• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant fakey, but I really don't know what lengths they'd go to.

I was just reading Scotusblog, that accurately predicted in advance that Sotomayor and Kagan would be Obama's two SCOTUS picks, and their article back in 2012 concering who might replace RBG in Obama's second term considered Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar to be the ideal nominees. Klobuchar is one of the most popular senators and I can't think of anyone who has had a bad word to say about her. I think if Scalia or Kennedy had to be replaced it'd be incredibly hard for Senate Republicans to justify killing their colleague's nomination. It could be a savvy move for Hillary to take.
 

pigeon

Banned
Well my understanding is that both State and personal business was being conducted using private infrastructure which meant that independent governance and oversight of the her State business was not being achieved, because it was her staff that got to determine what was released. I would expect that a Government official would have their communications captured as part of the official record and that oversight would be conducted by an independent body, not the official or their staff in question.

If my understanding is wrong than I am happy to take the L and move on.

It isn't really possible for the Secretary of State to conduct state business on private infrastructure, because that business needs to be communicated to State Department employees in order to be meaningful, and their emails are run by the government and so the SoS's emails to them are a matter of record.

Like, maybe an SoS could conduct State discussions containing only non-State parties privately (although I doubt it, because staffs exist for a reason and so does the cc field), but they certainly cannot unilaterally ENACT any policy. At some point they have to tell somebody what to do in order for it to actually get done, and that person is going to be State and have a State email (or it'll be in a meeting that's minuted, or a phone call or whatever). And she probably can't say "I need you to do this because of a discussion I had with world leaders on my private email account that I am not going to tell you about." She's going to need to justify her instructions in writing.

Basically the point is that emails are a two-sided communication channel and both sides record everything, so the only way State business happened here with no oversight is if it were Hillary on her private email having discussions to which no other government employees were party. Otherwise the email would just be captured on their account. I find it hard to believe that any such discussion a) existed and b) if it did exist, had any meaningful consequences.
 

Ecotic

Member
I don't think there'd be too much of a fight replacing RBG. If Scalia dies though...

Sri Srinivasan is the person that has been most discussed as a likely future Democratic SCOTUS nominee, and appears to be widely respected across ideological lines and opaque enough to get through confirmation hearings. But if he (or anyone) is the person who would swing the court's ideological make-up from Conservative to Liberal then all bets are off. They'd probably vote down or filibuster any pick until they win the Presidency again.

If Hillary is President and Scalia or another conservative is to be replaced, I doubt there's much a Republican Senate could do in the long term to stop it. The President always wins in these situations. It's a very easy argument to make to the public, that the President has the power to nominate and Republicans are essentially just being sore losers. If Hillary nominated someone with unimpeachable credentials and is a sympathetic 'first', someone like say Leah Ward Sears of Georgia, then Republicans would look extremely bad to not give her a vote, or to vote her down. If the nominee does well in the confirmation hearings there's usually a few Republicans willing to vote yes.

When I say long term, imagine if a Republican Senate voted down a qualified nominee who didn't stumble in the confirmation hearings and had broad public support, and then Hillary nominates someone else equally as qualified and doesn't stumble. If Hillary still has 2-3 years to go in her term Republicans just can't sustain voting down qualified nominees one after another. Supreme Court nominations get huge press, and even our country's collection of think tanks and press intelligentsia wouldn't tolerate an 8 person court to go on with the possibility of 4-4 decisions. The court couldn't function.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Supreme Court nominations get huge press, and even our country's collection of think tanks and press intelligentsia wouldn't tolerate an 8 person court to go on with the possibility of 4-4 decisions. The court couldn't function.

So if the Supreme Court is short, it just keeps operating with a depleted bench?
 

Ecotic

Member
So if the Supreme Court is short, it just keeps operating with a depleted bench?

Yes, as long as the six person quorum is met.

