• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

I also agree with some of the pundits who have opined that for Cruz, Rubio and others to immediately announce they would not approve anyone Obama nominates was unnecessary and in some ways disrespectful to Antonin Scalia. Unnecessary because, let's face it, Obama wasn't going to nominate someone over the weekend. Disrespectful because Scalia isn't even in the ground yet.

There was no reason to act within hours of Scalia's death being announced. It could have waited until next week. Even better, it could have been communicated to the Obama Administration in a more discreet way.

It was totally (and typically) classless.
 
newyorkguy said:
I also agree with some of the pundits who have opined that for Cruz, Rubio and others to immediately announce they would not approve anyone Obama nominates was unnecessary and in some ways disrespectful to Antonin Scalia. Unnecessary because, let's face it, Obama wasn't going to nominate someone over the weekend. Disrespectful because Scalia isn't even in the ground yet.

There was no reason to act within hours of Scalia's death being announced. It could have waited until next week. Even better, it could have been communicated to the Obama Administration in a more discreet way.

It was totally (and typically) classless.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether it was disrespectful to Scalia, but it certainly was a dumb move on their part; now if they do reject every Obama nominee, they can't claim that it was because his nominees were no good - as they've already declared ahead of time that they won't confirm Obama's nominees.

That's put the republicans in a catch 22 situation; Either they accept some Obama nominee that is surely going to be more liberal than Scalia, or they block all nominees, further proving the argument that republican's have become the obstructionist party, who's only purpose is to sabotage the governing of the country, should things not go exactly to their liking.

Whichever path they take, they lose: either by having an Obama appointee in the Supreme court, or by giving additional ammunition to the democrat candidate in the presidential election.
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

^Absolutely true of all or almost all of Bob's arguments. It really doesn't matter how absurd, dangerous, painful, unfair, or deadly the outcome-it is (Bob's interpretation of) the letter of the law and the central principals of his form of libertarianism that are the "Prime Directive." If the letter of the law requires a person known to be innocent of a crime to be executed, then the letter of the law must be followed. As Scalia, I believe, has himself maintained.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is their prerogative
Click to expand...

Are we discussing "prerogative" or instead what is fair, just, reasonable, and helpful to the country? It is absolutely the prerogative of the US Congress to declare war on Canada tonight- would that be a good thing? It is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to overturn laws banning interracial marriage- haven't you been arguing that this event was the wrong thing to do?
 
BobTheCoward said:
But is there ambiguity leading to guesses on this issue though? It actually serves as a liberal attack on originalist. I can cite law papers that make the originalist case for affrming loving. Do you think if I made a thread on that liberal legal thinkers here would agree with the conclusions?
Click to expand...

The fact is that interpretations of if the Constitution as to laws banning interracial marriages were mixed (as is always the case in terms of most political issues)- some believed it did, some believed it didn't. So the group of legal scholars set up by the authors of the Constitution and tasked with the job of doing the interpretation, the Supreme Court, decided that the Constitution did not permit laws banning interracial marriages.

You believe that they were wrong in this decision. But they were clearly not alone in their interpretation, and they were the ones who are assigned the responsibility to decide.

As I see it, it was not the letter of the Constitution that required the bans on intermarriage (and on racial discrimination if I recall correctly) to be upheld, but your own interpretation of the letter of the Constitution, despite the fact that those who are highly experienced and assigned the job of interpretation thought otherwise (for reasons that you, of course, reject).
 
A Canuck popping in to comment. Rubio said today to Dana Bash on CNN, that it should be the next president who nominates the next judge. He says it shouldnt be someone who"will never face the electorate" again. Rather odd imo. He wants to be POTUS himself and just stated in effect, that no president in his second term should nominate a S.C. judge.
 
Giordano said:
The fact is that interpretations of if the Constitution as to laws banning interracial marriages were mixed (as is always the case in terms of most political issues)- some believed it did, some believed it didn't. So the group of legal scholars set up by the authors of the Constitution and tasked with the job of doing the interpretation, the Supreme Court, decided that the Constitution did not permit laws banning interracial marriages.

You believe that they were wrong in this decision. But they were clearly not alone in their interpretation, and they were the ones who are assigned the responsibility to decide.

As I see it, it was not the letter of the Constitution that required the bans on intermarriage (and on racial discrimination if I recall correctly) to be upheld, but your own interpretation of the letter of the Constitution, despite the fact that those who are highly experienced and assigned the job of interpretation thought otherwise (for reasons that you, of course, reject).
Click to expand...

Lets back up and answer one of the questions I asked. In regards to the historical understanding of the 14th amendment at ratification, are originalists right facts wrong interpretation or wrong facts?
 
Swordfishtrombone said:
I don't know whether it was disrespectful to Scalia, but it certainly was a dumb move on their part; now if they do reject every Obama nominee, they can't claim that it was because his nominees were no good - as they've already declared ahead of time that they won't confirm Obama's nominees.
Click to expand...

Yes, because anyone who that communist, atheist, Muslim nominates will necessarily be unacceptable.

Swordfishtrombone said:
That's put the republicans in a catch 22 situation; Either they accept some Obama nominee that is surely going to be more liberal than Scalia, or they block all nominees, further proving the argument that republican's have become the obstructionist party, who's only purpose is to sabotage the governing of the country, should things not go exactly to their liking.
Click to expand...

Yes, and ?

By doing this they are shoring up their base and there's always a proportion of the floating voters who will either think it's the other guy's fault or mistake their intransigence for assertiveness and/or steadfastness.

Swordfishtrombone said:
Whichever path they take, they lose: either by having an Obama appointee in the Supreme court, or by giving additional ammunition to the democrat candidate in the presidential election.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is mileage to be got from opposing any Obama nomination. There is a fair chance that there will be a Republican president and therefore an even more conservative Scalia replacement.

The type of people who care about this are the type who won't be voting GOP in any case.
 
Crossbow said:
Then they are wrong.

The Senate is supposed to advise and consent as opposed to having one member be an obstructionist piece of crap in order to generate some publicity that may support his presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

If it didn't work, he wouldn't do it....
 
sackett said:
Now looka here, all you libberulz: Bob and Logger and Sunmaster and the others are grieving people. They've lost one of the few friends they'll ever have.

Allow them time to mourn! For petey's sake!

Amen.
Click to expand...

Scalia was a bigot therefore no friend of mine.
 
Dog Town said:
Most assuredly it is. Sadly, their constituency isn't bothered by it in the least!
Click to expand...

No we aren't, its called hardball politics and its a hoot watching libs cry about it. I hope this will finally be the repubs getting a spine. Leftists need to be defeated any way possible.
 
newyorkguy said:
I also agree with some of the pundits who have opined that for Cruz, Rubio and others to immediately announce they would not approve anyone Obama nominates was unnecessary and in some ways disrespectful to Antonin Scalia. Unnecessary because, let's face it, Obama wasn't going to nominate someone over the weekend. Disrespectful because Scalia isn't even in the ground yet.

There was no reason to act within hours of Scalia's death being announced. It could have waited until next week. Even better, it could have been communicated to the Obama Administration in a more discreet way.

It was totally (and typically) classless.
Click to expand...
Lol

He would be proud of how his death might possibly give repubs a spine.
 
Swordfishtrombone said:
I don't know whether it was disrespectful to Scalia, but it certainly was a dumb move on their part; now if they do reject every Obama nominee, they can't claim that it was because his nominees were no good - as they've already declared ahead of time that they won't confirm Obama's nominees.
Click to expand...

How do you not understand their reasons are politics, no different than what dems have said. Good lord people this is easy stuff.

We on the right don't want the kind of government lazy loser power hungry leftists want. We will do what we have to to make that happen, same as the left!
 
Giordano said:
Are we discussing "prerogative" or instead what is fair, just, reasonable, and helpful to the country? It is absolutely the prerogative of the US Congress to declare war on Canada tonight- would that be a good thing? It is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to overturn laws banning interracial marriage- haven't you been arguing that this event was the wrong thing to do?
Click to expand...

Correct. If is extremely important to distinguish prerogative from just.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom