• 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

Skeptic Ginger said:
Closer to the election, you can bet if it looks like the election for POTUS and especially the Senate are not going the way the GOP wants, they'll have their vote in order to not risk an even more liberal choice.
Click to expand...

In the event of a Sanders primary victory, the Senate will probably beg Obama to nominate someone.
 
How long until candidates start naming people they would nominate if they were to become President?

McConnell, at least, seems eager to make the nomination part of the election, so it seems natural that the candidates would take the opportunity.
 
Travis said:
So Scalia is dead and the suspicion falls on Obama? Are we ignoring the other 200 million people in this country that wanted the man dead?

Anyways I think we need to get back on what is important; filling his seat. Particularly I find it interesting that Republicans so badly seem to want POTUS Sanders/Clinton to make the appointment rather than the twice elected POTUS we currently have. If this precedent stands where do we draw a line? Does a President simply not get to do anything in their second term?
Click to expand...

I hope so. Government does too much in a year anyway.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
How long until candidates start naming people they would nominate if they were to become President?

McConnell, at least, seems eager to make the nomination part of the election, so it seems natural that the candidates would take the opportunity.
Click to expand...

I think that McConnell is smart enough to understand that drawing this **** out until after the election is bad for Republicans. Because 1) Doing so will make it more likely that Republicans lose. 2) If they do lose it, it will result in somebody even more liberal tha Obama's nominee taking the seat under President Clinton.

McConnell's problem is that the GOP base is highly stupid and irrational and will blame him for it if an Obama nominee gets through. Though he is not up for election until 2020, so who knows.
 
Tony Stark said:
I think that McConnell is smart enough to understand that drawing this **** out until after the election is bad for Republicans. Because 1) Doing so will make it more likely that Republicans lose. 2) If they do lose it, it will result in somebody even more liberal tha Obama's nominee taking the seat under President Clinton.

McConnell's problem is that the GOP base is highly stupid and irrational and will blame him for it if an Obama nominee gets through. Though he is not up for election until 2020, so who knows.
Click to expand...

You sure? This is the party that keeps trying to repeal the healthcare act in which they wrote nearly every section, just because a black President enacted it.
 
GodMark2 said:
You sure? This is the party that keeps trying to repeal the healthcare act in which they wrote nearly every section, just because a black President enacted it.
Click to expand...
It has been almost exclusively House Republicans that have been trying to do that. And even most of them are probably smart enough to understand that the chance of that happening while Obama is President is zero percent. They are just trying to appease their moron base.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
How long until candidates start naming people they would nominate if they were to become President?
Click to expand...

That would be foolish for a number of reasons.

The most trivial reason is that most of the electorate is not even aware of the judiciary, unless they have occasion to come before a judge, and then it is most likely to be an issue that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the US constitution.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
It'd definitely be interesting, considering that Obama has no experience as a judge.
Click to expand...

I was just reading over this thread and wanted to note that Elena Kagan had no experience as a judge either. And, as I believe others pointed out, Scalia himself wanted her on the bench (I'm sure he would have preferred a conservative but the chances of that happening with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate were 0%).
 
Tony Stark said:
It has been almost exclusively House Republicans that have been trying to do that. And even most of them are probably smart enough to understand that the chance of that happening while Obama is President is zero percent. They are just trying to appease their moron base.
Click to expand...

ACA opponents created a straw man version of the law to fight against. A law with death panels that will send Grandma to an early grave, that funds all abortions and forces Americans to wait for hours to get the simplest medical care from squalid clinics that look like those in rural Uganda. Congress keeps voting to repeal Obamacare because GOP primary voters still believe in the straw man.

These same voters viewed Scalia as a hero because he was against the ACA.
 
Is there any check or balance the executive branch can use to make the senate perform its constitutional duties?
 
Kestrel said:
ACA opponents created a straw man version of the law to fight against. A law with death panels that will send Grandma to an early grave, that funds all abortions and forces Americans to wait for hours to get the simplest medical care from squalid clinics that look like those in rural Uganda. Congress keeps voting to repeal Obamacare because GOP primary voters still believe in the straw man.

These same voters viewed Scalia as a hero because he was against the ACA.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree. Just saying that it has been mostly House Republicans who have pathetically been fighting the legislative fight that has a zero percent chance of victory. One that even most of them know if futile. They are just trying to appease their retard base. I could be wrong but I doubt that even House Republicans are stupid/crazy enough to belive that there is any chance whatsoever that Obama would sign a bill repealing Obamacare.
 
Biscuit said:
Is there any check or balance the executive branch can use to make the senate perform its constitutional duties?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the framers envisioned a Congress that didn't want to do it's job. I mean, why would you take the job if you weren't interested in doing it?
 
Biscuit said:
Is there any check or balance the executive branch can use to make the senate perform its constitutional duties?
Click to expand...
No. Though he can use his bully pulpit to make them look like the obstructionists scum they are.

He can also, as his final revenge to the Republicans (assuming that Democrats take the Senate), arrange for himself to take Scalia's seat. I think this is very unlikely to happen. I hope it does though. Republican heads exploding would by itself be a great joy to me.
 
elbe said:
I don't know if the framers envisioned a Congress that didn't want to do it's job. I mean, why would you take the job if you weren't interested in doing it?
Click to expand...
Getting paid $174k/year plus all the perks/benefits that go along with it for accomplishing nothing seems like a great deal. Especially since you can use it to get a better job (for example, President of the United States).
 
elbe said:
I don't know if the framers envisioned a Congress that didn't want to do it's job. I mean, why would you take the job if you weren't interested in doing it?
Click to expand...

Money. Power.

Need one to say more ? Those two are enough for most sociopath to desire political power, and congress or senate is one such lofty end goal in the US.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Biden was wrong then, as the Republicans are wrong now. What's so "LOL" about it?
Click to expand...

It's just funny how Democrats act all offended when the Republicans do run-of-the-mill politics. But in the internet age, the Democrats' hypocrisy gets thrown back in their faces within a matter of days.

Perhaps Democrats should think about cutting back on the drama queen shtick about how Republicans are making the country ungovernable. They're just making themselves look ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom