No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage Conservatives opposed public school Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc. Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act Conservatives opposed the Farm Act Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System Conservatives oppose clean air and water Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill Conservatives opposed Medicare Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law .....etc...etc..etc..
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.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
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.
Hahaha do you really think so? I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.
You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).
Hahaha I was in a hurry so I didn't put any emojies, the Columbus '10 poster is absolutely horrible, you don't want it! How about a bootleg, I don't need the clutter any more than you do lol
Sounds good. Ha ha. Though maybe the winner should send the loser a poster to increase THEIR clutter.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
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.
No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage Conservatives opposed public school Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc. Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act Conservatives opposed the Farm Act Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System Conservatives oppose clean air and water Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill Conservatives opposed Medicare Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law .....etc...etc..etc..
the list is endless......!!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!
Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?
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.
No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage Conservatives opposed public school Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc. Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act Conservatives opposed the Farm Act Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System Conservatives oppose clean air and water Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill Conservatives opposed Medicare Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law .....etc...etc..etc..
the list is endless......!!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!
Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?
Republicans used to be more moderate and tolerant - ie - Lincoln and slavery. Then Southern Democrats - Dixiecrats - split with Democrats and went to Republicans and the moral majority and conservatism in social issues became a large part of the Republican party platform and Democrats became more socially liberal. Conservatism is an ideology in the Republican party.
Scalia was very comfortable in his view of the world. It's just that it was not in touch with the change in attitudes of most Americans. Hence - the cry to 'take our country back'. I always want someone to finish the sentence with who they are taking it back from.
Why does everyone hate the Mennonites? We need the contribution of a religion that felt that civilization was perfect between 1835 and 1855..
I honestly don't know. To me hating a Mennonite would be like hating a bunny rabbit. But then, I'm half Amish. What do I know?
Half Amish, half Oneida is my guess. I'm on to you. Coming to 'Merica... taking our jobs. I used to raise barns.. but no more. That job is gone. A-hole.
Raised no barn I ain't ne'er yet, but hell raised, ye bet!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage Conservatives opposed public school Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc. Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act Conservatives opposed the Farm Act Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System Conservatives oppose clean air and water Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill Conservatives opposed Medicare Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law .....etc...etc..etc..
the list is endless......!!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!
Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?
Republicans used to be more moderate and tolerant - ie - Lincoln and slavery. Then Southern Democrats - Dixiecrats - split with Democrats and went to Republicans and the moral majority and conservatism in social issues became a large part of the Republican party platform and Democrats became more socially liberal. Conservatism is an ideology in the Republican party.
Scalia was very comfortable in his view of the world. It's just that it was not in touch with the change in attitudes of most Americans. Hence - the cry to 'take our country back'. I always want someone to finish the sentence with who they are taking it back from.
Two ways that qiestion gets finished... Take our country back...from whom
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
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.
They would and they have. Even the all mighty Obama did it to Alito in 2006, although "he vocally disapproved", his actions speak louder than his words.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
1) Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year 2) GW Bush Elected Alito and his was obviously confirmed. 3) Chief Justice Roberts - GW Bush and his was obviously confirmed.
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.
He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.
Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.
He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.
Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.
Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?
Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.
I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.
i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.
He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.
Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.
Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?
Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.
I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.
I'm not commenting on his judicial expertise, I am commenting on his self-styled status of being a good writer. He tried, he failed the same as I have lol
i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.
is this legal? anyone read this?
Probably.
Did this organization supply him with a lifetime supply of whiskey too?
if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.
He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.
Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.
Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?
Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.
I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.
Scalia, whatever one thinks of his views, was a brilliant man who wrote extremely engaging briefs when he dissented. He would include references to pop culture and was known to be very witty in a wry sense. When justices write their opinions it is as described above. They write in a stream of consciousness as they make decisions based upon constitutional law, court testimony and, inevitably, their own ideology. Some are better at keeping their own beliefs in check - ie Kennedy who is usually a swing voter and Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare (drawing the ire of the Conservatives who feel he betrayed them). Justices are supposed to be strict Constitutionalists, but there comes a time when interpretation and adaptation to the passage of time and circumstance is needed.
