|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body |
Quote:
I know that there are several "liberal" justices that were nominated and expected to be conservative by Republican presidents. Souter and Stevens come to mind. In relatively recent history, are there any justices that were expected to be liberal and turned out to be conservative or right leaning?
Assuming this qualifies as relatively recent history, I'd point to Byron White. Not as dramatic a shift as Stevens, but he'd probably be classified as center-right when it was hoped he's be part of the liberal wing.
Thanks, njm.
When we're past the third phase of Polaris, obviously.
I don't know but for the Democrats and Chuck Schumer it's 18 months.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Obama said his judicial nominees "have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor." That’s true if you count from committee approval to confirmation, but not if you count the full period from nomination to confirmation. As it turns out, the average wait for George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees was actually longer from nomination to confirmation.
Because Obama didn’t specify the measurement he was using -- and because an alternative number exists that runs counter to his claim -- Obama has essentially cherry-picked a figure that puts his situation in the most sympathetic light. On balance, we rate his claim Half True.
Your wrong again but that is to be expected. The only thing he did wrong was not exactly specifying what part of the Confirmation stage he meant. But then again that is explained when he used Bush's time of 35 days, which is what his avg from senate approval to confirmation was. When you then compare that to Obama's avg it is more then triple.
Now I understand that would take a simple reading between the lines and actual logic, which of course you will refuse to do because it does not fit into the silly arguments you have already presented repeatedly throughout this thread (IE: Schuemer statement regarding a hypothetical is equivalent to the entire Conservative party's statement regarding a real situation). So I am sure the nuances will be once again lost on the disingenuous rational that you utilize.
I think the GOP has no standing to ever discuss obstructionism since they went to the nuclear option. But both sides are idiots about this. The only time a President is a lame duck is when another President is elected, those last two and a half months.
Otherwise, a President is techincially lame-duck the moment he's elected. A term is only four years.
This.
Is what I hate about political discourse these days. It's not just the us-versus-them mentality. It's this firmly held yet baseless belief that it's just the other side that does shady, hypocritical things.
Newsflash-- politicians are sleezy. On both sides of the aisle. And those that are standing in the aisle, or just seem like they're lost in the aisle. They kiss babies. And probably more than a few of them have herpes.
And herpes is for life.
And the Dems would have no problem if revered.
Agree with Sam and AP.
Yet The sheep refuse to acknowledge it. Its like a bizarro world.
Axelrod said Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday, was seated with him at a dinner following Justice David Souter's retirement and told him he hoped for Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Yet The sheep refuse to acknowledge it. Its like a bizarro world.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa...d example. You don't remember Democrats in Congress opposing W at every turn?
But oK, this is just those big bad Republicans again.
Yarn.
Most are already united by Hillary.....it is why Bernie is doing so well
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
And anyone wonder what is wrong with both sides of the aisle?
Just read thi thread.
Quote:
No they didn't. Not as their main policy. I have compared it to treason. Republicans have a funny way of alway searching for some false equivalence....It was your parties stated plan. Block everything. They had a meeting to tell everyone that is what the plan is. No matter what Obama wants, obstruct it. Its treason in my opinion.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
And anyone wonder what is wrong with both sides of the aisle?
Just read thi thread.
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Look, I'm far from a Bush fan, but you are doing exactly what Buford does. You are broad brushing claims without understanding the nuances and mitigating factors involved with it. Many of those factors are things the Dems contributed to what you are laying all the blame on Bush for. Don't be like her, don't be a regurgitating FB meme puppet
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Funny, I'm not a Republican. It's your blind partisanship that has the proverbial wool over your eyes.
I'm going to stop, as this thread has gone a little off the rails.
Signing off,
Sarcastic Sheep
If you think or are claiming that the Dems under Bush were the same as the Republicans under obama, then you are living in a special universe.
Hell how many years did we listen to crap about Obamas birth certificate? Muslim ties..
When did the Democrats organize and say, we will reject everything Bush wants to do no matter what it is? Never happened.
The Republicans were sharp on this, especially Norquist. And the sheep bought it. Most people dont have the time to even investigate it. They take sound bites and believe what they are predisposed to believe. Thats just how it works and how it happened
Bush got a freaking illegal war based on lies and misinformation. He got illegal wire tapping. He got his war budget off budget...And he was responsible for 911 by ignoring the warnings on his desk and most don't even think about it. If that was Obama, it would be a muslim conspiracy led by him.
Illegal war - approved by congress! Illegal wire taps, approved by congress!
But I agree we should not have been Iraq and had that belief long before the war; plus, the Patriot Act must go.
The most sensible Republicans had no chance. Cruz, Trump and Rubio?
If you think or are claiming that the Dems under Bush were the same as the Republicans under obama, then you are living in a special universe.
