Merged Scalia is dead

[madurobob]

I really think delaying will be worse for the republicans in the long run assuming Obama provides a moderate choice.

As I read it, you are saying the GOP will absolutely obstruct any Obama nominee.

 

[Dog Town]

True enough, but do you consider the current crop of Republicans rational enough to make the choice that is best for their own interests?

That would be a...NO!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm sorry but I am glad. That man said it was OK to execute an innocent person as long as they had due process and was found guilty. I'm not going to pretend I am not happy with this.

Ding dong the witch is dead.

That's reprehensible, but sadly I've come to expect it on this forum.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

duplicate

 

[beren]

That's reprehensible, but sadly I've come to expect it on the forum.

Yeah, his comments about humans were reprehensible. Didn't realize he was on the forum though ...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[foophil]

True enough, but do you consider the current crop of Republicans rational enough to make the choice that is best for their own interests?

No, they are very short sighted in my opinion.

 

[foophil]

As I read it, you are saying the GOP will absolutely obstruct any Obama nominee.

I'd place good odds on that happening.

 

[Cain]

This will give Obama and the left a chance to whine again and the repubs to once again block his asinine agenda.

Put on your helmet because you're set crash into a solid wall of reality.

 

[Cylinder]

Mitch McConnell, how hypocritical claiming the voters should have a say in the next Justice. Does he not know Obama was elected?

As was the Senate.

 

[BenBurch]

Somebody finally dropped a house on him.

 

[madurobob]

I'd place good odds on that happening.

You n me both. Presidential elections are 50/50 shot these days. I don't think they'll think they have much to lose in postponing any confirmation until 2017.

Unless, that is, they have a problem with a lower court ruling they don't want tacitly affirmed by a 4-4 vote by the remaining justices, and they think a confirmation now will swing the vote the way they want. I don't see that as very likely.

 

[Cain]

You n me both. Presidential elections are 50/50 shot these days. I don't think they'll think they have much to lose in postponing any confirmation until 2017.

How many Senate races are in contention?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's called the Bill of Rights

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Given it's a religious argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry...

If legislatures vote for something for religious reasons it violates the first amendment? That is not the way that works.

 

[Trebuchet]

If they stall until President Hillary/Bernie takes over wouldn't it be delicious if they then nominated Obama himself!

It'd definitely be interesting, considering that Obama has no experience as a judge.

As far as I know, the only President ever appointed to the Court was William H Taft, as Chief Justice. But he DID have experience as a judge.

 

[NoahFence]

They're hero's.

You libs have to understand, if your given this nomination our country will be changed for generations. Obama will not get another pick. I hope the repubs understand if they let Obama do this, they will start a violent revolution that cannot be stopped.

We will not be governed by the most immoral among us!!!!

 

[Babbylonian]

If legislatures vote for something for religious reasons it violates the first amendment? That is not the way that works.

You might want to take a look at the 14th amendment and how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Short version: States can't violate the US Constitution, including of course its amendments. And it's hard to imagine an argument against that. If states were permitted to violate the Constitution, then the Constitution would be a worthless piece of parchment.

ETA: To clarify, yeah, legislatures can make votes for religious reasons but they can't pass laws that violate the Constitution (and expect them to pass Supreme Court scrutiny) for any reason.

 

[Trebuchet]

Isn't it interesting how the R's have decided "change" is a bad thing? Obama actually campaigned on it, perhaps that's why. He won. Twice.

The R's are going to have to be careful about this. If they nominate a loon, they lose not only the presidency but stand a chance of losing the Senate. Then Hillary or Sanders could nominate an actual liberal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You might want to take a look at the 14th amendment and how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Short version: States can't violate the US Constitution, including of course its amendments. And it's hard to imagine an argument against that. If states were permitted to violate the Constitution, then the Constitution would be a worthless piece of parchment.

ETA: To clarify, yeah, legislatures can make votes for religious reasons but they can't pass laws that violate the Constitution (and expect them to pass Supreme Court scrutiny) for any reason.

Yea, I was focusing on the claim that laws that exist for religious reasons are unconstitutional.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

one of the worst justices ever. the court will be better without him.

 

[Tony Stark]

Good news. Scalia was a worthless scumbag who made the country a worse place. He will be remembered as one of the worst Justices in history.

If the Republican scumbags in the Senate refuse to confirm a qualified appointment in the next 11 months that Obama has as President, and the American people are dumb enough to put a Republican in the White House, Senate Democrats should refuse to put another right wing piece of trash like Scalia on the Supreme Court.