Edit: 4-4 decisions just mean the lower court's ruling stands, so the Supreme Court can still function with 8. But that presents a problem when there's a situation like with gay marriage where the circuit courts are split. If for example the Supreme Court had only 8 people right now and issued a 4-4 verdict in June, you would have a situation where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have a marriage situation different from the other circuit courts. So in effect there would be situations where an 8 person Supreme Court could not settle split court rulings.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I meant fakey, but I really don't know what lengths they'd go to.

I was just reading Scotusblog, that accurately predicted in advance that Sotomayor and Kagan would be Obama's two SCOTUS picks, and their article back in 2012 concering who might replace RBG in Obama's second term considered Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar to be the ideal nominees. Klobuchar is one of the most popular senators and I can't think of anyone who has had a bad word to say about her. I think if Scalia or Kennedy had to be replaced it'd be incredibly hard for Senate Republicans to justify killing their colleague's nomination. It could be a savvy move for Hillary to take.

You'd really only nominate Klobuchar if there's no other way to get a nominee through, since she holds a lot of political capital in the Midwest. She's always going to be scouting a VP ticket.

If Hillary is President and Scalia or another conservative is to be replaced, I doubt there's much a Republican Senate could do in the long term to stop it. The President always wins in these situations. It's a very easy argument to make to the public, that the President has the power to nominate and Republicans are essentially just being sore losers. If Hillary nominated someone with unimpeachable credentials and is a sympathetic 'first', someone like say Leah Ward Sears of Georgia, then Republicans would look extremely bad to not give her a vote, or to vote her down. If the nominee does well in the confirmation hearings there's usually a few Republicans willing to vote yes.

When I say long term, imagine if a Republican Senate voted down a qualified nominee who didn't stumble in the confirmation hearings and had broad public support, and then Hillary nominates someone else equally as qualified and doesn't stumble. If Hillary still has 2-3 years to go in her term Republicans just can't sustain voting down qualified nominees one after another. Supreme Court nominations get huge press, and even our country's collection of think tanks and press intelligentsia wouldn't tolerate an 8 person court to go on with the possibility of 4-4 decisions. The court couldn't function.

If Hillary wins and if there is a Republican Senate and if she has to replace Scalia or another conservative, then it's likely she'd be able to get someone through, though she'd have to pick her nominee carefully, as you said. Someone like a Leah Ward Sears or an Amy Klobuchar (someone who all of the sitting Senators are theoretically friendly with) would be the type of nominee if it came to it.
 

HylianTom

Banned
The country gets a little gayer today

So glad I have today off; I wouldn't be able to concentrate. CSPAN is running non-stop SCOTUS programming all morning and afternoon.

I'm noticing a trend from opponents: "the court will rule for gay marriage, but - like Roe - the issue doesn't end."
 
So glad I have today off; I wouldn't be able to concentrate. CSPAN is running non-stop SCOTUS programming all morning and afternoon.

I'm noticing a trend from opponents: "the court will rule for gay marriage, but - like Roe - the issue doesn't end."
Hello more Indianas.

The salt from Republicans is fierce. My favorite is all of them who love pointing out Clinton didn't support this a few years ago. And? I didn't. (I was for civil unions until about 2008, I just didn't understand what was so special about marriage) most people weren't! Its like they think they gay community would have liked to only have people who never change their mind because everyone else is just a dirty flip flopper.

I mean let's just keep that 20% from the 90s!

Isn't the point of politics to change hearts and minds?
 

HylianTom

Banned
Hello more Indianas.

The salt from Republicans is fierce. My favorite is all of them who love pointing out Clinton didn't support this a few years ago. And? I didn't. (I was for civil unions until about 2008, I just didn't understand what was so special about marriage) most people weren't! Its like they think they gay community would have liked to only have people who never change their mind because everyone else is just a dirty flip flopper.

I mean let's just keep that 20% from the 90s!

Isn't the point of politics to change hearts and minds?

