.

josevolution

He should nominate 10 he'll make it 20 candidates just to make Mitch Mconnel fucking have a heart attack. ...

gimmesometruth27

jeffbr said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

bootlegger10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have had sleep apnea for 9 years. have been using a cpap for that long. if not treated it can be fatal, or can lead to long term health effects that could mean a shorter life.

looking at scalia i am sure he probably had it.

scalia is dead. he is in the ground. let obama pick the next justice and let the process get started.

Agree. Elections matter. The term is 4 years. A Republican president would do the same thing if they were president and try to nominate a justice.

there is talk that this is the first time in american history that a party will block a sitting president from appointing someone to the high court.

they blame obama for not following the constitution all the time. when he actually tries to carry out what it says in article 2 section 2 they lose their minds.

when they don't follow the constitution it is not politics, it is doing their duty. :facepalm:

Exactly right. I'm not sure why this is even a debate. Obama was elected to office to serve a 4 year term, and is 3/4 of the way through, but he still has 25% of his term to serve. He isn't going to stop being president just because we're in an election cycle, and the congress needs to do their jobs as well.

Just read that Obama and Reid are vetting the Republican governor of Nevada as a possible SCOTUS nominee. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?tid=sm_tw

I think this would be fun to watch. It would really make the Republicans in congress look petty if they wouldn't even consider a fellow Republican for the post.

they won't. they are intransigent. and part of being intransigent is giving no quarter. even to people that share their ideology.

i saw a few days ago when i was on vacation that there are 2 gop senators that are vulnerable, and polls in their states show that if they oppose obama appointing anybody, it tips the election against them and they will lose their seat. it was either a rasmussen (which leans right) or a fox news poll.

do the republicans really want to risk losing the senate to keep the court at 4-4?

i believe they are willing to take the chance because they are desperate to maintain some sort of control.

PJ_Soul

bootlegger10 said:

A question for liberals.

Would you prefer to have nine liberal justices on the Supreme Court or 5 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices? Basically, would you prefer to have 9 justices that fit your political outlook or do you think that it is detrimental to not have multiple viewpoints? For example, if Obama replaces Scalia with a liberal justice then liberals would have a 5-4 lead. If Justice Roberts were to retire later in the year, would you be a proponent to put a more moderate or conservative judge on the bench to make sure the court doesn't get skewed too far in one direction? This would be under an assumption that a conservative President would follow the same methodology so that you don't need to stack the deck during your own term.

I personally just don't want anyone who bring religion and personal biases and bullshit into it. At all. I think a supreme court justice needs to look at the law and use reason and real logic to make their decisions based on the Constitution (or Charter of Rights in Canada). Their political leanings actually shouldn't even matter. But unfortunately it is allowed to. I can't believe it's even legal for SCOTUS judges to vote the way they have on certain issues.

mickeyrat

bootlegger10 said:

A question for liberals.

Would you prefer to have nine liberal justices on the Supreme Court or 5 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices? Basically, would you prefer to have 9 justices that fit your political outlook or do you think that it is detrimental to not have multiple viewpoints? For example, if Obama replaces Scalia with a liberal justice then liberals would have a 5-4 lead. If Justice Roberts were to retire later in the year, would you be a proponent to put a more moderate or conservative judge on the bench to make sure the court doesn't get skewed too far in one direction? This would be under an assumption that a conservative President would follow the same methodology so that you don't need to stack the deck during your own term.

I would prefer to have a justice who checks their personal beliefs and biases at the door. One who can judge a case on its merits or lack there of according to a fair unbiased interpretation of the constitution.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

bootlegger10 said:

A question for liberals.

Would you prefer to have nine liberal justices on the Supreme Court or 5 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices? Basically, would you prefer to have 9 justices that fit your political outlook or do you think that it is detrimental to not have multiple viewpoints? For example, if Obama replaces Scalia with a liberal justice then liberals would have a 5-4 lead. If Justice Roberts were to retire later in the year, would you be a proponent to put a more moderate or conservative judge on the bench to make sure the court doesn't get skewed too far in one direction? This would be under an assumption that a conservative President would follow the same methodology so that you don't need to stack the deck during your own term.

I would prefer to have a justice who checks their personal beliefs and biases at the door. One who can judge a case on its merits or lack there of according to a fair unbiased interpretation of the constitution.

i want someone who will recuse him/herself when there is a conflict of interest.

i'm looking at you clarence thomas.. i was looking at you, scalia.

sotomayor did it, why can't these people?

Free

I read somewhere today that McConnell and company just left a session and that no they're going to fight it the whole way. All the way to a new Democratic president is elected.

gimmesometruth27

Free said:

I read somewhere today that McConnell and company just left a session and that no they're going to fight it the whole way. All the way to a new Democratic president is elected.

they are over a barrel. of course they are going to fight it.

this is what happens when a group of people know that their power is waning.

let the public shaming from obama begin...

callen

bootlegger10 said:

A question for liberals.

