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.
Not drama queen. Just true. I've noticed it time and time again on this board. It is "my way or the highway" around here for some. If Kagan were to die I wouldn't come out with good riddance posts or say the world is better off. We blast Congress for not working together but the rhetoric here is just as bad and I think people need to recognize it in themselves. Scalia's point is that if you don't like his interpretation of the law then have your elected representatives change them. He didn't want judicial activism. I don't want to live in a society where there cannot be open debate of issues. Scalia left the power to the people. Vote and change the laws. He wasn't going to do it for them.
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.
You may have missed these gems. Typical behavior for trying to suppress and ridicule anyone with a viewpoint different from theirs. We are seeing it clear as day in social media with just a few people being able to ridicule people into giving in.
“Good riddance”
“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”
“i don't care.”
“Shit happens.”
“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”
“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family. joy to the rest of the USA.”
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.
Not drama queen. Just true. I've noticed it time and time again on this board. It is "my way or the highway" around here for some. If Kagan were to die I wouldn't come out with good riddance posts or say the world is better off. We blast Congress for not working together but the rhetoric here is just as bad and I think people need to recognize it in themselves. Scalia's point is that if you don't like his interpretation of the law then have your elected representatives change them. He didn't want judicial activism.
Kagan doesn't base her career in denying rights to certain classes of people because of a hocus pocus myth she was taught as a child.
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?
Please be specific. What shenanigans do you refer to? 1 or 2 examples will do.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
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.
Not drama queen. Just true. I've noticed it time and time again on this board. It is "my way or the highway" around here for some. If Kagan were to die I wouldn't come out with good riddance posts or say the world is better off. We blast Congress for not working together but the rhetoric here is just as bad and I think people need to recognize it in themselves. Scalia's point is that if you don't like his interpretation of the law then have your elected representatives change them. He didn't want judicial activism.
Kagan doesn't base her career in denying rights to certain classes of people because of a hocus pocus myth she was taught as a child.
So because he has a different interpretation of the Constitution he deserves to be vilified and demeaned? Sure, disagree with his conclusions just like the liberals on the Court did, but they could at least still be friends with the guy and respect him. If they thought he was an intolerant bigot they probably wouldn't have their families vacation together. I doubt Kagan and Ginsberg are saying "good riddance".
You don't like his rulings. Vote and change the law. If his rulings are so unreasonable and heinous to society, it should be pretty easy to do. It is ironic that somehow the constitution written in the 1780's would support every liberal position that was brought to the court 220 years later. Simply incredible.*
* Highly unlikely and so powers were given to the legislative branch to draft new laws or make amendments.
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?
Within hours the rhetoric from Mitch McConnell and others was not that Obama should nominate a judge that will "pass muster." The rhetoric was that Obama should not nominate a judge at all.
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?
Within hours the rhetoric from Mitch McConnell and others was not that Obama should nominate a judge that will "pass muster." The rhetoric was that Obama should not nominate a judge at all.
So yes. Really.
Rhetoric. You should look up the definition.
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?
Within hours the rhetoric from Mitch McConnell and others was not that Obama should nominate a judge that will "pass muster." The rhetoric was that Obama should not nominate a judge at all.
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.
They also forget the country is older than 80 years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
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.
You may have missed these gems. Typical behavior for trying to suppress and ridicule anyone with a viewpoint different from theirs. We are seeing it clear as day in social media with just a few people being able to ridicule people into giving in.
“Good riddance”
“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”
“i don't care.”
“Shit happens.”
“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”
“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family. joy to the rest of the USA.”
“he is an intolerant bigot.”
Explain how saying "shit happens" when a person passes is a way of saying I'm glad he's dead.
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?
Within hours the rhetoric from Mitch McConnell and others was not that Obama should nominate a judge that will "pass muster." The rhetoric was that Obama should not nominate a judge at all.
So yes. Really.
Rhetoric. You should look up the definition.
OK dude. Enjoy your day.
Let's check on this in 6 months and see what's happening. Agreed?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
This discussion has really devolved. Hard core partisans on the left and right take things over the line, particularly when it's anonymously online under handles rather than a real name. It's a damn shame across the board. Can we get back to the political ramifications on this?
Anyone disagree that this isn't a political gift to the democrats, particularly Hillary? Disaffected Bernie voters will be forced to vote Hillary because the alternative of a right wing judge, in a right wing Senate is too risky. And yes it's possible that Bernie wins the nomination, but I think the math is against him right now.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Absolutely. It seems that whenever something happens that hasn't happened before, or in a very long time, republicans seem to think they can make shit up. Because they can.
Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
Several things here: 1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate 2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone 3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong 2. Right 3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
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.
You may have missed these gems. Typical behavior for trying to suppress and ridicule anyone with a viewpoint different from theirs. We are seeing it clear as day in social media with just a few people being able to ridicule people into giving in.
“Good riddance”
“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”
“i don't care.”
“Shit happens.”
“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”
“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family. joy to the rest of the USA.”
“he is an intolerant bigot.”
Explain how saying "shit happens" when a person passes is a way of saying I'm glad he's dead.
Really reaching here.
I don't think there is much reaching going on in the other quotes above except for maybe the I don't care one.
This discussion has really devolved. Hard core partisans on the left and right take things over the line, particularly when it's anonymously online under handles rather than a real name. It's a damn shame across the board. Can we get back to the political ramifications on this?
