Page 10 of 10

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:23 pm
by houndawg
CAA Flagship wrote:
andy7171 wrote: Rocky Marciano

Image
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
He beat Joe Lewis' ass. :nod:
Joe Louis was 100 years old! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 am
by 89Hen
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.
Very interesting take JSO.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:51 am
by AZGrizFan
89Hen wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 am
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.
Very interesting take JSO.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:13 pm
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.
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.
Has this aged well?

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pm
by ∞∞∞
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm
∞∞∞ 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.
Has this aged well?
It's aged well. From the other thread:
∞∞∞ wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:10 am
I agree with Klochbar:
I agree with Klobuchar.
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.

They go low, go even lower until every flaw in the Constitution is exposed. It's fun watching all of this. :nod:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:56 pm
by GannonFan
89Hen wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 am
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.
Very interesting take JSO.
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.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:00 pm
by GannonFan
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 am
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.
Hey, my stuff still holds up. :thumb:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:35 pm
by Baldy
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:56 pm
89Hen wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 am

Very interesting take JSO.
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.
The snakes in his head took over after the election.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:03 pm
by UNI88
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:00 pm
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.
Hey, my stuff still holds up. :thumb:
You usually only come unhinged when discussing Philly pro sports teams. ;)

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:36 pm
by 89Hen
This has to be one of the better bumps around here. :mrgreen:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:45 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pm
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm


Has this aged well?
It's aged well. From the other thread:
∞∞∞ wrote:
I agree with Klobuchar.
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.

They go low, go even lower until every flaw in the Constitution is exposed. It's fun watching all of this. :nod:
So there's no rise above? With you it's a race to the bottom? Yeah - that sounds like a way to govern.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:46 am
by Ibanez
∞∞∞ wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pm
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm


Has this aged well?
It's aged well. From the other thread:
∞∞∞ wrote:
I agree with Klobuchar.
I also agree that the Executive and Legislative Branches have the power to stack the court.

They go low, go even lower until every flaw in the Constitution is exposed. It's fun watching all of this. :nod:
So there's no rise above? With you it's a race to the bottom? Yeah - that sounds like a way to govern.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:59 am
by houndawg
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:56 pm
89Hen wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:39 am

Very interesting take JSO.
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.

Has anyone considered that today's JSO may be writing under duress? Captured by an elite psy-ops unit of left-wing Democrats and writing under threat of torture..? What a propaganda coup if he were to be liberated by the local militia...

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:44 pm
by AZGrizFan
Ibanez wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:15 pm
∞∞∞ 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.
Has this aged well?
That is RICH. :lol: :lol:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:47 am
by Bobcat
It is sick how some posters enjoyed the death of a SC justice, look at the title of this thread pure exuberance and joy.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:48 am
by Skjellyfetti
Fuck your feelings.

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:50 am
by CAA Flagship
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:48 am
Fuck your feelings.
:rofl:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:52 am
by andy7171
UNI88 wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:03 pm
GannonFan wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 1:00 pm


Hey, my stuff still holds up. :thumb:
You usually only come unhinged when discussing Philly pro sports teams. ;)
WORST FANS IN THE WORLD

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:00 pm
by 89Hen
dbackjon wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:16 am
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
:popcorn:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:45 pm
by HI54UNI
Image

:nod:

Re: SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:03 am
by Ibanez
Bobcat wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:47 am
It is sick how some posters enjoyed the death of a SC justice, look at the title of this thread pure exuberance and joy.
When I worked with the DoD, we used the following form for people with hurt feelings. Please fill and deliver to your direct report.

http://www.armywriter.com/DoD_FORM_IMT_WF11.pdf