SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

[kalm]

I don't care what happened in the past. Just don't go along with allowing Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court to replace Scalia. I've heard talk that he might be able to do it anyway through some kind of "recess appointment" within a narrow window just before he leaves office and congress is transitioning. Though I'm sure he'd try that if he thinks there's any possible way he can "interpret" the Constitution to mean he can appoint a permanent Supreme Court Justice in a way that never involves the advice and consent of the Senate. But if he's going to try that let him try it and we'll see what happens from there. Do NOT cooperate with him in any way. He does not believe in following the Constitution and he's not going to select anybody who believes in following the Constitution.

Ok Good. Looks like he's screwed as long as they stand their ground and maintain enough seats in the Senate to block things through filibuster if the next President decides to try to re-appoint whoever Obama would stick in temporarily.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a- ... an-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do not let Obama replace Scalia. Just DON'T do it no matter what. They have the power to keep him from doing it and they need to exercise that power.

I hope Obama appoints his wife and Trump is elected president. I'd still wake up a go fishing in the morning.

[YoUDeeMan]

Nothing says class like dancing on the grave of an honorable man.

If it was about an honerable man I would agree with you


But anybody that compares me to a pedophile can rot in hell the fucking asshole bastard

Jon, one of your heroes was a pedophile.

Yup...you shouted out your support, right here on CS.com, for a fvcking child molester, you animal. If it were your underaged son that was getting azz fvcked by some perverted politically connected adult, you'd be horrified and you'd want the guy put in jail.

Instead, because he was gay, you give him a pass and praised his leadership and his election to public office.

Oh, but he is gay...so fvcking under aged kids is OK.

No wonder some people think people like you are pedophiles...you are a shining example of a person with no standards, and it is rooted in doing ANYTHING, and supporting ANYONE, who praises and supports your lifestyle, regardless of their behavior and regardless of the damage done to innocent children or other individuals.

It is a good thing you are gay...God doesn't want your kind raising children.

[YoUDeeMan]

WRONG libtard. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987 for a SCOTUS vacancy that had come open in June of 1987 with Justice Powell's retirement. That vacancy was filled by Kennedy's confirmation in Feb of 1988.

Pwns was right- Its been 80 years since 1936 since a SCOTUS vacancy OCCURED during an election year.

No you fucking moron Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 not confirmed until February 1988

The longest a vacancy is ever been 130 days

President Obama still has 340 days left in his presidency

President Obama was duly elected twice he still the president is constitutional duty to nominate the Supreme Court Justice If the Senate will not follow their job and they should all resign

Narrow minded...par for the course.

Obama will do his job.

The Congress will do theirs. Their job is to confirm someone they see fit to wear the robe. If Obama puts up someone they don't want...they will do their job and not approve Obama's selection.

That's how it works...balance.

Of course, you wouldn't understand that word.

As for the longest vacancy...records were made to be Borken ( ).

[Ivytalk]

No you **** moron Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 not confirmed until February 1988

The longest a vacancy is ever been 130 days

President Obama still has 340 days left in his presidency

President Obama was duly elected twice he still the president is constitutional duty to nominate the Supreme Court Justice If the Senate will not follow their job and they should all resign

Narrow minded...par for the course.

Obama will do his job.

The Congress will do theirs. Their job is to confirm someone they see fit to wear the robe. If Obama puts up
someone they don't want...they will do their job and not approve Obama's selection.

That's how it works...balance.

Of course, you wouldn't understand that word.

As for the longest vacancy...records were made to be Borken ( ).

"Borken"! Very good! This board is heating up, what with this post and DSU's classic "two fifths" post yesterday!

[∞∞∞]

I don't care what happened in the past. Just don't go along with allowing Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court to replace Scalia. I've heard talk that he might be able to do it anyway through some kind of "recess appointment" within a narrow window just before he leaves office and congress is transitioning. Though I'm sure he'd try that if he thinks there's any possible way he can "interpret" the Constitution to mean he can appoint a permanent Supreme Court Justice in a way that never involves the advice and consent of the Senate. But if he's going to try that let him try it and we'll see what happens from there. Do NOT cooperate with him in any way. He does not believe in following the Constitution and he's not going to select anybody who believes in following the Constitution.

Ok Good. Looks like he's screwed as long as they stand their ground and maintain enough seats in the Senate to block things through filibuster if the next President decides to try to re-appoint whoever Obama would stick in temporarily.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a- ... an-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do not let Obama replace Scalia. Just DON'T do it no matter what. They have the power to keep him from doing it and they need to exercise that power.

See John, I think this is what bothers me about the argument. You see it as Obama having an eight year Presidency, except he has not. He's had a four year Presidency + four year Presidency. The Constitution allows the People to elect someone every four years and in 2012, they did and Obama won. The Constitution also says that the President nominates Justices with advice from the Senate, but it doesn't say "except in the last year of his term." Obama appointed two people in his first term. Pause. It is now another term: he has all the Constitutional rights that the People afforded him in 2012 for four years. Not three. But four.

