SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Political discussions
Post Reply
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19272
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Chizzang »

Pwns wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with :?

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals

:rofl:

God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)
Aren't you one of those abortion-is-no-different-than-an-appendectomy guys, Chizz?

An anti-choice SCOTUS could take away your woman's right to crush the skull of a 20-week old fetus.
She's 50 years old... That ship has sailed
but we do smoke crushed baby skull (Totally legal in Washington)
and we eat salted Baby brains as hors d'oeuvres with a nice 22 week Fetus Pâté

:nod:

Image
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47113
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by kalm »

JohnStOnge wrote:
Agree on their constitutional rights to vote down an nominee but several congressmen and candidates have said they simply won't allow Obama any appointee. Hmmmm, does the constitution address that contingency?

You're a convenient constructionist.
I guess if you think Obama might potentially appoint a nominee who is going to be a strict constructionist you could quibble with saying ahead of time that they'll vote down any Obama nominee. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to nominate people who do not believe in following the original understanding of the Constitution. So if you want they could play the game of saying they'll consider each on a case by case basis but won't accept anybody that's not an original understanding person. But the outcome would be the same.
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:
“At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, “to appoint.” This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President’s nominee.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by kalm on Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 54199
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by AZGrizFan »

Chizzang wrote:
Pwns wrote:
Aren't you one of those abortion-is-no-different-than-an-appendectomy guys, Chizz?

An anti-choice SCOTUS could take away your woman's right to crush the skull of a 20-week old fetus.
She's 50 years old... That ship has sailed
but we do smoke crushed baby skull (Totally legal in Washington)
and we eat salted Baby brains as hors d'oeuvres with a nice 22 week Fetus Pâté

:nod:
God you are hilarious.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 8492
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Baldy »

kalm wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
I guess if you think Obama might potentially appoint a nominee who is going to be a strict constructionist you could quibble with saying ahead of time that they'll vote down any Obama nominee. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to nominate people who do not believe in following the original understanding of the Constitution. So if you want they could play the game of saying they'll consider each on a case by case basis but won't accept anybody that's not an original understanding person. But the outcome would be the same.
Aka not accept anyone that agrees with your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:
“At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, “to appoint.” This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President’s nominee.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes it should...apolitical. :thumb:

Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick
Sounds like pretty good advice, huh? Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has gone on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment, Schumer insists.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8[/youtube]

:clap: :rofl:

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47113
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by kalm »

Baldy wrote:
kalm wrote:
Aka not accept anyone that agrees with your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes it should...apolitical. :thumb:

Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick
Sounds like pretty good advice, huh? Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has gone on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment, Schumer insists.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8[/youtube]

:clap: :rofl:
Politicians are political. I said the constitution shouldn't be. McConnell understood this at one time. :coffee:
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
andy7171
Firefly
Firefly
Posts: 27264
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:12 am
I am a fan of: Wiping.
A.K.A.: HE HATE ME
Location: Eastern Palouse

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by andy7171 »

OK. So here is Kalmy's stance. "I can point out hypocrisy of Republican Senators on this issue. And point and laugh. But when someone does the exact same with Democrats of flip flopping and doing the same a couple years ago, it's just politicians being politicians and dismiss it."
:dunce:
"Elaine, you're from Baltimore, right?"
"Yes, well, Towson actually."

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

Notes:

Senate Resolution in 1960 was on recess appointments
Schumer is an idiot, but even though he said that, the Senate still voted on all nominees after that date.
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in 2008


“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule ­­– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in 2008


“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well­ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in 2008


“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in 2008


“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.

For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.
:thumb:

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55305
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Ibanez »

dbackjon wrote:Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in 2008


“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well­ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
Politicians take advantage of politically advantageous situations. What's your point? Is this news to you? :lol:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55305
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Ibanez »

Jon, how about posting a source. Otherwise, you're as reliable as this:


"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
~ Abraham Lincoln (R), 1862.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

The Thurmond Rule was what Senator Strom Thurmond (Bigot-SC) tried to espouse to block nominees of LBJ back in 1968, saying that no nominee should be considered in the last six months of a term.
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44193
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by dbackjon »

BTW, SDHornet - a bunch of right-wing extremists in a circle jerk doesn't mean they have made any valid points. The opposite is true - as usual, the left-wing of the board has shown the right how foolish they are.
:thumb:

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55305
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Ibanez »

dbackjon wrote:The Thurmond Rule was what Senator Strom Thurmond (Bigot-SC) tried to espouse to block nominees of LBJ back in 1968, saying that no nominee should be considered in the last six months of a term.
:lol: If you're going to call Thurmond a Bigot, you might as well add that label to most if not all politicians. LBJ was a bigot. Lincoln too. Hell, Obama is a bigot (or is he reformed?) Bigot? The man is a product of his generation. He's a bigot by our standards. Most people in the early 20th Century were Anti-Semitic, should we destroy them because of that?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47113
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by kalm »

andy7171 wrote:OK. So here is Kalmy's stance. "I can point out hypocrisy of Republican Senators on this issue. And point and laugh. But when someone does the exact same with Democrats of flip flopping and doing the same a couple years ago, it's just politicians being politicians and dismiss it."
:dunce:
1). I rolled my eyes at JSO. I sidnt point and laugh at McConnell.