Hillary is going to be able to flip that charge back, asking her critics if the American people who also moved on the issue are also hypocrites, etc. Her movement largely reflects where the public was, and trying to score points from that angle isn't going to go very far.
 
America is changing, and politicians (including the Dems) are going to need to change with it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...-candidates-confused-times-speechless-n349061

The 2016 Republican presidential candidates are being thrown off balance by the rise of a new set of cultural issues, from marijuana legalization to attending same-sex weddings, that pit the views of conservative voters against a rapidly changing and increasingly liberal American culture.

The divides over "guns, God and gays" from the 1980's and 1990's have either disappeared or been totally reshaped over the last few years, leaving the Republican candidates fielding questions they seem at times completely unprepared to answer.

The debate over the legality of gay marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court will take up in a much-watched case on Tuesday, appears to be nearing an end, with court rulings across the country striking down gay marriage bans and many in the Republican Party effectively conceding the issue.

But the GOP 2016 candidates are being aggressively pressed by both the media and LGBT activists with questions on gay rights that go beyond simply accepting that same-sex marriage is permissible.

Asked whether they would attend a same-sex wedding, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both declined to answer and complained about the question from Hugh Hewitt, a conservative talk host who is friendly to Republican candidates.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he had attended a reception but not a wedding for a same-sex couple.

"That's the gotcha question that the left tries to get out there," Perry told Hewitt, who then repeated it.

When Cruz attended a reception in New York hosted by two gay businessmen, he was sharply criticized by fellow Republicans, who suggested it was a contradiction, since the businessmen support gay marriage and Cruz strongly opposes it.

On immigration, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is attacking President Obama for his executive action last year that would in effect grant legal status to undocumented immigrants who are adults, arguing Obama abused his executive power. But Rubio has said if elected he would not immediately rescind the 2012 executive action Obama took to grant legal status to young adults and children, leading the conservative site Breitbart to blast him as supporting "amnesty."

"The kids are in a very unique situation because they didn't willingly break the law. They came here … through no fault of their own," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told Breitbart.

Asked about the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado and if the federal government should do anything to stop it, some of the 2016 candidates have given contradictory answers that illustrate their lack of firm stands on the issue.

"I don't know. I'd have to think about it," Ohio Gov. and potential 2016 candidate John Kasich told Hewitt.


The challenge around these social issues was most clearly demonstrated a few weeks ago, when Bush strongly defended a so-called religious freedom law in Indiana, then two days later backtracked.

Polls show a clear divide on these issues between younger voters and older ones, who tend to be more conservative. Fifty-three percentage of Americans overall and 68 percent of people under age 34 support marijuana legalization. But only 39 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of voters over 70 hold that view, according to the Pew Research Center. The majority of Americans support gay marriage and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but much of the base of the Republican Party disagrees with both positions.

It's not just the Republicans who must deal with a changing American culture. Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, opponents of same-sex marriage in 2007, have completely reversed themselves in the eight years since. In this campaign, Clinton is likely to be asked about her views on transgender Americans, particularly in the wake of the attention around former Olympian Bruce Jenner's "I'm a woman" announcement last week.

A series of police shootings of black men will test how far Clinton will embrace the "black lives matter" activists, who at have times criticized officers in pointed ways.


But Clinton is in an easier position, with a huge advantage in the Democratic primary over her potential 2016 rivals.

The Republican candidates must grapple with the party's donors, such as the gay businessmen Cruz was addressing, who generally live in big cities and are supportive of gay rights. At the same time, nearly all of the candidates are competing for the religious conservatives who shape the outcome in Iowa, South Carolina and other states.

"Our own scrutiny must also include Senator Ted Cruz. Does his association with aggressive 'married' homosexual activists (who apparently do not feel threatened by his rhetoric, but on the contrary, wish to donate to his campaign) raise concerns for those of us down in the valley fighting a painful and costly war for what's left of religious freedom? Of course, it raises legitimate concerns, " wrote Cary K. Gordon, an influential conservative pastor in Sioux City, Iowa.

