Justice Scalia passes away
-
I say make Bill Clinton a Supreme Court Justice.
-
I say make Bill Clinton a Supreme Court Justice.
I say make Bill Clinton a Supreme Court Justice.
I think Bill lost his law license over lying to the grand jury?
-
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
Ya but you've had the Buckeyes through all of that
True, but the Browns are far and away my #1, always will be.
When the Buckeyes lose, it doesn't sting as bad for some reason. Only the Tim Biakabatuka 300+ rushing game, and a couple of Rose Bowl losses in the 70s bummed me out real bad. I think it's more of my anger at the rankings system over the years that cools me on College Football.
-
JB, they are upholding the Constitution every bit as much as anyone you Support even if by obstruction. Reason being? That obstruction is guaranteed under the Constitution.
But my statement about upholding the Constitution really didn't have much to do with the executive orders which can be rescinded as soon as the fucker is out of office.
Personally I think constantly rewriting the Constitution and watering down and or eliminating whatever rights we laughing thought we were due, makes that document useless. I assume, based on his actions of the last 7 years, the empty suit in chief doesn't care and furthermore wishes to make the document a dunsail.
So if by using whatever means necessary if he is stopped from overturning the balance of power of the Politburo, (sorry, the Supreme Court, the Politburo actually has more members) I'm personally ok with it. Even if the strict interpretation of the Constitution me and some decisions that I wouldn't emotionally agree with.
WSS
-
There is a lot of precedence of lame duck presidents not nominating supreme court justices in the final year of their terms. Obama has every right to send up his nomination for confirmation and the republicans have every right as the party in power of the senate to hold up that confirmation until the next president is elected.
The mainstream media who are water carriers for the democratic party will go crazy about it and I hope the republicans stand strong. You can see already the mainstream media coverage in September of this year being something like "day 210 in the republicans obstruction of the supreme court".
Obama has already had more than his share of influencing the supreme court, he is not a popular president and the people who decide the next presidential election also will know what is at stake with the supreme court.
-
I don't like the republicans just flat out saying "we'll reject anyone!" but on the other hand, I'd rather wait and see the outcome of the election and let the next president nominate, once the will of the people is known.
-
I don't want anyone treating the constitution like its written in stone Cal
-
There is a lot of precedence of lame duck presidents not nominating supreme court justices in the final year of their terms. Obama has every right to send up his nomination for confirmation and the republicans have every right as the party in power of the senate to hold up that confirmation until the next president is elected.
The mainstream media who are water carriers for the democratic party will go crazy about it and I hope the republicans stand strong. You can see already the mainstream media coverage in September of this year being something like "day 210 in the republicans obstruction of the supreme court".
Obama has already had more than his share of influencing the supreme court, he is not a popular president and the people who decide the next presidential election also will know what is at stake with the supreme court.
There is a lot of precedence of lame duck presidents not nominating supreme court justices in the final year of their terms. Obama has every right to send up his nomination for confirmation and the republicans have every right as the party in power of the senate to hold up that confirmation until the next president is elected.
No, there's not. Yes, he does. Yes, they do... but they will pay for it in November... plus in 2016 there's SCOTUS nominee, Barrack Hussein Obama. Warning #2...
The mainstream media who are water carriers for the democratic party will go crazy about it and I hope the republicans stand strong. You can see already the mainstream media coverage in September of this year being something like "day 210 in the republicans obstruction of the supreme court".
Maybe a clock?
Obama has already had more than his share of influencing the supreme court, he is not a popular president and the people who decide the next presidential election also will know what is at stake with the supreme court.
Luck of the draw.
58% approval is "not popular"?
You and I both know what is going on here. If the situation was reversed the republicans would be using the same arguments the democrats are. It is like a president using executive powers, both parties are against them when the president is not of their party. We all know how Harry Reid would handle this if he was in McConnells shoes and that is just like McConnell is handling it now. Harry Reid was a total obstructionist when he was the majority leader in the senate.
It is all about the "shoe being on the other foot"...or as Obama would say as he rammed legislation through "elections have consequences" . The republicans have the power to stop Obama on getting another liberal justice on the court so I see no reason for them to play nice with Obama now (or Harry Reid).
There's hypocrisy in Politics? I'm shocked... shocked I tell you...
Delaying started as a lame duck tradition, i.e., after a President-Elect is decided... good idea...
Then morphed into the so-called Thurmond rule of 6-months... an idea...
Now want to stretch it out to nearly a year... a worse idea
Next? The day after the mid-terms... a really bad idea, but justifiable if the process is delayed this time.
-
Meanwhile...
Am I the only one wondering when it will come out whose dime this hunting trip was on?
A week?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
58 percent approval for Obama. Where do you see that poll?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Will the republicans pay in November? Sure the democrats will use this to help fire up their base but in 2012 it was reported that up to 4 million evangelicals sat out the election so this issue will work both ways and fire up those on the republican side as well.
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer
-
It's OK to go on a hunting trip on the public dime, but not on a golfing trip.
After all, guns will probably used on the hunting trip
-
I don't want anyone treating the constitution like its written in stone Cal
And no disrespect intended woody, for a change, but I do.
I would like to see someone do his very best to try to emulate the original intent. It may have been Uncle John Marshall whose idea it was that if something is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's cool.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Is Gay Marriage expressly forbidden in the Constitution? Or Abortion?
-
I don't believe either one is mentioned.
WSS
-
I highly doubt that Obummer would want to be a Supreme Court Justice. He wants to go back to thug Chicago and make millions off of speaking gigs.
-
He would make the Harriet Miers nomination look like John Marshall.
WSS
-
I don't want anyone treating the constitution like its written in stone Cal
And no disrespect intended woody, for a change, but I do.
I would like to see someone do his very best to try to emulate the original intent. It may have been Uncle John Marshall whose idea it was that if something is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's cool.
WSS
And no disrespect intended woody, for a change, but I do.
I would like to see someone do his very best to try to emulate the original intent. It may have been Uncle John Marshall whose idea it was that if something is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's cool.
WSS
I would then ask how long ago was the constitution created? Has anything changed since then?
There are avenues given within the document to modify it for a reason.
-
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
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
Sorry man, but holding out for a year to wait until things are in their favor is an affront to the Constitution. It's obstructionism, and they're not doing their duties that are given to them by the Constitution.
-
I don't want anyone treating the constitution like its written in stone Cal
And no disrespect intended woody, for a change, but I do.
I would like to see someone do his very best to try to emulate the original intent. It may have been Uncle John Marshall whose idea it was that if something is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's cool.
WSS
And no disrespect intended woody, for a change, but I do.
I would like to see someone do his very best to try to emulate the original intent. It may have been Uncle John Marshall whose idea it was that if something is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it's cool.
WSS
The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights were written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. A Constitution written in stone will have no amendments, and that includes your bill of rights. Steve, I'm assuming that you're for most or all of the amendments in the document. But for you to say that it should be written in stone, you need to draw an arbitrary line, somewhere in time, where the Constitution shouldn't be amended further. Where is that line?
-
Don't you have some anal fissures to look into?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login