The Democrat Thread

[Cknolls]

You guys really are obsessed with them aren't you?

 

 

Sorry. Should not have posted here. My bad.

[Balta1701]

Sorry. Should not have posted here. My bad.

No worries, I found it provided much insight in to your way of thinking.

[lostfan]

Whenever people bring up demographics and the SCOTUS (i.e., Sotomayor is Hispanic), and they say things like "the most qualified person needs to be selected, not someone based on their gender/ethnicity" why is it assumed there is only one? There's dozens of possibilities in reality, and if the president wants to, say, choose a woman, he's not at all excluding potentially "better qualified" candidates. The whole thing is subjective anyway. I just find that annoying. It makes it sound that choosing a justice who is a minority or a woman automatically means that's why they were chosen, before looking at their qualifications.

[kapkomet]

Whenever people bring up demographics and the SCOTUS (i.e., Sotomayor is Hispanic), and they say things like "the most qualified person needs to be selected, not someone based on their gender/ethnicity" why is it assumed there is only one? There's dozens of possibilities in reality, and if the president wants to, say, choose a woman, he's not at all excluding potentially "better qualified" candidates. The whole thing is subjective anyway. I just find that annoying. It makes it sound that choosing a justice who is a minority or a woman automatically means that's why they were chosen, before looking at their qualifications.

Candidly, I have a hard time with your comment, because you know damn well this pick was for exactly the reasons you're questioning. This was a wedge pick by Obama, he knows it, the GOP knows it, and she'll get through it without much of a fight - and it has VERY LITTLE to do with "qualifications".

 

[BigSqwert]

...and it has VERY LITTLE to do with "qualifications".

Yeah. I can't believe he's nominating someone who works cashier at TJ Maxx.

[lostfan]

Candidly, I have a hard time with your comment, because you know damn well this pick was for exactly the reasons you're questioning. This was a wedge pick by Obama, he knows it, the GOP knows it, and she'll get through it without much of a fight - and it has VERY LITTLE to do with "qualifications".

That's all true to an extent but you completely missed my point, I wasn't even attempting to go there.

[Chet Lemon]

Whenever people bring up demographics and the SCOTUS (i.e., Sotomayor is Hispanic), and they say things like "the most qualified person needs to be selected, not someone based on their gender/ethnicity" why is it assumed there is only one? There's dozens of possibilities in reality, and if the president wants to, say, choose a woman, he's not at all excluding potentially "better qualified" candidates. The whole thing is subjective anyway. I just find that annoying. It makes it sound that choosing a justice who is a minority or a woman automatically means that's why they were chosen, before looking at their qualifications.

 

Candidly, I have a hard time with your comment, because you know damn well this pick was for exactly the reasons you're questioning. This was a wedge pick by Obama, he knows it, the GOP knows it, and she'll get through it without much of a fight - and it has VERY LITTLE to do with "qualifications".

 

Sotomayor is as qualified as any other serious candidate for the court. She has had more judicial experience than Alito, Roberts, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, White, and Stevens--all current or former Supreme Court Justices--had when they were nominated. She was nominated to be a federal judge by Bush, and then unanimously confirmed for that position. Then was promoted to the appeals court by Clinton, and confirmed for a second time.

[Balta1701]

Whenever people bring up demographics and the SCOTUS (i.e., Sotomayor is Hispanic), and they say things like "the most qualified person needs to be selected, not someone based on their gender/ethnicity" why is it assumed there is only one? There's dozens of possibilities in reality, and if the president wants to, say, choose a woman, he's not at all excluding potentially "better qualified" candidates. The whole thing is subjective anyway. I just find that annoying. It makes it sound that choosing a justice who is a minority or a woman automatically means that's why they were chosen, before looking at their qualifications.

The thing you're missing is that the "one best qualified candidate" logic allows you to justify having a group made up of 8-9 white males deciding cases involving rights for minorities and women and you don't have to feel guilty about it.

[lostfan]

The thing you're missing is that the "one best qualified candidate" logic allows you to justify having a group made up of 8-9 white males deciding cases involving rights for minorities and women and you don't have to feel guilty about it.

