Ginsburg

[bcg_2006]

Well, maybe if Harry Reid didn't mention it as something they were going to do if they held the Senate it wouldn't have been done. One thing you have to know about McConnell, he isn't going to do something unless there is a precedent to do it. If Reid doesn't jump the shark and shuts his mouth it probably wouldn't happen. Now Schumer is talking about killing the filibuster. Why wait for the ones with the ideas to actually do it?

Republicans Are Thanking Harry Reid After Kennedy Retirement

"Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform"

time.com

Since you appealed to tradition earlier, even under Bork and Thomas the Senate engaged in advice and consent. Withholding that was unprecedented- at the time for a reason which was at least arguable and ultimately still within the rules.

 

[2th_doc]

Change the process all the time? What more have the Democrats done ...

go ask harry reidthomas
kavanaughalitobork.

 

[bcg_2006]

go ask harry reidthomas
kavanaughalitobork.

Reid never touched the Supreme Court process.

 

[cstanfld]

Arguing for or against it hinges on if you thought the amount of times Obama's appointees were filibustered was acceptable. 79 times cloture had to be invoked versus 68 times for all other presidents combined.

So minority rights only matter if not invoked too often? That doesn’t make sense. So I can say without hesitation you agree that IF the Democrats win the Senate the filibuster should go. But if they don’t I bet you’ll want it to stay.

 

[KSig44]

Since you appealed to tradition earlier, even under Bork and Thomas the Senate engaged in advice and consent. Withholding that was unprecedented- at the time for a reason which was at least arguable and ultimately still within the rules.

Point was the game playing. Bork was a excellent candidate, some say a greater legal mind than even Scalia. Games played cheated the country of that. And the attacks on Thomas were only initiated because they didn't want the Republican's placing a black man in the Marshall seat (hearing those same types of arguments now with Ginsburg and a conservative woman. no single judge OWNS a seat). Then those same games were played on Kavanaugh, never really caring what they did to his family during the process. So again, the point is play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If Dems would have stuck to tradition throughout then there would have been no precedent or viable argument that McConnell could have used with Garland. It should have just been the traditional process or look like a outright fool.

 

[KSig44]

Reid never touched the Supreme Court process.

No, just the federal courts which opened the door for the SC. McConnell at the time warned him of the Pandora's box he was opening. Don't be fooled, if Reid still had the Senate for a SC appointment he would have done it too.

 

[bcg_2006]

So minority rights only matter if not invoked too often? That doesn’t make sense. So I can say without hesitation you agree that IF the Democrats win the Senate the filibuster should go. But if they don’t I bet you’ll want it to stay.

I simply presented the basis for the argument for or against and the foundation upon which Reid acted.

 

[bcg_2006]

Point was the game playing. Bork was a excellent candidate, some say a greater legal mind than even Scalia. Games played cheated the country of that. And the attacks on Thomas were only initiated because they didn't want the Republican's placing a black man in the Marshall seat (hearing those same types of arguments now with Ginsburg and a conservative woman. no single judge OWNS a seat). Then those same games were played on Kavanaugh, never really caring what they did to his family during the process. So again, the point is play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If Dems would have stuck to tradition throughout then there would have been no precedent or viable argument that McConnell could have used with Garland. It should have just been the traditional process or look like a outright fool.

The Senate still provided advice and consent with Bork and Thomas even if they were heavily campaigned against.

 

[cstanfld]

I simply presented the basis for the argument for or against and the foundation upon which Reid acted.

Ok. The reality in my view is that Reid (and Schumer now trying to follow in his footsteps) did what was politically expedient. There was nothing of any principle behind it other than exercising political power. The same thing is motivating the desire to get rid of the filibuster, pack the Court and add new states with large Democrat voting bases. Frankly, if that happens I think there's a decent chance of an outright revolution, but maybe not.

 

[bcg_2006]

No, just the federal courts which opened the door for the SC. McConnell at the time warned him of the Pandora's box he was opening. Don't be fooled, if Reid still had the Senate for a SC appointment he would have done it too.

