2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Sad state of gridlock when the breaking news headline is that the President will appoint a nominee - which, as stated above, is the natural course of things. If the GOP holds out, then Hillary can always nominate Obama after she wins the election.
Sad state of gridlock when the breaking news headline is that the President will appoint a nominee - which, as stated above, is the natural course of things. If the GOP holds out, then Hillary can always nominate Obama after she wins the election.
that would be amazing
Listen to some of my music here (if you want to):
[url="My soundcloud"]
hillary is an attorney. maybe obama could nominate her. she would be a much more effective supreme court justice. the appointment is for life. plus, if clinton is appointed we would not have to have 4 more years of a gop obstruction party that will not pass anything simply because it is something a clinton supports.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't really understand the question. Are you asking if the GOP is going to want to stall and the Democrats are not? Then yes... Like I said earlier, this is, electorally speaking, to the Democrats advantage. It would be a great issue to motivate people to the polls and convince middle/non political America that the GOP is intentionally obstructing an important constitutional duty of the president.
^^^ I was just asking if the news we receive is somewhat accurate as to what the americans receive. This helps when forming an opinion. I see what you mean that the dems have an advantage. But in all seriousness one judge should not have so much power as to affect the POTUS or the citizens. Seems like this Scalia guy had quite the effect on dems. I hope I don't get banned for saying that I have no idea who this guy is or what he has done to your country. It is not being insensitive at all, this guy seems to draw hate amongst the dems.
^^^ I was just asking if the news we receive is somewhat accurate as to what the americans receive. This helps when forming an opinion. I see what you mean that the dems have an advantage. But in all seriousness one judge should not have so much power as to affect the POTUS or the citizens. Seems like this Scalia guy had quite the effect on dems. I hope I don't get banned for saying that I have no idea who this guy is or what he has done to your country. It is not being insensitive at all, this guy seems to draw hate amongst the dems.
Scalia has been a very conservative judge since his appointment in 1986. He is a conservative stalwart and a hero to the right. But more importantly, his death opens up a seat on the bench that has been conservative for 30 years. Prior to Scalia's death the court was split 4-4 with Anthony Kennedy being teh swing vote in almost every consequential decision, as the 5-4 majority. With Scalia dying, the liberal agenda has an immediate advantage with several important cases coming up this summer. Even if Kennedy flips conservative on a decision, that makes it 4-4 and remands the decision back to the previous lower court.
He draws the 'hate' from liberals because he has been not only very conservative, but very outspoken in speeches as well. His power is the same as any of the other justices. But yes, since Marbury v Madison, the SCOTUS holds an exceptional amount of power in the US.
^^^ I was just asking if the news we receive is somewhat accurate as to what the americans receive. This helps when forming an opinion. I see what you mean that the dems have an advantage. But in all seriousness one judge should not have so much power as to affect the POTUS or the citizens. Seems like this Scalia guy had quite the effect on dems. I hope I don't get banned for saying that I have no idea who this guy is or what he has done to your country. It is not being insensitive at all, this guy seems to draw hate amongst the dems.
in our country the president appoints someone to the supreme court. they have to be approved by congress. but sometimes the opposing party stalls the proceedings just to play politics. it is not that one man has so much power over the president, it is that an intransigent senate and congress can delay an up or down vote (fillibuster) or reject the nominee if they do get a vote. there are many judicial seats that are still vacant from obama's first term because assholes in the senate have fillibustered them. you think the republican controlled house and senate are going to approve someone that obama chooses at this time? anybody that thinks they will is smokin the crack.
this election is huge. before today there were going to be 3 or 4 justices retiring. the next president can swing the balance of the court to a liberal advantage or a conservative super majority. this is why many americans are going to vote for whomever the dems nominate because we can't afford to have 6 conservatives on the supreme court. our country would go backwards. they would repeal roe v wade, undo obamacare, roll back environmental protections, the conservative court would do basically what the republican presidential candidates are campaigning on.
this is going to be to the advantage of democrats. they are already hammering the republicans in the "do-nothing congress". they are really going to hammer the gop for not carrying out their actual jobs by allowing the president to fill the supreme court to the 9 justices. as it is now there are major cases that need to be ruled upon and there are 4 liberals and 4 conservatives on the bench. nothing will be decided and it is going to tie up the supreme court until next january or even longer.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
hillary is an attorney. maybe obama could nominate her. she would be a much more effective supreme court justice. the appointment is for life. plus, if clinton is appointed we would not have to have 4 more years of a gop obstruction party that will not pass anything simply because it is something a clinton supports.