The "best qualfied" by default is always a white male. Always. It's just funny this argument never comes up when a white male is nominated for anything. Nobody questions (directly or indirectly) that a white male is unqualified based on the fact that he's a white male. When it's a woman or minority you have to practically beg people to look at their qualifications.

Edited May 27, 2009 by lostfan

[Cknolls]

Sotomayor is as qualified as any other serious candidate for the court. She has had more judicial experience than Alito, Roberts, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, White, and Stevens--all current or former Supreme Court Justices--had when they were nominated. She was nominated to be a federal judge by Bush, and then unanimously confirmed for that position. Then was promoted to the appeals court by Clinton, and confirmed for a second time.

 

 

She was nominated by Bush I per the recommendation of Moynihan, who along with D'Amato split seven nominations.

 

As for her jurisprudence: 5 of 7 cases she ruled that reached the U.S. Supreme Court were overturned: 2 by 5-4 majority....1 by a 6-3 majority....1 by a 7-2 majority....and 1 by an 8-0 majority...1 case is pending..Ricci......1 case was upheld but the Court rejected her reasoning.

 

 

Link: http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2...by-supreme.html. Yes it is a conservative link.

[Chet Lemon]

She was nominated by Bush I per the recommendation of Moynihan, who along with D'Amato split seven nominations.

 

As for her jurisprudence: 5 of 7 cases she ruled that reached the U.S. Supreme Court were overturned: 2 by 5-4 majority....1 by a 6-3 majority....1 by a 7-2 majority....and 1 by an 8-0 majority...1 case is pending..Ricci......1 case was upheld but the Court rejected her reasoning.

 

 

Link: http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2...by-supreme.html. Yes it is a conservative link.

 

Does that mean you think she is not qualified?

[Balta1701]

As for her jurisprudence: 5 of 7 cases she ruled that reached the U.S. Supreme Court were overturned: 2 by 5-4 majority....1 by a 6-3 majority....1 by a 7-2 majority....and 1 by an 8-0 majority...1 case is pending..Ricci......1 case was upheld but the Court rejected her reasoning.

It's worth noting here that when the Supreme Court takes a case...they do so with the idea that they're going to be reevaluating the current law. Currently, the Supreme Court overturns something like 75% or more of the cases it actually takes up. 2 out of 7 standing is actually a better %age than the average decision in cases taken up by the high court. 2 out of 8 standing up would be average.

[Soxbadger]

The better question is:

 

How many of her rulings were appealed to the Supreme Court and were never heard?

 

Supreme Court only hears the cases that it wants to hear, and usually that means it is going to change something.

 

Very rarely (if ever) does the supreme court take an appeal and just say "Oh the appellate judge was right, we just wanted to reinforce it."

 

 

[lostfan]

The better question is:

 

How many of her rulings were appealed to the Supreme Court and were never heard?

 

Supreme Court only hears the cases that it wants to hear, and usually that means it is going to change something.

 

Very rarely (if ever) does the supreme court take an appeal and just say "Oh the appellate judge was right, we just wanted to reinforce it."

300 and something. There were, what, 6 of her cases that went before the Supreme Court?

[clyons]

300 and something. There were, what, 6 of her cases that went before the Supreme Court?

 

To say that any appellate court case is one particular judge's is a bit of a misnomer. Appellate court judges hear and decide cases in panels, so even if one judge writes the opinion, at least one other judge has to endorse it for it to comprise the opinion of the court. Technically, its "their" case; not "his" or "hers."

[lostfan]

To say that any appellate court case is one particular judge's is a bit of a misnomer. Appellate court judges hear and decide cases in panels, so even if one judge writes the opinion, at least one other judge has to endorse it for it to comprise the opinion of the court. Technically, its "their" case; not "his" or "hers."

Point taken, but I have to speak in the language "they" are using.

[Cknolls]

Does that mean you think she is not qualified?