A few of the candidates have indicated they will not be moving left on these issues, no matter public sentiment. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, another 2016 candidate, has said he would not attend a same-sex wedding, telling Hewitt, "that would be a violation of my faith."

"Marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion," Jindal wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece.

In fact, so far all of the Republicans candidates have essentially the same position on gay marriage: they believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but would not push for federal legislation or a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

Democrats say such a position is untenable politically.

"I believe we will never again elect a President that opposes same-sex marriage. The rhetoric has cooled some, but the Republicans are still more than a couple of steps behind the country, and dozens of steps behind younger Americans of both parties. Watching a politician explain to younger voters why they oppose marriage equality is so uncomfortable it makes you cringe, it's almost as if they are speaking two separate languages," said Dan Pfeiffer, who was until recently President Obama's top political adviser.
 
Now that Jackson50 is back in poligaf, I'm gonna fess up about Libya. Jackson50 and PD were correct in the sense that we should not have deposed Col. Qaddhafi. I remember arguing vehemently especially with Jackson50 on the merits of UN led intervention, citing Just Cause and other stuff. Shit is not good. Libya has descended into chaos and probably gonna head the path of Somalia.
 
So glad I have today off; I wouldn't be able to concentrate. CSPAN is running non-stop SCOTUS programming all morning and afternoon.

I'm noticing a trend from opponents: "the court will rule for gay marriage, but - like Roe - the issue doesn't end."
Which is funny because Republican strategists (who you know just want this issue to go away) are trying to argue a ruling in favor of gay marriage will be good for the party, because it allows the presidential candidates to throw their hands up like "Welp, law of the land!" Yeah right. The religious right is going to push the issue until Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or whoever comes out in support of a federal marriage amendment.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Which is funny because Republican strategists (who you know just want this issue to go away) are trying to argue a ruling in favor of gay marriage will be good for the party, because it allows the presidential candidates to throw their hands up like "Welp, law of the land!" Yeah right. The religious right is going to push the issue until Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or whoever comes out in support of a federal marriage amendment.

The irony is that if they push too hard to get their way with the GOP candidate during the race, they could push the race such that they end-up electing Hillary and losing the Court for decades. If they played it cool and extracted a less sexy, less headline-generating promise of more Scalia-type judges, they'd be on much better political footing. It's reminiscent of elections where LGBT folks and their allies "read between the lines" on candidates and voted strategically in decades past when the polling shoe was on the other foot.
 
America is changing, and politicians (including the Dems) are going to need to change with it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...-candidates-confused-times-speechless-n349061

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how Republicans are going to potentially benefit from SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage nationwide. It could possibly move the party beyond the issue. They can just say, "Look, it's the law of the land, and we need to focus on other things."

It's kind of a naive view. The GOP is still going to struggle with the issue - a lot. I can't say I'd be shocked if evangelicals start pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment hard again. And there are still a ton of issues related to employment discrimination and denial of service and all of that shit, and that nonsense might even accelerate in the aftermath of the ruling.

The NPR story did note that a lot of people expected the right to eventually give up on abortion after Roe v. Wade, and that obviously didn't happen. I won't be surprised if the right follows a similar path on gay rights.
 
Now that Jackson50 is back in poligaf, I'm gonna fess up about Libya. Jackson50 and PD were correct in the sense that we should not have deposed Col. Qaddhafi. I remember arguing vehemently especially with Jackson50 on the merits of UN led intervention, citing Just Cause and other stuff. Shit is not good. Libya has descended into chaos and probably gonna head the path of Somalia.
Hindsight is 20/20... I thought intervention was justified at the time, too; the opposition seemed like they were legitimate and would be capable of governance once they took power... It's a real shame that things didn't work out for them.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
There was a story on NPR yesterday about how Republicans are going to potentially benefit from SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage nationwide. It could possibly move the party beyond the issue. They can just say, "Look, it's the law of the land, and we need to focus on other things."

