|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don't think it's anything to do with them not being "advocates."
I should have noted that I put advocates in quotation marks simply because the word does not have the significance or meaning in the American legal system that it has in some other systems. We would not say someone is or isn't an advocate.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So today is primary day in South Carolina, or at least it is for Republicans. (South Carolina's Democrats will be primarying next Tuesday.) After ignoring the state since before the Iowa caucuses a sudden glurt of polls were released from February 10-15. They've all got Trump in first place and Carson coming in last, but there are varying orders for the four in the middle. (Though there are a few that have either Bush or Kasich tied with Carson for last place.)
There are fifty delegates to the Republican Convention at stake in South Carolina today. For perspective, that's almost as many as the combined total for Iowa and New Hampshire (53).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So today is primary day in South Carolina, or at least it is for Republicans. (South Carolina's Democrats will be primarying next Tuesday.)
The South Carolina Republican primary is this coming Saturday, Feb. 20. The Democratic primary will be the following Saturday, Feb. 27.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
AFAICS Clinton vs Trump should go one way. But Sanders vs Trump? Not so easy to call. That scenario makes Trump as POTUS look distinctly possible- and the whole thing get scary.
I'm surprised Clinton hasn't gone with 'Vote Bernie, get Donald'. It's really her Trump card.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
AFAICS Clinton vs Trump should go one way.
I'm not convinced that "Mad Dog" Hillary could beat Martin Shkreli in the general election...
Potential legal problems aside, she is just a bad candidate.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
So who do you support, romanlion?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So who do you support, romanlion?
You are persistent...that's an admirable quality.
I voted for Rand Paul in the republican primary in South Carolina last Monday, just a couple days after he suspended his campaign.
However, even if lightning had struck and he somehow won the nomination I could not have held my nose hard enough to support his party in the general.
I expect that I will be voting for Gary Johnson in November.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
I guess you're assuming he'll be the Libertarian nominee again.
He seems a little too ... establishment, for 2016. So far the election season hasn't been kind to former governors. Maybe the party should go with a more exciting choice, like John McAfee.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Three things are worrying me right now.
1. If the GOP Senators succeed in delaying confirmation of any replacement for Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court until after a new president takes office, which is what seems to be what they intend to do, then it could give the Republican base, especially social conservatives, a big motivation to turn out in large numbers to vote this November, just like ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage (following its legalization in Massachusetts) did in the 2002 midterms and 2004 races. You could argue that the Democratic base, especially pro-choice activists but also environmental and campaign-finance reform activists, would be similarly motivated to elect a president who would give liberals a majority on the Supreme Court, but I think that whoever stands to lose the most (Republicans, in this case, since they would lose the conservative majority on the court) would be more motivated AND there are masses of consistently Democratic voters who are less attuned to Supreme Court issues (aside from a smaller activist base) than the much larger groups of white conservative evangelicals, Tea Partiers, retired GOP supporters, etc., who have heard a consistent message from right-wing media and in/through church of how "activist" liberal judges are threatening fundamental liberties, religious and otherwise.
b. Despite his Marco Roboto debacle at the New Hampshire debate, I still think Rubio has a strong chance of being the candidate that the non-Trump supporters in the GOP (who are a majority, just a divided majority at present) unite under, and polls in South Carolina and elsewhere show that the damage to Rubio in the polls may have been limited to New Hampshire. Whatever Liberals may think about his policies or personality, he is much more of a threat to any Democratic nominee than Trump or Cruz would be.
c. It makes me sick that so much of the political future of this country rides on when Supreme Court justices die. I think that a law imposing either a term limit or an age limit for Supreme Court justices could be one of the few things both parties could support.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a law imposing either a term limit or an age limit for Supreme Court justices could be one of the few things both parties could support.
That would require a constitutional amendment—either one actually setting a limit or retirement age itself, or one giving Congress the authority to do so. As things are now, Congress lacks authority to pass such a law.
And, of course, justices can and do retire. Scalia hadn't, but others have. Granted, it may be more likely when you're 79, but any office holder can die while in office, no matter his or her age.
[ 17. February 2016, 22:58: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Maybe the party should go with a more exciting choice, like John McAfee.
Presumably, if he won ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) , AirForce1 wouldn't be making any stops in Belize? Or countries having an extradition treaty with Belize?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Must be weird, knowing you'll be working with the same 8 people for the rest of your life, unless someone retires or dies.