 

 

I personally believe a President should have all of his choices up for a vote in front of the full Senate. I do not agree with her thinking, but neither her, nor Stevens' nor Ginsburg's replacement will change anything. Vote her in and get on with business.

[lostfan]

I personally believe a President should have all of his choices up for a vote in front of the full Senate. I do not agree with her thinking, but neither her, nor Stevens' nor Ginsburg's replacement will change anything. Vote her in and get on with business.

That's pretty much all anyone should ask. A conservative won't like a liberal nominee and vice versa, unless the person is just absurdly unqualified, then the Senate should just vote yes or no and let that be that. All the rest is for show though.

[kapkomet]

That's pretty much all anyone should ask. A conservative won't like a liberal nominee and vice versa, unless the person is just absurdly unqualified, then the Senate should just vote yes or no and let that be that. All the rest is for show though.

Everyone knows she is getting in. But the opportunity here is to educate about the policies of this president - people need to understand that he believes in "policy from the courts". Of course, libs think he's messianic wonderful, so to libs, nothing to see, move along.

[Balta1701]

That's pretty much all anyone should ask. A conservative won't like a liberal nominee and vice versa, unless the person is just absurdly unqualified, then the Senate should just vote yes or no and let that be that. All the rest is for show though.

Here's the question though. Do you believe the Senate should require a majority vote or a 60% supermajority for all votes?

[lostfan]

Here's the question though. Do you believe the Senate should require a majority vote or a 60% supermajority for all votes?

Whatever the Constitution says. Isn't that a majority vote?

[kapkomet]

Here's the question though. Do you believe the Senate should require a majority vote or a 60% supermajority for all votes?

This to me, is like the independent counsel law. It was GREAT! for Iran-Contra when they were trying to get Reagan (when the law was written). Not so great when the tables were turned and it was used to impeach Clinton. It was then allowed to die, thankfully.

 

A 60 vote (cloture vote) for judicial nominees is pretty black and white unconstitutional but the only way it goes away is to have it used against them. The THREAT of it shot down one latino supreme court nominee...

[Balta1701]

Whatever the Constitution says. Isn't that a majority vote?

Yes, there is nothing about the Filibuster in the constitution. No one will possibly question whether or not she would win a majority vote. Not with a 59-40 Senate. The question is the cloture vote...the vote to end the filibuster. That requires 60 votes, and current standard practice now basically has gone to requiring a 60 vote majority to pass anything. That's why the Dems needed 2 Republicans to join with them to pass the Stimulus package; it was up against a cloture vote that required 60 votes.

[lostfan]

Everyone knows she is getting in. But the opportunity here is to educate about the policies of this president - people need to understand that he believes in "policy from the courts". Of course, libs think he's messianic wonderful, so to libs, nothing to see, move along.

And if a conservative was appointed, there would be conservative "policy from the courts." The only difference is that somebody actually said it out loud. It's pretty mind-numbing that conservatives manage to get away with pretending they don't do the exact same thing liberals do. If it wasn't intended to be that way the president wouldn't get to appoint judges/justices.

[Balta1701]

This to me, is like the independent counsel law. It was GREAT! for Iran-Contra when they were trying to get Reagan (when the law was written). Not so great when the tables were turned and it was used to impeach Clinton. It was then allowed to die, thankfully.

 

A 60 vote (cloture vote) for judicial nominees is pretty black and white unconstitutional but the only way it goes away is to have it used against them. The THREAT of it shot down one latino supreme court nominee...

Your legendary saying is "It's always different". My response in this case is that it is different, and I can demonstrate why with this graph.

 

 

The reality is...the Filibuster was once a rarely used tool that required the person filibustering to actually stay on the floor of the Senate. Gradually over the years, the rules have changed, and now it is the group that wants to stop the filibuster that actually needs to keep its people on the floor of the Senate; in other words, you can filibuster a bill without filibustering it. This has basically changed the requirement for getting a bill out of the Senate from 50 votes to 60 votes...and in the last Congress, starting in 2007, it was essentially applied to everything that didn't involve naming a post office. It's actually different; the use of it has changed.