2). I've already mentioned the Republicans are entitled to obstruct here (just like the Dems have done in the past.

:dunce:
Image
Image
Image

Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 55305
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Ibanez »

What makes gay rights superior to everyone else's? I'm all for gays couples enjoying the same gov't benefits as married couples, but honestly, you're rights or feelings are no more important than SDHornets, mine or the other 323M Americans.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14665
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
I guess if you think Obama might potentially appoint a nominee who is going to be a strict constructionist you could quibble with saying ahead of time that they'll vote down any Obama nominee. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to nominate people who do not believe in following the original understanding of the Constitution. So if you want they could play the game of saying they'll consider each on a case by case basis but won't accept anybody that's not an original understanding person. But the outcome would be the same.
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:
“At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, “to appoint.” This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President’s nominee.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a great idea and all, but it's hard to take politics out of, well, politics. The Constitution is very clear - the President gets to pick someone to fill a Court vacancy, and the Senate has to say yes before that person is official. So in that context, Obama is perfectly fine nominating anyone and everyone he wants, whenever he wants to, and the Senate is perfectly fine voting (or in some cases not going to a vote) on anyone and everyone they don't want to fill that vacancy. It may not be pretty, but it's entirely Constitutional.

Oh, and that paragraph from addictinginfo seems like it was written before Bork. All the rules changed after Bork - it's practically Biden's legacy to have introduced contentious Senate questioning of prospective jurors.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 47113
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote:
kalm wrote:
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a great idea and all, but it's hard to take politics out of, well, politics. The Constitution is very clear - the President gets to pick someone to fill a Court vacancy, and the Senate has to say yes before that person is official. So in that context, Obama is perfectly fine nominating anyone and everyone he wants, whenever he wants to, and the Senate is perfectly fine voting (or in some cases not going to a vote) on anyone and everyone they don't want to fill that vacancy. It may not be pretty, but it's entirely Constitutional.

Oh, and that paragraph from addictinginfo seems like it was written before Bork. All the rules changed after Bork - it's practically Biden's legacy to have introduced contentious Senate questioning of prospective jurors.
No disagreement here (I was being a little satirical with JSO :mrgreen: )

It's all theater. :nod:
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19272
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by Chizzang »

AZGrizFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
She's 50 years old... That ship has sailed
but we do smoke crushed baby skull (Totally legal in Washington)
and we eat salted Baby brains as hors d'oeuvres with a nice 22 week Fetus Pâté

:nod:
God you are hilarious.
:kisswink: Thanks buddy

Let me know if you need an abortion, we've got a Men's Two-for-One special going right now in Seattle
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
89Hen
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 36564
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by 89Hen »

dbackjon wrote:the left-wing of the board has shown the right how foolish they are.
Yes they have. Glad you agree you are foolish. :thumb:
Image

YoUDeeMan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12088
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am
I am a fan of: Fleecing the Stupid
A.K.A.: Delaware Homie

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by YoUDeeMan »

Chizzang wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
God you are hilarious.
:kisswink: Thanks buddy

Let me know if you need an abortion, we've got a Men's Two-for-One special going right now in Seattle
Excellent! Great timing...I've put on about 8 lbs and look a few weeks pregnant. Would this procedure be covered under my medical benefits?

And hey, I am all for equal rights. :nod: :thumb:

Now, where is my Hate Crime protection (I was offended by Beutt's halftime performance...we need to ban guns and X formations), and where can I sign Lil' Cluck up for special college discounts and extra slots into the best colleges? :suspicious:
These signatures have a 500 character limit?

What if I have more personalities than that?

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17794
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by houndawg »

Conksuckers getting the wood laid to them as usual. :ohno:

Jon. kalm. Chizz... you guys go a bit easier or I'm going to have to call Child Protective Services... :coffee:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17794
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Post by houndawg »

GannonFan wrote:
kalm wrote:
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John. :roll:



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a great idea and all, but it's hard to take politics out of, well, politics. The Constitution is very clear - the President gets to pick someone to fill a Court vacancy, and the Senate has to say yes before that person is official. So in that context, Obama is perfectly fine nominating anyone and everyone he wants, whenever he wants to, and the Senate is perfectly fine voting (or in some cases not going to a vote) on anyone and everyone they don't want to fill that vacancy. It may not be pretty, but it's entirely Constitutional.

Oh, and that paragraph from addictinginfo seems like it was written before Bork. All the rules changed after Bork - it's practically Biden's legacy to have introduced contentious Senate questioning of prospective jurors.
How can he possibly resist having some fun with these imbeciles?

As we speak he is preparing a short list of lesbian abortion doctors...
Subvert the dominant paradigm

Post Reply