It's kind of a naive view. The GOP is still going to struggle with the issue - a lot. I can't say I'd be shocked if evangelicals start pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment hard again. And there are still a ton of issues related to employment discrimination and denial of service and all of that shit, and that nonsense might even accelerate in the aftermath of the ruling.

The NPR story did note that a lot of people expected the right to eventually give up on abortion after Roe v. Wade, and that obviously didn't happen. I won't be surprised if the right follows a similar path on gay rights.

I don't know--in a similar situation, I've always thought the GOP never wants abortion actually banned. If it was, that huge issue that sways a ton of one-issue voters is no longer a talking point.
 
Hindsight is 20/20... I thought intervention was justified at the time, too; the opposition seemed like they were legitimate and would be capable of governance once they took power... It's a real shame that things didn't work out for them.

How often does this line of thinking work out in the middle east? I have no faith in the US choosing competent opposition parties, or the general governance ability of people who want to implement barbaric religious views into law while killing off [insert local group]. All one had to do is look back at 40-60 years of history to know intervention was a bad idea.
 
Intervention's a fine idea, but nobody (and I mean nobody, myself included) really wants to deal with the follow through. You'd need to rebuild the country from scratch, drastically alter the culture, and then hang around long enough to ensure it sticks. Massive intrusion and cultural imperialism. It'll get the job done.
 
CDrLNvkW8AAoyYl.jpg:large
 
I'm going to read the oral arguments ASAP, but I saw one Kennedy quote, and while i generally discourage predicting based on Oral Arguments, this one is over. He's on the marriage equality side. I thought that before going in, of course, based on his past, but his questioning that I saw solidified it for me. It will probably be 5-4, but same sex marriage is going to be legal nationwide in a few months.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Why do threads like Baltimore get so heated?? I see so many bans

I never post in them because of the risk of getting banned over my opinion x(
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I'm going to read the oral arguments ASAP, but I saw one Kennedy quote, and while i generally discourage predicting based on Oral Arguments, this one is over. He's on the marriage equality side. I thought that before going in, of course, based on his past, but his questioning that I saw solidified it for me. It will probably be 5-4, but same sex marriage is going to be legal nationwide in a few months.

Take a shot every time that Mary Bonuato says "liberty".
 
I'm going to read the oral arguments ASAP, but I saw one Kennedy quote, and while i generally discourage predicting based on Oral Arguments, this one is over. He's on the marriage equality side. I thought that before going in, of course, based on his past, but his questioning that I saw solidified it for me. It will probably be 5-4, but same sex marriage is going to be legal nationwide in a few months.

Vox posted a kind of dumb article playing up the seemingly skeptical comments Kennedy made during the arguments - suggesting that he might seriously be considering ruling against SSM.

Ultimately this is why I probably wouldn't support the television broadcast of SCOTUS oral arguments. Justices ask all sorts of questions that can be easily misinterpreted and are simply the justices playing devil's advocate.

However, I do strongly believe that the delivering of the opinion(s) should be broadcast on television. I think it's stupid that they aren't.
 
How often does this line of thinking work out in the middle east? I have no faith in the US choosing competent opposition parties, or the general governance ability of people who want to implement barbaric religious views into law while killing off [insert local group]. All one had to do is look back at 40-60 years of history to know intervention was a bad idea.
But to be fair it did look like a bad idea to stand around and do nothing while Col Gaddafi was poised to level benghazi.
 

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
Why do threads like Baltimore get so heated?? I see so many bans

I never post in them because of the risk of getting banned over my opinion x(

A lot of bad and uneducated opinions, mixed with a deep emotional response to having the status quo challenged.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'm going to read the oral arguments ASAP, but I saw one Kennedy quote, and while i generally discourage predicting based on Oral Arguments, this one is over. He's on the marriage equality side. I thought that before going in, of course, based on his past, but his questioning that I saw solidified it for me. It will probably be 5-4, but same sex marriage is going to be legal nationwide in a few months.
It seems like Kennedy also had a lot of reservations about being an activist and making the big change judicially.

