Justice Scalia passes away

[calfoxwc]

only it's 2016.

Occupy Wall Street @OccupyWallStNYC

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Mark Twain #Scalia

6:04 PM - 13 Feb 2016

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

Don't even try to enforce the inapplicable don't-speak-ill-of-the-dead "rule" for the highly polarizing, deeply consequential Antonin Scalia

[MLD Woody]

You're an idiot

[tiamat63]

@calfoxwc said:

and, oddly enough, here is what I posted way back, July 2011 in the Kagan thread:

Obamao and co are socialists, and getting rid of political opposition

is what socialists do in russia....

I thought the Ruskies were a bunch of Commies?

[Clevfan4life]

so the fat fuck died of a heart attack, what a surprise. So healthy looking, with that personality....like it wasn't bound to happen.

[VaporTrail]

Two questions.

Has there ever been a time when there was a liberal majority on the SCOTUS?

What's the likelihood of the Senate delaying the appointment for 342 days?

The longest it's taken to appoint someone is 125 days, but only a few presidents have appointed in their final year.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html

[Bob806]

It's an unbelievable shame that today's elected officials put their political parties ahead of the 300 -some million folks in this country. Yeah, that's what Ben Franklin, George Washington, & company envisioned back at the Constitutional Congress' back in the 1770s.

Nominate some folks and get on with the process of appointing a new justice.

[calfoxwc]

It's stupid to think that the rep controlled Congress should give a

cowardly "ok" to another liberal asshole judge on the Supreme Court.

That's really stupid. Say, how about demanding that Obamao put HIS

political aspirations away, and nominate a conservative originalist

just like Scalia to the court, putting aside a giant, longterm battle,

appropriately representing the will of most Americans, and getting

a quick ok on that nominee?

Any lib think Obamao will do that? Any conservative think Obamao the Assholeness would think about it?

I don't see it. Of course he will nominate left of center judges, and play dirty destructive politics right to the end.

and libs will rail against... Congress.

[MLD Woody]

@calfoxwc said:

It's stupid to think that the rep controlled Congress should give a

cowardly "ok" to another liberal asshole judge on the Supreme Court.

That's really stupid. Say, how about demanding that Obamao put HIS

political aspirations away, and nominate a conservative originalist

just like Scalia to the court, putting aside a giant, longterm battle,

appropriately representing the will of most Americans, and getting

a quick ok on that nominee?

Any lib think Obamao will do that? Any conservative think Obamao the Assholeness would think about it?

I don't see it. Of course he will nominate left of center judges, and play dirty destructive politics right to the end.

and libs will rail against... Congress.

Did the founding fathers envision that ^ though?

[calfoxwc]

Do you think the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into our

Constitution so a liberal marxist could change the Supreme Court

into his own tool, and delete it right back out ?

Keeping in mind, that amendments are ADDITIONS to the Constitution,

and never are political weapon deletions.

Will you ever answer a question?

Do...you....think....Obamao.....should nominate..... a nominee with

very similar qualifications as an originalist, so as to help the country

move on and not hinder the Court?

Or, do you think that Congress has to approve of the most far left,

anti-2nd Amendment, pro-all abortion, political tool nominee?

.

[Bob806]

@calfoxwc said:

It's stupid to think that the rep controlled Congress should give a

cowardly "ok" to another liberal asshole judge on the Supreme Court.

That's really stupid. Say, how about demanding that Obamao put HIS

political aspirations away, and nominate a conservative originalist

just like Scalia to the court, putting aside a giant, longterm battle,

appropriately representing the will of most Americans, and getting

a quick ok on that nominee?

Any lib think Obamao will do that? Any conservative think Obamao the Assholeness would think about it?

I don't see it. Of course he will nominate left of center judges, and play dirty destructive politics right to the end.

and libs will rail against... Congress.

I think libs & conservatives will rail against Congress anyhow. The hearings on the nominations of Bork, Clarence Thomas for instance made most people pissed off if I recall.

My point wasn't really to argue. I'm just trying to highlight how this whole political system is getting out of hand. Maybe it always was out of hand, and I/we see it more now in the age of instant info and expanded news coverage.

[Bob806]

@calfoxwc said:

Do you think the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment into our

Constitution so a liberal marxist could change the Supreme Court

into his own tool, and delete it right back out ?

Keeping in mind, that amendments are ADDITIONS to the Constitution,

and never are political weapon deletions.

Will you ever answer a question?

yes

Do...you....think....Obamao.....should nominate..... a nominee with

very similar qualifications as an originalist, so as to help the country

move on and not hinder the Court?

Yes, he should. He or any president should nominate a person worthy of the position.

Or, do you think that Congress has to approve of the most far left,

anti-2nd Amendment, pro-all abortion, political tool nominee?

No. Nominate someone towards the center. Someone who may lean right or left depending on the issue(s). I think that's how most Americans are.

.

[calfoxwc]

it isn't the system out of hand - it's the political climate because of individuals with no principles

nor honor.

I include all dems in that, and I also include reps like trump, and now, cruz, and christie,

and pat leahy, mitch mcconnel on a cowardly day, and all sorts of others...

Lindsey Graham... etc.

They are afraid of the vicious left, and the left sees the last chance they have of permanently

getting the upper hand.

It used to be "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...

now it's, "make the country give us a free ride, and we don't care if the entire middle class falls into

poverty"

bad moon rising. And that moon has corrupt dem president all over it.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, sorry, Bob, I was referring to woodpecker who started smarting off about me again,

because he is buttmolded to cleve, referring to the 'will you ever answer a question".....

