Posted on Feb 17, 2016
Democrats.senate.gov - Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
2.73K
5
8
2
2
0
http://web.archive.org/web/ [login to see] 0148/http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=332924
I thought I would post the whole article so you can see what they all said about the democratic filibuster of their nominee. Seems like Deja-vu all over again. Damn politicians!!!
I thought I would post the whole article so you can see what they all said about the democratic filibuster of their nominee. Seems like Deja-vu all over again. Damn politicians!!!
Democrats.senate.gov - Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Posted from web.archive.orgPosted in these groups: 
Air Force
Military Industry
Fighter Aircraft Maintenance Technical TrainingMSgt
Air Force Military Industry Fighter Aircraft Maintenance Technical TrainingMSgt
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
I would agree that any effort to prevent the Up/Down vote on the Senate floor would be wrong. I have always been torqued off by the supermajority votes that have become mandatory for almost anything in the Senate. This is another version of that.
Let Obama pick a nominee, and let the Senate vote - simple majority - on that nominee.
HOWEVER...
If this president thinks that replacing the most conservative Justice on the court (a strict Constructionist) with a "moderate" or a "liberal" justice is a good idea, then the Senate had damned well better reject that nominee. There is a lot to be said about maintaining the status quo for the "book ends" of the SCOTUS.
You wanna fight over the court's makeup? Do it in the middle with people like Kennedy and (unfortunately) Roberts. Any president should replace a justice with a like-minded justice. There's too much at stake for the SCOTUS to be flopping back and forth a landed walleye.
And YES, I would say this if Ginsberg or Kagan or Sotomayor had to be replaced...
Let Obama pick a nominee, and let the Senate vote - simple majority - on that nominee.
HOWEVER...
If this president thinks that replacing the most conservative Justice on the court (a strict Constructionist) with a "moderate" or a "liberal" justice is a good idea, then the Senate had damned well better reject that nominee. There is a lot to be said about maintaining the status quo for the "book ends" of the SCOTUS.
You wanna fight over the court's makeup? Do it in the middle with people like Kennedy and (unfortunately) Roberts. Any president should replace a justice with a like-minded justice. There's too much at stake for the SCOTUS to be flopping back and forth a landed walleye.
And YES, I would say this if Ginsberg or Kagan or Sotomayor had to be replaced...
(1)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
MSgt Michael Bischoff: I agree that there are no "Scalia Clones" out there, but there are qualified jurists who believe as he did. And Roberts has moved to the center compared to his rulings before becoming CJ of SCOTUS. Some may not like it (including me), but it is what it is.
Scalia, in my opinion, followed his oft-stated version of "Constructionalism" in that the words of the Constitution should be the only standard when evaluating contested law - regardless of the outcome. That is why people hate his "Citizens United" ruling... if a corporation is legally the same as a single person (which it is in commerce and criminal law), then one MUST consider a corporation as a single entity capable of exercising its free speech rights. With no other law to constrain corporations, then there is nothing the court can do. Scalia believed that just because the majority may think that something doesn't seem "right", that doesn't make it unconstitutional or illegal.
That's the Constructionalist's mantra... words have meaning, and we cannot "invent" new interpretations of those words. You may not like or agree with that philosophy, but it's just as valid of a theory as anything else. And Scalia was a True Believer. In his mind, he used the actual words of the Constitution, using the word meanings WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN. Love it or hate it, he was CONSISTENT... In that way, he acted as a Book End (an anchor, if you will) on ONE side of the judicial activism debate. Ginsberg has acted CONSISTENTLY on the other end. Would you want that book end replaced with someone who thinks like Samuel Alito?
If you REALLY don't want someone who won't "cow-tow to a religious or political crap" then you'll want someone who never departs from their position. In this case, Scalia believed that courts cannot make stuff up to fit the political or social climate of the time. To keep the status quo, another Constructionalist should be appointed.
Scalia, in my opinion, followed his oft-stated version of "Constructionalism" in that the words of the Constitution should be the only standard when evaluating contested law - regardless of the outcome. That is why people hate his "Citizens United" ruling... if a corporation is legally the same as a single person (which it is in commerce and criminal law), then one MUST consider a corporation as a single entity capable of exercising its free speech rights. With no other law to constrain corporations, then there is nothing the court can do. Scalia believed that just because the majority may think that something doesn't seem "right", that doesn't make it unconstitutional or illegal.
That's the Constructionalist's mantra... words have meaning, and we cannot "invent" new interpretations of those words. You may not like or agree with that philosophy, but it's just as valid of a theory as anything else. And Scalia was a True Believer. In his mind, he used the actual words of the Constitution, using the word meanings WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN. Love it or hate it, he was CONSISTENT... In that way, he acted as a Book End (an anchor, if you will) on ONE side of the judicial activism debate. Ginsberg has acted CONSISTENTLY on the other end. Would you want that book end replaced with someone who thinks like Samuel Alito?
If you REALLY don't want someone who won't "cow-tow to a religious or political crap" then you'll want someone who never departs from their position. In this case, Scalia believed that courts cannot make stuff up to fit the political or social climate of the time. To keep the status quo, another Constructionalist should be appointed.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
He often stated his religious opinion in a court where it does not belong. Keep in the church!!
(0)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
MSgt Michael Bischoff:
If you haven't already done so, I recommend that EVERYONE read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. People will be shocked that the people who WROTE and DEFENDED the Constitution, as well as those who OPPOSED it referred to God, Providence, the Creator and the Almighty in no less than 15 essays. None of which stated or implied that faith be excluded from public (I.e., political) discussions.
No rational free-thinking American wants any particular religion to be the officially acceptable way of living their lives, but that doesn't mean that we must exclude any and all public expressions of faith.
Don't confuse "belief" and "faith" with "Religion". As an American, I can say - in public - ANYTHING about what I think, feel or believe. Of course, I am not allowed to incite violence or treason, or cause injury. But saying what I believe is a God Given Right - as declared in the First Amendment.
If you haven't already done so, I recommend that EVERYONE read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. People will be shocked that the people who WROTE and DEFENDED the Constitution, as well as those who OPPOSED it referred to God, Providence, the Creator and the Almighty in no less than 15 essays. None of which stated or implied that faith be excluded from public (I.e., political) discussions.
No rational free-thinking American wants any particular religion to be the officially acceptable way of living their lives, but that doesn't mean that we must exclude any and all public expressions of faith.
Don't confuse "belief" and "faith" with "Religion". As an American, I can say - in public - ANYTHING about what I think, feel or believe. Of course, I am not allowed to incite violence or treason, or cause injury. But saying what I believe is a God Given Right - as declared in the First Amendment.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
I am by no means talking of restricting the freedom of speech everyone has, but some people think their way is the only and right way. That's my beef. When you say I cannot do something because your religion forbids it doesn't mean I have to follow. If you write religion into laws it will eventually come back to haunt you. Look at the monkey trials for example.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I recall Democrats in 2007 filibustering Justice Alito's nomination - oddly enough, our current President was one of those Senators who filibustered to block Justice Alito's appointment.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
Like I said they all do it all the time and seem to have very short short memories
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google