I still need to see the transcript to get the full picture.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
It seems like Kennedy also had a lot of reservations about being an activist and making the big change judicially.

I still need to see the transcript to get the full picture.

He brought this up in the Hollingsworth oral argument yet still wanted to rule on the merits on that case. He's also much harder on the states' lawyer than he ever was on Bonuato.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
He brought this up in the Hollingsworth oral argument yet still wanted to rule on the merits on that case. He's also much harder on the states' lawyer than he ever was on Bonuato.
Yeah, it almost seems like a "I'm sorry I don't want to, but I have to" plea to make conservatives not hate him so much.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I think he actually cares about this -- I just think his love for the gays, liberty, and The Children of the Gays will win out.

Yup. Some imaginary, nebulous injury to "tradition" or "process" will far outweigh definite, identifiable detrimental effects upon millions of kids.

And he kept going back to the dignity well..
KennedyQuote.png
 
Kagan: But is there in addition to that, are you saying that recognizing same sex marriage will impinge upon that State interest, will harm that State interest in regulating procreation through marriage?

MR. BURSCH: We are saying that, Your Honor.

ioSwICRoEa9aI.gif


Oh god, it continues...

But the reason why there's there's harm if you change the definition because, in
people's minds, if marriage and creating children don't have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? You expect more children outside of marriage.

LOL.

Dude got destroyed by Kagan and Sotamayer on the whole. I didn't think he did a good job.

Didn't read Question 2 yet, however.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I'm going to read the oral arguments ASAP, but I saw one Kennedy quote, and while i generally discourage predicting based on Oral Arguments, this one is over. He's on the marriage equality side. I thought that before going in, of course, based on his past, but his questioning that I saw solidified it for me. It will probably be 5-4, but same sex marriage is going to be legal nationwide in a few months.

Roberts is going to side with the liberal wing, he doesn't want the court to look politicized and nothing would do that more than all 4 conservative judges dissenting. This one will go 6-3, bank it.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I don't think I'll get to Question 2 until later, since it seems less important, but Bursch is doing a fairly poor job. But that's to be expected -- he's working from a very poor argument that doesn't make much sense.

Roberts is going to side with the liberal wing, he doesn't want the court to look politicized and nothing would do that more than all 4 conservative judges dissenting. This one will go 6-3, bank it.

I think he'll either dissent but concur that states should recognize the marriages of other states, or concur on sex discrimination. The former seems more likely.
 
Anyone know what's going on with Iran? It seems there's an irritating amount of standoffs/exchanges (and the cargo boat that was trespassing in Iranian waters) that could put US relations at risk.
 
Sanders is announcing on Thursday that he is running (as a Democrat):

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will announce his plans to seek the Democratic nomination for president on Thursday, presenting a liberal challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders, an independent who describes himself as a "democratic socialist," will follow a formal statement with a major campaign kickoff in his home state in several weeks. Two people familiar with his announcement spoke to The Associated Press under condition of anonymity to describe internal planning.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6056...rces-vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-run-president
 
The 2nd question was interesting in that Roberts and Scalia seemed to doubt the argument.

Of course, that question is moot if they just side on the same-sex marriages in the 1st question, but they more than 5 justices seemed to at least be making an argument that a same sex marriage in california has to be recognized everywhere.
 

Mike M

Nick N
But he is a Independent.
He's whatever party he says he is. To register as a candidate you pay a fee to the party and maybe turn in some requisite number of signatures. The party doesn't care about your purity, they've already got your money.
If Sanders ever somehow became the nominee, could he win a general election?
Probably not, but his larger purpose (wittingly or not) will probably be to shift the general platform of the eventual nominee leftward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom