Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court

  1. Feb 24, 2016 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obama weighs Republican for Supreme Court
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-says-wants-top-court-justice-independent-mind-132642922.html

    Meanwhile, in an obstruction of justice, "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday the Senate will not hold hearings or vote on any Supreme Court nominee until the next president takes office in January 2017"

    The principle of obstruction, I guess.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 24, 2016 #2
    This is tough. In principle I dislike the obstruction, however, if republicans cave, their constituents would go bonkers and I believe democrats would act in the same manner.
     
  4. Feb 24, 2016 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll believe that when I see it, but it would be amazing to see Obama put forth such a huge compromise as he's leaving office. Interesting conundrum: on the one hand, it would be a huge failure for him to leave office failing to get a USSC justice appointed, but on the other hand to actually attempt a real compromise with the Republicans and have it be rebuffed would be a big win...but too late to be useful to him. I've been saying for 7 years that he should actually attempt a real compromise to put the Republicans on the defensive!
     
  5. Feb 24, 2016 #4

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Las Vegas bookmakers are currently giving these probabilities for our next president: 60%=Clinton, 30%=Trump, 10%=Sanders. If it's Clinton or Sanders, then this is a non-issue. If it's Trump, then our country is faced with a much scarier set of issues than a Supreme Court appointment -- basically a descent into authoritarianism with a Mussolini-style strongman in charge. (I'm not even sure that Trump would nominate anyone terribly objectionable to the court. He's not an ideologue or a social conservative.)

    There's also the possibility that Trump will get elected, but the Senate will go Democratic. In that case the shoe will be on the other foot.
     
  6. Feb 25, 2016 #5
    Trump is picking up steam, what happens if trump and hilliary get the nod? That makes the case for Bloomberg to join the race. If that happens no one gets 270 elect. votes. Will Obama get a third term if any person fails to get 270 and there is only 8 judges to call it 4-4?!!?:wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed::wideeyed:
     
  7. Feb 25, 2016 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Feb 25, 2016 #7

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How might that descent take form? He could, for instance, issue executive orders and appointments outside the bounds his authority. Or, polarize the country, by urging his interest groups to http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/in-appeal-to-hispanics-obama-promises-to-push-immigration-reform/ [Broken], and instead of disagreeing with the opposition, demonize them. He could issue inane summaries of his foreign policy like, "don't do stupid sh!t" to sound bold and edgy while explaining nothing. He could bluster, declaring red lines for rogues abroad, then rationalize when lines are crossed. .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  9. Feb 25, 2016 #8

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nevada Governor Sandoval has withdrawn from consideration:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-sandoval-idUSKCN0VY2JE

    I'm thinking he got too much pressure from his party.

    Wow, if they just obstruct for the rest of the year, I bet the Republicans are going to look completely incapable of governing in the eyes of Independents. Not such a good look, in an election year.

    No wait...maybe they're doing it on purpose! To torpedo Trump! yeah that's it... /s
     
  10. Feb 25, 2016 #9

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You seem to imagine that because I'm horrified at Trump, I must be a big fan of Obama. I actually agree with most of your criticisms of Obama. The way I see history unfolding is this:

    (1) G.W. Bush reacts to 9/11 with torture, indefinite detentions without trial, overseas kidnappings, and massive surveillance programs. Both parties in Congress support him in these actions.

    (2) Obama continues indefinite detentions and expands surveillance. He eliminates torture, and replaces overseas kidnappings with drone strikes (including killings of US citizens). Both parties in Congress support him in these actions.

    (3) President Trump? We can only speculate about how things would play out, but based on what he claims he wants to do, it seems reasonable to assume that he would go much, much further in the destruction of civil liberties than Bush or Obama dared. Whereas Bush and Obama paid lip service to democracy and civil liberties, Trump wholeheartedly advocates policies closely analogous to those of 1930s fascists in Europe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  11. Feb 25, 2016 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you be specific about what those are, please.
     
  12. Feb 26, 2016 #11

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nationalism. Torture (and "much worse"). Scapegoating of ethnic groups. (Wants Muslims to carry special ID cards. Proposes banning all Muslims from the US. Praises FDR for creating Japanese internment camps.)

    Since Trump has evaded most attempts to pin him down on specific policies or proposals, we also have to pay attention to his tone and his non-policy actions, which are also very similar to 30's fascism. He has the cult of personality. He encourages his supporters to beat up hecklers at rallies. He's racist and xenophobic (says Mexico sends us its criminals and rapists). He uses the "big lie" technique.

    Here's an interesting psychological profile of one well-known fascist dictator:

    Sound familiar?
     
  13. Feb 26, 2016 #12

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I made the post because terms around like "descent into authoritarianism" with "a Mussolini-style strongman" are demonization if not supported, or at least given context.

