Scalia dead

njnancy

rgambs said:

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.

mrussel1

rgambs said:

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.

njnancy

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

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.

Agree

Dirtie_Frank

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.

mrussel1

Dirtie_Frank said:

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.

Who Princess

myoung321 said:

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.

njnancy

Who Princess said:

myoung321 said:

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.

LOL, excellent.

myoung321

tempo_n_groove said:

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?!?

They changed Political Parties... not Conservatism

callen

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

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

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.

myoung321

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

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

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

myoung321

Who Princess said:

myoung321 said:

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.

Mom and Pop ? wow,,,, net worth of $5.1 billion, Forbes ranks David Green (Owner Hobby Lobby) as the 94th wealthiest person in the United States.
572 stores nation-wide, with a revenue of $3.3 billion in 2013.
some mom and pop operation.

This is why.... people believe the crap they hear on tv and don't bother to research the facts on their own...


side question... Does Hobby Lobby sale anything NOT made in China?

mrussel1

callen said:

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

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

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.

It will motivate both sides. But the Democrats have the natural electoral advantage right now and there are many Bernie supporters threatening not to vote for Hillary. So all things being equal, I think it give an advantage to the D's.

njnancy

myoung321 said:

Who Princess said:

myoung321 said:

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.

Mom and Pop ? wow,,,, net worth of $5.1 billion, Forbes ranks David Green as the 94th wealthiest person in the United States. some mom and pop operation.

Maybe get your facts right before posting such nonsense.

We're supposed to debate the issue,not attack the poster.I think Who Princess has a good grasp on the facts.

I can't find a Hobby Lobby anywhere remotely close to me, and there are scads of all sized businesses where I live. Just because they have a net worth worthy of Forbes attention does not mean that they are not a mom and pop store that makes a lot of money through a specific targeted customer base. And if they make so much money, it begs the question of their resistance to thoroughly covering their employees' insurance needs. Do they pay for ED prescriptions?

myoung321

njnancy said:

myoung321 said:

Who Princess said:

myoung321 said:

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.

Mom and Pop ? wow,,,, net worth of $5.1 billion, Forbes ranks David Green as the 94th wealthiest person in the United States. some mom and pop operation.

Maybe get your facts right before posting such nonsense.

We're supposed to debate the issue,not attack the poster.I think Who Princess has a good grasp on the facts.

I can't find a Hobby Lobby anywhere remotely close to me, and there are scads of all sized businesses where I live. Just because they have a net worth worthy of Forbes attention does not mean that they are not a mom and pop store that makes a lot of money through a specific targeted customer base. And if they make so much money, it begs the question of their resistance to thoroughly covering their employees' insurance needs. Do they pay for ED prescriptions?

I agree and removed it.. my apologies..

But I kinda think most people would not associate a business that makes over 3 billion a year, with owners in the top 100 richest in America as "Mom & Pop"... Is Walmart "Mom & Pop".. This is why I think its "nonsense"

Should not matter if the profit is $3 billion a year or $3 a year.... they should still not have the right to pick and choose what laws they wish to follow and which they choose to ignore. If you choose to conduct business in this country then these are the laws... If it was turned around and say it was a Muslim owned business that wouldn't allow women to show there faces while working, the outrage would be deafening.

rgambs

njnancy said:

myoung321 said:

Who Princess said:

myoung321 said:

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.

Mom and Pop ? wow,,,, net worth of $5.1 billion, Forbes ranks David Green as the 94th wealthiest person in the United States. some mom and pop operation.

Maybe get your facts right before posting such nonsense.

We're supposed to debate the issue,not attack the poster.I think Who Princess has a good grasp on the facts.

I can't find a Hobby Lobby anywhere remotely close to me, and there are scads of all sized businesses where I live. Just because they have a net worth worthy of Forbes attention does not mean that they are not a mom and pop store that makes a lot of money through a specific targeted customer base. And if they make so much money, it begs the question of their resistance to thoroughly covering their employees' insurance needs. Do they pay for ED prescriptions?

It's not about whether or not they can afford to cover insurance, they refuse to on religious grounds.
10 stores is a Mom and Pop, 10 stores for every state in the country is not Mom and Pop, not by a long shot.

rgambs

Also, I am wondering now if the grinding eye roll was because she was being sarcastic about Hobby Lobby's status as small business unduly burdened.

callen

mrussel1 said:

callen said:

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

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

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.

It will motivate both sides. But the Democrats have the natural electoral advantage right now and there are many Bernie supporters threatening not to vote for Hillary. So all things being equal, I think it give an advantage to the D's.

Though I hope your right feel conservatives are desperate their belief system is being attacked on all fronts and will do what they can to keep security blanket viable.

I hope many conservatives deep down want to progress.
Talking social issues here.
Fk a Cruz nomination?!?!?
Fk fk fk.

myoung321

rgambs said:

Also, I am wondering now if the grinding eye roll was because she was being sarcastic about Hobby Lobby's status as small business unduly burdened.

I took it as grinding eyes at my comment...

ldent42

He wasn't all bad
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/antonin-scalia-new-york-pizza_us_56c197a2e4b08ffac125bcf1

Who Princess

myoung321 said:

rgambs said:

Also, I am wondering now if the grinding eye roll was because she was being sarcastic about Hobby Lobby's status as small business unduly burdened.

I took it as grinding eyes at my comment...

It was sarcasm and not intended at you.

Of course they're not a mom-and-pop operation. There's a half dozen of their stores within a 20-30 minute drive for me. I was ridiculing the argument they made (family business, religious beliefs, etc.) which the Supreme Court accepted.

As someone who enjoys needlework as a hobby, I can tell you that it isn't even a decent hobby store. I only shopped there a couple of times years ago and never went back because (1) they didn't have any of the things I needed and (2) they played religious music over the PA. I'm pretty live and let live about people's religious beliefs but I thought playing music like that for shoppers was weird. After the SCOTUS decision, I will never set foot in the place, not that I'd have any reason to.