I don't think I'd want an age limit. Justice Ginsburg is probably way past whatever age would be chosen, and she's still doing a good job, AFAIK.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The justices are extraordinarily similar -- all graduates of either Yale or Harvard, for instance. And then there is that whole law school thing. So they have more in common that you might think.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The justices are extraordinarily similar -- all graduates of either Yale or Harvard, for instance.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg started out at Harvard Law School, but she transferred to Columbia, and that's where her LL.B. is from.
And there were the days of Stanford Law School graduate Sandra Day O'Connor and Northwestern University School of Law graduate John Paul Stevens.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The justices are extraordinarily similar --
Three are Jewish; five (formerly six) are Roman Catholic.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sitemap for the Supremes' homepage.
"About the court", "About us", and "FAQ" should answer most questions.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I see that the obstructionist Republican Senate is backpedaling faster than can be comfortably filmed with normal video equipment. OMG, you mean people don't WANT us to be obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist? Who'd'a thunk it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I'd have thought the last government shutdown would have taught them something, especially since they still hate Ted Cruz for it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Sitemap for the Supremes' homepage.
"About the court", "About us", and "FAQ" should answer most questions.
This is what 'the Supremes' means to me.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
...which is why it's fun to refer to the rather stuffy Supreme Court in that way.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...which is why it's fun to refer to the rather stuffy Supreme Court in that way.
At least in my experience, it's actually fairly common among lawyers, particularly those who interact with some regularity with SCOTUS, to refer to the Court as "the Supremes." I first heard it in law school in the mid-80s, when it seemed oh so irreverent. I hear it all the time now.
Meanwhile, Sandra Day O'Connor will always be "Sandy Baby" to me.
ETA: This is how O'Connor responded some years later.
[ 18. February 2016, 13:21: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a law imposing either a term limit or an age limit for Supreme Court justices could be one of the few things both parties could support.
That would require a constitutional amendment—either one actually setting a limit or retirement age itself, or one giving Congress the authority to do so. As things are now, Congress lacks authority to pass such a law.
And, of course, justices can and do retire. Scalia hadn't, but others have. Granted, it may be more likely when you're 79, but any office holder can die while in office, no matter his or her age.
I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. It says in Article 2 that the president appoints SC justices with the advice and consent of the Senate and Article 3, which is the one that is actually about the Judicial Branch, is quite brief and says little about the SC. The Federal Judicial system has largely been created by acts of congress, not the Constitution. FDR tried to greatly increase the number of SC justices with an act of Congress, and the only thing that stopped him was congress, not the SC. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Retired, Reagan-appointed SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor believes a replacement for Scalia needs to be secured right away. I agree.
--LINK--
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
For a fun Supreme Court fandom, do not fail to look at the Notorious RBG. There's tee shirts, coffee mugs, everything!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. . . . But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
Article III, § 1:
quote:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The part which I italicized has been understood since the adoption of the constitution that federal justices and judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from office by impeachment for "bad" behavior.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And, of course, justices can and do retire. Scalia hadn't, but others have. Granted, it may be more likely when you're 79, but any office holder can die while in office, no matter his or her age.
Retirement is actually the more typical way to leave the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Scalia and Rehnquist insisted on clinging to their tenure to the bitter end, but prior to Rehnquist's death the last Supreme Court Justice who didn't choose the time of his* own departure was Fred Vinson in 1953.
This is just one of the reasons Republican arguments about how long it's been since an election year confirmation has taken place are so disingenuous and full of weaselly modifiers.
--------------------
*At the time Rehnquist died the only Justices who had left the court were "hims", so I don't feel the need to use gender-inclusive pronouns in this case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I don't see anything in the Constitution preventing congress from setting a term limit or age limit on Supreme Court justices. . . . But maybe I'm wrong about this. Do you know what the basis is for saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose term limits or age limits on SC justices?
Article III, § 1:
quote:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The part which I italicized has been understood since the adoption of the constitution that federal justices and judges are appointed for life and can only be removed from office by impeachment for "bad" behavior.
Thanks! I had read through Article III but did not know it had been interpreted that way.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A good counter-example of the "no Supreme Court nominations by late-term presidents" comes from the early days of the Republic. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth tendered his resignation on September 30, 1800. John Adams nominated John Marshall to the post in January 1801 despite the fact that Adams had just been roundly defeated by Thomas Jefferson, who would take office in March. Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point, yet the senate had no problem consenting to Marshall's appointment.
It should be noted that 5 of the 32 members of the U.S. Senate considering Marshall's appointment were attendees at the Constitutional Convention (Abraham Baldwin (GA), Jonathan Dayton (NJ), John Langdon (NH), Gouverneur Morris (NY*), and Charles Pinckney (SC)). Marshall was approved by voice vote so we don't know which way any particular Senator voted, but to the best of my knowledge none of these five stood up and said "Hey, when we wrote the Constitution we never intended an outgoing president to make judicial appointments!"
