Justice Scalia dead

BedellBrave said:
I still am having a hard time getting y'all's reserve about Lynch. She's not, from what i can tell, a liberal firebrand. Her years of being a prosecutor should inoculate her fairly well from that charge. She's already received one confirmation. She's relatively young. That she is an woman and a African American woman seem not to be a knock on her but plusses. What R politician is really going to push an "Obama doesn't care about white America" line of attack against her? Dang, I can't even see Trump doing that.

Also, why wouldn't Obama make the political points? Would seem to be an exceedingly beneficial move for himself and the Ds, imho.
Click to expand...

I don't think she's a liberal firebrand either, but the Right has been making noise since Obama was first elected with the meme that he doesn't care about white people and if Obama nominates Lynch in the middle of a campaign, it just gives knuckleheads like Cruz more fodder for their ill-conceived rhetoric and just juices up an already toxic political environment.

Like him or not, I think Obama (and I will say this about W. as well) is a principled guy and it will be interesting to see what he does here. We'll see if he cares about macro-political calculations or wants to make a statement consistent with his beliefs.
 
50PoundHead said:
I don't think she's a liberal firebrand either, but the Right has been making noise since Obama was first elected with the meme that he doesn't care about white people and if Obama nominates Lynch in the middle of a campaign, it just gives knuckleheads like Cruz more fodder for their ill-conceived rhetoric and just juices up an already toxic political environment.

Like him or not, I think Obama (and I will say this about W. as well) is a principled guy and it will be interesting to see what he does here. We'll see if he cares about macro-political calculations or wants to make a statement consistent with his beliefs.
Click to expand...

I just think that charge that Cruz or others would play the "Obama doesn't care about white people" card is wrongheaded. They'd use something else - maybe like she's beholding to banks or what have you.
 
57Brave said:
what does that mean?
Click to expand...

One of her areas of expertise was law as it relates to state and federal constitions. I thought both of Obama's appointees were reasonably qualified. This is just for me personally, but I believe any supreme court nominee should have a strong understanding of the consitution. How they interpret it is what it is, but I want someone who has studied it and written papers on it or argued cases using it, etc.

I think it's a reasonable position considering the importance of the job and the description of the job.
 
weso1 said:
Pubs need to think long and hard about what they want to do here. It might be best for them in the long run to confirm a reasonable Obama appointee.
Click to expand...

I think so too. Especially if they've actually got a chance to win the election. Because, I'd anticipate at least one slot to open up in the next year or so anyway. Also, I'd think Kennedy would see his role being somewhat different if the court lurches to the left too quickly.
 
BedellBrave said:
I just think that charge that Cruz or others would play the "Obama doesn't care about white people" card is wrongheaded. They'd use something else - maybe like she's beholding to banks or what have you.
Click to expand...

It IS wrongheaded, but since when did that stop people from making that charge. Glenn Beck started that chant and it hasn't subsided in some hard right corners of the electorate.
 
BedellBrave said:
I just think that charge that Cruz or others would play the "Obama doesn't care about white people" card is wrongheaded. They'd use something else - maybe like she's beholding to banks or what have you.
Click to expand...

Reputable people won't do it from the lectern (though less reputable ones might . . . remember Palin's "Real America" schtick in 08?) but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
 
weso1 said:
One of her areas of expertise was law as it relates to state and federal constitions. I thought both of Obama's appointees were reasonably qualified. This is just for me personally, but I believe any supreme court nominee should have a strong understanding of the consitution. How they interpret it is what it is, but I want someone who has studied it and written papers on it or argued cases using it, etc.

I think it's a reasonable position considering the importance of the job and the description of the job.
Click to expand...

So do you feel Elizabeth Warren qualifies since she taught Constitutional Law like Obama?
 
The Don said:
So do you feel Elizabeth Warren qualifies since she taught Constitutional Law like Obama?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Warren's area of expertise is in commercial and bankruptcy law. It's possible that I didn't notice that she had significant studies in constitutional law. If she did then I would say that she would be qualified.
 
6C29D093-2CC1-4465-9465-A54C992811B7_zpsinyuof7d.jpg
 
BedellBrave said:
And I'd have the same sentiment for RBG. Feel very sorry though for her and Kagan. Sounds like they both had strong friendships with Nino.
Click to expand...

My issues with Scalia actually have a lot less to do with his leanings on the US political spectrum and a lot more to do with his fundamental hermeneutics. Even if he had used the same methods of text-interpretation to argue progressive ends, I'd have disputed the methods (even if I approved the ends). I just don't condone treating documents as he did: monolithic, moribund, with no openness to new meanings.

That said, your note re Ginsburg does illustrate that we shouldn't treat people monolithically, either. He was someone with whom a staunch ideological opposite could sit down to an opera—and, given the gulf between their interpretive strategies, I would've loved to listen to them argue the finer points of Verdi.
 
[MENTION=108]jpx7[/MENTION]

I think I'm somewhere in between you and he on the hermeneutical issue. I do think we must seriously seek to understand a document in it's historical context (it can't be a total wax nose or it's nonsense - a problem I see with pomo hermeneutics) yet there can be (should be?) applications to contemporary issues or we do just have a museum. Anyhoo...

Or Puccini (after all, he can lay down a tune). Just no Wagner. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top