Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[Tomdstone]

Interesting. You would forego the advice and counsel of a brilliant legal mind to a president - helping him choose solid judicial picks (ones that would overturn Roe V Wade) because of what that he did in 1973?

Amazing.

Ishii

I doubt that a person with a brilliant legal mind would act illegally as he did.

 

[ishii]

I doubt that a person with a brilliant legal mind would act illegally as he did.

I see. Like I said, nothing personal, Tomdstone, but I will defer to the bulk of conservatives (many of them brilliant legal minds) who consider Bork to have a brilliant legal mind.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

I see. Like I said, nothing personal, Tomdstone, but I will defer to the bulk of conservatives (many of them brilliant legal minds) who consider Bork to have a brilliant legal mind.

Ishii

If these conservatives support illegal actions by politicians, then I would say that they lack credibility. I believe that it was found by a court of law that Mr. Bork had acted illegally when he fired Mr. Cox. Personally, I support the rule of law and believe that all Americans, including the politicians, should obey the laws of the United States.

 

[Crossbones]

Again, I would much rather have had Romney picking our justices than Obama. Surely you can agree with that? Voting for Romney over Obama was a no-brainer. The only ones that don’t get that are Democrat catholics (who think voting for a Republican is a vote for greed and war on poor) and “true-believer” catholics who will only vote for the ideologically pure candidate -regardless of his/her ability to win.

I won’t address all your points as many I would just rehash what I said and I think we would just agree to disagree. That said, this point is interesting. I think this line of thinking doesn’t take into account that Supreme Court justices are now clearly waiting for a president of a particular ideology before they will retire. Justice Souter and Stevens waited for President Obama; Justice O’Connor waited for President Bush. So, I think there is little chance that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy or Thomas would retire under President Obama, while the others would not retire under a Republican presidency.

So, in all likelihood, President Obama would only be replacing a justice with similar ideology to his own, which makes the concern of the damage he could do minimal. On the other hand, I don’t know that I would trust Governor Romney to make the right choice in replacing one of the five I listed above. A wrong choice (Kennedy) could ruin things for 25 years. In this case, waiting for ideologically pure might be the right choice.

And, again, I point out, Romney didn’t win. The argument of selecting a less ideologically pure candidate because of his ability to win goes out the window unless you think that President Obama overseeing the worst economy in the last 70 years was unbeatable.

 

[ishii]

I won't address all your points as many I would just rehash what I said and I think we would just agree to disagree.  That said, this point is interesting.  I think this line of thinking doesn't take into account that Supreme Court justices are now clearly waiting for a president of a particular ideology before they will retire.  Justice Souter and Stevens waited for President Obama; Justice O'Connor waited for President Bush.  So, I think there is little chance that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy or Thomas would retire under President Obama, while the others would not retire under a Republican presidency.

Justices can wait for a while, but there is a limit to how long they can wait for an ideologically friendly president. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is old. If she doesn’t retire in the next 2 years, and a Republican president is elected, I expect to see a vacancy that can change the balance of the supreme court. Sooner or later, that has to happen. If a Republican wins in 2016 and 2020 (recall that he last 3 presidents - Obama, Bush 2, and Clinton - served two terms) then you will have Stephen Breyer in his 80’s. Furthermore, Anthony Kennedy (who will be 80 years old in 2016) might well retire. Replace him with a stronger constructionist and you change the ideological balance of the supreme court. Obviously anything can happen, but the point is that its not a simple matter of justices waiting until the right time to retire.

So, in all likelihood, President Obama would only be replacing a justice with similar ideology to his own, which makes the concern of the damage he could do minimal.  On the other hand, I don't know that I would trust Governor Romney to make the right choice in replacing one of the five I listed above.  A wrong choice (Kennedy) could ruin things for 25 years.  In this case, waiting for ideologically pure might be the right choice.

I see you point, and I can sympathize. But that said, I don’t think you can say that a Romney pick would give us another Anthony Kennedy. And Obama has done much more damage in other areas - not just the supreme court. Recall that it was the moderate Bush that gave us Clarence Thomas. Unless the Republican running is truly a closet liberal, I don’t think its a good idea to wait for the “ideologically pure” president.

And, again, I point out, Romney didn’t win. The argument of selecting a less ideologically pure candidate because of his ability to win goes out the window unless you think that President Obama overseeing the worst economy in the last 70 years was unbeatable.

Its not that simple, Crossbones. Romney’s loss was a combination of factors that would have made matters difficult no matter who was nominated - maybe more difficult. Clearly the electorate didn’t think that economy was the worst its been in 70 years. Or were convinced by the media and Obama campaign that it was all Bush’s fault. Making a choice to back the candidate with the best chance of winning is not a guarantee of winning - and shouldn’t be considered as such. Romney was probably the best possible candidate, even though he lost.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

When has this strategy ever worked to get the results we’ve wanted? Two of the three justices confirmed under President Reagan supported the right to abortion is Casey. President Bush the first nominated Justice Souter. President Bush the second nominated Justice Roberts who supported the ACA.

And that’s the three Republican nominees that won. The ones that have been lost have been centrist (Dole, McCain and Romney) as well.

The Republicans cannot expect to hold onto the presidency for long enough to nominate all 9 justices to the Supreme Court, so their nominees must be true to the cause, and Governor Romney flip flopped on the issue and there can be made a strong argument that he was just playing lip service to the issue.