The "They are going to just do it anyway" argument doesn't hold water. If Reid employed that line of thinking, he would have expanded his scope going nuclear to the Supreme Court based on the obstruction seen with lower judicial appointments.

 

[cstanfld]

The "They are going to just do it anyway" argument doesn't hold water. If Reid employed that line of thinking, he would have expanded his scope going nuclear to the Supreme Court based on the obstruction seen with lower judicial appointments.

What Justice wasn't confirmed when Reid was in the Senate?

 

[bcg_2006]

What Justice wasn't confirmed when Reid was in the Senate?

I assume you mean SCJ's specifically- both Kagan and Sotomayor had made it through 3 years prior to the nuclear option in '13. To my point, there was no justification to expand the nuclear option to the Supreme Court because there were no reasonable actions to reference.

 

[cstanfld]

I assume you mean SCJ's specifically- both Kagan and Sotomayor had made it through 3 years prior to the nuclear option in '13. To my point, there was no justification to expand the nuclear option to the Supreme Court because there were no reasonable actions to reference.

That’s my point. Reid had no need for it so didn’t do it.

 

[bcg_2006]

So minority rights only matter if not invoked too often? That doesn’t make sense. So I can say without hesitation you agree that IF the Democrats win the Senate the filibuster should go. But if they don’t I bet you’ll want it to stay.

Not that they don't matter, but the question that was forced was how many times can a filibuster come forth before it's regarded as excessive obstruction and begs for a modification of the rules. Obama receiving almost half of all recorded motions of cloture was a strong presentation.

 

[bcg_2006]

That’s my point. Reid had no need for it so didn’t do it.

Right, he had a principle and acted within a scope.

Mcconnell also had a principle and scope in '16 until it just evaporated a few days ago.

 

[cstanfld]

Not that they don't matter, but the question that was forced was how many times can a filibuster come forth before it's regarded as excessive obstruction and begs for a modification of the rules. Obama receiving almost half of all recorded motions of cloture was a strong presentation.

I don’t get your distinction frankly. It’s either do what the majority wants or we will take away what little power to influence that you had.

 

[cstanfld]

Right, he had a principle and acted within a scope.

Mcconnell also had a principle and scope in '16 until it just evaporated a few days ago.

Wrong. That’s revisionist history on Reid.

 

[bcg_2006]

I don’t get your distinction frankly. It’s either do what the majority wants or we will take away what little power to influence that you had.

Read it again then.

 

[dad_in_tx]

Don't attack Bork and Thomas and maybe you get Garland because then it's tradition as long as there are no drastic red flags (I don't think Garland had any) and then you wouldn't have Kavanaugh. What history could have been if the system wasn't constantly trying to be altered in the name of power grabs.

Add to that Harry Reid’s dropping the filibuster rule just so he could stack the DC Court of Appeals. Oh! Don forget they were stacking that court with 2 additional justices too.

i have so little sympathy for these yahoos! They’d be scheduling the confirmation as part of the funeral service if the shoe were on the other foot. Oh yeah! That’s right they were doing exactly that when Scalia ‘died’ suddenly..

 

[cstanfld]

Read it again then.

I know how to read. It’s your logic I don’t follow. But maybe you can explain it differently. How much can the minority exercise their rights before its ok to nullify them.

 

[dad_in_tx]

Arguing for or against it hinges on if you thought the amount of times Obama's appointees were filibustered was acceptable. 79 times cloture had to be invoked versus 68 times for all other presidents combined.

Well, maybe if he’d have nominated more moderate judges .... oh yeah right. No.

 

[bcg_2006]

I know how to read. It’s your logic I don’t follow. But maybe you can explain it differently. How much can the minority exercise their rights before its ok to nullify them.

Well the point of the filibuster was to debate, not obstruct.

 

[bcg_2006]

Well, maybe if he’d have nominated more moderate judges .... oh yeah right. No.

