Antonin Scalia Dies

[jerryskids 7,055]

 

As he votes against equality.

 

You seem like a genuinely good guy in general but the extent that you are celebrating the death of another human being because of a difference in political ideology is, well, kinda creepy.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-justice-antonin-scalia-we-were-best-n518671

[hoytdwow 202]

It's complete BS that Obama would try and nominate a judge when he only has a year left. Lame duck, and all. In fact, he shouldn't really be allowed to do anything at all this year. It's not fair to the next president. And in truth, last year he was on the precipice of only having a year left, so he shouldn't have worked then either. 2014 is borderline, as he was obviously on his way out, as the Presidency isn't permanent. And so many of the things he did even back then will have ramifications beyond his term.

do you read the tripe you post before you press go? So the last year of his term the president should not execute the functions of his office? I assume you'd apply this awesome policy to a republican as well. Can you link to where in the constitution you found this?

[Reality 3,121]

do you read the tripe you post before you press go? So the last year of his term the president should not execute the functions of his office? I assume you'd apply this awesome policy to a republican as well. Can you link to where in the constitution you found this?

He's being sarcastic you fkn dipsh1t.

 

 

I honestly don't know how some of you manage to make it through your day.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

do you read the tripe you post before you press go? So the last year of his term the president should not execute the functions of his office? I assume you'd apply this awesome policy to a republican as well. Can you link to where in the constitution you found this?

Just a guess, but I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that he was being 100% sarcastic with that post. You are this guy, right:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=drax+sarcasm&rlz=2Y3KTZR_enUS0618US0618google.manta.mantaray&oq=drax+sarcasm&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.3994j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=KCAZbaInHiWMTM%3A

[hoytdwow 202]

My sarcasm meter is broken

[hoytdwow 202]

He's being sarcastic you fkn dipsh1t.

 

 

I honestly don't know how some of you manage to make it through your day.

It's actually something you might post, and be 100% serious

[Reality 3,121]

It's actually something you might post, and be 100% serious

Don't compound your dumb with more dumb, it's not helping your case.

[hoytdwow 202]

Don't compound your dumb with more dumb, it's not helping your case.

Look how many fucks I give

[MDC 7,839]

SCALIA FOUND DEAD WITH 'PILLOW OVER HEAD

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

That is a really weird way to sleep.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

I do think Obama should nominate a relative moderate. It'd be the right thing to do. However I guarantee you the Republicans will throw a temper tantrum regardless

When do they ever do the right thing? And you know if this situation was Ginsburg laying on the slab and Reed was in charge of the Senate, he'd be doing the EXACT same thing.

[MDC 7,839]

When do they ever do the right thing? And you know if this situation was Ginsburg laying on the slab and Reed was in charge of the Senate, he'd be doing the EXACT same thing.

Why would you make this assumption?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Why would you make this assumption?

 

If you've followed Washington politics over the last thirty years, you start noticing patterns. They all fawking suck and would push their mothers down the stairs to have any edge on the other side. And replacing the most conservative judge on the supreme court when you have a democrat in office may be the holy grail for them. And vice versa.

[Big Guy 1,421]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY&feature=youtu.be

[MDC 7,839]

 

If you've followed Washington politics over the last thirty years, you start noticing patterns. They all fawking suck and would push their mothers down the stairs to have any edge on the other side. And replacing the most conservative judge on the supreme court when you have a democrat in office may be the holy grail for them. And vice versa.

Oh so we just assume that anybody in office would suggest that Congress stonewall on a SC appointment for a freaking year because one person did it? Gotcha.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Oh so we just assume that anybody in office would suggest that Congress stonewall on a SC appointment for a freaking year because one person did it? Gotcha.

 

No.....it's how they operate. Both sides. Take a look at Big Guy's Schumer vid. Says it all right there. And this is one of the things you don't have to assume, you know. It's how they operate. And you know that.

 

You look foolish trying to argue that the dems wouldn't do the exact same thing. It's partisan politics 101.

[MDC 7,839]

 

No.....it's how they operate. Both sides. Take a look at Big Guy's Schumer vid. Says it all right there. And this is one of the things you don't have to assume, you know. It's how they operate. And you know that.

