Supreme Court

[UCFKnight85]

Gay people have more issue with his running mate, who may be one of the most anti-gay politicians there is (as I have brought up examples in previous threads).

Sure, gay rights are important to me, I don't know why anyone would think differently, it shapes a pretty large portion of my life, something that you all never really had to deal with. This is not the only issue I care about though. When it comes down to it, we have different point of views on how a country should work, nothing wrong with that. I am doing fine professionally and economically and nearly everyone around me, including my family is much better off now then they were in 2008.

Good, send a thank you letter to the Republican Congressional leaders.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

I am speaking in hypotheticals but I have seen some people throw this out. If Clinton wins and let's say that the GOP keeps the Senate, are you all "okay" with the GOP blocking a Clinton Supreme Court appointment for her whole presidency?

My opinion: they should do their job and confirm the appointment if the person is qualified for the position, regardless of whether you believe the justice to be left-leaning or right-leaning. That said, it's not out of bounds to block an appointment to get a compromise candidate. In the end, a compromise candidate is exactly what we need on the bench.
What will happen: They'll block the appointment, any appointment. The circumstances will dictate how they do it. I expect a market correction at some point during the next 4 years, so that could play into how they spin the rationalization of the block. The most likely rationalization for blocking will be the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

 

[bqknight]

My opinion: they should do their job and confirm the appointment if the person is qualified for the position, regardless of whether you believe the justice to be left-leaning or right-leaning. That said, it's not out of bounds to block an appointment to get a compromise candidate. In the end, a compromise candidate is exactly what we need on the bench.
What will happen: They'll block the appointment, any appointment. The circumstances will dictate how they do it. I expect a market correction at some point during the next 4 years, so that could play into how they spin the rationalization of the block. The most likely rationalization for blocking will be the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

There's a compromise candidate for the taking right now but the GOP seems uninterested. Meanwhile, they are about to lose the election and risk having a more liberal candidate brought to the table.

 

[USFSucks]

There's a compromise candidate for the taking right now but the GOP seems uninterested. Meanwhile, they are about to lose the election and risk having a more liberal candidate brought to the table.

That's because they are playing stupid political games, basically the exact same thing the Democrats would be doing if they were in that position. It's disgusting, stupid and petty, but hey that's how politics have always been in this country

 

[sk8knight]

With no term limits for justices and very little limits on their ability to reinterpret legislation to meet their political goals, the vetting process by Congress is extremely important. Congress represents the people and their actions should fall in line if the people voted to shift the Congress right or left. Congress does not exist to be a rubber stamp on the executive branch.

We have an adversarial federal government for a lot of reasons. Why do people think the federal government is supposed to run smoothly? Building a system where things are difficult is one of the limits on potential excessive power of the federal government. When the populace demands a weak Congress, we are giving up nearly the only representation we have.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

With no term limits for justices and very little limits on their ability to reinterpret legislation to meet their political goals, the vetting process by Congress is extremely important. Congress represents the people and their actions should fall in line if the people voted to shift the Congress right or left. Congress does not exist to be a rubber stamp on the executive branch.

We have an adversarial federal government for a lot of reasons. Why do people think the federal government is supposed to run smoothly? Building a system where things are difficult is one of the limits on potential excessive power of the federal government. When the populace demands a weak Congress, we are giving up nearly the only representation we have.

I agree with your premise but to think we have representation in Congress is laughable. I know this is off-topic from the Supreme Court discussion but I think all of our problems in the federal government boil down to this issue. 9 out of 10 Congressional races are won by the candidate who raises the most money.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions - 1976 Buckley v Valeo (money = speech), 1978 First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti (Corporations have first ammendment rights and can spend money in politics), 2010 Citizens United vs FEC (corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited), and 2014 McCutcheon v FEC (upheld individual contribution caps to individual candidates) - we now have a system that is financed overwhelmingly by corporations, economic elites and special interests.

Princeton University did a study on American politics that was published in 2014. They looked at almost 1800 different policy initiatives from 1981-2002 and compared the policy changes to public opinion as well as economic elites and special interest groups. The results were, "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ge-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

There's a compromise candidate for the taking right now but the GOP seems uninterested. Meanwhile, they are about to lose the election and risk having a more liberal candidate brought to the table.

They're going to confirm Garland if Killary wins. They have two and half months to get it through.