Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!
Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:23 pm
Joe Louis was 100 years old!CAA Flagship wrote:andy7171 wrote: Rocky Marciano
He beat Joe Lewis' ass.
FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45069
Joe Louis was 100 years old!CAA Flagship wrote:andy7171 wrote: Rocky Marciano
He beat Joe Lewis' ass.
Very interesting take JSO.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:59 pm I don't think the Republicans will look ugly if they just lay their cards on the table and say straight up that they are not going to allow Obama to fill that position. I mean, they'll look ugly to people who would never vote for them anyway. But I don't think they'd hurt themselves politically. Just say, "Look, we are not going to let this leftist President shape the court for decades to come by filling this position. This is too important. It's going to be the next President."
And that is totally legitimate. It's the way things were designed to work.
I think they'd be fine if they did that. We'll see if they do.
89Hen wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 amVery interesting take JSO.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:59 pm I don't think the Republicans will look ugly if they just lay their cards on the table and say straight up that they are not going to allow Obama to fill that position. I mean, they'll look ugly to people who would never vote for them anyway. But I don't think they'd hurt themselves politically. Just say, "Look, we are not going to let this leftist President shape the court for decades to come by filling this position. This is too important. It's going to be the next President."
And that is totally legitimate. It's the way things were designed to work.
I think they'd be fine if they did that. We'll see if they do.
Has this aged well?∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:13 pmSee 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.JohnStOnge wrote: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.
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.
It's aged well. From the other thread:Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pmHas this aged well?∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:13 pm
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.
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.
Remember, too, this was before JSO became unhinged. This is cogent, although still odd, JSO-esque posting here. It wasn't until a little bit later that the whole Hillary/Trump thing caused the fuse to blow in his head.89Hen wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 amVery interesting take JSO.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:59 pm I don't think the Republicans will look ugly if they just lay their cards on the table and say straight up that they are not going to allow Obama to fill that position. I mean, they'll look ugly to people who would never vote for them anyway. But I don't think they'd hurt themselves politically. Just say, "Look, we are not going to let this leftist President shape the court for decades to come by filling this position. This is too important. It's going to be the next President."
And that is totally legitimate. It's the way things were designed to work.
I think they'd be fine if they did that. We'll see if they do.
Hey, my stuff still holds up.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 amThat'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.kalm wrote:
Aka not accept anyone that doesn't fit your ideology. The constitution should be apolitical, John.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/15 ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
The snakes in his head took over after the election.
You usually only come unhinged when discussing Philly pro sports teams.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:00 pmHey, my stuff still holds up.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 am
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.
So there's no rise above? With you it's a race to the bottom? Yeah - that sounds like a way to govern.∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pmIt's aged well. From the other thread:
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.∞∞∞ wrote:
I agree with Klobuchar.
They go low, go even lower until every flaw in the Constitution is exposed. It's fun watching all of this.
So there's no rise above? With you it's a race to the bottom? Yeah - that sounds like a way to govern.∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pmIt's aged well. From the other thread:
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.∞∞∞ wrote:
I agree with Klobuchar.
They go low, go even lower until every flaw in the Constitution is exposed. It's fun watching all of this.
That is RICH.Ibanez wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pmHas this aged well?∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:13 pm
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.
When I worked with the DoD, we used the following form for people with hurt feelings. Please fill and deliver to your direct report.