Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia dies: legal and political worlds react

[RanzB]

Jeepers dude.

I pointed out that the Daily Show had shown that the Democrats had attempted to, in the past, block the President from electing Supreme Court Justices. That is all I did.

Somehow, from that, without seeing the video, you manufactured an opinion for me using an incident I never specifically alluded to, and then argued against that opinion in a condescending manner that implies that I'm some kind of moron for having the opinion that you manufactured for me.

That's some Grade A internet discussion technique you've got there.

Hahaha... Nice try, but not at all close to the truth. Your assertion:

Except the Democrats have done exactly the same thing. They too have done exactly what the Republicans are currently doing when it was the Republicans trying to push through a Judge.

Both parties are major hypocrites on this one.

Since you don't seem to actually understand the difference (which is yuuuge), the Democrats have blocked specific nominees to SCOTUS. Republicans are now coming out and saying they will block any nominee to the bench from this elected President because of some BS premise.

If you can't see that they haven't 'done exactly the same thing' then you do have the opinion that I'm talking about.

Or you know, you could actually post exactly which instances have made you conclude that it's the same thing. Even though it's not.

 

[RanzB]

You said:


When they do it is irrelevant. If Scalia kicked the bucket 2 years ago, the Republicans would still have blocked it.

So... You still haven't read the question properly?

 

[Greylor]

Hahaha... Nice try, but not at all close to the truth. Your assertion:



Since you don't seem to actually understand the difference (which is yuuuge), the Democrats have blocked specific nominees to SCOTUS. Republicans are now coming out and saying they will block any nominee to the bench from this elected President because of some BS premise.

If you can't see that they haven't 'done exactly the same thing' then you do have the opinion that I'm talking about.

Or you know, you could actually post exactly which instances have made you conclude that it's the same thing. Even though it's not.

You're still arguing against a point made by a television show, without having seen it or knowing the specific information from which the show based its statements.

Therefore, as I said before, if I come across a working international link to the video, I'll share it. If not, you are welcome to ignore my post until you possibly come across the video yourself.

****puffin.

 

[RanzB]

You're still arguing against a point made by a television show, without having seen it or knowing the specific information from which the show based its statements.

Therefore, as I said before, if I come across a working international link to the video, I'll share it. If not, you are welcome to ignore my post until you possibly come across the video yourself.

No, I'm arguing against your assertion. Trevor Noah didn't make this post:

Except the Democrats have done exactly the same thing. They too have done exactly what the Republicans are currently doing when it was the Republicans trying to push through a Judge.

You did. It may have been because you picked up info on a video you aren't bothering to post, but all the same, those are your words, and that's what I'm challenging, not the video itself.

****puffin.

Charming

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You're still arguing against a point made by a television show, without having seen it or knowing the specific information from which the show based its statements.

Therefore, as I said before, if I come across a working international link to the video, I'll share it. If not, you are welcome to ignore my post until you possibly come across the video yourself.

****puffin.

But what point did the TV show make, exactly? That the Democrats have also vowed to block any nomination in the final year of a presidency or just that they have also attempted to block a specific nomination?

A fun fact mentioned earlier in the thread, but worth repeating. Two Republican Supreme Court nominees were confirmed within 13 months of an election, by Democrat-majority Senates.

 

[Greylor]

But what point did the TV show make, exactly? That the Democrats have also vowed to block any nomination in the final year of a presidency or just that they have also attempted to block a specific nomination?

A fun fact mentioned earlier in the thread, but worth repeating. Two Republican Supreme Court nominees were confirmed within 13 months of an election, by Democrat-majority Senates.

I can't recall the exact words from the show, but if memory serves correct the Democrats said they were blanket blocking any nominee put forward by Bush. It was in the context of a specific nomination, but their reasoning wasn't objection to the nominee, but the President who was doing the nomination.

I deleted the episode from my SKY decoder so I can't even go back to check the exact wording, but if I get a chance later tonight I'll see if I can dig up the video from the show. I don't know how long Comedy Central region-locks the vids before it becomes available outside the US. It surely has to be on Youtube somewhere.

I shouldn't have said anything until I had the video itself available. I forget that the Daily Show isn't actually that easy to get hold of outside of the US and Europe.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I can't recall the exact words from the show, but if memory serves correct the Democrats said they were blanket blocking any nominee put forward by Bush. It was in the context of a specific nomination, but their reasoning wasn't objection to the nominee, but the President who was doing the nomination.

I deleted the episode from my SKY decoder so I can't even go back to check the exact wording, but if I get a chance later tonight I'll see if I can dig up the video from the show. I don't know how long Comedy Central region-locks the vids before it becomes available outside the US. It surely has to be on Youtube somewhere.

I shouldn't have said anything until I had the video itself available. I forget that the Daily Show isn't actually that easy to get hold of outside of the US and Europe.

Well, the one example I know of is Chuck Schumer who was very much against having another right wing ideologue on the bench, so he argued against confirmation.

But he was one Democrat, and just a senator. Not the entire Republican presidential field and the Senate majority leader and numerous normal senators...

 

[RanzB]

I can't recall the exact words from the show, but if memory serves correct the Democrats said they were blanket blocking any nominee put forward by Bush.

You'd think something like that would be easy to Google.

I shouldn't have said anything until I had the video itself available. .

Same point from above. Something like this wouldn't have as its only source a clip from a comedy show.

Well, the one example I know of is Chuck Schumer

Of course. Everyone knows his name now, precisely because it's one of the only examples they can bring forward of blanket rejections of a nominee.

 

[ponder]

I can't recall the exact words from the show, but if memory serves correct the Democrats said they were blanket blocking any nominee put forward by Bush.

So provide a link to the video. It's 2016 and all this crap is on youtube, let google be your guide.

