0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have never heard of this or any other person named bork but I am aware of bork as a euphemism for "make sex to". Is this Mr Bork the origin for that term?
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 03:17:28 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 10:24:18 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:11:33 AMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.Chances you'd be saying if it was President Romney? 0.0%If the situation were reversed, GOP pres, lib Justice, Dem senate, I would absolutely expect Reid to block the appointment. And so would you. Would I be happy about it? Of course not.Would the Dems do it? Absolutely. Do I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the Republic? Yes. At some point we have to become less partisan or else the republic breaks down.
Quote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 10:24:18 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:11:33 AMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.Chances you'd be saying if it was President Romney? 0.0%If the situation were reversed, GOP pres, lib Justice, Dem senate, I would absolutely expect Reid to block the appointment. And so would you. Would I be happy about it? Of course not.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:11:33 AMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.Chances you'd be saying if it was President Romney? 0.0%
Quote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?
There is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
Quote from: Cire on February 13, 2016, 11:39:11 PMAntonin scalia is probably the most activist judge that ever activisted For me it depends. If a judge rules against my political viewpoint they are an ignorant, activist piece of human garbage. But if they rule in favor of my political viewpoint they are standing by their convictions and should be commended.
Antonin scalia is probably the most activist judge that ever activisted
Quote from: _33 on February 14, 2016, 06:08:02 PMQuote from: Cire on February 13, 2016, 11:39:11 PMAntonin scalia is probably the most activist judge that ever activisted For me it depends. If a judge rules against my political viewpoint they are an ignorant, activist piece of human garbage. But if they rule in favor of my political viewpoint they are standing by their convictions and should be commended.This is because you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. Read back a few pages.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/Again, this sets a dangerous precedent for the Republic. How long until the Senantr just refuses to confirm a justice until it's party has both the White House and Senate? A presidential democracy runs on governing norms, and those norms are going by the wayside one by one.
Quote from: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 07:27:14 AMhttp://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/Again, this sets a dangerous precedent for the Republic. How long until the Senantr just refuses to confirm a justice until it's party has both the White House and Senate? A presidential democracy runs on governing norms, and those norms are going by the wayside one by one. There it is again! More deep concern about the Republic and rule of law. From an Obama supporter.
Quote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 03:58:24 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 03:17:28 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 10:24:18 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:11:33 AMQuote from: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AMThere is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.Chances you'd be saying if it was President Romney? 0.0%If the situation were reversed, GOP pres, lib Justice, Dem senate, I would absolutely expect Reid to block the appointment. And so would you. Would I be happy about it? Of course not.Would the Dems do it? Absolutely. Do I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the Republic? Yes. At some point we have to become less partisan or else the republic breaks down.This is pretty funny. Obama supporter with a newfound concern about "the Republic breaking down."
What is the average number of days for the president to make an appointment to fill a vacancy?Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
If I'm a conservative, I'm looking at worst case scenario. Would I rather have a SCJ nominated by Obama, or by Bernie Sanders?
Obama should nominate someone and if it's a normal person who isn't trying to "fundamentally change America" they should be approved. But with Obama, that's doubtful.