And, though I am no apologist for Scalia, his vote alone was not responsible for certain decision, there were others who had to vote the same way in order to have a majority. I disagree with Scalia's view of the law but at least he gave complete reasons why he vote as he did AND asked questions during court hearings. Thomas hasn't asked a question since he became a justice. I find his seeming disinterest to be more disturbing.
i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.
is this legal? anyone read this?
Depends on what type of organization it was. I haven't seen this story, will do some googling. Justices are not supposed to be allied with any causes (Thomas and his wife's involvement as a tea party activist caused concern) and will recuse themselves if they have had involvement with an issue in their lives before becoming a SCJ (Kagen recused herself from the Affirmative Action case presently in their docket because she had been involved in a lower court action). They also have historically not gone on the speaking circuit while holding a seat - this is one thing that Scalia did without apology and was part of his legacy that bothers some.
Bottom line - if you're a conservative, he was a hero If you're a liberal, he was obstructive. If you are versed in Constitutional Law, he was not a strict adherent when one needed to extrapolate, always sticking to ideology to make his decision.
A new interesting fact I became aware of this morning. President Obama could appoint someone to the Supreme Court without the Congress' approval since SCOTUS is not in session and it would be in keeping with his duty as President under the Constitution to maintain the full functioning of all 3 governmental bodies (judicial, legislative, executive).
Also, Roberts has voiced concern over the lack of appointments to the lower courts (Congress won't even bring them up for a vote). Will he express the need for action to be taken immediately with the highest court in our country not fully staffed and unable to fulfill their judicial duties?
And though Scalia was a polarizing figure, there is a wife, 9 children, grandchildren, colleagues, etc who are mourning his death. Maybe it is because I have lost a parent, brother and sister that I do not feel any sort of happiness at his death. However, as a political junkie and citizen, I find the implications on the presidential race & how it has turned the whole conversation on its head to be fascinating. And this opening is of utmost importance to everyone and will hopefully get Democrats off their asses in November to vote.
It certainly is a wrinkle in the election season, it is going to be tough for the GOP to come out on top with this. It's the Dems game to lose really, and they will probably do their best to do just that lol
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
1) Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year 2) GW Bush Elected Alito and his was obviously confirmed. 3) Chief Justice Roberts - GW Bush and his was obviously confirmed.
It is too early to say that the Senate will not confirm a Justice selected by the POTUS. Sure Cruz is falling in line with what Schumer did, but like you pointed out the Roberts was confirmed. I think it is just politics as usual, no matter what side does it.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
It certainly is a wrinkle in the election season, it is going to be tough for the GOP to come out on top with this. It's the Dems game to lose really, and they will probably do their best to do just that lol
The GOP is much better at taking advantage of these situations. I'm remaining optimistic that Obama will show his ability to remain calm and decisive - I like the freedom to act that he has shown in his last two years.
It certainly is a wrinkle in the election season, it is going to be tough for the GOP to come out on top with this. It's the Dems game to lose really, and they will probably do their best to do just that lol
It's more than a wrinkle. It may make the SCOTUS the defining issue of the campaign. Subsequently, it makes social issues front and center (2nd amendment, unions, gay rights, abortion). Both sides will be happy to engage in these battles but I think it hurts Trump and Sanders, both of whom are campaigning on populist economic issues, not social issues. Will be interesting to see if the narratives start changing.
It certainly is a wrinkle in the election season, it is going to be tough for the GOP to come out on top with this. It's the Dems game to lose really, and they will probably do their best to do just that lol
It's more than a wrinkle. It may make the SCOTUS the defining issue of the campaign. Subsequently, it makes social issues front and center (2nd amendment, unions, gay rights, abortion). Both sides will be happy to engage in these battles but I think it hurts Trump and Sanders, both of whom are campaigning on populist economic issues, not social issues. Will be interesting to see if the narratives start changing.
I will be the first to admit I know little to nothing about lawyers, and judges, but are there centrist judges that can fill the position? Judges that actually do not lean left or right? Perhaps both the POTUS and the members of the Senate could chose someone that fits that description, but I guess that is too much wishful thinking.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I will be the first to admit I know little to nothing about lawyers, and judges, but are there centrist judges that can fill the position? Judges that actually do not lean left or right? Perhaps both the POTUS and the members of the Senate could chose someone that fits that description, but I guess that is too much wishful thinking.