This is an excellent scenario. I would be all for it. Good thinking, gimme!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with" He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
This is why Ed is much more thoughtful in his speeches these days. He realizes the crazy masses he has emboldened in the wake of his irresponsible, immature early rhetoric. He was smarter than that then, but didn't realize his platform left him with a responsibility that in the last 5 years or so he's been a lot more responsible about. I think Obamaleager may have brought clarity to his reality.
"We" are no better than "they" if all we do is spew hate rather than thoughtful debate.
RIP and here's to hoping with nothing on the line but his legacy, Obama selects a moderate that sees both sides of issues while being a good steward of The Constitution and our laws and the Congress approves expeditiously accordingly. Not my side or your side. Not someone who will legislate from the bench. Just do the job of the judiciary as it is set out in The Constitution they are expected to protect. I'm tired of left and right. That would be a great legacy for Obama and this Congress to leave behind.
It would be great if we had 9 "swing" votes. (I think most of AMT would be shocked to learn Kennedy was nominated by Reagan).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
Had a similar thought but also realize Scalia is not an easy public figure to find common ground with if you disagree with him.
I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.
There are several posts on here that expressed shock and gave props to his legacy, by people who did not agree with him on politics. Some have been happy that he is no longer on the court, but I didn't see ecstasy at the fact that he was dead - maybe in a case or two - but more so that he is not on the court any longer.
The first politicization of this issue came from the GOP, with leadership and nominees already saying the President should not nominate anyone but wait for the election and let the new President appoint a justice. This is constitutionally irresponsible. But very expected as we can't even get the Congress to approve the man who is universally recognized as more than qualified to be in charge of cutting off the money flow of terrorist networks.
The longest Supreme Court nomination process has been 100 days - Clarence Thomas. President Obama has over 340 days left in office. Rubio said that it has been 80 years since a 'lameduck' president has appointed a justice. They are rewriting the rules to make the last year of the president's term seem like it doesn't exist. Cruz got his facts wrong about the same topic last night at the debate Justice. Kennedy was nominated in 87, appointed in 88 - an election year.
Although it feels unseemly to me to have this conversation go from the sudden death of a man of high standing in this country, and who had a family and friends who are in mourning; even the family came out with a statement last night saying that the next nominee should be of the same mind as Scalia. That is not the way things work and if the GOP wants to wave the Constitution, it is time they read it and follow the whole document. The resistance to this President by the GOP has been disgusting and has caused the last 2 sessions of Congress to be the most unproductive in modern history.
hillary is an attorney. maybe obama could nominate her. she would be a much more effective supreme court justice. the appointment is for life. plus, if clinton is appointed we would not have to have 4 more years of a gop obstruction party that will not pass anything simply because it is something a clinton supports.
Very true. But she would never leave the race to become a Justice.. She wants to be President. If she doesn't get elected in November that could come into play.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Obama could nominate another Scalia and he would not be confirmed by this congress. That is the fault of this congress and, yes, they are pandering.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Obama could nominate another Scalia and he would not be confirmed by this congress. That is the fault of this congress and, yes, they are pandering.
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
Obama could nominate another Scalia and he would not be confirmed by this congress. That is the fault of this congress and, yes, they are pandering.
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?
I'm surprised you think they wouldn't. Do you not pay attention to congressional shenanigans?
Comments
joy to the rest of the USA.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
Does this synopsis http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/antonin-scalia-successor-fight-1.3447646 give us an accurate portrayal of you Americans and this situation?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I was just asking if the news we receive is somewhat accurate as to what the americans receive.
