Trump

[pogo]

They could, but the danger of that would be it could cost them in November. Right now no-one is paying much attention no the Senate but this would be exactly the sort of thing to put it in the spotlight, and lose them seats. It could even make some difference in the presidential race. So blocking it now could mean it happens anyway a year from now with an even more Democratic Senate. A year is a long time to delay it and put up with the negative coverage as cases fail to be decided at the court due to there no longer being a deciding vote.

[funkstar]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that the Republicans wouldn't want to confirm anyone until they know whether they have a fighting chance in the general election, i.e. perhaps until the primaries are done. If the election becomes Sanders v. Someone-palatbable-and-not-Trump, then, well, it'll be unpopular to stall until November. Given the de facto legislative power that SCOTUS has, it might still be worth it.

In turn, that means that Obama should simply nominate a replacement immediately to exert maximal pressure. This might be a great opportunity for the Democrats.

[pogo]

The best thing Obama can do is put forward a moderate and highly qualified candidate. And this should not be hard. As you need to be slightly crazy to believe everything the Republican party believes today, anyone competent and successful is bound to be to the left of the Republican party. The advantage would not only be that person would be more likely to be confirmed, but it would show up the Republican opposition as being partisan and extreme.

Jeb Bush did best at last night’s debate. Probably too little too late for him though; he needs a sustained series of debate wins to really turn things around. Trump had an especially bad night, though it is unclear much this will cost him in the polls. Seems we are no closer to knowing who the Republican candidate will be.

[Portland]

[gumboot]

Is the Supreme Court really as political as all that? They seem to rule on things like human rights, and while there's a strong conservative bias against human rights in the Republican crowd, there are also plenty of fiscal conservative social liberals in there who might have no problem with the Democratic position on matters that are relevant to the Supreme Court.

Except that the US is strictly "us versus them", so they have to pick a side and object wholesale to everything. So maybe that's how it has to be.

[pogo]

It is that political. Many judicial posts are political, either appointed by politicians or directly elected. The thing that makes the Supreme Court special is it the highest court in the land, so can override any decision by a lower court or any political decision that can be challenged in court.

You need only look at their voting and appointment record. The conservative majority were appointed by Regan, Bush and Bush. The four liberal justices by Clinton and Obama. Normally justices try and last until a president of their political persuasion then retire but fraillty, senility or mortality can interfere with that.

[gumboot]

I understand there's a political bias in appointing its members, but I wonder if it really matters that much. Most particularly if a conservative-majority court can vote to treat homosexuals like humans.

[pogo]

They do often decide on cases in ways that seem at odds with their political backgrounds. One reason to s that though there is a conservative majority it is only a slim one, so it takes only one judge to change the balance. And they often find grounds to do so. Maybe their belief in the law overrides the political aspect. Maybe they are wary of being too political, fearing it will weaken their independence. Often they seem to reflect greater social trends, such as the move towards the acceptance of homosexuality.

Scalia e.g. was instrumental in striking down laws that sought to outlaw burning the US flag. Although such laws were supported by many conservatives he ruled with other justices that free speech overrode such laws and flag burning was a form of free speech.

[gumboot]

I think that in that position, deciding a case in a way that could be contrary to one's political background is what would be called "doing your job". Which I think is why it shouldn't be so important what their political leanings are. If that mattered there'd be a big question over whether or not they're fit for the job.

Of course, it's a certainty that anybody who cares who those people are making those decisions does want someone who thinks like themselves, so there's a clear tendency to want someone with the same political opinions, but I can see a lot of people who are Democrat or Republican for a fairly specific set of objectives and who don't necessarily believe that all values of their chosen political party should be imposed through the Supreme Court because of that.

Although, skimming through a few GOP debate clips, clearly they don't see it that way.

[pogo]

I think that in that position, deciding a case in a way that could be contrary to one's political background is what would be called "doing your job". Which I think is why it shouldn't be so important what their political leanings are. If that mattered there'd be a big question over whether or not they're fit for the job.

