goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: ednksu on March 28, 2016, 09:47:32 AM
-
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472051889/a-look-at-garlands-judicial-record-reveals-few-hot-buttons
Great piece going through how he is a consensus builder, great mind, and a true moderate. It's a shame the neoconservatives in this country will stop at nothing to stop the functioning of our government and will hold up his nomination. This piece makes the great point that any nominee will appear to be a bad choice for neocons because Scalia was so far right.
-
He's a slam dunk, too bad he is just a pawn and doesn't have a chance.
-
He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive. Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress. Anyone Obama nominates is bad.
-
What if the will of the majority is someone Obama nominates?
-
He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive. Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress. Anyone Obama nominates is bad.
Lol
The fact that you called him a liberal shows you have no grounding in reality.
-
I'm personally stunned the npr has been unable to find any reason this man shouldn't be a supreme. I'm convinced. Thanks for the great find edna.
-
I'm personally stunned the npr has been unable to find any reason this man shouldn't be a supreme. I'm convinced. Thanks for the great find edna.
I'm sure SCOTUS blog is another liberal outlet without any credibility.
PS: Burn your diploma if you actually got one from K-State. You're dragging down my degrees.
-
Remember whackadoodle is the self appointed sole judge (sorry not sorry) on what is or isn't a credible source around here.
-
He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive. Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress. Anyone Obama nominates is bad.
Conservatives also seem to believe that if the courts don't agree with them, the judges should be crap canned.
-
This guy Garland should be fine.
-
I don't believe that most of these people think he's a bad choice (not you huelskamp you weirdo) and would approve him almost unanimously if in a vacuum. but, they have to be voted into office again soon. and if trump has taught us one thing about people who vote it's that a lot of them are rough ridin' downgrades. and you don't want to be painted as a barry hussein supporter by someone even more crazily right wing than yourself come election time.
-
My takeaway from the article (maybe I didn't read close enough) was that the guy has a pretty moderate record on the stuff no one really cares about and little to no record on the hot button issues. Not a reason to reject someone per se, but I can understand some hesitation still. That said, if I'm the Republicans I wouldn't risk losing senate seats and having Obama/Clinton appoint a way more liberal justice after the general.
-
Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.
I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.
-
I don't believe that most of these people think he's a bad choice (not you huelskamp you weirdo) and would approve him almost unanimously if in a vacuum. but, they have to be voted into office again soon. and if trump has taught us one thing about people who vote it's that a lot of them are rough ridin' downgrades. and you don't want to be painted as a barry hussein supporter by someone even more crazily right wing than yourself come election time.
Shut up, libtard.
-
Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.
I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.
It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot. Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands
. Did you read the piece or just go off talking points? You are the problem with our political system.
-
Edna, what in the world?
-
Edna, what in the world?
It's a sad rough ridin' world where your vote counts as much as mine.
-
Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.
I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.
It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot. Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands
I don't quite follow. Obama could appoint anywhere from 0-30 or more justices to the Supreme Court if he wanted to. That doesn't mean the senate has some obligation to approve all those folks.
-
Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.
I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.
It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot. Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands
I don't quite follow. Obama could appoint anywhere from 0-30 or more justices to the Supreme Court if he wanted to. That doesn't mean the senate has some obligation to approve all those folks.
The entire government has an obligation to ensure the good functioning of the government. Deciding to leave the court a person down because you've invented a lie about "giving the people a voice," even though that was a 2012 campaign issue isn't a legitimate reason to deadlock the court. Yes the constitution doesn't give a time frame for replacement, but it also assumed that the party system wouldn't actively destroy the functioning of the government because of a profound, illogical, hatred of the president. This has already manifested itself in the functioning of the NLRB and the district courts. It's seditious for it to escalate to the supreme court.
-
If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork. :ROFL:
It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards
-
If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork. :ROFL:
It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards
Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual. This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president. instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.
Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance. There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.
So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.
-
If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork. :ROFL:
It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards
Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual. This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president. instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.
Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance. There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.
So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.
3/4 on your/you're. You're score is 75%, your a C student.
-
If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork. :ROFL:
It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards
Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual. This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president. instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.
Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance. There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.
So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.
3/4 on your/you're. You're score is 75%, your a C student.
