Scalia dead

an agnostic would be a non-starter. especially when it is bible beater cruz promising to lead the filibuster.

gimmesometruth27 said:

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......!!!!!

InHiding80 said:

rgambs said:

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.

Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with"
He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.

Yet these are the same above the law double standard hypocrites who cheered when Ted Kennedy died and have issue with Benghazzi but none with Halliburtonghazzi because white republican magically makes it okay.

Ted Kennedy was a murderer. So not really the same thing.

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

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.

I can guarantee that no one left of center, no matter how moderate, will be ratified by the Senate. The grass roots would brutalize that person on talk radio every single day. The base of the party will accept no one other than someone in the Scalia mold. Otherwise you are giving up the most conservative seat for a left of center person. Not going to happen.

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.

But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.

But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.

they already have a built in reason to oppose them. it was obama's pick. that is reason enough for most senators to vote to delay the hearings or outright vote against them.

gimmesometruth27 said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

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.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

Depends on what you mean by 'passing muster'. It's the President's role to nominate someone that is qualified to be on the SCOTUS. For example, a law degree is an important start. Being a member of the bar is nice. Judicial experience at the circuit and appellate level is a bonus.

But it's not the President's job to put up a candidate that is ideologically acceptable to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite. The Senate should have a specific reason NOT to pass the person. That's why Scalia got through no problem, 98-0 or something like that. And Thomas had so many issues. The Democrats focused on his Anita Hill issue, which is not about the jurisprudence.

they already have a built in reason to oppose them. it was obama's pick. that is reason enough for most senators to vote to delay the hearings or outright vote against them.

I know, but I'm talking about the historical role the Senate has played in the process.

Why does everyone hate the Mennonites? We need the contribution of a religion that felt that civilization was perfect between 1835 and 1855..

mrussel1 said:

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?