Would you prefer moderate judges?

 

[cstanfld]

Well the point of the filibuster was to debate, not obstruct.

I don’t think that’s right. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

 

[wick]

Well the point of the filibuster was to debate, not obstruct.

Point of a filibuster is to waste time and hold up voting

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

Well, maybe if he’d have nominated more moderate judges .... oh yeah right. No.

Any idea how many judges Trump has nominated that are deemed “unqualified” by the ABA (American Bar Association), a non partisan mostly conservative organization?

Obama nominated zero.

Do you think judges should be qualified for lifetime appointments?

 

[dad_in_tx]

Would you prefer moderate judges?

Me personally? No, but the hypothetical was based on what if the Dems had followed the rules starting with Bork.

 

[dad_in_tx]

Any idea how many judges Trump has nominated that are deemed “unqualified” by the ABA (American Bar Association), a non partisan mostly conservative organization?

Obama nominated zero.

Do you think judges should be qualified for lifetime appointments?

No rule in Constitution about ABA qualification, ABA, MOSTLY conservative ... right!

 

[bcg_2006]

I don’t think that’s right. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

It's a de facto obstruction of a vote through debate, assuming that debate is done in good faith. If the latter is not put forth, it's a hard task to put forth logic to keep it.

 

[cstanfld]

It's a de facto obstruction of a vote through debate, assuming that debate is done in good faith. If the latter is not put forth, it's a hard task to put forth logic to keep it.

There’s no good faith requirement.

 

[cstanfld]

Any idea how many judges Trump has nominated that are deemed “unqualified” by the ABA (American Bar Association), a non partisan mostly conservative organization?

Obama nominated zero.

Do you think judges should be qualified for lifetime appointments?

I put zero stock in the ABA. Highly partisan and political organization.

 

[bcg_2006]

There’s no good faith requirement.

Then it's simple obstruction and there is no point of efficacy outside of blockage.

 

[cstanfld]

Then it's simple obstruction and there is no point of efficacy outside of blockage.

Right. That was the point of it. That’s what the history says. I’m glad we can agree. It wasn’t for debate but to block.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

I put zero stock in the ABA. Highly partisan and political organization.

Do you think we should be appointing Federal district court judges who have never tried a case?

 

[cstanfld]

Do you think we should be appointing Federal district court judges who have never tried a case?

No but it doesn’t really matter. We have a slew of state judges in Texas who weren’t exactly at risk of joining the American College of Trial Lawyers. Frankly they figure it out after going to judge school and serving on the bench. Some get better and some don’t. And the majority of the job isnt presiding over trials.

 

[cstanfld]

No but it doesn’t really matter. We have a slew of state judges in Texas who weren’t exactly at risk of joining the American College of Trial Lawyers. Frankly they figure it out after going to judge school and serving on the bench. Some get better and some don’t. And the majority of the job isnt presiding over trials.

Just to put a point on this. Something like 2-3% of cases get tried.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

No but it doesn’t really matter. We have a slew of state judges in Texas who weren’t exactly at risk of joining the American College of Trial Lawyers. Frankly they figure it out after going to judge school and serving on the bench. Some get better and some don’t. And the majority of the job isnt presiding over trials.

I agree with that.

Hard thing is good lawyers don’t want to be judges. That’s not really going to change.

 

[Aggie98nHouston]

Just to put a point on this. Something like 2-3% of cases get tried.

Yeah, but a good judge who knows how to try a case helps get cases resolved too.

 

[cstanfld]

I agree with that.

Hard thing is good lawyers don’t want to be judges. That’s not really going to change.

Pretty true. I know a few who just always wanted to be judges. I never have and several great lawyers I know have zero desire.

 

[cstanfld]

Yeah, but a good judge who knows how to try a case helps get cases resolved too.

That’s true. I personally prefer a judge like Hittner who doesn’t care if you settle. You want a trial, you get a trial.