It may be this is based on what gets reported but almost all of the time they decide along political lines. The exceptions are few and noteworthy, and they are typically only exceptional by one vote. So still eight of the nine justices are playing politics, only one is “doing their job” and actually deciding based on the law. A lot of the time in political decisions all nine vote on party lines, even if they all have legal justifications for their votes.

Some may do this though as they know their vote won’t matter. If you know e.g. Clarence Thomas will always vote as a conservative, while Ruth Bader Ginsberg will always vote as a liberal, then they will cancel each other out. In some ways we don’t really know how much a role politics plays, as their discussions and initial votes are in secret, all we get is the final vote and the written decision, with occasional dissents when their is strong disagreement.

[pogo]

How happy are the Black voters with Obama who surged to the polls in unprecedented numbers to get him elected? How much of a difference did a Black president make after all the hype? hash Oscars So White

I think Obama had a profound effect on race relations in the US. Just the fact of having a black president was groundbreaking. You can see this in how many Americans tried to deny reality with spurious claims about his nationality or religion. This was entirely race based, but at the same time as being widespread was strictly a fringe activity.

At the same time as such racist activity moved to the fringe, other racism was brought out into the light. Things like Black Lives Matter became part of the national conversation in ways that I think would not have happened without a black president. On the Oscars it’s hard to imagine the protests having such an effect even a few years ago. Or even more recently there’s the reaction to Beyoncé only this week. Political has-beens such as Rudy Giuliani were wheeled out to condemn her for daring to be so overtly black at the Superbowl. SNL had the perfect response:

It’s hard to imagine all this happening even a few years ago.

[funkstar]

And of course the Senate leader (R, in case you were in doubt) has pretty much immediately taken the stance that they'll simply delay confirming any Obama-nominated replacement justice until the next president, under the flimsiest of pretexts that the "Murk'an People" (can you hear the trademark?) should get a say in who gets nominated (conveniently forgetting that they did, in electing Barack Obama president). Confirming that the circus really is in town, the GOP prospective presidential candidates have decided to use the opportunity to cast doubt on the ability to select a fitting replacement of each other. It's a glorious train wreck to behold.

Why, looking in from the outside, you'd almost think that the political structures in the U.S. were designed for the 18th century and barely updated in 240 years.

[Darkflame]

Its not really the structures fault this stuff though.
The system only being designed to cope with mild idiocy and preventing the power exploits of a single person - trying to cope with a whole party of idiots deliberately trying to obstruct their way to power is something incomprehensible by comparison.

And of course the Senate leader (R, in case you were in doubt) has pretty much immediately taken the stance that they'll simply delay confirming any Obama-nominated replacement justice until the next president,

Optimistic ant they?

[pogo]

Yes the 'let the people decide' is entirely bogus. They decided four and eight years ago. Scalia could have retired age 71 under Bush if he wanted to avoid this outcome.

The more I think on it the worse the Republican position seems. If the next president is Democratic then they achieve nothing except a damaging delay. If it's Republican then they will have a chance to appoint a more conservative justice soon enough, to replace a liberal one such as the 79 year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But delaying may cost them electorally especially if Obama puts forward a moderate.

The court should be liberal now, with four of the last six presidential terms Democratic, 16 of the last 24 years. If Republicans want a more conservative court they should focus on winning elections before anything else.

[pogo]

LOL, you could not make this stuff up if you tried. Trump now is threatening to sue Cruz over his right to run for president. I.e. to test in courts whether or not his being born in Canada disbars Cruz, despite most people thinking it a non-issue.

Why? Because Cruz has been running ads against him, highlighting his record. Trump claims these are lies, but he would not be so concerned if these were false. Trump’s problem is he has a very unconservative record on many things, and it seems Cruz has been reminding people of this with his adverts.

One of the ways I can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against him relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be president. If he doesn’t take down his false ads and retract his lies, I will do so immediately.

Taking people to court because they lied is very un-American, with their strong freedom of speech laws. If they really were lies then Trump could just refute them and point people to the truth, very cheaply. That he is resorting to legal threats means he feels really threatened by them. It could backfire badly for him though.