Justice Scalia passes away
-
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
-
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
I guess the line goes from the back door of the White House to the dumpster. If its outdated why even fuck with it?
And that's not just snark.
WSS
It provides a framework. No need to throw the whole thing out. It was meant to be a living document (hence the amendments). But we can't act like nothing in it can ever be changed.
-
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
-
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?
Hah, it's all in fun, hope you didn't take offense either. Finishing up 2nd year, been busy as hell lately as boards are in a few months. For the most part, I have no time to post anything but shitposts. This election has been so entertaining, though. Made it to a Browns game each of the last two years. I stopped by the tailgate and met cal two years ago and saw chris again at that same one. Missed meeting you and Steve, unfortunately.
My offer, however, still stands.
-
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
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
“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.”
First, do you understand what a recess appointment is and how it is different from a nomination via the normal process?
Second, the 58% was in a Pew Research poll. It was a "confidence" poll, not approval. My bad.... I remembered the figure but not the "quality". Approval drops because, believe it or not, there are those that believe our current President is too conservative...
http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/uploads/monthly_02_2016/post-2853-0-69666500-1455412903.jpg
-
Tour - to add an image, there's a button on the reply box, it pops up and asks you to enter the URL. Or, you can use
[ /img] to do it (I think).
-
I posted earlier democrat Chuck Schumer saying a year and a half left with Bush's presidency the democratic senate should not confirm any more Bush nominations for the Supreme Court. Now Schumer is crying obstruction when the republicans are doing what he was calling for with Bush with less than a year left on Obama's term. If you want to be honest here we both know the hypocrisy on both sides. It is all about if the shoe were on other foot.
-
First, do you understand what a recess appointment is and how it is different from a nomination via the normal process?
***********************************************
Sure I do. Obama has abused his authority as president more than once and illegally making recess appointments is one the Supremes ruled unanimously against Obama already for making recess appointments when he did not have the authority to do it. This case would be different as the senate is actually in recess and he has a little window to do it. It will be interesting to see if he does it.
I keep hearing about the republicans not following the constitution but where do the libs get this? Obama can nominate anyone he wants and the senate can do what it wants with that nomination...that is the constitution.
High court rules against Obama on recess appointments
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html
There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
-
-
I guess the line goes from the back door of the White House to the dumpster. If its outdated why even fuck with it?
And that's not just snark.
WSS
It provides a framework. No need to throw the whole thing out. It was meant to be a living document (hence the amendments). But we can't act like nothing in it can ever be changed.
A framework? Well great. An outdated framework at the very least.It provides a framework. No need to throw the whole thing out. It was meant to be a living document (hence the amendments). But we can't act like nothing in it can ever be changed.
Not unlike the rules of the NFL. The receiver was bobbling the ball when he got knocked out of bounds. Possession? Incomplete pass? Well of the nine referees 5 of them decided it was a catch because, well, his team was behind.
And speaking of frameworks the electoral college and the representative system in the information age? Please.
WSS
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