This helps when forming an opinion.
I see what you mean that the dems have an advantage. But in all seriousness one judge should not have so much power as to affect the POTUS or the citizens.
Seems like this Scalia guy had quite the effect on dems.
I hope I don't get banned for saying that I have no idea who this guy is or what he has done to your country. It is not being insensitive at all, this guy seems to draw hate amongst the dems.
He draws the 'hate' from liberals because he has been not only very conservative, but very outspoken in speeches as well. His power is the same as any of the other justices. But yes, since Marbury v Madison, the SCOTUS holds an exceptional amount of power in the US.
here is a short list of his opinions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Antonin_Scalia.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/14/us/politics/scalia-opinions.html?_r=0
in our country the president appoints someone to the supreme court. they have to be approved by congress. but sometimes the opposing party stalls the proceedings just to play politics. it is not that one man has so much power over the president, it is that an intransigent senate and congress can delay an up or down vote (fillibuster) or reject the nominee if they do get a vote. there are many judicial seats that are still vacant from obama's first term because assholes in the senate have fillibustered them. you think the republican controlled house and senate are going to approve someone that obama chooses at this time? anybody that thinks they will is smokin the crack.
this election is huge. before today there were going to be 3 or 4 justices retiring. the next president can swing the balance of the court to a liberal advantage or a conservative super majority. this is why many americans are going to vote for whomever the dems nominate because we can't afford to have 6 conservatives on the supreme court. our country would go backwards. they would repeal roe v wade, undo obamacare, roll back environmental protections, the conservative court would do basically what the republican presidential candidates are campaigning on.
this is going to be to the advantage of democrats. they are already hammering the republicans in the "do-nothing congress". they are really going to hammer the gop for not carrying out their actual jobs by allowing the president to fill the supreme court to the 9 justices. as it is now there are major cases that need to be ruled upon and there are 4 liberals and 4 conservatives on the bench. nothing will be decided and it is going to tie up the supreme court until next january or even longer.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I mean condolences
He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.
GOP stalls until the election, Bernie wins it and makes a super liberal appointment lol
"We" are no better than "they" if all we do is spew hate rather than thoughtful debate.
RIP and here's to hoping with nothing on the line but his legacy, Obama selects a moderate that sees both sides of issues while being a good steward of The Constitution and our laws and the Congress approves expeditiously accordingly. Not my side or your side. Not someone who will legislate from the bench. Just do the job of the judiciary as it is set out in The Constitution they are expected to protect. I'm tired of left and right. That would be a great legacy for Obama and this Congress to leave behind.
It would be great if we had 9 "swing" votes. (I think most of AMT would be shocked to learn Kennedy was nominated by Reagan).
Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The first politicization of this issue came from the GOP, with leadership and nominees already saying the President should not nominate anyone but wait for the election and let the new President appoint a justice. This is constitutionally irresponsible. But very expected as we can't even get the Congress to approve the man who is universally recognized as more than qualified to be in charge of cutting off the money flow of terrorist networks.
The longest Supreme Court nomination process has been 100 days - Clarence Thomas. President Obama has over 340 days left in office. Rubio said that it has been 80 years since a 'lameduck' president has appointed a justice. They are rewriting the rules to make the last year of the president's term seem like it doesn't exist. Cruz got his facts wrong about the same topic last night at the debate Justice. Kennedy was nominated in 87, appointed in 88 - an election year.
Although it feels unseemly to me to have this conversation go from the sudden death of a man of high standing in this country, and who had a family and friends who are in mourning; even the family came out with a statement last night saying that the next nominee should be of the same mind as Scalia. That is not the way things work and if the GOP wants to wave the Constitution, it is time they read it and follow the whole document. The resistance to this President by the GOP has been disgusting and has caused the last 2 sessions of Congress to be the most unproductive in modern history. Very true. But she would never leave the race to become a Justice.. She wants to be President. If she doesn't get elected in November
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.
So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."