Election Day 2016

[Kung Wu]

They believe the only thing the Supreme Court is useful for is determining the abortion issue.

This is just patently not true.

It is likely that nearly every poster on here gets jazzed the most about WSU men's basketball when the subject of WSU comes up. But to say that people on here think WSU is only useful because it provides men's basketball would be really, really wrong.

Just because ending abortion is the #1 priority of most conservative Americans when it comes to the Supreme Court, does not mean they don't recognize the other good works that the Supreme Court does.

[jdshock]

This is just patently not true.

It is likely that nearly every poster on here gets jazzed the most about WSU men's basketball when the subject of WSU comes up. But to say that people on here think WSU is only useful because it provides men's basketball would be really, really wrong.

Just because ending abortion is the #1 priority of most conservative Americans when it comes to the Supreme Court, does not mean they don't recognize the other good works that the Supreme Court does.

Fair enough. I'm sure I exaggerated my point.

It appears that, at a minimum, most conservatives think that the benefit gained from keeping the seat open outweighs any of the consequences of having a vacant seat. There are obviously several ways that could be true: 1. they think abortion, or other conservative court issues, are so important that it doesn't matter how big the consequences are; 2. they don't believe there are really that big of consequences or they just haven't thought about it; or 3. some combination of the first two.

[pinstripers]

Any party not in power will try to keep the seat open. It's been that way for 200 years.

[Kung Wu]

Fair enough. I'm sure I exaggerated my point.

It appears that, at a minimum, most conservatives think that the benefit gained from keeping the seat open outweighs any of the consequences of having a vacant seat. There are obviously several ways that could be true: 1. they think abortion, or other conservative court issues, are so important that it doesn't matter how big the consequences are; 2. they don't believe there are really that big of consequences or they just haven't thought about it; or 3. some combination of the first two.

I'll take door #3, Monty! :)

[MoValley John]

Any party not in power will try to keep the seat open. It's been that way for 200 years.

Yup. And the dems would have done the same thing.

[MoValley John]

Right. Merrick Garland is the candidate that was nominated because the Senate has power. Prior to the nomination, people like Orrinn Hatch said "Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."

But then the Republicans decided they wouldn't confirm anyone. I don't care if they hold hearings and debate and throw Garland under the bus and then ultimately vote no. That's not what happened. Here, they asked for Garland. Obama called their bluff. Then they said they wouldn't do it because of the principles of democracy.

And it's all lies. They did it so they could have an open seat that they could campaign with, and the American public rewarded them by reelecting a Republican majority.

Is Orrinn Hatch the entire Senate? Nope. President Pro Temp, yes, but is not the voice of all, and is not the lone voice for Republicans. The Republicans did exactlyas they said, and they did exactly what the dems would have done in the same situation.


Robert Bork.

[jdshock]

Robert Bork.

You know they had actual debates about Robert Bork, right? And the Democrats gave reasons for why they didn't like him specifically?

The Republicans aren't saying Garland is uniquely bad. They're saying they don't feel comfortable confirming him in an election year, even though several of them let it slip that they would've confirmed him quickly had Clinton won.

Have it out on the floor and argue about his qualifications. Don't act like you're leaving it open for democracy's sake. That's just a lie.

[im4wsu]

So.........
Liberals are upset that Trump won...... And their recourse is to take to the streets, protest and in some cases vandalize.

Sounds about right. Keep it classy.

You sound surprised.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You know they had actual debates about Robert Bork, right? And the Democrats gave reasons for why they didn't like him specifically?

The Republicans aren't saying Garland is uniquely bad. They're saying they don't feel comfortable confirming him in an election year, even though several of them let it slip that they would've confirmed him quickly had Clinton won.

Have it out on the floor and argue about his qualifications. Don't act like you're leaving it open for democracy's sake. That's just a lie.

Although I ultimately disagree with you about the need for hearings on everyone, your post here is fair and logical. I have lots to complain about regarding how Dems treated Bork, but I agree that he is a poor comparison here since you are talking about the need for full debate, something Bork received and Garland has not.

[im4wsu]

You know they had actual debates about Robert Bork, right? And the Democrats gave reasons for why they didn't like him specifically?

