|
|
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 |
I mentioned Gregg Costa above but Jane Kelly also makes sense
Obama was careful with his words - said s candidate should have a fair chance at an up or down vote. Reps can give him that without being obstructionist.
They absolutely can do it without being obstructionist. But I don't know that they can resist the option.
Quote:
In comment 12813838 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit.
Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better
It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on
Chop; we'll never agree on politics (well, maybe never) but I've always respected your viewpoint and your consistency. I see that you intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it turned out to be a clinker in the grate. No harm, no foul.
B, its all good. I kinda knew the comment would be incendiary to a certain demographic on the site, but the comment was so insanely ridiculous that I figured people would know my political stance and know I was just being a dick. As you can see, some ran with it and wrung their hands.
I've been staying away from these threads not because I don't think I have a valid opinion that others here would agree with, but because, what's the point? I'm not going to change anyone's mind and will probably be called names like Cumdish29 (my insertion of "cum" into your handle name works better than yours mine Kulish) so conveniently demonstrated.
Have a good night!
Quote:
She is sitting already on the US court of Appeals, went to School with Obama, and has some Republican support in the Midwest
I mentioned Gregg Costa above but Jane Kelly also makes sense
I think the traditional bits about who supports whom are out until after November. You might see some movement should the nominee be the guy wearing the Truffala tree on his head (out of a sense that November will be a disaster) but otherwise it's unlikely.
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
So you agree with appointing incompetents to the Supreme Court? For Life?
Quote:
In comment 12814125 Somnambulist said:
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
Better read up on the history of Supreme Court nominations/appointments.
So you agree with appointing incompetents to the Supreme Court? For Life?
You'll have to define your terms and provide examples of "incompetents" appointed to the SC. Also, you'd be well served to re-read what I said and do some primary research before making nonsensical statements.
Seriously, how do you make that leap of logic?
Phony, duplicitous, disingenuous cunts.
Your Opportunity to Learn - ( New Window )
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
So I take it your troll head would explode that night.
Quote:
Bold Ruler issued a warning earlier.
I think Ash's point was that the warning has proven to be quite toothless.
I think it's hard when someone as polarizing as Scalia dies. I don't think anyone questions his legal knowledge or acumen; it's just that many, including myself, disagreed with pretty much every word that came out of his mouth. It doesn't mean I don't respect him. He stood by his principles, for better or worse.
Quote:
In comment 12814108 moespree said:
Quote:
Democrats win back the Senate in November, Hillary wins the election, and proves she wasn't just pathetically pandering for his support and actually does nominate Obama as the replacement. Will the heads explode that night, or will it take 24 hours?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?
So I take it your troll head would explode that night.
An ignoramus, for sure:
"Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. The next year, he joined the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin as a summer associate. Obama was elected the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.
After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer with the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004—first as a lecturer and then as a professor."
Blessings to his family for his death but frankly a Supreme Court judge believing this stuff scares the shit out of me.
Wait a minu... Didn't you do the exact same thing in the post he responded to? Or is "speaking authoritatively" to be sarcastically frowned upon, while blanket assertions such as "most of you only know of him through blah blah blah" are cool?
His legacy will get the Bush treatment. Regardless of what he said or stood for, the results of his actions were pretty aweful.
His intelligence was not a virtue.
Claim to shame: Citizens United
Intelligent man but glad he's off the SC.
LOL
Without straying too far off topic or into areas Eric doesn't want to go, an argument can be made that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association of those who formed the Corporation are implicated, especially when it comes to closely held ones. Should they lose their right to contribute to or endorse a candidate because they chose to incorporate? Back to the topic at hand, it will be interesting to see who President Obama nominates.
2) Patricia Ann Millett, age: 52. Also on the DC Circuit Court. Has argued 32 cases before the SCOTUS.
3) Paul Watford, age: 48. He serves on the Ninth Circuit Court. Clerked for both conservative & liberal judges.
4) Merrick Garland, age: 63. He too is on the DC Circuit Court. But his age works against him. I think Obama will nominate someone much younger.
Ton of other names, but I see those 4 being thrown around a lot.
Second, it is the Senate's right to not approve of that nomination if the candidate has flaws. If the judge is deserving, has sufficient judicial background and is a non-activist then the nomination should be approved.