    Ahistorical. You're conflating populism and nationalism with fascism. The 1930s fascists did not want to tinker with civil liberties or immigration policy; they wanted the overthrow the democratic system, to get rid of elections. (BTW, that notion has raised its head among technocratic politicians more than once). They romanticized violence to cleanse society. They denounced individualism and demanded allegiance to the state foremost, to include the wearing of uniforms. Trump's appeal is completely individualistic, with allegiance to nobody or anything other than himself. Trump is nationalistic, but then Bernie Sanders routinely flogs trade with China in his rallies.
     
  14. Feb 26, 2016 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Somewhat, among many, many egotistical politicians (BTW, is there another kind?)
     
  15. Feb 26, 2016 #14

    CalcNerd

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor
    Gold Member

    I see it as Obama offering a decent but moderate (centralist) judge. The right wingers (having to appease their supposed constituents) put up fight (token or not) and then Obama (or lets be realistic), Hilleary then nominate a radical left winger. LOSE, LOSE, LOSE situation for the average Joe. We get obstructionists at every possible place in government. The Lefties win and the Right wingers couldn't (wouldn't) take advantage of an opportunity given them.
    .
    Sadly the extreme right (happens on the left too, but it seems the left is a bit more realistic ie God won't save or step in for them), believe anything left of their position is a lefty/commie/pinko/socialist and if they are registered as a republican, a RINO.
    .
    Actually, I kind of think our founding fathers wanted an inefficient government, one that could not effectively subject its citizens to an authoritarian rule. Unfortunately that seems to have been under attack for the last decade or two as well.
     
  16. Feb 26, 2016 #15
    Back to SC nominees.

    If this is true the Republicans ought to hedge their bets if Obama selects a moderate republican. Certainly they won't have the leverage they currently have if Clinton wins. And even if Trump wins since he does not see to be happy with the 14 th amendment regarding native born children "anchor babies" so he might be looking to try and tinker with the Constitution.
     
  17. Feb 28, 2016 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Basically everything you listed there can be vaguely connected to fascism or just applied as-is to huge swaths of history or populations. Nationalism was the predominant worldview of basically all of Europe prior to WWII and is still around in pockets today. It's a really bad logical fallacy to make such a broad connection.
    You just accidentally (presumably?) listed FDR as a 1930s fascist!
    Steve Jobs?

    To reiterate what I said in another thread: if you actually believe Trump wants to follow in the footsteps of Hitler/Mussolini, you probably shouldn't be posting in these threads. I appreciate the relatively level-headed attempt, but the reductio ad Hitler fallacy line of reasoning isn't acceptable here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
  18. Feb 28, 2016 #17

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So your logic is that nobody should ever openly oppose fascism, because if they fail and the fascists do come into power, the fascists will go after their former opponents? Rather than taking that kind of cowardly attitude, I'd prefer to take a moment to remember the names of four brave men: Ernst Thälmann, Benedetto Croce, Tullio Levi-Civita, and Giacomo Matteotti.

    By the way, the parallels between Trump and fascism are being noted by a lot of people, including people like David Duke and Jean-Marie Le Pen who are themselves overt admirers of fascism. Both Duke and Le Pen have endorsed Trump. Trump initially claimed not to know who Duke was (despite a 2000 statement disassociating himself from him), and only later, under pressure, disavowed him. Here is an article by a Harvard poli sci professor spelling out the parallels between Trump and Hitler. Former Mexican presidents Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox have also compared him to Hitler.

    This is a mistake in your logic. I listed a series of similarities between A and B, to support my claim that A and B are similar in general. One of those similarities is also a similarity between C and B. It doesn't follow that C and B are similar in general. In simpler terms, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. However, if we only observe that it walks like a duck, it could be Chuck Berry.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
  19. Feb 28, 2016 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I said no such thing.

    My logic for not comparing Trump to 1930s fascists is that the comparison is heavily logically flawed and is in actuality based on the same sort of irrationality that people are criticizing Trump supporters for.
    Actually, that is precisely the flaw in your logic that I was pointing out. I don't believe FDR was a fascist, even though your logic dictates that we should conclude it (and you did list him as an example in response to the question). It is an association fallacy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

    As applied to fascism, the part your comparison between Trump and Fascism is missing (as mheslep pointed out) is the fascism.
     
  20. Feb 28, 2016 #19

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just came across two interesting pieces of information.

    Trump's father Fred was arrested in 1927 on a night of deadly brawls between Italian anti-fascists on one side and the KKK and fascists on the other. Fred Trump appears to have been part of the KKK group. Donald Trump denies that any of this happened, despite abundant documentation.

    In a CNN interview today, Trump changed his mind about David Duke and repeatedly refused to disavow him.
     
  21. Feb 28, 2016 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And John Kennedy's daddy was a strong supporter of Hitler while ambassador to England, until FDR fired him for it. Race relations were worse in the 1920s, when kkk membership peaked at 4 million and Wilson was watching the klan film "Birth of a Nation" in the White House.

    Trump repeatedly said he didn't know "anything" about Duke. Not a very believable response, but not exactly the same as refusing to disavow.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court
  1. US. Supreme Court (Replies: 138)

Loading...