Sri Sirivasan is the name that's popping. He is on the DC Court of Appeals I believe, which is a very powerful court. He was confirmed 97-0 onto that bench, so it will be a tough argument for the GOP. If he nominated Warren or someone like that, that would be asking for the political braw.
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person?
No, Hobby Lobby is not a person--it's a small, mom-and-pop, family-owned business that would be unduly burdened if required to provide their employees with contraceptive coverage through their health insurance. That grinding noise you hear is the rolling of my eyes.
Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person?
No, Hobby Lobby is not a person--it's a small, mom-and-pop, family-owned business that would be unduly burdened if required to provide their employees with contraceptive coverage through their health insurance. That grinding noise you hear is the rolling of my eyes.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.
I don't know. Think this may motivate conservators to vote.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.
They would and they have. Even the all mighty Obama did it to Alito in 2006, although "he vocally disapproved", his actions speak louder than his words.
Yet he is on the court today....hmmm
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
Comments
Last: SEA2 08/10/2018
Next: ??
http://expressobeans.com/members/collections.php?id=29417
“I think you won, but I enjoyed the fight” - EV
Hahaha I was in a hurry so I didn't put any emojies, the Columbus '10 poster is absolutely horrible, you don't want it! How about a bootleg, I don't need the clutter any more than you do lol
Sounds good. Ha ha. Though maybe the winner should send the loser a poster to increase THEIR clutter.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?
Scalia was very comfortable in his view of the world. It's just that it was not in touch with the change in attitudes of most Americans. Hence - the cry to 'take our country back'. I always want someone to finish the sentence with who they are taking it back from.
Take our country back...from whom
Take our country back ... to what
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
1) Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year
2) GW Bush Elected Alito and his was obviously confirmed.
3) Chief Justice Roberts - GW Bush and his was obviously confirmed.
Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.
Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.
I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.
is this legal? anyone read this?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Did this organization supply him with a lifetime supply of whiskey too?
And, though I am no apologist for Scalia, his vote alone was not responsible for certain decision, there were others who had to vote the same way in order to have a majority. I disagree with Scalia's view of the law but at least he gave complete reasons why he vote as he did AND asked questions during court hearings. Thomas hasn't asked a question since he became a justice. I find his seeming disinterest to be more disturbing. Depends on what type of organization it was. I haven't seen this story, will do some googling. Justices are not supposed to be allied with any causes (Thomas and his wife's involvement as a tea party activist caused concern) and will recuse themselves if they have had involvement with an issue in their lives before becoming a SCJ (Kagen recused herself from the Affirmative Action case presently in their docket because she had been involved in a lower court action). They also have historically not gone on the speaking circuit while holding a seat - this is one thing that Scalia did without apology and was part of his legacy that bothers some.
Bottom line - if you're a conservative, he was a hero
If you're a liberal, he was obstructive.
If you are versed in Constitutional Law, he was not a strict adherent when one needed to extrapolate, always sticking to ideology to make his decision.
A new interesting fact I became aware of this morning. President Obama could appoint someone to the Supreme Court without the Congress' approval since SCOTUS is not in session and it would be in keeping with his duty as President under the Constitution to maintain the full functioning of all 3 governmental bodies (judicial, legislative, executive).
Also, Roberts has voiced concern over the lack of appointments to the lower courts (Congress won't even bring them up for a vote). Will he express the need for action to be taken immediately with the highest court in our country not fully staffed and unable to fulfill their judicial duties?
And though Scalia was a polarizing figure, there is a wife, 9 children, grandchildren, colleagues, etc who are mourning his death. Maybe it is because I have lost a parent, brother and sister that I do not feel any sort of happiness at his death. However, as a political junkie and citizen, I find the implications on the presidential race & how it has turned the whole conversation on its head to be fascinating. And this opening is of utmost importance to everyone and will hopefully get Democrats off their asses in November to vote.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
They changed Political Parties... not Conservatism