The Republicans aren't saying Garland is uniquely bad. They're saying they don't feel comfortable confirming him in an election year, even though several of them let it slip that they would've confirmed him quickly had Clinton won.

Have it out on the floor and argue about his qualifications. Don't act like you're leaving it open for democracy's sake. That's just a lie.

Would it not be a bigger lie to hold hearings, stretch them out and then not confirm him than to tell what appears to be the truth, that they will not confirm anybody until after the election?

[shockmonster]

SCOTUS provides the floor for constitutional rights (including religious liberty) that states cannot abrogate. States may provide for rights and protections beyond that floor so long as they do not impinge on other constitutionally protected rights, but they cannot provide less than the minimum.

It is a very necessary function and the founders were wise to design it that way. Disagreeing with their rulings is one thing, but disagreeing with the architecture is another entirely.

Let me say what I said in another way. We need strict constructionists on the Supreme Court that don't make laws and know what the document means. They need to allow the states and local governments to decide who can use the girls bathrooms in middle school, to decide whether a baby has rights when they are in the womb but could live outside the womb, to decide whether the Catholic Oriest has to marry people say they are gay, etc.

[Play Angry]

Let me say what I said in another way. We need strict constructionists on the Supreme Court that don't make laws and know what the document means. They need to allow the states and local governments to decide who can use the girls bathrooms in middle school, to decide whether a baby has rights when they are in the womb but could live outside the womb, to decide whether the Catholic Oriest has to marry people say they are gay, etc.

That is actually different from what you said and focuses on how you believe cases should be decided, which is 100% fine.

It is still awkwardly presented and damages your argument in unintended ways IMO.

You want the federal ban on late term abortions lifted, and for that matter to be delegated completely to the states? I could be wrong but that would be a surprising stance given your posting history. 2/3 of the states would likely implement a similar ban, but the remaining 1/3 would house ~60% of the U.S. population and it would likely be legal in those jurisdictions if left to those legislatures and governors.

The other issues you raised are strawmen at this point since SCOTUS has not mandated that a priest cannot refuse to marry a gay couple, nor has it addressed the NC Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. I understand you are very concerned that this will be opined upon, but you are framing your argument dishonestly by acting like they already have.

If there has been a SCOTUS decision you feel has limited your personal right to religious liberty, I would be interested in hearing the specific details and how it has impacted you.

[SHOCKvalue]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

[shockmonster]

That is actually different from what you said and focuses on how you believe cases should be decided, which is 100% fine.

It is still awkwardly presented and damages your argument in unintended ways IMO.

You want the federal ban on late term abortions lifted, and for that matter to be delegated completely to the states? I could be wrong but that would be a surprising stance given your posting history. 2/3 of the states would likely implement a similar ban, but the remaining 1/3 would house ~60% of the U.S. population and it would likely be legal in those jurisdictions if left to those legislatures and governors.

The other issues you raised are strawmen at this point since SCOTUS has not mandated that a priest cannot refuse to marry a gay couple, nor has it addressed the NC Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. I understand you are very concerned that this will be opined upon, but you are framing your argument dishonestly by acting like they already have.

If there has been a SCOTUS decision you feel has limited your personal right to religious liberty, I would be interested in hearing the specific details and how it has impacted you.

No. I just said my opinion with my argument. It's telling that you said that the Federal SCOTUS is to protect groups in a minimum fashion but you didn't mention the unborn who can live outside the womb with this. Maybe you were misunderstood.

[Play Angry]

No. I just said my opinion with my argument. It's telling that you said that the Federal SCOTUS is to protect groups in a minimum fashion but you didn't mention the unborn who can live outside the womb with this. Maybe you were misunderstood.

?

You are actually the one who said the fate of late-term fetuses should be left to the states. I very clearly stated that the SCOTUS provides the floor for constitutional protections and liberties, and states can do whatever they choose so long as they don't dip beneath that floor or infringe on similarly protected consitutional liberties.

Your confusion is confusing to me :) I am also staunchly pro-life (as you very clearly are too) and was confused by your insistence on punting a very base line protection of viable, late term fetuses to the states.

People oversimplify the states rights issues egregiously. They usually want issues where they disagree with the federal government to be left to the states, but not the ones they find beneficial.