I will be a very interesting situation.
Advertising has it's own rules. Statements by political groups is not part of those rules.
1.) Self
2.) Party
3.) Country/People
Happy Birthday! So you were just born yesterday?
Every day that passes, I'm more convinced it would take nothing short of a miracle.
Even on a thread like this, you see few posts like 'I hope Obama nominates a moderate candidate with a non-partisan history and that the R's uphold the nomination.' Not because people here are extremists or unreasonable, but because such an outcome seemingly has a near-zero percent chance of occurring.
Intolerance abounds - among the candidates, the legislators, the media, the voters, you name it. Discouraging to say the least.
At any rate, RIP Justice Scalia and thanks for playing a role in our nation's judicial system.
Even on a thread like this, you see few posts like 'I hope Obama nominates a moderate candidate with a non-partisan history and that the R's uphold the nomination.' Not because people here are extremists or unreasonable, but because such an outcome seemingly has a near-zero percent chance of occurring.
Bingo.
I suspect an 8-0 decision for the Senate that it presents a non-justiciable controversy. The Supreme Court is not going to force the Senate to "consent" to a Supreme Court nominee.
1.) Self
2.) Party
3.) Country/People
This. We are "ruled" by a for-profit duopoly. The only goal is to retain power, but mostly for personal profit, not power itself.
Quote:
It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions.
Wait a minu... Didn't you do the exact same thing in the post he responded to? Or is "speaking authoritatively" to be sarcastically frowned upon, while blanket assertions such as "most of you only know of him through blah blah blah" are cool?
This from the man you mind reads why people own guns?
I took some liberties in order to keep the thread on track, its called self-control. You should perhaps work to display it either when posting, or making a statement by suggesting you wouldn't post?
That I am sure of.
What is unclear: Did the Court lose a conservative or a radical?
Or, maybe both?
The nominee would need to be vetted and then there is the judiciary committee hearing with recommendations to the entire Senate. McConnell can certainly allow the process to start then delay it for "legitimate" reasons. Harry Reid used to prevent bills from reaching the floor just because he wanted to prevent discussion. He delayed all sorts of hearings and bills. Admitted a new Justice is pretty high on the priority list.
They can drag it out for a long time.
appointment to temporarily replace Scalia until the next Senate is
chosen. The Constitution gives the President the power to temporarily
fill vacancies without Senate approval when the Senate is not in
session. But remember, in the 18th Century, the Senate often wasn't in
session and it took weeks for all the senators to reassemble in
Washington, especially in the winter when their horse-drawn carriages
could get stuck in the mud. In fact, even notifying the senators to
reassemble was a real problem since the Morse telegraph wasn't even
tested until 1837.
The Senate is likely to recess later this year so members can hit the
campaign trail. Suppose Obama seized the opportunity and made a recess
appointment. What would happen next? Short answer: all hell would
break loose. The Supreme Court recently decided a case involving the
power of the President to make recess appointments: National Labor
Relations Board v. Noel Canning. It was a mixed decision, with some
things for the President and some for the Senate (which opposed the
appointment). The Court ruled the recess power applies even for a
break in the middle of a session but it also ruled that the break has
to last more than 3 days.
Of course, wily old fox McConnell could keep the Senate formally in
session until the new Senate is installed next January. To do that, he
would ask Republican senators who live closest to D.C. to show up once
or twice a week to hold a session. The closest states with Republican
senators are Pennyslvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Sen. Pat
Toomey (R-PA) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) are up for reelection, so
they are excused. So Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Thom
Tillis (R-NC) would take turns showing up and gaveling the Senate into
session. Then they would ask the empty room: "Do I hear a motion?"
Failing to hear one, they would announce a lunch break lasting until
the next morning. If Obama claimed the Senate wasn't really in session
and made a recess appointment, the case would end up in the Supreme
Court and it wouldn't be clear if the newly nominated justice could
vote to break the 4-4 tie. Just imagine a justice having to make the
decision on his or her appointment to the Court? It wouldn't be
pretty. There is much more on recess appointments at SCOTUSbog.
Link - ( New Window )
I think a lot of senate republicans who are up for reelection are going to have a very tough decision to make. If they vote for obamas pick their voters will turn on them. If they block his pick it will be used against them in the election.