 

You look foolish trying to argue that the dems wouldn't do the exact same thing. It's partisan politics 101.

The GOP are threatening unprecedented obstruction but you make the assumption anyone would do the same thing because you're a partisan tool.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

The GOP are threatening unprecedented obstruction but you make the assumption anyone would do the same thing because you're a partisan tool.

 

No, I think that he is saying that all politicians would pull this crap and that it is a bipartisan issue. That does not make him partisan at all and I think that he is correct.

 

If the Dems were to do something similar, then I would give them similar crap, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that his merely a tactic/threat reserved for the Republicans.

[drobeski 3,061]

The GOP are threatening unprecedented obstruction but you make the assumption anyone would do the same thing because you're a partisan tool.

unprecedented ? Think the dems tried passing a law in 1960 to ban appointments during lame duck status.

 

Not sure of the details, I'll look it up.

[MDC 7,839]

 

No, I think that he is saying that all politicians would pull this crap and that it is a bipartisan issue. That does not make him partisan at all and I think that he is correct.

 

If the Dems were to do something similar, then I would give them similar crap, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that his merely a tactic/threat reserved for the Republicans.

Since it's never happened before in my 40+ years on earth why would I assume one side would do something dirtbaggoty just because the other side did it? Just to appear moderate or something?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

The GOP are threatening unprecedented obstruction but you make the assumption anyone would do the same thing because you're a partisan tool.

 

 

So if Bush was in his last year and Reed was running the senate, you think Reed would do everything in his power make sure Bush's nomination not be met with "unprecedented obstruction"?

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Much crying before hurt in here.

[MDC 7,839]

 

 

So if Bush was in his last year and Reed was running the senate, you think Reed would do everything in his power make sure Bush's nomination not be met with "unprecedented obstruction"?

How the fock should I know? I'm just not going to assume that the Democratic Party and several candidates would immediately suggest stonewalling for a calendar year. That is pretty extreme.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

How the fock should I know? I'm just not going to assume that the Democratic Party and several candidates would immediately suggest stonewalling for a calendar year. That is pretty extreme.

 

There's a reason that the house and senates approval ratings are in the teens. This is one of them. Anyone who pays enough attention knows damned good and well that both sides would do this. It's in their parties best interest to do so.

[MDC 7,839]

 

There's a reason that the house and senates approval ratings are in the teens. This is one of them. Anyone who pays enough attention knows damned good and well that both sides would do this. It's in their parties best interest to do so.

This is the type of thing people say when their "side" does something dirtbaggy to appear to be evenhanded and moderate while actually being a partisan excuse maker.

[Thornton Melon 648]

Nice try. Not what I said. Srsly read Jefferson

 

Fair enough, but you gotta admit the feds today have way more power than any of the founders would have ever envisioned.

 

Anyway, I took a gander at some of Jefferson's writings. His "19 year rule" of re-examining constitutions and laws was interesting. I hadn't heard that before. Anyone else? I'd rather see some kind of consensus among the founders. I know Hamilton favored government control of education, so he might have been considered liberal in that era.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

No, I think that he is saying that all politicians would pull this crap and that it is a bipartisan issue. That does not make him partisan at all and I think that he is correct.

 

If the Dems were to do something similar, then I would give them similar crap, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that his merely a tactic/threat reserved for the Republicans.

Difference is bunny is defending right-wing obstructionism here versus saying it'd be bogus if anyone did it.

 

Frankly I think this whole thing just demonstrates how broken our system is. Judges are supposed to be impartial. It shouldn't be the end of the world if a republican or democrat president gets to nominate a new Supreme Court justice. But it is since both sides now try to pack the courts with ideologues.

 

Would take a constitutional amendment but I think judicial nominations should be a non partisan process. Not sure exactly how to set it up but there should be an impartial non-partisan board that vets potential candidates and then the president should be able to pick from whom ever the board sends along.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

Would take a constitutional amendment but I think judicial nominations should be a non partisan process. Not sure exactly how to set it up but there should be an impartial non-partisan board that vets potential candidates and then the president should be able to pick from whom ever the board sends along.