 

[Cray]

Interesting insight from one of his former clerks....

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/i_thought_i_could_reason_with_antonin_scalia_a_more_naive_young_fool_never_drew_breath/

Antonin Scalia generally detested science. It threatened everything he believed in. He refused to join a recent Supreme Court opinion about DNA testing because it presented the details of textbook molecular biology as fact. He could not join because he did not know such things to be true, he said. (On the other hand, he knew all about the eighteenth century. History books were trustworthy; science books were not.) Scientists should be listened to only if they supported conservative causes, for example dubious studies purporting to demonstrate that same-sex parenting is harmful to children. Scientists were also good if they helped create technologies he liked, such as oil drills and deadly weapons

 

[konfab]

Interesting insight from one of his former clerks....

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/i_thought_i_could_reason_with_antonin_scalia_a_more_naive_young_fool_never_drew_breath/

Anyway, about his contribution to physics. I am close to one of the victims of his operation, a transgender woman named Mischa Haider, whom I got to know during the course of her work on a Ph.D. in physics at Harvard. She’s an extraordinary polymath — gifted violinist, writer and novelist; fluent speaker of a half-dozen languages; math genius. And physicist.

Find one article written in a journal or a conference by this individual. I have more academic exposure than what the author considers a "math genius".

 

[Cray]

Find one article written in a journal or a conference by this individual. I have more academic exposure than what the author considers a "math genius".

So because she hasn't published anything she can't be a math genius? The article makes no mention of her age or whether she has even completed her Phd yet...

I have more academic exposure than what the author considers a "math genius".".

Go on then, share...

 

[konfab]

So because she hasn't published anything she can't be a math genius? The article makes no mention of her age or whether she has even completed her Phd yet.

You do know that people without PhDs can publish. It is the fact that I can't find one mention of her outside of the article that makes me a little suspect. The person writing this is a professor of law, which in all likelihood means he would be less likely to be able to identify a "maths genius" than I would.

Anyone worth their salt academically have had to at least publish something, even if it is just a conference paper(Like me ). If you really want to see it, I can PM you a link (I like having partial anonymity)

 

[Cray]

You do know that people without PhDs can publish. It is the fact that I can't find one mention of her outside of the article that makes me a little suspect. The person writing this is a professor of law, which in all likelihood means he would be less likely to be able to identify a "maths genius" than I would.)

Am well aware that anyone can publish, am just not sure why you think lack of published articles is automatically a reflection on her abilities. Some people have the inclination and time to publish articles, other might not - does that mean we automatically dismiss the abilities of those who don't publish?

Anyone worth their salt academically have had to at least publish something, even if it is just a conference paper(Like me ). If you really want to see it, I can PM you a link (I like having partial anonymity)

Please do, am intrigued ...

 

[Greylor]

Well, I can't find a non-region-locked version of the clip I was looking for from the Daily Show.

From the articles I can find referring to it, it appears it was referring to Obama and Chuck Schumer blocking nominations for the Supreme Court.

He leaned more on the Schumer one, because Schumer wasn't just blocking one candidate. He was blocking any nomination at all because he didn't like the first two nominees.

The Democrats had much better spin doctors on it. The Republicans are failing real bad at spinning this and it's gonna bite them on the ass.

 

[RanzB]

Obama picks Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

President Barack Obama picked Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

"Of the many powers and responsibilities that the Constitution invests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a Supreme Court justice," Obama said in a news conference. "The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of American law."

"This is not a responsibility I take lightly."

Obama was looking for someone who could persuade the Republicans to drop their vows to block any nomination by the lame duck president. Garland could fit that bill with moderate record, background as a prosecutor and a history of drawing Republican support.

Multiple news reports, including NBC News, said Obama had decided to pick Garland, a 63-year-old judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Obama had been searching for a replacement for long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.

Sri Srinivasan, who also serves on the appellate court, was a finalist, a source familiar with the selection process told Reuters.

In recent decades, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has been a springboard to the Supreme Court for several justices, including Scalia.

Srinivasan and Garland are seen as having unique attributes that could weigh heavily in Obama's decision, and both are viewed as moderates.



Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, right, stands with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden as he is introduced as Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court during an announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House, in Washington, Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP
Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, right, stands with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden as he is introduced as Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court during an announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House, in Washington, Wednesday, March 16, 2016.

President Barack Obama picked Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

"Of the many powers and responsibilities that the Constitution invests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a Supreme Court justice," Obama said in a news conference. "The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of American law."

"This is not a responsibility I take lightly."

Obama was looking for someone who could persuade the Republicans to drop their vows to block any nomination by the lame duck president. Garland could fit that bill with moderate record, background as a prosecutor and a history of drawing Republican support.

Multiple news reports, including NBC News, said Obama had decided to pick Garland, a 63-year-old judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Obama had been searching for a replacement for long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.

Sri Srinivasan, who also serves on the appellate court, was a finalist, a source familiar with the selection process told Reuters.

In recent decades, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has been a springboard to the Supreme Court for several justices, including Scalia.

Srinivasan and Garland are seen as having unique attributes that could weigh heavily in Obama's decision, and both are viewed as moderates.

Garland, who has earned praise from lawmakers of both parties, is the chief judge of the Washington appeals court, where he has served since being appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997, winning confirmation in a 76-23 vote. Prior to that, he served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

Garland was under consideration in 2009 for Obama's first appointment but the president chose Sonia Sotomayor.

Srinivasan, 49, was born in India and grew up in Kansas, the son of a mathematics professor. Obama appointed him to the appeals court in 2013. The Senate confirmed him in a 97-0 vote.

Srinivasan has served in the Justice Department under Democratic and Republican presidents and worked as a clerk to the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan.