Justice Scalia passes away

DieHardBrownsFan

@vaportrail said:

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?

Westside Steve

@diehardbrownsfan said:
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

Westside Steve

@vaportrail said:

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 If its outdated why even fuck with it?

And that's not just snark.

WSS

calfoxwc

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://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-7-things-to-know-about-presidential-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/

calfoxwc

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.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=072078126116075119106018125069108086050045038009039013023073074120021101018098075104039124063013051027109083066003117001023000039057093013053125021013103090005108085061024095022098022117088068073074085102002091023072065028086004076086001121014118120&EXT=pdf

MLD Woody

@calfoxwc said:

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://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-7-things-to-know-about-presidential-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/

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

MLD Woody

@westside-steve said:

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.

MLD Woody

VaporTrail

@diehardbrownsfan said:
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.

Tour2ma

@oldbrownsfan said:

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

gftChris

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).

OldBrownsFan

@mld-woody said:

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.

OldBrownsFan

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/

Axe

Westside Steve

@mld-woody said:

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.

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

OldBrownsFan

I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers and their wisdom and not so much for many of today's leaders. I want to be very cautious about straying from the constitution.

Bob806

@oldbrownsfan said:
I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers and their wisdom and not so much for many of today's leaders. I want to be very cautious about straying from the constitution.

+1

calfoxwc

The Constitution is a permanent guarantee of our RIGHTS.

Meaning, of course rights can be further added for clarification.

But the Constitution is worthless if the powers that be can delete them

any time it suits their political agenda.

NOTE: this comes up because the libs have their pres in power.

With a rep in power, oh, no, hell no, you can't modify/change THEIR rights.

In principle - the Constitution cannot take away Americans' rights. That negates

the reason for the Constitution in the first place.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant to make a work that has protected our freedoms

for all these years. I don't want anything deleted no matter who is in control of the gov.

The Cysko Kid

Cal has a point here. If they want to give us more rights, great. If they want to make amendments that grant the right of gay marriage, super. But when they start taking rights away that's no good at all. We have to protect the second amendment and the right to bear arms at all costs because if they are allowed to restrict or outright repeal that, nothing is safe. We officially live under tyranny

OldBrownsFan

In 2007 I was against the Schumer standard as he did his best to block any Supreme Court nominations by George Bush from being confirmed because they could shift the balance of the court.Now that I am a little older and wiser I see I was wrong and Senator Schumer was right. The republicans should not confirm an Obama liberal judge who will shift the balance of the court.

It takes a big man to admit when they were wrong.

The Schumer Standard

Feb 16 2016

'I Will Do Everything In My Power To Prevent' More Bush Nominees From Joining The Supreme Court

SCHUMER: 'We Should Reverse The Presumption Of Confirmation'

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), JULY 2007: "[F]or the rest of this President's term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007; Video

)

SCHUMER: 'I Am Pained That I Didn't Do More To Try To Block Justice Alito'

25 Democrats, including Sens. Obama, Clinton, Reid, Leahy, and Schumer Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Alito Nomination - Cloture, CQ Vote #1: Motion Passed 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06)

SCHUMER: "[E]very day, I am pained that I didn't do more to try to block Justice Alito. Every two years, I look back and take stock of my greatest failings and regrets in the past Congress. Without question, my greatest regret in the 109th Congress was not doing more to block Alito." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SCHUMER: 'This Is A Nominee Who Could Shift The Balance Of The Court, And Thus The Laws Of The Nation, For Decades To Come'

SCHUMER: "This is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come. . . [K]nowing his judicial philosophy, knowing his ideology are going to be extremely important particularly in light of the fact that this is a swing vote. . . I'd say this is a more serious decision than the vote on Judge Roberts, because [retiring Justice] Sandra Day O'Connor is such a swing vote." (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 10/31/2005)

SCHUMER: "I've always said that a good Supreme Court would have one Scalia and one Brennan but not five of either." (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 10/31/2005)

SCHUMER: "The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SCHUMER: 'Ideology Matters'

SCHUMER: "Ideology matters. It stands to reason that a conservative lawyer who has represented the most conservative Administrations and taken the most conservative positions as a lawyer is likely to be a very conservative jurist." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SCHUMER: "Consider the Constitutional harm and 'dramatic departures' that are in store if those few are joined by just one more ideological ally. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SCHUMER: "[W]hat lessons should we learn from the Roberts and Alito experience? Lesson One is that confirmation commitments made at Senate hearings, and the Senate hearings themselves, are often meaningless." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)

SCHUMER: "ecause of the limited usefulness of the hearings, when in the future we are presented with a nominee with a sparse written record, a Senator might very well be justified in voting against that nominee on this basis alone." (Sen. Schumer, Speech To The American Constitution Society, 7/27/2007)