You didn’t mention Nixon’s appointments of 3 justices who voted for Roe vs Wade. One of them, Justice Blackmun was perhaps the most influential, both in swaying others to his point of view and setting precedents (evident in Casey) that now makes the complete overturn of RvW virtually impossible.

 

[ishii]

You didn’t mention Nixon’s appointments of 3 justices who voted for Roe vs Wade. One of them, Justice Blackmun was perhaps the most influential, both in swaying others to his point of view and setting precedents (evident in Casey) that now makes the complete overturn of RvW virtually impossible.

The Supreme Court justices picked by Nixon are irrelevant - abortion wasn’t an issue when Nixon ran. Certainly not the issue it was in 1980&84 or is now. So your argument - which I’ve heard many times on CAF - doesn’t hold water.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

In Clinton, New Look at '90s

Both Sides Seek Salient Lessons in Her Tenure as First Lady; ‘Mother of Obamacare’?

The presidential election is three years out and Hillary Clinton hasn’t even said she is running, but her political future has already touched off a re-examination of a central part of her past: the 1990s.

Republican researchers are mining archives from the Bill Clinton era in search of material that could be used to hobble her candidacy. In particular, they are laying the groundwork to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton’s efforts as chairman of a task force to overhaul the health-care system in 1993-94, casting what they call “HillaryCare” as a forerunner of the Affordable Care Act that, at this point, is generally unpopular.

“She could be the mother of Obamacare,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Supreme Court justices picked by Nixon are irrelevant - abortion wasn’t an issue when Nixon ran. Certainly not the issue it was in 1980&84 or is now. So your argument - which I’ve heard many times on CAF - doesn’t hold water.

Ishii

I would say that if the Republicans have been choosing judges who support abortion, then it is an issue.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You didn’t mention Nixon’s appointments of 3 justices who voted for Roe vs Wade. One of them, Justice Blackmun was perhaps the most influential, both in swaying others to his point of view and setting precedents (evident in Casey) that now makes the complete overturn of RvW virtually impossible.

From my relatively limited knowledge of political history, Republicans were generally more prochoice then since the only substantial bloc of prolife people was composed of Catholics, still pretty solidly Democratic.

 

[ishii]

From my relatively limited knowledge of political history, Republicans were generally more prochoice then since the only substantial bloc of prolife people was composed of Catholics, still pretty solidly Democratic.

There were still a lot of Rockefeller Republicans in the late 60’s/early 70’s. The movement of socially conservative blue collar Catholics happened in the 70’s but especially in the 80’s during the Reagan era - as the Democrat party moved further and further left, embracing the social agenda of the secular left. Today there aren’t many Reagan Democrats (if at all) because they have either joined the Republican party or have died.

So often people make the argument that that because the supreme court justices who voted in favor of Roe V Wade were appointed by Nixon, that somehow proves the Republican party is not pro-life. That argument is wrong, of course.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I would say that if the Republicans have been choosing judges who support abortion, then it is an issue.

Its only an issue for those who believe wrongly that the GOP is the same party it was in 1968. It isn’t.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

In Clinton, New Look at '90s

“She could be the mother of Obamacare,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster.

So was Nixon the father?

 

[Tomdstone]

Its only an issue for those who believe wrongly that the GOP is the same party it was in 1968. It isn’t.

Ishii

Why is it not the same party?

 

[ishii]

Why is it not the same party?

It has changed a great deal since the Nixon era. The change really started during the Goldwater candidacy of 1964, but really didn’t come to fruition until the election of Reagan in 1980. There are many differences, but I believe the biggest difference between the Republican party of Nixon era and the Republican party of the Reagan era is the focus on the social issues - such as abortion - mostly due to the influence of the religious right. The Republican party is much more conservative than the Nixon era GOP which embraced such things as the EPA, Clean Air Act, hiring quotas, wage and price controls, etc. The ascendance of people like Newt Gingrich was a reaction against the old-guard GOP leaders who were content to be in the minority.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

The Republican party is much more conservative than the Nixon era GOP which embraced such things as the EPA, Clean Air Act, hiring quotas, wage and price controls, etc.

So Bush and Romney are against the clean air act?

 

[ishii]

So Bush and Romney are against the clean air act?

Ha. Its telling that you pick out the clean air act and ignore my other points. My point, Tomdstone, is that Republicans in 2013 are much, much less likely to propose federal government solutions to our problems as Nixon did with the Clean air act and EPA. Hopefully you can understand that.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ha. Its telling that you pick out the clean air act and ignore my other points. My point, Tomdstone, is that Republicans in 2013 are much, much less likely to propose federal government solutions to our problems as Nixon did with the Clean air act and EPA. Hopefully you can understand that.

So many of the recent Republican presidential candidates were not against the clean air act after all.

 

[ishii]

So many of the recent Republican presidential candidates were not against the clean air act after all.

Your point being ?

Or are you saying that since the Republican party doesn’t support the repeal of the Clean Air Act - the party hasn’t changed since Nixon? You seem to be playing games now.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

Your point being ?

Or are you saying that since the Republican party doesn’t support the repeal of the Clean Air Act - the party hasn’t changed since Nixon?

Ishii

Right. I don’t see where the GOP has changed all that much from the time of Nixon to today on the issue of clean air. So, in that regard it is the same party not a totally different one.