Would you prefer to have nine liberal justices on the Supreme Court or 5 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices? Basically, would you prefer to have 9 justices that fit your political outlook or do you think that it is detrimental to not have multiple viewpoints? For example, if Obama replaces Scalia with a liberal justice then liberals would have a 5-4 lead. If Justice Roberts were to retire later in the year, would you be a proponent to put a more moderate or conservative judge on the bench to make sure the court doesn't get skewed too far in one direction? This would be under an assumption that a conservative President would follow the same methodology so that you don't need to stack the deck during your own term.

I prefer justices that protect citizens. All citizens and leave their personal red neck biases out of rulings.

bootlegger10

I guess I would want some balance on the court just like checks and balances were put in place during the drafting of the constitution to make sure one group or party can't run away with the country and laws.

I would guess that if I interpreted current legal cases based on a 230 year old document that we would get some weird answers as the constitution was written at a much different time. I think Scalia believed in applying the constitution as written versus trying to provide rulings based on the mood of the country at the time. Some may call it red neck, but others may call it a ruling based on the constitution, and if you don't like it the legislative branch can change the law.

I said it in the other thread, but it is impossible that the constitution written 230 years ago will support every liberal or every conservative idea. We can't demonize either party if they don't vote the way we want in a case because maybe they are basing their opinion on an interpretation of a 230 year old document and the issue really just needs to be clarified in the legislature. Certainly not every case though, but if you don't like a ruling tell your congressman to change the law being interpreted.

JC29856

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Smellyman

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Now that sounds about right.

Bentleyspop

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Somehow Im not surprised by this.

But do we really need another secret society for the conspiracy theorists to get all worked up about?

hedonist

bootlegger10 said:

I guess I would want some balance on the court just like checks and balances were put in place during the drafting of the constitution to make sure one group or party can't run away with the country and laws.

I would guess that if I interpreted current legal cases based on a 230 year old document that we would get some weird answers as the constitution was written at a much different time. I think Scalia believed in applying the constitution as written versus trying to provide rulings based on the mood of the country at the time. Some may call it red neck, but others may call it a ruling based on the constitution, and if you don't like it the legislative branch can change the law.

I said it in the other thread, but it is impossible that the constitution written 230 years ago will support every liberal or every conservative idea. We can't demonize either party if they don't vote the way we want in a case because maybe they are basing their opinion on an interpretation of a 230 year old document and the issue really just needs to be clarified in the legislature. Certainly not every case though, but if you don't like a ruling tell your congressman to change the law being interpreted.

Nice post, bootlegger.

Balanced

Who Princess

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Nobody EVER invites ME to join their secret society! Not fair!

PJ_Soul

Smellyman said:

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Now that sounds about right.

Lol. Societies like that exist exclusively to stroke giant egos. It's pretty sad that men who are already rich and powerful continue to require an ego stroke and confirmation that they are very very special (I think it's a sure sign of megalomania), but as others have said, it is not at all surprising.

Gern Blansten

I'm picturing a lot of sword fighting and elephant walks...if you know what I mean

Bentleyspop

Who Princess said:

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Nobody EVER invites ME to join their secret society! Not fair!

Rumour has it that Eddie is a member of the illuminati and as a fan of PJ you should be receiving your invite to apply to a secret society any day now.

Just be sure you believe in at least 5 govt. conspiracy theories including but not exclusive to....

Jews own all the banks
The U.S. never put a man on the moon
Obama planned and personally carried out the Newtown massacre.
The U.S. govt. was wholly responsible for 9/11

Good luck

JimmyV

I did have someone respond to me in one of the Facebook groups after Global Citizen that Eddie performing with Beyonce was part of a plot to advance the New World Order and that I needed to wake up if I didn't see that.

josevolution

Bentleyspop said:

Who Princess said:

JC29856 said:

Wtf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?

Nobody EVER invites ME to join their secret society! Not fair!

Rumour has it that Eddie is a member of the illuminati and as a fan of PJ you should be receiving your invite to apply to a secret society any day now.

Just be sure you believe in at least 5 govt. conspiracy theories including but not exclusive to....

Jews own all the banks
The U.S. never put a man on the moon
Obama planned and personally carried out the Newtown massacre.
The U.S. govt. was wholly responsible for 9/11

Good luck

You forgot Flat earth movement ...

Who Princess

Bentleyspop said:

Who Princess said:

Nobody EVER invites ME to join their secret society! Not fair!

Rumour has it that Eddie is a member of the illuminati and as a fan of PJ you should be receiving your invite to apply to a secret society any day now.

Just be sure you believe in at least 5 govt. conspiracy theories including but not exclusive to....

Jews own all the banks
The U.S. never put a man on the moon
Obama planned and personally carried out the Newtown massacre.
The U.S. govt. was wholly responsible for 9/11

Good luck

Yesterday I saw a story online that JonBenet Ramsey was never murdered and has grown up to be Katy Perry! Thought of this thread right away.