Merged Scalia is dead

sunmaster14 said:
I don't think Obama would accept the nomination. Deep down in his subconscious, I think he knows that he is not up to snuff intellectually, and it will be very unpleasant to be subjected to analytical beatdowns over and over again by his conservative peers.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the two term President of the United States who graduated manga cum laude from Harvard Law and was head of the Harvard Law Review feels he is inferior to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Makes perfect sense. In your fantasy world. Reality, not so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobTheCoward said:
The whole thing?

Privileges and immunities... Life liberty property....due process... Deny....equal protection.

Those are all terms with very specific legal and historical contexts. To say we can just read it and apply it is asinine.
Click to expand...

You seem to be squinting past the "any person" bit...
 
An interesting Scalia anecdote as told by David Axelrod:

Scalia said:
I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation, but I hope he sends us someone smart ... Let me put a finer point on it, I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.
Click to expand...
 
Well, that about figures ...

That stupid, idiotic, liar Ted Cruz is already promising to filibuster anyone that Obama names to replace Scalia even though no one has even been named yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-death-gop-reacts-165826911.html

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

...

Asked whether he would filibuster Obama’s choice, Cruz said: "Absolutely.”

“The Senate’s duty is to advise and consent,” Cruz said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday. “We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.”

...
 
Crossbow said:
Well, that about figures ...

That stupid, idiotic, liar Ted Cruz is already promising to filibuster anyone that Obama names to replace Scalia even though no one has even been named yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-death-gop-reacts-165826911.html

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

...

Asked whether he would filibuster Obama’s choice, Cruz said: "Absolutely.”

“The Senate’s duty is to advise and consent,” Cruz said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday. “We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.”

...
Click to expand...

It is their prerogative
 
BobTheCoward said:
Privileges and immunities... Life liberty property....due process... Deny....equal protection.

Those are all terms with very specific legal and historical contexts. To say we can just read it and apply it is asinine.
Click to expand...

"Arms" had a very specific legal and historical context. Does that mean the Constitution clearly meant to authorize only musket-bearing?

So you are not a strict constructionist, is that correct?
 
Such hypocrites. And stupid, once they hear a talking point they like, why check facts? Don't they know other people will?

Politifact: Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
We rate this claim Mostly False.
Click to expand...
They note that "lame duck" refers to after the Nov election. Stretching that to include the whole last year is as stupid (my words) as claiming it's the entire 2nd term.

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years



Obama will have to offer them a gamble, take my moderate choice or risk a more liberal one.

It's annoying for Chuck Todd not to call these jerks out when they repeat the talking point the people should have a say. This morning he missed several chances to point out Obama was elected twice.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
"Arms" had a very specific legal and historical context. Does that mean the Constitution clearly meant to authorize only musket-bearing?

So you are not a strict constructionist, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Either that or I should be allowed to own an F-16 fighter jet and/or nuclear weapons. :eek:
 
And should a Democrat win the election, maybe Republicans can vow to filibuster until 2020. Their position is contemptible -- rejecting a nominee sight unseen. If they possessed an ounce of intelligence they would offer to "thoroughly vet" any nominee, and then find some pretext to dismiss her or him.

Let's also be clear about this 80 year crap. How many Justices have died in the same year as an election? It seems they want to give the impression Justices have died but the powers that be refused to act. If Ginsburg had died, then an Obama replacement wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Ted Cruz and others are more concerned about "tipping the balance" than nominating someone in an election cycle, but as someone pointed out up-thread, Bush Sr. had a chance to replace two liberal Justices.
 
Minoosh said:
By date nominated & date confirmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Sorry my links aren't purty.

ETA: I think justices try not to die during election years. Seriously.
Click to expand...

But some are confirmed during election year :

Frank Murphy Butler AJ January 4, 1940 confirmed voice vote January 16, 1940 F. Roosevelt


39th 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) – 449 Wendell Willkie (Republican) – 82

1940 was an election year if I do not miscount

ETA and 1932 :
Benjamin N. Cardozo Holmes AJ February 15, 1932 confirmed voice vote February 24, 1932 Hoover

37th 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) – 472 Herbert Hoover (Republican) – 59
Norman Thomas (Socialist) – 0


John Hessin Clarke Hughes AJ July 14, 1916 confirmed voice vote July 24, 1916 Wilson

33rd 1916* Woodrow Wilson* (Democrat) – 277 Charles Evans Hughes (Republican) – 254
Allan L. Benson (Socialist) – 0
James Hanly (Prohibition) – 0


So was 1916.



I stopped looking at that point. From where is this "no confirmation during election year" is coming from ? Or I am reading wiki wrongly ?
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It is their prerogative
Click to expand...

There is prerogative, and there is obvious obstruction of the process. But I guess what count to you is the letter of the law and absolutely nothing else, no matter how unethical, amoral, and disgusting, spirit of the law be damned.

And people wonder why voter get disenfranchised.
 
Minoosh said:
"Arms" had a very specific legal and historical context. Does that mean the Constitution clearly meant to authorize only musket-bearing?

So you are not a strict constructionist, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Which is why I talk repeatedly about amending the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom