Scalia dead
Comments
-
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.rgambs said:
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with"bootlegger10 said: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.
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.Post edited by bootlegger10 on0 -
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.njnancy said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
“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.”
Post edited by bootlegger10 on0 -
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.bootlegger10 said:
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.rgambs said:
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with"bootlegger10 said: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.
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.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Please be specific. What shenanigans do you refer to? 1 or 2 examples will do.rgambs said:
I'm surprised you think they wouldn't. Do you not pay attention to congressional shenanigans?EdsonNascimento said:
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
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.JimmyV said: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.
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.0 -
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".rgambs said:
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.bootlegger10 said:
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.rgambs said:
Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with"bootlegger10 said: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.
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.
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.Post edited by bootlegger10 on0 -
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.EdsonNascimento said:
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
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.JimmyV said: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.
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.
So yes. Really.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Rhetoric. You should look up the definition.JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
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.JimmyV said: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.
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.
So yes. Really.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
OK dude. Enjoy your day.EdsonNascimento said:
Rhetoric. You should look up the definition.JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
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.JimmyV said: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.
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.
So yes. Really.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
They also forget the country is older than 80 years.njnancy said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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 Novembergimmesometruth27 said: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.
that could come into play. _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
Explain how saying "shit happens" when a person passes is a way of saying I'm glad he's dead.bootlegger10 said:
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.njnancy said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
“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.”
Really reaching here.
0 -
I think his written opinions were very articulate.
Fuck scalia0 -
Let's check on this in 6 months and see what's happening. Agreed?JimmyV said:
OK dude. Enjoy your day.EdsonNascimento said:
Rhetoric. You should look up the definition.JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
Really? So if Obama nominated Scalia they would turn it down? Really?JimmyV said:
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.EdsonNascimento said:
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.JimmyV said: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.
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.
So yes. Really.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
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.0 -
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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Several things here:JimmyV said: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.
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.
0 -
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.JimmyV said: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.0 -
Several things here:mrussel1 said:JimmyV said: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.
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.0 -
If the GOP circus clowns are scaring you now imagine if one of them gets elected and gets the opportunity to chose a Supreme Court justice.0
-
Republicans are all Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan until they realize he nominated a justice in his last year.
Fuck scalia0 -
I don't think there is much reaching going on in the other quotes above except for maybe the I don't care one.Free said:
Explain how saying "shit happens" when a person passes is a way of saying I'm glad he's dead.bootlegger10 said:
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.njnancy said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
“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.”
Really reaching here.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help