Anyone disagree that this isn't a political gift to the democrats, particularly Hillary? Disaffected Bernie voters will be forced to vote Hillary because the alternative of a right wing judge, in a right wing Senate is too risky. And yes it's possible that Bernie wins the nomination, but I think the math is against him right now.
I don't think it devolved and I wouldn't say I am far right. If thinking there should be some minimum level of respect is far right than maybe I am. I wouldn't say the far right though gives any more or less respect than those on the far left though. Clearly the far left on this board have proven my assertion time and time again. I'm against the rulings that allow corporations and super PACs to dominate campaign financing, but I'm not going to ridicule the justices who interpreted the law and curse them and cheer when they are dead. I'm better than that. The law just needs to be changed to remove any gray area.
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.
did you see the debate last night? cruz got taken to school by the moderator on the topic of supreme court appointees in the final year of a presidency. i felt sorry for him actually.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."
get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.
congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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 do not cheer for death of people just because I disagree with them. I cheer for the death of people who I think are rotten human beings who cause harm to the world. Scalia applies.
PS - couldn't care less if you think being glad he's dead is bad taste. That guy was a motherfucker as far as I'm concerned and I am pleased as punch that his voice is gone from the US supreme court. Death was the only thing that would shut the fucker up.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
You may have missed these gems. Typical behavior for trying to suppress and ridicule anyone with a viewpoint different from theirs. We are seeing it clear as day in social media with just a few people being able to ridicule people into giving in.
“Good riddance”
“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”
“i don't care.”
“Shit happens.”
“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”
“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family. joy to the rest of the USA.”
“he is an intolerant bigot.”
you stated your opinion. i stated mine.
i don't care that he passed. replace him and move on.
if he was such a patriot and the rigid constitutionist that he claimed to be, he would agree with me.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
Not drama queen. Just true. I've noticed it time and time again on this board. It is "my way or the highway" around here for some. If Kagan were to die I wouldn't come out with good riddance posts or say the world is better off. We blast Congress for not working together but the rhetoric here is just as bad and I think people need to recognize it in themselves. Scalia's point is that if you don't like his interpretation of the law then have your elected representatives change them. He didn't want judicial activism.
Kagan doesn't base her career in denying rights to certain classes of people because of a hocus pocus myth she was taught as a child.
So because he has a different interpretation of the Constitution he deserves to be vilified and demeaned? Sure, disagree with his conclusions just like the liberals on the Court did, but they could at least still be friends with the guy and respect him. If they thought he was an intolerant bigot they probably wouldn't have their families vacation together. I doubt Kagan and Ginsberg are saying "good riddance".
You don't like his rulings. Vote and change the law. If his rulings are so unreasonable and heinous to society, it should be pretty easy to do. It is ironic that somehow the constitution written in the 1780's would support every liberal position that was brought to the court 220 years later. Simply incredible.*
* Highly unlikely and so powers were given to the legislative branch to draft new laws or make amendments.
give it 50 years. scalia's rulings will be judged by history to be as backwards as the dred scott decision and separate but equal.
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."
get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.
congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.
Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.
Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -
1) Obama caved what a sell out 2) Republicans say no to everything
Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.
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.
you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."
get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.
congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.
Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.
Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -
1) Obama caved what a sell out 2) Republicans say no to everything
Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.
i am telling you that there is no way in hell obama gets anybody approved. mitch mcconnell has already said so. the only way mcconnell would even allow for a debate on an appointee is through constant media shaming and public outcry. even then, it will just be a show hearing. everything obama has accomplished has been without republican support. you think they are going to go along with him now? he could appoint jesus freakin christ to the bench and the gop would cry that he is too liberal and unsuitable for the job.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
“Good riddance”
“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”
“i
don't
care.”
“Shit happens.”
“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”
“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family.
joy to the rest of the USA.”
“he is an intolerant bigot.”
You don't like his rulings. Vote and change the law. If his rulings are so unreasonable and heinous to society, it should be pretty easy to do. It is ironic that somehow the constitution written in the 1780's would support every liberal position that was brought to the court 220 years later. Simply incredible.*
* Highly unlikely and so powers were given to the legislative branch to draft new laws or make amendments.
So yes. Really.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Really reaching here.
Fuck scalia
Anyone disagree that this isn't a political gift to the democrats, particularly Hillary? Disaffected Bernie voters will be forced to vote Hillary because the alternative of a right wing judge, in a right wing Senate is too risky. And yes it's possible that Bernie wins the nomination, but I think the math is against him right now.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate
2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone
3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate
2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone
3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.
1. Wrong
2. Right
3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.
A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.
Fuck scalia
Last: SEA2 08/10/2018
Next: ??
http://expressobeans.com/members/collections.php?id=29417
“I think you won, but I enjoyed the fight” - EV
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.
congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
PS - couldn't care less if you think being glad he's dead is bad taste. That guy was a motherfucker as far as I'm concerned and I am pleased as punch that his voice is gone from the US supreme court. Death was the only thing that would shut the fucker up.
i don't care that he passed. replace him and move on.
if he was such a patriot and the rigid constitutionist that he claimed to be, he would agree with me.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -
1) Obama caved what a sell out
2) Republicans say no to everything
Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."