Hell how many years did we listen to crap about Obamas birth certificate? Muslim ties..
When did the Democrats organize and say, we will reject everything Bush wants to do no matter what it is? Never happened.
The Republicans were sharp on this, especially Norquist. And the sheep bought it. Most people dont have the time to even investigate it. They take sound bites and believe what they are predisposed to believe. Thats just how it works and how it happened
Doing your best to get the thread deleted? Is there a reason you can't just not post?
The most sensible Republicans had no chance. Cruz, Trump and Rubio?
Just STFU already.
Again. you want it both ways. Bush got what he wanted...How did that work out...
Yet the irony is that now you are claiming the Repubs are doing the same as the Democrats...But Obama got no support from the Republicans and the Republican stated plan was to obstruct EVERYTHING...
Like I said you want it both ways, false equivalency...You just proved it...sheeple and all
There is no obstructionism unless there is process. That process begins with the President - not the Senate. There has been no process at this time. Mitch McConnell can say whatever he wants - the Senate must perform its function, and it will, just as soon as the left and the President decide to stop milking the idea that the Senate will "prevent" Obama from making a nomination. Nobody is saying he won't have that opportunity.
We don't know who the President will nominate. We don't know if that person can clear a USSC level FBI background check - even if you are a sitting appointed judge, you haven't gone through the anal probe that accompanies a lifetime appointment. We don't know if they can get through a committee vote and to the floor. We don't know if the Senate will go into Executive Session, and if they don't will it be motioned for?
NONE OF IT MATTERS. Here comes opinion. Obama will put someone up - if it tilts the court, that person will likely not be confirmed. Period. Full stop. And that's not obstructionism; that's the Senate acting as it is allowed to - it's advise and consent, not advise and rubberstamp. President was elected in 2012 - Senate tilted in 2014 (someone tell Maddow that before she hyperventilates). They can vote no till the cows come home or they're thrown out of office.
And please, enough with this bullshit that a unanimous nominee to a lower circuit means that nominee is pre-qualified for a SC seat. False equivalence. There are very few similarities in function, the job descriptions are vastly different, and the nomination process is on an entirely different level. It's like saying 100 supercar owners all agreed a mechanic is well-qualified on a Honda, but that doesn't mean they necessarily think the same mechanic could handle a Ferrari.
There are ZERO objective qualifiers to be a SC justice. Just remember that. This is one of those few times where each branch is Co-Equal in the truest of senses. For those who prefer Presidential Imperialism, this is a tough pill to swallow.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
What does that have to do with it? The commentary is addressing what has been stated by Cruz, McConnell and Grassley 2 hours after the man died. Are they supposed to pretend they never said those things, but if they do "their milking it"? That is an absurd claim that completely ignores what they were responding to.
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
Yup!
- America
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
How'd they put someone forward on MSNBC?
Quote:
In comment 12816050 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Its two (2) damn days, they will not put anyone up until he has been buried, which is the decent thing to do.
I guess you missed tonight's lineup on MSNBC?
How'd they put someone forward on MSNBC?
The best part is completely ignoring what all the Conservative heads and leaders have been saying for two day while using that lame example...It is just terrible that political commentators would ever mention something like what the Head of the Senate stated..
It got far too political ther first day it was posted and, morons like chopper were doing what they do. But yeah. Let's cut it off now after 8 pages.
Christ Eric. Either politcal threads are allowed here or not. Make up your mind. This thread was bound to get political. The first sign of bullshit should've shut down this thread, yet, it stayed up. The double standards are tiresome.
Oh, who am I kidding. You practically need the entire forum calling for your head before you get banned on here. Might as well close the topic in that case.
Quote:
confirming a Presidential appointee to the Supreme Court if that President were a Republican. This is totally and completely political. Once again, they are earning the label of the party of obstruction.
This.
Is what I hate about political discourse these days. It's not just the us-versus-them mentality. It's this firmly held yet baseless belief that it's just the other side that does shady, hypocritical things.
Newsflash-- politicians are sleezy. On both sides of the aisle. And those that are standing in the aisle, or just seem like they're lost in the aisle. They kiss babies. And probably more than a few of them have herpes.
And herpes is for life.
"Listen, I'm a politician. which means I'm a cheat and a liar...and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops."
Which leads right back to The Constitution and why to protect it, it keeps the crooks in line.
That said, I was not a fan of Scalia, his view on protecting the Constitution was a bit un-enlightened, primitive.
I mean, if you want to get the government out of peoples business, why take the position of not allowing gay marriage?
None of the governments damn business.
Rather, he should have worked to role back 19th century laws attempting to regulate human behavior if the first place.
4-4 Supreme Court could be good for Unions and Voting Rights Advocates - ( New Window )
Are there not some other, important, issue regarding those?
And, why not let people choose, is 'choice' not a fundamental right and core concept here?