It should also not be a lifetime appointment. They need term limits just like everyone else.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

It should also not be a lifetime appointment. They need term limits just like everyone else.

Agreed. The idea of lifetime appointment is they wouldn't be influenced by the politics of the moment because they don't ever have to be re-appointed or re-elected and it's very hard to remove them.

 

Fine, keep it the same except instead of a lifetime appointment it is 20-30 years. After that term you're gone one way or the other and while you're a judge you can only be removed by the impeachment process. How would this create any problems?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

This is the type of thing people say when their "side" does something dirtbaggy to appear to be evenhanded and moderate while actually being a partisan excuse maker.

 

 

And this is the type of thinking when their "side" is on the wrong end of something dirtbaggy. See how that works?

 

Moderates? WTF is a moderate? I haven't seen one of those in a very long time. Especially not in Washington.

 

And for the record: I think the nomination should wait until the next president is elected. And I would think that no matter what initial was by their name. This is a good thing for both parties to campaign on.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

 

And this is the type of thinking when their "side" is on the wrong end of something dirtbaggy. See how that works?

 

Moderates? WTF is a moderate? I haven't seen one of those in a very long time. Especially not in Washington.

 

And for the record: I think the nomination should wait until the next president is elected. And I would think that no matter what initial was by their name. This is a good thing for both parties to campaign on.

You're lying in that last paragraph. Everyone knows it

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Agreed. The idea of lifetime appointment is they wouldn't be influenced by the politics of the moment because they don't ever have to be re-appointed or re-elected and it's very hard to remove them.

 

Fine, keep it the same except instead of a lifetime appointment it is 20-30 years. After that term you're gone one way or the other and while you're a judge you can only be removed by the impeachment process. How would this create any problems?

 

Read a good article that congress should define "lifetime" to be 18 years. If staggered, then each presidential term would include 2 appointments to the court.

[MDC 7,839]

 

 

And this is the type of thinking when their "side" is on the wrong end of something dirtbaggy. See how that works?

 

Moderates? WTF is a moderate? I haven't seen one of those in a very long time. Especially not in Washington.

 

And for the record: I think the nomination should wait until the next president is elected. And I would think that no matter what initial was by their name. This is a good thing for both parties to campaign on.

You think the president should hold off for a year?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

You think the president should hold off for a year?

 

Well, in all fairness, Congress has pretty much taken off the last 8-10 years.

[Big Guy 1,421]

http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion--52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

[Willis McGahee's Dentist 61]

Sorry, I'm late to the party and perhaps this has been discussed, but didn't Ron Reagan nominate a SCOTUS very late into his presidency? How is this different?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Sorry, I'm late to the party and perhaps this has been discussed, but didn't Ron Reagan nominate a SCOTUS very late into his presidency? How is this different?

Kennedy was CONFIRMED in the last year of his presidency but had been nominated earlier so supposedly that's different

[KSB2424 3,172]

Sorry, I'm late to the party and perhaps this has been discussed, but didn't Ron Reagan nominate a SCOTUS very late into his presidency? How is this different?

 

It's a good question. Precedent. I found that its only happened one time where a SC Justice died/left during the final year of a Presidency. Either being the 8th year or the 4th year of a President who has declared he will not re-run for the position. Whats considered the "lame duck" year.

 

1968: President Lyndon Johnson

 

 

 

Johnson nominated somebody. So this scenario has really only happened once. Not much precedent either way.....

[KSB2424 3,172]

My personal opinion. Obama has every right to nominate somebody. And the Senate has every right, if the person is not palatable to them, to deny or delay the confirmation.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

 

It's a good question. Precedent. I found that its only happened one time where a SC Justice died/left during the final year of a Presidency. Either being the 8th year or the 4th year of a President who has declared he will not re-run for the position. Whats considered the "lame duck" year.

 

 

 

 

Johnson nominated somebody. So this scenario has really only happened once. Not much precedent either way.....

 

Lame Duck = an official (especially the president) in the final period of office, after the election of a successor.

 

So, not until November, HTH.