderate', which in the US usually means he's more right than centre-right in European terms.

so this guy seems like a solid choice.

im wondering if the president has nominated him because he is his top choice, because he is the top choice who the president thinks can get through the senate, or the top choice for someone who wont be terribly inconvenienced by never getting onto the court because of obstructionism and the president doesn't want to "waste" his top choice on a doomed nomination.

I think it's the top choice he can get through the senate. This man has already been appointed as DC judge with Republican support, perhaps the same can be achieved here.

[Ashmoria]

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

It depends on the centrist. But he's certainly not a centrist in European standards. It ranges somewhere from centre-right to right-wing. I've heard him being called a 'moderate', which in the US usually means he's more right than centre-right in European terms.

so this guy seems like a solid choice.

im wondering if the president has nominated him because he is his top choice, because he is the top choice who the president thinks can get through the senate, or the top choice for someone who wont be terribly inconvenienced by never getting onto the court because of obstructionism and the president doesn't want to "waste" his top choice on a doomed nomination.

I think it's the top choice he can get through the senate. This man has already been appointed as DC judge with Republican support, perhaps the same can be achieved here.

mitch McConnell just said hes not going to hold hearings. what an asshole.

[Thermodolia]

It depends on the centrist. But he's certainly not a centrist in European standards. It ranges somewhere from centre-right to right-wing. I've heard him being called a 'moderate', which in the US usually means he's more right than centre-right in European terms.


I think it's the top choice he can get through the senate. This man has already been appointed as DC judge with Republican support, perhaps the same can be achieved here.

mitch McConnell just said hes not going to hold hearings. what an asshole.

Say goodbye to the senate, republicans!

[Diopolis]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

[Thermodolia]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

It's going to cost them the senate

[Lychgate]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

It's going to cost them the senate

They've done plenty of things that would cost them the Senate. This may or may not be the breaking point.