# of fucks given.....
and I'll assume you were trying to use irony at the end.
-
:D
-
If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork. :ROFL:
It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards
Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual. This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president. instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.
Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance. There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.
So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.
Well this is rough ridin' crazy.
-
What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.
-
What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.
You should get on wiki
-
What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.
You should get on wiki
Excuse me, 147 years. Seems like an act was passed about that being the number too.
-
What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.
You should get on wiki
Excuse me, 147 years. Seems like an act was passed about that being the number too.
yeah when people stopped dying at 60 it kinda screwed things up.
-
:lol:
Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.
-
:lol:
Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.
what's it feel like to know, that deep down inside, everything you hold dear politically is a rough ridin' lie?
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
-
:lol:
Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.
what's it feel like to know, that deep down inside, everything you hold dear politically is a rough ridin' lie?
Rhetorical?
-
I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.
You're the one accusing people of sedition.
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
-
4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS. an extra justice would be nice.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.
You're the one accusing people of sedition.
Wrong again. It has an obligation to consider the nominee, it has no obligation to rubber stamp said nominee. They are refusing to do that basic responsibility for the only purpose of hurting the good functioning of the government.
-
4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS. an extra justice would be nice.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.
-
4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS. an extra justice would be nice.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.
Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy
-
I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.
You're the one accusing people of sedition.
Wrong again. It has an obligation to consider the nominee, it has no obligation to rubber stamp said nominee. They are refusing to do that basic responsibility for the only purpose of hurting the good functioning of the government.
Okay, edna.
-
4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS. an extra justice would be nice.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.
Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.
FYI, the outcome is that people who don't want to be a part of a labor union and disagree with everything the union does are required to donate money to the union so the money can be donated to Democrat interests. This is the "justice" of Edna's "logical" party. Pathetic
-
Let's talk about what a horrible concerted and partisan effort that embarrassment of a case is. In any other context it's racqueteering
-
The partisan part is if unions supported republicans your feelings on them would be completely opposite
-
:lol:
-
President Oballah is using Ali's old rope the dopes move. He has had a long talk with Garland and knows he is an obamawater drinker. Now dumbass Senators from the inbred dcpublicians are falling for the rope a.dope. Wang. Obama will hit them in the chops.
-
I'm a little confused what the libtards like about this guy, other than the Senate hasn't taken him up for consideration. The article posted basically says he has no known views on social issues, which you'd think would make him a bigot until he officially toes the crazy line with them
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy
if you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine. I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.
-
4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS. an extra justice would be nice.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.
Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.
FYI, the outcome is that people who don't want to be a part of a labor union and disagree with everything the union does are required to donate money to the union so the money can be donated to Democrat interests. This is the "justice" of Edna's "logical" party. Pathetic
quote me where I said anything voicing support for the party or unions pertaining to this case. On wait, you can't because it's another one of your strawman lies.
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy
if you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine. I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.
You've accused me of numerous things without any foundation. I'm not sure what specific supreme Court rulings have to do with confirming this garland guy (probably a "strawman"), but you are so "incoherent" it's difficult to see the trees through your streaming flow of consciousness.
-
Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.
It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.
You people are rough ridin' crazy
Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum. This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB. It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level. It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward. You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through. Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.
What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy
if you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine. I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.
You've accused me of numerous things without any foundation. I'm not sure what specific supreme Court rulings have to do with confirming this garland guy (probably a "strawman"), but you are so "incoherent" it's difficult to see the trees through your streaming flow of consciousness.
The accusation is pretty simple. You are a low information voter who understands very little about this country's history or its proceedings. If you find logical thought, connecting multiple interconnected issues together, troubling I suggest you go to your local community college and start working on things.
-
No foundation. Okay, thanks.
-
No foundation. Okay, thanks.
I kinda feel sorry for you.
-
So, is Garland still the nominee? If Clinton wins and Democrats take back the Senate, Republicans will wish they had "done their job" and given Garland a vote.
-
So, is Garland still the nominee? If Clinton wins and Democrats take back the Senate, Republicans will wish they had "done their job" and given Garland a vote.
i think the plan is to approve him in the time between the election and when clinton takes office.
-
What if everything everyone knows or believes about their political position is a lie? Because we're in the matrix and politics is just a computer program meant to divide the human race against one another to distract them from the real super smart robot threat.