For the Senate to block any appointee just because it's his last year in office would be a mockery to how the Constitution works. The voters in 2008 are not the same as in 2012. If you are to deny the President an appointee because you don't want one man appointing three people, you deny the voice of the People that voted him into office in 2012. Sotomayor and Kagan represent the people who voted him into office in 2008; the new Justice should represent the people who voted Obama into office in 2012.

[kalm]

There are some very entertaining Facebook discussions on this.

Man are we a country divided.

[Baldy]

I don't care what happened in the past. Just don't go along with allowing Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court to replace Scalia. I've heard talk that he might be able to do it anyway through some kind of "recess appointment" within a narrow window just before he leaves office and congress is transitioning. Though I'm sure he'd try that if he thinks there's any possible way he can "interpret" the Constitution to mean he can appoint a permanent Supreme Court Justice in a way that never involves the advice and consent of the Senate. But if he's going to try that let him try it and we'll see what happens from there. Do NOT cooperate with him in any way. He does not believe in following the Constitution and he's not going to select anybody who believes in following the Constitution.

Ok Good. Looks like he's screwed as long as they stand their ground and maintain enough seats in the Senate to block things through filibuster if the next President decides to try to re-appoint whoever Obama would stick in temporarily.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a- ... an-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do not let Obama replace Scalia. Just DON'T do it no matter what. They have the power to keep him from doing it and they need to exercise that power.

See John, I think this is what bothers me about the argument. You see it as Obama having an eight year Presidency, except he has not. He's had a four year Presidency + four year Presidency. The Constitution allows the People to elect someone every four years and in 2012, they did and Obama won. The Constitution also says that the President nominates Justices with advice from the Senate, but it doesn't say "except in the last year of his term." Obama appointed two people in his first term. Pause. It is now another term: he has all the Constitutional rights that the People afforded him in 2012 for four years. Not three. But four.

For the Senate to block any appointee just because it's his last year in office would be a mockery to how the Constitution works. The voters in 2008 are not the same as in 2012. If you are to deny the President an appointee because you don't want one man appointing three people, you deny the voice of the People that voted him into office in 2012. Sotomayor and Kagan represent the people who voted him into office in 2008; the new Justice should represent the people who voted Obama into office in 2012.

That's funny considering Obama has made a mockery out of the Constitution since the first day he stepped into office.

[kalm]

See John, I think this is what bothers me about the argument. You see it as Obama having an eight year Presidency, except he has not. He's had a four year Presidency + four year Presidency. The Constitution allows the People to elect someone every four years and in 2012, they did and Obama won. The Constitution also says that the President nominates Justices with advice from the Senate, but it doesn't say "except in the last year of his term." Obama appointed two people in his first term. Pause. It is now another term: he has all the Constitutional rights that the People afforded him in 2012 for four years. Not three. But four.

For the Senate to block any appointee just because it's his last year in office would be a mockery to how the Constitution works. The voters in 2008 are not the same as in 2012. If you are to deny the President an appointee because you don't want one man appointing three people, you deny the voice of the People that voted him into office in 2012. Sotomayor and Kagan represent the people who voted him into office in 2008; the new Justice should represent the people who voted Obama into office in 2012.

That's funny considering Obama has made a mockery out of the Constitution since the first day he stepped into office.

Thankfully the reign of terror is almost over!

[SDHornet]

WRONG libtard. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987 for a SCOTUS vacancy that had come open in June of 1987 with Justice Powell's retirement. That vacancy was filled by Kennedy's confirmation in Feb of 1988.

Pwns was right- Its been 80 years since 1936 since a SCOTUS vacancy OCCURED during an election year.

No you fucking moron Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 not confirmed until February 1988

The longest a vacancy is ever been 130 days

President Obama still has 340 days left in his presidency

President Obama was duly elected twice he still the president is constitutional duty to nominate the Supreme Court Justice If the Senate will not follow their job and they should all resign

I'm guessing you don't really believe that since I don't recall much outrage from you when Reid didn't bother bringing common sense legislation passed by the GOP led House to the Senate floor...but it's your guy so it's ok right?

I will say, watching you get slapped around because of your unbridled bias is entertaining.

[CID1990]

well if your gay marriage is ok with "God" then I'm pretty sure the old testament is wrong about heaven and hell too

I don't need my marriage to be OK I need it to be OK with the Constitution

But you just pointed out one reason why he was one of the worst justices ever he was a ruling based on the Bible is not on the Constitution

oh!

im sorry

I could have sworn it was you, the secular or atheist queer, who said "rot in hell"

you getting the point yet?

[houndawg]

Obama is in his last year after facing scorched earth opposition for seven years, mostly because he's black. Now its his turn to fvck back.

He will propose only highly qualified minority/female candidates that lean left and the JSO mentality will cost the conks election because of it. Being that he also has a highly developed sense of humor one of those candidates will probably be Anita Hill.

Well hello there, Clarence, would you like some of my Coke?


