Scalia dead

rgambs · February 2016

myoung321 said:

show previous quotes
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...

I did too, but then I read it again and saw it the other way, and now Who Princess has cleared it up!

rgambs · February 2016

I just read that Loretta Lynch is considered Obama's most likely nomination.

PJPOWER · February 2016

myoung321 said:

show previous quotes
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

That was not my point. My point was that the exact person that supported a filibuster in 2006, in a lot the same way as what we are seeing today, cannot (without being a HUGE hypocrite) preach that the opposition is not following the rules by attempting the same tactic against him now that he is president. History has yet to say whether or not it will work this time around.

chadwick · February 2016

"Scalia accepted gifts on occasion, two of them that reflected the love that brought him to Texas on his final trip: a $1,000 shotgun and a $600 rifle, both from the National Wild Turkey Federation."

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/A-man-in-overdrive-Scalia-made-more-than-6830595.php

myoung321 · February 2016

Who Princess said:

show previous quotes
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.

My apologies... I didn't catch the sarcasm...

myoung321 · February 2016

Who Princess said:

show previous quotes
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.

Hobby Lobby is the only place within 100 miles of my house that sells framing goodies. The thought of buying something there to be used for framing a PJ poster feels wrong. I also have not stepped foot in there since the ruling.

Who Princess · February 2016

myoung321 said:
My apologies... I didn't catch the sarcasm...

No worries. Sometimes it's hard to detect sarcasm in an online discussion, especially with something like politics!

myoung321 said:
Hobby Lobby is the only place within 100 miles of my house that sells framing goodies. The thought of buying something there to be used for framing a PJ poster feels wrong. I also have not stepped foot in there since the ruling.

Have you tried buying framing supplies online? I haven't done it in ages but my husband used to do that.

mickeyrat · February 2016

This is good for folks to read.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/antonin-scalia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-friends/index.html

mickeyrat · February 2016

As well as this......

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/14/read_justice_ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_touching_statement_on_scalia.html

Who Princess · February 2016

Thanks for those, mickeyrat. Would that the members of Congress respected each other and worked together that way.

bootlegger10 · February 2016

njnancy said:

show previous quotes
tempo_n_groove said:

myoung321 said:

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......!!!!!

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.

Taking it back from people who do not allow a non-liberal/progressive viewpoint. For example, Mozilla CEO being fired because he gave a $1,000 to the wrong PAC due to a few whiny people on social media.

bootlegger10 · February 2016

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes
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.
I do not cheer for death of people just because I disagree with them. I cheer for the death of people who I think are rotten human beings who cause harm to the world. Scalia applies.

PS - couldn't care less if you think being glad he's dead is bad taste. That guy was a motherfucker as far as I'm concerned and I am pleased as punch that his voice is gone from the US supreme court. Death was the only thing that would shut the fucker up.

Classy.

Smellyman · February 2016

bootlegger10 said:

show previous quotes
njnancy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

myoung321 said:

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......!!!!!

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.
Taking it back from people who do not allow a non-liberal/progressive viewpoint. For example, Mozilla CEO being fired because he gave a $1,000 to the wrong PAC due to a few whiny people on social media.

Brandon Eich stepped down and wasnt fired, Eich posted that "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader."

When running a non profit that relies heavily on donations all the while trying to compete with Apple, Google and Microsoft.... being a bigot is frowned upon. Did he get pressure step down...of course. Rightfully so imo

PJ_Soul · February 2016

bootlegger10 said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul 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.
I do not cheer for death of people just because I disagree with them. I cheer for the death of people who I think are rotten human beings who cause harm to the world. Scalia applies.

PS - couldn't care less if you think being glad he's dead is bad taste. That guy was a motherfucker as far as I'm concerned and I am pleased as punch that his voice is gone from the US supreme court. Death was the only thing that would shut the fucker up.
Classy.

Oh please.

josevolution · February 2016

The nomination process starts with the president not with congress telling him when he can or can't put forth a nominee it's right there in the constitution so let's see how the GOP tries to spin this issue ....
Obama should nominee 10 candidates just to make these assholes work make them vote yes or no

mrussel1 · February 2016

josevolution said:
The nomination process states with the president not with congress telling him when he can or can't put forth a nominee it's right there in the constitution so let's see how the GOP tries to spin this issue ....
Obama should nominee 10 candidates just to make these assholes work make them vote yes or no

That would be comical.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2016

does anybody think for one second that if the shoe were on the other foot, republican president, democratic senate, that the republican president would stand down and wait for the election??

if you believe that they would, i have a bridge to sell you.

and a donkey kong msg poster.

rgambs · February 2016

bootlegger10 said:

show previous quotes
njnancy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

myoung321 said:

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......!!!!!

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.
Taking it back from people who do not allow a non-liberal/progressive viewpoint. For example, Mozilla CEO being fired because he gave a $1,000 to the wrong PAC due to a few whiny people on social media.

Hahaha awww poor baby! He will probably only be rich for the rest of his life

That's how the free market works, people vote with their wallets. It's all fine and good for him to donate money to actively deny rights to American citizens, but not ok for American citizens to say "Bullshit" and refuse to do business with said bigot? It seems like you are biased towards those who try to make bigots own their words. Strange.

PJPOWER · February 2016

josevolution said:
The nomination process states with the president not with congress telling him when he can or can't put forth a nominee it's right there in the constitution so let's see how the GOP tries to spin this issue ....
Obama should nominee 10 candidates just to make these assholes work make them vote yes or no

Obama disagrees with you based on his vote to follow through with the filibuster of Alito in 2006. Funny how that fact keeps being avoided.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2016

i have a hobby lobby a half mile from my house. since the SC decision in the hobby lobby case i have had a couple thousand dollars of custom framing done. i went elsewhere. would it be more convenient for me to go to hobby lobby? sure. but i vote with my wallet, and they can go fuck themselves as far as i am concerned.

Scalia dead

Comments

Quick Links

Categories