Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Leaving the other thread alone, who does Obama nominate to fill Scalia's spot on the bench? I fully expect Obama to nominate someone, and potentially more than one through the process, and I fully expect the Senate to be very demanding on the replacement. Obama's role is to nominate, and the Senate's role is to approve or not approve. Given the politics, this next justice will likely be a down the middle judge that likely neither side would really like if they had their choice. But I suppose that's the beauty of the checks and balances.

What say you Ivy, since you're more in the know than many here on circuit court judges. Would the Senate turn down Sri Srinivasan (assuming Obama even nominates him as the left would have grave concerns over him)?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016 ... 80357134/#

Since everyone is so adamant about the balance shifting from Conservative Constitutionalist to Liberal Activist based on this one replacement, wouldn't a centrist make the most sense. IMO, Obama's nomination choices will say a lot about his mindset towards the vision he has for the court. If he constantly nominates hardcore far left activist judges then the GOP will be proven right with their concerns. Especially with Bernie Sanders showing no respect at all to the process by stating that "the President nominates, the Senate confirms, so let's get on with it", showing his belief that Senate should just rubber stamp anyone the POTUS chooses. No wonder he wants to be President.

These kind of threads always remind me of most people discussing horse racing every May or so. People talk like they know the horses after reading a couple of articles at most or maybe just looking at the odds... when, the vast majority have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

I can't say I had heard of any of the potential nominees last week. Maybe some of y'all follow this sort of thing close enough (IvyTalk or JoltinJoe?) to form an opion... but, honestly - the rest of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about aside from some 2 sentence blurb about them like the article in the OP.

Skjellyfetti wrote:These kind of threads always remind me of most people discussing horse racing every May or so. People talk like they know the horses after reading a couple of articles at most or maybe just looking at the odds... when, the vast majority have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

I can't say I had heard of any of the potential nominees last week. Maybe some of y'all follow this sort of thing close enough (IvyTalk or JoltinJoe?) to form an opion... but, honestly - the rest of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about aside from some 2 sentence blurb about them like the article in the OP.

Exactly. But, give everyone a day to digest Facebook statuses and memes and we will be awash with experts.

Skjellyfetti wrote:These kind of threads always remind me of most people discussing horse racing every May or so. People talk like they know the horses after reading a couple of articles at most or maybe just looking at the odds... when, the vast majority have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

I can't say I had heard of any of the potential nominees last week. Maybe some of y'all follow this sort of thing close enough (IvyTalk or JoltinJoe?) to form an opion... but, honestly - the rest of us don't know what the fuck we're talking about aside from some 2 sentence blurb about them like the article in the OP.

Well, with THAT kind of attitude we should just shut down the fucking Internet.

Somebody like Chizz or Kalm. A real middle of road kinda person... at least in their mind.

89Hen wrote:Somebody like Chizz or Kalm. A real middle of road kinda person... at least in their mind.

How many times do I have to tell this board I'm a Left Wing Liberal
I've never denied it and in fact stand by that assessment
and say it every chance i get



If you think I'm playing moderate - you're NOT bright - or not paying attention
or have difficulty with reading comprehension



You're staring to sound like T-man (and that is not good)

Obama will try a moderate minority judge first. If he or she is appointed Obama can pat himself on the back for increasing SCOTUS diversity and if he isn't donks can beat Republicans over the head with it in the general election with identity politics crap and the talking point that "extremist Republicans would't approve my judge".

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote:Somebody like Chizz or Kalm. A real middle of road kinda person... at least in their mind.

How many times do I have to tell this board I'm a Left Wing Liberal
I've never denied it and in fact stand by that assessment
and say it every chance i get



If you think I'm playing moderate - you're NOT bright - or not paying attention
or have difficulty with reading comprehension

I'm a liberal too. I'm moderate because a majority of Americans agree with me on the big things like the War on Drugs, money in politics, protecting entitlement programs, single payer healthcare (well...at least they used to, haven't seen recent polling), monopolies, the Iraq war, gay marriage...

While I appreciate the suggestion, I just don't think I could find the time or interest in working in the EC(b). Perhaps if they'd let me telecommute, I could swing a part time gig though.

Btw, nice of you to reopen the 'ol fishin' hole!

kalm wrote:I'm moderate

Hook, line and stinker.

Chizzang wrote:How many times do I have to tell this board I'm a Left Wing Liberal
I've never denied it and in fact stand by that assessment
and say it every chance i get

I just like hearing you say it.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:I'm moderate

Hook, line and stinker.

It must be painful to know I'm right.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Hook, line and stinker.

It must be painful to know I'm right.

I split a rib from laughing so hard.

It was painful.

Does that count?

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:How many times do I have to tell this board I'm a Left Wing Liberal
I've never denied it and in fact stand by that assessment
and say it every chance i get

I just like hearing you say it.

Look CID is the one who keeps trying to tell me I'm a Libertarian...
Secretly I think he does that to frighten me into thinking that I might have gone insane

Too bad Senate Democrats passed a resolution, over GOP objections, that no Supreme Court vacancies can be filled in an election year.

Passed in 1960.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
It must be painful to know I'm right.

I split a rib from laughing so hard.

It was painful.

Does that count?

I actually think you'll get there too some day, Baldy. I'm rootin' for ya!

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: I split a rib from laughing so hard.

It was painful.

Does that count?

I actually think you'll get there too some day, Baldy. I'm rootin' for ya!

Get there too?

No thanks. You, sausagedawg, Burney, and the low information millennial mouth breathers can have The People's Republic of Myopia all to yourselves.

Jjoey52 wrote:Too bad Senate Democrats passed a resolution, over GOP objections, that no Supreme Court vacancies can be filled in an election year.

56 years later and it's gonna bite them in the ass.

Donks

Baldy wrote:

Jjoey52 wrote:Too bad Senate Democrats passed a resolution, over GOP objections, that no Supreme Court vacancies can be filled in an election year.

56 years later and it's gonna bite them in the ass.

Donks

You see this as "biting them in the ass"
it actually seems like a good thing - right..?

It seems like excellent foresight on the part of those who didn't want to grant an exiting President
the ability to lay a turd in the punch bowl and walk away laughing



Baldy,
You need to "give credit" where it's due my friend...

Chizzang wrote: It seems like excellent foresight on the part of those who didn't want to grant an exiting President
the ability to lay a turd in the punch bowl and walk away laughing

Yeah. I'm sure this will be the tact that the Dem's make when an appointee gets names and blocked.

So wait was this before or after the Democrats were racist? Or the Republicans became racist? I forget.

Being told what to think all the time can get so tiring.

Jjoey52 wrote:Passed in 1960.

Link? Truly, I've never heard of this before. It would make it all moot of course.

Also, you said passed in 1960. Was it vetoed by chance and not overridden?

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;