This is going to be the most entertaining election ever.

[CAA Flagship]

Obama is in his last year after facing scorched earth opposition for seven years, mostly because he's black.

Says you.
Competency and sound decision-making means more to most Americans.
But you go ahead and keep playing the black card.

[Ibanez]

Nothing says class like dancing on the grave of an honorable man.

If it was about an honerable man I would agree with you


But anybody that compares me to a pedophile can rot in hell the fucking asshole bastard

I don't follow every word someone says about issues important to me but when/where did he call you a pedophile?

[Ibanez]

Strike a nerve much? Does social change scare you?

edit: I don't particularly care if the Senate doesn't vote for a candidate until the next Presidency if that's the excuse they want to go with. But the GOP better win the election 'cause if it doesn't, the court will be liberal for many decades to come. It just won't be Scalia anymore...

No strucken nerve. Just responding to a statement that the Republicans would look "horrendous" by not allowing Obama appointment.

Allow an Obama appoint = a liberal appointment
Appointment in 2017 = maybe a liberal appointment or maybe a conservative depending on the election results.

Of course you don't think the GOP would look bad. You're as bad a partisan as Dback.


It is Obama's duty to appoint someone, something Republicans should remember. God knows, if the POTUS was a Republican and the Dems wanted the appointment delayed until after the election, the Republicans would be losing their minds.


Of course, the GOP could shoot themselves in the foot if an appointment is delayed until after the election and they lose the Senate and White House.

[BDKJMU]

WRONG libtard. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987 for a SCOTUS vacancy that had come open in June of 1987 with Justice Powell's retirement. That vacancy was filled by Kennedy's confirmation in Feb of 1988.

Pwns was right- Its been 80 years since 1936 since a SCOTUS vacancy OCCURED during an election year.

No you **** moron Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 not confirmed until February 1988

The longest a vacancy is ever been 130 days

President Obama still has 340 days left in his presidency

President Obama was duly elected twice he still the president is constitutional duty to nominate the Supreme Court Justice If the Senate will not follow their job and they should all resign

My god you are a fucking in addition to being a drama queen

Wrong Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy in 1988 in his last year

I was resonding to you clearing being WRONG. Reagan didn't appoint Kennedy in 1988 in his last year. He nominated him in 1987. Libtard..

[Ibanez]

Jon, do you not understand the difference between appointed and confirmed?

[Vidav]

This argument is also really boring. Who cares when Reagan appointed anyone? That means nothing for this situation.

[89Hen]

He was a real justice. Oh, that's right, anyone that doesn't share your POV is evil, bad, unreal and a piece of shit.


Such intolerance.

He was intolerant of me. If Scalis had his way my upcoming marriage would be illegal

So he can rot in hell.

And the one trick pony rears it's ugly head again. Shame on you Jon.

[kalm]

He was intolerant of me. If Scalis had his way my upcoming marriage would be illegal

So he can rot in hell.

And the one trick pony rears it's ugly head again. Shame on you Jon.

Yeah! Gawdamm uppity homos with their one trick pony and egalitarianism! Who do they think they are? black???

[Ivytalk]

And the one trick pony rears it's ugly head again. Shame on you Jon.

Yeah! Gawdamm uppity homos with their one trick pony and egalitarianism! Who do they think they are? black???

And Klam dutifully carves another notch on his Donk belt.

[Ibanez]

I don't care what happened in the past. Just don't go along with allowing Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court to replace Scalia. I've heard talk that he might be able to do it anyway through some kind of "recess appointment" within a narrow window just before he leaves office and congress is transitioning. Though I'm sure he'd try that if he thinks there's any possible way he can "interpret" the Constitution to mean he can appoint a permanent Supreme Court Justice in a way that never involves the advice and consent of the Senate. But if he's going to try that let him try it and we'll see what happens from there. Do NOT cooperate with him in any way. He does not believe in following the Constitution and he's not going to select anybody who believes in following the Constitution.

Ok Good. Looks like he's screwed as long as they stand their ground and maintain enough seats in the Senate to block things through filibuster if the next President decides to try to re-appoint whoever Obama would stick in temporarily.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a- ... an-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do not let Obama replace Scalia. Just DON'T do it no matter what. They have the power to keep him from doing it and they need to exercise that power.

As someone that believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you have no problem with Obama fulfilling his Constitutional duty of appointing someone. Correct?

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah! Gawdamm uppity homos with their one trick pony and egalitarianism! Who do they think they are? black???

And Klam dutifully carves another notch on his Donk belt.

[kalm]

And Klam dutifully carves another notch on his freedom belt.

FIFY.

[Ivytalk]

FIFY.

Re-FIFY!

Heh-heh-heh, he said "garter belt."

No homo.

[Chizzang]

As a straight / White / Male with no Religious affiliation
or desire to restrict anybody else's freedom... I don't care who's on the supreme court

I will go the rest of my days (as the above described)
and never have to give a rats ass about the supreme court or there rulings

ZERO Effect on ME