--------------------
*Morris represented New York in the U.S. Senate, but was one of Pennsylvania's representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
[ 18. February 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A good counter-example of the "no Supreme Court nominations by late-term presidents" comes from the early days of the Republic. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth tendered his resignation on September 30, 1800. John Adams nominated John Marshall to the post in January 1801 despite the fact that Adams had just been roundly defeated by Thomas Jefferson, who would take office in March. Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point, yet the senate had no problem consenting to Marshall's appointment.
It should be noted that 5 of the 32 members of the U.S. Senate considering Marshall's appointment were attendees at the Constitutional Convention (Abraham Baldwin (GA), Jonathan Dayton (NJ), John Langdon (NH), Gouverneur Morris (NY*), and Charles Pinckney (SC)). Marshall was approved by voice vote so we don't know which way any particular Senator voted, but to the best of my knowledge none of these five stood up and said "Hey, when we wrote the Constitution we never intended an outgoing president to make judicial appointments!"
--------------------
*Morris represented New York in the U.S. Senate, but was one of Pennsylvania's representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.) If those Founding Fathers knew that they were confirming the appointment of arguably the country's first and most important "activist judge," perhaps they would have thought twice before confirming him so easily. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point...
In American history at that point? LOL -- Adams was the original lame duck President. Even at that time Washington was a legendary figure, so he'd never have been labeled as a lame duck (IMO)!
I hate the politics of second terms that suggest that only the first two years, if that, are viable for the Chief Executive's agenda. The notion that only 6 six of a combined 8 years are "realistic" for any President is a grossly negligent and wasteful aspect of our government.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.)
Nonsense. Judicial review is used as one of the selling points of the new Constitution in Federalist 78.
quote:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
The framers of the American Constitution clearly anticipated the Supreme Court functioning in precisely this way.
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Adams was one of the lamest lame ducks in American history at that point...
In American history at that point?
It's very difficult to construct an unawkward sentence that indicates I'm referring to a specific point within Adams' presidency and comparing it to all of American history.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Indeed, and please pardon me for sharing my too literally derived jolt of humor.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It was Marshall who would go on to write the court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which gave rise to the precedent of Judicial Review of laws and executive actions, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. (Ie, if not for that Chief Justice and that case, the Supreme Court would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today.)
Tangent: I must note that Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, was not the first American decision to hold that the judiciary can declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional and unenforceable. That distinction goes to Bayard v. Singleton, decided by the North Carolina Court of Conference (predecessor to the North Carolina Supreme Court) in 1787. Marbury v. Madison was the first federal court case to so hold.
Just compelled to keep the record straight. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
/tanget
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court vacancy (supposing that Republicans in the Senate succeed in maintaining it up through the November election) will help Republicans or Democrats more in the Presidential race? As I remarked before, although both sides are motivated to influence the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, the GOP has more to lose seeing the possibility of the ideological balance shifting from 4 conservatives and one conservative-leaning swing-voting justice to 5 liberal justices. That, and the Right-wing pundit/media/activist class has tended to frame the fight over judicial appointments in more apocalyptic terms than the overall Democratic base, although certain constituencies in the Democratic base tend to look at it that way as well.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
It couldn't lower my opinion of Trump any further (it's already lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut), but it did raise my opinion of the Pope another few points.
How it will affect Republican voters, I have no idea. My mind doesn't work like theirs.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court vacancy (supposing that Republicans in the Senate succeed in maintaining it up through the November election) will help Republicans or Democrats more in the Presidential race?
Not just in the presidential race, but in Senate races as well.
A majority of the Senate seats up for election this round are currently held by Republicans, meaning that, on average, they are more likely to lose seats rather than gain them. A Democratic win with strong coattails (or disgust at Republican behavior) means a possibility of a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate, which could approve a much more liberal justice than what Obama is likely to nominate to a Republican Senate.
Personally I don't think it will be a major issue in the election for most voters, though some special interest groups may see it as a reason to fling money one direction or the other. It isn't clear to me that either party would want to make it a campaign topic, because it probably doesn't sway voters much from their established positions, and focusing on it may turn off some middle-of-the-road voters.
So, while it may affect some strategy behind the scenes, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of rhetoric about it. Unless the Senate makes it one.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
The Pope will be fine.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
The Pope will be fine.
Although he did step in it a bit.
Let he without walls cast the first stone...
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court vacancy (supposing that Republicans in the Senate succeed in maintaining it up through the November election) will help Republicans or Democrats more in the Presidential race?