The trouble with someone "center"... is that Ginsburg, Kagan, etc... will always

vote politically left, disregarding our Constitution.

Roberts is "center", but he made a vote based on his gay sister, not our Constitution, as I see it.

If Obamao will nominate a nominee that will decide BY WHAT IS IN the CONSTITUTION, regardless

of personal choice or politics, we will all be seeing a happier time with decisions by the Court.

Just follow our Constitution. That's all.

For example, Ginsburg and co. seem to "believe"...that the Founding Fathers put our 2nd Amendment in there,

to assure that the British troops were allowed to keep their weapons with them all the time. But they

manufacture how they vote, out of leftwing politics. I don't remember about Ginsburg, but Kagan seems to

have lied out her wazoo to get on the Court.

And the left tried to lie about Justice Thomas to keep him off it. Whatever the left wants... the ends justify the means.

There is too much riding on this choice, and the idea that ObaMao will nominate a conservative, originalist judge..

surely has to make anybody choke.

[OldBrownsFan]

Of course the republicans should roll over and let Obama have his way...just give in to the democrat hypocrites like Chucky Schumer who vowed to not let Bush supreme court nominations be confirmed in the senate 19 months out from the presidential election.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an "obstructionist" for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.

[Bob806]

It's ok Cal, no apology needed.

This political stuff is making us all angry. Maybe that's why these so-called "political outsiders" are atop or close to the top of the presidential polls now.

Combine that with a bunch of 3-13, 4-12 seasons from our Browns, damn it's depressing.

[MLD Woody]

@bob806 said:

It's ok Cal, no apology needed.

This political stuff is making us all angry. Maybe that's why these so-called "political outsiders" are atop or close to the top of the presidential polls now.

Combine that with a bunch of 3-13, 4-12 seasons from our Browns, damn it's depressing.

Ya but you've had the Buckeyes through all of that

[jbluhm86]

I believe that the American people would much more likely have a modicum of respect for politicians if they cut the bullshit and just say what they wanted to do and why. Mitch McConnell's comment, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice" is absurd. The Appointments Clause in Article 2 of the Constitution states that the President has the Constitutional duty to nominate a person for the Supreme Court, just like the Senate is constitutionally obligated to put those candidates through the vetting process and to confirm the one who would do the best job. The process remains the same, regardless of who is the President, and as the Constitution currently stands, no Supreme Court Justice will be directly elected by the American people. A new president--no matter the party affiliation--would give the American people no more voice in the selection of a Supreme Court justice than we have right now. McConnell knows that, yet he wants us to believe otherwise.

Do these politicians really think the public is so stupid that they don't know why some members of the G.O.P. want to defer the appointment? Or, is it more likely that the reason these G.O.P Congressmen want to wait until after the election is that they hope that the new President is a Republican, and that they want their own views, positions and principles to be defining factors in the selection of the nominee? Are they so afraid they'll lose the presidency this fall, that they've turned to these tactics? .

I would say to Mr. McConnell that the voice of the American people was already heard in 2012 when President Obama was reelected, and in 2014, when members of Congress were elected; those voices are telling all branches of government to do their fucking job. Say what you want about the man, but at least President Obama is fulfilling his constitutional obligations by beginning the nomination process, yet, Mitch McConnell and the other obstructionist elements of the G.O.P caucus in the Senate have made it clear, yet again, they have no intention of doing the duties for which they were elected, and being paid to do.

The fact that they would want to stop the workings of the Supreme Court --and, by extension, the government-- for their own agenda is extremely selfish. It is one thing to hold off on confirming a nominee while the process of vetting them is taking place; that is responsible governance. It is something entirely different, however, to imply that they would flat out refuse to even attempt to vet potential nominees before the President has even mentioned any particular candidate is both shameful and irresponsible. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the G.O.P's mantra is that theirs is the party of following the Constitution; they have crucified Obama in the past for supposedly "circumventing" the Constitution. What do they think their tactics are doing now? Circumventing the Constitution, purely for political gains. They couldn't give two fucks about their constituency.

If I was Obama, I would continue to do my job and continue to nominate candidates for the SCOTUS vacancy, and continue to send nominees to the Senate. The onus is on the Senate to do their job.

[Westside Steve]

Of course the voice of the American people was also heard when they elected a party other than the one the president represents to Voice their opinions in Washington.

So there's that. We didn't elect a dictator.

And the Senate is doing its job by protecting the Constitution.

WSS

[jbluhm86]

@westside-steve said:

Of course the voice of the American people was also heard when they elected a party other than the one the president represents to Voice their opinions in Washington.

So there's that. We didn't elect a dictator.

And the Senate is doing its job by protecting the Constitution.

WSS

I said as much above in my post, when I referenced the 2014 elections. First and foremost, the people elected members of the Senate to do a job, which in this situation, they are failing.

As for a dictatorship, Obama is nowhere near that. If you are referring to his use of Executive Orders, that was within his purview as President to do so, and when those orders exceeded his authority, the Supreme Court shut him down. If his use of executive orders was considered by you and others to be circumventing the Constitution, I fail to see how you can rationalize away what's going on with this SCOTUS debacle as not also circumventing the Constitution for political gain, with the difference being that the power play is on the other side of the isle.

So, I'm afraid we're going to have to just disagree on this one, Steve. The G.O.P Senators are not protecting the Constitution by being obstructionists. They are shitting on their duties and the People that they supposedly represent in hopes of securing more power for their party, and they are trying to use the Constitution to veil their true intentions.

[jbluhm86]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html

"A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said. http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839#ixzz409d7eWf3

Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34615.pdf

Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”

Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.

Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked, shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office."