Justice Scalia passes away
-
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?
-
Don't you have some anal fissures to look into?
Don't you have some anal fissures to look into?
Heh. If it's time for your yearly exam, bend right over and I'll oblige you.
Anyways, Diehard, are you in the same boat as Steve on this one? If so, same question to you.
-
Sorry but the senate was given the duty of confirming Supreme Court appointments to create more checks and balances. They are well within the responsibility of their powers to not confirm one of obummao's cronies. Even for a year if need be.
-
Don't you have some anal fissures to look into?
Heh. If it's time for your yearly exam, bend right over and I'll oblige you.
Anyways, Diehard, are you in the same boat as Steve on this one? If so, same question to you.
Heh. If it's time for your yearly exam, bend right over and I'll oblige you.
Anyways, Diehard, are you in the same boat as Steve on this one? If so, same question to you.
Sorry dude, I had to give you some shit. How you doing anyway? How much longer in Med School?
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Heh. If it's time for your yearly exam, bend right over and I'll oblige you.
Anyways, Diehard, are you in the same boat as Steve on this one? If so, same question to you.
Sorry dude, I had to give you some shit. How you doing anyway? How much longer in Med School?
Sorry dude, I had to give you some shit. How you doing anyway? How much longer in Med School?
I have yet to get mine, not scared just keep putting it off. Way past due.
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?
I guess the line goes from the back door of the White House to the dumpster. If its outdated why even fuck with it?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?
And that's not just snark.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
1. If Obamao wants to destroy this country, let him cause
all hell to break loose by nominating another leftwing sumbeech
to the Supreme Court.
2. The Senate is not required to vote on it. If #1 is true about who ObaMao nominates,
it is a slap in the face to Justice Scalia's memory and place on the court, it's a slap
in the facee of a republican Congress because Obamao knows they won't accept that.
3. If the Court stays at eight the rest of the year, the Court still functions, dammit.
It....does....not....obstruct....the.....workings of the court. If they rule on a 4-4 basis,
it just means that a lower court ruling will be upheld.
4. When the American people gave the majority to both houses of Congress, that means
a lot. It means, for one thing, that they do not give the left a free ride to power and anything
they want.
5. If Obamao doesn't nominate a conservative originalist pro-Constitution court nominee, he will be
slapping the American people in the face, and will be making even more of an asshole mockery
of his office than he already has. That's very, very, bad.
6. The longest delay in approving a presidential appt was months. Tour, it is not unprecedented.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
-
Furthermore, our Constitution is a guarantee of our rights, and the limitations
of the fed.
Obamao openly lamented the latter.
Know this - amendments have always, always ADDED guarantees of rights.
Amendments to the Constitution are not subject to taking away citizens rights.
Here's an interesting paper:
Can a Constitutional Amendment overrule a decision by the Supreme Court?
My opinion, of course it does. It's the job of the Supreme Court to decide BASED ON
said Constitution.
-
1. If Obamao wants to destroy this country, let him cause
all hell to break loose by nominating another leftwing sumbeech
to the Supreme Court.
2. The Senate is not required to vote on it. If #1 is true about who ObaMao nominates,
it is a slap in the face to Justice Scalia's memory and place on the court, it's a slap
in the facee of a republican Congress because Obamao knows they won't accept that.
3. If the Court stays at eight the rest of the year, the Court still functions, dammit.
It....does....not....obstruct....the.....workings of the court. If they rule on a 4-4 basis,
it just means that a lower court ruling will be upheld.
4. When the American people gave the majority to both houses of Congress, that means
a lot. It means, for one thing, that they do not give the left a free ride to power and anything
they want.
5. If Obamao doesn't nominate a conservative originalist pro-Constitution court nominee, he will be
slapping the American people in the face, and will be making even more of an asshole mockery
of his office than he already has. That's very, very, bad.
6. The longest delay in approving a presidential appt was months. Tour, it is not unprecedented.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
1. If Obamao wants to destroy this country, let him cause
all hell to break loose by nominating another leftwing sumbeech
to the Supreme Court.
2. The Senate is not required to vote on it. If #1 is true about who ObaMao nominates,
it is a slap in the face to Justice Scalia's memory and place on the court, it's a slap
in the facee of a republican Congress because Obamao knows they won't accept that.
3. If the Court stays at eight the rest of the year, the Court still functions, dammit.
It....does....not....obstruct....the.....workings of the court. If they rule on a 4-4 basis,
it just means that a lower court ruling will be upheld.
4. When the American people gave the majority to both houses of Congress, that means
a lot. It means, for one thing, that they do not give the left a free ride to power and anything
they want.
5. If Obamao doesn't nominate a conservative originalist pro-Constitution court nominee, he will be
slapping the American people in the face, and will be making even more of an asshole mockery
of his office than he already has. That's very, very, bad.
6. The longest delay in approving a presidential appt was months. Tour, it is not unprecedented.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
lol
If Obama doesn't nominate a conservative he's slapping Americans in the face, making a mockery of the office and actively trying to destroy America
you're a moron
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