Not just in the presidential race, but in Senate races as well.
A majority of the Senate seats up for election this round are currently held by Republicans, meaning that, on average, they are more likely to lose seats rather than gain them. A Democratic win with strong coattails (or disgust at Republican behavior) means a possibility of a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate, which could approve a much more liberal justice than what Obama is likely to nominate to a Republican Senate.
Personally I don't think it will be a major issue in the election for most voters, though some special interest groups may see it as a reason to fling money one direction or the other. It isn't clear to me that either party would want to make it a campaign topic, because it probably doesn't sway voters much from their established positions, and focusing on it may turn off some middle-of-the-road voters.
So, while it may affect some strategy behind the scenes, I wouldn't expect to see a lot of rhetoric about it. Unless the Senate makes it one.
My concern is that the Supreme Court vacancy could motivate evangelical voters and other ideological members of the Republican base just like Same-Sex Marriage and "Culture War" issues in general did in 2002 and 2004. Karl Rove and other GOP party strategists helped motivate Republican turnout by putting measures on the ballot banning SSM after the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled that that state must give marriage rights to same-sex couples (this is before the 2015 Federal Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage the law of the land nationwide). If the Presidential and Senate races are seen in the minds of Republican base voters as explicitly tied to the issues of abortion, private businesses being legally required to provide services to the marriages of same-sex couples that request them, the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate, and (for another part of the Republican base) executive actions deferring deportation of large groups of undocumented immigrants - and in a way that is different than in previous election because the conservative majority on the court is at risk of being lost for the first time in decades - I can see the GOP benefitting from this. Democratic turnout could be lower than in 2008 and 2012 because the enthusiasm behind President Obama's first campaign (and anti-Bush feeling) of '08 and the loyalty to Obama of many African American Democrats after some pretty vicious opposition from the GOP from day one of his presidency is missing, plus it's always hard to re-elect the same party after 8 years of being in power. So while I still think the Democrats have a decent chance of winning the presidency and even gaining a majority in the Senate, I am concerned.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
The Pope will be fine.
Although he did step in it a bit.
Let he without walls cast the first stone...
Given that the current Pope has been providing accommodation in the Vatican for homeless people, I think he'll be fine on the walls question.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
Based on the campaign so far, Trump seems to benefit from justifiable criticism of his outrageous statements. It solidifies the "outsider" credentials.
But I hope this will wake up some of the Christian supporters. Sure, some of the more extreme probably already reckon the Pope to be an anti-Christ (they may also reckon Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya, and a socialist to boot). I hope it costs him some support.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
Well, Trump had better be careful or he may lose the Latino vote.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I guess Mr. Trump has changed his mind. According to Reuters:
quote:
On Christmas Day 2013: Trump tweeted, "The new Pope is a humble man, very much like me, which probably explains why I like him so much!”
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I guess Mr. Trump has changed his mind. According to Reuters:
quote:
On Christmas Day 2013: Trump tweeted, "The new Pope is a humble man, very much like me, which probably explains why I like him so much!”
I guess it's true that God is not like any mortal human being. Because personally, how the Almighty managed to not smack Trump upside the head with a big ol' bolt of lightening for saying "the pope is humble just like me"-- not even within my puny comprehension.
otoh, maybe all the thunder we've gotten lately is just God laughing his socks off at little Donnie's hilarious joke.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
It couldn't lower my opinion of Trump any further (it's already lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut), but it did raise my opinion of the Pope another few points.
How it will affect Republican voters, I have no idea. My mind doesn't work like theirs.
Republican voters have already been influenced against Pope Francis for some time now. Fox news criticisms him every chance they get, and talk radio absolutely despises him.
I doubt this will sway anyone who already likes Trump. As Roman Lion demonstrates, talk radio listeners are all too ready to believe the false narrative that the pope is cloistered off away from the refugee problem.
The Trump and Cruz supporters are well populated by Talk Radio listeners who spend nine hours a day listening to the truth get twisted into a pretzel, there's precious little that logic will accomplish with a crowd like that.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The Republicans don't like the pope because he has the temerity to hold to Jesus' words illuminating that wealth is not very compatible with Christianity. Nor is their contempt for the poor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Let's not forget that a lot of American Christians believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is a Biblical quote, and that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Trump will do just fine with those Christians.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So the pope has described Trumps views on immigration as unchristian - do we think this will help or hinder him ?
Well, Trump had better be careful or he may lose the Latino vote.
The ones he didn't already lose when he said Mexicans coming to the US are rapists and that he's going to build a big wall between the US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
